Woo, logged in to find so many exciting things going on this month. Honestly, I don't think I'm competent enough to delve into the minutia of combat systems, so I'll just state my impression of the combat clip in the vault.

I find the perspective somewhat confusing. If combat is fast-paced, I probably wouldn't want to play with the camera panned like that. I'd prefer something ship centered and closer to top-down view, for easier spatial orientation, and less obscured distances.

Rebel Galaxy did everything in isometric view.  It was not hard to aim in that game.  As a matter of fact aiming was a matter of skill and was a mini game in its own way.  It gave a lot of good tools for tracking your opponents and dodging attacks.

The only thing with isometric is that the camera has to be perfect or it ruins the whole experience. It has to be quick, allow for a lot of zooming quickly, and be able to track targets or weapon arcs.

Isometric usually means you need to be able to lock onto a target, especially if there are going to be battles of 6 opponents.

Though we already know that the camera isn't locked.

I looked at the video, and my first thought, was that, it seemed novel. It was a nice glimpse at the idea being presented.

I had read the forums here first before having watched any of the Feb stuff, and was expecting it to somehow be this demonstrably bad view, based upon what folks here were kvetching about.

The fear and or dislike of this view is clearly what the testing purpose is for. To see what some folks think. I'm withholding any real judgment yet, simply because a short micro view of pre-alpha materials doesn't mean it's locked in stone. That's what iterations are for, testing, and what not. I will say that when I saw the ships floating around and fighting, I did immediately feel like I was looking at a modern Star Control.

I have never gotten this argument/mentality in any kickstarter/early access/alpha program i've been a part of.

You have a chance as a community to influence the direction a game you like takes because it's in a stage where things are not set in stone yet, and then you get people saying "don't complain/comment guys, it's still early".

So when is the time to complain/comment? When it has hit beta and most things at that point are set in stone? At release when you go "Gee i never expected them to go through with this bit i saw in alpha"?

I simply don't get it....

Hi n0vast0rm,

I've been a part of many kickstarters/early access/etc with that initial say, and if I don't like how it appears I comment on it, if I do like how it appears I comment on it. If I'm in the middle of the road.. I state as such.

In this case, my post may of come across as if people shouldn't complain, or discuss, but that wasn't the intent of my post.

My expectations had been skewed to expect something that was unpleasant because I read the forums first before watching the video. I wasn't unhappy with what I saw. It did remind me of Star Control in play and style.

But it was very raw. It was a decent perspective, but I need to see additional iterations to see if I'm really comfortable with the direction it's going. Also, this was one rough raw example. But that doesn't mean they don't have another perspective pulled back a bit to give that game play a different feel.

My guess is they've got a generalized vision, they are going with it sort of like choosing the artistic style of Elemental despite it not really inspiring a lot of fan happiness. That wasn't really up for debate. This stuff they just shared with us, it was rough raw and one example. There may be more or if enough people express strong opinions, and it really generates conversation, that may be a wake up call.

So back to my position of, needing to see further iterations and if they have alternatives they are considering to look those over.

At this point they've made it clear several times that anyone who wants to keep combat in top down will be able to do so, so it doesn't actually appear to be an issue.

I have made clear in other threads that combat, to me, is a very secondary aspect of the game. I'm in for the exploration, the discovery, the races, etc.

In SC2, I got my ass whooped a couple times by the initial Ilwrath encounter, but it took me about 20 minutes total to get a good grip on how to handle the ships. Against the first Slylandro Probe, I had to reload maybe once or twice. Same for all subsequent encounters.

Just like in SC2, combat is most probably something that I will have to do once in a while or, even, regularly(depending on design). I do not really care about the mechanics (although nostalgia orients me towards top-down). My only criteria for combat is that it be, just like in SC2, relatively easy to become good enough at it. If I have to spend tens of hours in SuperMelee to try to hone my skills so I can try to get by in the galaxy, you're in effect forcing me to play a combat game that I have to grind to get up my skill. I will not invest 30, 20 or even 10 hours to become kick-ass at combat just so I can play the real game. I'll want to play a game that I can enjoy straight from the box (or download, more appropriately).

Late to the party, but I personally dig the angles and dynamic camera for the ship combat.  The fact that the planets act as moving obstacles particularly intrigue me, and I think this could lead to lots of fun gameplay that's not repetetive.  I get confused by sense of scale though.

One of the great things about this type of games is that any 10-year-old can just pick up a gamepad and start playing.  It is inherently simple and easy.

Players learn quickly, because of the simplicity.  A "flaw" (not really, because it is such a minor issue) is that they put you into some fairly hard fights very early in the game.  Too early for you to learn that, for example, that the Zog Fot Piq ship would have a fairly easy time with the Ilwrath and the Spathi can beat the Probes in it's sleep.  Had they conveyed this too you somehow, like the commander just suggesting this too you as he described your ships, then you would not have encountered the issue that you did early on.  You would have known which ship to use, and if it seemed hard at first even in that ship for you... you would have at least been confident that you were using the right ship for the job and just needed to try again in that ship.

I feel like that information should need some prompting, though. Maybe after going out and fighting a bit, the Commander analyzes your combat logs and starts making suggestions based on your available fleet.

What I saw of the updates was pretty good. This is not how I hoped to see the newest version of this saga. A individual named Nuke Myro has been developing a game named Eventuality. Honestly I was hoping for this type of movement and combat. I was not a fan of the SC3 style combat in the video.

The creatures are cool and I look forward to seeing more.  The ship that was used for the demo is not my favorite. I liked the idea of #4 in the ship concepts diagrams. I think the voice actor for the demo was spot on and the emotional inflection was appropriate.

