MookMcMook
-
Posts
268 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MookMcMook
-
-
Ah, you've captured such poise of movement there, that it feels dynamic, and then there's small details that animate it too, such as especially the fluidity in the fingers and wrists (and ankles now I notice too).
I'm definitely "wowed" by this art and I consider myself a harsh critic of art always spotting things to start quibbling about!
What is your avatar, OP? Interesting design.
-
I'm dead set against small gates.
1. Star Gates or "wormhole quantum entanglement nodes" should be massive and rare and expensive for solar system hopping aka INTER-SOLAR SYSTEM travel.
2. INTRA-SOLAR SYSTEM travel should be some sort of engine on the actual vessel itself. So larger ships have these huge engines but smaller ships do not. Thus introducing carrier classes and LOCALIZING smaller ship activity.
Remember large ships are going to need full crews to fully function at 100%... this is the big big idea of space constructs that seems to be under-appreciated as to how consequential it will be.
Of course the big criticism is what will a lot of players stuck on one ship do that is boring? They'll be working together against other such ships or else being dominated if they resort to smaller ships in large clashes... of course lots of small ships LOCALLY are going to be useful to kick ass...
Again this all has impact on PvP which we all know is very impactful. And distances should never be uniform but FRACTAL.
-
On 07/04/2018 at 5:10 PM, ParagonExploiter said:
If I understand you correctly you don't mind alien daisies and dogs, but no intelligent life right?
But could elaborate on what you mean by "THAT can tell us something about our own originating planet first of all."?
Lem's Solaris was actually very interesting on this question. I was not posing questions and answers above, just providing a thought experiment to chip into the general conversation to explore the topic in more directions (hopefully) and let the conversation flow on...
I actually love the idea that players could be AI life forms and not human for example, to contradict my previous statement.
-
1 hour ago, Sofernius said:
I was in Landmark too.
Was fun times. Till sony sold it and the ceo fucked it up.
:3 could have been a perfect mix of building game + everquest next adventures.
I hope that we will have as many or more choices to manipulate voxels in here someday. Not much info on that out there yet.
And most official realesed pictures are clunky :3.
The dev history of EQN/Landmark indicates they never had a coherent plan other than a collection of very interesting technology, atst as the studio was angling for new finance other than SOE.
DU has a very strong vision and it looks like a coherent development plan that already has the voxels integrated successfully with the other core tech.
Good times ahead for builders I expect.
-
Take it as good news: Performance must be fairly good to be going for more features.
But take it as another cycle: New features are in their infancy and need a lot of testing.
It sounds good that the economy and creating and distribution of resources and maybe later crafting are all integrating into the game before alpha.
I'm very happy to hang on until then and the game hits alpha and the nda lifts and a lot more eyes see a good state of DU (it will be).
-
23 hours ago, AzureSkye said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skybox_(video_games)
That's exactly what I mean. So far, nobody has really found the trick to make voxels rotate without crazy calculations. The theory that always gets suggested is "frames of reference", where you only move a bound section containing the voxels. NQ decided not to bite off more than they could chew. I imagine that they'll give it a shot at a later date.
(P.S: The + next to "Quote" allows you to multi-quote people in one post.)
Ah thanks yes I have come across skybox before. I see, rotating voxels and then as per the vid the difference between spinning planet and hovering above it problems.
It's easier to sometimes -snip- quote via highlighting the bit that interests me and add that. Sorry not adding anything to the discussion will lurk...
-
9 hours ago, Veld said:
Ok hypotheses are now in check. Gravity exists it seems. Will get back to your replies in the morning.
The gravity of the situation seems to have lifted...
-
9 hours ago, AzureSkye said:
Planets don't spin. The sun is a skybox that revolves around the system.
Are NQ still considering spin or not? I'm not familiar with the term skybox: Do you mean planets are stationary and the spin the sun around them or some thing like that or an entire volume around the planets or some other weirdness?
