Velenka
-
Posts
344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Velenka
-
-
I'd prefer a little pizzazz than just a defacto brand new space suit, which is boring.
-
Devs said "Tiles are about 1km large..." and anytime I've heard JC talk about it, the specifics weren't really mentioned (area vs short dia vs long dia). But your question makes me think of the process of subdividing the icosahedrons. Given a sphere with a certain radius and either a circumscribed or inscribed icosahedron, is it even possible to divide one up such that you always get 1 km (whatever it means) hexagons for any reasonable (50-100km, you know, DU planet sized) radius? We're going to have moons of planets of varying sizes. I'm not knowledgeable about topology, so maybe someone can answer my question. My intuition is that, no, you can't have hexagons of a specified size, but you could have the same number of tiles on each planet object.
Also, I did miss the small statement about the 12 pentagons in the devblog post, but this thread was intended more to explain why that's the case as well as make it obvious for everyone.
-
Congratulations!!! Let's keep the momentum moving!
-
I approve this idea. Open a Paypal thingy NQ!
-
-
Balancing won't solve the issue of intentions. A computer cannot determine the intentions of a player in a collision. And I do mean accidents, not incompetence. Consider also what might happen for a player who gets disconnected while moving toward a space station. Their ship crashes into the station, likely ending with the ship destroyed and the station missing big chunks.
Speaking of balancing, that sounds nice and all, but I don't believe it's possible. Those who are victims of an accident will claim "too much collision damage" while those who weaponize collisions will say "too little collision damage."
-
Interesting, but the destruction of planets thing just isn't going to happen. Probably a lot of the atmospheric effects won't happen either. Probably not the change in size of a planet, either. Would be nice to see these things in play, but this game isn't Geodynamics Simulator 2018. I would rather see the voxel-based single-shard emergent politics game they are working on.
Also after doing quick research, you definitely cannot have fusion in the core of a rocky planet similar to Earth. Even Jupiter is an order of magnitude too small for fusion. I'm also uncertain as to whether gas giants will even be in the game or not.
-
As we know, planets will have their territories split up into tiles. These tiles will take the form of a 1km hexagon. There's an issue with this though. Using purely hexagons would violate Euler's characteristic for spheres. If you don't know what this means, watch this video
Using a similar form of logic, you will be able to see that it's impossible to subdivide a sphere into just hexagons. What the video didn't point out was that there are other combinations of pentagons and hexagons.
Using something like subdividing icosahedrons, you could get a lot of tiles. With a large number of tiles, you would have a lot of hexagons, but you still need at least 12 pentagons, one for each vertex of the original icosahedron.
Example of subdividing icosahedron
I would have to guess that the devs already know this, but if they don't, they should take note.
What does this mean? Time to hunt for the 12 rare pentagonal territory tiles.
Who will be the first to claim one? -
I too would like to see these construction elements taking on a modular form, where players can build the "build space" to the necessary size and then connect whatever additional elements are needed.
-
I'd agree with wizardoftrash. The difference between intentional ramming and accidental collisions would be impossible to determine in a gameplay perspective. Not only that, but it would seem to create more gameplay issues than the one (immersion) that it solves. I would say just stick with the collisions, but no damage.
Sure, there could be simplistic technical workarounds if collision damage was desired. I've thought of one right now while reading this thread. But the greater implication of collision damage would be what consequences result from it. It is the gameplay issues that are preventing collision damage from being implemented, not strictly technical limitations.
-
I like these ideas. Perhaps if this draws enough attention from the devs, they may consider it.
-
It would be best if we were able to engineer components out of subcomponents each of which have particular properties, methods and interfaces. For example, a rocket engine could consist of a fuel tank, fuel pumps, high pressure piping, fuel injectors, a combustion chamber, an afterburner assembly, a nozzle and control actuators. Without each of these sub components, you can't build an engine. But if you developed a superior fuel injector, you'd have a superior rocket engine, perhaps one which is more fuel efficient, while a superior nozzle could improve manuverability, a superior combustion chamber could improve acceleration, superior tanks and pumps could increase the pressure at which you store fuel and that increases range, and superior piping could reduce weight. That way you'd have more than the Mark 1, Mark 2 and Mark 3 engines. You could have a company that makes rocket engines that are lightweight and high maneuverability for combat craft while another company makes engines that are fuel efficient and reliable for long haul cargo ships. The new Zykos-V fighter is equipped with a Motokrafwerks F-300 rocket motor with the highest vector-thrust capability of any commercially available engine! Subcomponents for major components could greatly enhance the individuality of the designs produced by players. It wouldn't be the coolest looking starship is the best, it would be deeper than that.
