Jump to content
Eternal

An idea about construct vs construct

Recommended Posts

Shooting mechanics and time-based skill training aside, Mastering a ship and/or ship XP etc are going to be problematic in DU purely because the ships are voxel constructs and can physically change over time.

What happens if I level an atmospheric interceptor, or master it or whatever, then transform it into a huge destroyer? Does the ship keep it's XP and I effectively get a pre-levelled Capital ship? What happens if I level an interceptor and just stick an extra gun on it? Have I lost the Mastery progress? Is there going to have to be a set of rules that defines how much a ship can change and still be the same ship? Does it become impossible or impractical to modify or repair or even paint a ship once it starts levelling? What if I have two identical ships, does my mastery skill transfer?

 

Ships and Orgs are going to get a reputation, by actually getting a reputation. You know, actual people actually talking about actual events in game.


I'll take "people are genuinely terrified of the famous pirate ship The Black Pearl and it affects the opposing player's decisions in combat" over "the Black Pearl has +10 armour because it's survived ten fights", any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, gyurka66 said:

...

 

As an engineer works on the same ship for a long time they should uderstand the mechanisms more and should be able to improve them thus making the ship more effective and personal.

That doesn't need to be suggested, it's an inevitable outcome, lol

 

Each ship design in DU will have its own quirks and "personality", due to the variances in mass, distribution of that mass, the elements used, where they are placed and which scripts are used on the ship. Both pilots and crew will HAVE to "learn the ship" to get the best out of it.

 

The only time you will "know" exactly how a new ship flies and performs is when the "new" ship is an exact copy of the one you knew previously (i.e. made from the same blueprint).

 

But if you're suggesting a "learn through use" mechanic (e.g. +10 to reactor power for every 25 hours spent "operating the reactor"), then I don't think that will fit in DU. The "learn by using" mechanic always leads to grinding and encourages silly things like AFK botting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

This is a conjecture of bad understanding of what Recursion is.

Recursion appears when a specific things repeats itself. What does this topic has to do with that?

Quote

You don't need a faster projectile to hit a target, you need only tracking and leading. Leading targets is how snipers get to hit moving targets.  It's standar practise, and it is used on ship warfare IRL. You HAVE to lead a target. 

This is only true if the target has a constant velocity and zero acceleration (and therefore no change of course) or a constant acceleration.

If the target, after you fire an unguided projectile, evades in any way, a slow projectile has a much higher chance of missing the target.

Therefor: Faster projectile = better.

Quote

However, Newton's Second Law, means that if your bullet, was to hit a moving target, that is traversing a certain length of space with a certain force, and your bullet's Work is less than the target's Work, the target will displace (reduce its force of push / energy) the bullet.

 - Objects neither have force nor work. A force is applied to an object (from an object) and work is done by a force.

- Your statement definitive sounds like bullshit, so please post some actual mathematical examples or sources.

- Also, when your acceleration is zero, your entire statement stops working, because you don't have any forces if your acceleration is 0. Furthermore, because F = m * a, the resulting force will effectively be small, because heavy objects (in our case ships) won't be able to accelerate fast and light ships are, well light.

Quote

In other words, the faster your kinetic energy the more it  CAN make bullets bounce off of you if you were to move fast enough.  That contributes to a virtual density of a target. Of course, this also means that a target, if they accelerate past a point of acceleration, they can shatter (literally explode) as if they would if they were to abruptly stop (decceleration is just acceleration to the opposite vector).

1. Density is mass / volume. As long as nether of both change, the density doesn't change ether. The mass of an object will only change, except from the obvious that you add or remove parts from that object, if you move at a relativistic speed.

Furthermore combat will not take place during relativistic speed, because you won't be able to reach that speeds in planet orbits and between planets you won't find your target.

2. An object will not explode, as a direct result of acceleration, when it receives a very high acceleration. It will simply get crushed. In case of it falls into a black hole, it will get torn apart, but only because the acceleration difference between the molecules (or even atoms) is so big.

An object can explode when suddenly decelerating, but is a result of the sudden chance of their aggregate status (mass -> liquid / gas) because of heat, which can accrue when two object collide at very high velocities (e.g. railguns).

Quote

As for missiles...

no missile explodes on point blank. No person building missiles would do that, that's brain dead thing to do with missiles.

That statement is outright WRONG.

Anti-Tank missiles (HEAT) RELY on hitting the target, otherwise their penetration would drastically decrease. There are some heat missiles that detonate above the target, with a downwards facing steam, but those missiles rely on the far less armoured top of vehicles.

Anti-Ship missiles also do NOT explode before the target. They have a contact fuse with a delay and explode inside the ship.

If your missiles main damage source is its shrapnels and your target is lightly armoured, then you want to detonate bevor hitting the target (or inside it, if the target is really big (=ship)).

Please stop making this claims if you don't know what you are talking about.

