We have a lot of planets, but they are all really uninteresting with only one, maybe two biomes (but both biomes will function roughly the same.) Instead, we should have a fifth of the number of systems (and each system should have only one to three planets, each of which is only orbited by zero to three moons, which have a very rare chance of supporting life), but each planet should be four to six times larger, with 3 or 4 biomes. More space on a planet allows for things like a rare "macrodungeon", which would be absolutely massive, with great rewards to be found within (Such a thing could be two to three thousand of blocks wide and up to a thousand blocks deep or tall, whilst still taking up only a sixth of a planet's surface, in oppose to half of the surface). An added bonus is that a planet can have multiple tiers on it (You always spawn in that tiers biome). For example, a planet orbiting an Eccentric star could have four biomes: Desert (this is where you will spawn) Ocean Radioactive Wasteland (You will need some radiation protection to survive here) Arctic Tundra (You will need some cold protection to survive here) Note: Each biome will take up an average of 25% of the planets surface. Hopefully this will provide more reason to stay on a planet and set up a base there, as it could take a few days to explore and discover the planets secrets. Sort-Of-Unrelated: As a planet is only orbited by moons, if all the moons were generated alongside the planet and loaded as one, you could set up large structures which can teleport the contents of a room between the planet's surface and the moon's surface, as well as set up "teleportation shields" which prevent teleportation to the planet, requiring an assault on the shield generators on the moon before being able to attack the planet directly.
I like the idea of the rare macro dungeon. But for it to work with the current way that dungeons are constructed would require many many more modules to be in the game, or for them to be implemented differently so that they are less recognisable as pure repeats. I'll quote myself. I worry about a single planet providing too much, and thus little reason to explore other planets. However, having to set up multiple bases as you go isn't good either if you want to put a lot of work into one. I suppose that's the point of the ship / player-made satellite / space station / colony if that's still an intended development. I suppose there's a balance to be struck between variability, progression, and dedication.
I am sure the developers are going to make dungeons much more diverse, once they have finished implementing all of the different races dungeons/cities/whatever. I fear more that a planet provides too little, making looking for things a chore of just skimming over every single planet you see, and no reason to stick around on a single world.. And they do not need to be huge bases, just a quick outpost with a few crafting machines and maybe a couple of vehicles (assuming they stop being techs). Currently, there is no real reason to build bases on ANY world, instead just using your ship as a base (which I hugely disagree with, and think that anything of any quality should be made by large machines which have to be constructed on a planet, giving reason to have a "homeworld"). Edit: Also, that is why I suggested there to be significantly less planets, to make each planet have more value (and make the starmap look less cluttered).
It would be interesting to see a crafting implementation halfway between Minecraft and Starbound, where you have a spawner that you need to have room for (so that you can watch it build over time), and have a sufficiently advanced resource installation to support its construction. That would probably fit in with the long term meaningful base development / colony development mods / ideas people have had.
I wouldn't mind seeing these planet types added to the current scheme, but I think they should be optional. Players can have the option to hop from planet to planet, or settle on one of these super planets that could sustain them for quite a bit longer. The idea is very interesting, and it would be fun to have a massive planet that offered many diverse things either with this idea or seasons as another few have suggested, but not at the expense of the universe. I like the feeling that there is always something else out there for me to discover and tame. A larger universe gives that. So yes to the planets, but I wouldn't think it would need to be a complete change. Just add a few massive planets here and there for variety.
It isn't really at the expense of the universe - there are still many more planets than you will ever need - and there IS always something out there to discover (if there were one thousandth as many planets as there are currently, you would never run out of planets to explore.) I feel like the sheer number of planets greatly reduces the value any one planet provides. They just don't feel like something I wish to explore, as they are not worth anything.
Are you saying this is still true after they combined the sectors? I think the amount of sheer planets is drastically decreased to fix that problem. I wouldn't be in favour of shrinking the unified sector... Although as someone that likes exploring - I rather enjoy the idea that I haven't scratched the surface of the game when I visit a new world. Always something else exciting on the horizon. I noted that you don't agree with the play style of just turning your ship into a home and hopping from planet to planet, but that is why they are breaking up the game into multiple playable paths. If you want to be a nomad - the ship is yours and the worlds stretch out before you, but if you want to take things a different way and build up somewhere: that will soon be an option too. The idea of diversifying the second option is quite lovely - it would be fun to have planets that felt a bit daunting to a lone traveller and required more of a permanent home to explore, but not at the expense of the more nomadic players out there. Especially since we are now playing with one sector instead of several, the field of exploring seems just right.
