AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!Space Engeneers have better planets!

[BrotherLazarus]

My thoughts on round planets. They'd be cool to have in some way but not a necessity. At this stage of the game we are getting closer and closer to the point for features to get locked in and polished. I'm fine with round planets being a feature for StarMade 2 (if there ever is such a thing).

Honestly, at the rate StarMade is going... it has multiplayer, a lot of features I've wanted in a soft science fiction sandbox, it's including more as time passes... it may very well just end up being one of The List on full release as it is; especially if some information is added to make the steep learning curve feel less rocky (in the form of transmissions from home base or the trading guild perhaps?)--I personally generally don't mind having to look up tutorial videos, but not everyone feels that way..

But I digress.

I don't really feel that round, smooth planets fits with the rest of the StarMade aesthetic. Larger, more smoothly running planets would be amazing, especially if they managed to keep the same charm and visual aesthetic you come to expect from the rest of the game; this ties into consistency and aesthetics. I reference Extra Credits a lot elsewhere, I guess it's time to start here:


Extra Credits is an amazing dev resource, and even better for players who want to think a little more about why their favorite games are choosing to do this or that the way they are.

And only tangentally related, StarMade does many of THESE as well:



Just my 2 credits worth.

 

[serge1944]

Hello,
I have created a suggestion for better fps(when I was making that suggestion I was thinking more about planets).
Please visit that post and leave a reply.
Ps:English is not my native language.

 

[Byamarro]

Honestly I would not update it unless:
A) Someone goes close enough to load the full planet.
B) Someone fires a gigantic missile at the planet/the planet takes a certain amount of explosion damage.

There is probably at least one unforeseen issue with that.

In A) it would be useless. These distances would be too small. Sm blocks are too big it would be significant difference at small distances (as long as planets will not be bigger by default).
[DOUBLEPOST=1449344951,1449344295][/DOUBLEPOST]

Honestly, at the rate StarMade is going... it has multiplayer, a lot of features I've wanted in a soft science fiction sandbox, it's including more as time passes... it may very well just end up being one of The List on full release as it is; especially if some information is added to make the steep learning curve feel less rocky (in the form of transmissions from home base or the trading guild perhaps?)--I personally generally don't mind having to look up tutorial videos, but not everyone feels that way..

But I digress.

I don't really feel that round, smooth planets fits with the rest of the StarMade aesthetic. Larger, more smoothly running planets would be amazing, especially if they managed to keep the same charm and visual aesthetic you come to expect from the rest of the game; this ties into consistency and aesthetics. I reference Extra Credits a lot elsewhere, I guess it's time to start here:


Extra Credits is an amazing dev resource, and even better for players who want to think a little more about why their favorite games are choosing to do this or that the way they are.

And only tangentally related, StarMade does many of THESE as well:



Just my 2 credits worth.

I can't agree with all points in these 2 videos.
I don't really think that this guy is experienced game developer or He just doesn't understeand all techniques to use in gamedev.

 

[BrotherLazarus]

[DOUBLEPOST=1449344951,1449344295][/DOUBLEPOST]
I can't agree with all points in these 2 videos.
I don't really think that this guy is experienced game developer or He just doesn't understeand all techniques to use in gamedev.

Dan is... a very experienced animator that currently works with Pixar, James has been doing game design itself for what, 15 years... the crew that runs Extra Credits (thanks to Penny Arcade's backing, back when) has a combined 60 years in the industry.

Do a lil research, bud... they've all been at it professionally a lot longer than you have.

 

[Byamarro]

Dan is... a very experienced animator that currently works with Pixar, James has been doing game design itself for what, 15 years... the crew that runs Extra Credits (thanks to Penny Arcade's backing, back when) has a combined 60 years in the industry.

Do a lil research, bud... they've all been at it professionally a lot longer than you have.

How can u know MY experience?

 

[BrotherLazarus]

How can u know MY experience?

Because the crew has a combined 70 years in the industry across art, animation, and coding/design. Kinda trumps any of us, really.

 

[Byamarro]

Because the crew has a combined 70 years in the industry across art, animation, and coding/design. Kinda trumps any of us, really.

You can't sum up experienc of multiple people, that simply doesn't work that way.
If they claim some statement about mechanics then only guy who knows mechanic (or at least He claims that He knows) makes this statement. Same for other aspects of game deving.

