Wardion2000

I always find these discussions interesting because the reality always falls short of the idea.  While technically everything posted so far is correct, logically it is also wrong.   And before everybody blows up on me.  Let me explain.  
 
Antimatter is a tricky subject because it tends to be used as a catchall term.  There are many different kinds of antimatter and they all behave differently.  
First off what kind of antimatter are we talking about?  Positrons and antiprotons?  You can trap them with something called a 'Penning trap' and no cooling is needed because sub-atomic particles can't be condensed anyway.  There is no such thing as 'liquid' electricity for instance.  But these very reasons also mean I could never contain a lot of free antimatter sub-atomic particles.
 
Superconductors make the transfer of energy more efficient, not the storage.  Storage is easy.  If sub-atomic particles have little to no place to go they just won't go anywhere.
 
Antihydrogen?  Since they are neutrally charged you need a 'Loffe trap'.  It's basically a magnetic 'bowl' with antihydrogen rolling towards the center.  I could cool this and condense it into liquid.  Largely pointless by that point, it just saves space and in a vacuum, only the total mass and inertia of an object counts towards movement, not its volume. (I reserve judgement for its use in atmosphere.)
 
Neutrinos?  Have no charge (and almost no mass) at all so no anti-particles.  Or theoretically, are both particles AND anti-particles.  Wrap your head around that one.
 
Though the energy output of 1 kilogram of antimatter is equal to roughly 43 MEGATONS of TNT, (just short of the largest nuke ever set off) it is achieved through annihilation meaning that most of the energy given off is photonic in nature and isn't as usable.  Positrons give off mostly gamma rays when annihilated for instance.  Dangerous to be sure but not directly useful for propulsion.  Antiproton annihilation happens unequally producing mesons that further degrade into gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos.  Once again dangerous as hell but less useful for direct propulsion.
 
When scientists talk about its applications for space propulsion they are talking about two different methods.  The first, setting off an antimatter reaction in certain isotopes (high-grade uranium for instance) makes a nuclear reaction more efficient and by extension more powerful.  For this application, you don't need a lot of antimatter to do it. So gathering what little antimatter is captured by a planet's magnetic field (called Van Allen radiation belts) now becomes feasible and one no longer has to spend a million billion (not an exaggeration) dollars to produce a single gram of antimatter artificially.  But this is not the type of reaction you use for power or propulsion.  THIS IS A BOMB!
 
The second is the annihilation of protons and antiprotons.  Most of the energy once again is photonic (gamma rays) but some (a relatively small amount) of the particles that come about due to the unequal annihilation will be in the form of mesons.  Some of these particles (another relatively small amount) hold a charge that can be deflected magnetically and can provide propulsion.  However as mentioned above I can never contain any large quantity of antiprotons so this method is slow and inefficient.  It is relatively easy to gather what you need as you fly through space however and therefore, ideal for lightweight long-range space missions where time is less of a factor.
 
 
P.S.  I am so sorry I went into teacher mode.

@Wardion 2000
 
 
Zul Gurub Summer 2005.
 
 
 
Never forget.

As much as I am for a full sandbox game.  I can live without a group of players who's sole purpose is to grief others and try and break the game.  I hope the devs feel the same way.

As much as I am for a full sandbox game.  I can live without a group of players who's sole purpose is to grief others and try and break the game.  I hope the devs feel the same way.

As much as I am for a full sandbox game.  I can live without a group of players who's sole purpose is to grief others and try and break the game.  I hope the devs feel the same way.

Hello and welcome!  I look forward to reading any great ideas you may have for the community.

You forgot puppeteer.

I propose the devs make 1200 KLM diameter planets possible for the sole purpose of seeing Dominar eat his keyboard.

@Wardion2000


Sneaky mothertrucker xD

I apologize if this isn't the right forum for this topic, but I didn't know where else it might fit into.
 
Lately I have seen some conversations on the forum become very aggressive, insofar as people cursing at each other and getting into really heated arguments. While I think it's healthy to be able to debate openly on the forum, there are certainly some people you might not get along with very well. I'm not going to point out any names, but some people certainly have the tendency to escalate debates into full blown attacks on one another. 
 
Which is why I want to point out a feature of this forum that I think many people are unaware of.
 
 
If you navigate to your "My Settings" page, there is a tab on the left hand side of the page titled "'Ignore' Preferences". 
 
From there you can ignore any user you'd like to, including their signatures and personal messages. 
 
 
I think if more people were aware of this feature, there would be less of a chance for discussions to break down into full blown arguments, and things might stay a bit more civil overall.
 

The ability to, when building your ship or station, place individual components that can be used for many different types of feed back to a central station in the command center of the like.  Weather the components would only cover one type of sensor or be an all in one package could be determined by skills used to build them.  The feed back could be from video, thermal and inferred to air density, and some sort of advanced medical scanner.  The necessity of these systems might not be there, depending on if there will be boarding actions, how damage to your ship is dealt with internally, if you can have stowaways, medbays, internal automated defenses, if one person can run a space station, gambling establishments in or that take up the entirety of one ship, and a simple vault where a community would store their vast wealth.  And even then if none of those are in the game, having the ability to look at your ship though security cameras would be pretty cool.  So tell me what you guys think, even though the majority of this post was just a list of other ideas i had.  

I didn't.  I did, and DON'T go around misrepresenting me.  Yes, there are two towers to view things from.  You should try standing on the other one.   I was critical of one part of your post, doesn't mean I was being critical of the others.  vylqun is voicing an opinion based on what he knows.  You are voicing and opinion on what you assume.  Who says you'll get more than one character per account?  Some will view that as reason alone to ALLOW multi-boxing others won't.  Voicing your disagreement with either stance is fine.  Giving a reason more that it's "ridiculous" or because you assume it will work another way is not.   As to your last comment, I agree.  I said as much, I pointed out how A.I. and scripting could make it an irrelevant point.  I also pointed out how multi-boxing could be unbalancing if the game goes a different direction.  If you don't see it fine.  But not seeing it doesn't mean it isn't possible.
 
And finally, If you don't agree with someone else's views on a subject, that's fine.  They are voicing their opinions and concerns just like anyone else posting.  If you have an argument and would like to debate the finer points of their stance feel free.  Otherwise, your posts so far have been full of vitriol, smug rhetoric and contribute less to the subject at hand and more on what you feel about other posters.  Leave that on the other side of the keyboard, please.

Your points are well stated, speak of experience, of both yourself and others, and make no assumptions about what is or is not true or possible.  I congratulate you, Cornflakes. This is exactly what I look for in debates.
 
I concede that most people do play S.E. just slapping components on.  Few people make the jump to actually engineering things.   I see where the disconnect in our views are now by your second and third statements.  You are equating a reactor with an engine.  Though technically this is true it is much harder to make it an equivalent example, due to the relation between power sources and thruster types in Space Engineers.  For instance, If I used batteries on atmospheric thrusters most wouldn't think to draw a parallel at all.  If I use Hydrogen thrusters I don't have an engine at all, just a source of fuel and a throttleable output (which almost no one uses  ) to thrusters.  If I make a gravity drive once again it becomes another fuel source.  The ability to draw parallels is muddled even further when designing mixed systems. The gravity drive is probably the closest you could come when drawing comparisons to FTD's engine design stage.  It has the same balancing act when it comes to efficiency, power, and size.  (I do concede most people design only with acceleration in mind) Your fifth point leaves me wondering, though.  Your statement pretty much contradicts itself.  I would say to accomplish what you want in Space Engineers requires as much thinking as you NEED.  (This was my general gripe about OmnipotentVoids blanket statements.)  The people who make great, complicated, machines that work in Space Engineers are the artisans that fit on one end of a spectrum of skill, and their work deserves more than just being labeled as an exceptional "case". Your last two points make for an interesting argument.  On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with making a game simpler and more accessible to a larger player base.  On the other, If the goal is to make a certain kind of game and then you change it to something that MIGHT be more popular?  Er.  I think this might create more problems than it resolves.  Is it the multiblock system easier?  Certainly.  Will it work for what the game devs WANT you to be able to do in DU?  Hmmm...   ~shake, shake, shake~   The simple truth is we don't know enough about what the devs want to answer that question yet.  It could turn out that a multiblock system is exactly what's needed for this game.  Or every pro about a multiblock system might turn into a con because the of direction the game goes.  We are kinda in the wind right now.  What I do know is that a well done single block system can do everything a multiblock system one can.  It might require skill sets not found in your average player but it can be done.  And I say this with the full knowledge that even single blocks systems like Space Engineers don't always cover the things you want them to.  But that's what updates are for.....  And modding.  Definitely modding.

Well, given the LUA scripts that are going to be in the game, I can see ourselves building dandy weapons that shoot unicorn beams. I call DIBS on unicorn beams.

Im actually only parroting myself and just agreeing with the other guy.
 
SE has some equipment engineering possibilities, yes, but for the most part it simply /is/ "slap on more of it".
 
SE has no variation of FTD's motors/generators which you can taylor for your specific needs within the bounds of the game, practicality and player skill.
 
