Jump to content

Changes to max speed/accel


Penwith

Recommended Posts

As I've posted bits of this elsewhere, I thought I should provide an explication of my idea here.

 

 

Currently, max speed is too quickly and easily achieved, as well is too easily assumed by a potential pvp opponent. Rationally, there's no reason for the speed to be at the relatively low velocity, beyond that it is such because the devs deemed it to be so.

 

In space, you can keep accelerating to the cosmic speed limit of 300,000kps (yes, kilometers per second), which is the speed light, as per Einstein's theory and argument. So, let us, for the sake of ease, assume this to be the absolute speed at which a  non-light particle can travel. For game purposes, we can certainly fudge the numbers, especially when one considers the damage that running into a 1mm diameter rock would cause when struck by a ship at the speed of light (c). Think big flash of light and little bitty pieces, and you'd not be too far off the mark.

 

So, my suggestion is bumping up that speed limit to at least .3c, if not .5c, but limiting acceleration (in g) and linking that to core size. While the thrust to mass ration would REALLY be the limiting factor in this case, it would be far easier to just place that limitation to core size, where everyone can still build their ship in any way they wish, but also understand the maximum rate of acceleration, regardless of at what mass their ship ultimately arrives.

 

Real world acceleration would be right around 9g, although very brief exposure to much higher g-forces can be survived. Therefore an example might be something like this:

 

XS: 10g

S: 6g

M: 3g

L (when it happens): 1g

 

As one can guess, a XS ship will achieve a given speed at a much faster rate than any of the other sized core ships, an advantage to be sure.  However, this is offset but a number of factors, not the least being volume and mass differentials.

 

Since NQ has repeatedly said something along the lines of wanting players to be awed by the size and scope of the game (and space), a much higher maximum speed, achieved over a varying length of time, allows the solar system(s) to be much larger in size, opening up that space to something less crowded (looking at those players who like to park in the middle of a travel lane).

 

This, in turn, opens up warp travel to have greater meaning and cost, by virtue of allowing for it to be limited to only travel between solar systems or to maybe just  changed it to be used further outside a stellar body's gravity well. So, the larger the planet and its gravity, the further out one must be to enter or leave warp (giving pirates some opportunities they currently lack), with larger planets needing a much greater distance than the smaller moons, as this activation range should be outside a planet's safe zone.

 

This would also open up opportunities for ship weaponry, such as long and even longer ranged missiles, fed from dedicated (and linked) missile magazines, point-defense systems (lasers or kinetic), meaningful radar improvements such as range and detection abilities. It would also add utility to player-created space stations as destinations for more than this friends and org-mates, but real market hubs and places to dock and log out.

 

Sure, one can say, and some already have, that NQ has bigger fish to fry, which is true. However, any change of this nature would be better sooner, rather than later and, in my view, make for a much better game in terms of player options with regard to ship design, base location, and expansion into new solar systems.

 

Yes, there would certainly be changes to how players approach pvp, but that is already in the cards.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all because you mentioned real world physics. Do some research first. No object with mass can reach the speed of light according to Einstein's law. Only the light can reach the speed of light because light has no mass. Reason being that beyond a speed number the mass of an object starts increasing along with speed and thus more thrust is needed to maintain acceleration. To reach the speed of light it would require infinite thrust which is impossible. And so the gs acceleration cannot be stable and max speed is limited according to thrust and mass.

 

The acceleration g force cannot be limited since adding more thrust obviously increases it. Capping it would make no sense whatsoever in terms of physics or logic.

 

About g forces. 9gs for an extended period of time is not survivable. Any greater g force than that even for a brief amount of time may cause permanent damage. The only way humans could survive such g forces is if a technology that negated the force inside a ship was invented. Which according to our current knowledge is also impossible. 

 

The current world is large as it is for the current playerbase. If it became large enough to accomodate such extreme speeds the game would need a playerbase of millions in order for anyone to have a chance of finding someone in space. Traveling at such speeds would mean that accel rates need to be thousands of times faster along with radar ranges for a stationary ship to have a chance to catch up to an accelerated one. So it would be exactly the same with the only difference being different numbers. 

 

Missiles are the weapons with the shortest range. Just saying. 

 

If the warp distance from a planet was greater than the safe zone everyone trying to leave the planet would be doomed. Every organization would deploy loads of ships and camp in a net around all planets. The planets would be essentially controlled by organizations making it almost impossible for anyone else to leave the planet alive. I cant really find anything to agree with in your whole post. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.

 

Did I say that ships should reach light speed? No. I mentioned the cosmic speed limit, that being light speed, given that it is the accepted speed which scientists theorize nothing can exceed.

 

Thus, I argued that .3c or perhaps .5c would be reasonable limits for ships in this game. One can conceive that in another 1000 years or so, that science might allow for ships to survive impacts with space debris at such speeds, something I mentioned in my post.

 

Also, given that this is a sci-fi game, where interstellar travel is expected to be included, one can and SHOULD consider that science can, in the span of technological development between 2020 anno domini and 3000 or 3900 anno domini, that mechanisms or devices would be developed to allow humans to survive a bit longer under high-g circumstances.  Notice I did not suggest 100g or 400g, but a rather a much more reasonable number, at 10g. Although, I would not be against 20g or perhaps a little more, for the sake of game vs reality.

 

If radar ranges were extended, the acceleration rates could remain as they are, given that groups of pirates operating together would be far more efficient and could already have members flying high velocity orbits around a roughly central point of a travel route, your objection in the fourth paragraph of your response is negated.

 

Yes, missiles are currently the shortest range weapons, which is beyond dumb for a variety of reasons, and which is why longer-ranged missiles really would not be out of place in this game.

 

The planets are large enough that camping the entire sphere of it at the limit of the safe zone would require up to several hundred players to be in intercept position at all times. If an ORG has that many active members on at once, then they deserve to own the planet. Good on them for being so well organized and possessing such numbers of dedicated members.

 

There are other planets, btw. And as this game expands, there are supposed to be a greater number of solar systems than simply one or two.  Exploration has been mentioned more than once and there's no room for such activities if the number of solar systems available to players is less than a handful.

 

So, while your knee-jerk reaction prevents you from agreeing with my suggestion, perhaps giving it a bit more thought would be in order?  Consider that if an org were as well off as you suggest as to be able to camp the outer limits of its safe zone, do you not think other players would come up with a solution?

 

Space is vast. It should be difficult to pick up a ship that is flying outside a well-used travel lane.

 

But, really, your argument should be that you like the current speed limit of 29,999kph, as artificial a limitation as it is. So, why are you happy to keep the status quo?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

14 minutes ago, Penwith said:

Did I say that ships should reach light speed? No. I mentioned the cosmic speed limit, that being light speed

Makes no sense. Name it banana speed if you want it is still the same.

15 hours ago, Penwith said:

In space, you can keep accelerating to the cosmic speed limit of 300,000kps (yes, kilometers per second), which is the speed light,

No you can't. Already explained why. 

 

You really have no idea of what you are talking about. It is as apparent as your lack of scientific knowledge. There is no point discussing with you if you feel offended when someone disagrees with you. Play the game some more and then come back here to post that is my advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I replied to you in the same tone with which you responded to me. I am not offended, merely giving like for like.

 

As I never argued that ships should or would reach the speed of light, you stating that I need to do more research because Einstein theorized they cannot do so is a strawman. I didn't make that argument, but here you go countering it as though I did. That is not an honest objection.

 

You can keep accelerating TO that point, but I did not say you would reach it. Theoretically, you could reach a speed of .99c, but never hit light speed, but that would take technological leaps that we currently cannot match, given the need for a propulsion system that would give far greater thrust to mass than we have.

 

I use language more precisely than you do, I suppose. That is not a dig, it is merely a difference of how we express ourselves.

 

And, we are discussing Einstein's view of cosmic travel, that is not to say he is 100% correct, for there is far more out there in the cosmos than we currently comprehend or can even hope to understand within numberless lifetimes. I would not declare anything to be impossible forever, only for the now. This is one reason why people theorize that warp travel or hyperspace travel may be a thing in the far future, although currently impossible.

 

Your disparagement of my scientific knowledge is solely based on your misapprehension of my post, not based on any factual representation made by myself. It does constitute a personal attack, but again I am not offended as I choose to not give that power over myself to anyone.

 

Beyond that, you continue to beat at the strawman you created in order to counter my suggestion, that of increasing the current maximum speed limit for space travel to something much higher. 

 

Instead of disparaging my knowledge or as you contend, my lack of it, perhaps explain why you think the current speed limit is best for the game? Do you believe that as solar systems are added, the speed limit should remain as is or are you willing to accept that it could use an increase? If the latter, how much of an increase do you think is warranted in this hypothetical?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Penwith said:

In space, you can keep accelerating to the cosmic speed limit of 300,000kps (yes, kilometers per second), which is the speed light, as per Einstein's theory and argument. So, let us, for the sake of ease, assume this to be the absolute speed at which a  non-light particle can travel. For game purposes, we can certainly fudge the numbers, especially when one considers the damage that running into a 1mm diameter rock would cause when struck by a ship at the speed of light (c). Think big flash of light and little bitty pieces, and you'd not be too far off the mark.

And before you quote me here, let's just clarify a few things.

 

I am stating that we are making an assumption as to the speed of light travel, for the sake of the game and ease of discussion. I did not declare that it was possible in the real world, instead my comments are limited to the game and should be taken by the reader as so meaning.  People tend to like their numbers rounded off, especially within a discussion, unless exactness is absolutely required.  This is why we tend to say "guess a number between 1 and 100" or "between 1 and 20" and not use 99 or 19 respectively, although some aberrant individual might.

 

Thus, I start with the theorized cosmic speed limit, then shift to set the boundaries for discussion within context of the game. Notice that reality bends to the game, in this instance.

 

If anything, I could have written "towards" instead of "to", but my use of the former revolves around relative location or an individual, and so "to" was a better word choice for me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Penwith said:

Instead of disparaging my knowledge or as you contend, my lack of it, perhaps explain why you think the current speed limit is best for the game? Do you believe that as solar systems are added, the speed limit should remain as is or are you willing to accept that it could use an increase? If the latter, how much of an increase do you think is warranted in this hypothetical?

I never said anything about the current speed limit and weather i agree or disagree with it. You concluded that on your own. You mentioned real world physics and started making statements. You were the one who compared real world physics to the game trying to justify your ideas. I simply contradicted your erroneous real world physics statements.

 

Afterwards in another comment you state that reality bends to the game, meaning that the game does not have to be realistic. You are contradicting yourself there. What i understand is that you want the game to be half realistic and disregard realism where you do not like it from a gameplay standpoint. I do not disagree with this idea.

 

My first comment had nothing offensive/aggressive in it whatsoever. Then you go ahead and reply in a butthurt smartass way, with a comment full of smart sounding gibberish, simply because you do not like the fact that someone disagrees with you. I really do not like discussing with people like that, nor do i enjoy repeating myself. The only reason i answered is because you asked me a question and kept assuming my ideas in your reply comments, which i am not going to post here in order to avoid continuing this. I have posted my ideas elsewhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funnily enough, you sound butthurt. I am fine, either way, as I am just typing here as I await scans.

 

 

No statement of mine was erroneous, as I have already explained to you. You simply read into them what you did. Instead of accept my explanation and further clarification, you continued to argue otherwise. That's on you, not me.

 

Yes, my statement of "reality bends to the game" is an actual consideration when creating games; more correctly it is the maneuvering between realism and playability, which has existed in the modern gaming world since at least the 1960s, but began with H.G. Well's "LIttle Wars" and Fletcher Pratt's naval wargame rules from the 1920s. Thus my statement is not a contradiction at all. Games and simulations base on the real world need to also consider the game or playability aspect, otherwise it would not be fun. I acknowledge reality this with my statement.

 

6 hours ago, Rimezx said:

Do some research first. No object with mass can reach the speed of light according to Einstein's law. Only the light can reach the speed of light because light has no mass.

Yes, this totally avoids sounding at all condescending or verging on insulting. In my case, I just laughed.  I'll insert here that the theorized tachyon particles are argued by many to be faster than light, but so far none can prove they exist. But I digress.

 

6 hours ago, Rimezx said:

You really have no idea of what you are talking about. It is as apparent as your lack of scientific knowledge. There is no point discussing with you if you feel offended when someone disagrees with you. Play the game some more and then come back here to post that is my advice. 

 

Again, not at all condescending in your mind, at least. As such condescension is generally found to be insulting by the greater population, I imagine you declare yourself guiltless in this matter.

 

I am not offended, because I refuse to give that power to anyone, being that to be offended one must allow oneself to become so. That you maintain otherwise is, again, your call, but I am sincerely not offended. I just believing in treating people like for like, especially on the internet.

 

1 hour ago, Rimezx said:

You mentioned real world physics and started making statements. You were the one who compared real world physics to the game trying to justify your ideas. I simply contradicted your erroneous real world physics statements.

 

You are verging on the obtuse here.

 

I established a baseline, a foundation, and then built from that point. You have read far more into what I wrote in that regard and refuse to accept my correction of your misapprehension. We can approach 1.0c or light speed, or as I wrote accelerate to it (or towards it if that is more helpful to you). People have an conceptualization to greater or lesser degrees of what that is, and is therefore a useful point from which to start a discussion on speed or velocity in space. It is also useful to mention as my suggested change includes .3c or maybe even .5c as the new maximum speed limit, but mentioning what "c" is before hand, helps to ensure we all understand the context of the points of argument.

 

I do not care that you disagree, but you have failed to state in this thread why you do. That's as useful as popping in to write "NO!" and leaving. There's nothing substantial there, and is just as easily dismissed as trolling.  Disagree with substance, not with snide remarks.

 

Point of fact, you really just jumped in to pick a fight, so to speak, leaving nothing more substantive as an argument, at least in your initial post. When faced with my counter, you kept at it, instead of accepting that your first contention was based on a faulty assumption on your part.

 

1 hour ago, Rimezx said:

smart sounding gibberish

 

Would you rather I write using a limited vocabulary, keeping my words to one or two syllables at most?  Nothing I have written is gibberish, but each statement is meant to be read in the context written, following previous sentences or paragraphs, like stepping stones.

 

Post or don't post a reply. It matters not to me. But neither can you escape the fact that you made an instant decision from the shield of anonomyity and refuse to accept that what you thought was erroneous on my part was not at all what you took it to be, despite my repeated explanation that you were wrong to do so.

 

 

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...