Jump to content
Teklow82

I dont think safe zones will be "safe"

Recommended Posts

I have been following this game very intently. and yes i havnt backed the game yet . im very reluctant .   why.  i work 40 +hours a week and have a family.

 

Now i come to understand this game is all about immersion.

 

so   you have a ship. and sense its not apart of the world its called a construct.. another words movable entity ..

so you park you ship in a safe zone to log out. maybe you got the means to hover while your logged out. maybe you have to park to conserve power.  i would imagine even firing a weapon in the safe zone would merit a vist from local NPC ot player authorities. so to speak.

 

but whats to stop people from designing a ship that can litterally have a hull design to drop over your ship and slowly drag your ship out of the safe zone. ???

 

just had this thought today . i havn't seen any topic on this matter i could be wrong but i would like some community feedback and or idea's i may be over looking

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The safe zones are going to be quite large i believe. Not sure how they will work either, but it probably wont let enemies come inside of them. dont see how another ship could drag you out of one. 

P.S. I don't believe you ever responded to my message, that i sent you a while back  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the whole point of the safezone is to allow people to build and play without any interruption or risk from other players.

 

There's not much point in speculating on whether the devs might leave a huge loophole in an important mechanic.

 

It could happen sure.  But if it does it will be fixed before launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A ship being offline renders it immobile. It can't be dragged outside with a ship that's shaped liek a cup. How do I know that? I follow the game closely. JC has confirmed so in many interviews and as well, as of how Core Units operate. 

They use the term "protection bubbles", not safe-zones. There's only one confirmed safezone around the Arkship, anything beyoond that, is a protection bubble, which can be overcome via various means, possibly more in the future via other "Arkships" if the Lore Bible on the game is to be trusted.

The Protection Bubbles and their RDMS properties can and will be possible to overcome  ( very difficult feat, as stated in the Kickstarter / crowdfunding video ) but not with the Will. E. Coyote methods you proposed :P 



Feel free to read the DevBlogs on RDMS, or check Cybrex's FAQ thread. where information is compiled for your ease of digestion.


Cheers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums Teklow!

That is actually a good question. I too would recommend reading up on the sources Captain suggested. It sounds like they cover your concerns.

 

The cool thing is, the developers actually pay attention to what people say / ask on the forums, and I imagine several potential issues they hadn't considered have been brought to light this way. So feel free to ask about anything you don't know! If a thread already exists on the subject, someone will point in the right direction. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. there's no collision damage or interaction so a construct can't move any other construct. 

1a They might add some sort of tractor beam type thing at some point so if you have the permissions to move an object given to you then you'd be able to.

 

2. I don't think we hit the construct vs. construct stretch goal... which means ships won't have weapons at launch.  

2a They are planning on adding them at some point so... presumably you won't be able to fire them in a safe zone.

2b in a protection zone the owner might extend permission to defenders they hire...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. there's no collision damage or interaction so a construct can't move any other construct. 

1a They might add some sort of tractor beam type thing at some point so if you have the permissions to move an object given to you then you'd be able to.

 

2. I don't think we hit the construct vs. construct stretch goal... which means ships won't have weapons at launch.  

2a They are planning on adding them at some point so... presumably you won't be able to fire them in a safe zone.

2b in a protection zone the owner might extend permission to defenders they hire...

Uhm... what?

 

Just because there's no collision damge that doesn't mean constructs won't be able to touch one another. That would make carriers impossible xD

 

And they did say there might be a very small collision damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I heard there was none.

 

Last I heard about carriers was that they might be implemented by temporarily adding the object that needs to be moved to the ships schematic/blue print/whatever the term is so it effectively becomes part of the ship itself.

 

All the videos show static immovable constructs... Buildings... Space stations aren't in orbit... they don't move.  They're as static as a building... And so are ships you or someone else aren't actively using.

 

That's the current state of the game as I'm aware of it.  Do please correct me if I've misunderstood something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last I heard there was none.

 

Last I heard about carriers was that they might be implemented by temporarily adding the object that needs to be moved to the ships schematic/blue print/whatever the term is so it effectively becomes part of the ship itself.

 

All the videos show static immovable constructs... Buildings... Space stations aren't in orbit... they don't move.  They're as static as a building... And so are ships you or someone else aren't actively using.

 

That's the current state of the game as I'm aware of it.  Do please correct me if I've misunderstood something.

Link to that. Cause it makes no sense, you can't have space stations that way xD

 

Also, you do understand the videos are PRE-ALPHA... right? The constructs don't move, because the Devs made them not moving, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how so?  Doesn't prevent them in any way I can see.

 

Don't project what you want onto what is.  We have what they've shown us and nothing more.  People projecting their hopes and dreams onto something and then being presented with the reality that was always there but they refused to see is how we got No Man's Sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how so?  Doesn't prevent them in any way I can see.

 

Don't project what you want onto what is.  We have what they've shown us and nothing more.  People projecting their hopes and dreams onto something and then being presented with the reality that was always there but they refused to see is how we got No Man's Sky.

 

then prove him wrong by linking your evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how so?  Doesn't prevent them in any way I can see.

 

So, you have no link on what you claim, no idea what you talk about and you just made things up. Cool.

 

You see those ships that touch the ground? That's when you logic became faulty, since the game engine doesn't disambiguate between planet, ship and bilding, to it, all of them are voxel constructs. If they had collision damage, those voxel entities would possibly damage each other, but since there is none, they do not. Also, please feel free to google "localised physics grid".

 

Don't project what you want onto what is.  We have what they've shown us and nothing more.  People projecting their hopes and dreams onto something and then being presented with the reality that was always there but they refused to see is how we got No Man's Sky.

 

My hopes and dreams are apparently 3D tech developed in the 90s and utilised since the dawn of MMOs like Everquest, so people do not fall thhrough the ground. Also, GamerGate... no wait, referrecing some important gaming related thing doesn't inject my arguement with gravitas.

 

Talk about game features, like interstellar empires, that's "peoples unreaonable hopes and dreams" that is remotely close to your claims of No Man's Sky. What I'm talking about is actual 3D technology, that has its roots to SPACE INVADERS, Pinball videogames and even Pacman. But nah, Pacman was made by mystics in Mt. Fuji, that's why it does what it does.

 

But I guess I am projecting what I want onto what is in this discssion. What is this discussion, is a dead horse you keep beating... with a spoon.

 

Cheers. Enjoy being utterly wrong about your utterly mistaken opinions (in which you lack any form of video link as proof).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we've seen small construct ships land on larger constructs, platforms and space station so yeah there is collision and contact. There not being CvC planned for launch or until the stretch goal is reached doesn't negate that.

 

Also technically speaking even if an object is stationary in the sky in relation to the planet doesn't mean it won't move. There are different types of orbit, ones that circle around the planet and ones that hold the same position over the planet in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah we've seen small construct ships land on larger constructs, platforms and space station so yeah there is collision and contact. There not being CvC planned for launch or until the stretch goal is reached doesn't negate that.

 

Also technically speaking even if an object is stationary in the sky in relation to the planet doesn't mean it won't move. There are different types of orbit, ones that circle around the planet and ones that hold the same position over the planet in the sky.

There are no orbital mechanics. Moons remain stationary, planets have a localised frame for things that enter its "atmosphere", but those thins are suscpetible to gravity, so , good luck keeping them floating. Also, the same reason why carriers will happen, since the construct itself has a localised grid for things inside it. A fighter-jet inside the carrier is not moving at all in its frame of referrence, the carrier is moving. Like a jet-fighter o a planet is not moving when a planet rotates in its frame of referrence to the planet.

 

Furthermore, for some reason, you coincide "CvC" with "game physics". Those two things are not exclusive. The OP's question was if one can move a ship by nudging it. The answer is sorta.

 

1) If you are offline, your construct is immobile, it's no longer a dynamic construct.

 

2) if you are online, you can be pushed off of a safezone in a ship. Why it won't happen? Because said safezones beyond the Arkship are Protection Bubbles, that can allow for "no flight zone" via the RDMS system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no orbital mechanics. Moons remain stationary, planets have a localised frame for things that enter its "atmosphere", but those thins are suscpetible to gravity, so , good luck keeping them floating. Also, the same reason why carriers will happen, since the construct itself has a localised grid for things inside it. A fighter-jet inside the carrier is not moving at all in its frame of referrence, the carrier is moving. Like a jet-fighter o a planet is not moving when a planet rotates in its frame of referrence to the planet.

 

Furthermore, for some reason, you coincide "CvC" with "game physics". Those two things are not exclusive. The OP's question was if one can move a ship by nudging it. The answer is sorta.

 

1) If you are offline, your construct is immobile, it's no longer a dynamic construct.

 

2) if you are online, you can be pushed off of a safezone in a ship. Why it won't happen? Because said safezones beyond the Arkship are Protection Bubbles, that can allow for "no flight zone" via the RDMS system.

