UI suggestion and asteroid belts

Pendaelose · February 4, 2014

chronosoul said: ↑

I read this thread and I really like the idea of asteriod UI and how to colonize an asteriod. However There is a few quips I have with the idea.

Pendaelose said: ↑

There's no reason to think we need to treat individual asteroids the way we handle planets, especially the smallest ones. If the entire asteroid belt were a single entity we interact with via the celestial view we could sharply reduce the demands on the player and the PC running the game.

Right now only planets are zoomable in the celestial UI. Small rocks can be low poly renders that are non-zoomable. Large rocks we land on can be rendered as well, but only become "planets" for landing as needed. An asteroid belt could contain thousands, or even tens of thousands of low poly rocks. If most are non-zoom-able we can spawn new planetoids for building on when an old one is destroyed or shifted out of orbit. that way we can still have unlimited large asteroid bases for annihilating planets, but we don't have to worry about managing 1000 "planets" at once.

We can also make units that interact with the smaller rocks by building simple structures on them automatically. Instead of a "base" on a tiny planet we convert a random rock into a "unit" by sending a special worker to place a missile silo or haleys on it. It looks like you built a tiny base, but with none of the UI overhead or any of the CPU demands that come with a planet. A simple "Add engine", or "add umbrella" would be enough. It would just light up on our celestial view as an object of interest (like a unit in transit) and would have some basic orders. It may become zoomable, but it doesn't involve creating a pathing map for units or simulating any new orbits.

Rocks this size would also be too small to fight over, so no landing units on them. If it's got an engine and is threatening you, just use a nuke, or some other anti-asteroid weapon to wipe it out completely.

Edit: An additional thought.

I like the idea of area commands on asteroid belts. We could tell our orbital fabbers to build engines on every suitable rock in an area, or tell our avengers to hunt every fabber in an area. If the rocks are not "planets" then we don't need to worry about a separate surface and orbital layer, so our avengers can destroy the engines or defenses we find.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of having low poly Asteroids that when "activated" by an orbital engineer that colonizes on it, it becomes zoomable and useable for the player, and develops its polygons for construction. The engineers can then have simple endgame technology they would build on the asteroid to fit certain designs.

I don't like the idea of it becoming an "Icon" and represents something that you wanted it to do. I feel that limits the diversity of what an asteroid can offer if it was to be multi-use. Icon's fighting icons in space don't feel strategic to me but more "dice roll" of did he have more avenger icons then me? he must of won. Icon battles on land are controllable... I just can't see how having avengers fighting in asteroid belts yields the same strategic icon battles on a planet.

I also don't like the idea of "automatic base building" since I feel the asteroid is doing something outside of my finite control. Maybe I just wanted to have an asteroid as a placebo effect of existing instead of actually using it.

Not bashing your ideas pendalose they seem cool, I just prefer 1 out of the many i guess.
Click to expand...

My idea is that they would be too small and plentiful for "base building" to be practical. A rock only large enough for 2 turrets shouldn't consume your attention when a quick button click can do it.

chronosoul · February 4, 2014

Pendaelose said: ↑

chronosoul said: ↑

I read this thread and I really like the idea of asteriod UI and how to colonize an asteriod. However There is a few quips I have with the idea.

Pendaelose said: ↑

There's no reason to think we need to treat individual asteroids the way we handle planets, especially the smallest ones. If the entire asteroid belt were a single entity we interact with via the celestial view we could sharply reduce the demands on the player and the PC running the game.

Right now only planets are zoomable in the celestial UI. Small rocks can be low poly renders that are non-zoomable. Large rocks we land on can be rendered as well, but only become "planets" for landing as needed. An asteroid belt could contain thousands, or even tens of thousands of low poly rocks. If most are non-zoom-able we can spawn new planetoids for building on when an old one is destroyed or shifted out of orbit. that way we can still have unlimited large asteroid bases for annihilating planets, but we don't have to worry about managing 1000 "planets" at once.

