"Those stupid space games without radars..."

I think its important that any HUD elements as well as camera configurations can be controlled/adjusted by the player, because there will be times you want that information and there will be times you won't.  I agree that TMI can make things worse but then there's also the problem of Not-Enough-Information if things are not visible because of the perspective or the zoom level.  The AI will know where everything is at all times, but us humans will only know what we can see, so that's an automatic disadvantage.

The simple Radar box was very useful in Subspace.  In fact, you could even occasionally hit with a bomb (proximity detonation weapon) firing at a ship you were only seeing on radar.  It was a low % shot, but you could sometimes hit shots you were aiming by just guessing based on where there were on radar.  It is not too much information because you only look at it when you need it.

I think either method works well, but that the edge of screen indicators are only good if there are only 4 or 5 targets at most.  So radar would allow modders to create zones with more than 6 players, and the radar will still work where the edge of screen indicators would not.

What is the tipping point between TMI and NEI? Are we going to hit that with our limited number of combatants and limited sized arena?

I'm inclined to say no, but I need to see more of SCR combat before making a final decision. I did just fine in SPAZ without radar, and that had absurdly large arenas and a higher ship count. The games share enough commonalities to let me make a preliminary judgement call.

If modders are creating zones for 7+ players, couldn't they also create that radar?

I guess they could, yes.  It is a very simple radar.  As I've said from the beginning, assuming a low number of targets (4-5 at most) the edge of screen indicators work just as well for me as radar.  I've used both in many games before, and don't even have a preference when there are only 2 allies and 3 enemies to track.

Of course, I would think there would be at least two or three levels of zoom in combat.  Nothing like the original, where like 8 levels of zoom were used to compensate for the low screen resolution of the day, but I think 2 or 3 "ranges" would actually be a good thing.  2 is probably all that are needed in SC, a "normal" range zoom and then one level out when no enemies are within the "normal" range of zoom.  A hypothetical "range 3" exists here, that would represent BVR (Beyond Visual Range) for missile weapons that fire on radar tracking, and a weapon effectively like this could potentially exist in the game even though there are no radar or tracking systems.

EDIT: If you were going to have 2 levels of zoom, then I would say radar would be better than edge of screen indicators because the "nomal" level of "visual range" would be the center area of the radar box then, it zooms out to the second "long range" level and that is the entire area covered by radar... and this just works really well.  Think about it...

Hopefully there is an option to make it go full TOP DOWN instead of angled like it is now.

Star Control was fun because it was a Straight Top down view game.

As far as has been presented to us, there is complete control over the camera.

Also, Furtado brought up a good point: Why are so many of you dead-set against certain ui-elements being in game when you could have simple toggles for EVERYTHING. This is Stardock we're talking about. Options for their games could be novellas.

This is generally true - but also keep in mind that the various view modes are differently streamlined mechanically for combat. To make isometric or perspective view playable odds are that a number of things will be introduced to the combat mechanics - such things aren't necessarily equally viable/useful between different view modes. That means ultimately if they chose a particular view mode as base line for making "fun combat", then the other views may work but not be really be all that playable.

Earlier in this process we had a discussion about minamilism in game design, just throwing in everything that has ever been in any game just because "gamers expect it" makes for a bad game.  And sometimes the best thing for a game is to intentionally prevent players from doing a thing.  A good example of that, in my opinion, is the players ability to change the camera angle during combat.  Of course, you can allow this, but as a style decision if this were my game aI would not allow them to rotate the camera in combat.  I believe that removes the fun and addictive quality that these types of games are known for, so I would not allow them to make the mistake of playing in 3D Isometric and not experiencing the fun and addictive quality it possess in a top down view.  It doesn't "ruin" the game to allow the player to change the angle of the camera in combat, but I believe the player will have a much better experience in the top down view the game is meant to be played in.

This quote can be offensive to gamers if taken the wrong way but, former Games Workshop VP and Task Force Games owner John Olsen used to say (and you have to imagine a thick British accent here...) "Don't listen to the gaming goobers, they don't even know what they want."  While harshly said, there is truth in this.

A good game is addictive because it's a good game, not because it's addictive. If you design a game for the express purpose of being addictive, you've lost sight of what quality really is.

Let's just be clear here.    This game is  "based" off of the success of Star Control 2.    If it ain't broken, why make changes to a mechanic that is the core of the game you're building on.

Star Control 2 was an Arcade top down view.   The mechanics of that game was perfect.   It's a 2D based top down view.     Don't change what works.  That was the CORE mechanic of the entire game.    Star Control 1  was just that as well.  It evolved to Star Control 2 and KEPT the exact same mechanic.    Look at Star Control 3 that tried to make it all fancy 3D.   It failed.    So let's just get back to the CORE aspect of the game.

Because they stated in the document that the goal of the overhaul is to improve and add to the existing game, and that it would NOT under any circumstances be a mere clone.

Putting in Camera view angles is great.  So long as there is the option for me to rotate the camera to view it straight top down.  

"trying" to improve was what Star Control 3 did. 

What you want to do is meet the baseline.   So long as you cover the baseline and then improve.  Radically changing something and taking a way something is not exactly improving.  It is 'subjective' as what is considered 'improvement'.    The idea of using a franchise or trademark and using the "Star Control" name is to try to keep the fan base.  Otherwise, they could just start a new game that is so called 'improvement' of Star Control and call it by some other name.

