Katorone, you know this is a game still in development, right?
It's important to have plans. But it's also important to be able to adapt to new opportunities. I'd hope that Josh & Andy et al. are always open to ways to make LT more fun for more people as long as the possible benefits appear to outweigh the likely cost.
It's also important not to miss seeing what might be because of seeing only what currently is. I understand the "highway" feature of the Limit Theory Prototype. I also know that this is not the only way to let players get from one planet to another. I like the visual metaphor of the highway, but I'm also perfectly fine with a "navigation computer" that lists all the main bodies of a system and takes me to them with a simple mouseclick.
If the highway of LTP is the only reason for static planets, then maybe it's worth rethinking highways. There are other mechanics for traveling between worlds -- why not pick one that doesn't break other features?
Post
Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:20 pm
#17
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Re: Planetary Movement
I'm personally for planetary orbits, however I'm pretty sure Josh already quashed this one.
Unless he says otherwise, I think it's safe to say that orbits aren't in the game.
Sorry to burst the bubbles.
Unless he says otherwise, I think it's safe to say that orbits aren't in the game.
Sorry to burst the bubbles.
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
Post
Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:36 pm
#18
Re: Planetary Movement
Well, like DW said, it really comes down to personal preference. This is a pretty major option to include as a configurable one, and is also major in the gameplay ramifications (of which one, the highways, has already been pointed out).
Static bodies was chosen for no other reason than that my dream game has static bodies
It's always another feature to be explored if "more time" presents itself (there are a lot of those!) But, realistically, it would change the nature of the game so much that I imagine it would be impractical for me to think about including as a config option at this point (I would have two games to test )
Static bodies was chosen for no other reason than that my dream game has static bodies
It's always another feature to be explored if "more time" presents itself (there are a lot of those!) But, realistically, it would change the nature of the game so much that I imagine it would be impractical for me to think about including as a config option at this point (I would have two games to test )
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ~ Henry Ford
Post
Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:26 am
#19
Re: Planetary Movement
Fair enough -- as an official word on the subject, I'll move on.
Chalk it up as an example of "everything looks easy when you're not the one who has to do it."
Chalk it up as an example of "everything looks easy when you're not the one who has to do it."
Post
Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:48 am
#20
Re: Planetary Movement
Sounds fine to me, sorry to bring it back up!
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
- Albert Einstein
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
- Albert Einstein
Post
Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:12 am
#21
Re: Planetary Movement
Any opinion is always welcome I love reading new suggestions or revisiting old ideas with a fresh perspective.
Post
Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:47 am
#22
Re: Planetary Movement
Why not just throw it on the "back burner" and explore the concept later?
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
Post
Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:51 am
#23
Re: Planetary Movement
Something like a planet moving around in a sector is pretty huge to change afterwards. It's something the engine has to be built for to allow... But perhaps LT 2 ?Krin wrote:Why not just throw it on the "back burner" and explore the concept later?
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post
Sun Jan 19, 2014 10:53 am
#24
Re: Planetary Movement
I think there are better things to put in LT2 (that is if there will be a LT2)Katorone wrote:Something like a planet moving around in a sector is pretty huge to change afterwards. It's something the engine has to be built for to allow... But perhaps LT 2 ?Krin wrote:Why not just throw it on the "back burner" and explore the concept later?
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
Post
Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:29 am
#25
Re: Planetary Movement
It's something that is expressly ruled out for now in the game FAQ. It would place a lot more burden on Josh's game engine, since it would rule out a number of optimisations which right now the engine can afford to make about them as static bodies.Krin wrote:Why not just throw it on the "back burner" and explore the concept later?
Like a lot of other intriguing ideas on the forums.
Post
Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:41 am
#26
It would take designing the game from the ground up to support it, and designing the game from the ground up to support the velocities necessary, the orbital calculations, the gravity simulations, the AI capable of doing all this math, etc, etc, etc.
Re: Planetary Movement
If the planets move, then you need orbits. All space rocks you see also need to be in orbit. You, the player, are going to have to be able to orbit planets, as well as intercept them and match velocities.insolent wrote:I don't think it would actually take much of Josh's time, really. All he has to do is make it so the celestial bodies move on a fixed orbit based on their velocity, mass, distance from the sun, and the sun's mass. Not too hard, and I think it would add considerable depth.
It would take designing the game from the ground up to support it, and designing the game from the ground up to support the velocities necessary, the orbital calculations, the gravity simulations, the AI capable of doing all this math, etc, etc, etc.
Post
Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:33 pm
#27
Actually I think a compromise could be reached here. What if the warp highways were to be placed in circles in close proximity to each planet’s orbit or best said parallel to each planet’s orbit. And then you could have separate warp highways connecting each circle. In effect this way you would have the highways static for a good reason and each planet could orbit its sun. However if you do this I recommend making a year very long, say in the range of hundreds of hours depending on the orbital range of each planet. This would make it less demanding on your platform as well as making it feel more natural.
Re: Planetary Movement
JoshParnell wrote:Well, like DW said, it really comes down to personal preference. This is a pretty major option to include as a configurable one, and is also major in the gameplay ramifications (of which one, the highways, has already been pointed out).
