Moons of Moons?

That is also a selfish position to take.
You'd ruin my enjoyment of the game, because you think it's "cool"?

Unless you can come up with gameplay reasons of why this is needed within the game, that isn't already serviced by moons in normal orbits and Asteroids in a belt, then there's no reason to put them in the game.

You're disregarding Science and believability for no appreciable gameplay enhancing reason.

"Cool" is not a reason, it's a happy side effect. I direct you once again to the PSA - Realism VS Awesome

Can you come up with a reason that we should take it out other then because of your opinion of the way science works?

And cool was never my reason, my reason was that yours and my opinion are worth the same, so you not wanting it is equalled by my wanting of it. No amount of posts will change that.

And if your entire enjoyment of a game was ruined by a random map generator then you are far too picky to argue with.

:lol:

Now you're trollin' me. This isn't my opinion, there are Provable Scientific FACTS over how orbits work. Sub-Satellites, 99.9% of the time are transient orbits that eventually degrade.

You opinion is not grounded in scientific reasoning of any kind. What ARE you basing your opinion on?
Because opinions backed up by facts are, in the context of a debate (especially a scientific one), worth more than opinions that don't.

You're entitled to your opinion igncom1. That doesn't mean that it's magically correct.

This is a game, not a simulation.

And even with the fact that the sub satellites orbit degrades, there is still time for when they haven't, time enough for a game to take place on such a map.

So your fact don't prevent this from happening, and it certainly doesn't prevent it being in game for any amount of scientific data.

So your opinion on the science of a fictional universe is as good as mine.

That entirely depends on how realistically the universe should be modeled. I'd prefer that the System Generator tool didn't break my immersion on a regular basis.

Again, you have your opinion based on... whatever it is...
And I have mine with Science backing me up.

Other posters can read into that what they will.

I'm not arguing in this thread anymore. So carry on believing whatever it is you want to believe in igncom1

*Exits Thread*

so is nanolathe for or against the death star?

And I would hope that you could also turn them off, but to exclude them entirely is just silly!

My opinion is based on what I like, and what I know.

As a human I am entitled to be wrong while believing I am right, just try to have patience if you please and try to see it from my (Warped) angle so see why I don't agree.

That was an aggressive exit just because I didn't agree.

Option of "physical nonsense" in the system generator would be fun. It should create all kinds of anomalies: moons of the moons; moons of the moons of the moons; planets, that orbit smaller planets; asteroid belts, touching the atmosphere; moons that orbit their planets on distance higher than between their planet and the sun; green stars; etc, etc... Actually, Kickstarter trailer shows something similar with asteroid belt.
But it should only be an option, and it should be set off by default. I want to see believable world. Cartoonish, but believable.

Boy, nanolathe will really hate it when the sudden death orbits start showing up.

wow, really, nano cant handle slightly inaccurate orbits?
the problem with moonlets arent that you cant have them, it is that in real life they slowly degrade. an example of a real moonlet is... our moon, if you think about it it makes sense since it orbits around something that orbits around the sun. since the orbits in PA are going to be aproximations i have no problem with one more layer of satelites after moons.
we arent even talking about real moons here, more like trapped asteroids and debris. if nano is not at all able to handle an asteroid orbiting a moon, i think his priorities are misplaced.
a compromise would be to let the moonlets orbit a (fake) lagrange point basically around the moon in a tidally locked polar orbit mooved one moon radius further away, not to satisfy nano of course but to se his mind explode as we wizz about in our (slightly) inaccurate solar system.

Since this is directed at me, I'll respond;

Tell me, exactly what gameplay opportunities this offers that a "normal" moon, and a separate asteroid belt does not already offer?

Besides a very slight decrease in travel time for the former, I see no differences... and certainly no gameplay changes. Sub-Satellites are, therefore pointless in terms of gameplay as generated as part of the System Generation.

Help me out here; show me what I'm missing... because there's obviously something you guys are seeing that is eluding me.
Why do you want nested orbital paths at system generation?

---

Note: I am perfectly understanding of using Asteroids as "Space Carriers" and pulling them into new orbits around a moon, or a planet and using them as a staging platform for an invasion.

I do NOT see the point in these being generated as part of the System Generation.

Because it's a base requirement of building ANY solar system at all:
- Sun -> Planet -> Moon

Bam. That's a nested orbit. If someone wants to get even crazier (like a big planet surrounded by smaller planets w/moons), then why stop them?

You're intentionally misinterpreting me.

Intuitively, sub-orbits nested too deeply doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective, because go too far and it's too unpredictable to form strategies. That said, this is a thing for the map maker to deal with. If someone wants to nest 3 or more deep as opposed to the usual 2, there's no reason to stop them other than technical.

You're intentionally misinterpreting him.
We do have moons in our system. Quite a lot of them.
We don't have moons of the moons in our system. And we know physical mechanisms that prevent them from appearing.
Why do you ask for physically impossible thing to be in the main generation process? Is there any reason for that? I assume it's for teh lulz, but even in that case you should agree that it shouldn't be a part of default generation settings.

should metal planets be able to physically generate in the orbit of moons?

They more than likely have internal monitoring systems and thrusters that could compensate and re-adjust their orbit periodically. So I have no problem with artificial sub-satellites of that nature... as long as they're not too big

Because it doesn't matter if the process is real or not. It matters only that planet generation doesn't bug out in game. If it works, then throw it in the planet editor. You're not going to lose any sleep over maps you won't play.

Editor, Fine. Random Generator, No.

*MOD EDITED*

See watch ... Metal planets.... Ughh realism, Ugghh we never found one; Ugghh ... :lol:

I like the Metal planets ... BTW

There's only 100-500 billion galaxies, each with 200-400 billion stars. With that said, nesting moons is a cool idea. Sounds fun in a video game ....