Round Planets

[Lone_Puppy]

Worse- Schema.

Lol! Well, it did look like people were having fun breaking things.
I think it was Chris who asked people not to. Surely the blueprint was saved before the Q&A.

 

[Lecic]

Lol! Well, it did look like people were having fun breaking things.
I think it was Chris who asked people not to. Surely the blueprint was saved before the Q&A.

Oh, yeah, they've got dozens of copies of it. I think you'll have to wait til it's in game to get it, though.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Oh, yeah, they've got dozens of copies of it. I think you'll have to wait til it's in game to get it, though.

Only dozens. Will there be enough for everyone to download? What if they run out?

 

[SomethingSlimy]

Dodecahedron planets are the worst. They're absolutely hideous. I'd rather have flat planets than dodecahedrons.

Edit: Much appreciation to the person who rated this friendly! :D

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Dodecahedron planets are the worst. They're absolutely hideous. I'd rather have flat planets than dodecahedrons.

I think they would have been chosen, because mathematically there is a cube at the heart of the shape that allows for better placement maybe. Just guessing. I could be blowing smoke out my tail pipe.

I did miss out on the flat planets when I started playing, but I could see the appeal. They would have been like over sized asteroids. I guess they probably were really.

If you make the really big dodecahedron planets, each plate is a pretty good size. I couldn't really do much with the tiny planets.

 

[therimmer96]

I think they would have been chosen, because mathematically there is a cube at the heart of the shape that allows for better placement maybe. Just guessing. I could be blowing smoke out my tail pipe.

I did miss out on the flat planets when I started playing, but I could see the appeal. They would have been like over sized asteroids. I guess they probably were really.

If you make the really big dodecahedron planets, each plate is a pretty good size. I couldn't really do much with the tiny planets.

It was chosen because schema felt it was the best middle ground between lots of flat surfaces for building on and roundness.

 

[SomethingSlimy]

lots of flat surfaces

lol

roundness

LOL

 

[Lecic]

lol

LOL

best middle ground

 

[SomethingSlimy]

middle ground

Worst aspects of both, best aspects of neither.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Well, either way I'm happy there are planets whatever the shape.

 

[Lecic]

Worst aspects of both, best aspects of neither.

How so? They look decently round from a distance, and while there isn't a massive amount of space per plate like with disc worlds, there's probably more surface area to build on.

 

[Lone_Puppy]

How so? They look decently round from a distance, and while there isn't a massive amount of space per plate like with disc worlds, there's probably more surface area to build on.

The really big planets have a good amount of space. Sorry can't remember what size they are, but Mushroom fleet had a play on one in one of their YouTube clips.

 

[Ithirahad]

Yes, Puppy, but have you ever tried playing on a huge planet yourself? Unless you have a higher-end gaming computer, it ain't fun. Furthermore, bigger planets take ages to load and just generally are awkward sometimes...

 

[Lone_Puppy]

Yes, Puppy, but have you ever tried playing on a huge planet yourself? Unless you have a higher-end gaming computer, it ain't fun. Furthermore, bigger planets take ages to load and just generally are awkward sometimes...

True, I did take note of that from the video. No, I haven't played on one of those big ones.
I did wonder what it would do to a server. Must create major havoc when you have numerous players on the same planet or in close proximity to it.

 

[SomethingSlimy]

How so? They look decently round from a distance

Spoiler

...No. Highly disagree.

and while there isn't a massive amount of space per plate like with disc worlds, there's probably more surface area to build on.

Because nothing saves my shattered immersion like the ability to relocate to the far side of a planet in 10 seconds.

 

[Master_Artificer]

Spoiler

...No. Highly disagree.

Because nothing saves my shattered immersion like the ability to relocate to the far side of a planet in 10 seconds.

so we should go back to the old system with disk planets?
IMO these are much better than what we had, and if your immersion is shattered by planets, then you probably hate 100 other things in this game that is not immersive. Part of that is just the drawback of an arcade shooter-isk feel.

and it is true, they do look round from a distance, you kinda proved his point. The only jarring thing is the Plate covering Highlands, and that's a terrain generation issue. Your issue seems to be the planet size, which you can change in your single player world config.

But big planets are a mess on computers, part due to the fact that they nearly clip inside each other, and the other is the amount of blocks (not as much as the clipping though, bigger ships have less lag usually) which is a game engine limitation on optimization.




We will be keeping the d12 planets, a lot of work has gone into optimizing them, and more work still will be put into them after more things are added. Nothing sucks more than deleting 3 days of optimization code and rewriting it to account for new features, or pinning down every little interaction, and them missing one and having the community bitch at you for a straight week as you try to find the issue and fix it.

 

[SomethingSlimy]

so we should go back to the old system with disk planets?

Not ideally, yet it would be an improvement.

if your immersion is shattered by planets, then you probably hate 100 other things in this game that is not immersive.

