Hi all, i think the actual area of the universe in wich we can play is small, also, a space with no small planets or planetoids to where land and search and fight for resources whould be boring.
imagine how cool could be group of players fighting for the domination and conquest of planets?
its all i have to say, anyways the developers are doing a exellent job.
(sorry for my bad english) bye.
First thing I want to do is say "thank you!" for putting this thread up, and the second thing I want to do is say "thank you!" for making the object of discussion "celestial bodies," since I feel that makes the subject a bit clearer than just saying "planets," especially since not everyone is talking about just planets.I'm not going to read through the majority of posts before I post my response to this thread because all that results in is a back-and-forth of increasingly ridiculous quoteboxing of other people's posts. I'm just going to state my arguments and leave them for consideration. This thread exists so the developers can gauge the preferences of folks interested in this game in one place without having to hunt through a dozen different threads.And that is actually my first point. The game is pre-alpha; the developers are still trying to figure out what features they want the game to have, and they are open to many, many different ideas, hence the creation of a thread exclusively for the discussion of if/how celestial bodies should be implemented. So, my first point is:1. People who oppose the inclusion of celestial bodies on the grounds that "that's not what this game is about" are wrong, because the game is still being defined. If celestial bodies were incompatible with the developers' vision of the game, this thread would not exist. What people who say that actually mean is, "that's not what I want this game to be about, and I'm scared they'll put a feature in that I don't like." In which case, since the developers are apparently at least considering the inclusion of this feature, perhaps this isn't the game for you. But why do people make that statement regarding the game's purpose in the first place? In large part, it seems to be because of the title of the game: "Space Engineers." A lot of people assume (not unreasonably) that a game called that is going to take place in space. So far, so good.The problem is when they say, "since this game takes place in and deals with space, there cannot be any celestial bodies in the game." And that is the second logical mistake, because:2. All celestial bodies are in space. Claiming that a game about space cannot, by definition, include celestial bodies is like saying that a game about the ocean cannot, by definition, include fish. Not only is it fitting for a game about space to feature celestial bodies, but a game about space is the most fitting genre of all to feature them.There's a third mistake in the argument that this game should not have celestial bodies, and it is this:It already has celestial bodies.They're called asteroids. Wikipedia states that "[a]stronomical objects or celestial objects are naturally occurring physical entities, associations or structures that current science has demonstrated to exist in the observable universe." Clearly, the developers at least feel that celestial bodies of some sort should be present in the game. But why do they feel this way? Well, this space game is also an engineering game, which means it is about designing and building stuff. Again, Wikipedia defines engineering as "the application of scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to design, build, and maintain structures, machines, devices, systems, materials and processes." Obviously you can't build something out of nothing, which means:3. A game about engineering must have either preexisting materials present to build with, or raw materials that can be gathered and processed before building with them. The developers have already indicated that they wish to have the gathering and processing of raw materials in the game, and the community seems to support this feature. Celestial bodies are the only source of raw materials in space, and as such are essential to a game about engineering in space.At this point it should be clear to everyone that celestial bodies not only are in the game, but that they must be in the game. The debate then becomes a question not of "should celestial objects be present," but rather "what kinds of celestial objects should be present?" Obviously, the kinds that provide the materials needed to build things, so we can do the whole "engineering in space" thing. We already have asteroids. But what are asteroids, anyway? Wikipedia ho!"Asteroids are minor planets, especially those of the inner Solar System. The larger ones have also been called planetoids. [...] They are grouped with the outer bodies— centaurs, Neptune trojans, and trans-Neptunian objects—as minor planets, which is the term preferred in astronomical circles. In this article the term "asteroid" refers to the minor planets of the inner Solar System."Well, shucks. Technically, we already have planets of a sort within the game.But let's be honest here, that's just a technicality. When most of us talk about putting "planets" in the game, we're talking about the traditional nine plan -- oops, sorry, I mean the traditional eight planets.And that's part of the difficulty, isn't it? "Planet" is a very vague term when used casually. Forget the brouhaha involving Pluto, Ceres was considered a planet for 50 years, then it was an asteroid, and now it's a dwarf planet. It's complicated. So rather than getting bogged down in the technical details, let's keep things simple, ok? This is a game. The point of games is to have fun. This leads us to the fourth point:4. Celestial bodies should be fun.That one's kind of a no-brainer, but it actually gives us a couple of critical points. The first is:5. Celestial bodies cannot be large enough to hurt the