Veld
-
Posts
118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Veld
-
-
It's true that the taliban were acting by their moral code and saw it as right. But it's not always a case of morality and perception:
The soldiers of the british expeditionary forces, to be specific trigger happy goons, shot the nose off the sphinx. Just for fun.
Destroying shit is as fun as building it. That's why griefers exist.
Back to the original topic of OP, I expect we will see a lot of monolithic space dongs for sure. But I don't expect there to be rules in place for the protection of such constructs simply because of purely subjective sentimental value. Personally I think it would be cool to just let people destroy it. You would have to post guards about your sacred monoliths and post bounties for any heretics that dared deface them. Sounds like fun to me.
-
If you're going to call orbital strikes OP then you are going to have to called high altitude air strikes OP as well. It's essentially the same thing. Unless there is some sort of speed bonus.
Before thinking about balancing, take a look at how it would inherently be balanced:
There's two types of bombardment you can use: ballistic and laser
Ballistic
Advantages:
- Suppression capability - you can launch a barrage of rounds one after the other and keep ground troops holed up for a while.
- AOE - you can cover a large zone with explosive rounds
- Acceleration - falling from tens of kilometres up is going to pack a punch in terms of kinetics
Disadvantages:
- Timing - If you are launching the round like a projectile, then you have to time it exactly right or park your orbit in a different place. If you are launching them like missiles then they're going to need propellant/ guidance systems. These systems are going to need heat shielding to get through the atmosphere. A thruster covered in heat shielding is going to overheat and burn out if you're not careful. You can turn off the thruster while slowing to terminal velocity but that makes you vulnerable to counter shots. The design to overcome this is a very streamlined and insulating rocket with a fancy thruster. That won't pack much punch unless you've got some good explosives or it's really long. If it's too long you won't be able to dodge counter shots. I don't know if they are going to add actual heating effects in game though. I know you can see the hot air on screen but I don't know if it actually heats up.
- Collateral - you're going to be destroying a lot. Be it your own ground troops, civilians or valuable enemy infrastructure. If you want to be selective it is very limiting.
- Delay - anyone can snipe your projectiles out of the sky while they fall. Missiles however could theoretically dodge this.
- Burning up - unless you're shooting super dense cannonballs, streamlined rods or heat shielded rounds you'll be hitting them with jelly
Laser
Advanatages:
- Accuracy - low collateral. Very selective
- Instantaneous - no need to time anything. Just point and click
Disadvantages:
- Cost - the technology is advanced. The power is demanding. Especially if you want a decent diameter, high energy beam over a large period of time
- Low suppression - you can't just spam them along. you have to hold a controlled beam.
There's half way types of ammunition like rail gun and plasma but I won't go in to those. They basically combine the best/worst of both worlds.
In general, orbital strikes are good as a last resort in a defending scenario or when you have carefully prepared for an offence
With this in mind I think they'd be pretty balanced as they stand.
-
I don't see why we can't just use hovercraft for land and sea but submarines would be dope af. As for planes, we have aerodynamic lifting confirmed (would post sauce but I'm in a rush). As for helicopters, you can just take 4 VTOL thrusters and pitch your ship for the same effect. The planes have VTOL like harrier jets anyway so helis are pretty obselete from a tactical point if view other than perhaps a scripted cost incentive.
-
The way geothermal energy works isn't by piping the lava itself. It just uses the temperature difference the deeper you get in the earth's crust as an advantage. Like you just pipe water down insulated pipes with a conducting loop at the bottom that allows the water to heat up. The disadvantage is the length of pipe, amount of pumping and insulation needed. Not the integrity of the pipe. An easier way to do it is just have the piping system at a point on the surface where it's unusually hot. Like a volcano for example. This could make them points of interest.
Don't see why volcanoes couldn't be added as just hot mountains with a bit that has lava in the middle. Or perhaps not even lava. Just a hot mountain. Earthquakes are going to be a pain. You would have to load the damage to voxels in a very large area. But I don't see why minor tremors could be added. Like you step outside one day and everything just gets shaky and rumbly.
-
2 hours ago, CoreVamore said:
Fyi.... Pets aren't NPC's
When did I say they were?
