Hypothetical discussion about a planet idea, can you find an issue ?

    ImperialDonut

    Overlord of the North Pole
    Joined
    Apr 23, 2013
    Messages
    287
    Reaction score
    101
    But the simple fact that completely blocky spherical planets don\'t work and that your method basically means completely separating planets from their surroundings left oreo planets as the best fitting option.

    While your proposal allows for theoretically infinite terrain, it also means planets became isolated and static objects, taking away too much from the current gameplay by basically disconnecting them from the rest of space, limiting player interaction to entering and exiting these new realms.

    Meaning no more orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, obliterated planets, long-range recon etc. etc. : |

    - Donut
     
    Joined
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages
    270
    Reaction score
    10
    Is no loading screen. If the planatary chunks loading in counts as loading, then minecrafts chunk system is a loading screen
     
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    290
    Reaction score
    367
    As well as others.

    Schema may say it\'s not a good idea.

    He is a fool, who makes terrible decisions, and seems to understand very little of the working of games or the world. Hate me for it if you will, it\'s what I see. It\'s what the rest of you should see, if this game is to have any hope of reaching it\'s true potential.

    Would separate planet maps ruin seamlessness? Only if done poorly. Put in a lot of fire for atmospheric entry. Display it on the loading screen. Fade in, fade out. You\'d never tell you\'re on a different map.

    Games work like this. Illusions. Making less look like more. Because there\'s no PC on the world that\'ll be able to seamlessly draw an entire galaxy.

    What would you rather have anyway? Ruined \"seamlessness\" - which, isn\'t actually noticable, or ruined performance, and tiny flat planets? What was his great idea? Making them double sided? Or six sided? More maybe? It\'ll look just as wrong.

    At any rate, planets are supposed to be immensely massive. When you\'re so close that a single continent fills your entire screen, you still shouldn\'t be able to see 1 meter (block level) details. You would lose nothing by only seeing a generated picture.

    Planets becoming isolated? For crying out loud, that\'s a good thing! What\'s the point of landing missions if you can just scoop up the entire planet from space with salvage lasers? What\'s the point of even thinking about ground forces? Or mining facilities? We need those stuff, to flesh out the game. Add flavor, add more things to do.

    Seriously. The few of us who do understand are offering golden ideas for free. Strange to see them cast aside, to see them considered inferior, when in truth, these ideas would make the difference between a widely succesfull and a barely known game.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: alij331
    Joined
    Oct 8, 2013
    Messages
    270
    Reaction score
    10
    However, what about planetary bombardments? What says there can\'t be a block that produces a shield that only blocks fire from things that aren\'t in the planets gravity, that us much stronger than the current shields. What says that planets will not provide passive minerals and ore if you set up a \'mining station\' on the planet, whose yield Is based on the planets mass. these things would provide the same bonuses as a separate world, but seamless.
     
    Joined
    Aug 6, 2013
    Messages
    405
    Reaction score
    47
    You cant escape loading. That is a fact of life. He specifically said they were trying to avoid loading screens. Block loading isnt a loading screen, just the nature of ALL programs. Its a delay in the loading of information from the hard drive into memory
     

    CyberTao

    鬼佬
    Joined
    Nov 10, 2013
    Messages
    2,564
    Reaction score
    641
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    • Railman Gold
    • Thinking Positive
    This is a Space game ._. empathesis on \"Space\"

    Planets dont have to be \"endless\", cause there is no need. Just find a new planet if you happen to run out of Room, or god forbid make a station.

    This is not Starbound or Minecraft, we dont have the same limitations as they do, so we dont need endless worlds since we have an endless amount of worlds.

