Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Need a reason to return to the planet...

Discussion in 'General' started by Morloc, Mar 1, 2016.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. DDP-158 Master Engineer

    All great ideas that screw a person who doesn't do a planets world.

    Edit: -Captain Blondebeard
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. WhiteWeasel Senior Engineer

    I've been debating this too. While super cool, from a practicality standpoint, planets make everything you do harder since you and your ships are always fighting gravity. I think a way to balance planets is make the ore deposits larger and deeper. This would make drilling rigs more practical as they don't have to move about as often. Another idea rattling around my head is the mixed veins concept samulus brought up:

    This would make for an interesting dynamic. Planets would have light crustal ores, such as silicon and magnesium in large quantities and in volume compared to asteroids, allowing for more permanent-long term mining operations, in addition to having staples like iron and nickle in fresh supply. Thanks to the mixed ore type idea, mining X ore might yield two or even three of the elements (in varying ratios) you need. The downside of planetary ores is that your equipment has to fight gravity, and rare elements are harder to come by, and if you do find them, you'll get a lot of waste stone in the refining process.

    In space, I'd say rebalance asteroids to have smaller ore nodes, but keep them purely elemental. So mining is easier in space and you less waste product to deal with, but the ore nodes are depleted quickly. So heavily drained staples like iron and ice are going to to run out fast, and you frequently have to mine in new locations, and you actually have to get there in the first place.
  3. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    While some ideas like planet-specific resources and energy might be a good approach i think that simply having larger pockets of certain resources on planets would help.

    So instead of going around in space to find small iron pickets for maybe 50 t or one resource you could find single pockets to actually build a large planetary mining location.
    The main issue would be the high resource yield per mined volume. As solution for that i would suggest "low density minerals" (~1/4th the yield) where you have to mine noticeably larger volumes to get the same resources.

    That could shift the mining meta to "large mass mining" on earth. That doesnt affect the gameplay without planets and asteroids still stay as efficient as they currently are.
    Building stationary under natural gravity is an advantage as moving high masses around due to the high weight is pretty expensive (unless you use wheels). Here space got a huge plus as a ship doesnt have to constantly fight any weight because in space there is none.

    However the devs said that they will work on the ore distribution on planets to allow much bigger resource pockets and thus that idea might become real at some point.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. StuffYouFear Apprentice Engineer

    You know, I do remember back in my day some of the crazy awesome contraptions that people made to mine asteroids, even I made some, that was in effect gravity biased catchcans the size of skyscrapers, because all we had was a hand drill, large block drills, and gravity gens. We didnt have collector blocks, drills did not pick up anything, just made big rocks into tiny rocks. Do you know what the best part of it all was? We didnt have ores! People mined rocks just for the hell of it, cause it was new, and shiny, and a fun mechanic.

    You guys get a whole damn planet and literately cry about how it functions like a planet. Sorry, planets. With Moons

    Give them a year and see where the game stands then, who knows maybe we will have simi functional AI that is'nt just a simple script that abuses non public accessible variables(like your position).
  5. DDP-158 Master Engineer

    The parasite rig is still one of my favorites that you are referring to. That thing was a work of art.

    -Captain Blondebeard
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
  6. StuffYouFear Apprentice Engineer

    Yeah, so many good memory from back in the day. I was wrong on the drills, they were small ship drills, no large, thats why people had to make weird contraptions to addapt em to large ships. They did collect ore but lacked anyway to move them around in inventors. We also lacked refinery's and assemblers to build anything. Survival wasn't even a thing yet.
  7. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    This isn't about whether or not there should be planets or what's better, planets or space. The OP suggested that planets don't offer enough to entice you back once you leave one. I not only agreed, I predicted it. The game was written to take place in space. All the mining equipment is designed to work in space, where gravity and air do not exist. Those were the basic engineering challenges: make stuff that works in zero gravity and no atmosphere. Add those two things back in and things get easier. Thing is, once you get out of a gravity well you are not anxious to go back into one.

    I didn't
    These guys laugh at terrain. A hearty laugh, indeed. All vanilla except for the cargo containers, rover cockpit and the landing gear I use for jacks. All the wheels are powered and they all steer. Suspension is adjustable on the fly. No thrusters or gyros. Runs on batteries. Yes, you can flip one if you try. It's easy to get carried away driving one.
    • Like Like x 2
  8. StuffYouFear Apprentice Engineer

    ah you did the same thing I did on easy start, fill in that pointless hole in the base
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. ac19189 Apprentice Engineer

    See I havent had this issue I build my ships to use atmospheric thrusters till I cant coast any higher then I use hydro thrusters to escape enough to use ion to carry me the rest of the way I normally use only about 5 uranium and around 500 ice to escape with a full cargo load 900 ice if I want to burn hydro more. I don't even use ice land only to take off. Use ion until the gravity kicks in and pulls you down then when you get down load enough you can use atmospheric thrusters to slow and land.

