Jump to content

0something0

Alpha Tester
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    447

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by 0something0

  1. 0something0
    1.but it is possible to make it so you need more delta v in general. This will also make SSTOs harder, promotingthe need for said space elevators and other innovated launch assist structures. 2. From a rl perspective, space elevatord would make sense because they make space access easier, allowing for tapping into asteroid riches. In fact, the colonists would probably establish a space economy and infastructure before colonizing planets. (See For details) but its a freakin game so* 3.When I mentioned nuclear, I meant all sorts of nuclear reactions including fusion and antimatter. *we can handwave this away by saying that there was a critical error and this was the contingency plan
  2. 0something0
    Honestly I should have put this in the Agora...
  3. 0something0
    There was another thread here about the implications of resurrection by alternate timelines. I would have posted this here but I didn't want to necro that thread. Anyway, currently, the lore explanation on respawn upon death is that you get transported to an alternate universe. However, my idea was that you have a near-up-to-date scan of your brain being sent to the arkship servers/res nodes and when you die, a backup copy of your brain is loaded onto an android/clone with mind interface implants at the res node. This mainly is for purposes of avoiding the implications of jumping into alternate universes.
  4. 0something0
    I am assuming that the arkship engines are nuclear because most other proposals for interstellar travel spacecraft is nuclear powered and how else would you get the energy to accelerate to lightspeed? @DragonShadow How is my logic reverse to reality? Also, the reactors would be radioactive, with potential for neutron activation or radioactive exhaust, depending on the specific drive design used. And yes, I do know what Delta-V means. Its how much you can accelerate: top speed and range isn 't really a thing due to the nature of space.
  5. 0something0

    Raming ship

    0something0 replied to Aesir's topic in Idea Box

    Collision as in bumping into other stuff, I mean, not necessarily causing destruction.
  6. 0something0
    I suspect as people realize that DU is a hardcore ffa game, ship designs will get less aesthetically pleasing in favor of practicality because "why should I spend days designing a ship if it will get destroyed anyway?" mentality. It seems like banding into groups of a few dozen like kin Minecraft factions wont be enough and only mega-orgs like Cinderfsll will last a long time.
  7. 0something0
    Sure. We can just say "it was going to deploy around orbit but something went really wrong so it had to crash land" I'm pretty sure the arkship nuclear engines will irradiate the planet even if it finishes burning at a 100km distance and while kyrium might allow the arkship to survive the fall, the surrounding terrain probably wont. And when I was talking about increased delta v needed to go places, I meant increasing it so you need more fuel to change inclination/altitude, going to other celestial bodies, etc.
  8. 0something0
    Also, how about orbital stations? Whats the difference between a space station and a ship? (The engines). So, how do we define which space objects can get autoturrets? I'm not sure about this but doesnt space stations have their own cores? And how about CIWS turrets for shooting down missiles or bullets?
  9. 0something0

    Raming ship

    0something0 replied to Aesir's topic in Idea Box

    Though how will collision mechanics work? To minimize physics load, we can just make the ship coliders nonexistent, but this would just feel broken. The next step up would be accessing the size of both ships and calculating thloss of both ships and stopping the smaller ship Or, we could do bounce/bump physics collisions. The most heavy work will be realistic collisions. How about turning off colliders and having voxels that overlap destroy each other?
  10. 0something0
    Well, they would be included with all the other stuff and I was thinking that new players dtart at the bottom anyway.
  11. 0something0
    Might as well as build a Wellington bomber to go to space instead of a proper spacecraft. We have indestructible materials but cant wire up multiple turrets to 1 controller? Also, this sort of thing would probably encourage building "big dumb" ships with the biggest turrets possible in order to cram as much firepower per person. And what if you wanted to say build a spitfire mentioned earlier with 8 forward facing guns?
  12. 0something0
    Yeah, but they will have to worn to build something that can go somewhere meaningful. Like I said, increase delta v needed to go places and make early game engines inefficient like modern day chem engines.
  13. 0something0
    -its a space elevator, and there obviously will be tutorials and atuff5 -Dont land because to design a ship for landing, it brings up whole new challenges (the kyrium hull may survive but what about all the stuff inside?) -like I said, space elevator, not a shuttle. And if you want to carry up a shuttle from the surface, you gotta buy/make the shuttle and stuff...
  14. 0something0
    I mean, I think its reasonable to think that there should be weapons that can fire when given a signal controled by if/then loop. I don't want the turrets to be like the ones found on WWII bombers. Its simply out of place. It should be possible for 1 person to control 1000 turrets, but the management becomes so hard after a certain point that its simply not viable anymore.
  15. 0something0
    I mean, by providing space access by elevator, it becomes possible to increase delta v needed to go someplace meaningful to make it harder while providing comparatively easy access to near planet space(or else you would be able to get into orbit with a x-wing)
  16. 0something0
    I love how people are like "Anyone who don't want to play a PvP playstyle/worried about secure asset protection/worried about constantly gettinf ganked is a risk-adverse crybaby"
  17. 0something0
    It would make the game feel more realistic
  18. 0something0
    the vacuum thrusters(probably terawatt nuclear engines) probably will create a massive nuclear crater at the impact zone or will not work at all due to to atmosphere flooding the engine (imagine if you tried to operate a jet engine underwater). The best we can hope for is to survive crashing into the planet at terminal velocity or staying in orbit. My main point with the delta-v was that my concept would allow for the requirement of more realistic amounts of delta-v without going to space objects harder.
  19. 0something0
    I mean, I imagine humans will be doing most of the management stuff instead of the dirty work (this isnt WWII where bomber turrets had to be manuely controlled) but in the case of automated turrets, the management is already dealt with: hit defined targets.
  20. 0something0

    Raming ship

    0something0 replied to Aesir's topic in Idea Box

    The thing is most space combat engagements will be happening over dozens of kilometers, if not hundreds(assuming the game has somewhat realistic physics), so if you manage to get into ramming distance without getting shot down then why would you even ram it you have a freakin tank!
  21. 0something0
    just remember, in real life, computers > humans(unless an unexpected situation pops up that the computer is not programmed to deal with).
  22. 0something0
    Are you talking about Kyrium right? There could potentially be a material made of atoms that are made of a stable arrangement of heavier quarks with crazy strong electromagnetic bonds. The arkships, as I understand, were built in a rush and it would have been much simpler to only have a deep space propulsion system and structures without having to worry about landing. Besides, we know that going up to 0.99c can be done, just very hard to do. On the note of the Delta-V, you would need delta-v to launch from the planet in the first place if you don't want to use the space elevators, and you would need some more to maneuver in space and get to places.
  23. 0something0
    So far, we have seen the arkship landed on Alioth. I think a better place to put the arkship is in geo/aliothstationary orbit with a space elevator hanging down to the safezone. This would allow the game to be more balanced while requiring more delta-v to do space stuff and would be more realistic in general. And please watch this video to see what I mean. This guy can explain it much better then I can. m.youtube.com/watch?v=6VBCxWcAPXw
  24. 0something0
    Perhaps you could set a "home" core unit that loads in scripts whether you are online or not?
  25. 0something0
    I dont like the idea of having alien civs ingame since the game is supposed to be human centric. What I can get behind is extinct alien civs and there being a reason why there are no intelligent life except for humans. Also, considering that "civilization" as we know it today have only existed for around 5000 years so assuming a 10000 year window(to account for higher tech civs) and that each star will have/had civs on them and has a average lifetime of 10 billion years, thats a 0.000001 chance of each star having recognizeable civs on them.
×
×
  • Create New...