I wasn't coinciding CvC with game physics, I was saying the opposite, I said there not being CvC doesn't negate having physics. I was more responding to the poster above not the OP specifically. So yeah I agree with what you've been saying the last few posts.

 

Though I thought i did hear them say planets would rotate, could have heard wrong i guess. Think it was in relation to them responding to the ability to build a "space ladder" and they said it wouldn't be possible because it would be moving through space too fast in relation to the planet. Again, could have heard it wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't coinciding CvC with game physics, I was saying the opposite, I said there not being CvC doesn't negate having physics. I was more responding to the poster above not the OP specifically. So yeah I agree with what you've been saying the last few posts.

 

Though I thought i did hear them say planets would rotate, could have heard wrong i guess. Think it was in relation to them responding to the ability to build a "space ladder" and they said it wouldn't be possible because it would be moving through space too fast in relation to the planet. Again, could have heard it wrong though.

My bad then, must have read your earlier statement on that wrong, although my arguement was oriented on the fact the particular game mechanic is gonna be implemented with constructs, before the CvC is sven added.

 

Yes, the Space Elevator idea is not possible (within certain limits. For example, you can build an elevator the way they handle a localised physics grid for a planet, you can't make said elevator go into higher orbit though, as higher-orbit space won't roate with the planet itself. You can get it just high enough so a ship won't require too much fuel to leave the planet's gravity. And I mean ship, not shuttle or star-fighters, as those are light enough for thrust-to-mass to take them off world. Ships are way more cumbersome than shuttles or star-fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Topic. I have found a couple things in the kickstarter ama event that I think fits.

 

Quote

      I heard the movements of constructions will be physics-based, does that mean that player creating space station may have to calculate and stabalize an orbit for it?

 We are considering the possibility to "anchor" a dynamic construct, when you want to state that it should not move anymore. Otherwise, an active dynamic construct (active = someone is running a flight control unit) will be subject to gravity, and as such should be orbiting the planet if given the proper velocity.

 Quote

      Will asteroids be static or will they move?

 They will be static, like all other celestial bodies. We will consider however the possibility that a player could move them with the proper engines attached via a construct, but this is not something we can promise yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you have no link on what you claim, no idea what you talk about and you just made things up. Cool.

 

You see those ships that touch the ground? That's when you logic became faulty, since the game engine doesn't disambiguate between planet, ship and bilding, to it, all of them are voxel constructs. If they had collision damage, those voxel entities would possibly damage each other, but since there is none, they do not. Also, please feel free to google "localised physics grid".

 

 

My hopes and dreams are apparently 3D tech developed in the 90s and utilised since the dawn of MMOs like Everquest, so people do not fall thhrough the ground. Also, GamerGate... no wait, referrecing some important gaming related thing doesn't inject my arguement with gravitas.

 

Talk about game features, like interstellar empires, that's "peoples unreaonable hopes and dreams" that is remotely close to your claims of No Man's Sky. What I'm talking about is actual 3D technology, that has its roots to SPACE INVADERS, Pinball videogames and even Pacman. But nah, Pacman was made by mystics in Mt. Fuji, that's why it does what it does.

 

But I guess I am projecting what I want onto what is in this discssion. What is this discussion, is a dead horse you keep beating... with a spoon.

 

Cheers. Enjoy being utterly wrong about your utterly mistaken opinions (in which you lack any form of video link as proof).

 

Here's static buildings

 

If they get planets to rotate... One of my question would be will the space station rotate with it... always hanging above the same spot on the planet or will it stay stationary so you can see the planet rotate bellow you?

 

He also mentions no collision damage.  You seem to be confused... No collision damage doesn't mean no collision... doesn't mean things pass through each other.  It's not No Clip.  But it also doesn't mean that colliding will move another object.  So you can't push things around.  ... well not things that aren't made to fly... and which aren't being used to fly at the moment.  I expect that if you're flying around next to another person flying and you bump into them you could push them.  I expect that any landed ship... building... or space station not currently being moved via its own engines will be immovable.  So no one can do like the OP suggests.

 

 

Also here's a thread you participated in... in which we speculate on how transport ships could work. https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/10319-transporting-constructs/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's static buildings

 

If they get planets to rotate... One of my question would be will the space station rotate with it... always hanging above the same spot on the planet or will it stay stationary so you can see the planet rotate bellow you?

 

He also mentions no collision damage.  You seem to be confused... No collision damage doesn't mean no collision... doesn't mean things pass through each other.  It's not No Clip.  But it also doesn't mean that colliding will move another object.  So you can't push things around.  ... well not things that aren't made to fly... and which aren't being used to fly at the moment.  I expect that if you're flying around next to another person flying and you bump into them you could push them.  I expect that any landed ship... building... or space station not currently being moved via its own engines will be immovable.  So no one can do like the OP suggests.

