Sign up Calendar Latest Topics

  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 38     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Next   »

Posts: 13
Reply with quote  #76 
It's really difficult to say what the best way forward is. It might've been a mistake to set the game in 2077, as nothing else about the look/feel of SE or the currently available technology suggests that we'd have mastered the interstellar propulsion necessary to navigate a multi-star game universe, and yet I imagine that is what people will expect.

I guess it depends how realistic we want the game to be. True realism will never be possible, so whatever we end up with it will be an extremely condensed version of the real thing with more than a little artistic license involved [wink]

That being the case, I suppose we can suspend our disbelief in other areas to create a game mechanic that's actually enjoyable as opposed to boring/tedious (or otherwise limited for the sake of realism).

Personally I think planetoids orbiting small stars would be the best bet. Perhaps create a setting in which man has somehow reached an area of space (a stellar nursery or something) brimming with these little star systems and full of resources. Travel between planetoids can be accomplished under conventional thrust, and travel between stars would require some kind of large ship with a jump drive or just really big engines.

Because of the high volume of asteroids and the close proximity of planetoids, we wouldn't need to worry about things like atmospheres or animal/plant life, because it'd be assumed that impacts are too frequent to allow it. Not to mention that they'd be way too small to cling on to any atmosphere.

I'd prefer that to no planets at all, or to a closed system (moons around an unreachable 2D planet).

Posts: 12
Reply with quote  #77 
I'm open to any type of celestial bodies. I love the idea of different atmospheres on these bodies, that would be a dream come true. Atmosphere makes for an excellent game which most games these days miss out. (just as an example: having a desert that has no dust storms - just so boring). So I personally would love to see a small moon or whatever it maybe have say, a gas cloud in and around it or an electrical storm, some may need certain alloys on your ship to get to the moon/planet, possibilities are endless.

From my experience playing various space games from the days of Elite on the C-64, if you have a picture of a planet people will want to land on it and why not, this is what people dream about of having in a game. So if you have planets, make them accessible. Space has planets, moons, asteroids, gas clouds and much more, so having a space game with all this only makes sense to myself to use it, it's what people have been dreaming about for ages of how a space game should be.

That said, this is there game and at the moment i'm very happy how it is so far. Just being able to build a spaceship and space station has made a few of my dreams come true.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 335
Reply with quote  #78 
I think it's very interesting how hard some people argue about the technology that will or will not be available 2077.

Firstly, I'm for planetoids being in the game for those that want it, in other words either in a map that can be used or a way to turn it on/off in the existing maps.

At the same time I appreciate the concern others have about it slowing the game down. Not just regarding processing power but also development time. Considering its not just a 3D sphere, they have to create flora and fauna, water, waves, clouds etc and then texture it all, animate etc.. Otherwise we are talking about barren worlds with dirt and craters, in which case I would ask, why not just a big asteroid?

I think size is an important factor when talking about this feature. When I hear planet I'm thinking 500+ million square km of surface area to build on. Which would take billions of players years to ever utilize. I think most of the people for planets/planetoids are thinking of a fraction of the real size. Something like an extremely small moon or large asteroid.

My next question would be, is it deformable? Or simply a static mesh that we can build onto (like the existing asteroids).

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 95
Reply with quote  #79 
I agree that planets should be implemented but there should be a option to not have them many people now build their own comps that could handle a planet and no i don't think they'd be real size example earth size but still huge enough kinda like in ksp. I like the idea personally!!! [smile]

Posts: 17
Reply with quote  #80 
If we're not going to have orbital mechanics then let's stick to having only asteroids. I do feel tempted to say that I want to see planets but I doubt that this game can deliver up to my expectations if such things were implemented. Unless of course the developers prove me wrong! For the moment I firmly declare my opposition to planets, moons and planetoids. Let's get the multiplayer mode going for now. Let's see what the current rendition of the game has to offer whilst played amongst each other. From there we can deduce further information and decide what other possible features could benefit the game and how it's played.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #81 
Personally when I saw this game I didn't think planets I just thought space stations and survival. I agree with the thought that I would like something to be recognized by online players as like a community hub but who says it has to be a planet? Why couldn't we start out in a decent sized space station? As for directions because we have the beacons we have an idea on how distance is calculated so we can tell others I'm 100 meters in a certain direction from the Space station or whatever, either that or make asteroids more distinguishable from each other rather than just by size and shape. I could agree with smaller moons that would allow landing and building larger bases on and colonize but I just think planets is asking too much from the development team who has already done a great job so far. 

Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #82 

I'm sure planets are easily doable. In a realistic sense too.

Take 'Evochron Mercenary' for change. 1 guy made that game and you can literally land on planets that are huge!

Just sayin'. It can be done.


