4 ms·

> I have a feeling that if the game controls were slightly more abstract, it might be better. Less "burn 100m/s retrograde" and more "intercept target", "pull a

> I have a feeling that if the game controls were slightly more abstract, it might be better. Less "burn 100m/s retrograde" and more "intercept target", "pull alongside target", etc. I believe this reflects the creator's conclusions regarding the nature of space combat. that is, the outcome of the battle is more or less determined by the weapons loadout and approach speed/direction. so the real "fight" is maneuvering for a favorable approach and/or forcing the enemy to waste their delta-v, which the game definitely stresses. there aren't a lot of meaningful tactical choices once you're within gun range. could be a case of being too realistic for its own good. I do think the game would be less frustrating if it had checkpoints within missions. very annoying to have to redo some complicated orbit transfer over and over because you keep losing the final battle.

mLuby 6y ago
> and/or forcing the enemy to waste their delta-v, which the game definitely stresses Totally agree, and this is another case where controls at a slightly higher abstraction would be nice. In the game, sometimes the enemy jukes your intercept, so you do another burn to re-acquire, and the cycle repeats. A show like The Expanse would operate at that level of abstraction: Sensor Officer: "Captain, they've detected us and are taking evasive action!" Captain: "Navigator, match course and speed. We can't lose them." XO (aside): "Captain, that's a Cortéz-class recon ship; they've got more than enough thrust AND delta-v to outmaneuver us. We need to change the game." Navigator: "They're evading again; re-acquiring intercept." The game has you play the navigator, but playing the captain would be more fun.