 

[BrotherLazarus]

You can't sum up experienc of multiple people, that simply doesn't work that way.
If they claim some statement about mechanics then only guy who knows mechanic (or at least He claims that He knows) makes this statement. Same for other aspects of game deving.

Actually, a lot of industries do exactly that here in the US.

And it's rather easy to check into the guy and find out that yes, he and James know exactly what they're talking about because they've been working in the industry for a long while. Individually.

By that statement, a history teacher has no place telling students about an auto manufacturer because he himself hasn't spent his entire life working the third machine from the left in the third GM plant that was opened. Your reasoning is full of fallacies and unresearched assumptions. Take five minutes to go look the guys up. Go on, I'll wait.

I know that the industry views, and the concepts presented in the video don't fit what you think is good, but there's a reason most people prefer coherency in aesthetics and mechanical rules rather than just EVERYTHING MUST BE THIS WAY--and that's because it's jarring to go from a Minecraft aesthetic to a realistic Space Engineers aesthetic for something.

 

[Byamarro]

Actually, a lot of industries do exactly that here in the US.

And it's rather easy to check into the guy and find out that yes, he and James know exactly what they're talking about because they've been working in the industry for a long while. Individually.

By that statement, a history teacher has no place telling students about an auto manufacturer because he himself hasn't spent his entire life working the third machine from the left in the third GM plant that was opened. Your reasoning is full of fallacies and unresearched assumptions. Take five minutes to go look the guys up. Go on, I'll wait.

I know that the industry views, and the concepts presented in the video don't fit what you think is good, but there's a reason most people prefer coherency in aesthetics and mechanical rules rather than just EVERYTHING MUST BE THIS WAY--and that's because it's jarring to go from a Minecraft aesthetic to a realistic Space Engineers aesthetic for something.

I don't need to do research about every guy with whom I don't agree. Also game dev is much wider branch of technology than You might think, they both combined don't need to know about some aspects that I know. It's like physics, some phisycists are nuclear phisycists, some are particles phisycists. Nuclear physicist may make videos about particle physics, but He may be wrong.
Actually every guy can make YT channel and everyone will think that He's master of the masters just because of that.

 

[BrotherLazarus]

I don't need to do research about every guy with whom I don't agree. Also game dev is much wider branch of technology than You might think, they both combined don't need to know about some aspects that I know. It's like physics, some phisycists are nuclear phisycists, some are particles phisycists. Nuclear physicist may make videos about particle physics, but He may be wrong.
Actually every guy can make YT channel and everyone will think that He's master of the masters just because of that.

Except I used these guys specifically because between the narrator/writer, the designer on crew, and the other artists that pop up, they're actually knowledgable across multiple fields of game design, and thus actually have some inkling of what they say in their videos.

It's not like the twits out of California that say moronic shit like "multiautomatic ammunition rifle" and get taken seriously.

 

[Byamarro]

Except I used these guys specifically because between the narrator/writer, the designer on crew, and the other artists that pop up, they're actually knowledgable across multiple fields of game design, and thus actually have some inkling of what they say in their videos.

It's not like the twits out of California that say moronic shit like "multiautomatic ammunition rifle" and get taken seriously.

Still doesn't mean that You can just deny everyone who will not agree with them, just because authors of this channel are speciallists in multiple fields.

Even most convicing channels can make a lot of errors, good example is TestTube Plus:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe3tPdpxTF7wdBG8uV4hbew

 

[BrotherLazarus]

Still doesn't mean that You can just deny everyone who will not agree with them, just because authors of this channel are speciallists in different fields.

My responses here are because you said "He doesn't know what he's talking about".

That's it. I'm trying to point out the error in that statement because they're experienced in the field. I don't care if you don't agree with me--we both have our own subjective definitions of fun, and that's the point of a fucking sandbox game! I just care that someone is saying an industry professional isn't--and providing proof that he is.

The language barrier is a pain in the ass for getting points across--what's your native language?

 

[Byamarro]

My responses here are because you said "He doesn't know what he's talking about".

You're making very serious statement now.
I didn't said that He doesn't know what he's talkin about. He might have knowledge about this, but He doesn't neccesary is god of gamedev.

 

[NeonSturm]

My responses here are because you said "He doesn't know what he's talking about".