performance of the game on the computers most players will be using.This is important because it means there's already a hard cap on how big these things can be, and right-off we know that we cannot have planets on a 1:1 scale. Sorry guys, that's just not going to work. That would fry almost anyone's computer. Celestial bodies will have to be comparatively small.What else is fun? Gathering resources is fun. Gathering different kinds in different ways that have to be differently refined spices things up a bit, and adds to that element of gameplay. So:6. Different kinds of celestial bodies should have different kinds of resources. All differences between celestial bodies should be meaningful ones that affect gameplay.Shooting people is also fun. But it's no fun shooting people if you always know where they are; it completely eliminates the element of stealth. And if we're building things, we're going to be outside of our ships a fair amount, especially once you actually have to manually weld blocks together. If you know where your opponent is, and they're not in their ship, you can cruise over there with your ship and blow them up no trouble, which would be annoying and un-fun. They can build defenses to protect themselves, and most of us will do just that ... but those defenses will cost resources and time, and might not be strong enough, especially if they're just starting on a server/already lost their stuff in an attack. So they need to be able to hide, unless you want this game to turn into a kind of tower defense game in space. They can hide by being far away from you, but if you guess the right direction, they're screwed. The other way they can hide is by obscuring themselves from you, by hiding out in a secret base! How can they do that? Celestial bodies. This doesn't mean celestial bodies need to be giant, trackless wastes that you can lose a city on, because that would contradict Point 4; we're talking about a small base, as secret bases tend to be. Hanger/refinery/medbay/storage, plus a couple other rooms, style of thing. The sort that you could miss if you were scouting the area and didn't bother being quite as thorough as you should be. Think "giant asteroid with tunnels/a cave inside." So this means:7. Some celestial bodies should be large enough to allow for use in concealment of players from each other, though not so large as to make detection impossible, merely requiring effort.Ho-kay. What we have here is basically what most of the people who want celestial bodies, even planets, are looking for. If they can or can't have gravity is a function of what the engine can handle; if they can't, you can still have some pretty hefty planetoids with giant hangers. Again, if they can or can't have atmosphere is a technical limitation, although an effect that functions like a permanent inertial damper within a certain distance of such an object would cover most of the role that atmosphere plays on the kinds of ships we're building. Combine that with gravity that affects ships (can't remember if that is still up in the air or denied/confirmed), and that's all you need to have a "planet with atmosphere." And as long as it's big enough that you can't see your neighbors if you don't want to, I think that'll make most people happy.Personally, I'm not really looking for Earth-like planets; I'm thinking Mars-like at most, or more probably planetoids (Ceres, anyone?) And again, no: I am not thinking 1:1 scale for any of those bodies. I shouldn't need to tell some of you that, but I probably do.Two quick points before we go. There are a number of people who, when presented with a suggestion, invariably respond that it shouldn't be considered because it will draw time and money away from other aspects of the game. There are others who will say that it's "too early to think about that, and other things are needed more now."To the first group: all suggestions are considered by the development team in the context of whether they will improve the game or not; making the game better means more people will play it, and therefore buy it. Spending time and money on aspects of the game that will improve it is an investment, not a waste. This thread exists because the development team is considering the possibility that celestial bodies will prove to be a worthwhile investment. It is not your place to decide for the devs if this feature is a waste; it is your place to explain why you think it's a waste. Simply stating "it would be a waste" is not enough.To the second group: you have forgotten the purpose of being a tester. Your job is not to figure out what features would make the game fun to play right now; I know you like the game, and that's great, but focusing on immediate gratification at the expense of long-term ideas is a bad idea. This is not a released game that needs patching, nor is it a released game that is getting features added to it. Your job is to figure out what features would make the game fun to play when it is finished. Again, don't simply state "we need/don't need this feature in a finished product;" explain why it is or isn't needed.And now that I have finished my giant wall of text explaining why I think what I do, I'm out. Peace y'all.
GHEITER its impossible to make a planet in real scale 1:1 and not fry our machines. i dont know why all say " THIS IS A SPACE GAME"
1- in SPACE we hace asteroids, planetoids, suns, stars and.. PLANETS yes... how crazy (?)
2- we, the human race as an example, want to go to space to find what? asteroids? nah, to explore planets and moons and if possible make em habitable, and get resources from them.
now about scale.. i think its impossible to make em 1:1. i hope the developers be able in a future to allow us , as i said before, explore the space and fight for the domination of planets.i will be happy if i see 2 or 3 planets, i dont expect a huge ammount.
Supported videos include:
Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!