Posts: 127
Reply with quote  #83 



I'm sure planets are easily doable. In a realistic sense too.

Take 'Evochron Mercenary' for change. 1 guy made that game and you can literally land on planets that are huge!

Just sayin'. It can be done.



They're doable, however... 

Ah. It's not simple. It'd require an enormous amount of coding. 


Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #84 
Originally Posted by Evito

I suspend my disbelief on gravity generators out of necessity. But a 2 megaton ship raising from a planetary surface without burning an entire nations oil reserves goes Way the heck beoynd the pale. Artificial gravity can be done, it is simply just very inconvenient to simulate in a manner more casual players would find comfortable for a game. Personally i'd be happy with centrifugal gravity but i digress.

We have absolutely no idea what the speedlimiters will be, they could still very well raise it to realistic proportions. No you don't want to be traveling at 0.3c in an intrasystem environment with asteroid belts etc.

Still haven't seen a single reason to justify the amount of resources doing it in proper quality to include in this game.

Smaller planetoids, sure if the devs deem it proper for the folks who want something large in.

Large scale planets? If they really want to do it, sure After i get a working product paid for. I don't dish out good money after pipe dreams that net very little real benefit.

Then don't take your goddamn megaton ship planetside, silly. Take a shuttle and ferry things down. 

Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #85 
I think it would be nice if initial world could be generated procedurally, with some user-defined parameters, i.e. explorable area size, density of asteroid field, value range of distance between asteroids, approximate resource amount, and so on. With randomly placed asteroids and resources it would be interesting if player should discover location of resources before founding a base.

Posts: 170
Reply with quote  #86 
With chimp_spanner on this, and not just for her/his refreshingly proper use of English. Celestial bodies as '2D backgrounds' are nigh-meaningless in play (and where they matter for atmosphere, current modding already allows it). Keeping it to planetoids, size wise, stays away from having to make a completely new game in planetary conquest or rich planet asset rendering (which just on their own have already been Kickstarter projects), yet adds depth beyond just the ships and the odd asteroid. 

BY THE WAY: can all the people who aren't making money in (game) programming please stop arguing about how celestial bodies (or anything else for that matter) destroys (or doesn't influence at all) performance of the game? Really, you have no idea. Leave the feasibility stuff to the developers, mmmkay?

(Looking at you, well-meaning but ill-informed "that would fry almost anyone's computer" poster)

Posts: 94
Reply with quote  #87 
Planets would be amazing and with them faction battles would be allot more interesting 
Planets would also lead to largeer maps because they are well massive they are planets right?!
However maby a better solution would be to have instead of a full scale planet like a planetoid something a few miles in diamiter that is spherical

Posts: 95
Reply with quote  #88 
I have to say, I'd love this to be set in a hypothetical future of our solar system. Celestial bodies add so much opportunity for game-play. The aesthetic of the game right now doesn't suggest technology that would make mankind interstellar, and Would at least give you something to do in singleplayer if you have two civilizations, Industrialized, super rich bureaucratic earth and a Mars which is starting to be colonized. The makings of a fairly complex economy and some basic politics that you can take part in. it shouldn't be the main focus of the game, its there but not invasive unless you piss it off. If you level a city by de-orbiting an asteroid around Earth either accidentally or intentionally you could find yourself in a fun situation.

Mars because its developing wouldn't offer you much for resources, Its also closer to the asteroid belt. You have the trade-off with earth, rich, powerful, fully industrialized but miles away from the main source of materials, and wrapped up in all kinds of bureaucracy. You stand to earn more from them, but you're held up by constant regulations and the government being as incompetent as they are IRL. If you can move in bulk, cheap enough then the growing, much less regulated martian economy would befit you probably more than the slow moving, but high returns trade back at Earth.

but imagine, if you garner the support of Mars and you piss off Earth enough, you could set the two civilizations at war and benefit from a military conflict driven economy by developing weapons. Or if you piss of Earth without the support of mars first, both planets could turn against you. if you don't piss anyone off your engineering will be swayed more towards development and scientific discovery to remain valuable. It'd be something to do in single player, not an overarching "to do" but just part of a game-play mechanic amongst others that would allow you to build up. Mining a whole asteroid yourself would be a hellish undertaking but you could do it, or you can find a way to profit off of a civilization's development or conflict. Neither way should be the "easy way", but a player could play to suit their play style.

It'd be a nice way to stop it suffering from minecraft syndrome where you're not simply putting a game on what is mainly a creative tool, and getting bored. Its where you actually are merging a game with a creative tool properly. I also like the idea of Orbiting Jupiter and decommissioning an old ship there, watching it burn up in the atmosphere from a remote camera placed in the bridge, or capturing an asteroid and bringing it back from the asteroid belt. I like the idea that you could accidentally send the asteroid back to earth, and accidentally slingshot the asteroid around the moon, putting it on collision course with Earth. All you can do is sit there and watch a huge fireball from space. Providing some kind of solar system to properly interact with in some detail would be a nice thing to do.

