Better Planets

posted on March 7th, 2009, 8:37 am

I noticed a something when making maps...
The planets are really small, and if you want them closer, instead of going in front of things, everything is still in front of it...?
I would like to see the planets be way larger, and them to be like immobile ships, where if you put one really high, and within the grid height, ships will go around it, and if you don't want it blocking, then lower the planet below the ships' path.
Some Jovian planets (Class J planets) with large rings (like Baku's rings in armada 1) but if the rings go above the plane, the ships will pass below them, and not look like they are in front.
And make the star background a little further away, so if you want a planet to be further away then you can without the planet looking like it is in front of the stars when the stars are technically closer...
It was a quirky thing that bugged me, and realistic planets would at quite an essence to the game.
Because having a battle in deep orbit of a planet would be really cool!
(PS some moons too )

posted on March 7th, 2009, 9:25 am

interesting idea, noted down

posted on March 7th, 2009, 9:30 am

itd also be cool, if you guys could integrate planets into the game, such as bases on planets, with reserch and stuff, maybye brign back the crew pool, or if you control a planet then you have acces to a special race, or technology, like upgrades, speical weapons, other races ships, that way planets play a more pivitol role in gameplay

[BlyTwo]

posted on March 7th, 2009, 9:44 am

Last edited by BlyTwo on March 7th, 2009, 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Planets should have value, because they do in real star trek
Oh and something just came to mind, is rather than having a tritanium moon, you mine minerals from random asteroids, some may have tritanium, and some dilithium.  I always found it odd that there would be a tiny, perfectly round little rock conveniently sitting there for you right beside your base...

posted on March 7th, 2009, 12:08 pm

Oh and something just came to mind, is rather than having a tritanium moon, you mine minerals from random asteroids, some may have tritanium, and some dilithium.  I always found it odd that there would be a tiny, perfectly round little rock conveniently sitting there for you right beside your base...

One of the maps from Phoenix has moons in Asteroid belts.

posted on March 7th, 2009, 3:54 pm

this has been discussed before i think the team has ideas on how to give planets and nebulas strategic value.

posted on March 8th, 2009, 12:51 am

something else, is that the production yards should have to be orbital, as they are in star trek, but most of the forces should come by warp-in, because the ship's production speed is a little rediculous, and how you build all your forces in a confined space.Have it where you do research on technology, and you create your experimental ships on site, but have the standard ships on warp-in.

posted on March 8th, 2009, 2:48 am

not all yards orbit planets.
Remember the monac yards, kelvas facility, Fed beta antares yard w/o any clear reference to a planet, antares yards, 40 eridiani starfleet yards etc - no planet there.

We can thereby also consider solar orbit to be enough, and since all maps are in and around some system, we're ok so far.

Maybe mainstay federation yards are constructed in orbit of a planet, but I dont see any specific reason in the STU why we would need to constrain ourselves to warp in.

posted on March 8th, 2009, 3:36 am

Or how it is possible for that matter xD

posted on March 8th, 2009, 5:47 am

it would be more realistic is all of everyones ships where warped in. i believe that most of those ships takes years to construct

posted on March 8th, 2009, 6:36 am

yes, but have the warp-in just stock ships, and you can add/upgrade weapons and add special abilites to ships that are compatible