Post by: Morrigi on June 12, 2010, 12:17:41 AM
Post by: Hawkeye on June 12, 2010, 01:02:57 PM
This is, what I wrote: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1989&p=19495&hilit=Laser#p19495 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1989&p=19495&hilit=Laser#p19495)
And this is what Steve said: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1989&p=19495&hilit=Laser#p19511 (http://aurora.pentarch.org/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1989&p=19495&hilit=Laser#p19511)
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 13, 2010, 08:37:32 AM
Make a detailed proposal of why you think increased beam ranges against stationary targets would be a reasonable enhancement and I'm sure that Steve will consider it. Just making the request for increased range has been made several times and rejected. Make a detailed search of the forums to find those other occurances and determine how to approach the concept differently that whats already been done. You'll find that several forum members that are expert in verious fields of physics have hashed a lot of this out already.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on June 13, 2010, 11:19:48 AM
A BFC option (tracking and range) that is 10x range, 10x size, but also reduces the tracking speed to 1/100.
That way, you can't hit anything moving in space, but gain tremandous range versus PDCs.
Highest techlevel:
range; 3.5 mkm, tracking speed at size 10: 250 km/s.
Alternatively, a special bfc that reduces accuracy not linearly, but, say, per square, so, it would have double the size, and double the normal effective range, but be way less accurate on that range, so players have a chance to shoot at that enemy, with a 0.01% hit chance^^
I guess it's honestly not really worth the effort, given bombarding planets with energy weapons is sadly rather limited.
Post by: nichaey on June 13, 2010, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"
As a suggested solution:I would argue that while it would take more effort, you could destroy key defenses without damaging infrastructure or the enviroment.
I guess it's honestly not really worth the effort, given bombarding planets with energy weapons is sadly rather limited.
I would also point out that hitting moving targets with lasers more then 5 light seconds away is not unreasonable given a few conditions
1. that target continues moving in a straight line (which the ships presumably do when they are heading max speed towards something)
2. that target cannot detect an incoming laser (which is impossible to my knowledge)
So while it would be unreasonable to implement long range lasers atm, as there is no way to take evasive action (at least not without a ton of micromanagement), it would be completely reasonable if a "evasiveness" variable was introduced. This variable would be something like (maxspeed-current speed)^2 and would replace the ship speed in the current to hit formula. So if a ship was travelling in a straight line, it would not be too hard to hit, but if it was being evasive then it would be extremely hard to hit.
I understand that this would require a rewrite of certain code and the game would have to be rebalanced so it's unlikely that it will happen, but I just find it a little hard to swallow that super advanced missiles and lasers have a hard time hitting something with known coordinates and velocity.
Post by: Andrew on June 13, 2010, 05:45:27 PM
Quote from: "nichaey"
I think the assumption that warships are not dodging is a very bad one. Once you allow for some random variation in course getting laser hits at LS+ Ranges becomes difficult .Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"As a suggested solution:
I guess it's honestly not really worth the effort, given bombarding planets with energy weapons is sadly rather limited.
I understand that this would require a rewrite of certain code and the game would have to be rebalanced so it's unlikely that it will happen, but I just find it a little hard to swallow that super advanced missiles and lasers have a hard time hitting something with known coordinates and velocity.
A not particulary fast ship of mine moves at 3750kms so in one second is moves 3750000 metres , the exact size of ships is not clear but a sphere of 200m seems overly large , so the ship could vary its position by a sphere of radius 3750000m , we will assume that it in fact moves forward with 99% of its speed meaing the sphere drops to 37500m as you can see from this the large fairly slow ship fills less than 1% of the volume it could be in so the laser hit chances are actually quite good.
(I assumed instantaneous speeds for the grav sensors or you can double the distance the ship could vary its position by)
Your conditions essentially require the target to cooperate which seems unlikely.
MAybe longer range against stationary targets would be possible however such targets capable of being hit be beam weapons are very rare and this idea would make them rarer (all orbital battlestations would be given limited drive capacity) and franlhy I think it would be pointless.
I have often wished for longer range beam weapons but the justifucation for them is not there, if you beleive the range advatange of missiles makes beam weapons a poor choice (I disagree) a more practiacable solution would be to make missiles worse
Post by: nichaey on June 13, 2010, 10:42:10 PM
Quote from: "Andrew"
Except for the fact that they move towards their target at their max speed without deviation, which is why I brought up the evasiveness idea.Quote from: "nichaey"I think the assumption that warships are not dodging is a very bad one.Quote from: "UnLimiTeD"As a suggested solution:
I guess it's honestly not really worth the effort, given bombarding planets with energy weapons is sadly rather limited.
I understand that this would require a rewrite of certain code and the game would have to be rebalanced so it's unlikely that it will happen, but I just find it a little hard to swallow that super advanced missiles and lasers have a hard time hitting something with known coordinates and velocity.
Post by: Andrew on June 14, 2010, 03:56:12 AM
Quote from: "nichaey"
Except for the fact that they move towards their target at their max speed without deviation, which is why I brought up the evasiveness idea.Its a computer game there are simplifications.
Either all ship commanders in Aurora are Braid Dead Morons with a Death Wish who only travel in straight and predictable lines or
1) within the warp bubble the ships are moving in they can shift their positions slightly
2) Ship maximum speeds include a factor for small random evasions
3)in Combat situations ships can manage a small amount of extra velocity for short periods
4) if the above are incovenient for your assumptions assume that NPR ships have an extra 1% of speed used for evasion and set your ships to 99% of max this will make no difference to anything else
CLEARY WARSHIPS CARRY OUT SOME EVASIVE ACTION or they are Brain Dead Morons so just assume that is built into the movement as is the whole targeting process
Post by: sloanjh on June 14, 2010, 04:03:30 AM
Quote from: "nichaey"
Quote from: "Andrew"I think the assumption that warships are not dodging is a very bad one.Except for the fact that they move towards their target at their max speed without deviation, which is why I brought up the evasiveness idea.
You're going over old ground here. The idea of explicitly deciding how much of a ships speed will be devoted to evasion was discussed years ago (to the level of detail that the radius of a random walk grows like the square root of the time spent walking, which affects the exponent (should be linear) in your evasiveness formula) - the result of the discussion was that this is too much micro-management, and it was abstracted into the "tracking speed" mechanism. In other words, it is assumed that ships are always evading - the small fraction of speed increase that would be available if a ship was ordered to stop evading isn't worth the effort (coding or managing) to track. So the situation you describe never happens in the game, and the idea to "solve" it has already been incorporated into the game mechanics.
John
Post by: Andrew on June 15, 2010, 07:06:59 AM
I don't think it would be particualrly unbalancing as I find Railguns less effective than lasers as they do not do the deep damaging hits , and less versatile as after the initial slow missiles they become largely ineffective vs Missiles as they cannot be turret mounted.
Post by: nichaey on June 15, 2010, 04:29:23 PM
But just accepting that they have infinite acceleration without regards to their passengers wellbeing is what upsets me, even if it is Trans newtonian phlebotonum . So if you factor in even an unreasonable sustained 10g then you get a lot smaller of a radius for you to shoot at.
I don't think that lasers should have a good chance at hitting at long ranges, but I find it unreasonable that you can't at least take pot shots.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on June 15, 2010, 04:35:21 PM
Even in case of conventional drives, a warp field could be used to just turn the space around the ship to trun 180° without more than 2g.
Though, I always wondered why Railguns can't be turret mounted, on particle Beams, it kinda makes sense, Plasma Carronades are rather not meant for that kind of combat anyways, but still, you should always leave the player the freedom to do things wrong.
Railgun Turrets sound like a good idea to me.
Post by: Andrew on June 15, 2010, 05:07:15 PM
Trans newtonians technology ignores suchnewtonian considerations as Acceleration, Momentum, Velocity , and Vectors it also largely ignores realtivistic effects but does not overcome the limit of the speed of light , although gravitic systems such as sensors do seem to achieve an FTL effect.
Also the maths makes wven with 1 or 2 g effect hitting with a laser seriously dodgy at ranges of a Light second (TNE did all the maths for this a long time ago)
Anyway end of flogging dead Horse.
I can see a justification for the railgun/plasmagun/particle beam not being in turrets, they are weapons where the entire weapon pretty much has to be moved to change the point of aim while Lasers can use Mirrors to deflect the beam around for turret mounts. (Charged particle beams could also be deflected around as turrets but the same effect would be used to stop them hitting anything)
Post by: nichaey on June 15, 2010, 09:21:53 PM
Being able to get 50 laser hits against a ship over the course of ten hours would be devastating for a ship without shield, while even a minimal shield would be able to withstand that. Again, I'm not arguing for long range lasers snipers or even for moderately low accuracy, just to at least be able to point and shoot wildly.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 16, 2010, 07:53:27 AM
At the tech levels for beams that can reach beyond current maxed fire control ranges the shield tech alone will recharge faster than the beams can cycle the hits. The number of stationary targets that don't have shield tech available are extremely limited. (Shipyards,???) Planetary targets will usually be within an atmosphere that is dense enough to stop all but mesons anyway. Missiles will still have superior range.
There is a hybrid weapon sytem that fills the role between current beams and missiles. Plasma Torpedeo. It's an Invader tech so it isn't available to the player intially. Salvage a few Invader wrecks (assuming your the survivior and not the Invaders) and you will have the start on the research. They don't require magazine space for ammunition. They appear to be self guiding and only require missile fire control for initial launch. Like missiles thier range is measured in several million km's instead of several thousands of km's like beams (at least the one's I've faced in the hands of the Invaders) They don't require power plants or capacitors. They do have equivilent components intigral to the launchers that appear to act as powerplants and capacitors though that need specific research.
Sorry, just not seeing a game benefit for extreme (+5 ls fire control) beam ranges. The level of effort to enable is negated by simple functions that currently exist.
Post by: Morrigi on June 20, 2010, 12:01:24 PM
Post by: Andrew on June 20, 2010, 03:10:14 PM
Quote from: "Morrigi"
Realism can never be a bad thing.We agree , hence the short beam ranges
Post by: Morrigi on June 21, 2010, 02:43:42 AM
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 21, 2010, 07:28:08 AM
Quote from: "Morrigi"
...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.
Please seach the history of beam fire control. Go back about 2 years. If then you find that your view/claim of "reality" is different that what has been discussed previously then substantiate your view with mathmatic models the support your position. Making broad unsubstantiated claims of "reality" is getting you no where fast.
Keep in mind that several members of this board have better than a working knowledge of astral and orbital mechanics. Several others have more than a working knowledge of targeting and course prediction.
As Andrew pointed out earlier, the volume of space that a ship could occupy after just 1 second while traveling at 3750kps is a staggering amount. That volume goes up expentially.
Yes, I'm aware the request is versus a "stationary" target. The problem is that nothing is really stationary. Planets move... and thier orbital constructs (bases, shipyards, etc) move with them.
So far there has not been a compelling arguement made that would sway the veteran players to back the concept.
More importantly, Steve has not stepped in to say that the idea has enough merit to worrent the refine the logarithm's and change the code. Final arbitor is Steve.
Post by: waresky on June 21, 2010, 10:53:13 AM
AI routine and soub-routine.
nothing all.
From 2 years,at present day,the GAME r evolved dramatically in BETTER.
my 2 cents: nice "idea" are BEAM improvement:..BUT if u play DEEPER this game are very good now..only AI AND Army Management,needed some Steve's attentions..
For me:)
Post by: sloanjh on June 21, 2010, 01:43:42 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
In particular, IIRC the part of reality that Steve was VERY concerned about was time-of-flight. If you allow beam weapons to fire at targets more than 5 light-seconds away, then you are forced to a choice between faster-than-light beams (which IIRC was an aspect of Starfire that Steve disliked) or needing to manage a lag between firing and hitting for beam weapons, which would lead to a HUGE amount of very complex coding for very little (given the fact that almost all targets will be dodging) gain.Quote from: "Morrigi"...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.
Please seach the history of beam fire control. Go back about 2 years. If then you find that your view/claim of "reality" is different that what has been discussed previously then substantiate your view with mathmatic models the support your position. Making broad unsubstantiated claims of "reality" is getting you no where fast.
John
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 21, 2010, 03:39:51 PM
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"In particular, IIRC the part of reality that Steve was VERY concerned about was time-of-flight. If you allow beam weapons to fire at targets more than 5 light-seconds away, then you are forced to a choice between faster-than-light beams (which IIRC was an aspect of Starfire that Steve disliked) or needing to manage a lag between firing and hitting for beam weapons, which would lead to a HUGE amount of very complex coding for very little (given the fact that almost all targets will be dodging) gain.Quote from: "Morrigi"...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.
Please seach the history of beam fire control. Go back about 2 years. If then you find that your view/claim of "reality" is different that what has been discussed previously then substantiate your view with mathmatic models the support your position. Making broad unsubstantiated claims of "reality" is getting you no where fast.
John
I believe that is correct.
Post by: nichaey on June 21, 2010, 04:40:09 PM
Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"
Except they move in a completely predictable trajectory, which would be easily compensated for.Quote from: "Morrigi"...In reality we can hit something farther away than 5 light seconds with a laser if it's big. Now with railguns, that's more understandable.Yes, I'm aware the request is versus a "stationary" target. The problem is that nothing is really stationary. Planets move... and thier orbital constructs (bases, shipyards, etc) move with them.
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Any particular reason why Steve does not like FTL lasers?Quote from: "Charlie Beeler"In particular, IIRC the part of reality that Steve was VERY concerned about was time-of-flight. If you allow beam weapons to fire at targets more than 5 light-seconds away, then you are forced to a choice between faster-than-light beams (which IIRC was an aspect of Starfire that Steve disliked) or needing to manage a lag between firing and hitting for beam weapons, which would lead to a HUGE amount of very complex coding for very little (given the fact that almost all targets will be dodging) gain.
John
Also I'm not sure delayed laser hits would be as much of a coding nightmare as you think, but then again I don't work with VB6 so I wouldn't know.
Here are my arguments (note that I don't necessarily believe that either should be implemented, just discussed and fleshed out)
Against stationary targets:
it is realistically possible with a very high chance to hit
Believed balance change:
would make it possible to bombard an capture planets without making dust or fallout
My thoughts:
I'm not sure that there should be such a consequence free way of exterminating all of the inhabitants of a planet. (especially from such a long distance)
Against moving targets
it is realistically possible with an extremely low chance to hit
Believed balance change:
would make a no shield build vulnerable, and give players more options when building offensive laser ships
My thoughts:
I think it's worth toying around with, especially if you could target an entire task force (i.e. spraying a massive incoming fleet with 100 lasers batteries, aimed at no specific ship)
It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.
Post by: boggo2300 on June 21, 2010, 04:45:01 PM
Quote from: "nichaey"
It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.
Your PC has sensors with resolution to detect a small incredibly fast moving object at several hundred thousand kilometres?
I've been ripped off!
Matt
Post by: symon on June 21, 2010, 05:11:45 PM
Quote from: "nichaey"
It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.Actually it isn't the computer that takes up space in fire control. It's the detectors. Bigger generally means better, especially with widely separated arrays on the same vessel.
Post by: Andrew on June 21, 2010, 05:20:35 PM
Quote from: "nichaey"
Any particular reason why Steve does not like FTL lasers?An FTL Laser is somewhat internally contradictory. Realism flies off and dies of relativistic shock at the concept.
.
Post by: sloanjh on June 21, 2010, 05:54:01 PM
Quote from: "nichaey"
Believed balance change:
would make it possible to bombard an capture planets without making dust or fallout
My thoughts:
I'm not sure that there should be such a consequence free way of exterminating all of the inhabitants of a planet. (especially from such a long distance)
And what the veteran players keep trying to point out (among other things) is:
A) One of Steve's prime goals in the game was to avoid the GFFP strategy from Starfire (I leave it as an excercise for the reader to figure out what GFFP stands for). It is intentional that it is very difficult to kill populations without wrecking the planet.
B) Beam weapons don't penetrate atmosphere (or do so at a degraded level for low pressure worlds), so the primary stationary target that you want to shoot at won't take any damage from the super-luminal lasers, which pretty much knocks out the game-play argument.
As Charlie points out, "Steve's games, Steve's rules". You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't go into the code unless the idea grabs Steve's fancy, and the suggestion goes against his previously stated opinions.
One more thing to consider: just because it can be put in the game, doesn't mean that it should be. As Waresky often points out, Steve is a limited resource
, and we want him working on high-value enhancements like gunboats and fighters (neither of which were in the original game).John
Post by: symon on June 21, 2010, 06:00:31 PM
Never thought it was very believable myself. Sure you can do the genocide part easy enough. I just always had great difficulty believing that the planet would be much fun for anyone after nuking it till it glowed.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on June 21, 2010, 07:13:05 PM
I in turn find the current radiation system unbelievable; but I got SM functions, so what do I care.
What I really wonder is how this thread has still not died, but I'm probably just answering that myself just now by posting here I guess.
Generally, Realism is ALWAYS bad unless it adds to atmosphere or understandability. No one invented games out of his fond love of reality.
Post by: symon on June 21, 2010, 08:03:04 PM
Don't forget, Krakatoa had a marked effect on global temperatures. That was just one very large bang. Think of the effect of bangs enough to wipe out many or all major cities.
What's left is in rather poor shape!
Post by: nichaey on June 21, 2010, 09:46:02 PM
Quote from: "symon"
If the fire control has the detectors, why do we need active sensor lock? (sorry for the off topicness)Quote from: "nichaey"It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.Actually it isn't the computer that takes up space in fire control. It's the detectors. Bigger generally means better, especially with widely separated arrays on the same vessel.
Quote from: "sloanjh"
Did you even read my full last post? I more or less said that I did not like long range lasers towards planets because of GFFP. My reservation was partially refuted by your reminder that lasers cannot penetrate atmosphere, yet you try to use that to argue in the other direction.Quote from: "nichaey"Believed balance change:
would make it possible to bombard an capture planets without making dust or fallout
My thoughts:
I'm not sure that there should be such a consequence free way of exterminating all of the inhabitants of a planet. (especially from such a long distance)
And what the veteran players keep trying to point out (among other things) is:
A) One of Steve's prime goals in the game was to avoid the GFFP strategy from Starfire (I leave it as an excercise for the reader to figure out what GFFP stands for). It is intentional that it is very difficult to kill populations without wrecking the planet.
B) Beam weapons don't penetrate atmosphere (or do so at a degraded level for low pressure worlds), so the primary stationary target that you want to shoot at won't take any damage from the super-luminal lasers, which pretty much knocks out the game-play argument.
As Charlie points out, "Steve's games, Steve's rules". You can argue until you're blue in the face, but it won't go into the code unless the idea grabs Steve's fancy, and the suggestion goes against his previously stated opinions.
One more thing to consider: just because it can be put in the game, doesn't mean that it should be. As Waresky often points out, Steve is a limited resource
John
Quote from: "nichaey"
(note that I don't necessarily believe that either should be implemented, just discussed and fleshed out)
Please, this thread is for constructive criticism and discussion on a specific topic. This is a suggestion board, not a demands board. So stop being so defensive.
I know this might seem like a reiteration of a rejected idea, but when new ideas are presented it becomes a reexamination.
[rant]
It is known that Steve will not put things in the game if
A. He does not like it
B. It will make the game less fun
C. He has not thought of it
This thread made a suggestion to deal with C. I and others are trying improve the idea. If Steve likes any of it, he might use it.
I am not demanding anything just trying to make a constructive discussion by presenting arguments that I believe to be relevant.
Please try to remain constructive in suggestion threads. I know the thought of change is scary, but I believe in the veterans(sorry to any veterans who were spoken for).
last and most certainly least Steve puts in what Steve wants to put in, Vets don't have Veto rights so stop pretending you do, Steve will speak for Steve, Steve will like what Steve likes STEVE Steve Steve Steeeeeeeeeve [/rant]
Post by: nichaey on June 21, 2010, 09:48:35 PM
Quote from: "Andrew"
Fine then, FTL beam, it's trans-newtonian you knowQuote from: "nichaey"Any particular reason why Steve does not like FTL lasers?An FTL Laser is somewhat internally contradictory. Realism flies off and dies of relativistic shock at the concept.
.
Post by: dooots on June 22, 2010, 01:25:10 AM
You can shoot OWP with lasers, mesons, or HPM from long range. This gives you almost no benefit, if the OWP is using missiles it will still be able to shoot at you long before you could shoot at it. If it is using beams, use high speed ships to reduce its chance of hitting you. If you have your heart set on huge slow ships then just wait until you have enough to win, it's not like the OWP is going any place.
You gain a very small chance of hitting moving ships. This alone would probably get the range of mesons and HPM nerfed. As for lasers a maxed out laser does 14 points of damage at 1.4 mkm and has a max rof of 35 seconds. And to make it worse since they are moving the ships odds are the only thing you will be shooting at is other beam armed ships that are heavily armored. So even if you do get lucky and hit and by this point your enemy doesn't have shields you do probably less the 10 points of damage to there 50+ layers of armor. Congrats you hit them with a pea are you happy now?
Would it be neat to just open fire? sure. Do you gain anything from it? not really.
Edit- One thing I did just realize is this change would make it so no one builds OWP's as PDC's would be immune to the long range beam weapons.
Post by: welchbloke on June 22, 2010, 01:32:40 AM
Quote from: "nichaey"
It's worth pointing out that realism isn't the deciding factor as the computer you are currently using could probably fulfill the role of a massive 2t fire control system found in the game.This seems to be a common misconception regarding modern FC systems. The computer used to support a modern FC system,particulaly one which has a missile defence role, has to make several milion complex computations in a short period of time, sometimes as little as a couple of secs. MD radars tend to have several Blade server equivalents to provide the necessary computational power. Now it can be argued that TN materials will lead to a reduction in size; however, the computations required to hit a ship/missile moving at a measurable percentage of the speed of light would probably lead to the same overall relationship between computing power and difficulty.
Quote from: "nichaey"
Actually it isn't the computer that takes up space in fire control. It's the detectors. Bigger generally means better, especially with widely separated arrays on the same vessel.
If the fire control has the detectors, why do we need active sensor lock? (sorry for the off topicness)
Steve has used the system used by most air defence radar systems as his model. Apart from one or 2 more modern exceptions most AD radar systems have a search radar (long range, moderate to low update rate, plus large volume search capabillity) that detects the target. Once detected a target track radar (high power, low volume coverage plus very high update rate - normally in a completely different frequency range to the search radar) actually provides the target data to the missile in flight not the search radar. If the target breaks the lock, the search radar has to find the target to cue the target track radar again. The really modern system still use the methodology used above, the difference is that they use the same array to generate different waveforms to replicate the search and target track functionality.
Post by: Charlie Beeler on June 22, 2010, 07:58:52 AM
Quote from: "nichaey"
Please try to remain constructive in suggestion threads. I know the thought of change is scary, but I believe in the veterans(sorry to any veterans who were spoken for).
last and most certainly least Steve puts in what Steve wants to put in, Vets don't have Veto rights so stop pretending you do, Steve will speak for Steve, Steve will like what Steve likes STEVE Steve Steve Steeeeeeeeeve [/rant]
And this is an excellent example that your not getting the point. This is ground that has been cover ad infinitum in the past and that so far nothing new has been suggested.
The bigger point your missing is that since multiple veterans are telling you this the odds are really good that we know what we're talking about because we've already had this discussion, when the game was being formed, and have a working idea of what Steve is likely to consider. Call it the "been there, done that" factor.
Here are some criteria that Steve stated many times are hard and fast rules for Aurora:
1) Beam weapons may not exeed the speed of light.
2) Beam weapons max range is limited to 5 light seconds, the minimum time increment within the game.
3) Atmospheric density of 1 blocks beam weapons with the exception of meson cannons.
4) Planetary bombardment creates atmospheric dust (ie cools the surface) and radiation. Both have segnificant negative impacts of populations.
So you see, this is not veteran players trying to exercise veto powers. It's veteran players pointing out that the suggestion(s) violates one or more foundation rules for the Aurora enviroment. We've also pointed out that if a well thought out and detailed idea that violates any of these preset rules intelligent discussion will follow.
Post by: wilddog5 on June 22, 2010, 08:30:38 AM
my sugestion to this whole idea is a tacyon cannon as tacyons are naturaly FTL it would be ok (possibly)
It could have all of the fire control range but say half the damage of lasers or it only does 1 damage like the mession but affects shields and armor like the laser
laser and particle beam techs could be requires the start this field of research, starting somewhare in the mid level (30cm laser strength 9 particle beam area) to represent the way that tacyons could be a blend of the two areas
Post by: sloanjh on June 22, 2010, 01:49:02 PM
Quote from: "wilddog5"
my sugestion to this whole idea is a tacyon cannon as tacyons are naturaly FTL it would be ok (possibly)
Two things:
1) See Charlie's rule #1 above (no FTL beam weapons, not just lasers). This also goes to the game-play "why is this an improvement - all it does is make beam weapons longer-ranged" and "just because one can do it doesn't mean one should" issues.
2*) The possibility of Tachyon Cannon would be a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad thing. [RealWorldPhysics] This is because if a tachyonic particle existed, then it would mean that the vacuum is unstable and any tiny little thing could set off a phase transition into a new vacuum state where we probably wouldn't be able to exist. This would be A Bad Thing :-) [/RealWorldPhysics]
John
* - Pointing out this little tidbit is the real reason I wanted to make this post - it was just too tempting to pass up
Post by: Erik L on June 22, 2010, 01:59:37 PM