Idea for celestial engine and editor. Important and useful.

Re: Idea for celestial engine and editor. Important and usef

The idea of physics-based planetary orbits is great and all, but you have to admit that it adds a lot of requirements for the game UI. You would need to be able to not only see the effects of current orbits, but you would need a way to see them in the future, AND be able to play around with the future orbits in order to be able to see what happens when you launch your asteroid.

And all this UI work would be an additional layer for the player to worry about - switching from planetary ten-pin to planetary annihilation.

Physics sounds great, but perhaps a merge of the two ideas is best - simplified control with planets on 'rails', and physics based calculations when orbital bodies collide so that pieces etc fly about realistically until they settle into a new orbit.

Re: Idea for celestial engine and editor. Important and usef

Wow i didn't know i would be getting into a wall-of-quotes™ argument here, please know that i'm not responding because of time constraints and not because i devalue your opinion.

Just 1 Point i would like to address: The ChronoCam is not sufficient as representation of future events, this is an RTS after all, i wouldn't want to have to watch a forward simulation of the system to see what happens, i want a superimposed line indicator showing me. I agree that wrecking havok in a fully simulated system could be all kinds of fun, but also a very different game...

Which is also what i think they will end up using, or some variation of that.

Re: Idea for celestial engine and editor. Important and usef

If you wanna talk about realism collisions should probably create comets that fly off at high speed at odd angles with high probabilities of coming back and intersecting with the orbit again.

Re: Idea for celestial engine and editor. Important and usef

KSP is a great game, but why you can't push the idea to the limit, especially when it doesn't take much? Why just only push asteroids, when you can also knock the stuff with asteroids to destabilize the system to have domino/avalanche effect or to gravitationally pull or slingshot moons with bases around. Play with some planetary system simulators, make cool systems with moons going around moons, that go around planets. Knock just one thing around and look -other stuff will be affected even without impact. Its like making an avalanche by throwing a little stone. In my opinion real physics is going to provide really spectacular gameplay. You can throw some asteroid on the planet to destroy 13% of it, or you can use it to destabilize moons orbit by knocing the moon a little bit, so the moon falls on the planet it orbits and then you have way more spectacular explosions and devastations that just started from way smaller asteroid.

If you can implement such or quite similar stuff without real physics then that's fine with me. I just want to push your idea up to the limit and see what sort of really crazy maps I can make to take advantage of asteroids and planetary setup. I just want the solar systems in PA to have strategic meaning. Not just hopping between the moon and planets and just shooting the asteroid into the planet, but actually remodeling and using entire smartly designed solar systems to my advantage, so if you are smart player you can destroy moons and planets just starting with little asteroids. Rearange the systems or slingshot moons or destroy planets by playing with gravity. If you have very basic planetary system the only thing you can do to the planet is just throwing the asteroid on to it. But what you can do if you have more planets, more and more asteroids moons around? You just make 10 more hops or throw 10 more asteroids? I think that idea behind PA is an excellent idea. Having these asteroids as impactors that destroy stuff is an excellent idea. My point is that if only thing you can do is just doing more hops or throw 10 more asteroids in exactly the same fashion the game is going to be boring. I want to load my savegame/replay and say: "lets try to do something different, instead of smashing asteroid into the planet try to knock the moon with it so the moon smashes into the planet, or lets try gravitationally pull coupled moons by thrusting one of them to destroy planets or rearrange the system." Once you have even huge system, and only hopping and throwing asteroid to achieve impact only you are still left with one option of hopping and throwing it to achieve exactly the same and only possible goal in exactly the same fashion. The game in such system is just going to be longer and boring because you are gonna stick to just one thing that you do repeatively. I think that players should return to the game to try new things, to try new Planetary Annihilation options and strategies. I want PA to be THE ART of destroying planets not a boring repetitive habit. My idea can be good for skirmish games, when you can play game for tens of hours or when you can have optional strategic objective with your multiplayer team!!! Build your bases, defend them and in the same time rearrange the system to spectacularly blow up moons and planets with other moons. When you hop on an asteroid to attach fusion enginge then you do not need coop team players. But if you can put up with your friends an effort to rearrange the planetary system, then you could really take control the system, to spread real havoc. If your enemy realizes that you are doing with your team something big and crazy then before they kill you they are going to try to come up with strategy to stop your strategy, and that's THE STRATEGY! When you see asteroid coming to your planet you say "it will destroy other quarter of my planet." But if you see that enemy team tries to kinetically knock or gravitationally slingshot a moon at your planet where you and 10 of your teammates have tea party, then you know that your doomsday is coming because that moon can be game ender for 11 players in less than 3s or at most 10s after impact. You want to stop them from shooting that moon at you, whatever way they are gonna do it.

Personally, I don't care about hardcoreness or reality of physics simulation as long as a game provides a lot of room for invention and crazy hardcore tactics. Real world physics gives a lot of possibilities, and it would be good to have it in game (for planets and interplanetary motion) -that's what I am emphasizing. For example, I don't know what's going to happen to the moon when you blow up its planet. Real physics engine provides the answer, but when you have things on rails, then whats gonna happen to the moon? Is it going to go around the planet that doesn't exist anymore like the planet was still there? My point is, if your model is not realistic but if it still provides non repetitive and not too goofy gameplay with plenty of strategic options I wrote about then that's fine with me. I am not going to be unhappy as long as I am not bored after tossing 10 or 15 asteroids. Remember -many people have no idea about PA. You got $ from your sponsors in your pockets but you can get way more $ if you make the game that people buy not for weeks to toss 10 asteroids in the same fashion but for years to keep the game and different strategies alive for years. If someone doesn't have that game after year you want that guy to buy it and show it to his friends even after 3 years so they buy it too. You don't want that guy to tell his friends "you got bored after you toss 10 asteroids.". You want that guy to say "The game is hardcore, crazy and awesome with plenty of strategic possibilities and never makes you bored". To have long term success you need to provide gameplay that always has a lot of room for new strategies and new ideas. Modding community is one thing and playing is the other. Supreme Commander (SupCom) is an awesome game. I am physicist. I graduated from one of world's top physics schools. I attended colloquia and and professional meetings and presentations. I was surprised when I did see one professor who works for Pentagon on Quantum Information and who used to work with ICBMs having SupCom FA screenshots as a background for his slides. Maybe he loved SupCom too. SupCom has very good strategy and excellent UI and management system, however after many games I got bored, playing it because you do exactly the same stuff over and over on Seton's Clutch or other map exactly the same way. I recorded multum of SupCom replays and they look pretty much the same after many games. StarCraft 2 and C&C: Tibrerium 4 are way worse games and way more boring games. Games like SupCom FA don't come out too often. I want to have so emergent strategy and gameplay in PA that I don't wanna be bored even after 5 years. I want it to survive in my heart until next big RTS regardless who makes it. PA should be better than next big RTS unless it is PA 2.

Good you take care of modders, however come up with such strategy that tossing asteroids and attaching fusion engines never gets boring. I just presented the idea. I want multum of strategy and possibilities coming from tossing asteroids and attaching fusion thrusters. How you do it is up to you. Don't do it my way if you can do it better, but don't do it worse than my way.