one planet, many bases

[safemode]

In an effort to lead in to the day when we can fly down into a planet and auto-pilot to a given city on the surface, i think it would be a nifty feature to have multiple bases as an option during docking request with a planet. Basically, you would be given a number menu much like any other communications menu to request docking permission from when approaching a planet (ask for docking clearance, get menu, ask specific base for docking clearance, dock).

What this will do is provide a magnitude more bases within systems, without having to overpopulate it with bases and planets. It also seems more realistic, as a single base for a planet like Atlantis or new Detroit seems unreasonable. Different bases on the same planet would have basically the same goods, but maybe different people in the bars (fixers) and different missions and sometimes different rare goods.

Also, the goal of this feature would also be to allow secret bases. These would be employed by pirates and secret military installations. Mostly pirates though. Basically, any "friend" of the pirate faction (lax policing policies) could harbour a pirate base on their planet. This base would not be shown in the menu except to other pirates. These bases would only be active so long as the controlling faction of the planet is favorable to the pirates. If it's overthrown or overtaken, it wont show up anymore to other pirates, and no docking will be allowed.

Also: no planets would have a base automatically, it would have to be assigned by this new method. So some planets are undockable.

Also, the idea that bases can be masked from the docking menu, (and any other list), would allow the idea of base destruction without having to destroy a planet. Basically, such things would be done while the player is docked at a base (hopefully not the one destroyed), since simulating space bombardment doesn't make any sense in the current engine, for instance, how would a ship have more fire power than a planet side base worth destroying.

So navigation would be handled by planet names, space-station names, capital ships etc. Planet side bases would be listed as a subtext of the planet they're on. Sort of like how ships are referenced by their ship name and flightgroup.

Say you have a planet named Babylon. Planet Babylon has 3 bases. Ur, Kish, and Uruk.

Mission dialogue may ask you to " navigate to Ur on the planet Bablyon in the Ox system" Your ship's nav system will target the system if you're not in it, then the planet. When you approach the planet you ask for docking clearance. You are shown a menu 0. Dock at Ur, 1. Dock at Kish, 2. Dock at Uruk. You choose 0, which requests docking clearance at Ur. Permission will be granted or denied and you can then proceed.

base names would then be more than simply per planet assigned. We'd need a base file that is used to map bases to planets. These lines could appear like this:
System:Planet:Base:visibility:faction
Ox:Babylon:Ur:1:privateer
Ox:Babylon:Kish:1:privateer
Ox:Babylon:Uruk:1:privateer
Ox:Babylon:Agade:0:pirate

Explanation:
System is the system the planet is found in.
Planet is obviously the planet the base is to be found on.
Base is the base's name, could also refer to major cities etc.
visibility is the flag that turns a base on and off as listed in the game.
faction is only used when visibility is 0. If it's 0, then only units of the same faction as "faction" can see the base.

So, agade would not show up to anyone unless they were a pirate, as something to dock to or navigate to. Nav systems wouldn't display it, docking wouldn't be allowed. Visibility is a writeable field, meaning the game will update this value as needed when the system is conquered by a non-pirate-friendly faction. it can also be used to signify destroyed bases. The "privateer" faction is a non-faction, so something that is visibility 0, and the faction is privateer, designates a base that was destroyed on a planet.

Bases could be rebuilt over time, or when another faction conquers. This "base list" would be held in memory, and written out in the user directory when a game is saved.

Syntax could be expanded to include random names of bases, or random planets and random bases. The number of bases however, and the visibility and faction has to be given. These listings would apply only to dynamically generated planets.

Sirius:*2:Wisteria:1:privateer

This puts a base named wisteria on a planet with less than 2 bases on it that was dynamically generated. If no dynamically generated planet or moon has less than two bases, then it's not used. Though, in actuality, this is not likely to happen.

Sirius:*3:*:1:privateer

This looks for any planet/moon with less than 3 bases, and chooses a name from a list that was read in on load, this list removes a random name and uses it for the base name.

So basically in the dynamic universe script:

Read in base names file. (flat list of acceptable base names. Faction:name syntax, 1 per line. )
Read in base list map. The data structure for this looks like a vector of system names. Each system has a vector of planets,wildcards at the end. Each of these then contains the visibility and faction info.

