New idea for planet shapes.

[cats]

Planets need to be interesting. More so than vanilla MC to keep people interested in exploring and mining and building. Craters, (realistic) mountain ranges, large lakes, Karst landscape, etc. Valleys, trenches, polar wastes, ruins, more ruins, crashed spacecraft, and on and on...

We aren't even in alpha yet, that can wait.

Thank you, Master Oto. Just saying because it needs to be kept in mind.

[Apokalypse]

Sounds like a nightmare when ships will be involved. imagine making a right angle turn around a planet.

[Iv121]

1. You suddenly came with what? What has been the pla pretty much from the beginning? We're sitting here having this debate because there is no plan related to planet shapes, other than the one Fr0st has just proposed.
2. Planets are important before you get to space. You won't spawn with a spaceship magically ready for you; that would be stupid. You have to build one, and you'll do that on a planet.
3. You'll mine asteroids and nebulae for two reasons: Either because you can get stuff there that you can't get on a planet, or because it's easier. Asteroids and nebulae might contain rare elements that don't turn up in planets' crusts. You can feed an entire asteroid into a mining ship and have it melted down and separated into its components much more easily than you can bore through three kilometers of stone.
4. You can dock ships at space stations without having to go through atmospheric reentry. Large ships won't be able to land on planets at all, so either you'll build a space station or you'll have to have a complicated system of shuttles to ferry things between your ships and your bunker.
5. Why wouldn't I want bunker wars? That'd be awesome.
6. It amuses me very much that at the beginning of your post, you used 'because it's been the plan from the beginning' as a reason for something (although I'm not sure what), but now at the bottom you're saying there shouldn't be planetary combat, which is so old it's in the MCF OP. I have never said 'more is cool', but I am saying now that 'removing ground combat is stupid'.
7. What do you mean by 'doesn't fit in'? Fit in with what, exactly? There's nothing for it to fit with yet. The mod is called Futurecraft, which implies a very broad scope (the entire future). After World War 1, many military leaders predicted that strategic bombing would be the only kind of warfare conducted in the future. Looking back on them nearly a hundred years later, the look pretty dumb. It is probably equally dumb to suggest that the future will not contain ground combat, so logically it should be included.
8. In conclusion, I think that was a somewhat silly post, but let's do our best to stop arguing amongst ourselves and start getting a mod made.

1.The plan from the beginning was to make a PLANE world (Not cube nor circle) and then attach it to a planet that has a shape in space. BTW I always suggested something similar (Though I still believe a loading bar ill save us loads of trouble)

2. You can "Spawn" on a space station and buy components or a ready ship model to begin with. I don't think the point of futurecraft is mining, for this there is vanilla minecraft.

3.Then you get it a bit OP - there are LOADS of asteroids around. If they are all made out of rare materials it's way too OP, but if it contains small quantities than it might be easier to mine up with a quarry0like thing on the planet and sell it in exchange for rare materials. The asteroids just can't afford containing more materials.

4. So no secret bases in space for example ? And I believe that planetary elevators are not a good idea. I prefer to have a city with somewhat unrealistic dock for big ships , with some great view , over a generic space tube (that is not that stable you know ...) and I’m not even talking about the low capacity and the time it will take to serve a 2Km long battleships with that tinny thing.

5. Because it takes the space out of Futurecraft , as I said. L eave it to ICBM , they do it better. Also Bunker wars doesn't mean ground wars. It means camping in your bunk and trying to shoot tactical nukes. Maximum you'll have is infiltration with infantry squads. Robots are too big for this - they cannot enter the bunker nor carry enough firepower to destroy it. The robot itself is a big and easy target.

6. It's a choice - either big ground battles, or big space battles. You can't have both - the amount of players is limited.

7.That's the problem - a very broad scope. What I see here is an identity crisis. You can’t catch them all, it's not Pokemon ! You have limited resources - Time, space - players ! Take from one place reduce in the other. More people on planets less people in space - you can forget about your large scope fleet battles. And yea to make it clear you are making a SPACE game - have a look at the background , at the ship design area, at the suggestions. Most of them talk about it because if you want to dig on a planet you have vanilla minecraft.

