Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DasNara Aethelwulf
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 21:22:00 -
[1]
This is just thought for the Dev Guys....you hired an economist to work on one part of the game, hire someone that know astronomy. How about more earth like worlds. How about more info on the planets...you give gravity and density, how about inclunation to the star? how about some systems with two or three suns in orbit around eachother? I guess I'm asking, you've put so much into the ships and stations and they look amazing, now is it time to start working on the worlds??? Just a thought, anyone else have any ideas?
My left is in retreat, my center is giving way; situation excellent, I attack - Joffe 1916 |
Endless Dream
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 23:29:00 -
[2]
If you ever get a chance to play Mass Effect, they have wonderful descriptions of the planets and other celestial bodies in the game. There are hundreds of planets in the game (very few of which you can land on) but they all have at least a brief description, sometimes including the history of the planet, if it had any historical relevance, or an odd way of being discovered/surveyed.
It wouldn't be a bad game to mimic in this regard
|
ScheenK
Gallente StatiC Elite
|
Posted - 2008.01.09 11:35:00 -
[3]
CCP need to have a meaning to the attributes of planets, like density and its orbit, i
dont think they need to do anything else than that.
|
Yoshitaka Moromuo
Moromuo Applied Industries LLC
|
Posted - 2008.02.02 19:13:00 -
[4]
Actually, simply attaching a meaning to some of the existing planetary data just wouldn't cut it. There could be a wealth of information added about each individual world, and the rest of the cluster as well.
Just think, the game would become much more than a game if, say, we finally discovered what the true galactic center is - that is, the system or point that lies in the exact center of the cluster.
The statements contained within this GalNet posting are the personal views of the poster, and not the official views, policies or opinions of Moromuo Applied Industries, LLC. |
Marine HK4861
Caldari Radical Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.02.02 22:49:00 -
[5]
Originally by: DasNara Aethelwulf how about some systems with two or three suns in orbit around eachother?
According to the backstory, stargates are only active in binary star systems.
I think CCP will start more work on planetary attributes making sense when they start seriously working on atmospheric flight.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 04:07:00 -
[6]
Quote: I think CCP will start more work on planetary attributes making sense when they start seriously working on atmospheric flight.
First off I don't think we need atmospheric flight, however it would be nice to see them make the worlds that are known to have people on them have average temperatures that make sense - not 14 K which I think is the temperature on Caldari Prime.
Atmospheric flight doesn't really matter if only 4 or 5 planets have it. I much more interested in seeing the multitude of worlds that have populations be fleshed out in terms of information. Each planet and moon needs to start off with the some basic info. First step - what kind of planet is it, they already have this down.
Shoot there are tables in games like D&D that you can roll the make up of worlds on.
- Sun Tzu: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. - |
Marine HK4861
Caldari Radical Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Quote: I think CCP will start more work on planetary attributes making sense when they start seriously working on atmospheric flight.
First off I don't think we need atmospheric flight, however it would be nice to see them make the worlds that are known to have people on them have average temperatures that make sense - not 14 K which I think is the temperature on Caldari Prime.
I agree, atmospheric flight in and of itself will be of as much importance as ambulation.
However, with a bit of work, they could be used as tactical tools. At the very basic level, you could have planets operating as deadspace complexes, or hostile atmospheres were damage is done on a constant basis, like Recon 3. More interesting things could be done like resources could be seeded in gas giants (drug manufacture), or the atmosphere acts as sensor deflector (cloaking device) or scrambler (you can only see up to 50km on the overview).
I think the main impetus for atmospheric flight development will be when planets will be colonisable and provide resources for the controlling corp. Imagine battles in orbit where you have the big ships shooting each other and the planetary defences, while the smaller ships bounce in and out of orbit, alternating between strafing the defences and tackling the big ships.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 15:13:00 -
[8]
Right, atmospheric flight should be even further away, they first need to get a trained astronomer/astrophysicist/someone who knows space and a biologist (possibly again astro ;) ) in order to sift through the data and make sure it all makes sense. Follow this up with making the planets mean something.
Basics like temperature or density (world's with lots of water tend to have densities a little higher than water etc) for planets. Or maybe it is just that cold in Iceland, just above everything freezing and not moving.
- Sun Tzu: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. - |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.02.29 04:44:00 -
[9]
The majority of planets in a realistic universe are not Earth-like and are uninhabitable. One habitable planet per solar system would be the most common that they should be, and that's actually too common, I think. I'm no astronomer, but I'm pretty sure that most planets are either way too hot or way too cold or have toxic atmospheres or are made out of gas and floating debris.
Terraforming can help, but it takes a while.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2008.02.29 13:15:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Dex Nederland on 29/02/2008 13:15:17 <Warning, amateur astronomer, BS in Astronautical Engineering, one of the reasons I play Eve is I can't afford to go asteroid mining in real life yet>
Depends on what you mean by habitable. Off the top of my head I can list 2 planets* and several moons* that could be inhabited by people in our own solar system, not to mention the very large asteroids. If your requirement is that the world has to have a ~70% N, ~25% O atmosphere, have a gravity 9-11 m/s^2, water oceans, etc then of course the number drops off considerably.
In Eve we know of at least 1 system were two worlds were colonized and 1 of those worlds was terraformed - Luminare with Gallente Prime and Caldari Prime (Caldari Prime was terraformed).
Even in a system with only large gaseous planets I would expect to find a multitude of rocky moons orbiting said planets and those are perfectly suitable for colonization, some even for terrformation.
Terraformation times will vary on the current condition of the planet, again as an example Mars is the easiest to terraform of the planets in the Sol System, Venus would take much more effort, we know how to heat an atmosphere up, cooling it down seems to be much harder.
Besides even if there was only 1 Earth-similar planet/constellation, it doesn't mean there aren't 20 Mars/Moon/Titan/Europa like objects that could have colonies on them or be in the process of terraformation.
Unless a LDIS Press Release is made, the views of its |
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.03.01 11:42:00 -
[11]
I saw somewhere also a while ago that EVE team actually has phyciks PhD in the team so I'm quite confident they did consider 'real like' options for game mehanicks (like actually orbiting planets and stuff) but opted for current model for computation simplicity reasons.
Regular newton phyciks needed for that kind of calculations is relatively simple and not too heavy in computations side. However on planetary scales we would not notice any significant effects, at least for objects further away from their parent star as those objects have orbital periods in centuries sometimes. On closer objects it might perhaps be possible to notice some movement if you check extra for it after few months or something like that.
Have no idea tho why they decided to fill their universe with water tho (ships stopping when you turn off engines). If I would need to speculate then I would think it's bcos of balance issues.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |