Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 38     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
Kamoba

Registered:
Posts: 1,391
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by muha
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamoba

 I'm glad you said your idea of the perfect sim, because this leaves you open to realisation that it may not be in this game and you're not demanding it's implementation [smile]


Im kind of hoping that it would happen eventually through the infinite capabilities of modding.


I'm sure the mods will add hugely to the content! [smile]

I'm so glad there is someone here who understands the game is open for a modding community...
So many people just give big lists saying what they want, and I've even seen people 'I bought this game, so I think...'
[frown]
bob4life10

Registered:
Posts: 23
Reply with quote  #62 
The escape velocity and resource cost for a plantoid doesnt have to be 1:1 scale with real life , and no one is really expected to land their full scale star destroyer on tiny planets anyways. This is a game being made by a team of people . Its not a game being programmed by the literal laws of nature.

and i dont see anyone whos super "pro-realism" stepping up and complaining over how the asteroids in this game, which are spaced around a mile or so between each other, are not realistically spaced several million miles apart on average. 

Asteroids are not distributed uniformly in the asteroid belt, but could be approximated to be evenly spaced in a region from 2.2 AU (1 AU is 93 million miles, or the average distance between Earth and the Sun) to 3.2 AU from the Sun and extending 0.5 AU above and below the ecliptic (the plane of Earth's orbit, which is a convenient reference for the solar system). That yields a volume of roughly 16 cubic AU, or about 13 trillion trillion cubic miles. (Note: space is big!)

suspension of disbelief is only convenient when it matches an already skewed belief to begin with. the only reason you guys dont want to accept planetoids in the game is because they arent already ingame to begin with, realistic or not.


Evis

Registered:
Posts: 240
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamoba
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4WalledKid
Hello there!

I just joined the forums and the first thing I read was this. I see some people degree with the idea of adding planets or celestial bodies just because the game is called SPACE Engineers. I have to recall that planets are a really important part of space. Without the planets space would be useless. In game terms, having something to protect from others would be challenging and fun. Having random generated planets with different gravity, light, atmosphere. It would be awesome that you can take off your helmet inside space stations or inside a planet with oxygen.I f planets are not possible, what about big asteroids with caves and resources? Think about it, I'm not the only one asking for them.
You're not the only one and I think the obvious out come is down to the Devs [wink]


Well, the outcry for planets got us an official discussion thread. That says volumes.

An assessment reveals that roughly 70% of the present community wants some form of planet/planetoid, and to a similar degree; a larger universe as the stage for player engineering and exploration accomplishments, sweet victories, or bitter defeats.

I'm still wondering how many player slots will be available for MP, because these two pending features have inter-dependencies. 
  • What good is a build/fight/explore game if you're in an empty shoe box with 4 other players?
  • " " ...in vast universe with 4 other players?
As essential I think planets and a larger universe are the way to go, it is all for naught if the game only allows less than 20 or so players to connect. 

I just hope this dynamic is being carefully considered. 

We shouldn't go back to the early days of gaming, where only a few could connect. That's so counter to every advancement ever made in the space. Plus it is bad for gameplay, terrible on sales, and kills the repeat play factor so much; it makes my head hurt. 

Never aim low, always aim higher. 
Kamoba

Registered:
Posts: 1,391
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evis
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamoba
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4WalledKid
Hello there!

I just joined the forums and the first thing I read was this. I see some people degree with the idea of adding planets or celestial bodies just because the game is called SPACE Engineers. I have to recall that planets are a really important part of space. Without the planets space would be useless. In game terms, having something to protect from others would be challenging and fun. Having random generated planets with different gravity, light, atmosphere. It would be awesome that you can take off your helmet inside space stations or inside a planet with oxygen.I f planets are not possible, what about big asteroids with caves and resources? Think about it, I'm not the only one asking for them.
You're not the only one and I think the obvious out come is down to the Devs [wink]


Well, the outcry for planets got us an official discussion thread. That says volumes.

An assessment reveals that roughly 70% of the present community wants some form of planet/planetoid, and to a similar degree; a larger universe as the stage for player engineering and exploration accomplishments, sweet victories, or bitter defeats.

I'm still wondering how many player slots will be available for MP, because these two pending features have inter-dependencies. 
  • What good is a build/fight/explore game if you're in an empty shoe box with 4 other players?
  • " " ...in vast universe with 4 other players?
As essential I think planets and a larger universe are the way to go, it is all for naught if the game only allows less than 20 or so players to connect. 