Means that BrotherLazarus has understood you that way. See it as an information for you, useful to clear up miss-understandings.
Now you both did create a full page of spam-posts, merely because it is impossible to move that to PM without others being able to follow the discussion? Maybe add a link to off-topic in your second response.
If p2 commends p1 and p1 feels he is right to commend p2 the same number of times, it is p2's job to stop - and poster1 should let him.

––– Please – come – back – to – topic – now –––
I just want to have an awesome landscape around my block-based base.
A canyon to enter it or a hole in which I can build (building sites spawned on a planet).

And some way to connect these building-sites reasonable.

That is a collision engine bug that occurs with all their voxel structures, it seems. We don't have it and it's not really a concern for us seeing as we don't use their odd voxel deformation system. It also happens to have absolutely nothing to do with their planet architecture in particular, as you said yourself.

Collision needs to support LOD (level of detail).
With collision-LOD, checks on terrain would have less performance-drops for large objects.
Make blocks bigger rather than smaller when using LOD-collisions to avoid conflicts.

And, as much as I love the game itself, their work with optimization really isn't helped by the community, which is Keen's downfall--because of the negative PR gained by Miner Wars, they listen to the community's loudest segments: the reason we had multiplayer rushed and why it's so terrible was due to a huge outcry. The reason we have hunger coming is because of community outcry. The reason we have aliens and soft sci-fi tech inbound is due to the loudest, whiniest part of the playerbase going "this engineering is stupid I'm bored we need more guns and aliens and stuff" when the game was intended to be hard sci-fi from the get-go. Etc, etc, etc.
[...]
Starmade has the right idea. Give us a huge amount of tools, and let us go. We don't need to have every element out of Rust or ARK to enjoy ourselves, we just need the tools to allow us to make our own content--servers exist with everything from creative to hardcore survival modes and those are player-driven, not forced on the community as a whole by some disgruntled fans.

SE and SM are equally bad when it comes to community content and code-licenses.
You say SM gives us the huge amount of tools. But they are proprietary tools.

(SE=SpaceEngineers, SM=StarMade, MC=MineCraft, KSB=KerbalSpaceProgram, for those who are confused)​

Why should you create something in an environment which you can not improve or keep as you like?

1. you know the environment is stable and you want something for now (nothing important gets taken away from you all out of a sudden)
   
2. it is the only environment which allows it for you
3. you know nothing else.
4. …to be continued…

SE fails point (1) and is currently (2) and (3) too.

SM is (1) for some for-fun-players, but not for creative players.
It is (2) when you have Linux or don't like KSB/SE because not everyone can stomp such a simulation-environment out of the ground even when he wants it.

It is also not guaranteed that this person gets many users of his simulation-environment which is often required to enjoy variety.​

And sadly (3) is also very common.

MC doesn't have easy-customizable vehicles nor compact logic and SM currently improves a lot on it.
Also crafting in SM is a lot easier and physics/automation more flexible - not really equal games.​

If software-optimization would not be so hard to understand, SM could have more competitors, based on an open MC-like engine.

...Which is probably half of why Schine is holding off on doing too much drastic stuff with planets at the moment (aside from prior plans), thank goodness. But some day, at a good time, when the game is more fleshed out and stable, I hope they get around to adding in a smoothed-voxel-based sphere system like this, or something else equally awesome (Seed of Andromeda planets come to mind, but I've no idea if those would work in a seamless infinite universe).

We all like wormholes and unconnected customizable places for our own. I would be happy with a sky-nation game too if it would be as good as SM with SE graphics.

I think Shine, Keen, SoA-devs and the creators of the VoxelFarm-engine should all work together on the future of gaming. But this will not happen

You have to remember that every single... every point, every little bit of land, is a point of data. Suddenly changing hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of those, all at once, without causing problems, may be a bit too much to ask.

Or you can just disconnect this data and replace it with dust that generates new surface-blocks after some time when the server has less data.
I care about that the basic elements for blocks inside this crater should appear somewhere else unless you mine it rather than vanish to void.

Dan is... a very experienced animator that currently works with Pixar, James has been doing game design itself for what, 15 years... the crew that runs Extra Credits (thanks to Penny Arcade's backing, back when) has a combined 60 years in the industry.

Do a lil research, bud... they've all been at it professionally a lot longer than you have.

Nothing is more important than knowing the whole picture. Please don't continue this discussion here.