Worthless argument. Look up "Suspension of disbelief." Planets provide nothing that makes them too good for fixing.

and it is true, they do look round from a distance, you kinda proved his point.

They look like dodecahedrons. Even the ones in the distance look like dodecahedrons. What the hell are you talking about.

Your issue seems to be the planet size, which you can change in your single player world config.

My issue is that they are a hideous abomination.

We will be keeping the d12 planets

Why? Because you say so?

a lot of work has gone into optimizing them, and more work still will be put into them after more things are added. Nothing sucks more than deleting 3 days of optimization code and rewriting it to account for new features, or pinning down every little interaction, and them missing one and having the community bitch at you for a straight week as you try to find the issue and fix it.

...I don't sympathize, since the removal of dodecahedron planets would only be an improvement. Nor do I see how the optimization already done would be wholly useless, unless I misunderstand the way planets currently work in the game.

 

[Nuclear Doughnut]

You Sir look like a douche right now... Just saying. Artificer has many a point

 

[Master_Artificer]

Not ideally, yet it would be an improvement.

I feel like I cannot continue this discussion without sounding disrespectful, I recognize that you dislike the current system, and I respectfully must disagree with your opinion.

Worthless argument. Look up "Suspension of disbelief." Planets provide nothing that makes them too good for fixing.

So your unable to willingly overlook the medium? I dont understand your point in making me read the wikipedia page. Once again, this is heavily opinionated, and I disagree with you.

They look like dodecahedrons. Even the ones in the distance look like dodecahedrons. What the hell are you talking about.

Well, they are a dodecahedron... A duck is a duck, but from a distance it looks like a bird. MSpaint I can get a line of best fit through the outside of it ignoring the highlands jutting out and it is a circle. (well actually slightly an ellipse, but that might be angle).
A d6 can look like a hexagon or a square from a distance (depending on angle of view), and the dodecahedron looks like a polygated circle.

My issue is that they are a hideous abomination.

Once again, I feel like I cannot continue this discussion, I recognize that you dislike the current system, and I respectfully must disagree with your opinion.

Why? Because you say so?

I, eh, err, ahh... No. No it is not because I say so. Currently it is a core starmade feature and wouldn't be extracted on a whim for a 'better system'. To compare it to a real life example, it's like the dumb commercials that protested the Iran deal, saying "Tell Washington we don't want a bad deal. - We want... a Better Deal". The framework is in place, it is not going to be ripped out, but it is still open to modification.

I understand that you dislike the current framework and have been vocal to scrap it, but that is an unrealistic request to ask of the shine team. What I can recommend through, is getting involved in the suggestion process and petition for tweaks and adjustments.

...I don't sympathize, since the removal of dodecahedron planets would only be an improvement. Nor do I see how the optimization already done would be wholly useless, unless I misunderstand the way planets currently work in the game.

I cannot tactfully respond without it blowing up in my face. I recognize that you dislike the current system, and I respectfully must disagree with your opinion, but I cannot continue this line of discussion.

(missclicked post before I finished the last few, now finished)

 

[SomethingSlimy]

You Sir look like a douche right now... Just saying. Artificer has many a point

Artificer has a point because I sound like a douche... No. If Artificer has a point, you should explain why I'm wrong.

I feel like I cannot continue this discussion without sounding disrespectful, I recognize that you dislike the current system, and I respectfully must disagree with your opinion.

You haven't yet said why you think dodecahedron planets are better than any other system. Unless you're mad at me, (in which case I apologize for being passive aggressive,) I don't see why explaining that would require disrespect.

So your unable to willingly overlook the medium? I dont understand your point in making me read the wikipedia page. Once again, this is heavily opinionated, and I disagree with you.

If by "the medium," you mean "fun video games", I am unable to overlook the medium because dodecahedrons planets have no advantage that makes them better than other possibilities, including flat planets. What I said is inherently opinionated because I said it.

Well, they are a dodecahedron... A duck is a duck, but from a distance it looks like a bird. MSpaint I can get a line of best fit through the outside of it ignoring the highlands jutting out and it is a circle. (well actually slightly an ellipse, but that might be angle).
A d6 can look like a hexagon or a square from a distance (depending on angle of view), and the dodecahedron looks like a polygated circle

I disagree that these planets look like anything other than dodecahedrons, regardless of how close to a circle its outline is. You have to ignore everything besides the outline to see it.

Currently it is a core starmade feature and wouldn't be extracted on a whim for a 'better system'.

If a different system would indeed be better, the old one shouldn't be kept just because it's a "core starmade feature."

I understand that you dislike the current framework and have been vocal to scrap it, but that is an unrealistic request to ask of the shine team. What I can recommend through, is getting involved in the suggestion process and petition for tweaks and adjustments.

Suggestions for improving planets do exist - I'm still waiting for any of them to be implemented.