Quote

Yoru signature radius means "how well can this missile see you". If the missile sees a large signature, it will far easily find the "center" to land the warhead near the object.

If the Signature is small, then the missile will try and explode where it THINKS the target is, givenm the target is so small, it can barely pinpoint it.

This makes sense, BUT it doesn't make sense, that the missiles explosion radius is here taken into account (explosion radius decided by signature radius?).

If missiles had a sensor value which represents their ability to detect small targets, then ok, but not the explosion radius.

My point here is, that it makes no sense, that small ships in EVE are basically immune to big missiles which are at least as fast as they are and furthermore the missiles stats are misleading, because a big explosion radius should be always a better thing, because its directly proportional to the amount of explosives and therefore should also work against smaller targets.

If I fire a cruise missile or torpedo at a frigate, then who much damage do I even to?

If the target is stationary, then the slow explosion speed of the torpedo (which is totally unrealistic) doesn't reduce the damage, but the huge explosion radius, compared to the frigate small signature radius will do.

Or is the damage still high enough to outright destroy the frigate?

 

My points here are:

  1. (In game) The explosion radius should not reduce the damage to a target, just because it's small. It's just the distance where the explosion can potentially damage a target. The damage done is scaled accordingly.
  2. (In game) The missiles damage value is not the total damage it does across its entire explosion sphere, but at point blank range (r = 0).
  3. How well a missile can detect targets should not be anti-proportional to its size, but rather it's sensor capabilities.
  4. Explosion velocities are really fast. And to hit a target with a missile you generally need to be, compared to the target, fast (I know you can predict the shot, but that doesn't help you in any situation, also the target may have CIWS to defend itself), which means that the missiles owns speed plus the explosion speed should always be fast enough so that a target can't "outrun" the explosion.
Quote

In EVE, the "explosion speed" and "explosion time" means how much the dmg wil lbe multiplied, depending on how fast the enemy goes.

Frigates going at 4000 m/s , hit by a 100m/s explosion, will take x% of the missiles explosion radius (meters of explosion per seconf oexplosion), mitigated even more by how much of the explosion the frigate caught on its b ody.

Which speed does the calculation takes into account here?

The "absolut" speed of the target or the relativ speed of the targets towards the missile?

Is the missiles speed added to the explosion velocity?

If the missiles explodes in front of the target, then the explosion will move towards the target at

missile speed + explosion speed + target speed (assuming non-relativistic speeds here).

Quote

I don't know if you played EVE a lot, but these things are kinda not known by newbros - or some veterans I've seen =shudders=. 

I haven't played Eve for a long time now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Takao

 

1) I stopped paying attention the moment you failed to understand where the recursion is on F=m*a. You apply force, object geins mass, you need more force to get more acceleration. It's why an object with mass can only achieve 99% of the speed of light, but don't let science stop you. I really had to work hard to get back into reading what you wrote after that. 

More on this later.

2) Clap-Clap. You figured out that if you stand still or have no angular velocity, bullets can hit you even when slow easily as you can be tracked easily and you can't apply your own momentum to push away the bullets and mitigate the damage. God dayum. I hope your next discovery is that water can get you wet and that getting hit by a lightning won't make you The Flash - don't try it, I seen people getting hit by lightning, it only makes you a devout Christian afterwards. 

3)  Failing at middle school level physics is one thing, failing at common sense is a whole new level of bleach-drinking reasons to end my existence. You never heard of inertial mass... or know what force is... you always have force and work, you confuse it with EXTRA force and work. Literally, you are held together by forces. If you had no forces, you would be torn apart by the wind, if a ship had no force at all, it would be flipped by a single wave. Holy crap man, you don't even know that momentum is FORCE, nor than inertia and momentum are two faces of the same coin.

4) F = m*a. Here is some middle school math, the previous equation can be also written as m = F/a. I know, you don't know entry level math. SHOCKER. You may say "but what about me, I am idle at this moment ahave have mass". Guess what, yo uare not idle. You have been hurling through space at 22000 km/s on a spit of rock called Earth. It's relative what yo ucall "idle".

m = F/a
a = F/m.

put this sucker in a function now.

a = F/(F/a)

Woooooo, math is crazeh. We just figured out that the more the force, the less he effect eccelration has. You know, it's called a Diminishing Return. It's how Recursion works best. But what do I know. 

I can write you a Sigma-notation for it, but I don't really care for your personal enlightenment enough to bother. 

This is why "density" is a dynamic value. Also, here is a shocker for you, Law of Entropy. Hot goes to cold. An object that's charged with energy, gets hot. If a ship goes past its acceleration tolerance and its materials faulter (not only humans have a G toelrance), it WILL explode due to difference in internal pressure and the vacuum of space. It's why if a human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop.

I know, I will be expecting your take on "Fake science" and how in space you can actually breathe and the sun is not powered by CNO cycles of fusion but by magic. At this point man, I expect this from you.