 

[Ithirahad]

BrotherLazarus ... hmmmm... the Appeal to Authority is strong with this one. You need not be a chef to know when someone's overcooked your steak, nor do you need to be an amateur to overcook said steak. Also, since when did SM have any significant amount of any form of exploration? They're planning on expanding into several of those types, but it at the moment, it does not "do" any of them very much.

In any case, Neon, that is a good point about the explosions. It may be hard to simultaneously edit a ton of voxel-points at once, but indiscriminately deleting a bunch may not be too bad.

 

[BrotherLazarus]

Means that BrotherLazarus has understood you that way. See it as an information for you, useful to clear up miss-understandings.
Now you both did create a full page of spam-posts, merely because it is impossible to move that to PM without others being able to follow the discussion? Maybe add a link to off-topic in your second response.
If p2 commends p1 and p1 feels he is right to commend p2 the same number of times, it is p2's job to stop - and poster1 should let him.

––– Please – come – back – to – topic – now –––
I just want to have an awesome landscape around my block-based base.
A canyon to enter it or a hole in which I can build (building sites spawned on a planet).

And some way to connect these building-sites reasonable.


Collision needs to support LOD (level of detail).
With collision-LOD, checks on terrain would have less performance-drops for large objects.
Make blocks bigger rather than smaller when using LOD-collisions to avoid conflicts.


SE and SM are equally bad when it comes to community content and code-licenses.
You say SM gives us the huge amount of tools. But they are proprietary tools.

(SE=SpaceEngineers, SM=StarMade, MC=MineCraft, KSB=KerbalSpaceProgram, for those who are confused)​

Why should you create something in an environment which you can not improve or keep as you like?

1. you know the environment is stable and you want something for now (nothing important gets taken away from you all out of a sudden)
   
2. it is the only environment which allows it for you
3. you know nothing else.
4. …to be continued…

SE fails point (1) and is currently (2) and (3) too.

SM is (1) for some for-fun-players, but not for creative players.
It is (2) when you have Linux or don't like KSB/SE because not everyone can stomp such a simulation-environment out of the ground even when he wants it.

It is also not guaranteed that this person gets many users of his simulation-environment which is often required to enjoy variety.​

And sadly (3) is also very common.

MC doesn't have easy-customizable vehicles nor compact logic and SM currently improves a lot on it.
Also crafting in SM is a lot easier and physics/automation more flexible - not really equal games.​

If software-optimization would not be so hard to understand, SM could have more competitors, based on an open MC-like engine.


We all like wormholes and unconnected customizable places for our own. I would be happy with a sky-nation game too if it would be as good as SM with SE graphics.

I think Shine, Keen, SoA-devs and the creators of the VoxelFarm-engine should all work together on the future of gaming. But this will not happen


Or you can just disconnect this data and replace it with dust that generates new surface-blocks after some time when the server has less data.
I care about that the basic elements for blocks inside this crater should appear somewhere else unless you mine it rather than vanish to void.


Nothing is more important than knowing the whole picture. Please don't continue this discussion here.

Roger. It got out of hand, and my crankiness is mostly to blame (though re-reading things, the language barrier doesn't help--not everything I say translates well to those that didn't start with American English as their first language). A mod should probably delete the posts so that the thread isn't cut into two pieces.

Anyway... I tend to agree--if Keen, VF, Schine, and some of the other more sandboxy guys got together we could probably have one of the best sandbox games ever.

However, I tend to view SM as an extension of the Minecraft style "boxels" (boxy voxel rather than smoother SE style)--SM's inclusion of vehicle mechanics put it at the top of the pile.

BrotherLazarus ... hmmmm... the Appeal to Authority is strong with this one. You need not be a chef to know when someone's overcooked your steak, nor do you need to be an amateur to overcook said steak. Also, since when did SM have any significant amount of any form of exploration? They're planning on expanding into several of those types, but it at the moment, it does not "do" any of them very much.

In any case, Neon, that is a good point about the explosions. It may be hard to simultaneously edit a ton of voxel-points at once, but indiscriminately deleting a bunch may not be too bad.

In this case, it was a matter of trying to explain something that I personally have issue putting into words--that a full play experience isn't just having a bunch of gameplay, but having gameplay and aesthetics that mesh. Though yes, there is more than a touch of AtA fallacious reasoning--this is why I generally avoid posting to forums before I have coffee

IMO, having working planets that fit into the aesthetic style of SM is more important than having really pretty planets that clash with the aesthetic theme of the rest of the game.