This plus several discrete sizes of elements would be great, IMO. It would impose some limitations instead of making a one-size-fits-all element that will give you exactly what you need for minimal tradeoffs. For example, if you had a medium sized engine that had the best parts to produce the most force, the only way to get more force would be to move from medium engine to large. The consequence of that would be a significant increase in mass. Or you could add more engines. Having truly scalable elements is a little bit too easy, I think.
-
That would work for mass produced ships, but what about one-offs? It'll be a long time before ships get mass produced so the infrastructure in the market will need to be in place. I can imagine a spaceship dealer profession arising for this, similar to today's car salesman. The dealer would verify all the important stats on the ships before selling them. Those who responsibly and accurately describe their ships will become reputable and trustworthy dealers. Those who don't probably won't be a dealer for long, as fewer and fewer would sell "fake" ships.
-
In the end, you will always be able to tell which settlements were planned out and which weren't. It won't matter if or how territories are split up.
My guess is that subdividing territories will lead to worse city planning, since everyone who gets their own piece of land will build what they want, regardless of the rest of the city. I think it would also cause a city's community to become fractured and independent from each other, which is not what you want in a city.
-
I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of "what the devs will do". I'm interested in what a developer can do about it, not a GM. No one wants a GM to have to sit around telling people where they can and can't park all day.
If constructs were simply invincible inside the safezone though, and you can just park them anywhere you want it would be a bit of a mess. We just don't have the whole story yet i think.
Who knows maybe that is how it will work in Alpha.
I also want the game to be as realistic and player driven as possible. But with things like Safezones things get complicated, because they aren't realistic at all. And I do think the safezones are really important too, and i plan to spend most of my time casually enjoying the protection of a safezone and building stuff.
And therein lies the crux of the problem. I think towing is another alternative worth looking into. You've got carebear police who will come and tow away your constructs if they interfere with the public welfare. They would also attempt to combat the griefing potential that comes with a towing mechanic.
-
yeah this, in other games been generally not in favor in game voice chat. But it clearly fits with the theme and setting of this game to have some way to voice chat in game.
Though i still say it shouldn't just be totally open. Fitting with the theme maybe they could make it so if someone wants to talk to you, you have to hit accept first and allow it and open a channel with them, then if the person turns out to be a annoying or disruptive can mute them again. That would go a long way to reduce the spam and annoyances and negatives people have with in game voice I think.
That's one of the better solutions I've heard.
While in game voice chat shouldn't be on the top of the to-do pile, it should still go in there somewhere. I know some people won't want to use third party software, so at least this provides an alternative.
-
Velenka - 666'000 € (You put $, but I think it was simple mistake. So I use 666'000 €)
I said $ and I meant $. $666,000
-
I see a lot of water, though. Wonder what it looks like up close.
-
For those not interested, a players own star map could contain only planets with some pretty graphics with lines between systems indicating star gates and maybe setting some POI automatically based on maps purchased.
I like this idea. It could be easily implemented with the RDMS so that whatever stargates you have the rights to use, they would show up as spheres on the map. Marked POIs should also be a tradeable commodity.
-
$ 666,000
Up the Irons \m/
-
HAHAHA
"CaptainTwerkMotor
Wanted Dead or Alive
20,000 DAC"
hilarious. That was fun, can't wait to see more.
- GalloInfligo and Dhara
-
2
-
The ability to "anchor" constructs together was mentioned in the last KS update. Hope they do it sooner, though. If they intend that to be only for assembling large ships, then I think there should be some kind of landing gear, like Space Engineers' landing gear.
-
The (literal) Game of Life.
-
For griefing, there should be an ability to send a report to the GMs for this reason alone. In addition, players should give constructs in safezones the option to let them despawn on logout or not.
Next, there should be a timer that begins when the player logs off a construct in a safezone. The timer resets when the player logs back on. It starts over when the player logs back off. When the timer reaches 0, the construct will disappear, reappearing only when the player logs back on.
Additional Renewable Resources and Power
in Idea Box
Posted
Resources - yes, they should deplete. JC has stated before that lack of resources could be a driving force to get people and organizations to move to other planets or systems. Also, planets are huge, it's not happening any time soon either.
Power - I like what Space Engineers did with their solar panels. Using them was pretty much impossible for ships because they use a lot of resources and generate a trickle of power. They take up a lot of space and are a hassle to deal with. Any "infinite" energy source should work like that. If you want practicality, "infinite" energy sources should not come into consideration.