    But, to humor myself I ask this; How do you \"Land\"? and How do you \"take off\"

    Yes, there was mention of a particle effect to hide the loading, but where do you land? The atmosphere is a Spherical Bubble, so would we all \"Land\" in the same area? Further more, where would we even exit from? It may sound nice, but its actually Very unnessicary as far as I can tell o -o

    I dunno, I probably shouldnt even be saying anything. But My Opinion Stands (oh god, other people have opinions?!?!), I would rather go with Schema\'s Oreo planets, he choose them for a reason, so respect his decision. Afterall, it is HIS Game o -o
     
    Joined
    Aug 11, 2013
    Messages
    389
    Reaction score
    99
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    Digi, you are right in saying you havn\'t seen this particular idea discussed properly, but that is because it isnt a popular option. Which in itself is a reason enough to not go down this route in the games development, there is no point in even considering an unpopular change.

    No offence meant, but it really only seems like you and Captain Fortius are interested in this, but im glad to see you arn\'t asking for it to be implemented, only explained. Unlike fortius, who is trying to disguise his own opinions as facts.

    As for my own opinion, i feel having planets isolated to their own maps would negativly affect the game. The restrictions that would introduce on ships interacting with the planets surface would break immersion, I do agree that ships scooping up a whole planet isnt great but they should still be able to do something like that, a huge ship hanging over a planet would be able to do something to it, and not be stopped by it being outside of the atmosphere. Plus as Calbiri said; limits on building heights, no space elevators etc.

    However to answer your actual question, i dont belive there is any problem on a technical level preventing this. The decision is made based on gameplay and the personal preference of schema and the player base.
     
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    290
    Reaction score
    367
    I can counter everything listed above, and logically explain why it isn\'t a problem.

    Now, let\'s use our imaginations, shall we?


    However, what about planetary bombardments?


    Rest assured projectiles could be sent to a different map just like players. Too many projectiles to handle? Combine them into one object, calculate one big impact, but draw a shell shower.


    What says that planets will not provide passive minerals and ore if you set up a \'mining station\' on the planet,


    Who said anything about anything PASSIVE ? I\'m thinking about building a giant drill and actively drilling a hole. Maybe one of those mobile tunneling devices. Hell, a mole tank. Plus, as long as you can do beam mining from space, NOTHING else is worth the time and effort.


    This is a Space game ._. empathesis on \"Space\"


    Have you seen many disc planets in space lately? It\'s. Just. Silly. Even if you never intend to land - keep in mind, someone else might enjoy to do so (oh god, others have opinions...) - proper planets are an integral part of a proper space game, as backgrounds, obstacles, or scenery if nothing more.


    But, to humor myself I ask this; How do you \"Land\"? and How do you \"take off\"


    Is it that difficult to imagine? Once you get close enough to the planet, your relative location is saved into a variable which you take with yourself to the planet level.

    This number is then used to determine your location on the planet\'s flat map. You\'re still far up in the sky, still descending. After that, you land like you land now, or fly around. As the OP wrote, the map\'s edges are linked back to each other, so it\'ll truly feel like flying around a globe.

    Taking off is the same in reverse.




    respect his decision. Afterall, it is HIS Game o -o


    Is he also the entire target demographic, or would he like other people to play the game too?

    Heck, from what I see, I don\'t even think he plays SM, or, in fact, likes games too much. Looks more like he\'s interested in trying his luck in the videogame businnes.

    There\'s nothing wrong with that, but keep in mind, success comes from giving the crowd what they want. (Or fooling them into believing they want garbage... )




    We\'d like to avoid any in game loading screens


    Is seeing a planet disc build itself up chunk by chunk truly better? Anyway, loading screens are a part of gaming, and it would not be too bothersome gameplay wise.


    Spacial distortions can get pretty severe moving ships/weapons fire between a spherical border (the fake planet orb) and a flat grid layout (your desired world).


    No. Described a few quotes above. Location calculated from ship\'s center\'s position, relative to fake planet orb\'s center\'s position. Easily translated to location on a flat grid. Doesn\'t even have to be pinpoint accurate. (ex; you\'re between this and that coordinates, you\'ll appear in this zone.)




