Creating Planets IN GAME?

Uhm when I first read the thread title I was thinking about Project Genesis from Star Trek. That would be creating new planets Building Death Stars is not, as those are in definition space stations and not planets

So a Genesis weapon as counter to planet destroyers would be cool

The problem is that this would be open to abuse. Asteroids I think would have to be a limited resource because they are capable of destroying planets and a weapon of that magnitude should be limited to prevent abuse. Being able to spawn planets does three things.

1)It greatly reduces the risk and cost of losing a planet for both attacker and defender. If you can just make a new planet then losing a planet isn't the same disaster it should be. Likewise an attacker thinks less of destroying a planet over capturing one.

2)Free Resources. If a Genesis device costs less than a planet then you are getting resources for free, you can bootstrap your economy up artificially, I don't think you should be able to get something from nothing. And If it costs close to that of a planets resources then it is a resource sink not worth having because no one could justify making one.

3)Artificially lengthening games. It would turn into a protracted game of whack a mole If new planets keep popping up. One of the great things about being able to destroy planets is that it removes a field of battle and brings players closer together for the final conflict. In a game on this scale it means that eventually there is nowhere to hide. I think that is something the game needs to prevent too many matches turn into battles off attrition when they need not be, especially in larger maps.

You can probably limit that to like say one use device per game.

Say you in a tight spot for example.

Nobody would care if you lengthen the game if it was a modded private server.

The game is suppose to have long games, and you could make it disable 'super weapons' or selected disabled super weapons, that would balance the game out somewhat.

Firstly, if it is a one off item it sounds like a tremendous waste of time. If the player is in a tight spot it is because they failed to play well against an opponent, they shouldn’t get a get out of jail free card. All it does is provide frustration for the winning player and prolong the inevitable if the defending player was in such trouble that they need a special planet generating super device in order to get out of it.

Secondly you have not addressed how a player obtains the device or the repercussions. I will lay them out as I see them.

1) If it is as expensive as it should be (a planets worth of resources) then it is a waste of resources better put elsewhere (simply building one would more or less ensure that your opponent will put you in a position to use it).

2) If it is not as expensive as planets worth of resources then people will always build it, slap it down as early as they can for an extra planets worth of resources, profit.

I don’t mind if someone liked the idea and made a mod for it, but that is not what this is about. I am arguing against having it in the official release of the game.

The game is supposed to be long yes. Games already will be long, they scale with the size of the solar system you select prior to starting the game. If you want a longer game you make a larger solar system. A genesis device is a redundant mechanic that would only bring problems to the table.

Being able to make something a selectable option is not a good enough reason to have it. You say “that will balance the game out somewhat” so that implies that having it would not be balanced by your own admission. My question then is why have it? Having something for the sake of it, or because you can, are not good enough reasons.

The main reason of annihilating planets (other than awesomeness) is to make later game shorter. You know, in TA, it was pretty common that game does not end even after hundreds of nuclear strike. Creating planet can make the game endless and everybody knows that there is nothing worse than it in the game play.

I think that the killer planet (is also known as death star) is not that cool idea in normal game. If that is too powerful, it will ruin the game play (even if it is extremely difficult to activate it, there will be nothing the opponent can do about the killer planet once it has been activated), if the killer planet is quite easy to destroy (like Star Wars), there is no meaning to make the it because it is much better to create another stuff using the resources that would cost the killer planet.

But I think that it will be fun if there is a game mode (or as minor element in normal game) to capture the planet or moon which provide some benefit to owners (like Relic point in DOW or Xel'Naga tower in SC2). Of course it should be easy to get and easy to be taken (more difficult than first capture though), to give the game more suspense.

P.S. I think that this topic should be moved to the general forum, no?

At this stage all we know for sure (if anyone has heard differently from somewhere please correct me) is that there are going to be metal planets which may or may not have tech on them, although references to the death star have been made a lot I am not sure it has been stated whether or not metal planets are going to be planet destroying superweapons.

And yes, although there is nothing stating that non backer restricted content can't be discussed here, I see no reason why this cant be on the general forum and it would be nice if the discussion on this section of the forums predominated towards backer content.

Basically what I've been saying since the beginning, I'd venture to say off-hand that 80-90% of the threads in the lounge could be booted over to the General Discussion Subforum as they don't deal with any backer only content.

Mike

I think "this would be too imbalanced" is not a valid argument . Because it all depends on how Uber balances it. Planet destroying space stations or asteroids seem imbalanced aswell, but we know Uber will balance that stuff so that it's not too easy to pull off.

Same can be done with a Genesis device. I think it can be balanced in a ways that makes sense and does not destroy the core gameplay (maybe very long research time or cooldown between uses, so that u cant enhance the battlefield faster than u can destroy it).

But apart from that balancing stuff, wouldn't it be epic to have a Genesis device? It's one of those cult things about Star Trek, and since we already got a Death Star hommage for Star Wars fans in the game, why not something for Trekkies aswell? I mean creating a planet with such a device is as epic as destroying one imo, and since PA should be about epic moments...

The real questions is more if the engine is capapble of creating new planets without lags and stuff (since it can alter terrain and remove planets, I guess so).