Then, when we process a system for generating planets and such, we look at our base list map structure. If we find our system in the base list map, we process the planets listed for it and any wildcards. Wildcards are then replaced with the names chosen. The base list map remains in memory however, and is used elsewhere for navigation code and dialogue / dynamic news etc.

Alternatively, we can save the base list map and only keep the active systems loaded to memory.

Campaigns and missions then would reference base names on planets when needed, and they would do this by either dynamically choosing a base on a given planet, or making sure to choose some base that's hard-coded. Also, they can read the tmp base list that's written to in a running system whenever a change is made in the list (this list is not saved in the user dir unless the user saves the game). This gives campaigns and missions direct access to the list without having to tell the game engine to load it all and what not.


Summary:
You multiply the number of bases by an obscene amount, without dramatic increases in cpu/ram resources.
You get more options in missions and campaigns for destinations than just planet names.
You can hide secret bases on planet surfaces.
You can destroy bases on planet surfaces.
Names of bases can be dynamically chosen and dynamically assigned and both.
Provides a decent segue to actually mapping bases at locations on planetary surfaces for when doing that makes sense (planetary flight).

[Deus Siddis]

Sounds like an excellent improvement.

[Fendorin]

it's a very great idea i like it is simple and will be very efficient

you will need a new fixers maybe? some alien fixers? and "layerable" base background ( one landing pod with alpha channel on a interchangeable fauna planet view)?

[safemode]

The idea would be a vast number of fixers compared to how many there are now. That would go hand in hand with a much more in-depth campaign with a lot of side plots. basically, giving the player a choice in how to complete tasks (whether they know they're making the choice or not) and thus having a much more unique gameplay. One branch of the campaign may suddenly end, due to the base being destroyed by invading aera. The campaign then may require you to get on the wrong side of the "law" to finish your objective. Or perhaps you uncover a secret military base, arm up on a high tech fighter and such.

Eventually, yea, we'll need multiple backgrounds for hand placed bases, plus some generic ones per planet type. Hopefully for most of these we can do without having to recreate a lot of artwork.

The secret bases would be interesting to look at. For pirates, it could be within a cave, deep in a jungle, inside a canyon, or some sort of high tech facility to jam sensors. For secret military bases, they would likely always be below surface, with simply a "terminal" type deal on the landing screen. Then inside when you are upgrading/fixing your ship, the graphics could show the elevator that brings your ship down to the inner levels. There would be very few of these.


For artwork:
basically we're looking at generic bases with at least 2 different landing screens for most planet types. Inside the bases the changes could be as little as an alpha layer to change the hue, or totally different artwork.
For hand-placed important bases, it's all up to how important they are and how much contributors want to do.

I would hope to see maybe 20 unique full bases. Then, a couple generic ones per planet type (including the current ones we use).

That may sound like a lot, but across hundreds of planets, 20-30 different bases isn't a whole lot. Hopefully we can get much much more.

Anyone interested in making bases, wont have to wait for the code to get in to do all this, you can test your setup by replacing one of the base files currently being used (eg, atlantis's ocean base).

[Fendorin]

Hello

The idea would be a vast number of fixers compared to how many there are now.

i like your Idea a lot! and it don't seems to be so complex or so long for have a quick result.

For Coding i m sorry i haven't any skill/knowledge for that, but:
i Can draw fixers quickly (if you like my kind of draw)
but not 3D fixers and not too photorealistic something like that: (more clean of course)

this one was a "sketch" with others drawing in this thread: http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/forum ... &start=135

Then : how many fixer you need first 20/30???
The top; the bottom in first time is not so important, and little bit complex if we have different bar architectures, bar table.....etc.
i propose you:
10 humans ("factionnalizable")say me what kind of "fixer" you need: diplomat,Civvie,Troopers, escape prisoner, lost pilote, luddites...old lightbearer scientist (i should propose you the own last fighter research )..etc
5 Rlaan (with oxygen suit for some ) or (fluid sphere)?? what kind of characters....
5 Aeras (oblivion's draw it is right)?http://img104.mytextgraphics.com/photol ... 0zjkqc.jpg what kind of characters....
5 other aliens? what kind of characters....Shmrn medecin, Dgn singer, Uln "merchant"...unknow pirate aliens....
on a 512/512 square? ( a template should be very usefull)

The secret bases would be interesting to look at. For pirates, it could be within a cave, deep in a jungle, inside a canyon, or some sort of high tech facility to jam sensors. For secret military bases, they would likely always be below surface, with simply a "terminal" type deal on the landing screen. Then inside when you are upgrading/fixing your ship, the graphics could show the elevator that brings your ship down to the inner levels. There would be very few of these.

Noted. a template should be usefull too!

For artwork:
basically we're looking at generic bases with at least 2 different landing screens for most planet types. Inside the bases the changes could be as little as an alpha layer to change the hue, or totally different artwork.
For hand-placed important bases, it's all up to how important they are and how much contributors want to do.

Noted : in a first time maybe 5"generic" landing pad and 5 generic bar with a lot of windows on 20 "background view" should be good? obvious: the two "firstground" over a same background could be nice.
i will try to work on template too (direction of light, view angle,horizon line, position.....etc)

well:
Step 1: Template+JackS' artwork approval on existing draws/concepts (picture wiki update maybe is suffisant)+ what kind of fixer we need, do a list .
Step 2: writing code+ draw first fixers+first base background = test the concept
Step 3: finish the 20 fixers with a "in test critics" (and maybe rework over template ...etc)
Step 4: continue to propse new campaign+new base+ new fixers

Thank

if you have other idea or recommandation tell me .

[charlieg]

Fendorin, you are an art machine...

[Fendorin]

the hide base concept on overgrown planet:

[safemode]

Now that's nifty.

I wasn't prepared for such immediate interest in this idea .... I guess it's close to time i try and see just what kind of changes i'll need to make to the code to get this functional.

Shouldn't be too hard. But cubemaps are the top priority for any time i do get at the moment. (though, this idea shouldn't need to wait too long)

[Fendorin]

I wasn't prepared for such immediate interest in this idea .... I guess it's close to time i try and see just what kind of changes i'll need to make to the code to get this functional.

Shouldn't be too hard. But cubemaps are the top priority for any time i do get at the moment. (though, this idea shouldn't need to wait too long)

Yes maybe the Artworks side should take more time! i'm not so sure ( i don't know nothing about coding...)

in my side i will try to find a nice contributions by some french terragen "backgrounder" (Terragen seems to have a particular interest for French they have a very good user and most of Software testing people are French)

i will comeback on this thread when:

-i will did a Graphic Template for: background, did a graphic template for fixer, did a template for bars-fixers location maybe (bars screen should be the most difficult artwork to do)
-WE will Made a list of what kind of planet we need.( A complete list !! ) : ALLS New planet Proposition are welcome
-But what sound the most important (and difficult) is Catch JackS for art recommandations/critics.

Every body if you want Participate : !!Suscribe to the thread!!!
we need
¤To do a list of existing planet + how many background per planet should be cool (agricultural seems to will be more "base" than molten or lava)

¤To do a list of how many fixers we need:
1 Character detailled/like that :
-Species/male/female/neutral/robot/...what else
-Faction
-Fonction/job
-Age
-Additionable details
-Quick clothes description

¤To do a Brainstorming around new kind of planet ( marble, overgrown mushroom, mining metal, acid cloud, mezozoic...etc, over destroyed/afterwar, ships-graveyard strange liquid , floating spheres......what else)

if you have any idea post your campagne scenarii , what kind of Fixers you should meet...since your campagne..

Thank

[safemode]

I would put most of the effort into insides and outsides of bases and fixers.

The insides being the most complicated. There's not a whole lot of point to having lots of external views but the same inside views.

[Deus Siddis]

I wouldn't want to start modeling bases until I know all that needs to be considered to future proof the master models I'd be making for later realtime use, including everything from cinemut to seamless planetary flight to destructable modules with interiors and exteriors of sections done all at once (in other words, whatever is the future for bases in the VS engine, I'd want any base models I made to be compatible). Of course any such models would be used to create pre-renderings for immediate planetside use, the wrest would be for later versions.