 This is what I would consider improvement:

Multiplayer is now over the Internet  (rather than local).  That's improvement.

Allowing the game to be modded and having "multiverse" with various options to create campaigns and custom ships.   That's improvement.

Entirely removing the option of the camera view from top down because of 'new mechanics' and saying top down only can't be done because new mechanics doesn't allow it.  That's not improvement.     There's a reason why some people prefer  First Person Shooter only games versus 3rd person ISO only.   I hate Space Sim first person shooter.  But I definitely like flat top down arcade game.     I have motion sickness so First Person type games just won't work for me.    Not having the arcade top down aspect makes this game entirely different.       I like the old school top down Zelda game.   Ever since they started getting all 3d first person- I lost interest in Zelda.   Hopefully Star Control franchise doesn't go that route.     Same thing for Fallout for me.

delete

Ron Pimpster is an example of my theory that "top down" (I use that term because I always assume that a modern game will use a 3D engine even to represent 2D for the graphic effects, etc) games are a very popular genre that has been lost to the computer game industry because of very valid issues that the artists have with them.  But those issues are, in reality, only relevant to 3D games.  If you are willing to accept the limitations of the 2D environment to make a top down game... it's audience does not have the same problems with it the artists do.  They love the genre, they know what it looks like.

I have long believed that if a company were willing to make AAA top down games, that company would enjoy great success.  I belive top down, and not just space combat, is the "lost genre" of the industry that has the potential to nearly rival FPS games for action game and multiplayer dominance.  Top down space combat, the best multiplayer form of top down game, would be second only to FPS games in online popularity... if only someone were willing to make them.

People in the computer game industry make a big mistake when they think of top down games as old and outdated.  They are not at all.  They are a genre within themselves... and an extremely popular one.

Stagnation is cool too, I guess.</s>

I've never particularly felt that top-down was outdated, just that very few developers know how to develop it properly.

I will NEVER be convinced that more options is a bad thing, as long as they are options, and not mandatory.

How about the option of flying a flight sim with a mouse?  Is there any reason to allow the player to make the mistake of trying to use a mouse to fly a plane?

Actually, many of them totally allow you to.

And the people who are making those games are making their own mistake.  Why provide the player with the option to have a bad experience playing the game?  Including an ineffective control method that is certain to leave the player with a bad impression of the game is simply a mistake by the people who made those games.  Including it implies it works well.  And it does not.  And if the player uses it, that player will not have the same experience as those who use effective control methods, and that player will think less of the game.  They will not experience the good game that might have been there, because you gave them the option to ruin their own experience.  You implied the game would be good that way by including it, so it's almost as if you lied to the player so they wouldn't get to play the real game that is there.

You guys sound as if you've never played a flight sim with a mouse. Granted it's no 'joy' stick but it isn't the players mistake or fault if they don't have a joystick. Neither is it an ineffective control under the right master. And it certainly never left me with a bad impression of the game. Just a bad impression of using a mouse for flight sims......

Then I suppose you are all for SC2 using a state of the art thingumy that will allow you to play the game the right way, the way it was supposed to in all its 6D ultra-scopic glory but anything other method is a waste of time? Then I suppose that everyone will have to buy this joythingumy to play the game properly?

Granted I am no fan of the mouse for SC2 because I still don't see how it can fit in the arcade style game that is the top-down fighting of SC2.

But it's not to say as if the mouse has to be disabled. With the right brains the mouse could still be employed....

Left-Click to move into a coordinate/position.

Right-Click to continuously fly in the direction clicked (using inertia).

Middle-Click to face direction pointed.

Control + Left Click to shoot primary weapon on coordinate/position

Control + Right Click to shoot secondary weapon on coordinate/position

Mouse-wheel scroll for zooming in/out

Shift for just shooting primary weapon

Alt for just shooting secondary weapon

So pretty much everything is covered with a comfortable and intuitive mouse + keyboard combination.

^ I'd not use this scheme even if they paid me. SPAZ had it right with the mouse controls, but I'd rather play the game using gamepad. And most likely I'd use actual directional control as opposed to relative (as in original SD2). I really hope SD tailors UI to gamepad rather than mouse and keyboard. 

It'll be tailored to a gamepad. They are planning an XBox release.

First post here ever, but I'm going to have to voice my annoyance at the Star Control 3 type view of combat. One of the things I loved about the Melee in SC2 was the top down view. I have to voice my opinion that the view be changed to something other than that SC3 view.

Why not let us choose like in Star Control 3.  You could go Iso or Top down.  Iso makes it, for most people, very hard to aim.

I hope that I won't need to buy a gamepad just to play the game "the way it was designed to".... It's keyboard or mouse or combo for me.

Before you know it they will be wanting me to buy an Xbox to play a game "the way it was designed to play".

The next step then we will all be required to buy an Oculus rift or something..... and then sell our souls.... oh wait... I already sold mine when  joined the Founders program   .

Yes SPAZ had good controls. NO! no gamepads please.....

If you want to be competitive online you MUST use either a gamepad or the keyboard.  Any other device is inferior.  At least, this was considered proven and settled among Subpace players.  Gamepad and keyboard are equal but different control devices for this kind of game and which of those you use is just a matter of personal preference.