These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Planet creation & destruction

Author
Montevius Williams
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-01-30 19:24:55 UTC
Terraforming can be done correct. I think TF should be something that would need to be a huge logistical challenge, cost 10's of billions of dollars, and take at least 1 month to complete. It should only affect certain planet classes. For example:

Chaning a Desert planet to a temerpate planet should be doable.
Changing a Gas giant to a temperate planet should be impossible

"The American Government indoctrination system known as public education has been relentlessly churning out socialists for over 20 years". - TravisWB

Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#22 - 2013-01-30 20:44:08 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:

...a lot of trolling & 'x' angels-couldn't-possibly-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin argumentative crap redacted...


Is planet creation, destruction or terraforming a compelling gameplay mechanic? Yep, and any counter argument can equally be applied against POS creation & destruction, yet we have those don't we...

Look, I get you are a visionary eunuch without the ability to actually post your own meritorious ideas, so are relegated to trolling others so you don't feel so mentally castrated...I get it. But really, internet trolling for self-esteem is like so 1995-2000...

But wait...
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Hakan+MacTrew#losses

Oh crap, a 1 kill and 6 losses carebear -- now I know where the trolling comes from; you just dont like hisec pirates...mystery solved...

...because the process of creating a planet is so similar to putting up a POS. Amazing! How could I have been so blind.

And speaking of blind, why is it you either ignore people who don't agree with your post or cry "TROLL" at those who try to enlighten you as to why its not a good idea? You decided I don't speak for the masses when I said "WTF?" and that this was a bad idea for EvE. And yet, you have 1 like on your OP. The masses have spoken, and their silence agrees with me.

Your also blind, because two of my own ideas are linked in my Sig and have been for ages. They also seem relatively well recieved, unlike this one. That ground your stood on looks shakier by the second. By the way, how long did it take you to google how to spell Eunuch?

And as for KB's, how many players PvP with their Indy characters? Really? And how many people have only one account?
Also, if you bothered to read anything that you didn't write, you would notice from some of my other posts on this forum that I have applauded the ingenutiy shown by many pirates and even, (though I begrudingly say so,) the New Order. What they have achieved through outside-the-box thinking and single mindedness is damn impressive. (Even if they are headed up by a scamming extortionist who hide for protracted periods in NPC corps.)
Between my characters, I have spent time in every area of New Eden, from High to Null to WH's. And I want to continue finding more that EvE can offer. I have been pirated and been a pirate. In this sandbox, I feel there should be no limited professions.

And while I have no need to make you look like an imbacile, because your doing a sterling job all on your own, your attempts to use words you probably struggle to spell, let alone understand, are touching. I'm glad I infuriate you so. Your's is the kind of ignorance that needs to be lanced, like a boil on the EvE backside.

So, how about you use some of that energy and vigour you waste on puffing up and chest pounding in an attempt to make yourself feel better and answer the simple questions I have already asked multiple times:

1: Have you considered the gravitational effects these 'magic planets' would have on the rest of their solar system?

2: Have you considered the physical effects of their destruction?

"I don't care!" or words to that effect are not a suitable answer to these, because they are important questions.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#23 - 2013-01-30 20:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
FoxFire Ayderan wrote:

The creation of a planet in 24 hours is simply absurd.


How about 48hours? A week? A month? Again, nit picks like that are detailed design; its about asking if planet creation/destruction/terafforming is compelling gameplay, and dev's going from there.

Quote:

First, the technology to do that absolutely does not exist in EVE. (We are talking Q-continuum type stuff here). They might be able to do it over an extremely long period of time, but it would be a huge endeavor. In either case, the new planet formed would be nothing but a gigantic ball of molten rock for millions of years. (The earth took approximately 200 million years before a solid crust could be maintained). Presumably we would need some more 'space magic' to compress planetary evolution from hundreds of millions of years down to 24 hours.


Again, nit picks. Why not planet movers then? You contract with an NPC corp that finds a planet off the beaten path of the regular EVE map, and with a bigger scale of cyno jumps the planet into the destination the player/corp has lit a 'put planet here' cyno? Again, for every 'you cant' people try to naysay the idea on, there is a resolution to. Lets try to stick to the question of compelling gameplay or not.

Quote:

Furthermore, planet blowing up technology that fits into the high-slot of any of EVEs ship is also way beyond the realm of realism (without some pretty heavy duty 'space magic' that would completely throw all PvP into irreparable imbalance).


The question to ask is would a 'planet bash' fleet op of dreads or titans be as compelling gameplay as the 'POS bashes' that currently happen. Further, there's no saying a module specific to planet destabilization or a genesis device torpedo can't be created and fitted on said dreads. AGAIN, the question is would this be fun and compelling gameplay; not nit picking guys.

