Brazilian_Joe wrote:
Dust gaea - This planet's atmosphere is a dust-powered sentience. It was discoverd how to communicate it by means of light wavelengths and artificially producing atmospheric effects. A simple diplomatic arrangement was made where we keep bringing dust to it, and it uses its vast processing power to further down technological advancements of our interest.

- % dust income on system, ++% science income on system proportional to planetary population.

A planet like this will be a more important find then Auriga...

Sublustris wrote:
I can believe in gas giants having colonies, that live upon floating platforms in atmosphere or smth. But when i see gas giant anomalies and wonders in ES1, like "Corrosive Soil", "Swamp World", "Komatiite Volcano", "Polaris Workshop" and so on, which literally make no sense, that makes me very sad.

Can ES2, please, be more restrictive on these things, so I could really believe "gas giant" isn't just words, but an actual huge ball of turbulent and dense gas?

If anything, maybe gas giants could have their own set of anomalies and wonders? That will add to diversity and solve above mentioned problem.

I will just make a particular response on this topic to gauge the feedback. For context, we are attempting to focus on actually 'visualizing' as much as possible and making systems and planets feel and look more unique.

The rationale behind anomalies is that they are tool to make each system and planet feel more unique. A terran planet without anomalies and a terran planet with any mix of anomalies will rarely give a similar gameplay output and hopefully have different visuals as much as possible. The goal is to, in terms of gameplay make planets and systems unique beyond the statement of 'this is a terran planet' or what not.

Now if an anomaly is simply a 'tag' you see below the planet with no visuals, I would agree that we should and could specialize them more - but on the back of trying to visualize as much as possible, we will run into production constraints that get even worse the more 'special case restrictions' we add.



So the point we're struggling on, is whether to focus on 'what would make sense in the real world' versus 'what kind of variety can we present'. Currently we're leaning towards variety. It should also be said, that in picking anomalies, we should also be better at picking things that works for both gas giants and telluric planets.

Personally, I never had a problem with finding a Tree of Life on a Gas Giant or something like that. It just always prompted me to think of some crazy solution, like the Tree of Life actually being some sort of floating plant in the high atmosphere.

Brazilian_Joe wrote:
Agreed. Additionally, gas giants could have their own unique anomalies such as:



Perma-vortex - Planetary gas currents maintain a hurricane vortex of continental proportions permanently (think jupiter red spot). when properly harnessed, it becomes a huge energy source. The eye of the storm is also an area of calm in a convoluted atmosphere, which can be set up to base operations to mine the energy and dust from the atmosphere.

+ max pop, + industry, + dust



Helium 3 - the planet atmosphere is rich in helium-3, which can be used to power fusion generators. Spaceship fueling costs are diminished since this planet is an abundant source.

+ industry, + movement on lanes touching this system proportional to industry



Dust gaea - This planet's atmosphere is a dust-powered sentience. It was discoverd how to communicate it by means of light wavelengths and artificially producing atmospheric effects. A simple diplomatic arrangement was made where we keep bringing dust to it, and it uses its vast processing power to further down technological advancements of our interest.

- % dust income on system, ++% science income on system proportional to planetary population.

Perma-vortex sounds like a really shitty name though. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of having something like the jupiter red spot as an anomaly, but dat name...also, why would it give extra pop? The eye of the storm doesn't make up for the rest of the space the storm covers.

Sinnaj63 wrote:
Perma-vortex sounds like a really shitty name though. Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of having something like the jupiter red spot as an anomaly, but dat name...also, why would it give extra pop? The eye of the storm doesn't make up for the rest of the space the storm covers.

cuz being a calm spot above a huge source of energy makes up for good spot to place a large flying settlement.

The sci-fi atmosphere is really conducive to making weird combinations/things work and enhance game immersion when done well.

In ES1, there where cases in which the anomilies on gas giants (and some others) where weird.

That being said, I enjoyed finding them and making use of the better anomalies (even if they where somewhat weird).



I'm sure there are plenty of ideas/things that can work for anomalies on rocky/gaseous planets interchangeably.

In fact it should make a good topic on the forums to accumulate ideas.

So what random events? invasion by Von Nueman Beserkers? Hyper space storms? Super-Nova's? Space monsters? Can we build/discover Ringworlds, Dyson Spheres?

