Jump to content

ZeroCool

Alpha Tester
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ZeroCool

  1. discordauth:Iqho-19nSGw2g2YOe63-TSpl_eYShcoItAMm4cB9BuY=

  2. Opinions, like city names, change often. It seems feasible to have changing city/region/territory names based off our own historical data. That being said: The first civilization known to have a functional theory of the planets were the Babylonians, who lived in Mesopotamia in the first and second millennia BC. The oldest surviving planetary astronomical text is the Babylonian Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa, a 7th-century BC copy of a list of observations of the motions of the planet Venus, that probably dates as early as the second millennium BC.[19] The MUL.APIN is a pair of cuneiform tablets dating from the 7th century BC that lays out the motions of the Sun, Moon and planets over the course of the year.[20] The Babylonian astrologers also laid the foundations of what would eventually become Western astrology.[21] The Enuma anu enlil, written during the Neo-Assyrian period in the 7th century BC,[22] comprises a list of omens and their relationships with various celestial phenomena including the motions of the planets.[23][24] Venus, Mercury and the outer planets Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were all identified by Babylonian astronomers. These would remain the only known planets until the invention of the telescope in early modern times.[25] So, we can infer that the planets names have remained relatively unchanged for ~3000 years. In that time frame, many cities have changed names numerous times. The most sense is to have a generated name followed by one rename to a "friendly" name - SH4-RD to Sontara. Perhaps the rename would be best suited for the first organization/person to hold 70% ownership of the planet. The name chosen would be approved by celestial neighbors.
  3. I agree completely, the headache is just not worth weekly renames because a new faction has taken control or the organization contest winner gets to rename the base planet. I also want some form of history. After all, if I am the one that did the work to first find the system, I would prefer to be able to have that reflected in game. As for renames, it may be better to just have one rename. The initial generated name and then the first(only) name the planet has - ZC1-152a ----> Arrakis.
  4. That was my initial reaction. I was trying to figure out how to bullet out the quotes so I could put a yes under each one.
  5. I too would like this to be an option. Speaking with one of my co-workers we had mentioned that the ability to travel faster than a walk but still not have a great expenditure of resources and/or time would make the "bike" a very attractive option.
  6. I imagine these would be more up to an organization to provide. Either as an incentive to live in their area and pay them a tax or as an advertisement tool, i.e. all public transport provided by Deep Space Nation for your convenience. The other option would be yet another job, "Bus" driver. Build a transport and charge for rides, run a particular loop, different fees for different loops. Or taxis of course.
  7. I agree and like the option to select colors, the color option just allowed for quick scrolling.
  8. Great idea. Blizzard does this on their forums also and it makes things very nice when we are looking to see if the Devs have added something to a thread. Also there could be a reservation of text and name colors for Devs/Moderators(if additional people are added in this capacity).
  9. As previously mentioned, once you are able to calculate the costs of running a market - Costs of location, storage facilities, power, user interface?, then you can calculate what you need to get out of it to be profitable, then if we are limited by space(we should be) then you would want to charge based off of storing the item to be sold, and potentially add a percentage of sale price. That being said, it could be beneficial to open a market near a mine without fees, thus allowing the market owner to get more materials for less, allowing for a crafting profit. The economy is going to be one of the most interesting parts to me and will be an awesome facet of PvP.
  10. I agree that changing the name several times could be tricky for mapping purposes, but allowing the name to change a total of 3 times (initial generated name, first claimant and first organization.) should not cause that many issues and would be a way to follow a logical path. In our universe we have found a potentially habitable planet - Kepler-186f. Should mankind make a journey to that planet and find it uninhabited, it will likely get a new name given to it by the first settlers, or the people financing the colony.
  11. This is the part that makes the most sense to me personally. If we are trying to take a real world outlook on this, then technology simply has to become better. There is no best right now either. For the sake of this example, let's use vehicles. We decide to take a trip somewhere and a total of 7 people are going. We can take two vehicles each capable of holding 4 people; or we can take a vehicle capable of carrying 8 people. Now that we have selected the one vehicle capable of carrying 8 people, we can pick the SUV or the Mini-Van, depending on terrain and fuel constraints. We have now selected the "Best" mode of transportation. The game is over, no further decisions to be made, right? 50 years ago - Station wagon or VW bus 100 years ago - 2 Model Ts 150 years ago - Horse and carriage The definition of "Best" is always a combination of technology and accessibility. In other words, if the technology is present but it is inaccessible, then only the few elite have the best. As the accessibility expands and the technology in question is thereby more affordable, the people pushing the boundaries naturally look for the competitive edge, thus driving innovation. Putting an artificial cap on that innovation would lead to the stagnation you are talking about. The only difference is would I prefer my Mini-Van to be made by Nissan, Dodge, Toyota etc.. Each one will have a slight advantage in a particular area, but we are not allowed to imagine the next option; Hyper-Loops, Electric vehicles powered by the road on which they travel, hover technology. In short, allow the players to make new "Bests" so we can grow the universe.
  12. Based on the short story, the other arkships failed. We are allowed to interpret that as failure to launch, failure to reach escape velocity, failure in transit to destination or failure to engage "landing" mode. So we should hypothetically be able to find Earth with several ruins of arkships, and we should find loose arkships, potentially with viable settlers(potential for future expansion as new starting zone after the player base successfully lands the arkship) or loose arkships without life due to power failures. In the events of the loose arkships, the player base would have to correct the problem, either through correcting navigation issues or fixing power issues/damage. the final option of crashed ships on random planets could work well as previously suggested, i.e. they are buried under years of weather on the planet, so that perhaps that mesa over there is really an arkship - think asteroid impact if the arkship is not landing correctly, lots of matter thrown into the atmosphere thus resulting in a fully or partially covered arkship. I also agree that there should not be many viable arkships near one another. Further, the safe zones generated by player controlled arkships could be limited in scope and duration. After all, we are trying to repair things that were built with more complex technology than we are carrying around with us. There could be potential to make an arkship completely functional again after we finish re-establishing civilization, but i would imagine that would take quite some time.
  13. Perhaps the easiest way is simply naming the systems located by scanning based on the person who discovered, then allowing subsequent changes: I explore and find a new system, the first system that I have found first. The system is therefore called "ZC1-XXX" where the XXX is replaced with the current number of known systems. If I continue to fly and do not place a TU on a planet in the system, the planets are simply named "ZC1-XXXa; ZC1-XXXb; etc." until the planets are all named. Someone(Anyone) comes to the system and decides to place a TU on "ZC1-XXXc" and then has the opportunity to rename it as the first settler of the planet. They do not have to rename the planet. After 70% of the tiles are controlled, even if by the same organization that originally claimed it, the planet has the opportunity to be renamed a final time. This allows for permanence of names, so if an organization agrees to meet at "Jerume" there is no confusion because "Jerume" was just renamed to "Brunnen". Once a planet is named, the name is up for vote for the following 7 days. If the name is deemed inappropriate by the community then the name does not stay and the naming organization is allowed to pick again. After three unsuccessful names, the community can suggest names, top three get voted on and the name is set. That is a rough framework.
×
×
  • Create New...