-
1 hour ago, CoreVamore said:
NQ has said several times that there wont be any NPC's.
Then that's that.
What they have said though, keep in mind this is 3rd hand information here, is that there will be scripted events that cause certain changes in the universe that players can respond to.
Thus aliens could be implemented in a few ways:
Archaeology - just little ruins dotted about planets that have no purpose other than looks. Or perhaps a mystery that players can uncover like in stellaris with the ancients questline. Perhaps salvageable technology. Perhaps a deadly virus like the markers in dead space.
Extra dimensional beings - you don't actually interact with them. They are ambiguous. They appear in weird places like supernatural entities. They are more of a foreboding ominous presence. Like a gravity anomaly where there shouldn't be one. And as you get closer you start seeing weird shit like shapes darting around your peripheral vision and odd lights. Bermuda triangle sort of shit. Or perhaps they're not so spooky. Maybe they just pop up from a rift in the sky and throw funny looking free stuff at you then leave. Who knows.
Alien pets - I believe we have alien fauna and robot pets. Why not animal pets?
Goblin/nekker/reikling aliens - if you've ever played the Witcher or dragon born DLC for skyrim you'll know what I'm talking about. Semi-sapient chimpanzee-paleolithic level goblinoids that run around wearing loin cloths brandishing spears and scream at you. They won't interact intelligent with you. They just get scared and run off or clusterfuck you. Occasionally can be observed jabbering or bashing rocks together or something dumb like that. Perhaps you can even have a pet one.
-
10 hours ago, Felonu said:
Why can you only have radar on moving ships?
Shit my bad. If you scroll up to my rundown you can see there is radar for static as well
10 hours ago, Felonu said:Why couldn't you just have a jammer on your ship?
It would jam your own radar. You can do that if you want to. Just shoot the thing in front of your face. The point is it's like an EMP sticky grenade but for radar. Gives it an edge in combat.
10 hours ago, Felonu said:It might be one way to enforce balance, but is unnecessarily complex. It relies on limitations that don't make sense, at least to me, and could all be wrapped up in a nice format as a scanner unit, and a some stealth technologies. If you make them both have reliability factors, and allow skill to play a part in whether they are implemented properly the mechanic ends up being fairly balanced
And this is your main point I presume. To reiterate so we can check were on the same page, this is a summary of what you think:
A system with multiple sensors is unnecessarily complex. It aims to get rid of one dimensional stealth and detection but will ultimately stagnate into a one dimensional system. This is because, with the limitations outlined, anyone can just put the three primary sensors in their base.
On the subject of limitations. They are the epitome of the artificiality the idea tries to dispel. Why should I be limited to having the three primary sensors on my base?
An simpler system to the same effect is saying that certain aspects of a ship give a certain %chance to be seen, factoring in the 'quality' of detection equipment.
I'd like to break down the multi sensor system into what it aims to achieve:
Strategic gameplay
Vulnerability in certain situations
Immersion
I see now it is in fact defeated by the point that you can employ all sensors in one base. Which defeats multi dimensional and emergent gameplay. It would mean any ship could just be seen. At a base. It's not a question of what strategies make sense like I argued. It's a question of how vulnerable the base actually is and to what. The aim was to make vulnerability.
What I don't agree with is your idea of artificiality. The alternative system you proposed is ultimately even more artificial. The detection is not limited in what aspects of a vessel it can perceive. But it's probability to win. That is RNG- a common trope most MMOs could do without.
I am not against limitations. I am only against limitations that make things uninteresting, unrewarding and one dimensional for players. Like RNG or saying you can be seen in every situation if your ship does not conform to the appropriate values of a certain aspects.
Therefore we can stand to make some merging of the ideas here. Here's the revised version of my rundown:
Listening post:
A block you can place only one of in any static construct. It has 3 aspects you can spec resources into. Gravimetric, magnetometric and thermal. Which are respectively: the detection of mass, the detection of electrical equipment and electrical discharge, the detection of thermal effects. It is a long range device that operates with a lower limit of detection. Meaning a gravimetric scan can't see anything below a certain mass for example.
Radar:
A block you can place anywhere. Detects anything with form but at a short range. Can detect incoming projectiles.
