Since when should that distinction not dependent at least a bit to how "real" oceans work? What's speaking against making those two EPs only distinct by saying they are not feasible for humans or strongly humanoid races (no fish or reptilian races) to evolve (i.e. be their homeplanet) but extremely suitable for colonization? That would be distinction enough for me and justify for both of them to be in-game separately apart from the obvious nicer looks of the game.SowerCleaver wrote:Well, that's good to know, but I was discussing how to distinguish the two EPs in the game, not analyzing how "real" Ocean planets would work.
For purposes of penalizing humans, it may be sufficient to say Ocean planet has 0% or near 0% landmass.
By analyzing real mechanism, every simulation gets better (a good simulation should always try to model reality as we see or as we want (keep in mind the logical coherence and attractiveness for the player later on) to see it as best as possible), especially when there's no extra-price to pay for implementing those. It is always a nice thing to have in a game, to be as close to a reasonable set of rules in your universe as possible. These little things show that a team knows his stuff beyond coding and art creation plus the player later on can try to learn from it or at least he poses question as to why this is the way it is and starts to find the universe more interesting. At least that's my understanding of building a universe and gaming within this universe.
@Krikkitone: Of course life could be otherwise built-up, like on a silicium basis or something. That's exactly where we should stick the whole thing down. Are we assuming life develops similar to earth conditions on planets similar to earth (those desert, water, ice, swamp and tundra planets I put together into one class in mind) or do we say it can be anything?
You're talking about gameplay. Well, that's valid, I do too. Now I got a question for you: Does it serve anything that you make Water worlds uninhabitable or even only partly uninhabitable for humans? Where's the overview and fun in that when you have a name for the class of a planet but can't ever be sure if your population survives on that planet? You know where I'm getting at?
That's exactly how our earth's oceans developed. Now it's your turn . No, what I want to say here is, that we need a set of global rules for the game (and we're currently evolving it here right now), so that the more intelligent gamer later on feels he is in a coherent and mostly logically consistent universe. It adds up to the fun, believe me. Plus, it helps for the manual later on when certain things should be explained why they are the way they are. It helps when the term "gameplay requirement" does not occur too often (as it's seen as a more or less lame excuse when used too often). Jumping around between logic levels the way they suit best for the moment has the inherent danger of creating weird gameplay perceptions later on. I'm just giving a hint here..Perhaps methane and carbon dioxide are combined and water is the waste product