Whether or not you simulate politics and economics is immaterial, the point I want to make is I'd love to see something to actually take part in and celestial bodies are a prime way to provide opportunity for gameplay and interaction with things. If all it means is we build up to a machine that will provide us with enough power to slam asteroids into things for our entertainment, that's a-lot better than an endless void of stationary asteroids and the occasional hostile AI ship. Hell, even sitting in orbit around a gas giant and watching the turbulent storms out the window mid way through building a ship would be a nice thing to do, or watching the sunrise through the rings of Saturn. Creative tools with little to offer get boring fairly quick, and so does arbitrary gameplay with no way to change itself up. I stopped playing Minecraft after maybe 9 months. games that you take part in that constantly adapt tend to last a long time. I'm still playing Sim City 3000 because it doesn't really stop offering challenges and fun things to watch, or allow you to be mean and spawn tornadoes.

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 50
Reply with quote  #89 
Originally Posted by Evis
I'm very happy to hear pro-planets have the ear of Keen.

Celestial bodies are essential for the UX.  I've explained why in a few threads, but to recap;

An immersive space game isn't an 
immersive space game if it lacks immersion. While I can appreciate a space sandbox, if we're going after the 'engineer sandbox in space' players, planets in a universe fit like a pair of fuzzy socks. Consider where many players are coming from:

  1. Garrysmod
  2. Kerbal Space Program 
  3. Evocron Mercenary
  4. Starmade
  5. Outerra/Anteworld
  6. Universe Sandbox
  7. Space Engine
  8. Minecraft
Now consider you've only tapped those who are paying attention to Keen. You've only scratched the surface, and I know you know this. 

I'm willing to bet most people here have played at least 3 of those games I mentioned above.

All of those games have the element of an open world (and/or build, engineer, fight, explore, survive) to them, and as such, it inspires that audience, drawing them in. A few lean heavy in areas like building specific things, or focuses entirely on space and exploring or manipulating or participating in an open environment.

Having planets that people can populate, conquer, fight over, or even destroy would effectively position SE for the entire (specific and vast) audience of space & engineering freaks which is barely being served right now.

The degree of which you engineer wouldn't alienate any fraction of this audience if you include it as part of the mechanic, as well as ways to dull any learning curves, such as difficulty settings. Consider that minecraft and all of her modifications (technic, FtB) did not alienate players, it attracted and engaged them to a massive degree; spawning new game communities, overnight.

As far as planetary gameplay goes;

Let players start on a planet, or on a user-built space dock. Since you're going the community server route, this gives you plenty of options to make this a powerful game in a very rewarding market while meeting the ever changing desires of players. Give server admins the power to define their world and community will naturally segment itself based on preference.

"Does it have planets..."

This question was raised by a few members of another forum I belong to. It is asked because planets drive players (server communities) to play this game in ways you haven't thought of yet. The natural progression is that players will want to work together to build and launch a space-dock or station, plus the supporting infrastructure. Such as space elevators, ferries, AI cargo delivery, debris defense... endless possibilities. Where they go from there is anyone's guess, but let the guess be the mechanic. 

Here, you will see competing spacedocks (factions) and eventually the beginnings of a great combat server - ...or co-op conglomerate ...or whatever that community admin wants. As you build larger and better ships, you can bring more resources, explore longer distances, conduct missions, and meet hostile (team) forces in battle.

The points here are choice and immersion; both to an equal degree. Central to this theme would be player slots on the server. What good is a vast universe if you can't populate it. I'd really like to see you fine folks aim high for concurrent connections, and put some weight on the server requirements. I do understand limitations and even some of the uncharted territory you are literally exploring. 

If I had pull out just one element of a single game that would drive the most participation and repeatable gameplay; it would be minecraft's survival and tech-mods (aka engineering) in a vast world. Now co
uple that survival and engineering with the goal of taking to the universe above you that is chock full O' realms unexplored and unnamed. I wouldn't spend game-time on anything else.

Start the other team on some distant planet. Have them build, and let the two discover each other as friend, or foe.

tl: dr - Pro-planet all day. Planets + space + engineering + survival = Whoa! "I'm rubbing
money on the screen, but nothing is happening."

I've played- Garrysmod Kerbal Space Program Universe Sandbox and Minecraft

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 10
Reply with quote  #90 
Originally Posted by wierdness101

I've played- Garrysmod Kerbal Space Program Universe Sandbox and Minecraft

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Quick Navigation:

Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!