Radar scrambler deployer:
A gun block that can shoot a radar scrambler out to a limited range. The scrambler creates multiple random signatures on any radar in the vicinty. Does not show up on a mag scan when operating but the scrambler itself does.
Invisibility cloak:
A block that can be placed anywhere which reduces the visibility of an construct to a transparent shimmer. Shows up on a mag scan.
With this system now you can only have radar and specialised detectors on bases. This gives incentive to build specialised stealth craft to take out specialised bases. It's not a question of being seen or not. It's a question of how you're going to be seen. This achieves all 3 of the goals outlined
-
2 hours ago, Felonu said:
The point is that everyone will just have all the sensors. It doesn't matter how many different types are created.
No they wont. You can only have radar on moving ships. You can have all sensors on bases. But they are not needed. Why would tiny cloakers try and make a bee line for a base out in the open? Why would you need to detect reentry in space? Why would you need to detect massive fleets in areas where there is a lot of debris? Even if you had all of them on your base: it doesn't matter at all. Any craft constructed outside of the lower limits of the sensors can't be seen. Which brings me on to your next point:
2 hours ago, Felonu said:And all ships will either not be able to stealth, or will have all the types of stealth possible.
Exactly. Do you want big fat effortlessly stealthed battlefleet gank squads that spam all their nukes on you as soon as you're in range? Do you want your ultra nimble bare bones ninja craft to be effortlessly detected and shot down by some random guy with an omniscient radar? Do either of your opponents want to engage in gameplay as boring and one dimensional as that?
With the idea in discussion there is an incentive to make ninja ships but they are not totally invulnerable. And thus we move on to the next point:
2 hours ago, Felonu said:If you make it so that you can't hide from 1 sensor if you are hiding from a different type, then stealth just ends up not being possible...It ends up working so all ships that want to stealth have all types of stealth technology available and all ships that need to be able to detect them have all types of sensors.
Not true. I said radar can detect you all the time. You need a scrambler to mess it up. But the scramblers can be destroyed provided they find it. The element of stratagem is in:
- Where you place your scrambler
- When you place it
- Where you hide
- When you react
- If you bail out or retaliate.
2 hours ago, Felonu said:If you make some kind of limit to what kinds of sensors that can be combined on a ship, people will just find ways to work around it.
Yes it's called strategy. You strategise that making a ninja ship invulnerable to everything but radar is the best option. You can scramble radar but it requires thought as I said before.
2 hours ago, Felonu said:The only way to keep people from putting all the different sensors on probably every ship would be to create artificial limits on the sensors so that they just can't be put on the ships
It's not the only form of limitation. You can limit the nature of your equipment as well as the placement. Radar is unlimited in detecting capability while the others are limited. The point of the idea in discussion is to eliminate the I win/trap card problem. With one detection/stealth system there is no way to stealth or no way to detect. If you don't see him because he's cloaked then you don't see him. But if you see him on radar then you see him. It's obsolete.
The way the idea works is like so: you can perform well in one situation but not the other. And you can perform exceptionally in the former situation if you employ the right techniques. For example:
I pilot my light vessel with little equipment, heat shielding, radar scramblers and a cloaking device as a backup (it's switched off most of the time). It is the meta as it is on the boundaries of mass, ablation and magnetic field strength limits for detection. But I can still get caught by radar if I'm not careful with how I use my scramblers and where I position myself.
2 hours ago, Felonu said:My point is that all these rules, and complexities don't end up changing anything. They are mechanics that are easily gotten around and end up just costing more money to accomplish the same function as the "magic cloak" or a single sensor type.
It's not futile and it's certainly not easy. It's necessary to stop the obsolescence of detection when faced with stealth vice versa. It's necessary to encourage people to employ more than one technique and git gud. It's necessary to create balance in a game where balance is hard to enforce.
I am aware the idea is heavily dependent on the fact radar is unlimited in terms of detection. But you have to significantly limit the range on it because that causes omniscience. And with short range radar you are totally vulnerable to things waiting just outside that range. You will be effectively blind to the cloaked up behemoth of a ship coming to chew your base to pieces. Thus there arises the need for long range sensors that are limited in detection capabilities.