I like the idea of having extra challenging planets that require a more permanent investment, but how would one go about implementing that? When you die you spawn on your ship anyway. It's generally easier to get back to your ship than it is a home on the surface... I feel like a lot of these threads about changing up the way players interact with planets and interstellar exploration are working toward the same kind of goal. I'm talking about this thread, suggestions about more logical placement of planets around stars and breaking up the threat levels, and threads about creating a sort of interstellar politics with sectors of space controlled by different races that partly impact the kinds of threats and dungeons and whatnot you'll find on those planets, and threads about planet scanning for interesting features while making life and active civilisation slightly rarer to make it more special to find. I might put together a compilation of sorts and see if we can work out a more unified vision.
Yes, I am talking about the unisector starmap, which could easily have systems more spaced out. And I am sure they mentioned they want to prevent the "nomad" style of gameplay, giving reason to have a homeworld. I mean, lets face it. There is only one practical style of gameplay, and that is the nomad style. What incentive is there to sacrifice that versatility? The game provides no reason to create a house, aside from vanity. Furthermore, I don't feel that the current planets are only large enough for two biomes at most (and even then, you could have a world which is 50% inaccessible due to it being radioactive/freezing/hot). A 12000 - 36000 block planet (in oppose to a 3000 - 6000) can easily provide 3 or 4 (or even 5) biomes, whilst still having each biome larger than the planets we have right now (with the exception of a 12000 block planet with 5 biomes, where each biome is only about 80% of a small planet). But I would rather it be one system or another, instead of a mixture of the two, unless they remove Gas Giants (but that probably won't happen).
Interesting. Perhaps I misunderstood the mod's post, but I was under the impression that their goal was to add more incentives for someone to set up a permanent base so that both play styles were equally valid. Not to simply railroad players in a different direction. I totally agree with your size estimates. My only question would be how smoothly the game would run with worlds that massive, but I doubt anyone here has that answer. I also agree completely with the lack of practicality with any progression that isn't nomadic as that is the way the game is currently set up, but soon that will change if I understand correctly. The only point we seem to disagree on is that I don't feel that players should be pushed down one path or another - the joy of open world sandbox games is that you are free to choose whatever path is most appealing to you, and for those of us who like to role-play in games such as this, multiple ways to progress through a game can double or triple our enjoyment. Massive planets would be fun, and as Khuur has said, there do seem to be multiple threads all going in the same direction - it would be nice to include some massive planets either as capitals or explorable home worthy worlds. It would expand the game as it is to new levels of enjoyment.
They said that the game can handle infinite worlds, so performance should not really be an issue. And I wasn't hoping to imply that it forces players to set up a house, but merely that it gives players more reason to (especially if there are things, like vehicle depots, that cannot be built on a ship). And I am under the impression that racial homeworlds will all be instances, probably accessible via the ancient gateway. Edit: Another thing I was aiming for is a bit more realism - hence, (almost) all the moons a planet has are only "Moon" biomes, and there are only 1 to 3 planets orbiting a star (maybe more "Moons", but the central ones should be habitable, like the "goldilocks zone.") Edit Edit: Oh, I thought I mentioned that, very rarely a planet could have a moon which is a single biome and supports life, but it would appear I didn't. I will add that to the original post now. Edit Edit Edit: All life-supporting moons need to have Ewoks.
Forget everything I ever said about disagreeing with you. We need Ewoks on moons. Ewoks that battle the Mini-Kong's troops. I agree with your bit about moons. I have a post on here about diversified and more realistic moons. Ah, when they said that infinite worlds bit, I didn't know if they meant as is an infinite galaxy of worlds, or an infinitely sized world on which one could land. I suspect the latter would be a bit harder for the game engine to manage. Ok - fair point. For a minute there I thought you were thinking about nerfing the ship's abilities or some such. I am really looking forward to playing though both ways just for the thrill of it, and I'd hate for one or the other not to work.
I just had another idea which goes with this: Each biome could have its own difficulty rating (so monsters in one biome are weaker than others) and the starmap displays the average difficulty of the planet.
I would love for each planet to have more variety across it. I was against the idea of planets each having a singular "theme" from the start.
I like that idea, since I don't like how they changed the tiers in Starbound, I want to go to a forest, but still having challenge, and getting good loots.