5) Are you shitting me? HEAT are shells. Shells are big big bullets. You confused a TANK SHELL, with a MISSILE. 

I so do hope you mean shells, cause otherwise, you confused a ROCKET, with a MISSILE. Holy crap man, you are heavily misinformed. A Rocket and a missile are not the same thing. Missiles are guided, Rockets are propelled Grenades.

Bonus , you now understand why the RPG launcher is called Rocket Propelled Grenade.  Guess what, Missiles don't have shrapnels, grenades have them. You confused ROCKETS, with MISSILES. Or TANK SHELLS with MISSILES.


Next step, Bicycles have Wheels. Monster Trucks have Wheels. Bicycles are Monster Trucks. GG.

6) Lesson of making sense of life.

 

"Mathematics is the science of quantifying abstracts, Arithmetics is the science for accounting for objects".

The system used for missile damage, has to quantify things in a concise way. This is why "leading" the target, is represneted with an above 50% hit chance status and why 50% in EVE is "xweapon hits Y for z damage" and 100% tracking is "xweapon smashes y for z damage"

Missiles use the same level of quantifying abstracts, cause that's how programming works. You can't set a dataset to every single value on the book, cause math has some rules and sets needs to be able to even out when summed. So, the missiles, have merged some of the aspect of mssiles, like fuse timers and / or ballistic technology into RELATIONS to other abstracts, like EXPLOSION RADIUS.

This clears things up? No? I don't care enough to explain things more, not to be mean, but if you don't know you can move variables around an equation, it means you may not be able to understand the above example as well.


Also, In EVE, smaller targets, if hit by a missile from a larger ship, usualy means the pilot flying is a moron - no sugar coating, I was a moron such as those guys once, but I learned how to fly, I just learned to gt more angular - on my Kestrel I can outrun missiles all day long, since missiles have a lifespan which is equal to their flight time multiplied by their speed If a missile moves at 100 meters per second, and its flight time is 10 seconjds, it has a 1000 m range of operations, it will run out of fuel at 10 seconds, thus making it inert, despawining the missile in the process. I know, shocker, you can avoid missiels altogether. Now you know why SMART PEOPLE use rocekts for PvP, not Missiles. Missiles can be fended off with smartbombs as well.

If your transversal is kept above 1km for ten seconds, the missile cannot connect. 

This also applies when the missile explodes, this is how the missile takes int oaccount "missile speed" on the explosion.

Also, NO MISSILE CAN LEAD A TARGET. That's not what predictive analytics can do. IT's math, not the Occult, a missile can't tell where target WILL BE, only to HOME-IN.

7)

I haven't played EVE in a long time either. Beam Sniper ships made me hate myself for cheating the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of, thank you for publicly showing that you are

  1. arrogant
  2. overly self convinced
  3. incompetent in many areas

Which leeds me to the conclusion that you suffering from Dunning Krueger Effect so I can safely ignore your physic and math crap show and don't even have to bother disproving you in that points.

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:


m = F/a
a = F/m.

put this sucker in a function now.

a = F/(F/a)


Woooooo, math is crazeh. We just figured out that the more the force, the less he effect eccelration has. You know, it's called a Diminishing Return. It's how Recursion works best. But what do I know.

Ok, this proves on of two things:

1) You really think, that a = F/(F/a) is a relevant thing. That means that you are just incompetent in basic math equations.

2) You know that a = F/(F/a) <=> a = a <=> 1 = 1 and therefore means absolut nothing because

every formular put inside itself will result in 1 = 1

which means you trying to just fool other people with that "pseudo science math" and therefor you are just pathetic.

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

I can write you a Sigma-notation for it, but I don't really care for your personal enlightenment enough to bother.

Please, go ahead and do that.

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

It's why if a human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop.

In vacuum there is 0 presure.

In earth atmosphere, at ground level there is 1 bar pressure.

That means the difference is 1 bar.

If humans would expand in the vacuum like a baloon, they would be crushed when they are in a 2 bar enviroment, like for example after diving 10 meter in water, because there the pressure difference is also 1 bar.

Do they?

No they don't.

What will happen in the vacuum however, is that your body liquids begin to boil, because of the their lowered boiling point.

This will not couse the human to expand like a ballon.

It will just kill you.

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

5) Are you shitting me? HEAT are shells. Shells are big big bullets. You confused a TANK SHELL, with a MISSILE. 

I so do hope you mean shells, cause otherwise, you confused a ROCKET, with a MISSILE. Holy crap man, you are heavily misinformed. A Rocket and a missile are not the same thing. Missiles are guided, Rockets are propelled Grenades.

Bonus , you now understand why the RPG launcher is called Rocket Propelled Grenade.  Guess what, Missiles don't have shrapnels, grenades have them. You confused ROCKETS, with MISSILES. Or TANK SHELLS with MISSILES.