Edit: you mentioned attaching cores together. This is wishy washy as to how NQ will handle it. I don't think you can attach a static to dynamic without limitations. I actually mentioned it in a post I made on physics where you can see the source from the FB page. They only said there would be an exception for space stations. Overall it was very ambiguous. Unless you have more info that is.
-
Nice idea.
8 hours ago, vylqun said:The disadvantages are that slow weapons might travel through obstacles which moved into the patch after they were fired, but maybe the system could define several damage zones along the way for slow weapons.
Not really an inherent disadvantage of the system you described; just a common inconvenience when shooting stuff.
The only problem with bullets is shooting from atmosphere to space. You can't use the standard equations of motion for this: you have to use 'functions of time' that are experimentally deduced. This is because the atmosphere is decreasing over time. I suggest you make it so no projectile weaponry has a velocity and dispersion that can allow the bullet to escape the atmosphere.
Also the range on projectiles should be limited so that the difference in gravity between certain points is negligible.
Bullets are all well and good. Lasers are out of the question as they are effectively instantaneous in transmission. But what about missiles? Missiles propel themselves. They are not projectiles. Will their flight path be calculated like a bullet? But it can't because the acceleration is constantly changing due to the angle of the flight path.
Anyway. Done enough typing today. I'll think about it later
-
What will we become of all our cheap noob labour? They have feelings too.
-
1 hour ago, Felonu said:
All of this discussion is just fluff for how stealth/detection works. None of it is needed for actual game play. If you have different sensors, and different types of stealth it will simply require adding all of them to every ship to be able to perform that function. It will add nothing to the gameplay except cost unless there is some "magical" limit of not having certain types of mechanics on the ship together.
You have misinterpreted the discussion.
The limits are not magical. They are necessary.
Adding invisibility cloaks, as lethys put it, is an 'I win' button. He's got cloaks; you don't see him coming. Unless you add radar. In that case it's 'I win' and 'You activated my trap card'. That's it. So in this one dimensional system everybody will simply use cloaks and radar. Absolutely everyone. Everyone will effectively be fighting invisible blips. Unless of course we use the 'magical' limitations like in other games. Like cloaks don't work well while moving or you need less armour or they run out of charge etc. But the ships in DU can't be controlled and can't be prescribed as distinct and carefully balanced classes. Players can make whatever they want and there are tons of possibilities. It's emergent gameplay.
What lethys (OP) suggested was we add different detection types to counter the 'I win/trap card' problem whilst maintaining emergent gameplay. The sensors are balanced and not the ships. What was discussed was the issue you have brought up of just adding every sensor; making diverse detection obsolete.
What I suggested was we impose limitations that are non intrusive towards the player's creativity but encourage stratagem. Again: limitations on the sensing devices and not on the ships. These limitations are as follows:
- Radar is balanced for dynamic constructs and short range.
- Radar is general use. It can detect anything with form and therefore it's sensible for everyone to have one.
- As radar can detect anything anywhere they are consequently debuffed for shorter range.
- Gravimetric, magnetometric and thermal are balanced for static constructs and are long range
- However they are specialised devices and should be used for specialised situations.
- They are rooted to the spot and only operate in their area of detection therefore they are buffed for long range.
- Invisibility cloaks can be used by any ship. But they pop up on a magnetometric sensor.
- Radar can detect anything. But it can be scrambled.
- Scramblers can scramble radar. But they can be destroyed.
Every device has a lower limit of detection. Anything value that can be sensed below a certain magnitude is absolutely unable to be detected. This gives designers breathing room for creativity ensuring they don't lose out to 'meta thruster bricks' with nothing else but a cloak block and a cockpit.
Every specialised device is good on certain base types:
- Magnetometric - good for bases in debris fields where cloakers hide
- Gravimetric - good for bases out in the open where big fleets can move through
- Thermal - good for planetside bases where people send dropships through that heat up on entry.
The way this plays out encourages multidimensional thinking whilst not limiting creativity. It also makes sense from an immersion point of view as it encourages people not to use guns blazing destroyer ships for stealth operations.
