What are you controlling the camera for?  What is it that you think you are looking at?  What information is it that you think you will get out of it?  At any relevant combat range the other ship is on the screen.  At long range it is on radar.  What more is it that you think you are going to see by pointlessly playing with a meaningless camera.  All it is going to do is get you killed.  If I am in range for you to be on the screen and you are playing with the camera you are dead.  If I am on radar and you are playing with the camera, you may as well be sucking your thumb.  You aren't doing anything useful.

There is actually no reason at all to be playing with the camera.  You have all the information you could possibly need in the top down view with radar.  Without radar it is the same thing, except that you are blind at long range.  The ships might as well have cloaking devices that automatically activate at that range.  But looking around with a camera is a meaningless distraction that serves no purpose at all.

I'm trying to tell people this, Kavik. ::shrug:: Kinda feel like it's falling on deaf ears.

The original camera system doesn't need to be removed. It could use some enhancements like ship headings, ghosted gravitational pull, etc, but the core worked fine for 20+ years.

I've never once said the old system needs to be removed. Why can't we do both? It's not a strain on resources at all, because combat is the same regardless.

I am happy as long as I can put it into top down for myself.  But the reason I would not even allow players to move the camera in space combat (exploration/land are entirely separate and different "mini-games") is because it implies to the player that there is a reason to look around with the camera.  And if the space combat is going to be essentially Star Control/Subspace/Space Wars/Asteroids then there isn't any reason to do that but you are making the player think that there is.  Then modern gamers are accustomed to seeing everything at an angle, because it provides the perspective to create the "artificial 3D" we have in modern games.  We call it "3D", but it really isn't, it's just artists using perspective to create a fake 3D look to things.  So it even "seems wrong" to modern gamers for the camera angle not to be tilted in some way because it always has been in every game they have ever played.  So if you let them angle the camera, almost all of them will... and all it does is destroys their own experience.

So I actually wouldn't even allow the camera to be changed in the space combat mini-game, in all the other game areas you want to let the player look around if they want.  In the space combat it really does ruin everything from the perspective of the top down space combat game, and there is nothing to see anyway.  Just that same star backdrop we've all seen a million times before.  There is nothing to see by looking around anyway...

EDIT: Thinking about this a little more... the only thing you would be looking at moving the camera around is your ship.  You want to see your ship "in 3D" so you want to spin the camera around to look at it.  That's all a player could be wanting to actually look at by moving the camera around, because it is the only thing that is there.  The radar in my top down game was quite original 25 years ago when I first came up with it, but others have thought of it long ago and its been done several times now.  Elite: Dangerous uses something similar.  You can have both ships on the screen, all the time, twisting and turning in 3D and giving the players a constantly rotating view of both ships in the fight at all times through the radar.  Just give your radar little 3D models of each ship on either side of it that constantly spin to display the aspect ratio at all times.  It's happening on a 2D plane, so it is just a simple spinning of both ships showing the current aspect ratio (relative facing of both ships).  Then you can "fake 3D" in the display by having the models rotate with turns, which gets the models both rotating and spinning based on what is actually happening and giving the perception that it is displaying "3D manevuering".  So now you have both ships at all times, in twisting and turning 3D and constantly being shown from every direction... with a radar aspect ratio display that actually exists for the sole purpose of showing the ships in 3D:-)

I've said it before, you can't stop stupid. It's just a fact. There's worlds full of dumb players, but you're failing as a designer if you're not allowing them to fail.

A possible camera system that assumes top-down view: the ship itself is steered by keyboard, and weapon system by mouse. The closer the mouse is to the ship, the more centered the camera. The further away the mouse the more the camera reaches into that direction.

^ Aiming with the mouse is fun, but it isn't STAR CONTROL. And I'm afraid the Scryve are going to be set up like this with their turreted battleship.

Plus, PCs can only detect one mouse.

Finally, tying the mouse cursor to camera centering would be very frustrating. You'd have to put it behind a buttonpress or something.

Assuming they intend on making this a console game someday, all the controls need to be something that works with a gamepad.  So while I actually like Henri's mouse control idea a lot, especially for a slower paced game like this that was about capital ships (Star Control ships are said to be capital ships in some cases, but really behave like big slow fighters), it would be hard to replicate that with gamepad controls.

I've mentioned here before, Volu, that one of SVC's most famous game design quotes is "You always have to leave the player the option of making a mistake."  That's one that could only come from us, because only we ever spent 30 years refining a game to the point where most player "rules problems" that were coming in were actually people trying to outlaw something that would be a mistake to do and were not actually problems with rules.  That is the origin of that quote, it's actually a warning that you can "over design" a game to the point that you are leaving the player only one logical choice.  It can be taken in other ways that are valid, but I have always believed that it does not apply to interface or control methods.  There is no reason to let players make a mistake in the interface or controls.

For example, allowing players to fly an online flight sim with a mouse.  I've seen it before... why do such a thing?  Flying with a mouse against someone with a joystick is like wearing handcuffs in a boxing match.