1. It's not a tremendous waste of time....

2. Being a tight spot doesn't make a player bad.

3. It's not a Get out of Jail Free Card This isn't monopoly.

4. It's a Super Weapon.

5. And because it's a Super Weapons (That all players can access - albit once only in a game) That means it requires thinking of when and where to deploy it.

Things are going to be either too expansive, or not expansive enough, and people will have their own opinions but Uber will have to balance that out.

Secondly, you can't always build it if you limit to one time use per game.

Your argument about being in the game has merit, but I think your probably over reacting since there is a planet destroyer type weapon already in the game.

Thirdly about "A genesis device is a redundant mechanic that would only bring problems to the table" Again, it would only be a one use per game mechanic, in the Star Trek Movies you only see it once actually being used (Can be corrected) and that was with Spock Rebirth/Reborn etc.

Considering that asteroids and moons can be pretty much an infinite super weapon, a single one time use of a genesis device would not really make that much difference in terms of balance and also length of game.'

When playing Sins of a Solar of Empire, you can move your home planet (to a different planet) for a cost, that was infinite, there was no limit.

It only extended the amount of the game by a little, but if you are surrounded then your pretty much dead anyway.

Either way, if the option for a genesis device type weapon that can be enabled or disabled in the super weapons game setup menu - I am not sure what is the problem?

And Unless I mistaken, to be able to create planets in realtime in game, you would need to be in the engine/modding API anyway?

What does it make a player then? Perhaps the player isn’t inherently bad but they haven’t played better than the opponent that put them in that position does it?

You are missing the point, It is the concept I am getting across. If a player is in a tight spot it is either through a mistake they made, or they were out classed by their opponent. In either case why should they be able to deploy another planet to get out of it?

That is not relevant to whether or not it should be in the game. Any asset in game requires thinking about where and when to deploy.
I should also add that there is currently a perfectly serviceable method for getting away from an area and that is to slap some rocket engines on an asteroid and move it elsewhere.

Having a single use item sounds like a gimmick to be avoided. If you can build one why can’t you build many? The fact that it requires such an artificial balancing mechanism is telling.

There is only one device in the movie because it requires a cinematic conclusion. They only let off one because they had only built one. Besides, it is irrelevant what they did on Star Trek, it has absolutely nothing to do with video game mechanics.

That is a lot of speculation. You don’t know the resource cost, production time or how many asteroids are going to be present in maps of varied sizes

All the above variables introduce methods for balance. KEWs are likely to be, expensive, time consuming (requiring resources to defend and risk of losing it) and asteroids may be rare (and not all in areas you can easily obtain). All told this would make them rare, expensive and difficult to obtain.

By contrast, so far there has been no specific ideas developed for the Genesis planet spawning device for how it is implemented and how it would be good for PA. How is it deployed? Does it take time? Is it worth more or less than the production capacity of a planet? Can it be countered while being implemented? How does it match into orbital mechanics if they are implemented in PA?

This is not relevant. That mechanic didn’t add a source of resources, or a new field of battle to the game. It moved existing ones. It is comparable to what is already in the game (moving asteroids with rockets) Rather than the genesis device. What’s more it seemed like a useless mechanic to me, you said it yourself “It only extended the amount of the game by a little, but if you are surrounded then your pretty much dead anyway”

That is a terrible reason to have something in the game. I am all for options don’t get me wrong, but being able to make something optional is not an argument to have it in the game. I could apply that logic to any proposed game mechanic no matter how absurd. It has nothing to do with the pros or cons of a proposed idea.

Fan service isn’t a good reason to have something in PA. Also metal planets is more a homage to Total Annihilation metal planets than they are Star Wars, which is appropriate as it is a spiritual successor to that and Supreme Commander.

I don’t know the details of the engine, but given that it generates whole solar systems prior to a game (and it would have to do that in a pretty snappy fashion) I don’t see that the engine would be a barrier to producing it.

Now you are changing the target of the debate. People can mod what they like and I would have no issue with people modding it in. I am arguing against having it in the core game.

I don't like the idea of limited asteroids. There's no shortage of rocks compared to worlds, and they're definitely a renewable resource if a shattered world is any indication. As long as they can't provide any real resources (no metal, very limited energy), then they have 2 major uses:

- As giant chunks of terrain for moving lots of robots across the cosmos
- As giant planet smashing bombs.

Both of these options are key aspects of waging effective war between worlds.

The "balance" aspect is how much money you have to pay to get an asteroid working. How expensive is it to colonize? How much to move it? How much more to be an effective weapon or transport? In nearly every case, it should be expected that the best option is to take land from a planetary surface, and to wage war on the surface. Otherwise, everyone would jump off world and fight with asteroids!

Wait, maybe that's not such a bad thing... :roll:

I could live with that, the end result is mostly the same, that KEWs are not going to be thrown around like candy (well, outside of someone’s mod I guess). Certainly they still would not be infinite super weapons as they would be limited by:

• 1) Resource cost
  
  2) Construction time
  
  3) The building players ability prevent scouting of it to keep it secret and/or successfully defending it from enemy attack until completion.

