Semproser

I don't think it will be a problem at all. In the first week or so of a new planet existing, I'm sure that there will be no solid name. But after a month or more, I think the amount of infrastructure that would entirely solidify the highest used name. First case is 5 people there, 2 want to call it "Dogland", 1 wants to call it "John's planet" and the other two "Tatooine". A few months go by, bigger things get built, cities spring up (lets call one of them "Greenish City"), markets are established, more people move there, and you've got 50 people calling it "Greenish", 7 calling it "Wombat faction homeworld", and then loads of individuals calling it what they want. Even though there may be more than one name for a place, that doesn't necessarily make it wrong or entirely confusing. No single country or place really ever has just one name, but there is always a "most popular" and the rest are usually identifiable. For example, just take a look at all the things New York has been called (directly pasted from Wikipedia):

I completely back NQ decision to have no collision damage in the game. Although cool, it very rarely works well with voxels, and it is never ever cheap in terms of calculations. Just look at the mess that is Space Engineers - any kind of collision and you drop frames like nothing I've ever seen before.

I've had another idea! How about the world generated a truly boring name for each planet, for example "Planet-001", "Planet-002"...etc. This would obviously mean people want to give the planets their own personal touch, as no one wants boring planet names. Then, the game then gives each user the ability to name the planet for themselves. Each person calls the planet what they want. However! (This is the good bit) When you go to name the planet for yourself, there is a list of what EVERYONE ELSE has named the planet, with the most frequently used names nearer the top and showing next to each name how many others have named it so. This means that the best name would become the most popular, it is decided by the people with a strange type of open democracy, the stupid names will always die out, and a planet will almost always get a definitive name. I can't think of anything else that would work anywhere near as well as this. What do you guys think?

That's not a bad idea actually. Seems fairly useful for rough designs. Good thinking

Nicely pointed out, I hadn't considered that option: *Avatar specific gravity* It would be certainly perfect for the things I'm suggesting building wise. The only downside really is that occasionally while working in your office building someone might just casually walk up the wall and through your 80th floor window. haha. As for your problem AccuNut with other gravity sources nearby, somehow I doubt their engine will actually employ a universal gravity field. It will probably be more in the sense of "if within X Radius of planet, affected by gravity of planet" for people and constructs, and a different model entirely for the space stations as they are supposed to just orbit the nearest large cosmic entity (or so someone said, I've got no sources on that). This would mean that on ships it would be likely gravity is handled in a way similar to "Everything inside this cuboid is affected by construct Y's gravity", where the cuboid is just big enough to encapsulate the construct. This is the most likely, as pretty much every other free roam space game does it like this. This would also mean that the cuboid gravity of the construct overrides the gravity of the planet entirely, otherwise things would become extremely strange in orbit. However "gravity emitters" like I suggest wouldn't use a cuboid that by default encapsulates the entire construct, but would give the user the ability to put a shape somewhere and anything inside that shape is affected by a certain gravity simulating force. Thing is, if this shape is a square (like in Space Engineers) my cuboid city idea still couldnt be employed perfectly as the corners wouldn't be covered properly without extra, diagonal facing gravity emitters. Which would be rather strange. This is what that would look like: http://www.printablee.com/postpic/2014/04/square-box-template-printable_116047.png - the important part here is the lack of gravity at the corners. However if the shape of the gravity emitters would be customisable, that would lead to a lot more fun. For example, gravity parcour maps, multidimensional command stations/bridges (which I have several concepts for), and of course cuboid city ships. However actually doing that even with the given tools might be hard, as the "correct" gravity field shape for a cuboid would be what I can only describe as an inverted square based & topped trapezoid sided pyramid. Like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/B3D/2/JPG/figure19.jpg Specifically 6 of them, one for each face, this allows for no gaps in between, and would look like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/dimension/JPG/figure28.jpg So in the end (and TL;DR) : Although it would lead to quite a lot of creative outlet to have customization of shapes from gravity emitters I imagine, it would probably be a great deal simpler and easier for the developers to just have user-set gravity, allowing any client to orient themselves however they want when off-planet. Probably locking this to 6 axis or so would be advisable.

