Okay, so as we all know, Stars are often far from the location in the night sky as we know them because of how long it takes for their light to reach Earth, so if you think about it, a navigation system based on what you 'see' on a map wouldn't work properly, so I propose something to solve this, as well as provide a way to make encounters work. All Star Control 2 fans -- despite how few that may be -- will get this. When you exit a Star System, you are placed in a top-down 2D view, where you can travel to other Star Systems by hovering over them. Encounters would happen similarly, where they (perhaps perposefully) collide with your ship and engage you in a fight, which in this case would be FTL style. This isn't next part isn't in Star Control 2, but I find that it makes sense and would better balance exploration. Once you've gone to a Star System, it will appear on your navigation map, so as you travel and expore, you'll quite literally be lighting up the night sky. Optionally, players could 'quick-travel' to discovered star systems similarly to how space travel appears in currently available videos. I can make a video of Star Control 2 space travel if I need to provide a visual aid, but I'm kind of tired right now.
Thanks for submitting a new suggestion! Please remember to give your opinion on this suggestion by voting on our suggestions page.
It definitely shouldn't be a complete copy because complete copies have goddamned Slylandro probes oh god why.
Why does everyone think FTL style combat is the best? I know the KISS principle, but I'd like some actual maneuvering to go with my spaceship combat. Unless... Would the solar system map (for lack of a better word) be big enough(and ship speeds and turning slow enough) to allow maneuvering around other ships without triggering an encounter? As well as allow long range weapons to fire without an encounter? In which case you could still have fleet fights where strategic maneuvering is important, while having the advantages of an FTL type system for dogfights (again, for lack of a better term.)
FTL combat is simple enough and doesn't rely on one person being 'better' than the other, but being a better stragetist. I'm awful at dog-fighting, but that really shouldn't matter with super-powered lock-on laser systems and a good plan. There were no long-range weapons you could use outside of encounters in SC2, and I don't feel like there would be any need for them in Starbound. As for fleets, you could use the SC2 style (Take turns beating the crap out of the enemy) or could just have every single ship in your fleet attacking at once. Though, I wouldn't prefer the latter.
I meant individual ships on the map(no special battle map),each controlled by a player, vying for favorable encounters. Actual fighting would occur in an FTL system when two ships get close enough to each other. Long range weapons would not be as potent as short range weapons you'd use in an encounter, but could be used as either an opening salvo before the real fighting occurs, or to harry a retreating fleet or ship if the latter has the speed to avoid an encounter.
Lemme try to explain this better. The solar system map is a "strategic" map; you're driving your ship trying to get encounters with ships that are vulnerable to you(you're better equipped to deal with them) on that map, while avoiding ships that are better equipped to deal with you. When you get close enough to another ship, you'd get an encounter and the resulting fight plays out in FTL fashion. Thus, maneuvering becomes important to fleet fighting, while the actual fighting still plays out in FTL, without dogfight maneuvering. I don't know how to handle three or more ships in the same encounter, though.
No, having any kind of weapons outside of actual engagement not only wouldn't make sense at such a distance, but it would end up being overpowered as hell when used by a group of players. As for maneuvering in combat, that's not up to us to decide, since they seem to have their minds made up about how the combat will work, but we'll see. Hopefully I've answered appropriately, I really have a hard time understanding your points.
