YES for god sake.
Since CR said it, folks are parroting the word like crazy.
Yes, yes⌠you absolutely know everything there is to know about our galaxy and the hundreds of millions of asteroids belts yet to be discovered. Of course we could surmise there are other planets out there as well, even purple planetsâŚlol.
Arcade game? Well, I would rather have movement and kinetic energy breaking things apart than just another boring, static space sim. After all, in case you havenât noticed this is a game. Whatâs more having a variety of asteroid sizes adds to depth and having the ability to judge distances easier, especially in a game involving space. But hey, I-Novae could take your advise and produce only large static asteroids and leave out smaller ones altogetherâŚsounds like solid advise. Hey maybe they should leave out spaceships too because they are just as real, given our present technology, as your static, unbreakable asteroids.
1 Like
There are lots of smaller rocks in the prototype. Not just ones that are hundreds of meters big, and its still a prototype, if they wanted they could add 10 cm rocks into the game.
If they include explosive weapons into the gameplay it would make sense to add the posibility to damage or destroy these rocks. Capital ships are going to be implemented, they could have even more powerful weaponry.
Your whole point that this would not be realistic is moronic,
what is more realistic:
- indestructable magic rocks made out of adamantium
- destroyable rocks
0 voters
I am not arguing that they should invest time and money into this, I am just saying that your reasoning is invalid and the way that you talk down to other people is very rude.
2 Likes
I really donât like the arguments contained here.
The crux of this argument is that Infinity shouldnât be a boring game, but something exciting and new. Infinity already will be exciting and new, it doesnât need destructible asteroids at all to achieve that novelty. But this argument betrays a line of thinking that will destroy Infinity. Zen wants to judge infinity against the standards of an undefined boring, static space sim. We have seen this argument before, in another kickstarter. A certain game was going to redefine space sims forever, bring them into the 21st century. That game will fail and, I fear, itâs backers are spreading the terrible logic behind it to other games. Infinity must resist any arguments on the grounds of: boring old space sim, immersion through special effects and graphics, and fidelity.
As to the rest of your comment, Infinity is not a space sim, it is a massive multiplayer shooter set in a solar system. Everything added to the game must be judged on that description alone.
Personally, he is right in thinking. I created this topic just out of curiosity; Infinity will already be exciting and new, it does not need destructible asteroids at all to Achieve que novelty.
Destroyable space rocks sound cool. Its not very high on my engine feature wishlist though. Volumetric clouds would add far more to the game in my opinion. 
Bonus: Hereâs a 20 ton boulder being blown up. Not that exciting.
1 Like
Thatâs a great point, there are many VFX options which could be added to the game right now. Volumetric clouds makes the planets appear much more realistic and exciting. Compared to destructible asteroids, the choice is obvious.
2 Likes
I donât think that was Kichaes point though, he just argued that its very hard to blow up a large space rock.
For small ships I agree, but capital ships blowing up 100m+ space rocks âsoundsâ plausible. Would be cool to scatter large debris in the blast direction to shotgun smaller enemy ships, it would also add another tactical element. Adding such a feature to the engine is probably super hard I imagine, so not sometthing realistic anytime soon I suppose.
Whoa, whoa, whoaâŚhold on there Hopalong. I really doubt small destructible asteroids are going to âdestroyâ Battlescape. If you truly believe that than you donât have a lot of faith in the DEVâs or the project. Like I said, if the DEVs donât do it then fine. But every game has redeeming qualities, even Star Citizen. And it wasnât the fault of SC supporters for Star Citizen becoming feature creep of the century: it was Chris Roberts fault for not drawing the line. Whatâs more I am having trouble following your logic: why would supporters of a failed game spread âthe terrible logicâ ? Wouldnât they be bitter, like me. 
. Personally I hope I-Novae doesnât go the route of Star Citizen and numerous other games.
That said, even Star Citizen has redeeming qualities and dismissing an entire game is simply excessive. Every game has itâs pitfalls, including Elite Dangerous and EVE. But there is nothing wrong taking the best of every game and making it your own. Sure Battlescape is exciting and new, but lest we forget, we have not even played it yet and they were saying the exact same thing about Elite DangerousâŚand look how that turned out. So maybe you like to delve in absolutes but I am always open to other game mechanics and I am even open to the possibility of failure. Because thatâs how the asteroid crumbles.
I prefer to blow up ships, but it would be interesting at least damage the asteroid like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pciPmz8RbC0
1 Like
Agreed, small ships breaking up large asteroids wouldnât seem realistic, but certainly small ones. Itâs all relative.