8. I know you think every single thing I post is silly. It just happens I think otherwise. You just cannot see the point my way. When you do see it my way it's usually because there are no alternatives (Such as the banning idea)

[cats]

Spoiler:

1. You suddenly came with what? What has been the pla pretty much from the beginning? We're sitting here having this debate because there is no plan related to planet shapes, other than the one Fr0st has just proposed.
2. Planets are important before you get to space. You won't spawn with a spaceship magically ready for you; that would be stupid. You have to build one, and you'll do that on a planet.
3. You'll mine asteroids and nebulae for two reasons: Either because you can get stuff there that you can't get on a planet, or because it's easier. Asteroids and nebulae might contain rare elements that don't turn up in planets' crusts. You can feed an entire asteroid into a mining ship and have it melted down and separated into its components much more easily than you can bore through three kilometers of stone.
4. You can dock ships at space stations without having to go through atmospheric reentry. Large ships won't be able to land on planets at all, so either you'll build a space station or you'll have to have a complicated system of shuttles to ferry things between your ships and your bunker.
5. Why wouldn't I want bunker wars? That'd be awesome.
6. It amuses me very much that at the beginning of your post, you used 'because it's been the plan from the beginning' as a reason for something (although I'm not sure what), but now at the bottom you're saying there shouldn't be planetary combat, which is so old it's in the MCF OP. I have never said 'more is cool', but I am saying now that 'removing ground combat is stupid'.
7. What do you mean by 'doesn't fit in'? Fit in with what, exactly? There's nothing for it to fit with yet. The mod is called Futurecraft, which implies a very broad scope (the entire future). After World War 1, many military leaders predicted that strategic bombing would be the only kind of warfare conducted in the future. Looking back on them nearly a hundred years later, the look pretty dumb. It is probably equally dumb to suggest that the future will not contain ground combat, so logically it should be included.
8. In conclusion, I think that was a somewhat silly post, but let's do our best to stop arguing amongst ourselves and start getting a mod made.

1.The plan from the beginning was to make a PLANE world (Not cube nor circle) and then attach it to a planet that has a shape in space. BTW I always suggested something similar (Though I still believe a loading bar ill save us loads of trouble)

2. You can "Spawn" on a space station and buy components or a ready ship model to begin with. I don't think the point of futurecraft is mining, for this there is vanilla minecraft.

3.Then you get it a bit OP - there are LOADS of asteroids around. If they are all made out of rare materials it's way too OP, but if it contains small quantities than it might be easier to mine up with a quarry0like thing on the planet and sell it in exchange for rare materials. The asteroids just can't afford containing more materials.

4. So no secret bases in space for example ? And I believe that planetary elevators are not a good idea. I prefer to have a city with somewhat unrealistic dock for big ships , with some great view , over a generic space tube (that is not that stable you know ...) and I’m not even talking about the low capacity and the time it will take to serve a 2Km long battleships with that tinny thing.

5. Because it takes the space out of Futurecraft , as I said. L eave it to ICBM , they do it better. Also Bunker wars doesn't mean ground wars. It means camping in your bunk and trying to shoot tactical nukes. Maximum you'll have is infiltration with infantry squads. Robots are too big for this - they cannot enter the bunker nor carry enough firepower to destroy it. The robot itself is a big and easy target.

6. It's a choice - either big ground battles, or big space battles. You can't have both - the amount of players is limited.

7.That's the problem - a very broad scope. What I see here is an identity crisis. You can’t catch them all, it's not Pokemon ! You have limited resources - Time, space - players ! Take from one place reduce in the other. More people on planets less people in space - you can forget about your large scope fleet battles. And yea to make it clear you are making a SPACE game - have a look at the background , at the ship design area, at the suggestions. Most of them talk about it because if you want to dig on a planet you have vanilla minecraft.

8. I know you think every single thing I post is silly. It just happens I think otherwise. You just cannot see the point my way. When you do see it my way it's usually because there are no alternatives (Such as the banning idea)

Wrapped up nicely.