I just hope this dynamic is being carefully considered. 

We shouldn't go back to the early days of gaming, where only a few could connect. That's so counter to every advancement ever made in the space. Plus it is bad for gameplay, terrible on sales, and kills the repeat play factor so much; it makes my head hurt. 

Never aim low, always aim higher. 


I like you.
tharkus

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 193
Reply with quote  #65 

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.

Grey_Rabbit

Registered:
Posts: 8
Reply with quote  #66 
I'll be honest, I think a game like what some of you are describing would be pretty awesome.  I just honestly don't think that it's this game. 

Quote:
Well, the outcry for planets got us an official discussion thread. That says volumes.


It says one of two things.  

1. They'll honestly consider it and want to know what people think.
2. They are not considering it and they're tired of sorting through 1000 separate topics every day to read about things other than planets.

I say, give us a decent size sector in space with some large static asteroids and some smaller ones that move and let 12-24 people do their things.  I'm willing to bet that you'll be surprised at how busy we'll all be.



Dwarf-Lord Pangolin

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,260
Reply with quote  #67 

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. [wink]


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.[2] 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. [idea] 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.

Kamoba

Registered:
Posts: 1,391
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin
[Snip]
And now that I have finished my giant wall of text explaining why I think what I do, I'm out. Peace y'all.


And I invite everyone to read the quoted posted in its entirety...
Allot of issues addressed and questions answered!

P.S. someone mentioned in a separate thread about Nebula's and dust clouds...

I want to throw them in here [smile]
Arawn

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #69 
I think one of the main problems whether planets should be in or not is dependent on the back story for Space Engineers.

At the moment we have a alpha product where we can build things in a space environment, with planned features of mining, refining and combat.

Why?

Why are we in space? Why do we need to mine/refine/build/destroy?  Are we in our home system?  Why do we need to go into outer space to do these things?  Was there an accident?  Why is it just me (SinglePlayer)/ others (Multiplayer) in space all alone? 

Answer these questions and you'll know whether a planetary objects are needed.

Hell, Keen can simply say there was an accident on board a ship close to an asteroid field; where you (SP)/engineering crew managed to survive said accident and must now band together to survive/get home/create an outpost as per your original mission.
kai769

Registered:
Posts: 37
Reply with quote  #70 
There is another space game in development called infinity universe where they developed a way to fly your ship seamlessly between planets and space and other systems,

i would love to see this infinity universe and space engineers join forces and make the best game ever, 

here is a vid of a tech demo of infinity universe, enjoy [thumb]

Kamoba

Registered:
Posts: 1,391
Reply with quote  #71 
That looks like a good game, I shall watch its progress...
Gheiter

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tharkus

imagine how cool could be group of players fighting for the domination and conquest of planets?

There would be no fight. There'd be plenty of space on one planet alone for millions of players. (Assuming the scale would be realistic)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin

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. [wink]


You're quite right when you say people are saying what they want the game to be like. But voicing one's opinion is in no way a bad thing to do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin


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:


No, people are saying that because the game takes place in [outer] space, it cannot, by definition, have terrestrial content. That is - celestial bodies considered as planets.
AFAIK, people don't seem opposed towards celestial bodies (which would be stupid, as you said). [Some] People are opposed against realistically scaled planets with realistically scaled space. (Like myself)
In my opinion, planets should be left out in order to prevent having to implement anymore "handwavium powered tech". Including warp drives for [near] instantenious (or fast) travel between planets/celestial bodies far apart from each other.
As far as I know, the devs want the game to feel realistic, but still be fun. Thereby, I see no need for planets that would make 'realism' impossible for the sake of enjoyable gameplay.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin

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.[2] 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:

When people say "planet" they mean the word as it is defined today not as it was a few years back and not how it was a century ago.
People were never against having celestial bodies. They're opposed of having planets. So far I don't see your point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin

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:

Ever heard of prodecular generation? Or level of detail?
We could have a truly infinite universe in the game, and when I say infinite, I mean infinite in the fullest definition of the word. The size of the universe wouldn't need to be limited. It's the amount of players and active regions of the universe that have to be simulated.
Simply put: The world can be infinite, the amount of players cannot.
Take Minecraft as an example. The world is infinite (Yes, I know. Technically it's not. But that could be easily worked around), but you cannot have too many players or the server will start suffering performance issues.

