Jump to content

Planet destroying wepons


Halk66

Recommended Posts

Indeed, they might be. But, it has already been stated by a lead developer that planet-destroying weapons will not be present in the game. While no doubt super awesome, such a weapon would be just too powerful, and would have too great a chance to ruin the game for other people. Imagine players pouring countless hours of time and effort into the creation of a planet covered in a few large cities, only to see the entire world obliterated by the Interstellar Legion of Trolls. It would be a huge deterrent to builders if their work could be rendered non-existent and irrecoverable in a single moment. Thus, the maximum power of weapons will be intentionally limited within the game, to ensure everyone stays equally happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

these weapons would be amazing 

How exactly does one destroy a planet?  You could wipe out life on a planet and turn it into ruins with enough nuclear weapons or by dropping rocks on it, but short of hitting it with another planet there's no way to actually obliterate a planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly does one destroy a planet?

Death_star1.png

 

 

 

You could wipe out life on a planet and turn it into ruins with enough nuclear weapons or by dropping rocks on it, but short of hitting it with another planet there's no way to actually obliterate a planet.

Realistically, you could just overwhelm the crust with so much energy that the stresses smash it into pieces. Stripping the planet of its crust will make it pretty worthless for a few hundred million years.

 

A Star Wars style complete destruction is probably the realm of fiction, or at least a Type III civilisation.

 


 

Having it in game is a little over the top. I mean, do you want millions of voices to cry out in terror, and then be suddenly silenced? It's too potentially devastating to completely wipe out a whole planet (and potentially destroy an organisation - what if the only other resurrection nodes are the Arkship, halfway across the universe where they own nothing?). There aren't even nuclear weapons in the game (apparently). I do hope we have high-powered weaponry to bombard cities from orbit though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, they might be. But, it has already been stated by a lead developer that planet-destroying weapons will not be present in the game. While no doubt super awesome, such a weapon would be just too powerful, and would have too great a chance to ruin the game for other people. Imagine players pouring countless hours of time and effort into the creation of a planet covered in a few large cities, only to see the entire world obliterated by the Interstellar Legion of Trolls. It would be a huge deterrent to builders if there work could be rendered non-existent and irrecoverable in a single moment. Thus, the maximum power of weapons will be intentionally limited within the game, to ensure everyone stays equally happy.T

It would take a lot of time(like 2 weeks) to activate such a weapon after building it. The players of the planet would have a lot of time to defend and destroy the Death star MK. IV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death_star1.png

 

 

 

 

Realistically, you could just overwhelm the crust with so much energy that the stresses smash it into pieces. Stripping the planet of its crust will make it pretty worthless for a few hundred million years.

 

A Star Wars style complete destruction is probably the realm of fiction, or at least a Type III civilisation.

 


 

Having it in game is a little over the top. I mean, do you want millions of voices to cry out in terror, and then be suddenly silenced? It's too potentially devastating to completely wipe out a whole planet (and potentially destroy an organisation - what if the only other resurrection nodes are the Arkship, halfway across the universe where they own nothing?). There aren't even nuclear weapons in the game (apparently). I do hope we have high-powered weaponry to bombard cities from orbit though.

Star Wars is more of an SF fantasy than real science fiction.  You can certainly devastate a planet with enough non-fantasy weapons to make it uninhabitable without building an ultimate weapon with the requisite 2m wide exhaust port.  Heck, all you really need is a nice big rock and enough time and rocket power to drop it on your target.

 

How could there not be nuclear weapons though?  I could see there being a prohibition against using them on planetary surfaces, one which could be broken by a sufficiently evil organization of course.  And an organization should be vulnerable to extinction, especially if they put all their eggs in one planetary basket.  But if you can make a nuclear reactor you can make a nuclear weapon.

 

Besides if they made a planet wrecker, whats to stop someone from using it on the arkworld?  Would the shielded arkship be all that's left along with a 20 km wide hemisphere of mined out soil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would take a lot of time(like 2 weeks) to activate such a weapon after building it. The players of the planet would have a lot of time to defend and destroy the Death star MK. IV.

That would still completely reverse the roles of attack and defense, and the usual benefit of defending your territory versus having to attack a target.

 

Not to mention it seems kind of annoying.. i would rather love larger battles with a lot smaller calibers, and such after a clan/groups been wiped out... you might find ruins or even partially destroyed cities to explore in the future for others.. since its now long abandoned by the defeated clean/organization/political body.

 

It also leaves the fact that we'd run out of stars pretty quick, as someone mentioned earlier, legion of troll-alots would be doing this to every planet in sight.. so i can't say am a fan of the idea of planet-wide destruction, i do hope planetary bombardment.. but likewise there should be ways to construct shield, and planet to space cannons that can retaliate and blow those larger capitals ships out of the sky in return).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Wars is more of an SF fantasy than real science fiction.  You can certainly devastate a planet with enough non-fantasy weapons to make it uninhabitable without building an ultimate weapon with the requisite 2m wide exhaust port.  Heck, all you really need is a nice big rock and enough time and rocket power to drop it on your target.

 

How could there not be nuclear weapons though?  I could see there being a prohibition against using them on planetary surfaces, one which could be broken by a sufficiently evil organization of course.  And an organization should be vulnerable to extinction, especially if they put all their eggs in one planetary basket.  But if you can make a nuclear reactor you can make a nuclear weapon.

 

Besides if they made a planet wrecker, whats to stop someone from using it on the arkworld?  Would the shielded arkship be all that's left along with a 20 km wide hemisphere of mined out soil?

The devs won't be adding weapons of mass destruction because the focus of this game is building, and players could lose too much too quickly. This has already been addressed pretty much.

 

To dish out a ton of damage, you'll need a ton of players, a ton of time, and a ton of weapons-fire (once Construct vs Construct is a thing). That way deconstruction is as labor intensive than construction (or more labor intensive).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The devs won't be adding weapons of mass destruction because the focus of this game is building, and players could lose too much too quickly. This has already been addressed pretty much.

 

To dish out a ton of damage, you'll need a ton of players, a ton of time, and a ton of weapons-fire (once Construct vs Construct is a thing). That way deconstruction is as labor intensive than construction (or more labor intensive).

5520f795787bfa2d351a23afab774580.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Star Wars is more of an SF fantasy than real science fiction.  You can certainly devastate a planet with enough non-fantasy weapons to make it uninhabitable without building an ultimate weapon with the requisite 2m wide exhaust port.  Heck, all you really need is a nice big rock and enough time and rocket power to drop it on your target.

Yes, but my point was that Star Wars, despite being space fantasy, isn't completely divorced from reality. Smashing a planet to pieces without just throwing another planet at it is probably impossible. But a Death Star-like laser could probably hit the crust with so much energy to smash it up, which is as good as destroying the planet for a civilisation. 

 

How could there not be nuclear weapons though?

 

They just aren't in the game. Weapons that are completely superior to others aren't fun in games. In real life, nuclear weapons don't get used because we know how devastating they are. In a game, where no one's actually dying, players will drop them like candy even if they're difficult to make.

 

Now that we know asteroids are colonizable and are going to be "interactive" parts of the game. what would stop somebody from say.... slinging one into a planet/city on said planet?

We know that in the final release planets won't have orbits (only rotational periods). They'll probably do the same for asteroids, especially as they're smaller. So even if you attach an engine to one, you probably can't move it. This isn't Planetary Annihilation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but my point was that Star Wars, despite being space fantasy, isn't completely divorced from reality. Smashing a planet to pieces without just throwing another planet at it is probably impossible. But a Death Star-like laser could probably hit the crust with so much energy to smash it up, which is as good as destroying the planet for a civilisation. 

 

 

They just aren't in the game. Weapons that are completely superior to others aren't fun in games. In real life, nuclear weapons don't get used because we know how devastating they are. In a game, where no one's actually dying, players will drop them like candy even if they're difficult to make.

 

We know that in the final release planets won't have orbits (only rotational periods). They'll probably do the same for asteroids, especially as they're smaller. So even if you attach an engine to one, you probably can't move it. This isn't Planetary Annihilation.

which is a little sad (but understandable xD)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps in a world where the slogan isn't "Rebuild civilization together", sure.

 

games=/=real life

Given that philosophy, why allow combat at all?  I understand that given the lack of moral hazard, the impossibility that you could actually die, there are lots of people who indulge in gratuitous violence in games.  I also understand that we don't want folks destroying someone's exquisite voxel palace with a suicide brick.  But what's the mechanism that will prevent that from happening?  It has to be explained somehow, not just say "it's a game" and break immersion without an attempt at worldbuilding and roleplaying.

 

Perhaps you can have nukes, but they don't work on planetary surfaces because making nuclear dampers is cheap and easy but requires access to geothermal power.  So they can work in space and can be used to wreck space stations and asteroid bases but not planetside cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is collision damage something NQ has said will not be in game for sure or is it a possibility?  Kind of feel like flying your shift at full speed into a planets surface should have some consequences. 

I hope there will be collision damage but i think it should be really nerfed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that philosophy, why allow combat at all?  I understand that given the lack of moral hazard, the impossibility that you could actually die, there are lots of people who indulge in gratuitous violence in games.  I also understand that we don't want folks destroying someone's exquisite voxel palace with a suicide brick.  But what's the mechanism that will prevent that from happening?  It has to be explained somehow, not just say "it's a game" and break immersion without an attempt at worldbuilding and roleplaying.