For example in the most recent AMA video he answers questions about the damage model and how its related to voxels. Specifically about how damage actually breaks voxels and makes realistic type damage to blocks and systems. He doesn't mention there that this is something they aren't planning on doing before launch. We've seen ships with gun, and statements like those about how damage affects voxels. Unless you really read into it, you'd think CvC would be in this game. Hence it is misleading and should be addressed.

But it isn't very clearly plastered everywhere. Its in a single drop down box at the very very bottom of a huge long kickstarter page.

Obviously nothing is perfect. But what I was really trying to avoid is some idiot coming along, being the first to a planet because he happened to drift there first, and naming is "RANDOM LOLOLO XD XD" and that being one of the 5 core important planets. Then with that name stuck forever, the rest of the community has to deal with the immaturity of a single person who just got there first. Also if there are 4 or 5 big corporations on a planet, if my first suggestion is used then the biggest of them will probably name is "Star Conferdacy Planet 3" or something as it puts their factions name in the planet, asserting their very slight dominance. But if my second suggestion is used, it would be a lot more community focused and hence a lot less likely to be named after the richest lot there and more what the people of the planet want. Actually come to think of it, a better solution would be to only be able to rename a prefix, postfix or infix, for example the most they could do would be "Star Confederacy controlled Yavin-XI" Where the generated name for the planet was Yavin-IX. By having a name checker that requires the original name to be in the new name somewhere? That way people can be creative about it and have it in a more appropriate part of the name. So even "The Peoples Republic of Yaxin-IX and Star Alliance" would be acceptable to the system. I reckon that would get good results.

How about this? I've got 2 suggestions. 1) Planets are all given a randomly generated name, its a fairly easy thing to do using a few set parameters. THEN The person/organisation with the most territorial power on the planet gets to OVERWITE the existing name. This would only be true for as long as they hold the majority power. If someone else comes along and obtains a higher power level on the planet, then they can then rename it. If everyone leaves, it defaults. This is a more power oriented approach, but would certainly work in at least some capacity. However I think there's another way that can work, but probably not as well but would give a better outcome: 2) Once there is a certain presence on the planet (perhaps amount of claimed territory, or people visited) then a planetary vote ensues. Anyone can put forward their naming suggestions, and after a period of time, the votes are opened and anyone currently on the planet gets to vote on any of those names put forward. Of course the original name is always part of the naming pool too. Every 6 months or so there is a revote, with the current name starting with a fair deal of votes as to reduce bad name changes by people making random rash decision.

"But granpa, how did you bring down the megalith cruiser of the killsquad clan?" "With THIS KNIFE...and some damned good whiskey"

Fricken ALL OF THE YES.

Just to be clear, I was aware that that voxel gravity physics were supposed to be like Minecraft, where if you undermine a tree it will float, and I'm entirely fine with that. So far everything else I've seen try to go further and have falling buildings and things just never works realistically at all, and generally just detracts from the game as opposed to adding a cool new level. For example if you took out all the walls of a large building, it would simply become 1 floor shorter and stand at an awkward angle while taking a huge amount of processing power to calculate and spaz around a bit and just be an unfix-able nuisance, as opposed to an impressive pile of rubble. I'm more focused on the non-voxel physics, e.g. Cups, small ships near space stations with their own gravity, and people.

So obviously gravity onboard ships/space stations is going to be handled somehow within this game. I want to know the specifics: Will gravity always be locked to the "Down" direction from the starting core? if not: Will there be "Gravity machines" of some kind that will allow us to give custom gravity to certain areas? Really I'm asking because I want to build large ships designed to essentially be cities, and for most designs I want to build, having gravity in a different direction to the rest of the ship would be incredibly useful. For example, a cube city. With unidirectional gravity, the city would be forced to be only inside and ontop of the cube. With multi-directional gravity, I could build outwards on all faces. Cyclindrical cities (like the Citadel in Mass Effect but with the gaps in between the arms filled). Jupiter station from Interstellar. I think you get the point. Anyone know? If not, can someone ask the devs if they get a chance? Or if this get popular enough, maybe a poll?

Can I join?

