cough
2 Likes
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 canât 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 â(EARTH LIKE)â. Not talking about any other kind of planet or planetoidâŚ
âThe 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 âbutterscotchâ color. On Mars, Rayleigh scattering is usually a very small effect.â
Thatâs 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 planetâs. 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.
2 Likes
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 planetâs and moonâs 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.
2 Likes
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 âŚ
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 isnât doing so well:
If you actually read the reviews you can see what other people beside you dislike.
I donât 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.
Itâs 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 donât 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. Thatâs just how it is.
1 Like
Watch your LANGUAGE!
It is.
Found one right away on steam posted on march 1st!
âWhy is there no new content? New interesting missions, interestung points on surfaces,â
It is.
NMS player retention RETENTION MEASUREMENTS.
https://steamcharts.com/app/275850
| Month | Avg. Players | Gain | % Gain | Peak Players |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Last 30 Days | 7,368.5 | +667.7 | +9.96% | 17,980 |
infinity battlescape retention measurements.
https://steamcharts.com/app/1079620
| 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 wanât content and things to do on the surface of the moons/ planetâs, if they donât achieve the achievable they will have 0 players itâs 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 planetâs and moons look terrible, that is their strategy.
17,000 people a month who play NMS for the tasks on the surface of their planetâs, they all agree with me.
I didnât 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 âslightlyâ 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 youâve 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 âfreedom of speechâ only protects your speech against the US government. In non-government-environments such as random game forums that so-called âfreedom of speechâ is usually abused by people to write offtopic stuff at best, and hate-filled nonsense at worst. Forum Mods regularly have to kick that âfreedom of speechâ in the arse by deleting posts and banning users so that the community as a whole can thrive.
2 Likes
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 hasnât 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 isnât 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 canât live with anything in their game looking substandard, so there is zero chance of them ever enabling these old clouds in the game.
2 Likes
You donât have to cuss and swear.
My early post about the inovae engine being sub par is correct, thanks for proving my point.
Thatâs 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 thatâŚ
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?
Maybe they should optimize their engine and get the basics right first, Nobody gives a bleep about a green HUD, AI and lasers that took almost 2 years, and thatâs not just me saying it the steam charts are saying it. Every roadmap that they set and accomplish gives them .1 player retention every month, maybe they are road mapping the wrong things?
So your main gripe is that developement is slow?
Welcome to the club, have a seat.
1 Like
Donât get frustrated by facts and cited sources. Thatâs not a gripe at all, just providing sources that all point to wrong, backwards development and that does not mean in the slightest that I have a âgripeâ with âslowâ development.
Please stop derailing this thread. It was nice and constructive with lots of good feedback. You already have your own thread about planetary ground details, and this thread is about retention and things that we can achieve within our budget. Walking on planets isnât, youâve made your point in the past, weâve made our own, please move on back to the topic.
6 Likes