Rename the moon template to something else

On another forum I frequent I'm watching someone get very confused about why they couldn't move their moon by halley. Isn't that what moons are for, they ask.

I think having a biome called moon is a recipe for confusion in a game where you actually have moons and any biome type can act as one.

I would therefore suggest that the moon biome be renamed to something else: barren.

or desolate

I think that makes for better conveyance

+1

You could denote planets <350 as asteroids.

But moon also suggests it's the only body that can orbit another, which is also wrong.

I thought it was asteroids that were designed to be moved by halleys, and not moons...

I fully agree with this

Everything that is small enough can be moved, that makes sense imho.

I think a different solution is needed, I feel that the problem is less about the moon biome itself and more so about the lack of things like an asteroid biome/planet type and/or the lack of 'standards' for planet types.

I think that by default, you shouldn't be able to do things like have a 1000 size moon for example, moons would be say between 251-400. Asteroid templates could go from 50-250. This way when little Timmy makes a system and trows a bunch of templates in they'll be straight forward and he won't have to worry about whether or not an asteroid he made can be properly pushed pushed around by engines.

Of course you do want it to be an options to enter a mode where you have full control over everything much like we do currently and it should be a toggle so for people who want that full control all the time only have to flip that once.

Mike

@KNight why no 1000 size moon??? why limit imaginative creativity like that??? perhaps another option on all planets in the editor. a set of pre formed templates that would limit size to the specs you mentioned mike but doable with any biome type ,and we change moon to desolate, or barren, or neutron star

what about rename the Moon to Rock

Instead of changing the template name you'd rather limit how I configure my planet size? That's a terrible idea. And the naming confusion is evident even in your post. You call them moons, and I don't know if you mean moons or if you're referring to moon biomes which aren't moons but are in fact planets!

Are you sure you read my post? I did say that full control would be available, just not by default. The point of my proposal is not to impose limits, but to help teach players(particularly new players) what the "standards" are for the different plant types/biomes.

Mike

So rather than renaming a template we start ******* around with size limits and toggles? Seriously, why?

And WTF are these supposed standards? Did I miss a memo?

First off calm down.

Second think about the current set up, in order to make an Asteroid, you make a small moon. Don't you think that's counter-intuitive? I've seen it many times on the forums that a new player has to ask because they don't see an 'Asteroid template' option. And it'll only get worse after release as we will even get players that have never played TA, SupCom and/or any RTS ever. Combine that with how PA is more or less the first of its kind having a way to ease players into system creation and such is a really good idea.

As far as standards go, every game has standards, or ways they were intended to play. Starcraft 2 for example was intended to be played withe ramps and chokes. Sure you could still play it on a completely flat and featureless map but its wouldn't play nearly as well. Another example are unit restrictions, the more you restrict the more oddities you introduce in how the game plays.

What I propose is simply a method to help ease players into PA, it is optional and not mandatory.

Mike

Before I get into quote city, might I point out you're only tackling half my argument. You seem caught up on the planet smashing bit, but that's not the only meaning to "moon".

Oh FFS, text isn't a good medium for discerning emotions so you can stop with that bollocks already.

Sigh. If I didn't already know what this meant can't you see how this would be confusing?

I think it's irrelevant.

When did Uber announce that only asteroids will be able to be slammed into planets and that they'll be enforcing a minimum planet size which is above that available for planet smashing?

Right, but you're pulling these ones from your ***. Either point me to where these standards were defined or please never bring them up again.

I think you are tackling 2 different issues here.

Quitch only raised the issue of what is a moon and what is not a moon. The biome "moon" has nothing to do with what we usually call a "moon" in the orbital sense. I think we can all agree that is bad for "little timmy" and creates confusion when talking in general. Renaming the orbital "moon" concept is impossible, so renaming the moon biome to something else is a good solution imho.

You brought up another issue: The "this can be moved around" limit is some number that is pretty much voodoo wisdom that people need to know from whereever. Having a big fat marker that shows what size is movable and what not would be a good thing. I don't think we need any sort of limitations in the templates. If somebody wants to have a super big moon-biome planet why force him to switch into some sort of mode that unlocks it?
Just present people with a visible marker on each planet how "movable" it is.

mercury for example looks also similar to Earth's moon, and is not a moon either^^

i disagree with putting arbitrary limits for planetsizes
example ... while tiny compared to jupiter 124 k diameter
its moon ganymed 5.2k diameter is less then half the size of earth 12.4k and rougly 70% of mars 6.8k
... maybe you want moons to be smaller then the main planet they are orbiting which makes sense for asthetics and some gameplay reasons but that doesnt mean they cant be as big as a regular planet in general ... no matter the biome

Why don't we just throw in an asteroid template that is automatically within the ranges to build halleys (-ies?)? That way, you don't have to worry about configuring anything unless you want a massive asteroid that cannot, currently, be moved. This also still allows any planet type to still be moved; this will just reduce the number of clicks for a throwaway planet. I'm pretty that this is the general point that KNight was trying to make.

As for the second issue, I agree, a name implying a desolate wasteland would be better, since the looks of a "moon" are indeed meaningless since any planet type can act as a moon.

Moon is the name for a biome.

Any planet biome that is small enough can orbit another biome.

I like this idea.

Small planets are renamed to astroids. Astroids are moveable. Non astroids are not moveable.