1. It's interesting, that you have completly ignored the anti-ship missiles here. Because if you make absolute statements, then one counterexample disproves your statement.

2. So you are saying, that the Saturn V (and any other space craft) are missiles and not rockets? Or are you telling me that they are all unguided?

3. "Missile" is a guided projectiles mostly with rocket boosters or jet engines (cruise missiles) as propulsion.

4. A rocket is a missile.

5. There are unguided and guided anti-tank rockets.

6. EVERYTHING with explosives and a casing (out of a material that doesn't instantly vaporise because of the explosion) around that explosive has shrapnells. Infantry held anti-tank missiles usually are build to create extra shrapnells, so that you can use those rockets against infantry, too (or better).

 

So thank you again for proving your arrogance and incompetence to the public.

If you any actually sources that disproves my statment above (your opinion is still not a proof) AND prove your statements from before, post them or stop talking about this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Takao said:

First of, thank you for publicly showing that you are

  1. arrogant
  2. overly self convinced
  3. incompetent in many areas

Which leeds me to the conclusion that you suffering from Dunning Krueger Effect so I can safely ignore your physic and math crap show and don't even have to bother disproving you in that points.

Ok, this proves on of two things:

1) You really think, that a = F/(F/a) is a relevant thing. That means that you are just incompetent in basic math equations.

2) You know that a = F/(F/a) <=> a = a <=> 1 = 1 and therefore means absolut nothing because

every formular put inside itself will result in 1 = 1

which means you trying to just fool other people with that "pseudo science math" and therefor you are just pathetic.

 

Please, go ahead and do that.

In vacuum there is 0 presure.

In earth atmosphere, at ground level there is 1 bar pressure.

That means the difference is 1 bar.

If humans would expand in the vacuum like a baloon, they would be crushed when they are in a 2 bar enviroment, like for example after diving 10 meter in water, because there the pressure difference is also 1 bar.

Do they?

No they don't.

What will happen in the vacuum however, is that your body liquids begin to boil, because of the their lowered boiling point.

This will not couse the human to expand like a ballon.

It will just kill you.

 

1. It's interesting, that you have completly ignored the anti-ship missiles here. Because if you make absolute statements, then one counterexample disproves your statement.

2. So you are saying, that the Saturn V (and any other space craft) are missiles and not rockets? Or are you telling me that they are all unguided?

3. "Missile" is a guided projectiles mostly with rocket boosters or jet engines (cruise missiles) as propulsion.

4. A rocket is a missile.

5. There are unguided and guided anti-tank rockets.

6. EVERYTHING with explosives and a casing (out of a material that doesn't instantly vaporise because of the explosion) around that explosive has shrapnells. Infantry held anti-tank missiles usually are build to create extra shrapnells, so that you can use those rockets against infantry, too (or better).

 

So thank you again for proving your arrogance and incompetence to the public.

If you any actually sources that disproves my statment above (your opinion is still not a proof) AND prove your statements from before, post them or stop talking about this topic.

Do you understand what recursive functions are or how they behave? You are just a cluster-F of misconceptions. 

Like in the ship naming thread, you attacked me, who was right on his knowledge of what a battleship is, you said "the people on the HMS Dreadnaguht were stipid if they confsued a battleship equiped ship for a cruiser even if its size was so", without actually knowing that back then they used only binoculars to detect visually ships and they could not have told the Bismarck was a battleship from the looks of it.  

 

Funny you brought up the Dunning-Krueger thing, had to look it up. is that what they diagnosed you with? It was VERY specific to be on the top of your head, like you intimately know this condition. I don't know much on psychology, but I am getting the vibe you are indeed suffering from some inferiority complex.

You did the exact same faulty arguement on the ship class thread. All of the same faulty logic. You had to be told the facts, and then yo uhad to be told to not claim you speak german, which you don't, that's a fact, but you kept claiming the Bismarck, was a "He" not a "She" despite how it's called in the german language or how ship tradiition goes - on top of your claims that "Dreadnaught" is a sci-fi ship class, when the HMS Dreadnaught is the source of the whole idea, or how ships are classified as battleship or cruiser. 

Calling CCP as a game developer and people who have been awarded for their incredible knack on detail and realism, stupid, is just bold on your end. I guess that's why you quit EVE???? Too many people reminding you you're not that good when it comes to figuring math on the fly or figuring how to make money with proper market research?


And like the ship naming thread, you being told you are wrong, makes you turtle up and double-down even more.

I don't care what your issues are man, you clearly do not understand F=m*a as a recursion won't return 1. It will return some diminished result, a diminishing return, which is how E=m*c2 works as well . Yeah, you called Einstein wrong. Congratulations, you hit new levels.

Oh, wait, I can hear it. Yeah, "F=m*a is not E=m*c2! Newtons are not Energy!!".

