Kavik_Kang

The camera would actually zoom in much to close in SC2. I would hope that there is no zoom level equal to the closest zoom of SC2. SC2 had too many levels of zoom, and would zoom in too close at the highest level. The many levels of zoom were due to screen resolution and are not necessary today, the closest level of zoom in SC2 was just a mistake. With modern screen resolution only 2 levels of zoom are needed. You might use 3, or even 4, but 2 works best as short

[quote who="IBNobody" reply="2" id="3655973"] Don't think that because I'm so into the local multiplayer camp that I think Super Melee needs to be the main focus. I don't. I only think that local multiplayer is more important than internet multiplayer. I'm here participating because I want them to nail the combat mini game. [/quote] If the plan is 1v1 Supermelee only with no intent to ever expand that later with DLC or some

That's kind of the definition of a game designer:-) It's been done many times before, it's not something you have to guess at. Have you played Elite: Dangerous? It is a perfect example of this because it is almost entirely a connected series of boring, repetitive, and needless procedures. If you are talking about some type of alternate exploration map to a land map, that would just be another type of map for lander exploration and that might be cool... alth

It's the same thing. Whether you are doing it for fuel, or resources. It's kind of a boring activity. I like using Elite: Dangerous as an example of this kind of stuff. That game is comprised almost entirely of things that sound good on paper, but are actually boring and repetitive, and unnecessary, procedures. One of the things that made SCII so great is that all of the activities you were asked to do were actually fun. Explore the galaxy, fight an

I've never liked games that have you "scoop" from an atmosphere, it really is a pretty boring activity. A lot of times, things sound good just thinking about them, often because it seems "realistic". But you always have to stop and consider what that activity actually amounts too in the game. Do you really want to have to skim an atmosphere for 3 minutes just to fill the fuel tanks? I'd rather pay someone at a base and have it happen instantly. </

I am fairly confident that the focus of SCO is almost entirely on the single-player game. And that is a good thing, because SCO is one of the best single player games ever made. Stardock has never seemed to be to concerned with multiplayer in any of their games, at least that is my impression of them. Games like Galactic Civilizations are not popular online games because they take too long to play, so it makes sense. I have the impression that Supermelee might be the o

This made me think, in SC you could land on any planet that wasn't a gas giant... but some were so dangerous only an upgraded lander could even attempt it. And even then, the worst of the planets were still pretty much suicide. I hope they keep this aspect, it seems like a little thing but it actually a big thing that made SC feel "real" in a way. If a planet had a surface, you could land on it. It might be suicide, but you could try it if you wanted. And som

Yes, the number in the bar is the same thing as the bar. Programmer game design. It's individualizing the crew members in some way that really does make a psychological difference. And if crew members are going to be a resource in SCO as they were in SC2 that is just another reason for some type of individual icon even if they are just dots like the original. In SC crew members were a general resource used in different ways, even to represent energy for the Maule

I've been saying it since the Pluto debate started... Sci-Fi long ago came up with the term "planetoid" that we have, until now, had no use for. Why don't we just call Pluto a "planetoid"... it ends the argument and gets use out of an up until now useless word. :-)

The whole point of that boundary is to limit a faster ship's ability to do that. It's not just the running away as a grief tactic, running away and fighting at the same time is an even bigger problem. It is the most powerful thing you can do, and with endless room any ship that can do that becomes a huge balance problem in multiplayer. There are several things that work well for a map edge, but a lot of players really dislike some of them. For example,

But what are you rotating the camera to look at in a starield background with one enemy ship, which if it is close enough to see well it is too close for you to be playing with the camera? What is it that you want to look at? I think you really just want to see the ship in 3D, and you can put that on the screen next to the radar as a 3D aspect ratio display. There isn't actually anything to look at except for your own ship. It's not an RTS game, it is a very

“What we wish, we readily believe, and what we ourselves think, we imagine others think also.” - Julius Caesar