-
8 hours ago, CalenLoki said:
The question is: what if one large ship worth 100kk with 20 crew members fight twenty small, single crewed ships worth 5kk each?
Not so obvious any more.
Gotcha. Good scenario to consider. I guess large ship plus smaller vs large ship is where the fun will be in these mixed battles then. I'm still wondering how things will scale. I mean a thousand ants vs an elephant... (!)
-
Amazing peeps! Keep this going! I know so little about physics... but I'm learning.
-
It's going to be a really simple foundation isn't it?
1. Position as the server sees it.
2. Calc stuff baked into the equipment being used.
3. The reticle just being a tick or cross on hitting specifically so players have to visually track their targets as the human input thing to the above basic server stuff.
Whoever said above, different weapons affect different parts of a ship (or equipment) I think solved the issue about local vs overall damage: you just have a specific weapon calc effect, right?
Idk about shields? I think larger ships having shields means smaller ships have a harder time against them but they cancel on larger ship combat or else EMP or other shield-knock out weapon?
7 hours ago, CalenLoki said:Another aspect CvC I thought about is how to encourage diversity on the battlefield. Just to ensure that each highly successful fleet consist of both small and large crafts. And that smart engineering is properly rewarded. IMO ships should be in general more effective at fighting ships of similar size.
I don't agree with this at all. I see a dingy vs a battle-cruiser.
Larger are going to crush smaller. So what is the point of smaller?
Larger are going to be much more resource intensive to fully equip and also challenging to always crew given coordinating large groups of players simultaneously to play online.
So there's always going to be a niche for smaller vessels purely from frequency and perhaps economics of ship output and crew frequency. I mean a sub-crew large ship might get blown up by another large ship: It's better then not to risk the ship...
Some over-elaborate warship ecosystem is just going to be a nightmare to design I get the impression? Of course this imho and counter-arguments are very welcome to it.
-
51 minutes ago, Lethys said:
What? e is the e function with the euler number as base.
Yeah that's what I meant: I forgot the e comes from Euler afterall (although iirc he strictly did not "discover" it). I just remember it from nature photos not physics!
-
11 hours ago, Veld said:
Nice info but wow that's a mouthful. I must confess I'm not a physicist; I'm an engineer. Albeit a self proclaimed engineer. Looked up the "Gaussian well" and got a bunch of quantum mechanics (which I am terrible at and avoid at all costs). But for me it's not the intrinsics that count- it's the observed effects. This basically means the orange curve describes a field with a point in it that will repel objects entering the zone. Anything caught in the 'distortion well' that has no forces acting on it other that gravitational pull will oscillate around X=34 until it becomes stationary relative to the generator. This will be enough to add to my post on how gravity might work but I have one concern: I believe JC used Desmos to make his graph and there is a certain mathematical operator I don't understand here. That little dot between the expressions.
Well your own investigation is much appreciated! Dot is multiplication. e is the proportionality constant thingy that pops up everywhere I believe (!).
>*Looked up the "Gaussian well" and got a bunch of quantum mechanics*
LOL!
-
Ah thanks, I was consulting you and I guess you have to consult the variables! The orange curve:-
-
OP you did see this:-
-
12 hours ago, Stig92 said:
I refer to my earlier comment, Kurock got within 1% of the final result, but at least I did better than Haavisto
Also congrats
Now we just have to wait for the staff review.
I enjoyed your story easily the most: It was the tightest by far imho. That said, I can't say I did not enjoy all the other stories, which were great great fun as well, I guess sometimes everyone really is a winner of sorts.
Thanks so much to all for taking the effort to write and contribute. Very fun reading.
-
5 hours ago, AzureSkye said:
I'm impressed! That's a lot of quality deduction from one video.
As far as I'm aware all astrodynamics in the game will be a consequence of the underlying physics engine. Notably, constructs won't be able to exert gravitational influence on voxels.
Unlike Space Engineers ( /r^7), gravity should be falling off naturally ( /r^2), but I could be wrong there.
Is that "big G" ie inverse square rule you're referring to above?