We can also make units that interact with the smaller rocks by building simple structures on them automatically. Instead of a "base" on a tiny planet we convert a random rock into a "unit" by sending a special worker to place a missile silo or haleys on it. It looks like you built a tiny base, but with none of the UI overhead or any of the CPU demands that come with a planet. A simple "Add engine", or "add umbrella" would be enough. It would just light up on our celestial view as an object of interest (like a unit in transit) and would have some basic orders. It may become zoomable, but it doesn't involve creating a pathing map for units or simulating any new orbits.

Rocks this size would also be too small to fight over, so no landing units on them. If it's got an engine and is threatening you, just use a nuke, or some other anti-asteroid weapon to wipe it out completely.

Edit: An additional thought.

I like the idea of area commands on asteroid belts. We could tell our orbital fabbers to build engines on every suitable rock in an area, or tell our avengers to hunt every fabber in an area. If the rocks are not "planets" then we don't need to worry about a separate surface and orbital layer, so our avengers can destroy the engines or defenses we find.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of having low poly Asteroids that when "activated" by an orbital engineer that colonizes on it, it becomes zoomable and useable for the player, and develops its polygons for construction. The engineers can then have simple endgame technology they would build on the asteroid to fit certain designs.

I don't like the idea of it becoming an "Icon" and represents something that you wanted it to do. I feel that limits the diversity of what an asteroid can offer if it was to be multi-use. Icon's fighting icons in space don't feel strategic to me but more "dice roll" of did he have more avenger icons then me? he must of won. Icon battles on land are controllable... I just can't see how having avengers fighting in asteroid belts yields the same strategic icon battles on a planet.

I also don't like the idea of "automatic base building" since I feel the asteroid is doing something outside of my finite control. Maybe I just wanted to have an asteroid as a placebo effect of existing instead of actually using it.

Not bashing your ideas pendalose they seem cool, I just prefer 1 out of the many i guess.
Click to expand...

My idea is that they would be too small and plentiful for "base building" to be practical. A rock only large enough for 2 turrets shouldn't consume your attention when a quick button click can do it.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting into the realm of "asteroid size" and "base buildable rocks" and I feel we need to wait for uber to catch up to this point so we can see if our visions line up. I thought asteroids would be the size in the kickstarter trailer but you are describing much smaller.

Pendaelose · February 4, 2014

chronosoul said: ↑

Pendaelose said: ↑

chronosoul said: ↑

I read this thread and I really like the idea of asteriod UI and how to colonize an asteriod. However There is a few quips I have with the idea.

Pendaelose said: ↑

There's no reason to think we need to treat individual asteroids the way we handle planets, especially the smallest ones. If the entire asteroid belt were a single entity we interact with via the celestial view we could sharply reduce the demands on the player and the PC running the game.

Right now only planets are zoomable in the celestial UI. Small rocks can be low poly renders that are non-zoomable. Large rocks we land on can be rendered as well, but only become "planets" for landing as needed. An asteroid belt could contain thousands, or even tens of thousands of low poly rocks. If most are non-zoom-able we can spawn new planetoids for building on when an old one is destroyed or shifted out of orbit. that way we can still have unlimited large asteroid bases for annihilating planets, but we don't have to worry about managing 1000 "planets" at once.

We can also make units that interact with the smaller rocks by building simple structures on them automatically. Instead of a "base" on a tiny planet we convert a random rock into a "unit" by sending a special worker to place a missile silo or haleys on it. It looks like you built a tiny base, but with none of the UI overhead or any of the CPU demands that come with a planet. A simple "Add engine", or "add umbrella" would be enough. It would just light up on our celestial view as an object of interest (like a unit in transit) and would have some basic orders. It may become zoomable, but it doesn't involve creating a pathing map for units or simulating any new orbits.

Rocks this size would also be too small to fight over, so no landing units on them. If it's got an engine and is threatening you, just use a nuke, or some other anti-asteroid weapon to wipe it out completely.

Edit: An additional thought.

