Orbital and planetary environments and their respective effect on gameplay

I am not asking for any of these in particular I just want to start a discussion about these type features because I think they would add a ton of more strategy to the game.

In all honesty orbital complexity is one of the features I am looking forward to. System creation I believe should be a big part of this game. And yes a lot of those features below should be done in the final run to launch because right now the devs need to focus on more of the core features.

When a player goes to space it should not be "oh if I can get the most planets I will win." It should be what are the positives and negatives of this planet and which other planets should I go for. also what are the risks to colonizing this planet closer to the sun to a planet farther away from the sun. Does this planet's orbit get to close to another planet or the sun? what are the travel times? etc...

I believe that solar systems and planet environments are meant to influence how you have your epic battles, and should be a big influence in your strategic decisions throughout the game. aka use the battlefield to your advantage.

note: The section below will change over time reflecting the combination of ideas in this thread as long as the thread is active. At the end of each new page it will be updated. All mechanics below are predictable meaning events happen ether periodically or slowly over time. Only happening in their respective areas of the planet meaning they don't move and none would happen randomly. All below are SUGGESTIONS

1. Colliding orbital paths for planets and moons
2. The environment of the planet effects its game-play
   1. Moons and maybe Metal: don't have air, just orbital and land. moons or asteroids are good for harvesting metal
   2. lava planets: are dangerous to units but good for thermal energy (maybe a special type of thermal energy extractor? - debate). volcanoes erupt periodically making "predictable" rivers of lava, lava levels rise and fall raveling paths through lava oceans and rivers for short periods of time.
   3. Ice planets that have water: Ice caps through out the game periodically break up in clearly viewable areas around the planet and have pieces of your base float away if you build them in that spot. Also there will weak points on the ice so artillery could intentionally crack the ice at some areas, enemies could abuse it too when they want to split up your base. you can use floating ice as a ferry system for ground units. Is dynamic and can be used in multiple ways. (please debate how units would act in icy sections of the planet)
   4. Completely Ice planets: snow storms? radar not able to be trusted? (debate ideas)
      
   5. Earth planets: are normal
   6. Gas planets: are air and orbital only although you may make "platform bases" as discussed in other threads. good for harvesting gas energy. Also disrupt radar because of their environment.
   7. Metal planets: are good because they are metal planets (shhh death ray)
   8. Desert planets: (please suggest what ideas you may have and how units would act)
   9. Water planets (meaning planets with no land):
      • Periodically erupting hydrothermal vents (that can sink ships)
      • Water vortexes
      • Massive waterfalls to lower sections of the planet
      • Waves? (debate)
   10. Jungle planets: (if they are ever added)(debate ideas)
3. Earth planets that drift too close to the sun turn into desert then lava planets. (like when the asteroid hits on the kickstarter trailer)(debate)
   
4. Weird orbits where a moon may drift away and crash into a sun or turn into a lava moon.

A success guide to submitting ideas from
wheels12 - edited a little by Antiglow:

1. Is it a restriction or buff? - in other words does it simply slow down units or make some unusable? if so, avoid these ideas, all they do is put a restriction on you without actually enriching game play. even stuff like speeding up production on a planet or increase travel speed doesn't really enrich interaction.
2. Does it include changing orbits?- if it does, it better be a HUGE strategic benefit or a game ending one (ie wiping a planet clean or bringing a controlled moon riddled with artillery in orbit to fire on the planet below.) stuff like "lets move this planet closer to the sun to effect the biome" is way too much set up and frankly too much work.
3. Does it punish players randomly?- a random solar storm or tsunami that kills a bunch of stuff without warning, even with some form of prevention may be unique, but is ultimately an non-interactive annoyance, not fun.
4. Does it change the base rules of the game?-Avoid at all cost, we don't want to add exceptions to every rule under certain condition, this only complicates things. think about the current rule set and how you can use it to interact with the environment. (example: instead of making specific mining tools to cut ice, use artillery fire as you can order it to fire at any position already)

Don't feel bad if your idea gets completely or partly crushed that is what a debate is like, and try to not crush other's ideas. Try to respectively argue back and forth till you and your debater come to a reasonable agreement. Thank you.

I like the concept, though I disagree with many of the details.

I wholeheartedly agree we need game play distinctions between planet types and there has been a ton of great dialog on the forum toward what these should be.

I would rather the devs avoid mechanics such as units getting stuck, or terrain randomly shifting. Anything that requires me to babysit my army is a problem. I can think of certain weather conditions for planets that I'm OK with, but they need to be whole planet wide so they don't create micromanagement, and honestly I would prefer they were a constant condition effecting the planet, so I know before I land my troops what I'm getting into.