Yeah, cause Kinetic Energy is not Energy, right??? You claimed objects have NO Energy - none -  you claimed Einstein's equation is not working. Next step, "Climate Change is not real, it's all a hoax, I talk to a shaman and he told me the Sky Spirits keep the rain from dropping!".

 You clearly don't know what Sigma notations are, or how they work, or how nesting functions works, or what relations are in math. You clearly don't know mathematical analysis, or have any idea on how it operates. You think of classical arithmetics and static models, not dynamic ones.

The reason a human will boil - and inflate - in vacuum, is due to the Law of Entropy, hot goes to cold. The skin gets colder, then the core heat of the body tries to migrate to it, thus causing an expansion, as the cycle repeats until the water on the body , fro mthe rapid migration, starts boiliong, releasing oxygen, and inflating the body in the process. You don't even know what happens when water boils or what HEAT is. I bet you confuse Heat and Temperature as well. Your kind of people do that.

That's the same reason people who do deep diving, ascend gradually and descend gradually to the surface and the deep respectively, so their body can acclamate. Otherwise their muscles will spasm - or worse their heart may go to arythmia which can lead to cardiac arrest- as the body tries to adjust pressure from the depth of the sea, to the atmospheric pressure of water surface. It's also why ASTRONAUTS, depressurise before getting into a space suit ,cause the suits are not capable to contain the astronaut i nthe cvvacuum if they are not acclamted for the vacuum of space, cause the suit will expand fro mthe heat the astronaut's body emits. 

In fact, it's the same reason people faint when going from freezing cold to warm enviroments. Change in internal pressure.

 

Missiles are any object carrying a warhead, a warhead can the tip of an arrow, to the hollow round of a bullet. Yeah, round and bullet are not the same thing on the projectile, I'll be expecting you telling me how I am wrong on that part and how NATO's classifications are invalid. Rockets, are anything carrying a heavy payload with a certain fuel behind it.

 

Likewise, Rockets, are anything DUMP-FIRED. That is why Stingers are Missiles and RPGs are Rockets. Stigners LOCK-ON to a target, RPGs just fire a propelled granade.

And no, I didn't ignore the anti-ship "missile", Torpedos are mines attached to a propulsion, they are water-operating rockets for all intents and purposes They work with the same priming technology and need to be aimed. Submarines armed with nukes, carry them as ballistic missiles.

Yes, you failed at even knowing it's not "missile" it's "Ballistic Missile" when you talk of the weapon, not the category.  I didn't knew you lacked that much on encyclopedic knowledge, but hey, don't sweat it. You didn't even know that ship sizes are sorted by displacement, not size alone, or that any ship is a "she", in any language, in any navy. Germans and Austrians on this very community had to tell you to stop claiming nonsense on their language on how the Bismarck is referred to as a ship, which is a "She".

And space missions, use missiles. The media called them "Rockets" so the uneducated masses could relay to 1960s science fiction, that called all spaceships rocketships. They dump said missiles when they reach certain altitudes. They don't ride on a "rocketship", they ride on missiles, ballistic missiles, they boost with them, the CRAFT is the shuttle (or w/e the russians fly these days). The shuttle is not a missile, it's its "warhead" or arrowhead if you preferr.

Now, guess why the space shuttle is called like that. So the uneducated masses could relate the vehicle to Star Trek's shuttle. Yeah, I know, stupid.

Don't let facts cloud your judgement though. I bet there are things you know, I don't know. I bet everyone has something to teach someone.

Yours is not this field.

I may be arrogant, but it's onyl cause i know what I am talking about.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i can safely assume you neither know what you are talking about because you should be talking about the mechanic that has been suggested in this topic. You know you could easily send essays about how retarded is the other person in email. That would be great for everybody.

 

it's perfectly useless to dicuss highschool physics in a video game forum because it's a video game forum. And to video games physics don't apply.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, gyurka66 said:

I think i can safely assume you neither know what you are talking about because you should be talking about the mechanic that has been suggested in this topic. You know you could easily send essays about how retarded is the other person in email. That would be great for everybody.

 

it's perfectly useless to dicuss highschool physics in a video game forum because it's a video game forum. And to video games physics don't apply.

 

That's not the arguementation.

His arguement is "this is not realistic", without him understanding jcrap on how actual quantification happens when you design a predictive analytics index.

The system EVE has works like a charm and NovaQuark has some real talent in it to amek the system work even better than it does in EVE. It's jsut that people want "WW2 in space" with missiles meaning 1 hit kill and possibly sounds when lsers are fired or bulelts are fired.

That's the arguement here for, if the EVE system has merit - which it does, anyone with knowledge of what Discrete Mathematic is can just look at the forumla and realise what it means.

It's just a clever way of expressing shooting mechanics via algorithms.

