Sooo uhhm I just witnessed a 2547-radius planet being evaporated into thin air by a tiny asteroid...

I do realize that. I ran it though the trials. I gave it a rested head's chance. I'm now more positive about it than ever.

I respect that doing nothing about it generates no work. And the aternate implementation Uber and us may choose in the end if we do indeed choose to change it will. And this quantity of work may be high I realize that.

I still move foward with this conviction that currently the mechanic sucks and it needs to change.

it's not a Bash on Uber, stop politicizing this.

I do agree. Smashing like this is more polished put gameplay wise its kinda one way street. It would be great if Uber creates plans in the future for fixing the old targeting smash and implements it alongside the current system. (some planets destroying the planets and some planets destroying a piece of the planet). So much awesome extra gameplay scenario's can be created with tech like that.

Yes, this NEEDS to change back. I'm glad people keep making threads about it, because I and my friends have stopped playing the game because of this. As soon as the old system with relative size/mass deciding crater size is back, we'll start playing again.

Smashing planets into eachother for dynamic and semi-unpredictable results was the most fun and iconic part of the game. Uber made a colossal mistake in removing it. It's like removing rolling into a ball from Sonic.

yupp we need to repost the same topic just to repeat why it wasn't feaseable for uber to make it look good and not janky as it did when it was in ..


@Alpha2546

one way street?
honestly back with partial destruction i saw people constantly going for halleys instead of nukes so i argue that that was more of a onewaystreet


yea i would like the partial destruction if it actualy would follow the battlefieldremoval/reduction as the current system does ..

because without it asteroids are nothing but unstopable nukes .. which i personaly find the most boring ...

I have not tried this before, but I guess the result is that only the asteroid is destroyed.
The wreckage of the planet doesn't hurt other planets in anyway.

What are you even trying to say here? This sounds like some weapons grade blind fanboy damage control trying to justify a terrible, terrible change.

uhu ... except that the state it was before was even more terrible both visualy, polishvice and gameplaywise

and for the upteens time .. uber had to give up on it because low resources ...

try to build a house with only one brick ..


also why build nukes when you could build an unstopable one .. that is how it was back then ..

Why build nukes when you can insta gib a massive planet with a single halley?

Yeah this is the biggest probleme. Build only one halley and destruct more than 10 nuke. This suck really... And if you rush your one halley anything can stop you??

that is not as big as a problem to fix than properly implementing partial destruction with craters now, is it?

Of course, but properly implementing partial destruction with craters was already done, and then due to some pathfinding problems with craters it was scrapped entirely, now we have a even more unprofessional looking system were a tiny asteroid obliterates the entirety of a planet no matter how much larger it is.

your opinion ....

Not only my opinion, but a large majority of people wish for the old system back.

no what the majority wants is a system that works ... the old system didn't work

A touch on the personal attack side here don't you think?

Yes the old system didn't work good but now bring back a proprtional destruct of the planet (wo work lile a nuke ewplosion) with the size of the halleyable unit.

Like the old old system, smash it à big enough planet that will reset a big part.of stuff on the planet and obliterate if thé celestial body is big enough

Why all this vitriol?

I think the old system wasn't very good either. For example: you couldn't tell what would be the area destructed by a smaller object hitting another.

I don't like the current design either i just don't play systems with asteroids cause i feel cheated, the asteroid is all that matters, so if u were stuck fighting a ground battle on your planet and didn't build orbital, tough luck. Is cheap too with one halley per asteroid.

Considering the options i tend to agree that the proportional destruction would be more fun to play.

Can't get the craters to work? No problem, They looked cool but were not the most important mechanic.

i really feel like the default amount of halleys is WAAAAAAAAAAAY low. and them patching aways any planet being halleyable with sufficient numbers on normal sized planets and up for randomly generated systems was : THE WORST CHOICE EVER.

I haven't played on a system with asteroids for ages, except for the 1v1 map that has it. In which it works quite nicely but its mostly never used.

The only problem I have with it is that it only takes one and there is almost no resources on one so its a no brainer.

Playing with normal halleyable planets is good because they take more than one Halley and they are resource rich.

There is no problem with the way the game currently does impacts it is a very simple to understand system and it makes sense, you trade a planet for a planet.

I wouldn't even say remove asteroids because they work in small scale systems much better but even if you don't agree with that you don't have to use asteroids in your system.

Asteroids are a choice and should be used where appropriate, like, you don't have a gas giant or a laser in every system and many maps don't even have other planets.

Directly @the OP, the size of the planet is completely irrelevant, people who seem to take issue with the realism make no sense to me. I mean, does it make sense that we're on planets that are only a few hundred meters across, does it make sense that energy can travel from a power station on one end of the solar system to a vehicle factory on the other with no discernible mechanic. No, it doesn't but it's still a fun GAME.

if you could learn to read you'd find that I used the word sense nowhere and that I was precisely laying the issue of gameplay.

I used that word explicitly plenty of times.