Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: praguepride
« on: September 15, 2010, 09:15:25 AM »

I support the "environmental hazard" system effects.


Maybe an algorithm could be devised, maybe you can just cheat it and say "every 5 seconds deals X damage to a ship" .


But I think the key would be to have stars have more impact then just colony costs, but to actually emit EM/thermal signals. So around larger stars sensors become harder to use. I don't think "ghost ships" are the way to go, but I do like the idea of it cancelling out lower thermal/EM signals.

So if you have a "stealth" ship orbiting a sun, it should be impossible to detect while it's thermal sig is < the thermal sig of the sun. This would need to be balanced by having damage delt when in close proximity.

So normal stars would emit thermal, Quasars could emit EM/thermal, while black holes would kill all sensors, even active ones.
Posted by: ShadoCat
« on: July 20, 2010, 05:26:27 PM »

Quote from: "Aldaris"
I know how you feel, we watched Armegeddon at school last week.
I spent the whole time trying not to wince.

That movie was a great comedy.

I especially like the scene where they are standing outside the vehicle on the asteroid and they are backlit.  If you look down, you can see that they are standing on grass.
Posted by: waresky
« on: July 04, 2010, 04:56:36 AM »

yeah Unlimited,u very right now.

Am sorry,apologize.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: July 03, 2010, 12:46:22 PM »

waresky, would you PLEASE STOP going to EVERY thread that is even remotely connected to suggesting something and ask for the Army system to be revised?
I've read it about a half dozen times by now, and I'm sure If Steve actually wants to do it, he'll have it on his list already and will get around to do so eventually.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: July 03, 2010, 06:07:28 AM »

Quote from: "nichaey"
I'm sure the reason that they're not in the game is because Steve has not thought up a use for them. Post any ideas you might have on the subject.
Yes, that plus too many ideas and not enough time. Any good, workable ideas in this area are very welcome.

Steve
Posted by: waresky
« on: July 03, 2010, 05:06:18 AM »

...
cut because r out of topic.

:D
Posted by: Aldaris
« on: July 01, 2010, 02:00:48 PM »

Quote from: "Hawkeye"
No worry :)
I know how you feel, we watched Armegeddon at school last week.
I spent the whole time trying not to wince.
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: June 30, 2010, 11:00:22 PM »

No worry :)
Posted by: nichaey
« on: June 30, 2010, 02:44:30 PM »

Quote from: "DatAlien"
Wasn't Quasars very, very,.... bright cores of very, very,... distant galaxies?
The nearest one is a little over 2 billion light years, so it's pretty far.

But they're just the accretion discs of black holes, not necessarily at the center of galaxies.

Quote from: "Hawkeye"
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
Well, Black holes could function as extremely heavy stars without light, effectively making for a huge amount of jump points in an otherwise totally dead system.

I think this is a (rather common) misconception re. black holes.

Yes, you need a certain mass to form a black hole  (2.3 sun masses, I belive), but the stars, that blew up and thus created the black hole were a lot (and I mean A LOOOOOOOOT) more massive than the resulting black hole. blowing something about 90+% of its mass away when it goes supernova. Only the (relatively) small remaining mass is left concentrated in the black hole. I seem to remember a number of 50 to 100 sun-masses in order to form a 3 sun-mass black hole (All those numbers are from the top of my head, so might be a bit off, but not by an order of magnitude)

Also, black holes are not the "oh, a black hole in 30 lightminutes, we are doomed!" phenomenons, often described in fiction. If our sun would suddenly turn into a black hole, it would be night on earth some 8 minutes later and all life on earth would die some time later for lack of light/warmth, but the earch would continue on its path around the "sun", the moon would continue to circle the earth. A black hole is only mass, just concentrated so much (forming a singularity), the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light.

I was aware of how they formed, but I made the unintentional assumption that they gain in mass over time(due to "sucking" stuff up). :P
Posted by: DatAlien
« on: June 30, 2010, 12:28:22 PM »

Wasn't Quasars very, very,.... bright cores of very, very,... distant galaxies?
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: June 30, 2010, 12:20:31 PM »

I'm pretty aware of the properties.
A black hole is likely to result of a super-massive star, and as such, there will be a lot of potential jump points, assuming they appeared before the collapse.
They would probably also hinder Active sensors.

They could be handled like stars, with a minimum size of three solar masses, and and number of Jump Points between one and double the normally allowed amount for that size.
Posted by: symon
« on: June 30, 2010, 10:34:30 AM »

Quote
Black holes are not the "oh, a black hole in 30 lightminutes, we are doomed!" phenomenons, often described in fiction.
Recently an exceptionally dire episode of the new(rubbish) Dr Who.
(Sigh) I remember when that program used to pride itself on having scientific advisers who nipped such stupidity in the bud.
Posted by: Hawkeye
« on: June 30, 2010, 10:17:22 AM »

Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
Well, Black holes could function as extremely heavy stars without light, effectively making for a huge amount of jump points in an otherwise totally dead system.

I think this is a (rather common) misconception re. black holes.

Yes, you need a certain mass to form a black hole  (2.3 sun masses, I belive), but the stars, that blew up and thus created the black hole were a lot (and I mean A LOOOOOOOOT) more massive than the resulting black hole. blowing something about 90+% of its mass away when it goes supernova. Only the (relatively) small remaining mass is left concentrated in the black hole. I seem to remember a number of 50 to 100 sun-masses in order to form a 3 sun-mass black hole (All those numbers are from the top of my head, so might be a bit off, but not by an order of magnitude)

Also, black holes are not the "oh, a black hole in 30 lightminutes, we are doomed!" phenomenons, often described in fiction. If our sun would suddenly turn into a black hole, it would be night on earth some 8 minutes later and all life on earth would die some time later for lack of light/warmth, but the earch would continue on its path around the "sun", the moon would continue to circle the earth. A black hole is only mass, just concentrated so much (forming a singularity), the escape velocity is higher than the speed of light.
Posted by: Aldaris
« on: June 30, 2010, 04:10:35 AM »

Quasars could have a very bright EM signature, with the proper maths, you could write up a formula that any EM signatures within x degrees of the star under x% of the signature strength at that distance would pass by undetected, making quasar and black hole systems nightmares to defend, and the wet dream of a Space Rommel trying to sneak behind enemy lines. You could also simulate the extreme EM signature by having a danger zone around the star doing constant EM damage to any ship passing through.
Posted by: UnLimiTeD
« on: June 29, 2010, 06:04:28 PM »

Well, Black holes could function as extremely heavy stars without light, effectively making for a huge amount of jump points in an otherwise totally dead system.

I'd love to have those in, but I honestly don't expect it.

Edit: They also occasionally emit jets of Gamma rays from their poles.