What, in HW? Or is this a response to something else?
HW was easy to manage in z - an intuitive interface that made sense, in my opinion. There was no pause required.

Why this comes up every month or so for every space game is beyond me, but lets go through this again

When you play a game on your 2D monitor, adding the 3rd dimension creates many more gameplay issues than it could ever hope to solve. Considering that there is no inherent advantage to being 'above' or 'below' someone in space, there is no real benefit to moving up and down except to get out of the way or get a clear shot past an obstical...which the game does for you.

There is no 'high ground' in space, so there is no tactical advantage the 3rd dimension unless you start talking about hitting a specific weak part of a ship or something...which a game of this scale does not involve. Hence, for the combat, 3D adds nothing.

As far as planets and stars all being along the same plane, it is true that a true 3 dimensional map would add something to gameplay and tactics, since there could then be more links between planets. However, that said, this small benefit is far outweighed by the huge issue of playability. It adds complexity and confusion in much greater amounts than it add in fun or immersion. The easy to read, clean zoomed out interface, suddenly stops working, as things cover each other up and are too small to see because they are 'way back'.

Ask yourself why you dont have a true 3D desktop...because a 2d desktop is easier to use, and the small benefit of a 3d desktop are greatly outweighed by the effort required to use it.

Homeworld's awkward interface and camera control was one of the reasons I never got into that game.

Then wait until you play the game.



3D exists.

But it also causes problems:



"Commander, I can't go through the frigate factory."

"Then why don't you just sit on your ass and do nothing."

"Sounds good Commander."

EPIC WIN.

Has anyone here played Hegemonia: Legions of Iron? That game was the only reason I purchased Sins, because their gameplay sounded so similar.

Hegemonia was also basically a 2D map, but the BATTLES were almost always 3D, and the jump points in the skirmish levels were generally WAY above solar north. When a spy ship was discovered, it almost always dove straight "down" and you had to take your ships vertical to kill it. Massive fleets could be silently moved across an entire star system by taking them way above or below the plane of the ecliptic. Planet based radar was equally sensitive from all directions.

Kinda miss all that...

The Stryker

But it wasn't a sufficient enough reason to damn the game to a poorer mark that it got. I very much doubt Homeworld would have been considered so revolutionary if it didn't have the total freedom of movement.
I'm not saying the 3d movement made Homeworld revolutionary all on its own, but it was certainly a major factor. Even if this weren't so, I totally disagree with you I found the camera intuitive and and easy to use, same with the interface... but that's just me

The freedom to move like that is what is important, rather than the need to.


True enough, but, as someone who hasn't played the game, could I ask: Doesn't 3d double the flanking opportunities? Furthermore, if everyone thought the 3d environment were useless, couldn't you surprise them? Isn't that part of the game? In my opinion, it's better to have that ability there, without forcing the players to use it - that way, everyone's happy and it doesn't detract from the game.
Besides, how would you feel if you were up against a turtle who forgot about the other dimension, such that he only defended laterally? In a totally 2d plane, you (or at least I) would be hating the developers for taking away that part of space combat that would win me the battle.



I actually agree with you that planets and stars should be in a relatively 2d configuration, but for a different reason.
The plane of the ecliptic.
'nuff said

Space is 3-dimensional, but time is 1-dimensional. So when ships are phase jumping, they are going through space-time, which is only 2-dimensional. If they were going at sublight speed, they would take a lot longer to travel between planets, but they are able to warp space and time in order to create a wormhole of sorts (the blue cone around the ship) that transports the ship through space-time, ending at another planet in a matter of seconds. When the ships are travelling inside a planets gravity well, they are able to go up and down, but they don't. Just like driving a car today. If you are going to travel 50 feet in a straight line, whats the point of (assuming theres no hill) going up 100 feet, then down, plus the 50 feet. Why drive 250 feet, when you can drive 50? This same thing applies in space. The ships only go up or down if there is a good enough reason to. There's not even a strategic point for going up or down, unless your evading, since ship weapons are present all over the ship.

But the thing is, in tactical situations, ships don't maneouvre (I hope I spelt that right) just to get to certain points more quickly. They maneouvre, to... well... out-maneouvre the enemy; for example, they might attempt a flank. In 3-dimensional space, the opportunities for such maneouvring increase significantly.

Just a question; aren't we all "going through space-time" anyway? Spatially, we live in a three-dimensional environment while linearly moving through time, right? Or am I speaking through my toe-nail?

"OH NO"
"What is it?"
"They are flying at us from the Z axis at a strange angle, Sir!"
"Quickly point the ship upwards so that their Z-axis approach is meaningless!"
"Yes, Sir!"

As opposed to:

"OH NO"
"What is it?"
"They are flying at us from the side, at a strange angle, Sir!"
"Quickly point the ship to the side so that their flanking approach is meaningless!"
"Yes, Sir!"

Yeah u miss the point of the post, and you just proved my point. There is essentially no difference between 3 dimensions and 2. The third dimension is just another vector of distance.

You wouldn't get any benefit for 3d maneuvering over 2d, and you would just make the whole process less enjoyable due to interface limitations.

The point of the post is to point out (pardon the pun) the fact that space is 3d, not 2d, as the game may be sometimes portrayed. That's what I thought. Is this wrong?
I'm not sure our points are incompatible. I'm perfectly happy with your point, and I agree. However, I was attempting to prove my own, which was, as earlier stated:

Is this incorrect? Granted the z-axis doesn't offer an actual advantage over the x-y plane, at the very least it increases the possibilities of maneouvring.
My argument for the z-axis is based on freedom of movement rather than advantages the z-axis may hold. This freedom of movement doesn't have to be fully utilized, because that might increase difficulty - it just has to be there, so a tactician may be able to use the opportunities that arise from it.