    Edit: Another thing I do though its a bit more on resources if I have a REALLY heavy load I need to launch I have a MASSIVE atmospheric hover platform that I can carry and launch up to 900 tons though I can lift more at a slower rate. At a fully loaded I can go from 0 to 100ms in about 30 seconds give or take and once I get to a safe max hover point I launch the ship with override and use remote control to land my floating plat.
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2016
  10. Cronos988 Junior Engineer

    It occurs to me that there is something missing from the challenge to appeal to a larger proportion of players. I normally like designing things for a purpose with narrow constraints (I love KSP and From the Depths), but in SE it doesn't "click" for me. Thinking about it, the issue seems to be that these other games have a lot of contstraints to juggle, but you have ways of dealing with each and iterate on small aspects one at a time. In SE, even when designing in creative, it's much more all-or-nothing. I cannot design an upper stage, or a cannon, first and then worry about the rest most of the time, and I have way less information (Center of mass, TWR, that kind of stuff) to help me figure out the problems. And there is a whole lot of survival aspects I cannot properly test for, like how long the batteries will last, how well it will handle with maximum load etc.

    Basically I don't get the feeling of tinkering with something until I get it right, it seems like I have to design something from the ground up every time, and somehow I don't really have the patience for doing that when there are other things I might be playing. It also doesn't help that the projector/welding mechanic, while very cool, has a big overhead, especially on planets where cheap welder ships are harder. Perhaps the reason I don't find building on planets appealing is simply because I am missing the ability to go through multiple iterations of a design quickly and with clear goals.
  11. noxLP Junior Engineer

    Honestly, I don't understand why you can't do what you're talking about, i do it all the time, to design smaller parts and test designs in survival. F.I. if you see the platform i was talking about in the thread you quoted, i had to redesign the boom like i don't know, some number between 5 and 10 times, cause the boom have to go down vertical first and then rotate to be horizontal (precisely to mine that horizontal ore's layers). The same with the anchor gears, i can assure you that i've seen that huge thing flying more than 50 meters because i placed rotors and gears in bad positions and the whole thing exploded, madness. And the same with the tower of pistons, struggling to let the gyroscopes go up and down, making the cabin pressurized, timers, programmable block, etc. Various little parts were designed apart from the whole thing.
    And let me say that in space it's exactly the same. The frigate i'm building (in space) will have a decoy system that right now is half builded just on a whim, i just want to finish the interiors first, and it have 2 pwm turrets with 3 CSD cannons that i made apart, in a platform, and just copy-paste them.

    The welder ship is other example, you only have to do it a bit larger than in space, so you can place more thrusters to fly with the added weight. Just a little bit larger, and you have a perfectly good welder ship, well, that's what i did.

    Really, there's plenty of things to do in a planet, and i love it, as i said before, i have no intention to go back to space right now and i think you guys (in general, not speaking of Cronos988 right now) are over-reacting.
    You don't like planets?
    What's the problem? ???
    Go to space, it's a sandbox, there isn't some guy with a pistol in your head forcing you to play in planets, you know, you can even make worlds without any planet or moon. Let the others play as they want and you play as you want, live and let live and so on.

    Other thing that surprise me is that argument of "i said that panets will be useless, now everyone hates planets". ??? I have to be in a different forum, cause i see all around people playing in planets, people asking things about planets, people asking scripts for using in planets, videos about people in planets... wtf? Where are that "massive" group of "planets haters"? :p I don't see them, honestly.
  12. plaYer2k Master Engineer

    Sorry but i dont understand these issues.

    You can read the center of mass ingame. That sure is a bit buggy with DX11 but in DX9 the center of mass identifier is properly shown. In DX11 blocks block the view and you had to look for it inside your ship as it doesnt overlay.

    The TWR can be calculated quite easily too.
    T is the thrust. Thus it is the thrust value of all thrusters in one direction (your main direction that is designed to propel you into space). For hydrogen thrusters that value is constant. For atmospheric and electric thrusters that depends on the atmospherics density around them and they change in a linear manner.
    So all these can be determined more or less easily.
    W the weight is also easy to calculate. It simply is the mass multiplied by gravitational acceleration.
    So if you do T/W you get your TWR. If that is above 1 you can lift off.

    Battery discharge times is also easy. You got the capacity of a battery like for example 3 MWh and a given consumption like for example 300 kW. To get the discharge time with that output you simply do: capacity / consumption = 3 MWh / 300 kW = 3 000 kWh / 300 kW = 10h.
    The max discharge for batteries is also known so when you got a higher discharge than one can support, you need more.

    I dont quite see the lack of information there. These informations all are either directly ingame or can be gathered from the wiki at least.
    But i can agree that finding them can be difficulty at times. So feel free to ask if you are looking for something specific :)
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Cronos988 Junior Engineer

    You are right, I probably could, but for some reason, I don't "feel like it", to use a common expression. I mean I realize there's things I could do, but somehow I cannot get into it. I figure it's perhaps simply the minor inconveniences that keep me away. Yes obviously iteration is possible in SE, but it takes reloading worlds, and feels a bit more complex because you have to deal with gravity when deleting blocks, don't have a free camera etc.

    Nothing like roadblocks, but when I try to figure out exactly why I am not exited about building on planets, these come up. Perhaps if I weren't playing much else with a similiar focus, it wouldn't matter, but I do play a lot of broadly similar games. Maybe I am also just not much interested in block-building in general right now, it's hard to tell. There's also the issue that the progression isn't all that smooth. You either have a decently designed miner, or you mine by hand. There is less leeway to cobble something together quickly and then replace stuff over a time, like you could in space. It has to fly well enough to be decently safe with the cargo weight, and if you don't test that beforehand you are liable to crash and start from scratch.

    Thanks for the help and advice, but I am afraid that's not exactly my problem. I mean I know I can look up the numbers and calculate the stuff and that it's not all that hard. But somehow the effort seems unnecessary. Perhaps I don't feel the effort/reward ratio is right. I was perfectly happy to calculate life support requirements in KSP when planning my first manned moon mission, but that also was a complex mission that felt like a huge achievement. I am less inclined to go to any lengths to make sure a simple atmospheric miner actually works decently.

    Now that the two of you have replied, perhaps it's really a mixture of different things. I could put in the effort, but it doesn't feel rewarding enough to do. I already know what gameplay awaits me, and playing on a planet doesn't seem to open up any new things I haven't experienced in space. So it feels like having to jump through a bunch of extra hoops to do the same thing I have already been doing, when there are "cooler" things I can do with the same effort in other games (subjective, of course).
  14. Aracus Senior Engineer

    Easy to solve, a world without planets simply change the resource generation seed/filter so they spawn in space too.
  15. WDMeaun Apprentice Engineer

    My personal opinion on top of it!

    First the answer : There really isn't any good reason at the moment to go back to a planet.

    For me.. the planets gave Space Engineers a new boost and I'm back into it.
    Space is all nice and well, but there were only (relatively) tiny asteroids. There wasn't any correlation between your character and the universe.
    Having planets adds a lot of 'story' to this part and the scale of it makes me happy.
    Even if you completely ignore the thing, it still makes me happy to have bigger objects in space.
    Space would not be complete without planetoids and orbits.

    The only reason before to keep a distance between bases and/or other players was security.
    Now it can be simply, because there's a frickin' huge ball in between.

    At this moment there aren't really any incentives to be on a planet, rather than having a starting point.
    Planets would mostly be used in 'real' for habitation, unique resources/artifacts and/or larger quantities of ores.

    A lot of possible features break Space Engineers as the game it currently is, for example: adding AI colonists/people to keep fed/hydrated/happy. (possible in space/moon/roid, but easier on a planet)
    It would be bothersome to introduce food, but it would give planets a true reason to be visiting. (maybe make the harvesting/storing easy, so you only have to harvest it very rarely)

    I would suggest to add special encounters and/or artifacts on a planet, or even go as far as adding towns/cities as encounter.
    Having enormous ore veins on planets gives enough incentive, if you actually want to mine on a large scale in a realistic manner. (ie. not building a vessel which mines a complete asteroid in a single trip.. which is just silly)
    If you're used to building huge all-in-one ships.. then.. nothing serves a purpose anymore.

    So the conclusion: even if it adds nothing practical to the universe, I'm very happy with the planets + I think small tweaks would increase the incentive to go back.
  16. Morloc Apprentice Engineer

    I had distinct issues with my land vehicle miners. Spinning tires and getting hung up on ramp terrain. My rotors were barely strong enough to hold up my drill deck. On the fly adjustments to the drill angle were always dangerous. Would your miner do well under a full 1G?

    • Like Like x 1
  17. AedanXaelan Apprentice Engineer

    I stand by the "make your own reason" crew. If you need to be given a reason to return to planets, then why bother with them at all? If you like them, use them. If you don't, avoid them. If anything, space should be made more difficult to exist in to give each environment equal challenges.
    • Agree Agree x 3
  18. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    This isn't about hating planets, nor is it a rant thread for planet haters. The OP has suggested that the game provides no incentive to return to a planet once you have been to one. That doesn't mean he hates them. I don't hate them. I have observed that a significant portion of the fan base begged for planets for a variety of reasons, and few of them have come to pass. I realize part of the reason is that ore distribution on planets is different from ore distribution on asteroids. Another part of the reason is that SE mining equipment is designed to work in zero gravity, thus the "engineering challenges" are essentially trying to make space mining equipment work in a gravity well. The irony there is that the ShadowFlux Used Mining Equipment mod, which was posted back when planets were just a gleam in Marek's eye, are actually perfect for planets because they were designed to work in gravity (and thus required artificial gravity and artificial mass to function). Keen does not provide standard mining equipment for planets, so people find mining on planets... difficult. Another reason seems to be that many players find building wheeled vehicles... perplexing, and thus revert to airborne mining equipment that is not nearly as efficient. These and some other things make the planet experience something less than anticipated. This is not hate. It's merely an observation.

    The short answer is probably. I built the Badger MK1 on a moon, which appears to have the most challenging terrain but only .25g. I am now testing it on the "Mars Type" planet which has .9g. So far, so good.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. Steelpanther Apprentice Engineer

    But would Keen do it? Last I knew if you played with oxygen off you where playing without a jetpack since ice doesn't spawn and you can't make hydrogen. We don't need fake options.

    I hate playing on planets, spent only a few hours playing with the new toy when they came out and then "cheated" in the project I had in space and finished that. That's fine, it does make a pretty backdrop. I may get crusty over it but I like that someone is enjoying them.

    That put in context, massive deposits of ore would draw me in to try dealing with a feature I never thought was interesting let alone fun. Which is odd as I never have problems with resources.

    Forcing me to deal with it by making things exclusive? That is just shoddy game design along with making me cheat.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Brix Trainee Engineer

    I just want to be able to strap engines to an asteroid and move it. Slam into someone's base or land it to collect reasorces.
  21. Lt_Duckweed Apprentice Engineer

    Goodbye sweet cpu.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. Brix Trainee Engineer



    Honestly i think it would be easier on the game than crashing a 20k plus block ship into the ground
  23. DDP-158 Master Engineer

    Would crashing the ground into a 20k plus block ship be easier on the CPU?

    -Captain Blondebeard
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2016
    • Funny Funny x 3
  24. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    To step back into this thread...

    I don't have any particular agenda as to how and what should be done. I only had an example.

    What I would like to see is a reason to return to regularly return to a planet if the planet option is available on a server. This "reason" shouldn't impact players who do not have planets enabled on their server or game. The reason shouldn't be a requirement, but an incentive or advantage.

    This might include an admin to enable or disable certain ores on planets and/or asteroids or bonuses to some activity. Or perhaps admins could turn off meteor storms raining down on planets and make it a meteor free zone... with hopefully more controls over meteors rather than just off, annoying, silly, and game-breaking.

    As it sits, planets are just starting points and once that hurdle is conquered, there's no practical reason to go back.
  25. Brix Trainee Engineer


    What if the entire time we have been playing the ships never move but the skybox does.
  26. Aracus Senior Engineer

    You mean like how they did the first x-wing games? Where if I remember correctly everything moved around the player ship. :woot:
  27. Spets Master Engineer

    the same reason that I don't see why do I have to go to space.
    At least when I tried (SP) you can mine with vehicles (wheeled or flying) on planets. And it was more fun, at least for me. The challenge is different than being in space and mining asteroids.
    yeah. I think, after 2 years mining on space, the reason of going to a plane is just that, something new and different to do
    Last edited: May 4, 2016
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Jappards200 Apprentice Engineer

    In my opinion, the oxygen farm should produce organic material, not require it. I am on the side of making every playstyle equally viable. I had a discussion on discord where I came up with plastic blocks. These are lighter versions of existing blocks, like conveyors or interior walls. Organic material should decay within a few days of gameplay time as well.
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  29. mze9412 Junior Engineer

    My reason to return to the planet it this:
    1) I want to build a big underground base
    2) I want to have automated shuttles going from the planet to an asteroid base and back
    3) I want automated mining operations from that asteroid base

    So basically it is a challange for myself ^^
    • Like Like x 1
  30. SpecFrigateBLK3 Senior Engineer

    All right, here's how I see things.
    First off, I play as a nomad. I wander. I don't tie myself down to any one place.
    Lately I've taken to cultivating alliances. I have my own faction, NMD, which I do NOT recruit for. I do this so that I don't have to worry about the latest troll who talks a good game.
    Instead, I help out. I make supply drops, usually for free. THAT is why I go back to planets. Or, if no one else is on, I go shoot at some bugs.
    I'm obviously a member of the 'make-your-own-reason' crew, but I'm also looking forward eagerly to WHEN Keen adds more stuff to planets. I would absolutely love to see more stuff to do.
    But the dev team has a lot on its plate. That's why I'm expecting a good bit of time to pass before any of this gets implemented.
    So let's keep discussing what could be done to help improve gameplay. Ideas help Keen with content, concerns help with balancing.
    The game will get even better. Don't expect things to stay the same. Our ideas will help guide the process of change.
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.