Alrighty then, Iv. I think I have the ground I need to intrude on this debate.

1. I have not seen that there have been any plans to have FC worlds as square, flat planes. I know that it was suggested and subsequently nulled.

2.
a. The point of minecraft is to gather materials and build things. The point of Future is to gather materials and build things. The manner of gathering and building changes with advancement.
b. The other point of Futurecraft is to advance your faction's technology from the stoneage and to form a somewhat organized community. As a result of slow development, your faction is more organized and ready for space. Giving players materials or a ready-to-fly spacecraft does nothing for the development of player, the gameplay, or the faction as a group.

3.
a. Well, no. Not OP. Asteroids would be difficult to mine without an advanced mining vessel, and even then it takes time. This is how it will work. Start out with a planet. Planet has plentiful materials, but is lacking in some. Build a mining vessel out of common planetary materials, go mine a few asteroids. Asteroid has plentiful the materials that are rare on planets. These materials you need to build the next tier of tech. Rare=/=valuable (gold in mc).
b.Who will sell these rare materials if there are none to get? And please, don't say they will be supplied by the game.

4. I con't even know how secret bases are even remotely related to anything. You could set up a drydock, that might be better for the construction of ships. But landing and taking off in a dreadnought would be just as difficult as is sounds. Much easier to keep them in space and have smaller craft transport goods and people. What are spacetubes? Elevators would be easier and faster than shuttles, esp. when the counterweight is a dock.

5. This, as LJS has stated, is NOT SPACESIMCRAFT, it is Futurecraft. All facets of the future should be included and important, space and planetary workings are two very large facets. Bunkers are not just possibilities, they are REQUIRED for multifaceted ground combat (i just really like the word facet). You have your mechs and tanks fighting outside, and you have infantry fighting infantry inside. You could try a bunker buster, but you still need to take out that shield generator and those big gunz it has defending it. Only from the inside can it be brought down.

6. No. The player limit doesn't really matter much. Lets say a server can hold a hundred players (with ships factored in). The largest space battle would have maybe six mid-size ships. Each ship has maybe 5 crew. That's only 30 crew total. Plenty of room for 'mech pilots, a few marines, assault tanks, fighter pilots, and the planetary ground defenders.

7. DAMMIT ITS NOT A SPACE GAME. Space is a very large facet (word) of the jewel that is Futurecraft, but it's still not the whole thing. Space is such a big part in the community because it really speaks future. It is the final frontier, a gigantic milestone for the human race (and any others). But still only a mall part of the big picture. If we had a picture of a mech laser-ing something, yeah it would be futuristic and awesome, but it doesn't represent the pinnacle of civilization.

8. Iv, I respect you and your ideas, but... no. Just no. These ideas are not meant for futurecraft, they are meant for whatever space sim mod that will follow (or come before) FC.

[Iv121]

It's not an idea. Believe me I think carefully before I post. I looked at it from different angles and thought it over and I don't see any other choice you have. You may argue with me and prove me that I'm wrong and you will do it perfectly because we all talk on the paper, but when it comes out it's gonna be that way no matter what you do. I can explain you why and let you see yourself.

We are limited in many ways as I said. The planets take huge amounts of space that will not necessarily be used. People will mostly stick to a 1x1 km area around the landing ground because they don’t need to go any further, they just want a place to mine right ? Now imagine each system has 4 planets, and you make , how much you said ? 40 km ? 40x40 Km x 4 planets means 160x160 Km per SYSTEM ! Not only it weights s***tons but also it spreads the players too thin. I believe in 10 systems (1600x1600 KM !) you will wander around the planets and never ever meet anyone else. And you want more than 10 systems right ?

Let's say you make 1x1 km area. That means 40x40 Km area to wander at on all planets on 10 systems. Even this is big enough when you add more systems (120x120 if let's say you want 30 systems) and can be reduced, While this size is enough for landing, hosting a city or even mining (Alright alright keep your mining, I still think minecraft's best part is building - building ships and clashing them in combat), but it's not enough to host two bases and have planetary battles. If you are a good commander and let's say build a base on a planet you'll make sure no one can land bots on it (Quite easy with good AA system) you exclude ground combat from futurecraft. This base becomes impenetrable OP fortress.

