Return to “General”

Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#61
Katawa wrote:I think if rotation was a thing people would rightly wonder even more why they don't orbit too.
If the physics can be persuaded to permit planetary rotation, but orbiting is just too difficult, should the impossibility of orbiting prevent rotation from being implemented?

Also, please note that while I'd enjoy seeing either rotation or orbiting (or both) show up in Josh's LT 1.0, I don't expect either one of those things based on his own comments.

Which means that if either rotation or orbiting can be implemented, they would happen as mods. Which no one who doesn't want them will be forced to install.
Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#62
Katawa wrote:I think if rotation was a thing people would rightly wonder even more why they don't orbit too.
Considering that period of rotation is typically much shorter than period of orbit, not really. Besides, X managed it without it looking too odd!
Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#63
Scytale wrote:Considering that period of rotation is typically much shorter than period of orbit, not really. Besides, X managed it without it looking too odd!
Alright but if I came into a game and the astral bodies were moving but not moving I'd be like, "Laaaaaaaazy."
woops, my bad, everything & anything actually means specific and conformed
Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#68
Cornflakes_91 wrote:Its not necessary for the game.
It would even make one of the intended features impossible.
That and it creates other problems. A huge void (through with these planets move) that has to be filled with content... or a ship propulsion system that makes distance largely irrelevant which in turn makes solar orbits pointless.

The game's not advertised as an astronomy simulator. If it were, the dust clouds in the game would have to be terribly boring - because you effectively couldn't see them from less than a lightyear out. =)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#70
If I had a nickel for every time someone dismissed a world-dynamics-enhancing suggestion for some game with "it's not going to be a simulator," I'd have too many nickels.

Of course there's no point in implementing something that doesn't contribute value to a game, whether that's a dynamic system or a mechanic of play. But not everyone assesses value the same way. Some people happen to enjoy worlds that mimic key aspects of certain physical behaviors, so that the world itself expresses interesting behaviors with which players can interact. And that's true despite the impossibility of implementing any feature, be it simulation or mechanic, completely or perfectly. Nothing is complete or perfect; declaring that simulating a small part of reality is not worth doing because it doesn't capture every aspect of physics is not a reasonable objection.

"It's not going to be a simulator" is pretty much saying to the gamers who like dynamically-interesting worlds that their play interests are unworthy of consideration. That doesn't seem right to me.

I understand and accept that planet rotation and orbiting are not going to be part of LT 1.0. Simply discussing the possibility of adding these features through a post-launch mod -- making Limit Theory more fun for those who do enjoy more dynamically interesting worlds -- should not be summarily declared out-of-bounds by anyone. I don't expect to complain every time this old "it's not going to be a simulation" thing comes up again, but I hope it's OK if I try to explain once more why I object to it.

I really don't need any more of those nickels, thanks. ;)
Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#72
money :shock: someone droped money

oh well nevermind, flat already took it.

(maybe im a spaceheretic over here but rotating the texture (and the city icons) of the planet is enough immersion for me :P ).

Also i fear a *hitload of randomness and dumbness from the ai if the planets etc move trough the system.
More people want exploding kittens than exploding ships. Somehow, this makes me happy.
- credits go to dwmagus
Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#73
Flatfingers wrote:I understand and accept that planet rotation and orbiting are not going to be part of LT 1.0. Simply discussing the possibility of adding these features through a post-launch mod -- making Limit Theory more fun for those who do enjoy more dynamically interesting worlds -- should not be summarily declared out-of-bounds by anyone. I don't expect to complain every time this old "it's not going to be a simulation" thing comes up again, but I hope it's OK if I try to explain once more why I object to it.
<Standard dismissive response about just modding it in.>
At least that's the easy way out of the convo.
woops, my bad, everything & anything actually means specific and conformed
Post

Re: Planet Mechanics

#74
Personally, I don't want to leave a system, only to come back later and have everything scattered around differently. It would look completely alien and make me question whether or not I'd even visited it before.

On the same note, there's also the fact that when we look at diagrams of orbits, we see the doted line that represents the path that the planets take. Without something akin to that, it would seem like someone just scattered pool balls at random. It would take awhile to get any sort of bearings to realize 'how' the planets move and 'why' they're moving where they are. Unless you actively watch them or have some sort of 'tell' that gives you this information, at least in my mind, it would be very difficult to perceive it as orbits and not just random scatterings.
Image
Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron