Hey @Jakatak.!
There are two ways in which I can interpret this:
-
Why just navigate the camera on a 2D plane when you can also navigate on a 3D plane? In one word: complexity. Not complexity to build, but complexity for the player. Right now the camera can be controlled in a manner similar to how a lot of RTS games work so it should feel familiar. Moving the camera in 3D (like Total War) for instance, is more difficult, and as opposed to Total War, here the camera can easily get behind asteroids or other objects, obstructing the view. So I felt that the added complexity for the user was not worth the benefits.
-
Why construct turrets and other things on a 2D plane while you can construct anything anywhere in 3D space? Well, given the constraint of the previous points, by only providing an overhead view, it becomes really difficult to properly select or construct things at a different height. That could be resolved by allowing the player to navigate the camera in 3D as well but this felt overly complex for a tower defense game. It’s not only navigation that becomes more difficult, but when asteroids are at different heights, you suddenly need to think about where you place your turrets. When a lower turret is being attacked, a higher turret would not be able to hit it for instance, because it can’t aim that low. However, considering asteroids have varying scales and at varying distances, it becomes quite a challenge to properly gauge the height at which you are building. I experimented with it, but it felt like artificial complexity, and not as an interesting decision for the player to make.
I hope this makes sense! Otherwise I’m happy to discuss further 