What's more important to you: Space legs or atmospheric landing?

2enty3

2
I just wanted to get a general read from some forum goers to see if one is favored more than the other.

Personally, as an Explorer, Atmospheric landings would definitely impact my experience more than space legs. The two combined is optimal, but if I had to choose which one I wanted first, it would have to be landings. It's a little boring landing on a rock. I want to land on a rock with water!:D

What do you think?
 

-VR- Max Factor

-VR- Max Factor
CMDR_Cosmicspacehead said:
Depends.

Basic dead atmospheric planets don't really need legs to be fun.

But planets with life, would be a bit dull, if all you could do was run them over in the SRV. Lol

The way I see it, I reckon, we'll get lifeless atmospheric planets first, then probably legs, then maybe ELWs.

That's also the order I'd prefer it in.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 

askavir

askavir
Atmospheric planets is the nº1 on my wish list.

I can't wait fo fly and land on volcanic planets, over lava streams, volcanos, snow, through storms, heavy rain, thunderstorms, mist and fog, over oceans and rivers and lakes, land at ocean floating cities or outposts at volcanic planets etc... I just hope they don't make stuff like clouds, fog and storms transparent to make it "easier to see", like the artificial floodlights on the dark side of the current airless planets.

I'd love legs too, but want atmos more.
 
Last edited:

Ian Skippy

Ian Skippy
Atmo first. The biggest plus is flying ships in ED, and atmo would at a lot to that. Both flight model wise and vista wise. Walking would be very cool IMHO, but I have a number of games that feature that option. ;)
 

Jenner

I wish I was English like my hero Tj.
Jenner
Space legs, so we can interact in new ways with existing assets (ships, stations, outposts, surface bases). Atmo planets would be cool, but what gameplay would it bring that lifeless planets haven't? By atmo I mean not ELW - just landing in an atmo. Cool, but not as cool as legs imho.
 

wrmiller

W
I think being able to land on any planet of say less than 4 Gs, and having a surface suitable for landing on would be cool. Forget the flora and fauna. Give me ammonia lakes and weird fog/gas clouds to drive/fly through. And maybe the 'chance' of finding something unexpected. :)

Zero interest in space legs.
 

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Jenner said:
Space legs, so we can interact in new ways with existing assets (ships, stations, outposts, surface bases). Atmo planets would be cool, but what gameplay would it bring that lifeless planets haven't? By atmo I mean not ELW - just landing in an atmo. Cool, but not as cool as legs imho.
Click to expand...

This is a good point.

Basically I think it depends entirely on what's harder to do.

Creating a system for walking (and/or floating) around, and interior assets and gameplay.

Or dynamic weather systems. Lol

We can all agree making realistic ELWs with complex life is probably the most difficult thing to do, and will probably be the last major thing we get.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
 

Vasco Sapien

Vasco Sapien
If i had to choose, Atmos landings.
I need more wonder.

BitterOrdinaryBellfrog.gif
 

wrmiller

W
CMDR_Cosmicspacehead said:
This is a good point.

Basically I think it depends entirely on what's harder to do.

Creating a system for walking (and/or floating) around, and interior assets and gameplay.

Or dynamic weather systems. Lol

We can all agree making realistic ELWs with complex life is probably the most difficult thing to do, and will probably be the last major thing we get.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
Click to expand...

All of the ships, stations, outposts, etc., are just 'art'. There is nothing to interact with, until FD invests a huge amount of time into making them interactive. Just being able to walk around in first-person isn't going to get you much beyond being able to 'look at stuff'.
 

Pumabear8

Pumabear8
2enty3 said:
I just wanted to get a general read from some forum goers to see if one is favored more than the other.

Personally, as an Explorer, Atmospheric landings would definitely impact my experience more than space legs. The two combined is optimal, but if I had to choose which one I wanted first, it would have to be landings. It's a little boring landing on a rock. I want to land on a rock with water!:D

What do you think?
Click to expand...


Logically space legs, I personally don't want to land on an atmospheric planet with my commanders butt still super glued to the seat.
 

2enty3

2
Jenner said:
Space legs, so we can interact in new ways with existing assets (ships, stations, outposts, surface bases). Atmo planets would be cool, but what gameplay would it bring that lifeless planets haven't? By atmo I mean not ELW - just landing in an atmo. Cool, but not as cool as legs imho.
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that neither really "add" any game play. They just introduce a new variation of doing what we can already do. As I imagine it, space legs would let us walk around a stations. For what though? Refuel? Buy commodities? Trade in exploration data? All things we can do without leaving the ship? Not to mention I spend a lot more time in space than I do in a station. Likewise with atmospheric landings, it doesn't really add anything new gameplay wise, but it's a new variation of something we already have. You land, you look, take some screenshots, and off we go.

That's why as an explorer, I personally see atmospheric landings as more beneficial to my gameplay experience than space legs. But that's me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom