In html, there is a property called z-index which basically tells the browser how to stack different elements (1 is below 2 etc.). I know there's a similar variable for controlling what "stacks" in-game, so my suggestion is to drop suns down a bit, being the lowest Z-index. If it's pixel based, maybe:

-250:suns
-250:planets/moons
0->100:stations
101:other players
102:your ship and your slaves

Basically just setting a framework for what should physically be above and below.

I think it would look pretty neat to have suns and planets displaced below the Z-axis a little bit. It would be fine with me to still "bump" over them somewhat, though.

I had the same thought, which is why i wouldn't want to displace them entirely below the field of play.

Stars:
As a pilot you would never fly within a light minute of a star. You might fly a route that from ONE POINT OF VIEW looks to be flying thru a sun's corona BUT from a different perspective you are actually light minutes to light hours from the star.

Planets:
Again for the most part you are flying light minutes away from planets UNLESS YOU ARE LAYING BASES OR DOCKING ON A PLAYER BASE. Again just because there is a planet on the screen and it appears that you will fly into it... change your point of view and note that it is actually M/BILLIONS OF MILES FROM YOU and your flight path. Actually flying to a planet should require you to target it and then move to it, and the same for attached player bases, and the same for AI Bases and unattached player bases.

Worm Holes:
Again they are there BUT unless they are specifically targeted you should not be close enough to use them.

Again these problems all come down to the lack of a real distance measuring system and a true 3D game engine.

The "Speed Bumps" are very poorly thought out effect and cause a lot of problems when scooping. Again nothing but a big detraction for game play.

The engine wasn't intended to be 3D, but what it is currently as 2.5D. When you cater to only one view, you can do some pretty cool stuff and focus on the parts that will be viewable by the player.

You can't apply realism to a view-plane that doesn't exist, so stop trying. While I agree that flying over suns and planets is a bit meh, it's a core game mechanic (collision code/how do you explain taking damage from a sun that's 4billion pixels away?). Making it more realistic would only open up more questions.

Not even close to 2.5D... more like 2.(10^1000 zeros 1)D. Its still 2D with some 3D objects tossed on.



Yeah... like oh say .... WOW, EVE and other true 3D games, with, by the way, much larger player bases than SS. The player base will never grow until SS moves to a true 3D engine. There are aspects of game play that are enjoyable BUT not the underlying graphics.

IMNSHO C2 is a total waste of programming effort. Jeff should have secured a true 3D engine and migrated the game to it. (I've played better 3D games on my Amiga using 1980s graphics technology and using only 2MB DRAM.)

As I have said multiple times before, IF YOU DONT FUCKING LIKE SS2, THEN FUCKING SHUT UP AND LEAVE.

QQ or be productive.

Have you mother change your diaper. You clearly don't have the mental capacity, at this time, to understand constructive criticism.

Your criticism essentially boils down to "I dont like this game, change it into something entirely different."

Well bravo, you know how to complain.

It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be fun.

Concussions, overall, make the game more fun. The speed bump planets do, too, in my opinion. It's a fairly unique concept, and I haven't seen it in other games, but I think the way it plays is pretty decent. You have to have the planets in the same area as the ships if you want to use them to hide behind and block shots. But if you can go and sit on the top of a planet, then you can shoot down on other ships. It's certainly interesting, at least.

I just don't see making ships bounce around when they go over planets as fun. For me it just really hurts immersion. Every time I hit a planet with my ship, I get jarred back into the real world.


Biggee's post viewtopic.php?p=594382#p594382
Really seems like the best possible solution.

Oh and there are too many damaging suns now.

Jeff. it is NOT fun having to put up with an effect that is totally unrealistic, (Concussions).

The only way you should be close enough to a planet or star to have to move around it is if you target it and move to it. As for parking on a stellar body for protection... again a bad concept as you are never really "ON" the body but some distance from it, especially stars. (SS doesn't allow for the landing on stellar bodies, and if you can't land on them you should never be allowed to be protected by them. All of this again comes from the short comings of a 2D space grid rather than a 3D grid so you can truly see the relative positions of things.)

The reason its unique is because the developers of other 2D/3D space games would never put in some BS crap like this... someone on your dev team read some really bad SciFi and convinced you to use the effect. YUCK! Read David Weber's Honor Harrington series to get a good feeling of how space battles may be fought, and the effect of a ship's energy source going KABLOOIE.