As a sidenote I actually said earlier we should make static sensors cost more than dynamic. I'll take the opportunity here to correct myself on that. We don't need to limit them like that; limiting them to one per base. It just doesn't make logical sense to have all of them on your base from a design point of view as they inherently appeal to different base types.
-
9 minutes ago, NanoDot said:
How would 2 cloaked fleets find each other to do battle ?
Radar. You will either see a load of scramblers floating a few hundred metres in front of you or loads of blips on your console. Both are a dead giveaway.
If the scramblers are hidden inside debris field then it doesn't matter. Nobody in their right mind would seek to cross a debris field if they knew the enemy was close.
-
6 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:
Sorry, didn't mean to go that far off topic. My point was, cloaking tech is fine, in the realm of current or soon to be tech. No invisible battleships or bases, a reduction in electronic tracking? Sure. Looking out the window of your ship and being fired upon by some invisible enemy? No.
No worries
Totally. Cloaking needs limitations. With what I suggested they would be bad at sneaking up on a base because the magnetometric sensors would detect them. But in space there would be radar which could detect them as well. I thought of having a radar scrambling device which a ship could deploy to make radars go haywire and detect false signatures. The device is still visible and could be destroyed. Therefore the most effective use for cloaked vessels would be nestling them in debris fields in ambush with scramblers tucked into alcoves.
This ensures that cloaking isn't totally obsolete against ships with radar but doesn't make them OP.
Edit: should give a full rundown of how I think it should work:
Static sensors- costly/ long range:
Magnetometric - more electrical systems/ discharges = detection
Gravimetric - more mass = detection
Thermal - heating effects like reentry, rocket boosters and radiation = detection.
Dynamic/ static sensor- cheap/ short range:
Radar- large cross section = detection
Static can be fitted to bases only. Dynamic/ static can be fitted to ships and bases.
Invisibility cloak devices make more electrical discharge and therefore are vulnerable to magnetometric sensors when active.
In addition a radar scrambler can be ejected like a munitions round to make enemy radar go nuts within a certain radius.
Another edit: it makes sense to have a radar scrambler as something you shoot out away from you as it would only scramble your own radar otherwise
-
1 minute ago, Korvid Rin said:
Not only absence of lift, but gravity, atmo drag, (its harder to change direction in space at high velocity) not to mention distance(space is BIG)
This is not true at all.
1. Gravity is always acting on you no matter where you are in the universe. Only to varying degrees. In game there is no gravity from the center of the galaxy or the sun however. Therefore gravity in interstellar space would be low. I'm not sure how they will handle stellar systems and such but I think they will make it so you cover interstellar space with some form of FTL technology as it would take a stupidly long time otherwise. If interstellar space is so large and empty then I don't see any battles occuring there at all. There is simply nothing to fight over.
Also considering the sun is a skybox then moving with conventional propellant from one system to another will be impossible. If the sun is infinitely far away then no matter where you are in the system then the system is infinitely large. They will probably fix this though considering the universe is procedurally generated.
2. Changing course significantly relative to the current velocity vector at high velocity consumes a lot of propellant. Of course. But it does for your target too. If they are moving so fast that you have to catch up then they will find it as hard to change course as you.
Once you have caught up with them everything is within your own frame of reference. And you would move normally. They are going to cap the max velocity in space anyway. It would be way too game breaking otherwise from a computational point of view.
3. Yes space is big but if everyone has big delta v then it's no issue.
Anyway let's try and keep this relevant to OPs discussion.
-
7 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:
That's when "running silent" would work best. Mitigate all emissions as best you can, shut off all systems but life support and passive sensors. Then all you have to worry about is your radar and optical signatures. I suspect most fast-paced battles will take place in atmo.
Oh yea major das boot vibes. Turn off all the engines and stay quiet. Would be pretty neat.
7 hours ago, Korvid Rin said:Fighting in space will be hard, if not nearly impossible unless it's between galaxy class ships that aren't moving. If the physics maintains a semblance of realism
In atmosphere it's would only be easier if the planes had aerodynamic lifting as they could correct their course easier. As of now they don't have that. All crafts take off using VTOL boosters. These boosters can actually negate the gravitational pull of planets to a reasonable degree. This gives more straight trajectories parallel or perpendicular to the planet surface but not laterally.
They have said they will add aerodynamic lifting parts so what you said will be true for the most part. If you've ever seen cowboy bebop (space bounty hunters) you will see the big host craft - the bebop - has 2 smaller strike craft detach. Its hardly cruiser level. It's just a small ship they live in. I think interception will work the same way. One carrier ship with high acceleration moves to intercept and then the nimble craft with less delta v are deployed. Doesn't have to be large capital ships. It can be scaled down.
Effectively space dogfights would be no different from atmospheric dogfights apart from the absence of lift. All aircraft nowadays have to deploy from hangars do they not? And all spacefighters must therefore deploy from a host vessel.
But I digress: as for magical invisible cloaks I think they can work off the engineer report on the craft as a reference for balancing. It can work in a way that makes it vulnerable to magnetometric detection. More mass = harder to cloak = stronger magnetic field = more magnetometric detection.
-
3 hours ago, CalenLoki said:
I agree that some things can be usable only on static constructs (i.e. any offline protection like shields or automatic turrets). But forbidding usage of sensors on ships sounds artificial AF
Not really. It can be made realistically feasible. Radar is cheap technology. It was invented in WW2. Whereas thermal, gravimetric and magnetometric are very modern or not invented yet (at least at long range)
The alternative is just letting everyone use every single detection device. Then there is no need to make them into distinct modules. You might as well make one detection device which covers all fields. Hence the device will be limited to just discerning the characteristics of ships and forcing people to make small ninja scout ships. But the encouragement of using your sensors wisely and specialising will be gone.
Either way, both ideas aren't too bad. I honestly don't think they will go into so much depth but a man can dream.
3 hours ago, Felonu said:I think adding optimizations to different build ideas has to be very carefully thought about. Any time you make one design over another more optimized you reduce the viability of creativity in design
I agree. But the lower limit allows a little breathing room for designers. Anything in the range of 0 to 8 ton is viable for being invisible to gravimetric for example. Rocket brick or ninja ship.
It wouldn't just work for gravimetric. It would for all the others.
-
35 minutes ago, Nebenfigur said:
To clarify: The fleet changes the equipment
Should have said this in my post my bad: The primary sensors should not be able to be mounted on ships. Only radar can be used on ships. I agree the fleets should not have to change their sensors constantly - or have all at once as I said before. Either way it would be too demanding.
35 minutes ago, Nebenfigur said:It's stopping people from building anything else. Because everything else is easier to detect.
The problem of there being no incentive other than aesthetic to build anything other than a floating cube is still without solution. Dull designs will be the meta in any case. But, in the case of stealth I've actually come up with a solution:
To prevent thruster bricks all you need to do is set a lower limit on the gravimetric sensors. For instance it can detect everything above 8 ton but not below..
-
4 hours ago, Nebenfigur said:
If stealth is just adding nothing to a ship, no one would build anything else than a pilot seat with a truster bolted at the back
Then so be it. There isn't anything stopping people making cuboid ships with no flair whatsoever outside of the context of stealth.
4 hours ago, Nebenfigur said:It's like playing Rock-paper-scissors and knowing the answer of the opponent and he knows yours.
I don't see how that applies to a brick with thrusters. If it is immune to all forms of detection by being as bare bones as possible then it is simply immune. Period. No need to gamble.
The point of different sensor types is to ascertain what type of ships you are dealing with and coerce people into making realistic (if not slightly more so) scout ships.
In fact if players can switch between different sensors so quickly in order to counter the enemy then that implies they are easy to set up. Why can't they just have all the sensors then?
I think the sensors should be hard to install so players have to choose their sensors. If it were to be a system where people have to specialise detection systems then I would rework the model as follows:
Primary/expensive/long range sensors:
Thermal
Gravimetric
Magentometric
Secondary/inexpensive/ short range:
Radar
No lidar as it would be pretty obsolete. As an all rounder, radar does the job just fine.
For a planetside base use thermal to detect reentry heating
For a large space bastions use gravimetric to detect large cruisers and destroyers
For outposts use magnetometric to detect ships using FTL drives and any form of relevant equipment
For general use use radar.