 

Perhaps you can have nukes, but they don't work on planetary surfaces because making nuclear dampers is cheap and easy but requires access to geothermal power.  So they can work in space and can be used to wreck space stations and asteroid bases but not planetside cities. 

Nice slippery slope argument (only the 5th time I've seen that exact rebuttal in this forum). I don't even feel the need to answer this one anymore, since combat is already a planned feature and collision damage is not a planned feature. And yes, it's just fine to use "it's a game" to break immersion, every game does that. How many games force your character to go to the bathroom or sleep? "it's a game" is a great reason for a dev not to include a feature that just shouldn't be there.

 

The devs want this to be a game where we focus on building and exploration. They do want pvp to be a thing, but they have already explained the reasons why they don't want weapons of mass destruction to be a part of it. It is too much damage, without enough warning, without enough to prevent it, in too short a time.

 

Players will be able to destroy someone's excuisite palace, but they'll have to do it with lazers, railguns, and missiles. They will probably need several players, dedicated battle ships, and some time to kill: long enough that someone in the palace could send out a distress signal, fire up automated defenses, or warn org-mates to log on and man battle stations. Balanced PVP allows for that.

 

It kind of sounds like this is the game you really want to play, rather than DU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice slippery slope argument (only the 5th time I've seen that exact rebuttal in this forum). I don't even feel the need to answer this one anymore, since combat is already a planned feature and collision damage is not a planned feature. And yes, it's just fine to use "it's a game" to break immersion, every game does that. How many games force your character to go to the bathroom or sleep? "it's a game" is a great reason for a dev not to include a feature that just shouldn't be there.

 

The devs want this to be a game where we focus on building and exploration. They do want pvp to be a thing, but they have already explained the reasons why they don't want weapons of mass destruction to be a part of it. It is too much damage, without enough warning, without enough to prevent it, in too short a time.

 

Players will be able to destroy someone's excuisite palace, but they'll have to do it with lazers, railguns, and missiles. They will probably need several players, dedicated battle ships, and some time to kill: long enough that someone in the palace could send out a distress signal, fire up automated defenses, or warn org-mates to log on and man battle stations. Balanced PVP allows for that.

 

It kind of sounds like this is the game you really want to play, rather than DU

Dude, I'm not saying that we need WMD and CD in the game, I'm saying let's come up with a rational explanation as to why it doesn't exist.

 

How about this: everything we create will be coming from matter compressed into a K3 manifold.  When it is projected into spacetime, it is assembled along a kyrium scaffold, which remains behind after the object is instantiated.  This properties of the scaffold include remarkable inertial dampening, to the point where two ships built on kyrium scaffolds could be rammed into one another at near relativistic speeds and they'd simply bounce off one another.  

 

Nuclear weapons won't work because kyrium also serves as a damper to runaway fission reactions.  An implosion chamber created using kyrium scaffolds would absorb rather than reflect neutrons.  And dropping rocks from space won't work because the AI is actually aware of what we do with the objects we create.  The AI is programmed to prevent the use of WMDs, but it does allow other forms of violence, as humans are by nature an aggressive species.  And it is entirely possible we could run into another aggressive species out here in the unknown, one who can build and use weapons of mass destruction, a species we will need to be able to counter through violence.  Therefore, it is necessary that humans retain the capacity for violence, even though the worst sorts of violence are forbidden by physics and the programming of the arkship godmind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, I'm not saying that we need WMD and CD in the game, I'm saying let's come up with a rational explanation as to why it doesn't exist.

 

How about this: everything we create will be coming from matter compressed into a K3 manifold.  When it is projected into spacetime, it is assembled along a kyrium scaffold, which remains behind after the object is instantiated.  This properties of the scaffold include remarkable inertial dampening, to the point where two ships built on kyrium scaffolds could be rammed into one another at near relativistic speeds and they'd simply bounce off one another.  

 

Nuclear weapons won't work because kyrium also serves as a damper to runaway fission reactions.  An implosion chamber created using kyrium scaffolds would absorb rather than reflect neutrons.  And dropping rocks from space won't work because the AI is actually aware of what we do with the objects we create.  The AI is programmed to prevent the use of WMDs, but it does allow other forms of violence, as humans are by nature an aggressive species.  And it is entirely possible we could run into another aggressive species out here in the unknown, one who can build and use weapons of mass destruction, a species we will need to be able to counter through violence.  Therefore, it is necessary that humans retain the capacity for violence, even though the worst sorts of violence are forbidden by physics and the programming of the arkship godmind.

"because science" is always a good reason. I've been pushing "0 friction shielding" as a reason for collision damage to be a non-thing, but I've seen to many people wine about immersion breaking game mechanics that I made a false assumption about your stance.

 

Sounds like you've got a good explanation there though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...