 

 

Also here's a thread you participated in... in which we speculate on how transport ships could work. https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/10319-transporting-constructs/

I don't got the patience, nor it's my responsibility to explain to you what a localised physics grid is.

 

The station won't orbit the planet, it will be stationary, IF it is built off of a planet's physics' grid.

 

Also, you seem to openly disregard my points above on how the Devs treat constructs when players are offline. That's called trolling, a perpetuating discussion until the other party exasperates off of the discussion.

 

As I did reply to the OP some posts ago, when a player is not online, their constructs (ships using dynamic cores) are stable and immobile. No clip, is collision without transfer of energy in a physics grid. What the Devs go for, is collisino that transfers energy but doesn't cause damage. Think of these ships in DU, as billiard balls when colliding, only a battleship won't be moved by a star-fighter, because mass + acceleration = more weight. And yes, they wouldn't bother with having center of mass (the reason engines nees proper placement on a ship) and they would not bother withh collision at all. That being said, when you are offline, you are immobile. They can only try to bust your ship open if it's not in a safe-zone and hack it or what-not. And chances are, player-made protection bubbles will have RDMS powers as of who is allowed to fly a ship in them, so it's okay.

 

Collision damage is costly to simulate in a server, not collisions in general. And if the Devs make ships explode or reactors overloading from sudden deccelerations, you can bet that collision damage will be in the game, just not in the "car-wreck" idea of it, but more like water-baloons colliding, only if the mass differential is great and / or the speed in which some ships collided is high, they explode. Because, you know, theer's no point of having atmospheric engines for shuttles as the Devs want there to be, without an actual danger of crash-landing. And since collision dmaage won't be happening via the simulated way, you can bet there could be an overloading mechanism on collisions, which is way way way cheaper to calculate and unlike traditional collision damage, it can be countered by engineers cooling down the reactor(s).

 

Also, there are two types of Core Units for constucts, Dynamic and Static. Dynamic Core Units are meant for ships and vehicles in general, but Static are meant for buildings. I'll let you figure out the insinuation between those two.

 

 

 

 

Interesting Topic. I have found a couple things in the kickstarter ama event that I think fits.

 

Quote

 

      I heard the movements of constructions will be physics-based, does that mean that player creating space station may have to calculate and stabalize an orbit for it?

 

 We are considering the possibility to "anchor" a dynamic construct, when you want to state that it should not move anymore. Otherwise, an active dynamic construct (active = someone is running a flight control unit) will be subject to gravity, and as such should be orbiting the planet if given the proper velocity.

 

 Quote

 

      Will asteroids be static or will they move?

 

 They will be static, like all other celestial bodies. We will consider however the possibility that a player could move them with the proper engines attached via a construct, but this is not something we can promise yet.

 

 

 

Anchoring is a thing from EVE. Essentially, you can build something in space as if you were playing a real-time strategy game. So, you can build a space-station, copy it in a blueprint or more, then go to a place in space and start building it there via factory ships feeding the construction process with materials.

 

Even further than that, the static ships you mention, are there because the Devs have not integrated the full extend of the physics grid ... as it's in pre-alpha stage after all, their main focus is getting the server-tech going smoothly, then integrating the gameplay aspects.

 

Now you know more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collision damage is costly to simulate in a server, not collisions in general. And if the Devs make ships explode or reactors overloading from sudden deccelerations, you can bet that collision damage will be in the game, just not in the "car-wreck" idea of it, but more like water-baloons colliding, only if the mass differential is great and / or the speed in which some ships collided is high, they explode. Because, you know, theer's no point of having atmospheric engines for shuttles as the Devs want there to be, without an actual danger of crash-landing. And since collision dmaage won't be happening via the simulated way, you can bet there could be an overloading mechanism on collisions, which is way way way cheaper to calculate and unlike traditional collision damage, it can be countered by engineers cooling down the reactor(s).

 

 

That is awesome. I'm really looking forward to this dynamic. I'm envisioning epic moments where a battleship or space station is damaged and about to crash land on a planet, and the heroic Captain stays behind to keep it stable long enough for the escape pods to make it out! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is awesome. I'm really looking forward to this dynamic. I'm envisioning epic moments where a battleship or space station is damaged and about to crash land on a planet, and the heroic Captain stays behind to keep it stable long enough for the escape pods to make it out! 