    Ship size can become an issue based on atmospheric depth on the flat world (which imposes a hard limit on ship size, = against our design goal of no hard limits) Also imposes a height limit on structures (nobody could build a space elevator)


    You can ban ships over a certain size from entering the atmosphere. Few of the true leviathans in any sci-fi ever written are capable of atmospheric flight.

    You could also have a very high ceiling. Unlike minecraft however, you shouldn\'t have \"air\" blocks. Just true empty space, to make sure there\'s no excess data to handle.

    Furthermore, you could have a \"space elevator loading point\" block, which, when placed on a geostationary station above a planet, would link to the nearest ceiling level elevator on the planet.




    suppose you have destroyers near the poles and you leave atmosphere. They will become much closer together and cause a bunch of collision issues.


    The game should check if there\'s enough room before loading in the ship. If not, check a few hundred blocks further away. In fact, it already does that with more or less success. Just try buying a bunch of ships from the catalogue while staying still.

    Also, with this system, destroyers over the pole are like two grains of salt on a kitchen table. Plenty of room between them.




    Also a second world would not benifit anwhere on server memory because if there was someone on the world and people on planets then the poor RAM is having to calculate everything the game does several times over,


    Most online games have separate maps. Players tend to hang out on several such maps at once, be it an instance, an overworld zone, or some kind of closed match.

    Somehow it works just fine.

    If you think about it, this wouldn\'t really change anything for the server. Just as before, it\'d have to handle all the data it\'s players are surrounded with. What difference does it make if it\'s a separate map\'s chunks, or chunks floating in space? There\'s still a player limit to keep it safe.

    Plus, the whole idea is a major performance saver.


    even worse what happens when a big ship hits a planet?


    Like I wrote above; You may deny atmospheric entry from too big ships. They\'ll just crash and burn if they fly into the planet too fast, or get a warning message and gently bounce off if they approach carefully. Start to burn up if they sit around too long.

    If they do enter the planet\'s map, it\'ll actually be better than now; Below them, the ground is a static, solid thing, not a drifting object in space. Less calculations to handle.




    and here is what schema said about it

    http://star-made.org/content/starmade-dev-update-why-spherical-planets-dont-fit-block-world


    There\'s no mention of the method discussed in this topic. He had one almost good idea, two very bad ones, and as usual decided to stubbornly hang onto the worst.



    There. If I left out anything, feel free to ask. I can confidently say, there\'s no drawbacks to having separate planet maps, save for unexpected complications that can (and do) appear when something new is done.



    Now, can anyone logically explain to me, why is it preferrable to have a tiny, flat, single, or double sided disk posing as a planet?
     
    • Like
    Reactions: alij331
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    290
    Reaction score
    367
    This post might seem odd by itself, or look like a double post. It was an answer to someone who chose to delete his comment once he was proven wrong.

    In case someone else would raise similar points, I\'ll try to replicate the original ones in my own words and leave it up, unless it proves to be without worth.

    \"Most of these ideas are already in Space Engineers\"

    \"These proposed planets would be silly\"

    \"You wouldn\'t be able to see players on planets, would need new systems to let you do so\"

    \"Separate maps separate people. One seamless universe is better\"



    Space Engineers? They have drills and that\'s that.

    They didn\'t have any planets last time I checked.

    I asked for logic. I see blind denial. How is a spherical planet silly, and how is a disk not silly?

    Why would you have to see people on a planet\'s surface? Watch some photos of the planet Earth. How many people do you see?

    Why is it different to sit a loading screen away from others (which they\'re free to cross any time) than sitting on the current planet type, but a hundred sectors away from the nearest player?



    And this bit;


    You just got flagged buddy. I\'m out.


    I\'d rather you explained first. \"Flagged\"? What\'s that?
     
    Joined
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages
    32
    Reaction score
    55
    • Legacy Citizen 6
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Purchased!
    People tend to make posts like this while the things they talk about are already in the game. And when im talking about the game im talking about the most up to date version, which is the dev build. Some people make posts about ideas for the game, and to me it seems like they havent even seen the dev build or played it well enough. Mamy ideas are already in the game or are in the game but slightly different.
     