Speaking of which, Fendorin, your modular space stations have been a really excellent idea, so you might want to continue to use that same method to build these many planetary bases. You can see this method was already used alot in the concourses in most bases- the model is the same, but what you can see through its windows and the general lighting of the concourse, plus the models of the rooms it leads to are all that changes.

Anyways what I would be interested in doing sooner rather than later are non-human fixers and planetary vehicle props, both of which I would again make with future realtime use for VS in mind (especially thinking post seamless planetary flight implementation with this). Hell, if we want to do realtime 3D fixers or even realtime 3D animated fixers within the current 2D bases (just like we have 3D ships against 2D base backgrounds already), this content would already have the bones and budget for the job. Imagine looking into the fiery eyes of an Aera or sitting down at the table with a Rlaan- after mistaking the Rlaan for the table.

I just wish I had a little more time to work on this right now.

[safemode]

I would not wait for 3d stuff just yet. I was thinking of having each base be mappable via coordinates in the text file to a position on the planet texture ....it wouldn't mean anything in the current setup, but when/if we ever do seamless, it could be used to setup the mounting locations.

Though, in actuality, things like seamless flight and 3d bases are a ways off... like probably a year given the rate things are going. It's very likely that most of all the art dealing with bases wont be usable once things are 3d modeled and generated like the rest of the content in the game is.

tis the sad reality of progress.

[Fendorin]

Safemode wrote:

I would put most of the effort into insides and outsides of bases and fixers.
The insides being the most complicated. There's not a whole lot of point to having lots of external views but the same inside views.

In my mind i thought 3 step : i will try to give you quickly, a visual exemple for be clear straight the way.

¤Exterior view+pad landing with your "own ship landed" = like a cover' book/general planet view, "the Immersion planet screen" good for player's mood/feeling (and maybe no need this first screen for hiden base=make a sense of hidden or different setting like a hole in earth...etc)

¤Interior/bar: like a "open the book"

¤Hit the fixer: choose your "literature" story

And this, need first time 2 screen one exterior, and one interior(with some window or watch the exterior planet.
BUT of course with the time we should improve it, and give more "rooms" but the most important is to begin

@Deus Siddis

I Admire your proposition (and your dream capability) but all in 3D realtime it's not for tomorrow.

I wouldn't want to start modeling bases until I know all that needs to be considered to future proof the master models

"drops after drops water dig stone"
But if you will never launch your first drop the stone will be never dig......

The Modular Surface City/base should be an nice improvement OVER/AFTER the landing seamless was build and Working (we should flight over the city, and i m agree with that, it is a mervelous idea).


About fixers:
All in 3D is'nt my thinking for planet landing area .
Even in 3D render, human are really ....not looking like human
And (IMHO)have a 2d drawing inside a 3D screen is more nice than all in 3D= all made by computer is like computer: frozen and rigid: some real human draw is warming your brain (and player too),
it is a good thing when you are in planet you landing too the civilization!!!your coldest sea journey is finish!! (and is little bit like a comic's and isn't so bad for a futuristic game!!!)

Another point : a hand draw= 1hour work+1/2 hours PS or Gimp rework.
Animated 3D RIGID fixer how many time??( when i can make in maximum 1or 2 Simply ships per week!! )
-Animated fixer for do what? what kind of movements, roll eyes?, Turn head?, up the arms for drinking?) (if you think in 1 year vegastrike planet will look like a "GTA Space city" i will said: you dreaming; But is a nice and sweet dream.i can't blame you.

I prefer have a Realistic Target (Drops after drops.......)

Is not a offense or agressivity against you i tryed just explained my feeling about all 3D.
which we will have more and more contributors for create your dream for seamless landing.(i hope you will understand me, and is not an attack against you.. really)
( Still a thing learned in asia's factory: "Use your brain for build with what you have in your hand, but build, advance, and don't wait any help before you begin". (i like drama....lol)

Thank and don't wait!!! lol

Nota Bene: i will try to come quick with a first Template rough and @ Deus you was very good for understanding the JackS language and you help me a lot for did the new Rlaan Base (i will never did all Rlaan base quickly than i did without your help and Critics)
maybe you could help for "Describe" all Artworks/world we need"

For exemple i never understood the Wiki Species descriptions : They have so many untranslatable words and i made a lot of mistake until Jacks advice me AFTER i worked.