I'm fine with multi-planet. I think my point is that it's a bit ridiculous having a one-on-one dogfight in a space the size of a solar system. Representing each ship on a screen that also includes the planets in a solar system will make the size of the ships a bit silly. And the sun? What happens if you hit the sun?

Also what happens to the moons around the planets, if melee mode is on the solar system map? Are they not there? Are they really tiny? Just seems a bit odd. If we want multiple gravity wells, I think doing it around a planet and moons would make more sense, personally.

The mouse-for-camera does not have to tie into the aiming; that can still be on the traditional method, but the mouse can still be used for camera control (in the form of viewing emphasis). And, actually, I think that the mouse-suggestion ties in nicely with consoles: the equivalent on the gamepad is ofcourse the same way that games like Call of Duty separate movement control and aim control; use one side of the game pad for steering, and the other (analogue if present on only one side) for camera.

However, IBNobody is of course correct that mouse-only doesn't work well with split-screen play - but that is of course where the gamepad controls come in; so you can combine mouse and gamepad for split-screen play.

But what are you rotating the camera to look at in a starield background with one enemy ship, which if it is close enough to see well it is too close for you to be playing with the camera?  What is it that you want to look at?  I think you really just want to see the ship in 3D, and you can put that on the screen next to the radar as a 3D aspect ratio display.

There isn't actually anything to look at except for your own ship.  It's not an RTS game, it is a very fast paced action-arcade game.

Speaking completely without knowing: the teaser video showed a moon for the solar system exploration - so I'd imagine that the same moon would also be present in combat. Of course we probably wont have 27 moons around Jupiter or anything like that.

Thanks for bringing up this point. It reminded me of something important about how SC2 handled moons. This again comes back to my concerns about scale.

SC2 handled scale in an interesting way. We've talked about the unusual size of the planets in SCO, but there's also the fact that we can see moons from quite some distance. Henri brought up Jupiter's moons (there are actually twice that many, although most are only familiar with a dozen or so) and this reminded me how we didn't actually see lunar satellites from far away. They only came into view once we got in closer to a planet.

At that point, the view would "drill down" to a detailed shot of anything orbiting a planet, including space stations and other ships, which I think makes some degree of sense. Based on the gameplay video we've seen, SCO is completely skipping that intermediate step. Instead of drilling down, we just fly through a system over to a planet and it zooms into an orbital view. The sense of scale is even further diluted in this way.

SC2 sometimes had planets with quite a few moons, but they were all out of sight until we got closer. I feel if we could see every moon during system navigation, it would clutter up the screen with moons. I don't know if this is right or wrong, just pointing out how SC2 handled it. I always thought it was really cool how the sense of scale would magnify and then pull back out to make you keep wondering how vast your view could become. That feeling is not the same in the gameplay trailer.

We could fly around solar systems very quickly in SC2, but I never took issue with the game's ability to scale the map appropriately. Having a "fixed scale" camera moving around in a star system will ultimately make planetary navigation feel artificially small and cramped if there isn't some kind of delineation between different scales; systems will seem more like an arena, rather than planets orbiting a star.

I don't know if capturing the sense of scale I'm referring to would be trickier to do with today's modern 3D approach to developing things versus how things scaled in 2D back then, but I feel it was an important part of what gave SC2's exploration dynamic an epic feel.

I'd say via my opinion

#1 Dynamic

#2 The old SC2 fan in me says 1v1 is the way to go, however a chunk of me is saying Team V Team or even scaled up to Fleet v Fleet at times could be fun and challenging.  However Multi V Multi only works as well as the AI & the ability to changes tactics + issuing of individual orders from time to time

#3 Honestly I thought the camera system found in SC2 - The Urquan Masters was quite nice.

Now an interesting dynamic not mentioned in the op post "sorry haven't read the replies yet"...

If it's in a solar system we control, would we be able to weaponize Planetoids / Asteroid Belts / etc with various weapons, or even have rudimentary thrust/guidance setup on Asteroids to start flying towards the enemy fleet.  This could both make it easier for us on the defense & make certain battles more challenging down the line.

Melee is where I'm likely to be most opinionated, I suppose. Of the 5 "sub games" you've identified for Star Control, it has dominated my time like no other.

On the camera and teams: While the "jumpy" 3-level zoom transitions of the earlier releases may have been a technical concession, they did add a great sense of intensity / impending doom as someone mentioned earlier. The smooth-zoom melee of SC2 kept this feeling but polished it up nicely. Heck, I even enjoyed SC3's 2.5D approach [/flameshield]. I think 1v1 with the approaching ships gradually dominating more of the screen real estate is the constant throughout all the games, though, which makes me shy away from fleet based play or other camera systems.

Regarding the edge boundaries: if there's no wrapping, I think the arena needs to be huge. Not infinite, but very large. Rather than a hard boundary, you could use a VERY soft gradual rubber banding effect to limit things (I think someone mentioned this earlier). I always viewed wrapping as a 2D simulation of fighting within a sphere of space, which means infinite motion in any direction (eventually coming back to where you began).