Brazilian_Joe wrote:
cuz being a calm spot above a huge source of energy makes up for good spot to place a large flying settlement.

That doesn't make any sense really though the problem is that if colonization on gas giants is floating settlements, which it is, why do you have less max population there and not more? I mean you got more space to put population. And why doesn't colonizing gas giants take more industry because of the higher cost of settlements, having to float and all.

So what random events? invasion by Von Nueman Beserkers? Hyper space storms? Super-Nova's? Space monsters? Can we build/discover Ringworlds, Dyson Spheres?

We will have random events, as well as nodes that are not star system, but what will you discover? Hmm you'll know by playing

Meedoc wrote:
We will have random events, as well as nodes that are not star system, but what will you discover? Hmm you'll know by playing

Hopefully more than a short story and a +40 science.

Sublustris wrote:
I can believe in gas giants having colonies, that live upon floating platforms in atmosphere or smth. But when i see gas giant anomalies and wonders in ES1, like "Corrosive Soil", "Swamp World", "Komatiite Volcano", "Polaris Workshop" and so on, which literally make no sense, that makes me very sad.

Can ES2, please, be more restrictive on these things, so I could really believe "gas giant" isn't just words, but an actual huge ball of turbulent and dense gas?

If anything, maybe gas giants could have their own set of anomalies and wonders? That will add to diversity and solve above mentioned problem.

I think that the Polaris workshop is more like a joke, for me it sounds like the place of residence of Santa Claus perhaps the Solstice Man. I dislike it that the wonder no longer apears on Gas Giants Today. Gas Giants aren´t really explored. Theres much room for imagination.

Brazilian_Joe wrote:
Agreed. Additionally, gas giants could have their own unique anomalies such as:



Perma-vortex - Planetary gas currents maintain a hurricane vortex of continental proportions permanently (think jupiter red spot). when properly harnessed, it becomes a huge energy source. The eye of the storm is also an area of calm in a convoluted atmosphere, which can be set up to base operations to mine the energy and dust from the atmosphere.

+ max pop, + industry, + dust



Helium 3 - the planet atmosphere is rich in helium-3, which can be used to power fusion generators. Spaceship fueling costs are diminished since this planet is an abundant source.

+ industry, + movement on lanes touching this system proportional to industry



Dust gaea - This planet's atmosphere is a dust-powered sentience. It was discoverd how to communicate it by means of light wavelengths and artificially producing atmospheric effects. A simple diplomatic arrangement was made where we keep bringing dust to it, and it uses its vast processing power to further down technological advancements of our interest.

- % dust income on system, ++% science income on system proportional to planetary population.

In my opinion, idea a sounds good cause I imagine platforms that swim on the on the overcritical deeper region of the Vortex Trails, it will also get an own gravity by the centrifugal force. I´ve ever asked me where the dust cleaned up by the Harmony is gone but the Dust gaea is a Solution.

I see that you're adding a lot of complexity to the planet generation system. I can see why you're doing this, as it will make the universe more diverse. However, it also has the potential to be confusing to new players. The current system is already very complex and it takes a long time to understand how to best exploit the different planet types.



I'm not saying that you should scrap the feature entirely, but I think that you should be careful to make the added complexity manageable. And maybe consider reverting to a simpler system if your testing shows that it does not enhance the game.



A simpler system



Another direction you could go in is to simplify the current planetary system to its core elements. Many planet types are very close thematically and/or in terms of gameplay benefits. How about simplifying it down to 4 types: Earthlike, Desert, Ice and Lava. Each one would have a specific bonus: Balanced, Dust, Science and Production. I think that this retains all of the interesting things about the current system, but is simpler to understand.



My design philosophy is that removing features is often more important than adding them. But that's just my way of seeing things and may not be what your vision for the game is.

Neosquirrel wrote:
I see that you're adding a lot of complexity to the planet generation system. I can see why you're doing this, as it will make the universe more diverse. However, it also has the potential to be confusing to new players. The current system is already very complex and it takes a long time to understand how to best exploit the different planet types.



I'm not saying that you should scrap the feature entirely, but I think that you should be careful to make the added complexity manageable. And maybe consider reverting to a simpler system if your testing shows that it does not enhance the game.