Static bodies was chosen for no other reason than that my dream game has static bodies
It's always another feature to be explored if "more time" presents itself (there are a lot of those!) But, realistically, it would change the nature of the game so much that I imagine it would be impractical for me to think about including as a config option at this point (I would have two games to test )
Actually I think a compromise could be reached here. What if the warp highways were to be placed in circles in close proximity to each planet’s orbit or best said parallel to each planet’s orbit. And then you could have separate warp highways connecting each circle. In effect this way you would have the highways static for a good reason and each planet could orbit its sun. However if you do this I recommend making a year very long, say in the range of hundreds of hours depending on the orbital range of each planet. This would make it less demanding on your platform as well as making it feel more natural.
Post
Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:43 pm
#28
lots and lots and lots and lots and lots while(1){ printf("and lots"); } of warp lane gates for making them working with real orbit mechanics.
there is no logic way of making warplanes working with orbital mechanics, as they need to be static to work and nothing is static with orbital mechanics.
some way of making interplanetary travel possible with gate-like structures would amount to big cannons shooting starships, but that would make it for real scale a bit too slow
Re: Planetary Movement
and the individual gates from the connecting pieces would drift apart and would spread along the circle between the planetary warp lane rings, so you would have to build lots of rings between the rings that you can traverse them.Hadrianus wrote: Actually I think a compromise could be reached here. What if the warp highways were to be placed in circles in close proximity to each planet’s orbit or best said parallel to each planet’s orbit. And then you could have separate warp highways connecting each circle. In effect this way you would have the highways static for a good reason and each planet could orbit its sun. However if you do this I recommend making a year very long, say in the range of hundreds of hours depending on the orbital range of each planet. This would make it less demanding on your platform as well as making it feel more natural.
lots and lots and lots and lots and lots while(1){ printf("and lots"); } of warp lane gates for making them working with real orbit mechanics.
there is no logic way of making warplanes working with orbital mechanics, as they need to be static to work and nothing is static with orbital mechanics.
some way of making interplanetary travel possible with gate-like structures would amount to big cannons shooting starships, but that would make it for real scale a bit too slow
Post
Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:59 pm
#29
Actually I was thinking more on the line of being able to exit a warp lane just by making say a right turn rather than waiting for you to reach the end of the lane. The same rule being applied to you entering the lane. You could enter it at any point within the lane. This will effectively reduce the lanes to the number of planets within the system, plus one lane between each two consecutive orbits. So in total say in the case of the Sol system with nine ups I forgot I mean eight planets, would have 8 orbital lanes plus 7 connecting the lanes between them 15 in total. And modifying the lanes to allow such easy access to them would not be very difficult and would in practice reduce the number of lanes in a system, since now a planet would have no need for X lanes radiating away from it to Y other bodies.
Re: Planetary Movement
Cornflakes_91 wrote:and the individual gates from the connecting pieces would drift apart and would spread along the circle between the planetary warp lane rings, so you would have to build lots of rings between the rings that you can traverse them.Hadrianus wrote: Actually I think a compromise could be reached here. What if the warp highways were to be placed in circles in close proximity to each planet’s orbit or best said parallel to each planet’s orbit. And then you could have separate warp highways connecting each circle. In effect this way you would have the highways static for a good reason and each planet could orbit its sun. However if you do this I recommend making a year very long, say in the range of hundreds of hours depending on the orbital range of each planet. This would make it less demanding on your platform as well as making it feel more natural.
lots and lots and lots and lots and lots while(1){ printf("and lots"); } of warp lane gates for making them working with real orbit mechanics.
there is no logic way of making warplanes working with orbital mechanics, as they need to be static to work and nothing is static with orbital mechanics.
some way of making interplanetary travel possible with gate-like structures would amount to big cannons shooting starships, but that would make it for real scale a bit too slow
Actually I was thinking more on the line of being able to exit a warp lane just by making say a right turn rather than waiting for you to reach the end of the lane. The same rule being applied to you entering the lane. You could enter it at any point within the lane. This will effectively reduce the lanes to the number of planets within the system, plus one lane between each two consecutive orbits. So in total say in the case of the Sol system with nine ups I forgot I mean eight planets, would have 8 orbital lanes plus 7 connecting the lanes between them 15 in total. And modifying the lanes to allow such easy access to them would not be very difficult and would in practice reduce the number of lanes in a system, since now a planet would have no need for X lanes radiating away from it to Y other bodies.
Post
Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:20 pm
#30
Re: Planetary Movement
There's actually a very simple and potentially interesting way of combining trade lane mechanics with orbital dynamics. You just have trade lane terminals that orbit the planets, and if a clear path exists between any two of these terminals, you can travel between them. Because the planets are orbiting the star and the terminals are orbiting the planets, this means that whether a clear path exists or not between any two terminals can very much depend on the time, so that you have a dynamically-changing trade-lane network. For example:
As for what these trade lane terminals actually are? Also simple and plausible: very large-scale transfer units, based on good ol' H-tech.
As for what these trade lane terminals actually are? Also simple and plausible: very large-scale transfer units, based on good ol' H-tech.
Last edited by ThymineC on Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.