Kavik_Kang

[quote who="Volusianus" reply="67" id="3624288"] Actually, many of them totally allow you to. [/quote] 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. Includin

[quote who="Volusianus" reply="65" id="3624273"] Stagnation is cool too, I guess. I've never particularly felt that top-down was outdated, just that very few developers know how to develop it properly.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. [/quote] How about the option of flying a flight sim with a mouse? Is there any reason to allo

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...

Oh, one last thing. I wouldn't want to later be accused of intentionally withholding this for my own benefit. There used to be a guy in the board game industry who collected quotes by game designers. While I have at least met most of the "legendary names" in game design, I never wound up meeting this guy to give him my quote, which is relevant here. "Sauce for the goose, Mr. Savik, the odds will be even". Not very original, I know, it's been used befo

...and to put a cherry on top of this. I designed a top down space combat game on paper in some detail (220 pages) in 1997/98. In that game the solar system maps would have been huge compared to Star Control taking 10-12 minutes to fly from one end to the other. On a map of that size, and with the sophisticated "avionics" the ships in that game had, I used "terrain" to create a "structure" to space effectively creating a maze of "hallways and rooms". While beyond awe

[quote who="Volusianus" reply="56" id="3624075"] Quoting RonPimpster, reply 55 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. <br

I always love it when they make a new version of MOO. The idea of people making a game and having no idea what-so-ever what it is based on and where it came from is just comical too me for some reason. :-)

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 level

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

The powerful gravity wells of the solar system map are a very fun thing in this genre that have been present since the very beginning when you could put an asterisk at the center of the map ins Space Wars. It's a great idea, but it also gets in the way of things like system defenses, talking to an NPC, or sending a lander. This is why I have been envisioning a 4th level "planet map" that the devs have never actually mentioned. The planet level map provides a place for al

I have nothing to sell. Edge of screen indicators would work equally well for me in the game they are saying they are making. If 6 ships are the most that can ever be on the screen at once then edge of screen indicators would work just as well as a small radar box. The only advantage of the radar box in this case is that it would be needed to support more ships than they currently ever plan on having in a fight. So the only real advanage of radar over edge of screen in

I don't think you will miss the 16-point turning. Subspace had smooth turning and I played that for over ten years. A month or so ago I played the that HD version of SC2 twice and the 16-point turning was the one thing that stood out too me as feeling "primitive" and at times downright annoying. I think you will take to the smooth turning an a matter of minutes. It is SO much better. On top of this, considering that the foundation of my interest/knowledge i

Thinking about this more... There are actually 6 levels of maps here. Both Quasispace and Normal space are really 2 maps each, one informational and one functional. In both cases there is the informational map that shows star locations, allows setting of the auto-pilot, etc, and then there is the "active" version of each of those maps that you actually fly between points on. So really, there are 6 levels of maps, or you could say two of the levels each have 1 variant

I am actually in favor of a small simple radar box in the lower right corner. It is very useful, without it any ship off screen is just lost and invisible too you. Subspace had this, so I am used to it. It really can be very helpful to have.

Haha, I guess it could seem like that. I was actually just trying to sort through how the maps will work since they brought it up and it's been something a few of us have wondered about before.

[quote who="n0vast0rm" reply="34" id="3623706"] Quoting n0vast0rm, reply 26 Simple example: You implement mouse aiming, since it is expected, but then you are going to already have a radically different form of combat from SC2. In all prob

This all makes sense too me, except for one thing. If the the planets on the solar system map have cartoonishly strong gravity wells the player uses to gain a temporary speed advantage... how do you "dock" with it to enter the planet level map. Or, how do you send a lander from the solar system map if their is no planet level map? The gravity wells of this genre are cartoonishly strong, they don't allow for any sensible form of "entering orbit". The only thing I ca

You know, IBNobody, you actually had a great idea for a weapon in this game and I totally missed it because I was thinking of other things. I would not allow the player to take the camera out of top down in combat because I believe that view is what creates the addictively fun quality this genre is known for. Your brain can't do it in 3D, but is exceptionally good at these patterns in 2D. But you wanting to look over the shoulder to fire a sniper weapon is still an aweso

Another comment I noticed in the Feb release was a brief mention of how they envisioned combat taking place on a solar system map rather than a map with a single star. I got the impression that they are still at a point of only having a general idea how the maps will work. So I thought I would tell the devs my interpretation of what they are saying they want. That might help solidify how this will wind up working in the end in their minds, give them some ideas, or be totally

While I see no issue with including mouse support... You could give me a lobotamy and I would still beat someone trying to play with a mouse with one arm tied behind my back:-)

Yes, the critters were very cool. I particularly like the page the grid of like 9 different landscape scenes. Those seemed to me to be kind of concepts of what you will during the lander game and it really is a great cartoony look that is very appropriate for Star Control in my mind. I know others have a different vision of Star Control, but these landscape shots especially really match what I have in mind as a look for a new SC. Just seeing those really makes me want

[quote who="Vaelzad" reply="9" id="3623318"] That's not going to work well visually or aesthetically. Sure it shows a gravity model in 2D, but it's hardly clear or understandable and doesn't allow for other aspects of combat to be communicated. [/quote] I don't think the gravity well issue is as bad as you think it is, unless I am misunderstanding something. The only actual relevant information is the radi

Well, I already mentioned my dream ship for this game but I'll mention it again here. This is my dream ship for supermelee dueling. Its abilities are powerful in the hands of a player who's style they suit, but it is a reasonable and balancable design and not something silly like "I want a god cloak":=) Class: Medium (i.e. akin to Yehat, Syreen, or Vux) Speed: Average for medium class Maneuverability: Above average for class Durability: Av

No, there is much more too it than that. Changing the angle of the camera changes the genre. As I said, this doesn't appear to be an issue as Vlad seems to have said pure top down will always an option, so I can play it that way and others can play it how they want. This is not my game, it won't be made with my style. I am happy as long as I can lock into top down view and keep it there for combat. However. if this were my game being made with my style I

[quote who="IBNobody" reply="17" id="3623353"] It's easier to look down the barrel to aim certain weapons than it is to aim radially like a clock. Again, it's situational. There are times when I'd use different camera modes. Being locked into just one view is a disadvantage. [/quote] Ahh... but it isn't. Top down space combat is, at it's core, all about Pattern Recognition Addiction. You, as experienced gamers, have all experien