Plus, Takao tries to tell me things like Einstein's equations don't even work. Which is funny. Clearly, he's some Hawkin's level of genious, he he figured out on his own the equation EVE uses means if you stand still, yo ucan be hit far easier by your enemies. I mean, it tkaes at least 3 PhDs to unlock such an insight into how reality works. According to him, standing still and being hit fro mrange, is "the code working wrong".

NQ has made their statement in the past, there will be this system in-game and missiles will be as good a weapon as you can make them to be, not a "cheese" weapon like in bad games who think dogfights in space will happen at ranges dogfights don't even happen in atmoshpere, TODAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

momentum is FORCE

nope, force is needed to change momentum.
in your example you are wildly mixing newtonian force and stuff like the weak force. 

3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

a = F/(F/a)

=> a = F * (a/F)

=> a = a 

=> shocking! 

3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

HEAT are shells

nope, HEAT is a type of warhead. Can be used as shell (fired by a tank (russian BK14 shell) for example) or a missile (TOW missile for example)

 

3 hours ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

human is found exposed to the vacuum of space it's a gambit of dying from flash freezing or EXPANDING LIKE A BALOOON until you pop.

 nope, not going to happen.

In space heat radiation is very limited, so you will not freeze. you will also not explode. 

Death in space will occur by suffocation. 

 

=> just in the other thread in which you claimed a modern carrier does fire cruise missiles you mostly have no idea what you are talking about but like to hear yourself talk
=> consider yourself ignored. 

Edit: I will also start to report your posts since you continue to derail almost every discussion with your ramblings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Forodrim said:

nope, force is needed to change momentum.
in your example you are wildly mixing newtonian force and stuff like the weak force. 

=> a = F * (a/F)

=> a = a 

=> shocking! 

nope, HEAT is a type of warhead. Can be used as shell (fired by a tank (russian BK14 shell) for example) or a missile (TOW missile for example)

 

 nope, not going to happen.

In space heat radiation is very limited, so you will not freeze. you will also not explode. 

Death in space will occur by suffocation. 

 

=> just in the other thread in which you claimed a modern carrier does fire cruise missiles you mostly have no idea what you are talking about but like to hear yourself talk
=> consider yourself ignored. 

Edit: I will also start to report your posts since you continue to derail almost every discussion with your ramblings. 

Problem with the Cruise missiles is I do accept corrections when I am wrong - as I did in that thread.

The nested m = F/a in an  a = F/m is the product of the the first alteration on the whole model, applied again into the same equation.

You people do STATIC math. In static math, yes, that would be a = a, cause it's the same value a=a. But it's recursive. It's a(2) = F(1)/m(2) and it's m(2) = F(1)/a(1).

Then it's m(3) = F(1)/a(3) if you keep the same PUSH on your ship, you will end up getting less and less acceleration. This is called a recursion.
 
IIf you think a(2) == a(1), you need help.

But you don't get what Recursion is, do you? NO, you don't.

Acceleration goes down, the more mass an object accumulates due to the push applied and to keep up the G forces of the acceleration ,means the ratio of Newtons to Kg must remain constant, which means more Newtons, which means more % on the Engine's output, which means more fuel burned, which means more mass accumulated, with the Newtons applying momentum, whih can push and mitigate bulelts hitting you.

You people can't even understand examples, let alone recursions in functions.

 

Weaker people like you talk tough, but in reality, you are just that, weak. "Consider yourself ignored" means only "I want my wrong ideas not corrected". Go watch some Infowars now, you do seem to be hostile against education already.

Unlilke you, I admitted my indeed wrong assumption that a Carrier could fire cruise missiles. YOu are incapable of admitting mistakes, that's why you are weak.

You people reinforce Tesla's view on humanity and evolution.

A lot.

Also, you got reported for faulty accusing me of derailing.

I didn't derail, Takao did, as he did in the ship naming thread to "take on the big boys".

He failed. Again. As you did champ.

Enjoy your report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 0something0 said:

Math?

 

t=number of words Capt.TwerkMotor has posted on a thread

 

s=Volume of salt in kg produced by the servers

 

3t^2 = s

 

 

Request to lock thread. You don't educate people by salt. Give some actual salt-free websites.

if not_agree_with_viewpoints==true and opportunity==1 then
local.joinTheHateBandwagon()
end


You guys are excellent fascists. Too bad your war is on education, calling "correcting people who are wrong" as "salt".

I said time and time again, "it's a Recursive Function". It's not my fault these people have 1st grade knoweldge of math and don't know Recursions work only on iterations of a function (Sigma notation). That should have been the tell-tale sign I was wasting my time with people Is should be explaining things one by one, starting from what words mean.

Peace, I'm out, this only reinforces my idea of this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize if i'm interrupting.  But i'm going to talk about the game for just a minute if that's ok.

 

I think the OPs original suggestion had to do with constructs becoming more powerful the longer they are around.