Then maybe i should to say , thank for your future help?

[Deus Siddis]

I would not wait for 3d stuff just yet.

I should probably clarify, I don't mean I'd wait for realtime 3D code for bases, but only a good guestimate of the content requirements for that feature in an advanced state. Because like code, it takes a while to build up content momentum and progress, so as I see it I might as well set a course for the future so that we can arrive on time, I would just need to know what course to set. Otherwise we might end up in a situation later like where we are now, where we have alot of old content that doesn't show off and do justice to all the work you folks have done with the code or because there isn't the special content for things like realtime bases or seamless planetary flight, there isn't that extra incentive for coders to actually start implementing them. I mean, someone has to make the first move.

I was thinking of having each base be mappable via coordinates in the text file to a position on the planet texture ....it wouldn't mean anything in the current setup, but when/if we ever do seamless, it could be used to setup the mounting locations.

I would very much appreciate it. I like the idea of realtime 3D bases, but realtime planetary environments I personally feel is THE feature for VS at this stage. If it were on the ballot I'd actually vote this november.

And so I love any feature that brings it closer to reality, like this giving planetary bases a physical location.

Though, in actuality, things like seamless flight and 3d bases are a ways off... like probably a year given the rate things are going.

Heheh, well that would certainly be good news for me; I thought a year would be a sunny minimum before code work was even begun on either feature.

It's very likely that most of all the art dealing with bases wont be usable once things are 3d modeled and generated like the rest of the content in the game is.

That will almost certainly be the case if we don't plan for the jump to realtime 3D in our content creation efforts. But if we build models that are ready to go when the code is too, and then take renders of them that can be used right now in the 2D bases engine, we kill two birds with one stone.

[Deus Siddis]

@Deus Siddis
I Admire your proposition (and your dream capability) but all in 3D realtime it's not for tomorrow.

Indeed, that is why I would need to start today- because when it comes to game development, even a year is not enough time.

I wouldn't want to start modeling bases until I know all that needs to be considered to future proof the master models

"drops after drops water dig stone"
But if you will never launch your first drop the stone will be never dig......

True, but if we're in the desert, it might be more economical to use a pick.

The Modular Surface City/base should be an nice improvement OVER/AFTER the landing seamless was build and Working (we should flight over the city, and i m agree with that, it is a mervelous idea).

That's my opinion too. But technically, it is possible to have realtime 3D base interiors before worrying about the realtime 3D exteriors that you'd see in seamless planetary flight.

About fixers:
All in 3D is'nt my thinking for planet landing area .
Even in 3D render, human are really ....not looking like human

I know, I'd never be caught dead trying to put a a CG human character into a movie, it looks terrible every time they do it. But for games, people's minds are more forgiving and there's alot that can be done with a realtime 3D character models later on. Either way, like I said before, I'd want to make aliens- non-human characters, or at least I would want to start with their models. VS suffers from its lack of visible aliens anywhere.

And (IMHO)have a 2d drawing inside a 3D screen is more nice than all in 3D= all made by computer is like computer: frozen and rigid: some real human draw is warming your brain (and player too),

I know what you mean. This is probably an aweful example, but about a million years ago there was this game called Lunicus, wherein characters were represented by 3D models while you were navigating the game world, but then 2D hand drawn sprites once you got up close and talked to them. The same could be done here if you want the warmer quality of something hand drawn.

it is a good thing when you are in planet you landing too the civilization!!!your coldest sea journey is finish!! (and is little bit like a comic's and isn't so bad for a futuristic game!!!)

I'm sure bases would still usually be relatively safe havens. Massive planet mounted weapons with ranges far past orbit, legions of atmospheric, surface and infantry security forces, things like these could insure you have a safe and pleasant stay.

Another point : a hand draw= 1hour work+1/2 hours PS or Gimp rework.
Animated 3D RIGID fixer how many time??( when i can make in maximum 1or 2 Simply ships per week!! )

"If only you knew the Powa' of the Blender 3D side."

3D animation is a gazillion times easier than what you are describing and imagining here, probably because you had grown used to the limitations of Wings 3D over the years- limitations you no longer need to be constrained by.

