Asteroid Belt: Special Asteroids

I personally think that Infinity: Battlescape should have an asteroid belt filled with unique asteroids that are super packed and some with special plants that are flexible and eat smaller asteroids and ships like a Venus Flytrap.
Whats on the Asteroids(or in the Belt) :

  • Venus Flytrap like Plants eating small asteroids and ships.

  • Iron Vines that can connect a huge group of asteroids together and
    looks like a dark steel jungle in between them.

  • Caves can be large to small and can go through the asteroids.

  • Tiny Ship sized wormholes(rare) that can appear then disappear very
    rapidly sometimes causing nuclear explosions on the asteroids.

  • Plasma Asteroids that with 2 minutes burn the ship and they can be

  • Small Moons or Comets.

  • Cracks(on large asteroids could be filled with magma).

  • Ruins of space stations or ships.

They would be randomly generated and the wormholes(when there are low amounts in the belt do to some being destroyed or shrunk till gone due to being too far away from the belt) would have small asteroids come out of them, that will group together into normal sized asteroids. If a ships hits a side of a worm hole it will explode in a nuclear explosion due to half an atom being teleported. The wormholes go to random locations that consistently change. The wormholes can form on plasma asteroids that are often alone surrounded by asteroid debrees from nuclear explosions.

It is possible that Battlescape will have an asteroid belt, but a lot of the ideas suggested here are not right for the game on so many levels.

  1. Space plants are not really what we’re aiming for here. Realism is a big part of Infinity (with some liberties)

  2. Caves would be nice but would have to be hand crafted as the procedural generator can’t create them last I heard.

  3. And since when were asteroids hot/dense enough to turn to plasma?

  4. Also, wormholes randomly killing players would not go down well I think. Also, not realistic. Storms on planets are one thing, but even those are a stretch goal.

If an asteroid belt is present, it will likely be a more scientifically accurate one. The one in our own solar system is more empty than people think and not much more than a bunch of rocks that avoided becoming a planet!


Yeah, not big on the idea. Would rather have massive asteroid belts like Star Wars that can pummel your ship and destroy it. Throw in some really big asteroids with tunnels and you could have really cool content. But I am sure the Devs probably thought of that considering we all grew up on Star Wars.

Perhaps what might be feasible for actual asteroid game play is having a station within a very active asteroid belt that is protected by anti-gravity mods or a force-field; this could lead to some really exciting game play of trying to get to the station, especially if you are under attack!

1 Like

Could you elaborate further? And the only dense “Asteroid Belts” would be planetary rings or some exotic young Star Systems could have high density Asteroid Concentrations too.

Planetary rings would do or an exotic young Star System. Anywhere there is a collection of asteroids. Presently asteroids are stationary and only rotate but asteroids that move on a plane in any given direction would make navigation far more challenging. Good examples are:

Add a sprinkling of asteroids hitting one another and changing trajectory and asteroid fields/rings become far more interesting and dynamic. Of course some fields would have to be more static for mining but one or two active fields would enhance game play immensely, especially if asteroids were a similar size like Elite Dangerous and/or Star Citizen. Also including smaller and larger ones should enhance visuals.

No game has gone there - yet. It is my belief that such a game mechanic with a station involved at the core of an active asteroid belt/field would truly set any space sim apart from the rest. But of course Infinity is already set apart and above the others so an active asteroid belt is not necessary - but in my opinion it would enhance game play beyond visuals.

1 Like

The asteroid belt will probably be more dense than would be realistic, but still more sparse than Star Wars etc’s portrayals.
Perhaps there is some device that attracts asteroids into a swirling bunch for mining purposes.

A base inside a big asteroid could be cool.

I men’t for it to be like a super strange belt and sense people are still learning about physics it could be possible and the worm holes could kill because they could split atoms when forming or if you don’t get in them all the way. There are also lots of different types of plasma they don’t always need to be dense or hot people have plasma in there cells and blood.
There are some mysterious rocks in space that form micro sized worm holes like unknown things. Also the space plants would feed of the asteroid and could’ve formed on a low atmosphere planet or moon that was destroyed and adapted to suit asteroids.
Caves can be generated just are hard too with complex code but some other games have done it.