Edit: the primary sensors can only be mounted on static constructs while the secondary can be mounted on dynamic
-
1 hour ago, CalenLoki said:
My understanding of @Lethys post (and main point why I disagree with him) was that you can never fit all of them.
And you need to redesign whole ship to change type of stealth, while you need to switch just few elements to change detection.
Thus it's gamble for stealthy side, because you can never know what kind of detection they're using right now.
In that case, I agree, there's no real point in applying some sort of arbitrary balance. The way I would do it is just by qualities of the vessel with no drawbacks from cloaking methods in other forms of detection. I.e. no heavy dark blocks are needed to avoid lidar which consequently cause drawbacks for gravimetric.
Gravimetric: ship mass is large = detection
Thermal: engines low heat/off= no detection. (Eg rocket boosters have more heat than jets)
Magnetometric: shields off = no detection
Lidar: dark colours and low light engines = no detection
Radar: small cross section = no detection
This all equates to small, low armour, no shields, black, low profile engines
As for radar there could be an exception of a scrambling device.
-
8 minutes ago, Nebenfigur said:
-this would only be true for wars between clans. Random encounters, piracy or basically every fight without scouting beforehand is still gambling.
-if both sides have scouts, they would just constantly switching their equipment to the best fitting without ever attacking.
It isn't though. In any scenario of attacking or defending you have the opportunity to gather Intel and do risk analysis. If you don't have foreknowledge then you have simply been outsmarted by the enemy or have judged that it would be too time consuming to gather intel. In the event of the latter, all forms of stratagem are effectively reduced to gambling anyway.
They don't need to switch out the cloaking tech on the scouts; they can just make them with all four cloaking techniques. The point of lethys' idea imo is to encourage specialised, immersive designs for stealth as well as alternative strategy. It would be pretty whack if all you had to do to make a scout ship was make giant Borg cube with a cloaking device. With his idea you have to make small black hi tech ninja ships.
You don't need to have only one cloaking device on your ship. It's just a question of how efficient you want your power usage to be.
-
2 hours ago, Nebenfigur said:
I think 4 types of detection wouldn't enforce tactic, it would only enforce gambling.
If you were to analyse samples of the enemies fleet and place sensors which they are vulnerable to in places which are vulnerable to those ships then that is a strategy you could use.
On top of that you can also bluff. For example I could make sure everyone in my org knows about my one and only gravimetric sensor so the spies blab to the enemy about it. Little does he know I have a secret stash of other sensors.
-
Doesn't matter if it's realistic or not it just has to be technically feasible and enhancing to the game.
Even if you were to be 'realistic' the fact of the matter is we have only a few feasible hypotheses as to where we came from. They are untestable hypotheses, as there were no witnesses and the circumstances cannot be reproduced, and therefore cannot be dealt as facts. The most accepted idea is that DNA was synthesised through a random event and began to replicate from there. Naturally, the most efficient protein structures for this molecule would survive and thus continue to reproduce. And from there the process of natural selection continues and the protein structures become even more complex. We have no idea as to how probable the synthesis of DNA is as there are way too many variables and we don't actually know how to make it. Therefore we can't just say "well there's 18 googolplex quintillion planets and shiet so there must be one with life amirite?"
As for my personal opinion I think we're never going to be alone and afraid in the universe because we're already afraid of each other. Humankind has had xenophobic tendencies towards itself for aeons and it's not going to change any time soon. It's only going to get worse if interstellar expansion becomes a thing as the human race will become even more disparate.
-
2 hours ago, unown006 said:
There will be a meta to take underground bases there always is a meta
Not necessarily a specific meta. Tactics are only as effective as the enemy allows them to be. Meta is a term that applies to FPS games where balance is a major goal imo. Not like in DU where the diverse gameplay is not in the weapons used but in the players' stratagem.
-
1 hour ago, NanoDot said:
If farming requires sizeable fields to grow crops, that could throw an entirely new light on the value of "good land" on planets. Barren planets would have to import food, etc., or could possibly grow crops commercially that don't do well on "earth-like" planets. Perhaps some exotic alien cactus-analogue has amazing medical applications !
Don't forget there's always hydroponics. But that would come at added expense ofc so fertile worlds would be more productive.
Solar
in Org Updates & Announcements
Posted