I think I could see planetary hazards as an interesting idea for unique game play, but terraforming a planet is a bit much. if you think about stuff like moving an ice planet closer to a sun to melt the ice, aside from all of the technical problems associated like what happens to factory's and units, your talking about changing the rules of play which can cause very unbalanced and bad things to happen. Also, stuff like this planet produces more energy or this planet produces more metal doesn't mean much since you still need both to create units.

I think something more in the realm of possibility that doesn't ruin balance (even though the developers have said the game isnt balanced yet) is Planetary hazards and anomalies that create a new layer of strategy that the resourceful player can exploit.

-examples could include
-rising and lowering lava levels that open new paths or block them for ground units
-pulsing geysers that create planetary fog, lowering vision for a time

These suggestions are a bit more predictable and don't necessarily punish players randomly but instead create a new element that can be used to the players advantage or disadvantage. However, I have a feeling the uber guys see this as more of a mod worthy idea rather than a final game feature as it falls under the "not originally promised or important to the overall game but would be kool to have" area.

ok, terraforming by def is to transform (a planet) so as to resemble the earth, esp. so that it can support human life. "terra" means land, and in some science fiction means earth. however if you mean changing planets biome as talked about in starting post then those sudjestions were for later game and would not kill all units on planet, maybe a few but not all. Again it would add just another something to think about in game.

As far as I can see they are still going to change a planet's biome when you smash a planet (as seen in the kick starter trailer) so the mechanic is going to be there anyway.

ok that does actually add quite a bit. plus they are already adding it in gas planets, and you would want to go to a planet that produces more of a resource anyway.

Say your in a situation that you have a ton of energy and almost no metal. one: you are playing the game bad if you are in that situation but that aside, you would want to go for a planet that is more suited for that resource. Also if you want to be smart you could go for a planet that produces more energy per reactor and a planet that produces more metal per mex.

None of these would "ruin balance" they would just add a layer of strategy that all players would have to ether take advantage of or be hindered by based on their choices in game. Becuase you can pick different places to start you will have a choice to be close to a hazardous area or not. This will really make your starting planet matter once you can start on different planets.

I do really like these but they seem too... for lack of a better word un-awesome. though like you said they could be taken advantage of by better players.

the point was to punish players if they do make bad strategic decisions. As far as predictability all above is predictable. its not like any of those will suddenly happen. you will see them coming.

So I do not see how any of this would create micromanagement or baby sitting. all it would add really is "what do you want to risk" type situations.

you would know what you were getting into.
exp:
you land next to a volcano.
you see the ice cracking.
etc ...

Im going to sound like an ***, but keep in mind that is not my intention, my comment isnt a attack on your idea, its just an objective response:

1. leaving syntax and exact definition of terraformer aside, it is very different to create a crater instantly at position A than to dynamically simulate a change to a biome over time, also just to make it another thing to think about doesn't make it a good mechanic. You already have to manage an army, economy, worry about nukes, artillery fire, falling asteroids, interplanetary travel, do we really have to worry about melting polar ice caps too?
2. You made my point for me, you are playing the game badly if you are in a situation in which you have too much of a resource. Even aside from that, your only limiting factor resource wise is mass as you can make as many generators as you want (given enough space). besides, the time to travel between planets is so slow currently, it isn't realistic to fix an immediate economy problem by traveling to another planet.
3. I digress, balance wasn't the right word.
4. un-awsomeness aside because it isnt a descriptive or valid complaint, if you approach the problem as a time or geographical based obstacle with a dynamic outcome, you could come up with interesting none punishing obstacles that don't limit or force a restriction. But even then, its another thing you need to worry about on top of your other overwhelming responsibilities (like asteroids from space)
5. I dont mind punishing the player for making stupid decisions (in fact i revel in it) but stuff like having units move slower or not being able to build air units because, whoops there is no atmosphere, is just a restriction or in the case of ships getting stuck in shifting ice, bad luck. If a player is to be punished, id rather it be because they were stupid enough to build a base in a crater that periodically fills up with lava despite some warning signs.

Again, all you are doing is adding unnecessary rules that only complicates the base game. The game is complicated enough, which is why i said these ideas are mod worthy as it falls into the "not important but cool to have" territory. i have no doubt there will be stratigic reasons to hold one planet over another when the galactic war is released (as it sounded like it was going to combine turn based and realtime elements in some fashion according to the holiday video update). but as for planets having attributes twords how you play on them, remember, planets and solar systems are only meant to be a back drop for your epic battles, nothing more. That is not to say they wont add this, but i dont see this asva priority.

This is the core of our disagreement.
I believe that solar systems and planet environments are meant to influence how you have your epic battles and should be a big influence in your strategic decisions throughout the game. aka use the battlefield to your advantage.