The truth is once you have the models ready 3D animation is really much easier than 2D animation. You don't have to remake the same model for each frame, you rig the one model you made with bones and position the bones only for keyframes.

Here, this tutorial might not be entirely current, but it can at least give you an idea how bone animations in 3D in Blender work:

http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Manua ... _Partie_II

-Animated fixer for do what? what kind of movements, roll eyes?, Turn head?, up the arms for drinking?)

Sure, anything that looks natural. . .and sometimes not (think mechanists, rlaan, etc.) But they can also be used for things besides fixers, like general populous wandering around stations or on planets.

I prefer have a Realistic Target (Drops after drops.......)

I like to aim for what I feel are realistic targets that will just take years to fully arrive at, and enjoy the road along the way.

Is not a offense or agressivity against you i tryed just explained my feeling about all 3D.
which we will have more and more contributors for create your dream for seamless landing.(i hope you will understand me, and is not an attack against you.. really)

I fully understand what you mean and take none of it personally. Taking constructive criticism as an attack on oneself would be ludicrous.

( Still a thing learned in asia's factory: "Use your brain for build with what you have in your hand, but build, advance, and don't wait any help before you begin". (i like drama....lol)
Thank and don't wait!!! lol

When I say 'wait' what I really mean is 'work on other things in the mean time'. Like those realtime 3D models that could be used to render fixers right now but have a million and one uses later.

Nota Bene: i will try to come quick with a first Template rough and @ Deus you was very good for understanding the JackS language and you help me a lot for did the new Rlaan Base (i will never did all Rlaan base quickly than i did without your help and Critics)
maybe you could help for "Describe" all Artworks/world we need"

For exemple i never understood the Wiki Species descriptions : They have so many untranslatable words and i made a lot of mistake until Jacks advice me AFTER i worked.

Then maybe i should to say , thank for your future help?

Sure, I'm more than happy to help answer any questions that you have that I know the answers to or can try to find the answers to. You are massively productive in your contributions and so helping you helps this project in a big way. So feel free to send me whatever questions you have that come to mind.

[Shark]

Personally, I think planetary landings should require more time and effort on the part of the player, regardless of whether they are modeled in 3D. The "instant" landings that the game currently features are a bit unrealistic, IMO. That said, I'm not sure what the proper means of conveying the elapsed time would be. In singleplayer, one could simply fade to black and set the game clock ahead by a few minutes/hours. In multiplayer, however, a better solution must be found.

Also, there should be believable reasons/incentives for players to go to all this extra effort. However, I can only think of three:

1) Illegal, hidden "pirate" bases that provide commodities that are normally unavailable or at a reduced price.
2) The opportunity to purchase commodities in greater bulk and/or at a reduced price.
3) Story-driven reasons.

And, I only feel strongly about the first and third ones. One would think that at this point in the future, the use of space elevators would be a much more economical means of transporting goods off-planet. It's hard to think of economic reasons to do so oneself.

[Deus Siddis]

Also, there should be believable reasons/incentives for players to go to all this extra effort. However, I can only think of three:

1) Illegal, hidden "pirate" bases that provide commodities that are normally unavailable or at a reduced price.
2) The opportunity to purchase commodities in greater bulk and/or at a reduced price.
3) Story-driven reasons.

And, I only feel strongly about the first and third ones.

Well the most believable reason/incentive is that while you will get payed for landing and unloading the cargo, you won't if you just jettison it from orbit.

But seriously, on planets, you can do everything that you can in space and more. Patrol, hunt, fight, pickup/offload cargo, explore, set up a settlement or mine, escort friendlies, etc. You can also have a change of physics from space too, as gravity and friction now factor some, making things handle and feel more like a flight sim in some ways, until you once again fly up into the void.

Hopefully this will help make navigation and missions more involved and interesting than autopiloting from one green box to another. And in return, the player should get more compensation for each mission, which is in my opinion how it should always have been for a space game like this- long, perilous mission balanced against huge riches.

One would think that at this point in the future, the use of space elevators would be a much more economical means of transporting goods off-planet. It's hard to think of economic reasons to do so oneself.