Overall I think the progress has been solid. The character and planet graphics remind me of Spore. Not sure how I feel about that yet.

This is just my opinion, it doesn't make me wrong or less valid than anyone else's opinion. Keep that in mind before trying to diatribe on the obvious flaws in my thinking. 

+1

Greetings Frogboy, Vaelzad, and fellow Fanatics,

Firstly, my apologies for the delay in posting on these topics! Death in the family, and veritable plague for the survivors has kept me from the forums for the past few weeks.  I must admit, I wanted to read each and every comment on this thread, but realized in the middle of page 3 that most posters were looking at things from a different angle than me, so I heavily skimmed the rest.  I don’t have much to say on what’s already been discussed. 

There are several things I haven’t seen talked about yet.  Stardock staff will know which of these are artifacts of the alpha process, so if anything I cover is that, then ignore my commentary.  However, if any of the following are real features, then please consider my remarks.  Here goes!!

*I love the planet details in the video. I know it was a gray cratered ball, but having that planet with the 3D craters and the moon so nearby was great to see.  Combat will be truly beautiful in a system with the colorful planets too.  Please keep the detailed 3D planets in combat mode!

*Please ditch the excessive gray rings all over.  I get the orbital rings in exploration mode, but in combat, we don’t really need the orbital rings, or the (gravity well?) supplementary rings.  I can’t figure out what the little rings are, but they are very distracting when near a planet.

If you’re keeping the orbital rings in solar system exploration mode – like in SC2, then I’m all for it, but consider making the lines anything but solid.  A dotted ring like the original would work.  Or even better,  a partial ring that gradually fades out to each side of the planet at, say 30 degrees to either side, would be a very cool effect, giving you the idea of an orbit, without cluttering the solar system with concentric rings.

*Along the same lines, (rimshot!) there is a gray pole sticking out the bottom of each planet.  I’m assuming that’s an alpha artifact, and not going into the final game?

*The craft seemed to turn and shoot with the same 16 axis turn from SC2.  Will that be smoothed out?

*As long as top-down is an OPTION, I don’t care, and will faithfully test, whatever other views there are.  I actually had zero problems fighting in the isometric SC3 views.  I adapted very quickly back when it was released, but I still like the top-down…nostalgia!

*I like the size of the planets compared to the ships.  Would it be possible to make the star a little bigger in proportion?  25% bigger?  It feels a little too small for being the center of the system.  I know it’s probably just a navigational hazard in-combat, but it’s also a visual that can be pretty awesome.

*Are asteroids going to be in future versions?  What about background nebula?  Map doesn’t need much color, but a couple of points of interest in the far background would be nice to break up the blackness some.  (Especially if you take away the orbit rings!) The nebula/coloring in the background will also help if you like the gravity well suggestion below.^^

*^^One of the topics near the top of this thread was about showing gravity wells.  I don’t recall seeing the visual representation of a gravity well in any of the SC games.  Players don’t need one. After a few battles, we get the hang of it.  The ambient asteroids, and gravity-affected projectiles show that too, so we really do get a lot of examples in a very short time.  It’s not a hard concept.  I’m against any visual representation of a gravity well, if at all possible.  If it must be shown, be minimalist, and avoid hard-edged graphics for it…(perhaps an increasing blackness around a heavenly body that goes to complete black right up against the body…like an event horizon, but for each body?  This would be within 1 planet radius or less from the actual object?  It would obscure background stars/nebula, but be otherwise unobtrusive.)

*Are you planning to show the entire solar system every battle?  It’s a neat choice visually, but breaks the forth wall a little.  These fights are essentially dog-fights, and doing that across a whole solar system in minutes seems odd to me.  Also, having that many gravity wells in play…is that really a goal?  I could get used to it, but having more than 1 is already blowing my mind…having a whole solar system full?  One further point - it would destroy wrap-around combat.  Is that going away in this version?

*Another graphical suggestion:  Would it be possible to add in lens-flare when your ships pass in front of or near the central star?  I think it would be awesome to grav-whip behind a star, and see the lens flare as I go through the maneuver.

The next couple of comments deal with the system exploration, but as they dove-tail into some of the same graphics as the fight scene, I thought this might be ok:

*As with combat, can you reduce the scope or impact of the orbit lines?  Less is more, but I do see a definite need to mark orbit/planets for visibility.  Again, a 60 degree fading arc with the planet in the middle would be a cool minimalist way to show orbits without overly cluttering the interface! (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO THIS!)

*I see you were grav-whipping while exploring!  That is new!  Will it stay?

It's been stated that wrap-around won't be a factor. As I understand it (someone correct me if I am in error), there will be an escape zone surrounding the solar system, with a ring that represents a point of no return, where you'll automatically jump from combat.

As I've mentioned before, map size is a very complex issue within this genre that we could discuss exclusively for the next year without ever even exploring all of the aspects of it.  To avoid a lengthy discussion and put this in simple terms, it is enough to say that both "open maps" (maps of effecitvely unlimited size like the solar system map they are describing) and "closed maps" (what SFB players call "the boxing ring") work.  However, they are very different environments.  This can actually be used to create more variety in the combat within Star Control by having a combination of large (open) and small (closed) maps.  For example, you definitely want a smaller closed map for 1v1 multiplayer dueling.  In the single player game, where the AI is controlling the enemy, map size is not really relevant tactically and can be sized based on the "feel" you want that type of combat to have.  In the map "levels" I described in my Map Design thread you would probably want the quasi and hyper space maps to be large open maps and provide the feeling of fighting in open space, while the planet map would be a smaller "boxing ring" to provide the player with the feeling of being confined to combat near the planet/within the planetary system.