Lol! Well, it did look like people were having fun breaking things.Worse- Schema.
I think it was Chris who asked people not to. Surely the blueprint was saved before the Q&A.
Lol! Well, it did look like people were having fun breaking things.Worse- Schema.
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.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.
Only dozens. Will there be enough for everyone to download? What if they run out?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.
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.Dodecahedron planets are the worst. They're absolutely hideous. I'd rather have flat planets than dodecahedrons.
It was chosen because schema felt it was the best middle ground between lots of flat surfaces for building on and roundness.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.
lollots of flat surfaces
LOLroundness
lol
LOL
best middle ground
Worst aspects of both, best aspects of neither.middle ground
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.Worst aspects of both, best aspects of neither.
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.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.
True, I did take note of that from the video. No, I haven't played on one of those big ones.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...
How so? They look decently round from a distance
Because nothing saves my shattered immersion like the ability to relocate to the far side of a planet in 10 seconds.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.
so we should go back to the old system with disk planets?
...No. Highly disagree.
Because nothing saves my shattered immersion like the ability to relocate to the far side of a planet in 10 seconds.
Not ideally, yet it would be an improvement.so we should go back to the old system with disk planets?
Worthless argument. Look up "Suspension of disbelief." Planets provide nothing that makes them too good for fixing.if your immersion is shattered by planets, then you probably hate 100 other things in this game that is not immersive.
They look like dodecahedrons. Even the ones in the distance look like dodecahedrons. What the hell are you talking about.and it is true, they do look round from a distance, you kinda proved his point.
My issue is that they are a hideous abomination.Your issue seems to be the planet size, which you can change in your single player world config.
Why? Because you say so?We will be keeping the d12 planets
...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.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 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.Not ideally, yet it would be an improvement.
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.Worthless argument. Look up "Suspension of disbelief." Planets provide nothing that makes them too good for fixing.
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).They look like dodecahedrons. Even the ones in the distance look like dodecahedrons. What the hell are you talking about.
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.My issue is that they are a hideous abomination.
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.Why? Because you say so?
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....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.
Artificer has a point because I sound like a douche... No. If Artificer has a point, you should explain why I'm wrong.You Sir look like a douche right now... Just saying. Artificer has many a point
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
If a different system would indeed be better, the old one shouldn't be kept just because it's a "core starmade feature."Currently it is a core starmade feature and wouldn't be extracted on a whim for a 'better system'.
Suggestions for improving planets do exist - I'm still waiting for any of them to be implemented.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.