Now keeping that in mind. lets go through this:

1.

simple answer yes, well at least I do.
The whole point of the generic ideas above(while I am not attached to them) is to add reason to go to one area of a planet over the other or even one planet over the other, and to add interesting game play. if they do and some-what more complexity, good, game seems a little boring right now anyway. Think about it: oops you did not notice the ice breaking away when you landed on the ice planet and a piece of your base has slowly drifted away. you can not make that slowly moving piece a forfeited weapon of war.

2.

no you missed my point all together. "you would want to go to a planet that produces more of a resource anyway." basically it adds a reason to fight over one planet more than the other.
and yes my example was bad sorry about that.

4. sorry I used such a lame word, could not think of anything else at the time. Basically what I meant is I have seen mechanics like that in every other RTS game and do not want this game to fall to the same fate. Again you are talking about what one human player can handle saying "do you really want to have to manage all that?" with area commands and things like the "sub commander" unit talked about in other forums managing all this does not seem that hard. even now it is not hard. I had a few games where my base easy covered multi planets and got board because there was nothing to do between attacks.

5.

yes units getting stuck or getting frozen or moving slow would be kinda annoying. So I agree with you there. as far as planes on moons I think that would be a very good thing anding more strategy becuase now you only have ground and orb to work with. I really like your example. what I would love to see is a player getting punished because they built their base next to a volcano and it goes off destroying part of their base.

I will just quote what I said in the first post

"And yes a lot of those features above should be done in the final run to launch because right now the devs need to focus on more of the core features."

Yes a lot of these ideas are mod worthy but I would hate to see this game go out without at least a few of them making it in.

And as neutrino said:

honestly this is the type of response is what I was wanting because you did add some interesting concepts and pointed out some of my flaws in my thinking. Please continue adding ideas, I would love to see this thread grow and even have some dev input.

I dont want to keep going back and forth so this will be my last post, i just want to bring up two things from your comments

1. i think you and i agree slower units, restricting types of usable units would be annoying, but here is another problem with the broken ice and erupting volcano is you cant predict them. That means said active volcano may or may not go off in this game, so why would i build by it and take a chance? as for ice breaking away why would i want to build stuff near an icey shore? how frustrating would it be to pass my navy through a icy canal only to lose it due to a 1 in a million chance? pulsating i understand, i can predict the pattern and move through with timing. I understand that the game may be becoming boring for you once you after you are set for life so to speak but keep in mind there are many units yet to come, like super units, and if you still think its too predictable or boring, that isnt a problem with the game. it just means you've mastered the game and the only way for the developers to get around that would be to constantly release new content like league of legends does. unfortunetly, that is not their intent, they hope the community will do that for them with mods.
2. there is a huge reason for bots, vehicles ect. they each fill a role and have pros and cons. bots are your early task force/commandos meant to raid supplys and avoid confrontation as they are cheap but weak. vehicles are your traditional form a line and attack from a strong position units, Air is meant act as your mid field skirmishers and single target destroyers, (much more usefull when super units will be added), and navy is your long range artilary from the coast to clear up beach heads and essentially destroy anything near or on water. orbital is too new to argue over so ill leave that one out for now.

Anyway, this was an interesting conversation, i enjoyed this debate very much but i have nothing more to contribute at the moment, best of luck to ya.

I feel sorry that this is going to be your last post. I did enjoy your input. Now I will make my points because clearly I did not state how I was thinking each of those mechanics would work. Every valcaino would erupt at lease once if not more during the game and ice would contently break away at a slow pace. the reason you would risk building there could be any number of things like you want to build a forward artillery base close to your enemy, or a defensive base, maybe it is the only place to invade the planet from. For the ice breaking away, maybe only place to land, maybe you want to build floating fortresses, maybe it is close to whom you want to attack etc...risk & reword.

same thing with invading a moon on a orbital path to hit another planet. if you can manage to change its path in time you could use it as a base.

for #2 you missed his point all together.
his point was that those things add variety to the game. you can have a full rts game with a map, a factory that builds a single type of unit, and some eco stuff and have it be playable. the point of other features is to add variety to the game-play.

That would be nice.

At some degree you can already do it. Small Moons are easier to hold. Lava planets usually sucks. Water planet, once you control the rare Islands, are yours entirely, but slow to colonize and exploit. If they do not have any land, you can't move in. Small asteroids are awesome to annihilate.

Hopefully we'll see even more in this sense in the future.

I still really like the idea of environmental effects on gameplay, but I'm firmly opposed to random events.