Well, I mean, I already got intense moments overloading everything on my ship just to watch that sweet DPS meter going up in EVE, now imagine having engineers keeping your ship from popping itself while you are dishing out all the damage there is :P

 

OTherwise, engineers become, simply put, reloading gears. :|

 

Plus, the tactic of "build big ship, ram the enemy" does not really work when you fly a battleship that its top speed is 90 m/s :P

 

And as everyone who played EVE for mroe than a week knows, if you burn towards at target straigh-ton, you will only make sure you get hit as much as possible as they kite you around :P

 

It's more of a deterrent thatn a game feature. "Do not collide with the enemy, because that will make you lose DPS".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I mean, I already got intense moments overloading everything on my ship just to watch that sweet DPS meter going up in EVE, now imagine having engineers keeping your ship from popping itself while you are dishing out all the damage there is :P

 

OTherwise, engineers become, simply put, reloading gears. :|

 

Plus, the tactic of "build big ship, ram the enemy" does not really work when you fly a battleship that its top speed is 90 m/s :P

 

And as everyone who played EVE for mroe than a week knows, if you burn towards at target straigh-ton, you will only make sure you get hit as much as possible as they kite you around :P

 

It's more of a deterrent thatn a game feature. "Do not collide with the enemy, because that will make you lose DPS".

 

 

I wasn't talking about ramming, just about crashing on planets and stuff :P 

 

Yeah being the engineer would be a stressful job. I know people write eve fan fiction about the engineers all the time, and it's pretty intense!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't got the patience, nor it's my responsibility to explain to you what a localised physics grid is.

 

The station won't orbit the planet, it will be stationary, IF it is built off of a planet's physics' grid.

 

Also, you seem to openly disregard my points above on how the Devs treat constructs when players are offline. That's called trolling, a perpetuating discussion until the other party exasperates off of the discussion.

 

As I did reply to the OP some posts ago, when a player is not online, their constructs (ships using dynamic cores) are stable and immobile. No clip, is collision without transfer of energy in a physics grid. What the Devs go for, is collisino that transfers energy but doesn't cause damage. Think of these ships in DU, as billiard balls when colliding, only a battleship won't be moved by a star-fighter, because mass + acceleration = more weight. And yes, they wouldn't bother with having center of mass (the reason engines nees proper placement on a ship) and they would not bother withh collision at all. That being said, when you are offline, you are immobile. They can only try to bust your ship open if it's not in a safe-zone and hack it or what-not. And chances are, player-made protection bubbles will have RDMS powers as of who is allowed to fly a ship in them, so it's okay.

 

Collision damage is costly to simulate in a server, not collisions in general. And if the Devs make ships explode or reactors overloading from sudden deccelerations, you can bet that collision damage will be in the game, just not in the "car-wreck" idea of it, but more like water-baloons colliding, only if the mass differential is great and / or the speed in which some ships collided is high, they explode. Because, you know, theer's no point of having atmospheric engines for shuttles as the Devs want there to be, without an actual danger of crash-landing. And since collision dmaage won't be happening via the simulated way, you can bet there could be an overloading mechanism on collisions, which is way way way cheaper to calculate and unlike traditional collision damage, it can be countered by engineers cooling down the reactor(s).

 

Also, there are two types of Core Units for constucts, Dynamic and Static. Dynamic Core Units are meant for ships and vehicles in general, but Static are meant for buildings. I'll let you figure out the insinuation between those two.

 

 

 

 

Anchoring is a thing from EVE. Essentially, you can build something in space as if you were playing a real-time strategy game. So, you can build a space-station, copy it in a blueprint or more, then go to a place in space and start building it there via factory ships feeding the construction process with materials.

 

Even further than that, the static ships you mention, are there because the Devs have not integrated the full extend of the physics grid ... as it's in pre-alpha stage after all, their main focus is getting the server-tech going smoothly, then integrating the gameplay aspects.

 

Now you know more.

 

You still seem confused.  As evidenced by the fact you are saying what I said and thinking you have to explain what I clearly already described.  You seem to think I've said something contrary when in fact we've said the same thing and are in agreement.  You're getting emotional about it to...  Starting to cast insults against someone who agrees with you.

 

Though you are entering the realm of speculation when you go into things exploding... That clearly isn't in the game yet.  In the video JC collides with the ground and just bounces off it.  He clearly states that they don't want people making kinetic kill vehicles... which means to me that collision damage either won't ever be in the game or will be very carefully implemented so no damage is done to the person on the receiving end of such a collision.  The simulation requirements don't enter into this.  It's a game design decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...