I like the idea of area commands on asteroid belts. We could tell our orbital fabbers to build engines on every suitable rock in an area, or tell our avengers to hunt every fabber in an area. If the rocks are not "planets" then we don't need to worry about a separate surface and orbital layer, so our avengers can destroy the engines or defenses we find.
Click to expand...

I like the idea of having low poly Asteroids that when "activated" by an orbital engineer that colonizes on it, it becomes zoomable and useable for the player, and develops its polygons for construction. The engineers can then have simple endgame technology they would build on the asteroid to fit certain designs.

I don't like the idea of it becoming an "Icon" and represents something that you wanted it to do. I feel that limits the diversity of what an asteroid can offer if it was to be multi-use. Icon's fighting icons in space don't feel strategic to me but more "dice roll" of did he have more avenger icons then me? he must of won. Icon battles on land are controllable... I just can't see how having avengers fighting in asteroid belts yields the same strategic icon battles on a planet.

I also don't like the idea of "automatic base building" since I feel the asteroid is doing something outside of my finite control. Maybe I just wanted to have an asteroid as a placebo effect of existing instead of actually using it.

Not bashing your ideas pendalose they seem cool, I just prefer 1 out of the many i guess.
Click to expand...

My idea is that they would be too small and plentiful for "base building" to be practical. A rock only large enough for 2 turrets shouldn't consume your attention when a quick button click can do it.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting into the realm of "asteroid size" and "base buildable rocks" and I feel we need to wait for uber to catch up to this point so we can see if our visions line up. I thought asteroids would be the size in the kickstarter trailer but you are describing much smaller.
Click to expand...

I think there could be those too, but not nearly as many, maybe dozens? The smaller ones I'm talking about would be in the hundreds.

chronosoul · February 4, 2014

Pendaelose said: ↑

chronosoul said: ↑

Pendaelose said: ↑

chronosoul said: ↑

I read this thread and I really like the idea of asteriod UI and how to colonize an asteriod. However There is a few quips I have with the idea.

I like the idea of having low poly Asteroids that when "activated" by an orbital engineer that colonizes on it, it becomes zoomable and useable for the player, and develops its polygons for construction. The engineers can then have simple endgame technology they would build on the asteroid to fit certain designs.

I don't like the idea of it becoming an "Icon" and represents something that you wanted it to do. I feel that limits the diversity of what an asteroid can offer if it was to be multi-use. Icon's fighting icons in space don't feel strategic to me but more "dice roll" of did he have more avenger icons then me? he must of won. Icon battles on land are controllable... I just can't see how having avengers fighting in asteroid belts yields the same strategic icon battles on a planet.

I also don't like the idea of "automatic base building" since I feel the asteroid is doing something outside of my finite control. Maybe I just wanted to have an asteroid as a placebo effect of existing instead of actually using it.

Not bashing your ideas pendalose they seem cool, I just prefer 1 out of the many i guess.
Click to expand...

My idea is that they would be too small and plentiful for "base building" to be practical. A rock only large enough for 2 turrets shouldn't consume your attention when a quick button click can do it.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting into the realm of "asteroid size" and "base buildable rocks" and I feel we need to wait for uber to catch up to this point so we can see if our visions line up. I thought asteroids would be the size in the kickstarter trailer but you are describing much smaller.
Click to expand...

I think there could be those too, but not nearly as many, maybe dozens? The smaller ones I'm talking about would be in the hundreds.
Click to expand...

Then I have to disagree with asteroids that size. but then again I didn't even think of having asteroids that size. So i'm at a catch 22 in that thought.

going to have to wait for uber to explain asteroid sizing plans and what buildable area an asteroid might have where only 2 turrets are "worth building on the rock/are the only buildable structures on the rock"

Pendaelose · February 4, 2014

chronosoul said: ↑

Pendaelose said: ↑

chronosoul said: ↑

Pendaelose said: ↑

My idea is that they would be too small and plentiful for "base building" to be practical. A rock only large enough for 2 turrets shouldn't consume your attention when a quick button click can do it.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting into the realm of "asteroid size" and "base buildable rocks" and I feel we need to wait for uber to catch up to this point so we can see if our visions line up. I thought asteroids would be the size in the kickstarter trailer but you are describing much smaller.
Click to expand...

