I am creating this thread since there isn't one here yet. Give us your ideas, let us know what you think, distance between planets, how big would you like our planets... Please try to stay within the realms of a game and not reference realism too much, the planets WONT be thousands of kilometers in circumference.
Anyone know what the targeted size range for planets is? And what Omicron is currently? Ok, my suggestion for planets: Caves. Water worlds. Endor, so i can have a tree base..... NO EWOKS! Except that cute female one...... Planet size- at least 2 to 4 times current size. Distance - 15 minute travel by SV, 3 minute by CV. Less if warp drive is an option..then 30 seconds. Rob
Suggested new type: Water world like Gliese 581c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c) Suggestion for distances: depends on how you want to create interstellar travel. a) If there is nothing like a jumpdrive and everything needs to be reached with "thrusters", then better have short distances (no more than 2-5x of the current game). Anything beyond may become boring and frustrating (until Auto-Pilot blocks are available) b) If you plan to have intra-solar warpdrives (like suggested here: http://empyriononline.com/threads/solar-and-interstellar-travel-suggestions.666/ ) then this could be a quantum of real distances compared to real planet size. So if "earth" in-game may be 6000 clicks (reality 12.000km), then the Sun-Earth distance in-game could be even 0.5 AE (75 Mio km; 150 Mio km = 1 AE). If the biggest planet in the games solar system (a gas giant like suggested above) is about 100km, then have a 10th of the way of real jupiter-sun. But that would only work, if there is something like the intra-solar warp drive available.
Weather? How about storms? Snow, dust, rain on appropriate worlds. Effects would limit visibility, perhaps damage things, wildlife would be scarce. Planets should be farther apart, and larger. If it were realistic they would have biomes too. That would be interesting to see. I always find it a bit simplistic that planets are of a single type. Look how diverse our little world is.
I understand the fun thing, however imersiveness is also very important and without immersion, a game based on a scientific reality becomes something that begins to rub against the grain. For instance, I can run in one direction a few feet and watch the sun set. I can run in the opposite direction a few feet and watch the sun rise. This shouldn't happen, you also shouldn't be able to see planets/moons rise/fall just by running east/west. Also, please give us a compass
I think that's more due to the scale of the planets. Pretty sure it's been said that the final planets will be significantly larger, which will make it more difficult to watch the sun rise several times by running backwards
Did I miss that somewhere? I don't remember seeing this as being advertised as based in scientific reality anywhere.... The devs are going to make larger plants, that will change the day/night cycle. I'm sure just changing the speed at which the planets rotate would change this as well. If you play any other survival games, you find that most custom set the day/night percent to provide a more enjoyable experience for those that do not do well in the dark. I'm not disagreeing with you, just pointing out that this is a known thing and we are testing the game engine. I suspect there is a real reason for having it this way right now to get as much testing / bug squashing in as possible. Also, please give us a compass Rob
Short answer, yes, you did miss something. Long answer: View attachment 617 dictionary.com: Moreover one area they are attempting to simulate is "planets", as such, a planet shouldn't crash the game's engine, but it shouldn't feel like you can walk into orbit.
Back on topic, about the feel of planets, distance is a little hairy.. If this game every goes full swing to having servers host the game and having 20-30 players online, planets really need to be far enough apart that you're going to be waiting a while for support if you venture off by yourself. At the current time, I can take off on one planet, and land on a moon in about 30 seconds, which is many hundreds of times shorter than I would expect. I think orbit and re-entry is correct, however the distance between planets, should be greater making it take a LOT more time to reach other moons and planets.
Well now hold on a minute there professor, there are varying degrees of simulation. And I was basically agreeing with you. No need to be taking screenies and quoting the dicktionary bud.... We're all friends here and want a playable environment out of this game.
My bad then, I was making it clear that my post was based on the categorization of this game being a simulation, and from that an inference of planet and space simulation.
Roger that my good man. No bad about it, you post what you think is pertinent. Your points are certainly dead on, I simply wanted to point out that these "features " are already planned and have been thoroughly discussed in other threads. Please do keep posting, as you will most likely hit upon something that has not been thought of or discussed that could improve game play. It was not my intent for my initial reply to seem crass and I could have posed it better. Thanks, Rob
Would like to see a baron planet. The surface, no sign of life at all, till you go hunting for resources, stumble across a network of caves and realize that most of this planet lives below the surface. Would be good for hiding bases too! Especially if it was a fairly large planet.
Most planets will have to be entirely lifeless (we'll also need some sensors or scanners to tell us if there are indications of life), for instance and to my best knowledge, life would be impossible on gas giants and impossible in most star systems because only 1 in 3,000 planets have any potential to be in that "goldilocks zone". I understand they want to dramatize the statistics a little even the Drake Equation to make the game a little more fun, but, until a player hits "paydirt", the galaxy does need to feel baron.
That 'Simulation' is a user-generated tag, not one set by developers. 'Popular user defined tags'=/=Developer gospel. It just means people are tagging the game as a sim, which is debatable.
I agree with water worlds, that would be awesome. But the we will need submarines But come on RobDog, no ewoks? Ok I agree there too. ...... There was a fale one?? * wonders how he could tell and searches the web*