Frankly, it could be absolutely great to have nuke-level weaponry on ships. After all, whoever built those ships was able to master warp and hyperdrive, with whatever fantastic energy that represents. When they put their mind into armouring a ship, kiloton yields arenât that far fetched. After all, they survive fast head-on collisions with unmoveable objects, steep atmospheric entry or even close-ups with a star.
Dogfights on the (Earth-like) surface? Stray bolts hit just hard enough to mess up a football field and create a mushroom cloud. Cruiser support guns? Look at Nagazaki. Cruiser main siege weapons? Each one hits like the Czar Bomba.
Surface battlefield would be a chaos of giant burning mushroom clouds and flashes of death and destruction. Lakes would be boiled dry, mountains brought down and plains turned into crater fields, with installations stubbornly holding onto their defence fields in the midst of all. That would be awesome.
But that would also require Star Citizenâs budget, so itâs not an option, alas.
If they can go as far as volumetric clouds, Iâll be happy already.
So, why donât they need kiloton-range weapons to break those ships, then? Letâs just say that they use specialized anti-ship/structure weapons, that arenât that efficient against disorganized lumps of uninteresting matter like asteroids or surface dirt. Most of the damage is internal and invisible anyway.
Zen - my response was based on the arguments you used, not the specific question (destructible asteroids). The issue I am trying, perhaps too zealously, to fight is the language used by Chris Roberts.
I said that because many supporters of SC do not realize that it is going to fail. They backed it because of the feature creep, because of the promised fidelity and immersion. These people are still backing it. As they exist and have money to burn, I would not be surprised to see them spread the favorable, in their eyes, properties of Star Citizen to anyone who would listen. These arguments, greater fidelity and immersion, sound great, but they are open ended enough to lead the unwary developer astray.
Sorry for assuming you still believed in the dream, perhaps now you understand my complaint?
Sorry but LOTS of people have left SC and asked for their money backâŚthey just donât advertise it. Whatâs more rumor has it they will become strapped for cash this yearâŚlong before the game is completed. And maybe it wonât run out of supporters with deep pockets - you are missing the point: fidelity and immersion are great! Itâs whether the developers can achieve it within budgetary constraints. Whatâs more, you need an engine that can deliver - clearly a reconfigured CryEngine cannot. So again, there are no absolutes - there are dreams and we do the best we can to see those dreams come to life. But your dreams are not my dreamsâŚhell, they probably arenât even the DEVâs dream. But I trust they will do what is possible - and if they think small destructible asteroids adds to gameplay and are doable within budgetary constraints, then fine. If not then at least we tried to make our respective casesâŚitâs all good.
You shouldnât count star citizen out just because the amount of content they want to add is bat**** crazy. Anyone looking at Fallout or GTA would say theyâve got crazy feature creep too, but when youâve got hundreds of developers and a mountain of money to throw at that stupidly long list of featuresâŚ
That said, itâs not a viable way for a tiny unknown indi studio with a limited budget to go about making a game so I donât know why itâs even being discussed here. 
When coming in visual range to a new entity you could have the client infer scorch marks by looking up the entities health and placing random scorch marks over them according to that.
I donât think removing a procedural generated object is currently possible in the engine. As others stated above, it probably is a rather hard thing to implement and would probably create performance issues.
I would love to have craters, split rock fragments and flattened rings of trees in a forest ⌠but I think itâs out of scope for Battlescape. Priorities and resources are needed elsewhere.
And yeah âŚ
Yes I own that film on dvd âŚ
1 Like
I suppose it is being discussed because we are weighing if destructible asteroids are feasible. Which again brings me to Star Citizen - years ago Chris Roberts stated landing on planets wasnât possible but a few years later here we areâŚlanding on planets, long before Star Citizen is finished, and of course with a fraction of money. In fact only the money the DEVâs personally put in. So I am more open to what is and isnât possible. But it essentially boils down to what the DEVâs believe is and isnât feasibleâŚnot us.
Random marks donât communicate anything except the fact that the object is damaged. It is the history of marks that is interesting to me.
What might be possible is to have the server track only those events which are energetic enough to make a significant mark. Perhaps slow-firing capital weapons could leave permanent marks or even craters. Iâm thinking of weapons that are so energetic that they consume limited resources. Even that is probably outside the scope of their development resources. Itâs just a nice-to-have.
It could be a big game mechanic, especially if the asteroid is valuable or has resources on it, or if it has a base or equipment.
It would be interesting to have an idea about it from the developers.