PS I mainly got bored when suggesting and suggested lots of strange things instead of just a normal belt.
Also our solar system is really strange formed so others could have those. Also the game needs something to make the solar system better than the others because really why battle over something that you could go find another of. So the solar system would need to be unique not the same as others.

PS(again) to Zen in real life asteroids are not that close together in a belt.

I hope this is never implemented, unless it be a strange, fictional, modded server that does not reference I:B ever.

Physics on the macro scale is actually very well understood. A dense asteroid belt would, over time, accumulate into a single object, also called planetary formation.

What Sab1e said. I can appreciate, PlasmaStruck, that you want asteroid belts to be interesting, and more than just a field of stationary rocks, but most of the stuff you’re talking about there would harm the game’s immersion, which has been achieved thus-far by a high degree of realism. (our own MOON doesn’t even have magma activity, and it’s pretty large)

What I would like to see in this game as far as asteroids go, is more movement and interaction, and I’m almost certain that is the goal anyway. When I was watching a video of the prototype the other day, during the KS, I saw a small rock drift over and impact a larger asteroid, and it just sort of touched it and made a change in direction. Obviously what we would like to see here is an impact that is more spectacular, based on the speed and mass of the objects, with debris and a crater as a result, and potentially even a change in the size and number of the original objects, for greater collisions. This, IMO, would complete the immersion of an asteroid field, and make it in itself a really fun place to explore/experience.

That is an awesome idea!

I know this a lot to ask, but I would like to see caves and holes in the engine. I think there is a good argument which could be made that everything erosion-related has an important place in a procedural engine such as this. It would probably be much more infrequent than other aspects of these various worlds, but still huge in effect, IMO. I imagine the concept of erosion has a place in the functioning of the engine already…


While this is true, it isn’t about the objects you’re proposing. We have a pretty good idea about what sort of objects become balls of ionized gas. They are called stars. If you have a star inside your asteroid belt…you’re gonna have a bad day.

Especially one that only burns for 2 minutes. Usually the faster a star burns, the brighter and hotter it is, and the more spectacular its death. You can just ignore the mini wormholes you suggested. We already have stars that ignite and then go super nova in the span of minutes. That would be incredible to see :sunglasses: .

IIRC, the reason the three SFC corps are fighting over the system is because it contains a rare habitable world they could easily colonise and research, while also providing an excellent habitat for their workers and a target for long term development. After all, while in the future people may be able to live in space indefinitely, we have yet to see the effects of long term space-life on humans. Even with things like artificial gravity, radiation shields and virtual reality, people might still feel the psychological need to live in a planet and see a blue sky above their heads. It would be like living in a submarine your whole life. And judging by the SFC’s faction style, they’re not the kind of guys who care very much about making their workers’ vessels comfortable.

Edit: Plus, those are corporations, so they’ll probably care about the lower cost of settling on an Earth-like world.

I think there is much value to visuals and making a game as realistic as possible. Elite Dangerous is doing this to a large degree but it is not exciting game play and people are moving away from it. I would hate to see Battlescape go the same direction where physics, as we understand it, overrides interesting game play and people quickly tire of it. In short there has to be a balance between realistic physics and interesting game play.

And this has been the eternal battle during Infinity’s many years of development. The good news is that Flavien and the team have always said that fun comes first, if it’s a choice between that and realism. However, that has limitations, and they are unlikely to create anything outrageous or unnatural in terms of natural phenomena.

This shouldn’t be a problem, because there will be enough going on with bases, fleets and resources to keep things interesting! The environment will largely be there as a stage (albeit a very large and nicely dressed stage). If the environment behaves how we would expect, then that creates challenge and fun on its own - such as atmospheric flight with ships that are not aerodynamic!

