An amazing planet no one has ever seen

When you watch the original kickstarter trailer have a look at the planet terrain.
They confirmed this wouldn't be in the game...

These?

Yep

Is this tagged as experimental or can you actually play on this?

Exactly, lol stop trying to for realism. I mean you have giant robots, running around rebuilding each other and smashing planets. Remeber Uber is not going for realism, they are going for awesome .

Yeah having hills like that, would not only be interesting to look at, but to play.

And it would kinda be a nerf to radar as well, since radar would be stopped by huge mountains like that, thus allowing for flanks and secret assaults.

In the picture, that is a planet.
Atm we just have round balls with stuffo them.

But again its coming

Honastly its the worst maps i ever saw to try play a decent RTS on it!
Really what that got awsome! its impossible to balance the game like its is now, in that kind maps well.......

shockingly you can play on it!

I never said the word realistic. On small planets, these features would stick out so crazy far out. It would look terrible and cause all kinds of gameplay problems and programatic problems.

As for swirls... we do have swirls. They're on the ground biomes. As has been discussed elsewhere, having the swirls with the land jutting out into the water would be bad for gameplay. Navigating the oceans would be a major pain.

Right you didn't talk about realism, but people commonly do when referring to scale, planets, etc..
How do you know it would look terrible? The current planets desperately need more verticality and more terrain impact on gameplay. Higher plateaus would give them just that.
Even on small planets I think we could go with plateaus of double or maybe even triple the current height. Even more on bigger planets.

As for siwrls: the mini swirls on biome borders don't really count as they are barely visible. They are not even close to the original visualisation which transported a strong sense of style. The current planets look like wanna-be realistic planets (earth types the most) which simply don't really fit this style.
Easy solution to the problem you proposed: Shallow water which is traversable by ground units and not by ships(Just like in TA).

How do I know they will look terrible? Because it would look terrible to have a size 230 planet and have plateaus that are 3 times as large as our current one, or even larger, sticking up. Doesn't take that much mental visualization to picture how awful it would be.

I support more visually interesting terrain, but it has to be done right. Which is why I'd like some sort of feature scaling option. On small planets, mountains and plateaus and the like will be small. But on larger planets, they'd be larger. So that way the features scale appropriately and we don't have issues with gameplay.

You're right the swirls are not like the visualization. But that's because it was a visualization, which is subject to change.

Pure speculation on your part there - I imagine it would look awesome, which is also pure speculation on my part. Don't take your imagination for granted...

"Subject to change" is being thrown around way too much lately around these forums. You can only use that excuse a certain amount of times before people get upset. After all quite a few things which were already "subject to change" is what people have spent money on.

Not sure how you would think it's cool to see a planet with a plateau sticking up out of the planet where the plateau is literally as tall as the planet. Or even half as tall as the planet. That just would be terrible both from a visual as well as a gameplay stance, and the devs happen to take this stance as they have stated several time.

Again, which is why I vote for feature scaling.

"Subject to change" is a disclaimer that has been "thrown around" on a regular basis for a good reason. It was clearly stated during the kickstarter trailer that everything was subject to change so if people expect to get exactly what the kickstarter trailer portrayed, then... well... they have absolutely no reason to expect that.

I for one am a huge fan of almost all of the improvements and changes made so far. There are some that I'm not so sure about... but that's another topic.

PA is shaping up into an excellent game that fit's with Uber's original vision – which is different than some people's individual visions. But if the devs did everything that the forum posters wanted then we would have a crappy game.

So I took a radius 300 planet and smudged the outline in PS so the features are roughly twice as tall.
How is that as tall as the planet? How is this as tall as half the planet? How is this "terrible"? It just changes the outline minimally and creates a more interesting shape other than a flat sphere.

Well, I also need the Seed and the water height (not the mountain height range)
specially the seed

Those aren't the proportions of the images in the desert biome concept.

You would need to make that volcano... 4 or 5 times as large as the original volcano. And now it's bumping into the orbital layer.

but as he has it they are fine. This game could use slightly larger features, for variety and utility sake.

also, I doubt when players start modding, that they will make small subtle features. They want stuff they can play atop of and clearly see. They will probably make things closer to the size of his features.

ace63, I guess you mean something like this:

URL: forums.uberent.com/attachments/planet-0-big-png.10987/

I think it looks quite good. Note that this is a very small planet.

Image borrowed from SXX, from this thread: URL: forums.uberent.com/threads/planet-size-contest.49693/. That thread has more cool planets.

Right now the surface is very flat with the occasional bump with no real usage, except for hiding ground units from other ground units. Would be useful if the environment could serve as protection from artillery as there evidently won't be any shields.

(New user so can't use links )

Exactly. This looks super awesome in my opinion.

You suggested that increasing the height by a factor of two or three would cause the features to be ridiculously large. This is what I did. Now you are saying you meant 4 to 5 times - thats a bit contradictory.