In my opinion hosting a base in space is much more fun. You need to design a space station and protect it from other space ships - much more fun than trying to crack an OP bunker (I doubt you will win against a well fortified player). It adds more fun to the equation.

Another point to think about let's say we host 100 people online at a time. Let's say that players all spread equally across the galaxy. We have 30 systems with 4 planets each. That is 150 areas where they can be present. As you see this spreads the players so thin that you barely get 2 players each 3 planets (1 planet is not used at all) and almost no one in space. You simply won't have enough players to make ground battles or ground anything a thing. If we grow bigger then alright - more resources do what you want with them. Planetary battles are cool - adds to realism, but not at the current state. Focus on space because planets demand resources we don't have.

I do not expect you to say "You are right Iv" cause haters gonna hate and it's a lost argument, I gave you the insight with some numbers, do what you want with it.

[cats]

It's not an idea. Believe me I think carefully before I post. I looked at it from different angles and thought it over and I don't see any other choice you have. You may argue with me and prove me that I'm wrong and you will do it perfectly because we all talk on the paper, but when it comes out it's gonna be that way no matter what you do. I can explain you why and let you see yourself.

We are limited in many ways as I said. The planets take huge amounts of space that will not necessarily be used. People will mostly stick to a 1x1 km area around the landing ground because they don’t need to go any further, they just want a place to mine right ? Now imagine each system has 4 planets, and you make , how much you said ? 40 km ? 40x40 Km x 4 planets means 160x160 Km per SYSTEM ! Not only it weights s***tons but also it spreads the players too thin. I believe in 10 systems (1600x1600 KM !) you will wander around the planets and never ever meet anyone else. And you want more than 10 systems right ?

Let's say you make 1x1 km area. That means 40x40 Km area to wander at on all planets on 10 systems. Even this is big enough when you add more systems (120x120 if let's say you want 30 systems) and can be reduced, While this size is enough for landing, hosting a city or even mining (Alright alright keep your mining, I still think minecraft's best part is building - building ships and clashing them in combat), but it's not enough to host two bases and have planetary battles. If you are a good commander and let's say build a base on a planet you'll make sure no one can land bots on it (Quite easy with good AA system) you exclude ground combat from futurecraft. This base becomes impenetrable OP fortress.

In my opinion hosting a base in space is much more fun. You need to design a space station and protect it from other space ships - much more fun than trying to crack an OP bunker (I doubt you will win against a well fortified player). It adds more fun to the equation.

Another point to think about let's say we host 100 people online at a time. Let's say that players all spread equally across the galaxy. We have 30 systems with 4 planets each. That is 150 areas where they can be present. As you see this spreads the players so thin that you barely get 2 players each 3 planets (1 planet is not used at all) and almost no one in space. You simply won't have enough players to make ground battles or ground anything a thing. If we grow bigger then alright - more resources do what you want with them. Planetary battles are cool - adds to realism, but not at the current state. Focus on space because planets demand resources we don't have.

I do not expect you to say "You are right Iv" cause haters gonna hate and it's a lost argument, I gave you the insight with some numbers, do what you want with it.

1 server=1 system. Not 2 systems, not 30 systems, 1 system. There are your numbers and what I want with them.

A planet is a big place. Space is a REALLY big place. There should be lots of places to hide. The fun is defending and hunting, fortifying and destroying. Populous planets will be well known and marked on most maps. Other planets, people will not go on unless they're miners or explorers or military.

Unsurprisingly, a stealthed drop pod is pretty difficult to track, even with a really good AA system. There will be plenty of space to build structures. You need to surround your planets with an orbital defense network and protect all of your docks, right?

[Iv121]

Eh you won't need stealth drones in this world. As the numbers show your chances to ever meet any other player are quite low.

[cats]

Eh you won't need stealth drones in this world. As the numbers show your chances to ever meet any other player are quite low.

You wouldn't be attacking a planet unless you thought there was something there. And yes, you could assault a base on an non-populous planet by dropping far away from the base, then making the hike.

[Iv121]

You miss the point. As I said I don't seek your approval couse I probably won't get it (haters gonna hate etc. etc.) but I let you know and you do what you want with it based on the numbers I gave you. If you insist you just gonna work more and get same results anyway.

[Ivan2006]

Iv, I saw your calculations, and I need to tell you something:

There propably will only be 1 planet per system with players on them (look at our solar system, just 2 planets in the habitable zone, the rest melting hot or out of gas)
Also, you can´t just spread to several systems, because a system will equal a server, leading to 10 systems => 10 times more players.
That would leave you with the basic 40k x 40k planets, and assuming that you will sooner or later have vehicles and aircrafts, finding someone isn´t very difficult (especially if added the fact that FC will increase view distance dramatically)
Also, you will need a lot of free space if you want your secret hideout to be secret...

[cats]

You miss the point. As I said I don't seek your approval couse I probably won't get it (haters gonna hate etc. etc.) but I let you know and you do what you want with it based on the numbers I gave you. If you insist you just gonna work more and get same results anyway.

That's not how a debate works, but that's not important.
Work is exactly what needs to be done. Work builds the character of a community and forces organization of infrastructure. Remember going in creative for the first time? It was just "OH HAHAHA TNTTNTTNT!!!! DIAMONDSS HAHAA" And you never actually built anything. In your first survival game, you might have built a nice little cottage or a dirt mansion. When you're given the means to do something without having to work for it, everything is terrible. Better to build from the ground up than have your society fall from the top.

[Prototype]

You miss the point. As I said I don't seek your approval couse I probably won't get it (haters gonna hate etc. etc.) but I let you know and you do what you want with it based on the numbers I gave you. If you insist you just gonna work more and get same results anyway.

That's not how a debate works, but that's not important.
Work is exactly what needs to be done. Work builds the character of a community and forces organization of infrastructure. Remember going in creative for the first time? It was just "OH HAHAHA TNTTNTTNT!!!! DIAMONDSS HAHAA" And you never actually built anything. In your first survival game, you might have built a nice little cottage or a dirt mansion. When you're given the means to do something without having to work for it, everything is terrible. Better to build from the ground up than have your society fall from the top.

I'm afraid that both sides of the argument here are valid, but ultimately it comes down to the players, so we should give them the opportunity to build their creations from the ground up, but make it so that gaining access to space is relatively easy, but requires some thought and effort.

[blockman42]

You miss the point. As I said I don't seek your approval couse I probably won't get it (haters gonna hate etc. etc.) but I let you know and you do what you want with it based on the numbers I gave you. If you insist you just gonna work more and get same results anyway.

That's not how a debate works, but that's not important.
Work is exactly what needs to be done. Work builds the character of a community and forces organization of infrastructure. Remember going in creative for the first time? It was just "OH HAHAHA TNTTNTTNT!!!! DIAMONDSS HAHAA" And you never actually built anything. In your first survival game, you might have built a nice little cottage or a dirt mansion. When you're given the means to do something without having to work for it, everything is terrible. Better to build from the ground up than have your society fall from the top.

I'm afraid that both sides of the argument here are valid, but ultimately it comes down to the players, so we should give them the opportunity to build their creations from the ground up, but make it so that gaining access to space is relatively easy, but requires some thought and effort.

I think the planets should be spherical, but when the player enters the atmosphere, the world should be like a vanilla world.

[Prototype]

I think the planets should be spherical, but when the player enters the atmosphere, the world should be like a vanilla world.

I think that's the plan, but I'm not sure, that's probably the best solution shape wise

[cats]

I think the planets should be spherical, but when the player enters the atmosphere, the world should be like a vanilla world.

I think that's the plan, but I'm not sure, that's probably the best solution shape wise

Missed a bracket there, Proto. Fr0st wanted to have 5kmx5kmx5km cube planet to avoid bedrock restriction. I think it should be like a cube template, so that we don't have to worry about gravity