Also, what is the coefficient of gravity acceleration in the above OP post @Veld "n" I don't recollect small "n" at all? Perhaps it was in physics beyond what I studied at at school?
-
I was under the impression the servers would have a distance cap to range of shooting, due to the networking which may even imply that shooting from outside an atmosphere to the ground effectively is too far? That might be completely wrong?
-
Here you go from the same video guy: The Death of Virtual World Design for Themepark Commercial Success this from the a "lead designer" on SWG at the time reasoning for the NGE. Notice the appeal to EGO? Notice the narrowing of the game experience in favour of "instant gratification". Further, the other notable thing: The devs told the players how they should be experiencing the game: It was not their world or creation!
-
6 hours ago, Orius said:
Ah... customary to the rules of the internet, this post has veered off of its original topic
Far from it. "What is this world if we cannot but stand and stare?" Applies to MMO Virtual Worlds as much as our own Reality. DU is going to be an enormous "Space Tourism" experience. I think that's half the vision that galvanized nearly 200m$ of backing to SC also.
It has everything to do with the subject of this post: The fact the video is very nice to look at, states that Themepark vs Sandbox are never defined then proceeds to not come up with a definition but a list of random features or anecdotally relevant cliches...Odd that's not pointed out so far and you interpret the above as off topic!
-
- "What is this life if, full of care,
- We have no time to stand and stare.
- No time to stand beneath the boughs
- And stare as long as sheep or cows.
- No time to see, when woods we pass,
- Where squirrels hide their nuts in grass.
- No time to see, in broad daylight,
- Streams full of stars, like skies at night.
- No time to turn at Beauty's glance,
- And watch her feet, how they can dance.
- No time to wait till her mouth can
- Enrich that smile her eyes began.
- A poor life this if, full of care,
- We have no time to stand and stare."
- "Leisure" is a poem by Welsh poet W. H. Davies, appearing originally in his Songs Of Joy and Others, published in 1911 by A. C. Fifield
-
Did anyone see JC's "Gravity Well Graph"? Now what category does THAT fall in...
-
On 01/04/2018 at 6:42 AM, Orius said:
Nuclear physics. Such a broad category of science leading to the most remarkable discoveries... and the most destructive of weapons. It would be nice to see how this would play out in DU, since I have seen a bunch of people suggesting nukes (hehe). This could possibly lead to quantum mechanics in game, leading to quantum computing or some other crap like that. If it is too much stress on the server, fair enough. It's just a suggestion from the realm of madness inside of my brain.
I'd love the theoretical basis for super advanced tech (how long will THAT take??! for players to discover/invent/create??) to theoretical postulations of the above ideas. There will be the basic parameters and then over time, tech development inside the game will be increasing function itself... and will need interesting ideas like the above to mess around with. Let's definitely enjoy the Science in Sci-Fi !
-
10 hours ago, 0something0 said:
No WMDs? Of course, that also rules out most nuclear propulsion since any interesting propulsion system is also a WMD, AKA the Kizinti Lession. So it looms like we will be stuck to nuclear (fission) thermal and nuclear ion engines. Fusion engines make creating hypervelocity kinetic weapons too easy and antimatter.... That also probably rules out ftl systems that you bring along (warp drive) since it probably takes a lot of energy to *break physics*. But NQ might handwave that the fusion reactors were way too heavy to even think about putting on ships. And its a lot harder to make a nuclear *bomb* then to make a nuclear reactor. There probably wont be any actual nuclear physics simulation since that probably takes a supercomputer to do.
Love the thought behind this. KE = 1/2*m*v^2 eh. But as above no ramming.
I think some of your ideas can be fudged as theorycrafting AFTER game-balance of sytems eg speed vs accuracy vs distance vs tech type and so on, the basic parameters for the spreadsheet design of combat. But after that, then some of the above with a little black magic - definitely. Agree with the idea of expense = breaking physics. Like that.
Lyria´s fanarts
in Fan Art
Posted
The best avatars are idiosyncratic imo.