Currently, Starmade planets are pretty fragile being heavily damage by even the smallest of Missile-Pulses, and bases on planets are completely laughable. Even combat on planets makes no sense, and in my opinion, this isn't very good at all. From being laggy to fragile and all of the other drawbacks, a planet base is reduced down to a large resource deposit or a poor-mans space station.
I think a lot of people can agree it would be fun to have planetary warfare in some cases. While the game is centered around space, many space games and movies still have wars on planets- it's extremely common and just as fun and entertaining. So with that said, there's not much of an argument against it from a gameplay perspective, however there still are some problems when examining technical difficulties, such as FPS which can be discussed later.
Atmospheric shielding.
In the real world, when an object collides with the Earths atmosphere, it burns up or disintegrates pretty quickly. What I'm suggesting is something quite similar to this, but keep in mind- I have NO intention of completely cutting off space to planet warfare, that would be stupid and restrictive. I dislike unwanted tedium and realism.
A planets atmosphere would be split into two parts. Upper and lower atmosphere. The upper atmosphere would have a chance to destroy projectiles instantly, and those that aren't destroyed have damage reduced by 50%. The lower atmosphere would simply reduce all projectile damage by a flat 25%.
What this leads to is far sturdier planets without increasing HP/Armour of terrain blocks(leading to exploits) and also meaning that land battles(hovertanks or whatever) won't completely obliterate the terrain- as damaged is reduced 25%.
Upper Atmosphere - -50% projectile damage. 25% chance of deleting the projectile. Upper atmosphere for reducing instant planet annihilation and increasing the difficulty of such strikes.
Lower Atmosphere - -25% projectile damage. Lower atmosphere is meant to reduce cratering slightly and prolong fights without increasing terrain HP. This reduction stacks with the upper atmosphere reduction.
All values can be edited in the config.
Now for some Q&A style answers to possible questions.
Q: Planet bases would be OP. Why would anyone ever have a space base ever again?
A: This might be a concern, the only way to tell is from actually testing it. Off the top of my head, I can guess that a space base might be more flexible in design, more obscured, and can be anywhere it is needed, along with getting warp gates.
I think a lot of people can agree it would be fun to have planetary warfare in some cases. While the game is centered around space, many space games and movies still have wars on planets- it's extremely common and just as fun and entertaining. So with that said, there's not much of an argument against it from a gameplay perspective, however there still are some problems when examining technical difficulties, such as FPS which can be discussed later.
So how exactly will planets be made into viable combat zones/bases?
Atmospheric shielding.
In the real world, when an object collides with the Earths atmosphere, it burns up or disintegrates pretty quickly. What I'm suggesting is something quite similar to this, but keep in mind- I have NO intention of completely cutting off space to planet warfare, that would be stupid and restrictive. I dislike unwanted tedium and realism.
So how would "atmospheric shielding" work?
A planets atmosphere would be split into two parts. Upper and lower atmosphere. The upper atmosphere would have a chance to destroy projectiles instantly, and those that aren't destroyed have damage reduced by 50%. The lower atmosphere would simply reduce all projectile damage by a flat 25%.
What this leads to is far sturdier planets without increasing HP/Armour of terrain blocks(leading to exploits) and also meaning that land battles(hovertanks or whatever) won't completely obliterate the terrain- as damaged is reduced 25%.
Overview of Stats and Technical Information
Upper Atmosphere - -50% projectile damage. 25% chance of deleting the projectile. Upper atmosphere for reducing instant planet annihilation and increasing the difficulty of such strikes.
Lower Atmosphere - -25% projectile damage. Lower atmosphere is meant to reduce cratering slightly and prolong fights without increasing terrain HP. This reduction stacks with the upper atmosphere reduction.
All values can be edited in the config.
Now for some Q&A style answers to possible questions.
Q: Planet bases would be OP. Why would anyone ever have a space base ever again?
A: This might be a concern, the only way to tell is from actually testing it. Off the top of my head, I can guess that a space base might be more flexible in design, more obscured, and can be anywhere it is needed, along with getting warp gates.
Q: I like uberkilling planets left and right!
A: Maybe you do. This doesn't make planet destroying impossible, it just makes it more difficult. For example, a small frigate or cruiser with a Missile-Pulse can easily annihilate the entire surface of a segment in one missile. This is kind of a problem.
Q: Planets are too small for this.
A: Yes and no. Smallscale land battles in multiplayer can happen(tried and true), but land mass definitely should be bumped up.
Q: Why would anyone want to fight on planets? It's laggy and you're essentially forcing it on people.
A: You're right, planets are laggy. Of course optimization must progress for this to be completely viable, but for the part about forcing it on you, no. Planet destroying is entirely possible and space to planet conflict is something that I think is GOOD, I just want land-land battles to be viable too.
Q: But people can do land battles if they want to. And if they don't want to, they don't have to!
A: People can do pistol fights if they want to. And I don't see anyone doing it because it's simply not viable. Just the same with land-land or in land battles. They can, but only in an organized and premeditated way with co-operation and restrictions.
Q: This is a game about space, keep it in space.
A: Think about Star-Wars, Star-Trek, Metroid, Aliens, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Firelfly, and the long list of other books, movies, comics and games that feature space and planets. Sure, it may be about space, but planets are in space too and it doesn't hurt to include combat on planets, which happens frequently in ALL listed of those series.
Q: I don't think Schine even cares about land battles.
A: Yes they do. They've expressed the desire to add land vehicles(Hover cores), as well as mechanics to entice you to explore rather than annihilate planets. (like fauna, for instance)
A: Maybe you do. This doesn't make planet destroying impossible, it just makes it more difficult. For example, a small frigate or cruiser with a Missile-Pulse can easily annihilate the entire surface of a segment in one missile. This is kind of a problem.
Q: Planets are too small for this.
A: Yes and no. Smallscale land battles in multiplayer can happen(tried and true), but land mass definitely should be bumped up.
Q: Why would anyone want to fight on planets? It's laggy and you're essentially forcing it on people.
A: You're right, planets are laggy. Of course optimization must progress for this to be completely viable, but for the part about forcing it on you, no. Planet destroying is entirely possible and space to planet conflict is something that I think is GOOD, I just want land-land battles to be viable too.
Q: But people can do land battles if they want to. And if they don't want to, they don't have to!
A: People can do pistol fights if they want to. And I don't see anyone doing it because it's simply not viable. Just the same with land-land or in land battles. They can, but only in an organized and premeditated way with co-operation and restrictions.
Q: This is a game about space, keep it in space.
A: Think about Star-Wars, Star-Trek, Metroid, Aliens, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Firelfly, and the long list of other books, movies, comics and games that feature space and planets. Sure, it may be about space, but planets are in space too and it doesn't hurt to include combat on planets, which happens frequently in ALL listed of those series.
Q: I don't think Schine even cares about land battles.
A: Yes they do. They've expressed the desire to add land vehicles(Hover cores), as well as mechanics to entice you to explore rather than annihilate planets. (like fauna, for instance)