Assuming they intend on making this a console game someday, all the controls need to be something that works with a gamepad. So while I actually like Henri's mouse control idea a lot, especially for a slower paced game like this that was about capital ships (Star Control ships are said to be capital ships in some cases, but really behave like big slow fighters), it would be hard to replicate that with gamepad controls. I've mentioned here before, Volu, that one of SVC&#3

I am happy as long as I can put it into top down for myself. But the reason I would not even allow players to move the camera in space combat (exploration/land are entirely separate and different "mini-games") is because it implies to the player that there is a reason to look around with the camera. And if the space combat is going to be essentially Star Control/Subspace/Space Wars/Asteroids then there isn't any reason to do that but you are making the player think that t

What are you controlling the camera for? What is it that you think you are looking at? What information is it that you think you will get out of it? At any relevant combat range the other ship is on the screen. At long range it is on radar. What more is it that you think you are going to see by pointlessly playing with a meaningless camera. All it is going to do is get you killed. If I am in range for you to be on the screen and you are playing with t

OccamsLaser is a great name! :-)

Pattern Recognition Addiction is a very real psychological thing based on core aspects of how our brains work. It's something we've done naturally since before we were even human. That's why this genre was once legendary for it's highly addictive quality. Games like Asteroids, Star Control, Subspace, there were a lot of them back in the early days when graphics were primitive, they were are known for being games you couldn't put down. You would sit

Actually there are several activities that are actually addictive, FPS games are as well. And there is an actual psychological term called Pattern Recognition Addiction, I noticed it because I had coined the same term to describe the effect these old arcade games have that made them so addictively fun. It's all actually related to hypnotism, some of the same principles apply anyway. I never said you can't have multiple ships with an angled camera, you can. Bu

Why should they have to account for it? It also destroys the primary quality that makes this genre so well-known for being addictive. And, with your inferior "compensated aim" (and your inferior overall situational awareness, greater difficulty in avoiding things like mines, etc) in supermelee you will be at a significant disadvantage against someone looking in the top down view that this genre actually is. Which is why I worry they won't allow you to even put the view i

Well, no, it's like how a flat map of the Earth is distorted, and only a globe can display an accurate map. If you angle the camera you are distorting the view, and your aim will be off. Your brain has to recognize and factor that distortion into the aim of the shot. From direct top down, or "God's View", you are seeing a pure and undistorted view of the action. I'm guessing those high-math wiz types could probably express this as an equation that would sho

What do you mean? If the camera is angled your view of the area, and your aim, are distorted. And the action is so fast, if you play with the camera you are dead. I played Subspace for over 10 years. I've actually done this a lot as exactly this type of arcade game. Things are moving very fast, you don't have time to look around like you are playing World of Warships.

Or, as we would say it... Slightly re-worded just for you... Welcome to the Star Control Universe!!! At some point prior to 2004, the master computer at U.S. Air Force Security Control in Omaha, Nebraska, received a transmission, apparently via a time warp, from Star Control Headquarters some 250 years in the future. The Air Force discovered this information during 2006, and turned it over to Stard

Enemy AI is easy in this type of game and can be made to be very challenging. It's allied AI that is a hopeless cause. 2v2 and 3v3 multiplayer will work fine if 1v1 does, no separate balance is needed for that. I've also mentioned before something that I think gets overlooked... 3-way fights/scenarios are particularly interesting and work very well in top down space combat. So even if they are only doing a single 1v1 supermelee map as multiplayer they really

What I had described was exactly what SCII supermelee was. Then I added using command ships as an option, which would change things a little.

If you wanted to add something to the ship selection you could use "command ratings". Classify each ship into categories like... Battleship (Ur Quan, Khor Ah, Chmrr), Battlecruiser (Utwig, Melnorme), Heavy Cruiser (Vux, Syreen, Yehat), Light Cruiser (Supox, Thradash, Pkunk), Destroyer (Earth Cruiser, Sofixti). Then assign each class a "command rating" or, how many ships it can command. So maybe a BB can command 9 ships, a BC 7 ships, a CA 6, a CL 4 and DDs 2. Then you