I agree entirely, nicely put. Although I do think that the tools introduced in LBP2 allowed a greater deal of freedom in creation which then ultimately lead to bigger and better creations than were at all possible even though exploits in LBP1. Sure it made those things less special, but sometimes we want things to be more common. Clean water for example

I personally think that forums like these for a pre-alpha game should be in some way useful for the developers, which is exactly why agree with you here. It's a post that shows a concern about the game that the devs might not know about, that I agree is a potential problem that they have the ability to change. Therefore it is, at least in intention, constructive. And yes I'll reply, as i'm not here just to throw a hissy fit, I'm here to be constructive. I think we actually have very similar positions here: I wanted to highlight what I thought was a current gap in their PR that if filled might GAIN popularity for the game, you wanted to highlight a flaw in their current direction with the game as to prevent LOSS of popularity for the game. In the end its the same outcome, we want more people to like this game. So please don't think I just made my post because I wanted to be a special snowflake that bossed around developers. Even if I'm a blithering moron like you seem to think of me, just like everyone else I am in fact NOT a special snowflake. Therefore no matter how stupid or mislead a thought process might be you can bet someone else will have had the same thought process. Therefore by saying why I personally haven't donated yet, this should highlight why others might not have done so too. And that information should be useful for the devs. And yes, I'd like to think this is a discussion rather than an argument, so I'd also like to keep things civil. Back to the real subject here, what would you personally say is your lowest level of combat to keep you interested? I think that's a good point to progress to. As for myself I'd like for the combat to be more advanced than the ship acting as one unbreakable entity with a health bar that just explodes when it hits 0, but I'd settle for something only slightly more advanced than that.

All good points dear sir.

Despite agreeing with you here, you said this to me on my post earlier, and cant help but think that your last line in that post is hypocritical.

Gotta agree with OP here. as stated on the kickstarter: Personally, I think that's fairly ridiculous. Without this, avatar vs avatar combat will be the only alternative, and therefore boarding will be the only real combat. And any fight fought between two warrior groups with their warships will resemble old fashioned galleon boarding. Cool as that may sound, that being the only option really isn't favourable at all. CvC really is essential here. It can't just be an afterthought. (edited because of extreme format failures)

Bro I wrote a whole section about how the builds would be converted to be useless and purely decorative.

This is good news! Thanks for the post.

You'd think they would, but my friends have been "saving for a new PC" for about 5 years, and as far as I can tell...have gone backwards in terms of funding.

Considering all the flashy signatures in forums like these, I really didn't really expect any praise for my fairly generic 3 word attempt. Cheers fam Nice to know there are other W40K fans around.

Now this is EXACTLY what I want to hear. As the event only happened yesterday there aren't too many reports of how accurate any of what they've said has been, its been mostly conversations between the attenders of the event and the devs with thoughts on ideas in the game. Now apart from this thread I'd seen maybe 1 or 2 people say the demo was exactly as shown, but with this thread, that makes 4 now. This is exactly the kind of proof I'm looking for, thank you. I feel like this is a fairly unfair statement. You're making assumptions about me based on very little. I am not a man of faith, I need proof before I will believe something. I really don't see whats unfair about asking for proof these devs aren't lying about what they're saying before throwing my money at them. Also, what on earth is "you are not worth the money you may back at this point." meant to mean? By wanting to know that I'm not throwing my money into a bottomless pit that makes me worthless? How rude. Remember that before today we've had no community confirmed proof of anything they've said, but thanks to this event we do now. That also means you've got a hell of a load more clear an idea what this game is really like than me. From the footage I've seen, I am impressed outright. However on that note, do you have any idea the specs of the machines they were running it on? And maybe what FPS on average? I've got a few friends that are interested in this but are entirely uninterested as they own potato machines and aren't convinced they'd be able to run it when it comes out.

What I'm thinking here is that they haven't shown us much, but what they have shown us looks great. I just want to know if everything they have actually said so far is true before I start believing their promises about the rest of the game. If so, I can then have some trust in them. Exactly this. I do not trust their videos alone as they are from a bias source. If we have external proof of this, I can start trusting them.