I think nobody has considered the possibility of having the “dense asteroid field” without having to violate a sensible system.

The original proposition is, I think, absurd to the point of “No, thanks.” But it’s not impossible to imagine a planet with a moon that has been fragmented by impact/experiment gone wrong/etc. It would still be a dense collection of rocks in space, and that seems to be the desired effect.

I am not sure if that is an accurate assumption that there will be ‘enough going on with bases, fleets and resources to keep things interesting’ because these things get old fast, especially when other games are offering the exact same thing. Fortunately for Battlescape, they have a unique engine that is a cut above the rest, but as we have seen crowd funding wasn’t exactly a roaring success. And for an engine of this caliber, this is a huge surprise! I could be shooting in the dark here but part of the problem is PR, or to be more precise, a lack of it. The other problem lies in Elite Dangerous producing a very nice visually appealing game so potential players are weary of another pretty game with little content. Not saying Battlescape is going that route - if it were I wouldn’t support it - but stunning visuals does not a game make; and stereotypical game play will do little to entice new players to join. Of course if it’s the goal to keep Battlescape small and specialized for a certain kind of player, then I am alright with that. But I am also alright with Battlescape becoming a massive success with enough players to keep it going long into the future.

This will come not by visuals and typical game play but imagination and unique content. This is where Star Citizen excels, unfortunately they don’t have an engine that can support their grandiose plans - and they never will. In short they have the packaging but not the product as where Battlescape has the product but are horrendous at packaging. I don’t believe in an either/or scenario. In fact Battlescape is in a very good position because having the product is paramount - they just have to be a little more proactive in the PR department.

Anyway, I have said too much and have gone beyond the original point. In short, interesting, unique game play will be key to success; yes we need stereotypical game play but there are a lot of space sims popping up with things to do and content to keep players engaged. The game that will garner the most success will be games that offer unique game play and originality. In my opinion.

All very good points, IMO. Based on everything I’ve seen Infinity: Battlespace is slated to be a very unique title. IMO this just wasn’t communicated to the fullest during the KS. I told my brother that with what i-Novae has here I believe they could be crazy successful. I even joked about doing a $300,000 advertising campaign, launching another KS, because I think with the right push the first fully-explorable solar system could easily garner several million dollars in backing. I don’t think it would be a stretch to say you could have schools and other educational institutions backing the KS. I don’t see why NASA doesn’t back this at a high level! Maybe the i-Novae guys just think to conservatively after all of these years (to their credit, IMO). Anyway, this is their baby, and I wouldn’t go pushing it further than they’re comfortable, I just feel like this is a MAJOR leap in simulators, let alone computer games.

Couldn’t agree more. But peddling to NASA might undermine some pretty dynamic game play. At any rate, they certainly played it differently than most other developers by keeping it on the low down, especially before a major release/crowdfunding.

Personally I wished they went a different route with more dynamic assets (ie avatars) and proactive PR, but they have their vision and I would be remiss not to support it. Besides, this engine is only a stepping stone to broader more encompassing games; perhaps in future a company or even i-Novae themselves will introduce avatars, station walkabouts and interior ship builds. Of course they could be focusing on the Engine with an eye to licencing to companies wanting to go to that next level but that’s just speculation on my part. At any rate, as things stand with this Engine and stated goals - I am optimistic.

Well said. I get pretty excited, but you’ve gotta respect their vision for the project that has gotten it this far. :wink:

lol. Good old Willy.

Yeah, we may not agree with the DEVs and the exact direction but the foundation is solid and ground breaking. Too bad people get caught up in packaging over substance. Of course one big reason i-Novae didn’t get massive support is because Star Citizen soured Kickstarters for many of us. If i-Novae had put out Battlescape before Star Citizen, it would be a completely different story! Anyway, good chatting with you and we should hook up when the first build is released. :rocket:


Let me know where you guys decide to meet up so I can shoot ya guys down :wink:

1 Like