If we say traveling in deserts slows Bots 30%, but Vehicles are unaffected, while traveling on Ice slows vehicles, but bots are unaffected, I'm 100% cool with that. I think it would be a fun way to mix up the play styles on different planets, but I think "your units will randomly, and unpredictably get stuck and cluster !@#$ your attack move" is a terrible addition to planets.

Here are some predictable, consistent ways to diversify gameplay between planets.

I think planets should have additional properties for atmosphere, so planets can have storms of varying intensities. I have mixed feelings about storms being random, or even cyclic. I would rather they be persistent features of a planet. Storms would be cosmetically unique to each planet type, but all storms would reduce LOS and slow units, including air units. Severe would prevent using air completely. Our in-game planets are really just caricatures of planets, so I would have the storm blanket the whole planet instead of being a pathing obstruction.

Moons: No Air, reduced metal, super open terrain enables aggressive flanking gameplay.
Metal Planets: No Air units, capturable tech, chasms provide chokepoints and support defensive gameplay.
Lava Planets: High temperature weakens armor, all units take 50% more damage. Volcanic ash storms.
Desert Planets: Bots move at 40% reduced speed. Sand storms.
Ice Planets: Vehicles move at 40% reduced speed. Blizzards.
Jungle Planets: Areas with jungle trees obscure LOS and reduce vision radius of ground units. Severe Rain Storms.
Earth Planets: No special conditions. Mild Rain Storms.

edit: formatting

i wanted my last comment to be my last but i cant leave well enough alone. i guess i can offer up rebuttals here and there

@Pendaelose
singling out units for effects and having world wide weather problems causes multiple problems.

1. All you are doing is adding a restriction which A: forces a playstyle which uber doesnt want as they already have said so when someone wanted to suggest something as simple as clustering structures together to save on resources. B: just makes things more complicated without really adding anything dynamic to the game. rising and receding lava makes sense as it doesnt change any rules and can be avoided when you avoid the pit that gets filled up, assuming ofcourse there are markers to hint said pit fills up.
2. how would you visually show up storm effects on planets without blocking player view? all planets technically dont have an atmosphere visually to allow for players to see the terrain and their units. how annoying would it be to have a moving cloud overlayed over your main base constantly?

I like the way of thinking with stuff like more frequent choke points, or wider open spaces, and i think more features like that will be added when they implement verticality on planets like they said they would on the january 17th video update.

@Antiglow

OK, a floating fire base that floats around the planet is actually pretty kool, and if you could add engines onto it to control where it moves, (screams internally). but not controlling where the ice cracks or when? not so much. Maybe adding weak points on the ice so artillery could crack the ice at some areas, hell ya as enemy's could abuse it too when they want to split up your base. or you can use floating ice as a ferry system for ground units. that is dynamic and can be used in multiple ways. I do not envy the guy or gal who would have to program it though, and what happens when said ice hits a naval structure or peice? having a random iceburg hit and destroy my naval base a fan i am not, at least naval units my be able to move out of the way due to pathfinding.

As for the volcanoes, how do you define the length of a game so it erupts at least once? a game could be infinetly long or short. and its still random so building by a volcano never seems like a good idea. now volcanoes that erupt periodically making lava rivers is some thing, so long as you can predict where it flows.

I'm sure super advanced robots in the future could make aircraft that don't need air to fly. We can do it now too. It's not practical, but we can do it. How do you think people come back from the moon?

Making them 50% opaque and having 75% opacity when over units. when a storm is in radar range a ground outline of its area effect would trace it.

aside from weather visual effects, the uber guys also mentiond weather isnt on their to do list.

Also @overwatch141

if we are using technology as an explanation for everything, there is no reason why a highly advanced civilizations army would be effected by a puny thunder storm

Edited, see thread starting post.

added your ideas to the starting post.

I like the idea of planetary conditions. I especially liked the idea of gas or thermal mining. I've noticed in the PA system folder that there are orbital mining arrays and things which would support the idea that Uber may agree with many of your points, as do I.

Thank you, although they are not only my points anymore. I knew that Uber plans to have miners for gas planets but I did not know that they had put any info about them in the system folder. Do you have any ideas? Any thoughts positive or negative are welcome.

I think that if a planet is entirely covered in ice, its temperature would be too low for icebergs to deteriorate. PA doesn't necessarily follow strict guidelines to reality though, so exceptions are made here and there, but with ice planets in my opinion, they should be entirely solid ice and not break apart for no reason. The closer they get to the sun, the more they could begin to deteriorate and melt. So, maybe only if a cold planet is brought close enough into the orbit of the sun, it would begin to melt, and have its ice deteriorate enough for artillery to break it and such. Then if it swings back out into space, it could ice over again. Seasonal cycles.