 

[NeonSturm]

IMO, having working planets that fit into the aesthetic style of SM is more important than having really pretty planets that clash with the aesthetic theme of the rest of the game.

Click to see all pictures and enlarge 1

You can't land a ship in that(1) hole like in that(3) cave. Do you see the house in (3)? (bottom left below the bow)
If you scale it up, you can't get the lightening effects in (2) as big.

We don'T have a blocky sky-box background either.

I don't care if the whole planet has only blocks.
It would be fun to search for planets which have build-able places where you want them (a rocky cave, icy cave, ...)

A planet does not need to be destructible as 1x1x1m blocks if you can create 1m-aligned building sites(4) on it's surface which will automatically extend underground.

––– MY – opinion, – as – always. –––

 

[BrotherLazarus]

You can't land a ship in that(1) hole like in that(3) cave. Do you see the house in (3)? (bottom left below the bow)
If you scale it up, you can't get the lightening effects in (2) as big.

We don'T have a blocky sky-box background either.

I don't care if the whole planet has only blocks.
It would be fun to search for planets which have build-able places where you want them (a rocky cave, icy cave, ...)

A planet does not need to be destructible as 1x1x1m blocks if you can create 1m-aligned building sites(4) on it's surface which will automatically extend underground.

––– MY – opinion, – as – always. –––

Ok. I'm starting to track what you're getting at--something mechanically consistent with SM but allowing for more creative freedom by way of... Gotcha.

 

[Byamarro]

Means that BrotherLazarus has understood you that way. See it as an information for you, useful to clear up miss-understandings.
Now you both did create a full page of spam-posts, merely because it is impossible to move that to PM without others being able to follow the discussion? Maybe add a link to off-topic in your second response.
If p2 commends p1 and p1 feels he is right to commend p2 the same number of times, it is p2's job to stop - and poster1 should let him.

––– Please – come – back – to – topic – now –––
I just want to have an awesome landscape around my block-based base.
A canyon to enter it or a hole in which I can build (building sites spawned on a planet).

And some way to connect these building-sites reasonable.


Collision needs to support LOD (level of detail).
With collision-LOD, checks on terrain would have less performance-drops for large objects.
Make blocks bigger rather than smaller when using LOD-collisions to avoid conflicts.


SE and SM are equally bad when it comes to community content and code-licenses.
You say SM gives us the huge amount of tools. But they are proprietary tools.

(SE=SpaceEngineers, SM=StarMade, MC=MineCraft, KSB=KerbalSpaceProgram, for those who are confused)​

Why should you create something in an environment which you can not improve or keep as you like?

1. you know the environment is stable and you want something for now (nothing important gets taken away from you all out of a sudden)
   
2. it is the only environment which allows it for you
3. you know nothing else.
4. …to be continued…

SE fails point (1) and is currently (2) and (3) too.

SM is (1) for some for-fun-players, but not for creative players.
It is (2) when you have Linux or don't like KSB/SE because not everyone can stomp such a simulation-environment out of the ground even when he wants it.

It is also not guaranteed that this person gets many users of his simulation-environment which is often required to enjoy variety.​

And sadly (3) is also very common.

MC doesn't have easy-customizable vehicles nor compact logic and SM currently improves a lot on it.
Also crafting in SM is a lot easier and physics/automation more flexible - not really equal games.​

If software-optimization would not be so hard to understand, SM could have more competitors, based on an open MC-like engine.


We all like wormholes and unconnected customizable places for our own. I would be happy with a sky-nation game too if it would be as good as SM with SE graphics.

I think Shine, Keen, SoA-devs and the creators of the VoxelFarm-engine should all work together on the future of gaming. But this will not happen


Or you can just disconnect this data and replace it with dust that generates new surface-blocks after some time when the server has less data.
I care about that the basic elements for blocks inside this crater should appear somewhere else unless you mine it rather than vanish to void.


Nothing is more important than knowing the whole picture. Please don't continue this discussion here.

You're right. I'm sorry guys for spamming all over this topic.

 

[Mariux]

Oh well, we got a badass new cargo system now. SE can go screw itself (jk SE is also a fun game in its own way)