A simpler system



Another direction you could go in is to simplify the current planetary system to its core elements. Many planet types are very close thematically and/or in terms of gameplay benefits. How about simplifying it down to 4 types: Earthlike, Desert, Ice and Lava. Each one would have a specific bonus: Balanced, Dust, Science and Production. I think that this retains all of the interesting things about the current system, but is simpler to understand.



My design philosophy is that removing features is often more important than adding them. But that's just my way of seeing things and may not be what your vision for the game is.

I'm not sure that a simpler system is the way. I like the new ideas. Now the galaxy will be made in a way that probably all planets will be different one from another if you sum all types plus anomalies, this will change the way you choose what to build and how to explode your planets.

In ES1 (I'm not criticizing it, because for me never was a problem, but it's like it went) every planet type was centred around one resource, and when you have played few hours, you get what to build first in a system, to get the major bonus, it was something simple like:



Desert/arid --> dust exploitation

Tundra/lava --> industry exploitation

And so on with every planet.

And then if you got a system with a majority of a resource-producing planets, you focus this system on that resource making it you empire factory/bank/lab.



I'm not sure if devs are looking for a way to make systems/planets more unique, but I think that this new system will make all planets/systems different one from another, in a way you'll have to look it individually and not like a "pre-set" build, or at least won't be able to use a definite path for them with the same easiness as in ES1. It will change the way of thinking, not sure if a bit or a lot, but not exactly the same.

Please don't name groups of stars constellations. Those have nothing to do with stars being close to one another, they just form an interesting pattern while being seen from a certain viewpoint. Well, not even that in most cases, people used a lot of imagination to come up with some constellations...

Neosquirrel wrote:
I see that you're adding a lot of complexity to the planet generation system. I can see why you're doing this, as it will make the universe more diverse. However, it also has the potential to be confusing to new players. The current system is already very complex and it takes a long time to understand how to best exploit the different planet types.



I'm not saying that you should scrap the feature entirely, but I think that you should be careful to make the added complexity manageable. And maybe consider reverting to a simpler system if your testing shows that it does not enhance the game.



A simpler system



Another direction you could go in is to simplify the current planetary system to its core elements. Many planet types are very close thematically and/or in terms of gameplay benefits. How about simplifying it down to 4 types: Earthlike, Desert, Ice and Lava. Each one would have a specific bonus: Balanced, Dust, Science and Production. I think that this retains all of the interesting things about the current system, but is simpler to understand.



My design philosophy is that removing features is often more important than adding them. But that's just my way of seeing things and may not be what your vision for the game is.

That's really just dumbing the game down though, which is...well, not literally dumb, but not really improving the game for players after the first ~2 hours. The system in Endless Space is pretty simple already. There's planets for production(Jungle, Tundra, Lava...), Science(Ocean, Arctic, Barren...) and Dust(Arid, Desert...) and planets give more IDS at the cost of food and approval the more difficult to colonize it.

SpaceVoyager wrote:
Please don't name groups of stars constellations. Those have nothing to do with stars being close to one another, they just form an interesting pattern while being seen from a certain viewpoint. Well, not even that in most cases, people used a lot of imagination to come up with some constellations...

We're aware constellations have nothing to do with star clusters/ start clouds, but it's a poetic name that translates well into the galaxy view, with star systems linked by star lanes appearing, indeed, like the traditional representations we make of constellations in our skies.



This reminds me of a character in John Scalzi's Last Colony, who upon settling in a far-flung planet after much fighting throughout space, that she had never looked at the sky before and that she knows she's home, because she's started naming constellations...



And if that doesn't make you pine for strange skies, I don't know what will.

I'm still hoping for cool and unique rewards that an be acquired through exploration. For instance, finding an Endless Wonder that if repaired fully, becomes a powerful (and expensive to upkeep) ship would be quite awesome, and would provide great incentives for exploration and questing, as well as opportunities to expand on the lore.

KnightofPhoenix wrote:
I'm still hoping for cool and unique rewards that an be acquired through exploration. For instance, finding an Endless Wonder that if repaired fully, becomes a powerful (and expensive to upkeep) ship would be quite awesome, and would provide great incentives for exploration and questing, as well as opportunities to expand on the lore.

Oh that would be rad! I always wanted the idea of "Hero ships" being in the game.

The idea of forming planets from humidity and temperature is really interesting.

Burning + Flooded should be named to Magma