Vendetta Improvement ask

Hi Team,

We would like have more option in your game, sun, planet visit real time, gravity, atmosphere entry, black hole....
More speed, relativist why not.

We know physics has complicated reproduction however we like the game.

That can make?

Thank.

M

If you want all that jazz go play aerospace simulators like kerbal space program, elite dangerous/star citizen/no man's sky/MSFS&Xplane

VO isn't a simulator in the strictest sense and short of rebuilding the entire game in order for it to become a completely different game "landing on planets" isn't happening.

Beyond that I have to raise the question: Is landing on planets really an improvement - who say's you're able to take off again? :P

I didn't build the ships engine but apparently they work through some sort of voodoo gravitic manipulation - odds are if the gravity flux is too great they go critical and emit a small puff of magic smoke and next thing you know you have to rebuild and retune the resonance chamber!

It's always possible to add more features, and we're always considering things like this, but these additions can be very expensive and time consuming. For instance, "landing on planets" can be like a 2D cutscene showing a static image of a planetary landscape, or can be a procedurally-generated and interactive 3D environment. The first option is relatively easy, but the second one is years of work and major engine changes.

We're a very small game studio, so we're careful with our development resources. Generally, our focus is on space-based gameplay, because that's where most of our interesting things happen.

There have also been cases where some other games have added features like "landing on planets" and "walking around in stations" and then struggled to find additional gameplay value from those features. They look nice, but they don't necessary make the game more fun. Sometimes they just make things more time consuming. They certainly make the game much larger on disk, and usually require more expensive hardware to play.

So, it's not that we're against any particular set of features, but we would rather be driven by a specific gameplay goal that enhances and uplifts the entire game.. rather than bolting something on that is quite complex to build and maintain, but doesn't specifically enhance or improve the fun-factor of the overall game.

Additionally, it's worth noting that the Suggestions Forum has specific Rules, like breaking down each post into a unique thread. Your post encompasses a great many different ideas, but this forum is more about proposing a single specific idea (with a lot of explanation) and posting it into a single thread for on-going debate. Without this, discussions like this become really vague about "making everything bigger" and that isn't really all that useful. Sure, everyone would like the game to be "bigger and better", but the details and specifics of implementation goals are what really matters.

This jazz, landing, I think i would say why you are not here, it's not about big however it's about what the other made, what you didnt made.
New things.... I dont see anything, just long way to more things.
If it's not a simulation, it's not obviously what I ask, just more exciting to have complete game which use physics, even little, than a game which give partially freedom with little things already know.
Your game want provide the adventure, it have not the elements for it or it lying on past.

To finish I have found game which are better, I laugh, these fail to imitate originality, content. This worth for much Consoles games related to this kind, we are in 2026, the graphic this incredible.

Make better, less annoying.

Mister deve,

I think i understand. More things, not big this a nice réflexion. However there's a missing argument: Build interest to play cannot lie with provide a Journey in a world that want ideal with a space adventure.
We can ban the physics here, not much.

I like your argument with 2D ground, why not?
In this case, the planet can anime rotation, measure, weather. We approache a sphere, a disk which grow.
I think you can add gravity, even surface, entry.

I like your game, our curiosity want an environement intrigue, not a simple ion storm. ;)

It's important to understand that we are already working on a series of existing goals. A lot of these have proven necessary.. for instance, while you're asking for more content, we desperately need better administration tools to handle players who start to behave badly. This absorbs a lot of our developer time. We're a small team, and the developers are doing everything.. administration, finance, answering emails, posting on forums, manage player problems, so on and so forth. This adds a lot of "overhead" or demands on our time, which might otherwise be spent on feature-driven game development.

(This is also very different from most larger companies, that employ many more people, including dedicated individuals to manage and administer the existing game, while an entirely separate team works on the "next generation" feature set and gameplay).

So, a lot of our current goals are around trying to streamline and improve our management of the game to where that becomes more predictable, and we should then be able to spend more overall effort on forward-looking content.

To the average gamer, they imagine "development" to always be features: gameplay improvements, landing on planets, new ships and weapons, etc. But, our reality is that the last 9 months of our development has been about 90% on infrastructure issues. Server stability, client crashes, mission event systems that aren't working as expected, billing systems that don't work correctly, operating-system platforms that change how their programming interfaces work and demand that we update our product, our entire install structure on Windows is very out-of-date and becoming a problem for on-going releases, so on and so forth. It isn't always this way, but it explains why our current goal-set is so specifically oriented to try and get this "infrastructure development" under control better.

Unfortunately, many of these kinds of "improvements" are invisible to the end-user. Players can't really tell that we made the game more stable. Some small handful of people who happened to be in a sector when it crashed might notice that it doesn't crash anymore.. but they probably wouldn't anyway, because of the low probability and "chance" of those particular people being in the wrong-place at the wrong-time again. Of course, WE can tell (the developers), because we see everything measured "in aggregate" or combined together, we see the view from above, so to speak.

So, I understand what you're asking for, and I know what our game needs and we genuinely do want to dedicate more resources to implementing cooler features. We do have substantial, long-standing plans around such things, some of which you can find in the "RFC" sticky thread.

But, major gameplay changes also require long un-broken periods of development and testing. If we're constantly interrupted by "fire-fighting" or having to chase broken things or sudden crashes or other issues, development of a complex project can take exponentially longer. So, it's in everyone's best interest (ours, the players, the game as a whole) that we improve and refine the systems that we've targeted for improvement, so we can be on firmer ground to approach larger and more complex development.