Quote:

Even in Star Wars it took the Death Star to blow up a planet which was significantly bigger than even the biggest ships in EVE. Watch 'Return of the Jedi' and see the Super Star Destroyer crash into the Death Star. A Super Star Destroyer is 19 km long, an Avatar is less than 14 km long. The Death Star was 160 km in diameter (the bulk of it we have to assume was all the equipment and technology required to generate enough energy for the planet busting weapon). The whole thing was designed as a gigantic weapon. It wasn't just some huge space city they decided to strap a planet busting weapon into its extra-high slot.


I don't care about Star Wars as a reference model to EVE detailed design.

Quote:

No, I'm sorry, but that sort of thing would so totally violate the realm of possibility and realism in EVE that I don't know if I'd still be able to play this game after it having 'jumped-the-shark' so dramatically.


No, you just need to stick to discussing 'compelling gameplay or not', and trust that like any other game mechanic the devs during detailed design would work out the details.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#24 - 2013-01-30 20:57:24 UTC
Hakan MacTrew wrote:

1: Have you considered the gravitational effects these 'magic planets' would have on the rest of their solar system?


Until CCP implements a realistic solar system model with celestials in actual motion around a central star, I do not accept your acceptance of their already breaking with physics, while bitching about mine.. They froze everything in space so warps could remain static, etc; so bite me if I question your whining about my lack of real world physics, in the face of such existing real world physics breakages. Again, both being IRRELEVANT to compelling gameplay. The forums are not rife with people bitching about static celestials, they sure as hell wont complain about additional ones...

Get it?

Sinking in yet?

Quote:

2: Have you considered the physical effects of their destruction?


Why yes, more compelling gameplay actually. You see, as a visionary I would suggest they might turn into minable asteriod belts. You not being a visionary and troll who just says 'but but but but but....', of course wouldn't consider such a thing. Bitching while fapping is all your good for evidently...

Quote:

"I don't care!" or words to that effect are not a suitable answer to these, because they are important questions.


No, they aren't important questions.

FoxFire Ayderan
#25 - 2013-01-30 21:27:15 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

No, you just need to stick to discussing 'compelling gameplay or not', and trust that like any other game mechanic the devs during detailed design would work out the details.



It may be compelling game-play, but for a different game. One of those 'god' based games or at least one where they have the technology of Slarti Bartfast.

CCP appears to highly regard and takes great pains to create a consistent realistic universe in which its inhabitants have a certain advanced (and advancing) level of technology but are just nowhere near the level of technology for creating or moving planets (particularly in any reasonably timely fashion), nor the kind of extremely powerful weaponry it would take to blow up a planet.

There are SO many compelling game play elements that could be included in EVE that don't require the introduction of radically advanced (by many many MANY orders of magnitude) technology.

The best that could possibly be hoped for would be the ability to discover new uncharted planets, either in distant parts of existing solar systems, or possibly rogue planets that do not inhabit any solar system (Science is finding that such planets MAY in fact be far more numerous than even planets that orbit stars. Our own solar system in its early days had dozens if not hundreds of planets, many of which were ejected into interstellar space due to the very gravitational factors that Hakan MacTrew is describing).

Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
#26 - 2013-01-31 00:11:28 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Hakan MacTrew wrote:

...a lot of trolling & 'x' angels-couldn't-possibly-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin argumentative crap redacted...


Is planet creation, destruction or terraforming a compelling gameplay mechanic? Yep, and any counter argument can equally be applied against POS creation & destruction, yet we have those don't we...

Look, I get you are a visionary eunuch without the ability to actually post your own meritorious ideas, so are relegated to trolling others so you don't feel so mentally castrated...I get it. But really, internet trolling for self-esteem is like so 1995-2000...

But wait...
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Hakan+MacTrew#losses

Oh crap, a 1 kill and 6 losses carebear -- now I know where the trolling comes from; you just dont like hisec pirates...mystery solved...


Oh, by the way. I think you just broke some of the Features and Ideas Discussion forum rules.

Second off, his kill-board has jack all to do with discussing this mechanic.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#27 - 2013-01-31 07:51:40 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Further, there's no saying a module specific to planet destabilization or a genesis device torpedo can't be created and fitted on said dreads.
...

I don't care about Star Wars as a reference model to EVE detailed design.

So Star Wars references are bad, but Star Trek references are fine...

Oh how I lol'd...

So, is your idea of magic planets making boxes compelling gameplay?

Yes. No one has denied that. Have a gold star.

By that same token, is making a gun that fires theses planets at enemy stations compelling game play? By your standards, yes.

Would making a mini golf course of our these planets and celestial cannons be compelling game play? Again, apparently so.

Are any of the above ideas right for EvE?
I'll leave the masses is don't speak for to answer that one.
Previous page12