In space engineers its always 950kwh/kg uranium regardless of how you build your ship or reactor (as far as i can tell).
No choice to build a less efficient setup or more efficient setup to statisfy your power needs, no thinking beyond "slap on more of them"
 
In FTD you can have a large efficient, small powerful, large powerful, or anything inbetween in terms of generators.
And the extrema of either need some skills on the side of the builder to be pulled off.
 
There simply is less thinking involved in space engineers to do anything.
Yes there are cases wheres a lot of thinking involved, like with some of the missle scripts, im not denying that.
 
But for it to be any good for the community at large and general gameplay it has to be simple to do at least something somewhat useful out of a bit of effort.
Programming in general is nothing simple or low effort for most of the populace.
 
Placing blocks and designing machines in doing so is easy and available to everyone.
core mechanics only being interesting for people who invest a ton of time is a bad idea for a game that wants to have a large player base

Well, all the suggestions I read make me think of one thing : Grand Theft Spaceboat.

I suggest, ney, I demand an Australian RPer to open an amazing pub in-game called "The Lazy Dingo". Or even better, A flying pub in space, called "The Chillo" (Get it, because people will chill in it ? )

@Wardion2000

I was trying to be poetic. My bad.

To put it bluntly, I am in favor of Pay-2-Play. 'Kay now ?

.............   First, If you include an "Unless" how is that never?   And second I'm not sure you're getting the "Devil's Advocate" term.  Unless you were being facetious in both statements.  Hard to tell, I don't really know you.

Hi everyone! 
 
On behalf of the Novaquark team, thanks a lot for your support! 
We were expecting to see Dual Universe received with skepticism by many as the game is really ambitious.
We are aware that several promising projects have been cancelled or didn't deliver at all what was expected from them in the past few years. So seeing a lot of people skeptic is perfectly understandable and we can't blame anyone for that (the only case where we can't remain silent is when someone makes negative assumptions and present them as a truth). All we ask from skeptic people is to give us the benefit of the doubt, to wait and see what we will present over the coming months, and we will listen equally to positive and negative feedbacks. We will also try to improve our communication, to minimize risks of misinterpretation (as it has already happened once). 
 
On the other hand,  we have seen the number of people supporting Dual Universe growing tremendously during the last month. And that has bolstered the motivation of the whole team! So thanks again for your support! You can always help us by just talking about the game to your friends, and if you don't convince them, it's perfectly fine: we aren't expecting to convince everyone with just discussions, some screenshots and one video at this point. Spreading the word that our game exists is already a big help!
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

I tried to like your post, but it told me my limit of positive likes had been reached.

The way i look at it the fact that there is going to be PVP is reason enough to try and build something that potentially would give you an advantage over your fellow players.
 
The fact that certain people will specialize in different things like exploration, ship building etc... well maybe mech suits would be valuable to an explorer to help on a hostile planet (lora and fauna) or a lack of atmosphere etc...
 
Could help with mining or construction for ship builders.
 
The whole premise of this gaem is your creativity should come through, so your question is why, my question is why not...

I guess I was late with the post about the actual topic (subscription model)...
 
The game can be an investor scam, or it could fail it's kickstarter campaign, or it could fail in financially planning the development process once financed, or the server architecture could fail later stress tests end the game will end up a shadow of it's promised glory, or it could be all it's promised and get released only to end up unsuccessful and get canceled a couple of months after because another game targeting the same market audience outshines it or the market changes and people get sick of the minecraft trend, or an asteroid hits earth right on their studio, or trump gets elected.
 
Approaching it with a grain of salt is wise, approaching it with a tinfoil hat is just bad fashion sense.

How is this? ↑  Relevant to my response to this? ↓
 
"Enlighten us" indeed.  If what you really want is a debate or to state an opinion.  Alright, I'll bite.
 
If the debate is whether or not F2P can apply then yes, "Perhaps" such a niche would not benefit from said payment model.  All that matters are the numbers, and the numbers are saying they need monthly payments or an equivalent system like PLEX.  But because they are "Games that are all 2D maps about fantasy and RPG." isn't an actual reason why it wouldn't. No other MMO covers DU's scope so no fair comparisons can really be made in that respect.

Greedy bastards, the whole lot. The other day I was out for coffee and the waitress ended up giving me a bill, and there was even this social expectation of a tip flying around the air, can you believe the greed on that one? I bet she was going to pamper herself with rent. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE WORLD?!  Anyway I tried convincing her that they should use a 3rd model of coffee but with less sweatener options for... just the tip... 
 
...But in the unlikely chance this is in anyway applicable to the underlining problem here:
Telling a gossip inclined co-worker  that you want to try your chances at freelancing, apparently can result in your boss giving you a raise and a better contract to convince you not too.
 
(Also, for the more likely underlining problem:
if you are in college there's a good chance you'll be done with it and back in the work force by the time the game comes out).