Here's also something cool: http://en.spaceengine.org/
A universe simulation (Note: Obviously not the whole universe is simulated in real-time) in the scale of 1:1. The space in it is as large as the real universe, with equally as many stars, planets, galaxies, asteroids, etc.
Most of it's randomly generated, but it also has tonsa actual things in it. Such as the Solar system, many galaxies, neighboring stars and stuff like that.
Just something cool you people could be interested in.

Now, I'm not saying the the SE engine can do this as-is. Just saying that it's possible to have a truly infinite game world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin

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.


(
Are you saying that an atmosphere functions as an inertial dampener? And are you also saying that gravity makes things stick to other things? As in, if a large ship's gravity pulled a small ship towards it, it'd stay neatly parked inside it's hangar bay while the large ship is madly accelerating, decelerating, pitching and yawning?

Because if so, go learn some physics. No offense intended. [tongue]
I've explained this so many times already that I'm not gonna even bother right now. ._.
)
EDIT: Nevermind, I just realized we're talking about two entirely different concepts.

Also, there's no way a planetoid sized celestial body could have an atmosphere thick enough to limit eyesight by any considerable amount.
Even on Earth, the atmosphere is mostly not the thing that makes you "not see your neighbors". It's the curvature of the Earth combined with the uneven terrain details such as hills and mountains, plus vegetation such as forests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwarf-Lord Pangolin

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.

With this, I agree.
Saying "It's too early to think about that and this" is just idiotic. You'd much rather want to know what to aim for in the finished game so you can develop the basic things to support those ideas. Saving money, time and effort.


Sorry if this came across as agressive. That was not my intent. ._.
Nerevar

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 50
Reply with quote  #73 
I'm not particularly impressed with the, "It's called Space Engineers, guys. Let's keep it about space!" type of arguments. It's vapid and and unreasonable. Also, let's abandon any arguments based on realism. Not only is the game innately unrealistic in how it operates already, but I feel that gameplay should always be top priority. Let's make things fun and interesting, not typical and boring.

Planetoids would be an excellent addition to this game. I'm thinking of something skin to Spore's planets (maybe smaller), where exploration isn't needed. They simply act as glorified asteroids for players to utilize. Plus, landing and leaving planets in a ship would feel so cool. I mean... it'd be like, you know, you're actually playing a space game! I can see some interesting systems where ships continuously take resources from the planet's surface to an orbiting space station. From here, things could be distributed, sold, used to repair or build ships, etc. Oh yes~

Anyone disfavoring the concept, I strictly assure you that traveling forever in the bleakness of space will get old rather quickly. Planets will operate as anchors for war, cooperation, resource gathering, and highlights for the map. The dimension of gameplay opened up by a planet you can land and build and mine on is incredibly amazing. They would also offer general variety to the whole play experience. The crux of the game will still be about space of course, but as well planets could offer strategic points of interest and influence.

They don't need to be huge or incredibly detailed. For those offering the cost argument, saying that the developers could be focusing on something else? I say to you the same argument -- they could be focusing on adding freaking planets. It's better to add them now early in development so they can be polished up as time goes on. These could become a pillar of the game's gameplay if given the chance. Why make the game's mechanics and balance solely space-based then add planets later? Makes no sense.

I can't really stress how awesome it would be to fly along and find a planet, and see someone's built a base there. You could land and maybe trade with them. Or maybe you're stranded in space with a wrecked ship, limping for safety when amazingly you find a planet. You could land then replenish your reserve of materials and repair the ship; maybe make an outpost base there and operate from it. Then later on you're working on the base and you hear the thrum of engines, and you look up to see a potentially hostile player entering your atmosphere. Dun-dun-duuunn!

Basically? Shit's cool, yo. I greatly hope the developers add something like this. It would take the game to a a higher level.
tharkus

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 193
Reply with quote  #74 

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.

 

1

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #75 
Adding planets and such would definitely be near the top of my list with this game. The only problem that I see is that ships will need to be able to go in between them, and with things the way they currently are, this is not possible.

With interplanetary travel being added, I can see this going the way of a more interactive kerbal space program, which I have to say, is a very appealing concept.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!