Best Game ever made IF you add these things


I know this was addressed in your original thread, but too many people believe the sky is blue because “the oceans are blue”, so…

The sky is blue because it is predominantly made up of particles that are significantly smaller than the wavelengths of light passing through it. This causes the light to scatter in a way that most strongly affects smaller wavelenghts, causing blue and violet light to cascade across the sky much more frequently than yellow or red light. In Earth’s atmosphere, the largest contributor to this, both in terms of total atmospheric volume and in terms of how strongly it scatters light, is nitrogen.

Models indicate that life isn’t necessary for molecular nitrogen to exist in large quantities in the atmosphere, and that a nitrogen cycle drive by sunlight are sufficient. Moreover, any diatomic molecule that is light enough to be gaseous at even remotely livable temperatures will be small enough to cause this kind of wavelength dependent scattering that results in blue skies from light from sun-like stars.

Oceans would be super nice, but they’re not related to blue skies. Indeed, they’re a major source of water vapour, which is large enough to cause wavelength independent scattering. This type of scattering causes the sky colour to be more washed out, since it scatters white light in a way that keeps it from separating into its constituent colours.


You should cite your sources to prove it. Can’t have oxygen and nitrogen on an earth like planet (sarake) without life and you can’t have life without an ocean.

They are related, better make the atmosphere of sarake orange flavien. NMS and other small dev indie space games have oceans, heck even inovae had an ocean in 2010 but removed it. If inovae makes a game that has flat planet’s and moons that look like a nintendo 64 game with no detail they shouldn’t be surprised when they have zero player base and all their players are leaving for more accurate space games with better planets and moons.

“Actually, the sky was orange until about 2.5 billion years ago, but if you jumped back in time to see it, you’d double over in a coughing fit. Way back then, the air was a toxic fog of vicious vapors: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, cyanide, and methane. This last gas gave the sky an orange tint and the land a strange glow. But then something happened that would change the sky—and the planet—forever. Blue-green microbes called cyanobacteria formed in the ocean that were capable of a special trick that transformed the planet: photosynthesis. Later used by plants, this natural process converts sunlight and carbon dioxide into energy, creating oxygen as a by-product. Fed by nutrients in the sea and powered by the sun, cyanobacteria exploded across the ocean, pumping more and more oxygen into Earth’s atmosphere. Slowly, over the next two billion years, oxygen in the atmosphere rose to its present levels, and the sky took on the blue hue on view today.”

"Over vast periods of time, our primitive oceans formed. Water remained a gas until the Earth cooled below 212 degrees Fahrenheit. At this time, about 3.8 billion years ago, the water condensed into rain which filled the basins that are now our oceans.

Most scientists agree that the atmosphere and the oceans accumulated gradually over millions and millions of years with the continual ‘degassing’ of the Earth’s interior.

According to this theory, the ocean formed from the escape of water vapor and other gases from the molten rocks of the Earth to the atmosphere surrounding the cooling planet.

After the Earth’s surface had cooled to a temperature below the boiling point of water, rain began to fall—and continued to fall for centuries. As the water drained into the great hollows in the Earth’s surface, the primeval ocean came into existence. The forces of gravity prevented the water from leaving the planet."


Kichae just mentioned how you don’t need oxygen and nitrogen specifically. But I’d love to see a citation on this too btw.

1 Like

If I understood Sentinel correctly, a blue atmosphere cant exist without life, correct?
In this case, is it safe to say that life exists on Pluto, given those blue shots made by New Horizon?

1 Like



Sarake is an earth like planet/moon in the habitable zone as represented by inovae with green plains, white snowy mountains with geological formations. There can’t be any green vegetation or snow if there is no clouds or an ocean so it should have an atmosphere like mars. Key word here is “(EARTH LIKE)”. Not talking about any other kind of planet or planetoid…

The classical habitable zone around our sun marks where an Earth-like planet could support liquid water on the surface.

“The normal hue of the sky during the daytime is a pinkish-red; however, in the vicinity of the setting or rising sun it is blue . This is the exact opposite of the situation on Earth. However, during the day the sky is a yellow-brown “butterscotch” color. On Mars, Rayleigh scattering is usually a very small effect.”

Fixing Retention - Battlescape's last chance
Fixing Retention - Battlescape's last chance
Best Game ever made IF you add these things

That’s a single example of a similarly sized planet which has different lighting conditions (due to dust, mind you, not due to the gaseous contents of the atmosphere).

This disproves that… all earth sized planets must have a blue sky. Which is claimed by exactly zero people out of the three you quoted. Sorry buddy, but try again, I guess?

1 Like

The subject is earth sized and earth like planets in the habitable zone of their star that humans have either been to or sent probes to, not just earth sized planet’s. Not Neptune or Pluto, Sarake is based off of an earth sized and earth like planet in the habitable zone, not Neptune or Pluto, all three of you can try again and sarake looks like 1995 computer graphics and inaccurately represents an earth sized and earth like planet in the habitable zone. Humans have never left the solar system so being on the surface of another earth like and earth sized planet in the habitable zone of another solar system is speculation.


Who the heck decided that? Sarake is a moon orbiting a gas giant. And whether or not it can have a blue atmosphere will be predicted by physics and astronomy, not whether or not something exactly like it exists in our incredibly ordinary solar system.


Why does a moon orbiting a gas giant look like earth without clouds and an ocean? oh I know Sarake had an ocean, clouds (and trees too!) but the devs took it out because the inovae engine is sub par.