Another thing that would enter into their availability would be the location of asteroids in a solar system. Take ours for instance, there is an asteroid belt with plentiful resources. However to get to them if you are on the inner planets you'd have to get there first and in all likelihood fighting within such a focused area of the solar system (relatively anyway) would be fierce.

You can always build aircraft factory and then it is full of fighter planes! Not space flight capable but still awesome!

Will it be possible to build engines to asteroids/moons and just fly around space without ramming it to celestial body? If it is possible then you can build massive artillerys to asteroid and just fly around space killing everything!

Edit: Damn. Didn't notice this thread has already multiple pages. Oh Well..

It has been suggested by Uber that once you put rocket engines on an asteroid you don't necessarily have to slam it into a planet, that you could put it into orbit around a planet as a kind of forward base for invasion (dropping units, orbital artillery maybe?).

Neutrino did mention also that there will be a size point where you simply would not be able to put sufficient thrust into an object to move it. My assumption is that would apply to moon and planet sized objects.

(Note: when I say moon I mean Earth moon sized objects, I'm aware the technical term for moon could include any natural satellite)

We know already that space combat is not a focus of PA, so I doubt we will be using asteroid bases as spaceships and flying freely around the solar system firing at one another.

I hope that helps answer your questions, welcome to the forums emossg

It's not a jail free card. If someone is surrounded spawning another planet will help nothing, because that planet will not be colonized and just empty, how would that help if the home planet of the commander is sieged? if the commander is able to flee there, well then the other player just takes his zillion units and follows him and beats him there. So spawning planets will more likely occur midgame, when the battle is not decided yet. And because there probably will be many mechanisms to destroy planets and also more than one per game, a device that adds a planet to the gameworld won't change much in the balance and endresult, because in the end more planets will be destroyed than built.

I really don't get your argument at all . Seems you argue against it because you are, well, just against it . And please don't pull the "this is only speculation" card when your arguments are speculation aswell. Every gameplay discussion is currently speculation because we don't know how Uber will do things.

Whilst that is a fair point that is not the situation I was referring to. At no point was I referring to a situation where the player was down to their last planet and presently under siege, only that the player was in a tight spot and was able to use a planet generator in order to get out of it. It is one of my weaker arguments this is true, but it still applies. If a player is losing planets to the enemy, they should do one of three things.

• 1)Get the planet back off the enemy (provided it wasn’t rendered uninhabitable by an asteroid strike).
  
  2)Colonise as yet unutilised resources.
  
  3)Get territory off another player if it is more than 1v1.

What I don't think a player should be able to do, is just create new ground.

This is a decent enough argument. But it doesn't present any good reason for the mechanic to exist. Having planets removed through asteroid strikes shrinks the battlefield over time and drive players through increasingly intense skirmishes to a climatic final battle. Creating planets doesn't add to that, it takes away from it and for no tangible benefit. I would also like to see someone try and address the issue of resources which I have brought up in prior posts.

As opposed to you arguing for it because you want it? People are arguing for it, and I can appreciate that people like the idea, but what is needed is more specific statements on how they see this mechanic operating.

I have not seen compelling reasons why the game needs/benefits from this mechanic; only people thinking it would be cool and then trying to justify it once people objected. Also it is a vague concept. There is not much development on how it should be balanced from a resource or time perspective, or whether it is a vulnerable undertaking. I may not like the idea, but I have also put thought into how it could upset game dynamics.

If compelling arguments can be made that show how a genesis device would solve more issues than it produces and how such a mechanic adds value and strategic depth to the gameplay, then I may reassess my point of view. It would not be the first time that I have been won over by a superior argument.

My thoughts on this idea at the moment, are that it would cause issues with game dynamics if it were able to be repeatedly used throughout a game, and it is inconsequential and a gimmick if it is limited. That doesn’t strike me as something which is worthwhile outside of a mod.

There is a big difference. Whenever I am debating a point of view I use what information we have gathered through other threads that the developers have responded to. I don't purport to know how things are going to work and I try to state any assumptions I am making. This is as opposed to statements without even acknowledging the assumptions being made as shown in the statement I was referring to.

Why should I not call out a statement like this? It fails to take into account so many things that it is almost pure speculation.

For the TL;DR crowd:
Building planets is boring. Smashing planets is fun. A real galaxy has billions of stars and countless worlds. If one of them gets blown up, it's not a big deal. Go find a new one.

Sure, this strategy may ultimately exhaust the galaxy before the natural heat death of the universe takes hold, but war is hell. Worst case scenario is, hitch a rock and fly to a new galaxy. Surely nothing can go wrong with that.

bobucles hits upon one of the core reasons I don't 'like' the idea as opposed to my arguments from a gameplay perspective. A genesis device just doesn't fit the tone and aesthetic for Planetary Annihilation.

"The endless conflict continues to march into the vast darkness of space. Battles rage across the cold void: annihilating planets, moons, and asteroids; cosmic obliteration for a purpose long forgotten. Technology has been captured, assimilated, refined, and transformed into brutally efficient self-replicating mechanisms of war."

I think aside from any gameplay objections it would be very out of place.