I'm OK with the idea of multiple gravity wells, planetoids, etc. on the field at once. Could be fun.

Finally, the ability to see an enemy's ship enter the field, then choose your own to counter it from the pile you have remaining, is a core part of the Melee experience to me. I can't imagine just decking their launch order ahead of time.

It may be my affinity for Melee in particular, but some of the issues still up in the air sound like far greater potential deviations (from what made SC great) than you're considering in the other areas of gameplay. I hope it comes out relatively intact.

Thanks!

I would be hesitant to make the arena larger. A smaller arena would curtail long range and long lasting fights. And you can bet that I am going to demonstrate this in SCO SuperMelee when I play against you with my fleet of fast, long-range ships. I may not beat you, but I can waste your time.

I suppose "huge" wasn't very well defined. That's mostly a desire to maintain the same kind of speed build-up, separation for turning, etc. you could get with a wrapping arena, but I guess that depends on the ship mechanics as much as the arena design. I'd just hate to see a small ship's legitimate "run away acceleration" cut off, for example, by an artificial boundary in empty space. Having plenty of room to weasel your way into the big guys' blind spot is part of the thrill.

On the other hand, we are all too familiar with the "smash yourself against a planet so the match finally ends" maneuver.

The whole point of that boundary is to limit a faster ship's ability to do that.  It's not just the running away as a grief tactic, running away and fighting at the same time is an even bigger problem.  It is the most powerful thing you can do, and with endless room any ship that can do that becomes a huge balance problem in multiplayer.  

There are several things that work well for a map edge, but a lot of players really dislike some of them.  For example, a disengagement barrier where you leave the fight and forfeit for staying out of bounds for too long is not a well liked solution.  I really think the best thing for SC is a "Tournament Barrier" which is either a wall you bounce off of that also slows you down as a penalty for hitting it, or simply a big .5 to .67 speed penalty whenever you are over the line would work too.

The size of the map will have a huge impact on ship balance, and the best compromise is like I have said before, the smallest map area that allows the faster ships to control the range with their speed without feeling boxed in all the time.  Round, so there are no corners to trap someone in.

A great example of the effects of map size is the weapon most know as a Plasma Torpedo.  From Star Trek and SFB, the big ball of fire the Romulan fires at Kirk in the Balance of Terror episode that "loses power with range".  Plasma Torpedo are useless on an open map against a fast ship, a plasma ship is essentially helpless in that situation.  On the other hand, trapped inside a small square shaped map with corners... the plasma ship is going to chase you into a corner and then kill you very quickly.  This is probably the best single example of the serious kinds of effects map size can have.  Essentially on a large open map, or a small square shaped map, you couldn't have plasma ships that worked well.  But on the right sized circular map... tada!  Perfect plasma!

It's an interesting discussion for sure. Maybe some of what I enjoyed about the previous games' Melee doesn't work in a modern multiplayer game, and is only fun on the couch or in front of the computer with friends.

Dynamic would be good, but can you have both and let people choose?

1v1 please.  I can't figure out how 3v3 computer controlled will really add anything to my experience.  1v1 showcases ships so well!

I like the suggestion others have had to start wide angle, then change to the dynamic

That is all.

There is nothing wrong with feeling that way. Once you start changing things, you start going down that slippery slope. Next thing you know, you have puppets, space cows, and isometric combat.

#1 Dynamic response

#2 1 vs. 1

#3 If 1 vs. 1, zoom out to show both ships. If 3 vs. 3, that one I cant answer before I know how to point out where the other ships are.

Some thoughts about my answers:

1. Dynamic response would be nice in the way where you could select from limited amount of ships. As if the whole fleet is like 14 ships and you could make the choice from 3 randomly chosen ships from your fleet. Or some other way that you cant always make the best choice for your opponents ship.

2. 1 vs. 1 was my choice mostly because I don't like the idea of "nursing" the two other ships. And there is also the question about friendly fire? Is it enabled or disabled?

3. The same kind of zoom that was in SC and SC2 works best if you have 1 vs. 1 encounters. That way players can focus on the battle at hand and not get frustrated about the camera making battles more intense. If it's going to be 3 vs. 3, it probably needs a totally different approach on the situation, like pointers to other ships and the like.

My two cents...

#1 Dynamic Response sounds more appealing to me.

#2 1v1, I don't want to be forced to play with AI players. If they are an option, then great.

#3 I didn't play the original SuperMelee much but I like how it would zoom automatically to fit both ships. I don't care to use manual camera controls if the original system is used. With battles larger than 1v1, manual control may be necessary.

How would you feel if they chose to leave the SC2 system out because they were planning on 3v3 battles, and then they left out 3v3 battles?

I prefer the old system, but a different system may work even in 1v1. It all depends on whether the camera can stay in an optimal range without disrupting my combat. I don't want to fight the camera when I should be fighting someone else. In other words, I don't want to pigeon-hole them into one camera system if another would work competitively.