Talking about the inferior inovae engine and the devs removing the ocean trees and clouds is directly related to retention, why play a space game that has nothing to look at and do on the surface of the moon/planet?.

Maybe that is why inovae player base retention is non existent because every player leaves for better space games with better planet’s and moon’s in their game engines.


I agree with you. that the detail of the planets leaves much to be desired. My friend bought the game on my advice, flew for 2 hours and returned the product, because there is no Gameplay, development, and of course the Planets terrified him in 2020. And he went on to play Elite.


How is that logical?
The Planet in Elite are absolute dog shit in comparison.

1 Like

We all love to dabble if stuff is realistic or not and it is always nice to discuss that.

Also it can be nice to discuss if the graphics are good enough and what the devs should focus on …

But this is about retention. All we have going on are the negative steam reviews and maybe one or two media articles as well as our majorly biased own opinions.

The steam reviews are the most neutral source of clues why the game isn’t doing so well:

If you actually read the reviews you can see what other people beside you dislike.
I don’t see any meaningful representation for either how realistic stuff is or how detailed the environment is.

I can see how @SentinelGundam would like to further make their point but almost everyone active in this community already seen your arguments.
It’s also nice to see some old timers return to give their input, still it should be on topic.
I-Novae have already set their priorities based on all the feedback they have received outlined in An update to our 2020 dev roadmap

The thread we are currently in tries to constructively help with the same goal by giving input into how retention can be measured and worked with and what specifically can be done to increase that retention. Those suggestions need to be realistically achievable for I-Novae too, else they are off-topic for any thread in #battlescape or #suggestions.

I am not sure if I should do it but I am kind of inclined to challenge everyone to come up with achievable suggestions that are constructive and usable for I-Novae and if they go a bit overboard with fantastic ideas, at least acknowledge that it might be out of bounds. I did it myself here: Progression and long term motivation
I-Novae does value our feedback and ideas but it has to be considerate of their capabilities, time and also personal interests. They do value differing opinions too, they even values rants but not if they don’t stop. Post your rants in a separate threat like most people already did and please accept it if almost nobody agrees. Being more vocal only will drive you out of the community and make the devs less inclined to take the time to read our suggestions. That’s just how it is.

1 Like

Watch your LANGUAGE!

It is.

Found one right away on steam posted on march 1st!

“Why is there no new content? New interesting missions, interestung points on surfaces,”

It is.


Month Avg. Players Gain % Gain Peak Players
Last 30 Days 7,368.5 +667.7 +9.96% 17,980

infinity battlescape retention measurements.

Month Avg. Players Gain % Gain Peak Players
Last 30 Days 1.5 +0.1 +9.33% 13

The devs should watch this video and 6 million people will show you.

Updating old placeholders or adding in trees an ocean and clouds that they already had in the game but removed is very achievable and on topic.

millions of people wan’t content and things to do on the surface of the moons/ planet’s, if they don’t achieve the achievable they will have 0 players it’s as simple as that with retention.

Updating old placeholders are within their capabilities, wasting time on HUD, UI, AI and lasers is counter productive.

The devs personal interests include having most of the battles in space because their planet’s and moons look terrible, that is their strategy.

17,000 people a month who play NMS for the tasks on the surface of their planet’s, they all agree with me.

I didn’t know freedom of speech gets you removed, what a community.

1 Like

It is stuff like that which will make people less inclined to talk to you. Only your first post was ‘slightly’ on topic. Your second post was linking towards another post of you in another thread that was talking about a completely different topic than this thread is about. Since then pretty much all you’ve done is writing about your personal pet peeve, retreading a lot of ground that was already covered in that thread you linked.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but “freedom of speech” only protects your speech against the US government. In non-government-environments such as random game forums that so-called “freedom of speech” is usually abused by people to write offtopic stuff at best, and hate-filled nonsense at worst. Forum Mods regularly have to kick that “freedom of speech” in the arse by deleting posts and banning users so that the community as a whole can thrive.


Everything I posted was about retention and I cited my sources. 1.5 average players a month for infinity battlescape (A game that boasts and lies about large player numbers in their discription) should be the reason people like you should be upset, not the facts and sources I prove and post about it.


Everything you wrote was discussed to no end before already, the devs in fact explained their roadmap and their reasons for prioritising other aspects of the game in multiple posts.

Developement hasn’t ended yet, its just that features related to graphics were pushed back to focus on core gameplay mechanics and basic game elements like the user interface.
They already stated that player retention features such as ship outfitting, progression, mission sytem etc. are very high on the toDo list.
NOBODY gives a damn about trees if there is no GAMEPLAY (except you apparantly)!
Furthermore the old planet props implementation isn’t optimized at all and even showing a moderate amount of props affects the framerate significantly.
Also the clouds only look nice from the ground up, flying through them looks 90s style, we know by now that the devs can’t live with anything in their game looking substandard, so there is zero chance of them ever enabling these old clouds in the game.


You don’t have to cuss and swear.

My early post about the inovae engine being sub par is correct, thanks for proving my point.

That’s why I kept posting about them updating old placeholders but that has fallen on deaf ears.
oh and their whole game looks and is substandard if only 1.5 people play their game, as above^.

Can you imagine if NMS had no trees lol.

There was gameplay in the form of racing and scavenging old scrap metal in space but they removed that…

I guess citing sources and posting about retention makes people angry lol.


So you want them to stop working on HUD, missions, ship outfitting and progression and instead focus all their effort on trees and clouds first?