 

That seems like a cool idea to me.  And i don't see any reason why it couldn't fit into the way NQ plans to do "progression" currently.

 

What if the construct or even maybe individual elements progressed in the exact same way that players will?  Would that be an acceptable topic of discussion to our supreme forum gatekeeper captaintwerkmotor?

 

Could we have your permission to talk about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

You people do STATIC math. In static math, yes, that would be a = a, cause it's the same value a=a. But it's recursive. It's a(2) = F(1)/m(2) and it's m(2) = F(1)/a(1).
Then it's m(3) = F(1)/a(3) if you keep the same PUSH on your ship, you will end up getting less and less acceleration. This is called a recursion.

No, just no. it is called relativistic acceleration and it is a bit more complicated than that (for starters -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) and how about you show some of your sources about your stuff here ). 

Also, as others have pointed out already, it only really matters if your velocity gets close to c

 

1 hour ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Problem with the Cruise missiles is I do accept corrections when I am wrong - as I did in that thread.

So where are you admitting you were wrong about HEAT warheads, momentum as force and humans flash freezing/exploding in vacuum? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I apologize if i'm interrupting.  But i'm going to talk about the game for just a minute if that's ok.

 

I think the OPs original suggestion had to do with constructs becoming more powerful the longer they are around.

 

That seems like a cool idea to me.  And i don't see any reason why it couldn't fit into the way NQ plans to do "progression" currently.

 

What if the construct or even maybe individual elements progressed in the exact same way that players will?  Would that be an acceptable topic of discussion to our supreme forum gatekeeper captaintwerkmotor?

 

Could we have your permission to talk about that?

Easily exploitable, just kill cheap ships of org mates or (If that's not possible because you don't get XP for it) kill cheap ships of alts to get that bonus. 

 

As there is already a progression system planned for players, I don't see any benefit for turrets....or engines to gain xp (wouldn't make much sense either). Players make a difference on a multicrew ship. Their ingame skills aswell as their expertise as a pilot or creative engineer, not some easily farmed and exploited numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lethys said:

Easily exploitable, just kill cheap ships of org mates or (If that's not possible because you don't get XP for it) kill cheap ships of alts to get that bonus. 

 

As there is already a progression system planned for players, I don't see any benefit for turrets....or engines to gain xp (wouldn't make much sense either). Players make a difference on a multicrew ship. Their ingame skills aswell as their expertise as a pilot or creative engineer, not some easily farmed and exploited numbers

This is assuming a Kill = xp model of leveling the ship.  If the ship were to level based on time of ownership/usage or something similar you could mitigate this type of play if you are against that type of grind.  In my opinion all games have grind of some sort.  It's just s question of whether it is the type of grind you like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I apologize if i'm interrupting.  But i'm going to talk about the game for just a minute if that's ok.

 

I think the OPs original suggestion had to do with constructs becoming more powerful the longer they are around.

 

That seems like a cool idea to me.  And i don't see any reason why it couldn't fit into the way NQ plans to do "progression" currently.

 

What if the construct or even maybe individual elements progressed in the exact same way that players will?  Would that be an acceptable topic of discussion to our supreme forum gatekeeper captaintwerkmotor?

 

Could we have your permission to talk about that?

thanks for trying to get back on track. 
 

I don't think objects should become better as time progresses. I'd rather put all improvement in the hand of players characters. 

Be it by skill increase or using better Tech in your ship etc.

 

Also just ignore Twerk, the forum will benefit from that (I know, I need to do that too.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Felonu said:

This is assuming a Kill = xp model of leveling the ship.  If the ship were to level based on time of ownership/usage or something similar you could mitigate this type of play if you are against that type of grind.  In my opinion all games have grind of some sort.  It's just s question of whether it is the type of grind you like. 

See second part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Forodrim said:

No, just no. it is called relativistic acceleration and it is a bit more complicated than that (for starters -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration_(special_relativity) and how about you show some of your sources about your stuff here ). 

Also, as others have pointed out already, it only really matters if your velocity gets close to c

 

So were are you admitting you were wrong about HEAT warheads, momentum as force and humans flash freezing/exploding in vacuum? 

:facepalm:

So, what you are saying is, tat if you yo uwere to drive your car, at 100 km/h and tin can hits you at 10 m/s, yoyu mean to tell me that the tin-can won't be bounced off?

Cause that's what Takao insists. Cause that's what a bullet hitting your ship in space , with the masses of the ships involved would end up happening. Yeah, you need speeds close to c to get common sense working.

The missiles are not even relevant to the original arguement by now (which was also Takao derailing the arguemetn even more, you know), that's the actual arguement all this time. The hit formula EVE has (which is an emulation of the aforementioned things poitned out an d if it's bearing merit since DU follows the same mentality of hit-chance. Also, in SPACE, a missile exploding would vaporise anything or at least, turn to shrapnels that mean nothing. Tanks are mostly, immobile and / or move relatively slowlly - spaceshups are not bound bty the same geometry.