I think there could be those too, but not nearly as many, maybe dozens? The smaller ones I'm talking about would be in the hundreds.
Click to expand...

Then I have to disagree with asteroids that size. but then again I didn't even think of having asteroids that size. So i'm at a catch 22 in that thought.

going to have to wait for uber to explain asteroid sizing plans and what buildable area an asteroid might have where only 2 turrets are "worth building on the rock/are the only buildable structures on the rock"
Click to expand...

The idea is that you have lots of them because locking them down with defenses would be similar to building static defenses around your base. This wouldn't be done at the celestial view, but rather once zoomed in on the belt and viewing it as an orbital layer.

It's an idea, that's all. The real substance of the idea is treating the asteroid belt like a ring shaped orbital layer instead of as dozens (or hundreds) of tiny planets that are zoomed in on as individuals. Having small rocks, even if they are non-interactable would help fill that space and give it less of a void between planets feeling.

chronosoul · February 4, 2014

Pendaelose said: ↑

chronosoul said: ↑

Pendaelose said: ↑

chronosoul said: ↑

Now we are getting into the realm of "asteroid size" and "base buildable rocks" and I feel we need to wait for uber to catch up to this point so we can see if our visions line up. I thought asteroids would be the size in the kickstarter trailer but you are describing much smaller.
Click to expand...

I think there could be those too, but not nearly as many, maybe dozens? The smaller ones I'm talking about would be in the hundreds.
Click to expand...

Then I have to disagree with asteroids that size. but then again I didn't even think of having asteroids that size. So i'm at a catch 22 in that thought.

going to have to wait for uber to explain asteroid sizing plans and what buildable area an asteroid might have where only 2 turrets are "worth building on the rock/are the only buildable structures on the rock"
Click to expand...

The idea is that you have lots of them because locking them down with defenses would be similar to building static defenses around your base. This wouldn't be done at the celestial view, but rather once zoomed in on the belt and viewing it as an orbital layer.

It's an idea, that's all. The real substance of the idea is treating the asteroid belt like a ring shaped orbital layer instead of as dozens (or hundreds) of tiny planets that are zoomed in on as individuals. Having small rocks, even if they are non-interactable would help fill that space and give it less of a void between planets feeling.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how i feel about asteroid belts being locked down with defenses and avengers going in to asteroid belts to deal with it. Seems like the battle would be to focused on Orbital space battles.

I'd rather the asteroids have engineers "land" on an asteroid and that initiates the asteroid as a buildable object.

Pendaelose · February 4, 2014

It would be an orbital arena, but I for one would enjoy that. I really look forward to all of the space happy mods we can look forward to in PA.

My only concern about every asteroid being a tiny planet is the management. It gets hectic enough trying to build on 3+ moons while not under attack. I worry about dropping 20+ mini planets into the game if they are going to have the same UI.

kothanlem · February 5, 2014

igncom1 said: ↑

Could have smaller rocks crash into unstable, usable rocks and brake into stable weaponizible ones.

Also how would we impliments ground units into these?

Could we have jump jet bots to 'island' hop?

Those engineers from the kick starter were little luna lander units, we could just use these to try and have little reclaimer wars in-between the satellites attempting to snipe each other.

And as for uses, what about limiting each rock into a single use, like having a power plant, but then having no more space, so you could have singular rocks for a specific purposes.
Click to expand...

Jet bots would be awesome, it could be like Mechwarrior.

UI suggestion and asteroid belts

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

chronosoul Well-Known Member

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

chronosoul Well-Known Member

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

chronosoul Well-Known Member

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

kothanlem New Member

Share This Page

UI suggestion and asteroid belts

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

chronosoul Well-Known Member

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

chronosoul Well-Known Member

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

chronosoul Well-Known Member

Pendaelose Well-Known Member

kothanlem New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches