True 3-D

you mean 3D movement? then its already here...

use the ~ to move in 3D, but i dont see much use for it atm. But ive seen ships going to the top and bottem when leaving the grav well

i understand where everyone who wants true 3D is coming from, i was slightly dissapointed myself. right now it's like the rogue squadron games, where you could move your fighter "upside down" but clearly there was an up and a down, and limits to space in the Z direction - your fighter would "right" itself whenever you rolled or turned, you'd be forced back down if you went too high, all the ships started on the same plane, etc. This is how soase feels right now, but this is one time where i don't think adding the 3rd dimension is going to change things much, if anything it will make chasing down and finishing off enemies frustrating (if they are hopping around planets and moving super high/low in the Z)

i've already given up on this game being good enough to replace the HW series for me, so with my hopes crushed i'd say don't push the 3rd dimension

Beta one everybody.

What part of everything isnt implemented yet didnt you understand?

I've moved my ships above planets, and I have made them move up and down. I've even seen my ships do it by them selves sometimes to get to the gravity well quicker..

greatemperor: i'm pretty sure 3D gameplay is something that isn't going to come in to play in later betas/full version, it's just one of those core aspects

servius: we know there is some Z movement, but no Z gameplay, we aren't talking aesthetics, we are talking tactics

If we could leave/enter a gravity well on any desired Z level, then there would be plenty of 3D movement and tactics. Add to that the ability to construct in the Z axis, and I think that is all it would take for realistic full use of 3D movement to occur.

Yeah, it would of course be nice if planets were on different planes. It would be even nicer if star systems were on different planes. Let's hope that this becomes the case.

Some of the fundemental things are still off line, thats why they cant tell you why the phasespace has to be the way it is.

well theres your problem.
what the hell did you expect? the two games are nothing alike.

???
what really?
thats awesome. I can place fleets better.

Cant you people find something else to complain about?

I say for the full 3-D movement in battles to actually have an effect, there would need to be 3-D placement of buildings. As it is now, the attacking ships stay on the base plane to attack the buildings, so the defending ships stay on the base plane to attack the attacking ships.

Exactly. Sure we can move up and down, but as it is now we have no reason to. I feel a lot like Wraith does. I think the tactics in this game in general are weak. Your control of your ships is just so ... mushy. Most of the "tactics" that I use are just herding ships around to try and keep them together so that one or two brave little frigates don't decide to get themselves killed uselessly by attacking the cluster of gauss cannons on the other side of the gravwell by themselves. That and some "shield restore" micro so that the Dunov doesn't use it on the scout frig that is only missing 10 shield points when there is a cap ship right next to it with its shields down and taking hits on its hull.

The 3-D placement of buildings could also add more stradegy (and more room to build!)

A nice start would be fleets lining out vertically, instead of horizontally. A wall is more usefull then a sheet.

They already do that if you get enough of them together.

Yes, but ships prefer a sheet layout, which is pretty wierd, why wait for one another when you can all shoot?

sentient: um, the hw series is space rts, so is this, they are very similar in concept, afay this just isn't on par with hw tactically, this could change when they add more stuff, i have to keep reminding myself they didn't plan on the beta-1 to be "fun"

in principle, yes they are related.
but the focuses of the two games were forever seperated in eternity. their principles (tactics vs. strategy) were always seperate, their battlefields(nodule battle vs. 3-D cylinder) are not at all similar, and their general outsets were very different. if you came in expecting HW3, then obviously you're going to be dissapointed, same thing if you crunch into a cob of corn, expecting a nice rasberry taste.

This may be in poor taste, but it is my sincere hope that Sins attains the level of tactical freedom that the HW series had. As I see it, its basically HW, with empire building and a different universe/story.

If Sins is another HW with planets, economy and orbital structures, I'll be satisfied with my pre-order. If, on the other had, they go on to add another dimension of game play by exploiting the differences between Sins and HW, than, well... thats just icing.

I don't expect Sins to go all out in the 3D realm for the simple fact that the mainstream player won't tolerate complexity like that (which in turn will hurt sales).  As much as we - as hardcore gamers - like to think we make or break products, the simple fact is that we don't.  Developers have to target the mainstream with their designs; that's one of the reasons why PC games have gotten so simplified the past few years. 

I personally dont care if galaxy map itself is "flat", but inside the planet gravity well it would be nice to have full 3d movement, and structure placement within the grav wells radius. Free up the structure placement so you can use the z axis to place buildings, and defenses, and it will make a world of difference right there. I think most of the people here can agree on that.

Yarlen is right, I mean look at the amount of games Gal Civ 2 sold and the amount of people on the forum the two numbers are very different.

I think its the same for sins there are going to be tens of thousands of players that wont want to deal with crap we are asking for.

yarlan:
ya, that's basically what i've concluded from the participation in homeworld cataclysm, it's got a huge skill curve (takes about a year of hardcore training to even get close to the best guys) and huge tactical depth, it's strategy is also great though you're right it focuses on small combat tactics

hardly anyone played what i consider the greatest strategy game of all time after the second year, i think it was because it took too much brain effort to enjoy it fully and most n00bs got creamed their first 100 games so it wasn't inviting to new peeps, the majority of sales go to people who just want to relax in front of their computer with a nice, visually attractive, mind-numbing game

Yeah.   

I think Sins could probably be okay even if someone were playing 3D and another player wasn't, just because the AI will handle movement and what not, but it's a fine line with a deep chasm.

Sounds like a fertile area for optional play, actually -

Depending on the development difficulties, particularly in the programming to deal with the 3rd dimension (general automated movement, AI, etc.), I could see where it MIGHT have to be an expansion (but I hope not).

In any case, development spent in this area could also be considered R&D for future titles....

A year of learning curve for HW:C?! Were we playing the same game? No game that is out today had a year long learning curve unless you play a game three times a year.

IMO this discussion is going in a direction of "why bother if people are too stupid anyway". Which is a huge underestimation of space strategy players. Give us the options and most will use them. Don't give them and the game will lack the most "spacy" features.