Stations orbiting the planets

#21

Is it really a problem to have the same day duration on each planet ? The duration could be chosen acording to the battle average duration. This may offer some fun…

#22

For example concerning the earth it would not be shocking to observe a lunar day equal to 24 hours. This would be the case if the moon could be in geostationary orbit.

#23

Now that the game will take place in “battlescape’s” instead of the entire solar system it’s possible we could fake it and have the sun rotate around the planet :stuck_out_tongue:. Of course the moons wouldn’t be moving but the effect would appear almost realistic.

#24

Do you mean that these battlescapes will be on separate instances, i.e. it won’t be possible to fly from a battlescape to the other?

1 Like
#25

No they are on a single instance however they are semi-continuous. In other words all of the bases etc only spawn for a single battlescape at a time as you incrementally fight across a single solar system. The solar system itself will actually be seamless, and you can in fact fly around the whole thing, however a single match will only occur in a specific part of the solar system.

2 Likes
Summary of gameplay in a minimum KS environment
#26

Was this always the plan or has this just recently been decided.

#27

:astonished:

I am in shock. This is turning into something very different from the original minimum proposal.

Can you explain why the plan has changed?

What do you mean by a match? Most people would say server reset and match end is the same.
When the battle for one planet/moons is completed what will the player experience be? Will it be seamless with players simply flying from one Battlescape to the other, or will it be a separate match/session?


What you wrote in the update sounded like it was just the same plan as always:

We have known this since the Kickstarter finished without reaching the stretch goal.

This sounds like same plan as always, but with a Battlefield-esq conquest mode where you have to capture B before you can capture C.

1 Like
#28

This is a REALLY bad idea, think about it, you just put a current dynamic world on rails.
Everyone here would likely prefer a smaller system that is not on rails to one that is on rails but big. What do you even gain from a big system where 99% of it is just a fancy skybox because you can’t even pull a surprise attack as nothings there…

Seriously man this right here will kill this game.

#29

Gents this was always the plan if we didn’t hit the stretch goal. It appears there was some miscommunication but that’s probably in part because our KS was focused on the game we wanted to build with all stretch goals achieved.

The reason for this restriction is that an entire solar system is a lot of extra space to fill. The game basically becomes a mini-MMO which presents both design and technical challenges that, with a minimum KS, we’re ill equipped to tackle.

Now, we can of course change this however with our current cash flow we have ~1 year of development runway left. We’re certainly open to suggestions if any of you have ideas on how to reconcile this problem.

1 Like
#30

For the record you would still be able to fly around the entire solar system. The only thing that would be restricted to a single battlescape is the quantity and placement of bases/factories.

#31

As you stated in Update #109 and as is stated on the KS page, the $1.5 million stretch goal was semi-persistence and some amount of base building. These MMO features are clearly way out of scope and I don’t think anyone was under any illusion that they were planned.
What everyone thought was part and parcel of the minimum deliverable is each match taking place in a seamless solar system with bases and stations throughout. This is not semi-persistence or base building. I don’t see how there is any ambiguity here.

What aspect of having facilities throughout the system makes it a mini-MMO or adds technical challenges as compared to just having facilities around one planet and its moons?

Is the main issue one of gameplay design?

2 Likes
#32

As I mentioned above there are both design and technical challenges. I’ll more thoroughly describe them later tonight as I’m currently on my phone.

4 Likes
#33

Thanks for the communication Keith.

So is it right to think of it like as an extremely large Rush map from battlefield but with a twist? First you attack base A and depending on which team wins you attack base B C or D next and so on, but there is only ever a single “base” (Hesitant to say objective because I’m hoping there are multiple objectives to take per base) to capture at a time.

1 Like
#34

By rendering places “inert” you remove surprise attack factor and player driven strategy, do not do this. Spawn a smaller system if needed but whatever is spawned should be fully interactable with.

1 Like
#35

I agree with that. One or two geant planets with several satellits on each may be sufficient in the begining. But each player would be able to go everywhere, and visit any place.

#36

The solar system will still be seamless, it’s just that all of the bases and factories will be restricted to a more confined volume for any given battlescape. The idea behind this is planets and moons are still a hell of a lot of space and this will increase the likelihood that players will interact with each other. For example, the current game actually takes place around a single gas giant planet and its moons. It just so happens the moons are the size of regular planets however it gives the illusion of being an entire solar system because it’s difficult for people to comprehend just how big a real solar system actually is.

Yes exactly, except there will be both multiple objectives and multiple bases within a single “match/battlescape”.

Everything will still be fully interact-able. In fact you are playing within a single “battlescape” in the game right now as-is. It’s just a poorly constructed battlescape as we more or less put things in random places for the purpose of testing.

The entire solar system will still be seamlessly explorable. The other battlescapes will simply be hidden to incentivize players to refrain from doing that. We’ll be providing a single player sandbox mode for those who want to explore.

I’ve provided a longer explanation for all of you here.

1 Like
#37

So essentially in a game you want to build If a team decides to split their force up in half and hit the enemy outside the current battlescape they are unable to because they literally can’t do shit outside the current battlescape.

Why do we have carriers then? Why do we have this big system? Might as well build invisible walls and to hell with everything then.

1 Like
#38

Feedback is good, any feedback. Keith made a new thread discussing this, we’re open to the discussion.

#39

I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that conclusion - I don’t see anything in my commentary that suggests this will be the case.

1 Like
#40

The way you described is that the game is only really active in the current battlescape and while everything outside it is still reachable you will not find factories or bases there(or at least the number will be greatly reduced).
How do you handle a fleet from one team showing up in such an inactive area with an intention to destroy enemy bases?

Essentially can players attacking an area that belongs to some team(but is not in an active battlescape) turn that into an active battlescape via the act of attack

1 Like