    Joined
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages
    1,326
    Reaction score
    2,096
    • Master Builder Gold
    • Councillor 2 Gold
    • Video Genius
    like really??

    ok..its ok to have an opinion,and tho i agree that it would be awesome to have spherical planets in starmade,its just not possible to have them (and almost no one wants them really).. the ambiance that the current planets have ,is just perfect.. i love it! its unique!!

    and the idea of a separate map is just crazy,it would ruin the experience for everyone who played starmade,and for what?

    you have an opinion,and that opinion is a negative one,which is not welcomed here

    so sir.. i will have to ask you to leave this game and try your luck on finding a game that suits your wishes,bye!
     
    Joined
    Oct 26, 2013
    Messages
    176
    Reaction score
    371
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    It seems like you either A) dont like this game or B)like the core concept, but not a lot of the ways of implementation.

    So, here is the deal. I think you have a few options.

    1) You can continue to say what you are saying here on the forums, in what will become an ever increasingly hostile environment(considering you are happily insulting the Game Dev) and ineffectually make your point over and over into oblivion.

    2) You can cease making silly posts and insulting the game dev, and go play Galacticraft or something

    3) Learn to program, and make your own game that fits your own vision.

    I\'m not saying you have to be a yes man, but it seems like you have a problem with the game as a whole, not just little parts etc. If it were criticizm of things in the game and how to make them better, that would be one thing, however, you seem to take issue with the game as a whole, and the vision of the game as a whole. If this is the case, you need to find a new community.
     
    Joined
    Aug 10, 2013
    Messages
    290
    Reaction score
    367
    Many ideas are already in the game or are in the game but slightly different.


    I\'m sure these ones aren\'t. And you can\'t fault anyone for not playing with a dev release.


    are you trolling?

    like really??


    No, I am not, though I may be pointing out things not many of you want to acknowledge.

    Once again. Why? Why are the current planets perfect? Why do you love them? What is the reason behind this dedication?

    Lacking any explanations, so far the only thing I can think about, is that those who prefer the current planets are extremely conservative religious folk who to this day refuse to believe planets are spheres. Or maybe just extremely dedicated fans who refuse to believe anything could be wrong with this game. Or, as a third option, perhaps they are the real trolls here?

    Know that I\'m not poking these holes for fun. I\'m trying to make you guys see reason, so the game can become better. I don\'t have to, of course. I understand the stuff I write most likely will never make it into the game. But it touches a few minds. Makes some of you think. That\'s some progress.


    3) Learn to program, and make your own game that fits your own vision.


    I do have a tech demo in mind. I have strong doubts about the scale I can achieve though.


    If it were criticizm of things in the game and how to make them better, that would be one thing,


    It is part criticism. I tell what is wrong. I also tell how to make it better. Just like in these pages. Have you been reading?


    B)like the core concept, but not a lot of the ways of implementation.


    Almost true.


    You are happily insulting the Game Dev


    I\'m not happy about it. It\'s a sad necessity. A wake up call, if you will. I insult him no more than by calling a fat man fat. All I said are based on lengthy observations over the past months, not one word that I would consider untrue.


    butters is listening


    You seem an awfully petty person for one of your age. Exactly how much shame did you feel when you clicked that delete button?

    Btw, Butters is also helping to keep the topic alive.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Dire Venom

    fire219

    1200° Plasma
    Joined
    Sep 23, 2012
    Messages
    443
    Reaction score
    117
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Ok, this is getting off the rails.... Like it or not, the best solution has been deemed (and not just by schema, by several others as well) to be the \"oreo cookie\" method. It\'s going to be implemented like that, unless issues show up. Sorry if that\'s not what you want, schema can\'t please everyone.



    Locking before this gets too far into flamewar territory.