And yes,  moving fast is actually adding to you shrugging off ballistics - and reducing the time a laser can "focus" on one spot, thus also aplying for laser turrets in such a context. Like it orn ot, that's reality. It's why if a ball comes at you you can raise your hand to preotct yourself from it. It's like saying a footballer needs to go at near c speeds to be ble to catch a ball or shoot it away from their side of the playing field while the ball is landing. Yes, we know Messi can hit a ball really hard, but I don't think he can clock near c sppeds mate.

Exposure in vacuum causing your body to inflate - or flash freeze, if you curl up -is the main lead for possible death in vacuum, if you find youself exposed to it, without an EVA suit. Suffocation is one of those things that an kill you, not the leading cause.

Also, me being once wrong, and you being stuck up your rear (you got reported for falsely accusing me of derailing FYI) only shows yo uare just another forum warrior, ready to "fight the evil".

You are just a hater at this point. Seethe some more. Unless you can prove that Messi has to go at near c speeds with a kick of his to send a ball flying as it lands on the field, your arguement is full of holes and just miscreant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lethys said:

See second part

If you mean that you just don't see the point, then I can agree that is one viewport.  For others maybe they want the feeling of getting better with a specific construct vs getting better equipment.  Some people not seeing a reason for a thing isn't a reason not to include it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I apologize if i'm interrupting.  But i'm going to talk about the game for just a minute if that's ok.

 

I think the OPs original suggestion had to do with constructs becoming more powerful the longer they are around.

 

That seems like a cool idea to me.  And i don't see any reason why it couldn't fit into the way NQ plans to do "progression" currently.

 

What if the construct or even maybe individual elements progressed in the exact same way that players will?  Would that be an acceptable topic of discussion to our supreme forum gatekeeper captaintwerkmotor?

 

Could we have your permission to talk about that?

NQ : " We remove grind with EVE's skill training system"

Random Grizzly Carebear : "But I like grinding, I have been grinding for 1000 days traight in Korean F2P Adventures the MMO to get my +111 MAgical Nipple Armor for my Waifu Ultra Super Warrior. I need that in DU. I can't live my life wthout being a gullag prisoner breaking stones, day in, day out".

NQ went with EVE's system, cause it's fair, you grinding won't gain you an advantage. Also, this whole "elvel;ing" pisses inb the face of :

a ) industry
b ) market
c ) balance
d ) clever ship design

It's very exploitable, just make a second account and farm core units with some voxels on it - every algorithm for "fair fight" is explotaible, they always have been).

So, you take :

1) killing other players for XP
2) exploitable imbalance

Add in RMT for buying "level 10 ships" and you got F2P MMO Trifecta on terrible game loops.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Felonu said:

If you mean that you just don't see the point, then I can agree that is one viewport.  For others maybe they want the feeling of getting better with a specific construct vs getting better equipment.  Some people not seeing a reason for a thing isn't a reason not to include it.

As i said, a mechanic for "I'm getting better at this, Wooooooo!" Is already planned so yeah, No need to develop ANOTHER mechanic for constructs/elements which works the exact same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

So, what you are saying is, tat if you yo uwere to drive your car, at 100 km/h and tin can hits you at 10 m/s, yoyu mean to tell me that the tin-can won't be bounced off?

no, show me where I said that. You seem to have serious problems to understand what I said. 

 

4 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Exposure in vacuum causing your body to inflate - or flash freeze, if you curl up -is the main lead for possible death in vacuum

nope

source:
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/

 

Where are your sources? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two problem with the "constructs levelling up" mechanic:

  1. It make no sense at all. Even if each construct would have an AI, then the AI itself would "level up", not the construct. You could then copy the AI to other constructs and they would be as equally good (when those constructs are equal).
  2. It's an additional "My character's stats / values are better than your's so I win" mechanic. What matters should be the skill of the individual player, not his characters stats.

The second one here is my main concern.

And I really hope that the levelling mechanic for the character, they are planning won't do exactly that...

 

 

Oh boy, I think Twerky interpreted the energy preservation law slightly wrong -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forget about how the progression is going to work.  I didn't say anything about ships gaining "exp" through kills or any other activity.

 

We don't need to argue about that. It is already decided.  It's just derailing the discussion.

 

Elements are going to vary in power already right?  Different sized thrusters, fuel tanks ect.

 

All i'm saying is that once they are created.  The individual elements or even the entire construct could have a progression path.  So there is an incentive to keep it in one piece.

 

That progression could be based completely on upgrades that are tied to character progression.  I'm assuming that a more skilled player will be able to create better or more powerful elements already in some way.

 

I just like the idea of incentivising keeping your ship in one piece.  It seems fun.

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...