According to jackS, advanced worlds have space elevators as part of their infrastructure. But other less developed planets will not. And obviously, elevators are only really useful under peaceful circumstances- an invasion of a planet is at the very least not going to rely on elevators because the defenders would mostly likely scuttle them once things started to look grim.

[Shark]

I fear that planets will be spammed with multiple stations of the same type. I.e., having more than one mining station or agricultural station per planet may not serve a useful purpose and will only result in players having to click more times to access the station they want.

[Deus Siddis]

I fear that planets will be spammed with multiple stations of the same type. I.e., having more than one mining station or agricultural station per planet may not serve a useful purpose and will only result in players having to click more times to access the station they want.

Having a feature supported by the engine doesn't mean it's use will be spammed in the game, multiple bases might only be used for special occasions like the ones you listed. And you wouldn't need to have multiple of one type of port on a planet either; finding an industrial port in an industrial sector of a predominantly agricultural world certainly wouldn't be unreasonable.

[safemode]

I think more importantly we'll see the removal of "agricultural" worlds or "industrial worlds". What you'll see are more realistic worlds where you have a mixture of both. Sure, there will still be worlds where only, say, mining would be going on ....worlds where the atmosphere is poisonous or missing. There may even be mostly commercial worlds where very little aggriculture would be possible. But for the most part, you would see wolds where there are a mixture of bases spread across the surface of the planet.

Also, one would also expect to have the distribution of such bases be steered by the factions that would generally be given control over those sectors. Some factions may lean a certain direction and thus you'd see more bases of a certain type than others.

In addition, you should probably not be surprised to see two commercial bases on a planet, or two industrial bases. Not only do we have factions based on race, but we have guilds and such as well. A guild could hypothetically set up a base separately from the faction's base that controls that planet.

In the end though, the method for placing the bases is totally not written in stone or anything at the moment. That really shouldn't be very important to anyone at this time.

As for the concern for added complexity for the user, all that would be added to the gameplay would be an additional menu when targeting a planet and communicating. Target your planet. open the communication menu. Instead of commands, you have a list of bases. Select the number for the base you want. Then you get your command list. So one additional menu, not a big deal.

[TBeholder]

That's great. And if done via subunits (or at least some way which can be later united with subunits without too much suffering), it's also big step toward other cool things like advanced dock handling and destructible planetary defences.

[Shark]

As for the concern for added complexity for the user, all that would be added to the gameplay would be an additional menu when targeting a planet and communicating. Target your planet. open the communication menu. Instead of commands, you have a list of bases. Select the number for the base you want. Then you get your command list. So one additional menu, not a big deal.

My point was that selecting from two different agricultural bases just adds an extra "click" that serves no real purpose from the standpoint of the user.

[Fendorin]

Hello alls

I come back with a template for continue and tryed to achieve this Topic/idea

First i worked over the "landing-modular-bacground" template
The black diagonal is for help you to build your picture ( i will try to explain this point later)
here the template in 1024X1024 =http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk75 ... ground.png

How to use it ?
Is very Simple -is more about a verification tools-
Obviously the Horizon line on each different picture need to have a close position . the template is made for that

use it for place your land and dispose your horizon line, the camera setting should be view\pitch with a angle between -5° an -10° (if 0 is a horizontal line).
some picture should be a nicest teacher=

=

+

You need to save the pad and the "land" in two differents file under 2048X2048 pixels in PNG WITH ALPHA channel for the pad landing point
Then the combining picture would give you that
=


THEN untill you made more "Planet land" view the combining effect should provide you a lot of planet background
Here some exemple:










My english still Bad then If you Have any Question/remark tell my it could be realy helpfull for improve this idea
Note : All this Picture is not perfect and i need to Work over the PAD Camera setting then i wanted present you the Concept of the Template not the default of the pictures!!

[loki1950]

Looks like something from perspective 101 good template should be useful for those with no real artistic background

Enjoy the Choice

[Fendorin]

Hello

Today i post the Fixer template in 1024X1024:
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk75 ... eFIXER.png
The picture "training" speech itself:

If you follow this placement for fixer the Sprite file will be the same every time! ( just copy\paste the sprite. file)

any question ? any clarification? ask my or post your question

Thank a lot