Forums » Suggestions
<<"Remember, now, we're not following the true physics of space - otherwise we could accelerate infinitely" annoy me.">>
-The only rule that was bent was the speed limit. You look like you want to add a bunch of extra new changes and limits. You are trying to make the game behave based on your preconception of what the physics is supposed to work like, not what would be fun.
<<So why not have different arbitrary speeds based on the mass of a ship and the engine and battery combinations? And where did I ask for a repeal of the speed limit? As far as there being more to a car's speed than it's engine goes, isn't that what I wrote?">>
-Your argument is flawed. Your making appeals to a "reality" that doesn't exist. You used cars as your analogies. Cars have nothing to do with Vendetta. You failed to provide any evidence for why it would be more fun, you just argued that it would be more real.
<<"They wouldn't be UNVERSALLY on the back of EVERY ship designed by each individual nation, then.">>
-Yes they would, because ships with heat trails coming out of their front are UGLY. So are ships that look like jagged, unaerodynamic boxes. While you could design them differently, there is no reason you would want to.
<<"To go back to the car metaphor,">>
-There you go with the car metaphor agin. When you see a chevy floating around Sector 7, call me. Until then, this metaphor holds no water.
<<Hmm... Sounds to me like you want to repeal that arbitrary speed limit. :)>>
-Sounds like you didn't understand the sentence.
<<"Remember, now, we're not following the true physics of space - otherwise we could accelerate infinitely." Here's a quarter, buy a clue.>>
- The speed limit was put in because the game was boring without it. Make an argument that appeals to gameplay instead of: "Well my car doesn't work like that," and people might be more inclined to listen to you.
<<What I'm talking about is an extension of the arbitrary physics already employed.>>
-Based on what? How a car or a jet plane work on Earth? You still haven't made an argument about why it would be more fun. Are we supposed to take your word for it?
<<The only reason our parts are standardized NOW is that the devs haven't gotten around to it. YOU forget that these ships, engine and batteries are all being manufactured by THREE different groups - the Itani, the Serco and the N.T.s, just like different auto makers.>>
-Unless they agreed to standardize their parts so that they can trade with each other and increase their markets that is.
<<Would you prefer a Star Wars metaphor? Put the engine from an X-Wing in a Star Destroyer and see how fast it goes>>
-Actually, no, I wouldn't. I would prefer an argument as to why your change would make the game more fun instead of why it would make the game behave just like every other game out there.
Oh, and the answer to your question, they'd both go at the same top speed, the Star Destroyer would just take longer to reach it, which is EXACTLY what happens in Vendetta.
-The only rule that was bent was the speed limit. You look like you want to add a bunch of extra new changes and limits. You are trying to make the game behave based on your preconception of what the physics is supposed to work like, not what would be fun.
<<So why not have different arbitrary speeds based on the mass of a ship and the engine and battery combinations? And where did I ask for a repeal of the speed limit? As far as there being more to a car's speed than it's engine goes, isn't that what I wrote?">>
-Your argument is flawed. Your making appeals to a "reality" that doesn't exist. You used cars as your analogies. Cars have nothing to do with Vendetta. You failed to provide any evidence for why it would be more fun, you just argued that it would be more real.
<<"They wouldn't be UNVERSALLY on the back of EVERY ship designed by each individual nation, then.">>
-Yes they would, because ships with heat trails coming out of their front are UGLY. So are ships that look like jagged, unaerodynamic boxes. While you could design them differently, there is no reason you would want to.
<<"To go back to the car metaphor,">>
-There you go with the car metaphor agin. When you see a chevy floating around Sector 7, call me. Until then, this metaphor holds no water.
<<Hmm... Sounds to me like you want to repeal that arbitrary speed limit. :)>>
-Sounds like you didn't understand the sentence.
<<"Remember, now, we're not following the true physics of space - otherwise we could accelerate infinitely." Here's a quarter, buy a clue.>>
- The speed limit was put in because the game was boring without it. Make an argument that appeals to gameplay instead of: "Well my car doesn't work like that," and people might be more inclined to listen to you.
<<What I'm talking about is an extension of the arbitrary physics already employed.>>
-Based on what? How a car or a jet plane work on Earth? You still haven't made an argument about why it would be more fun. Are we supposed to take your word for it?
<<The only reason our parts are standardized NOW is that the devs haven't gotten around to it. YOU forget that these ships, engine and batteries are all being manufactured by THREE different groups - the Itani, the Serco and the N.T.s, just like different auto makers.>>
-Unless they agreed to standardize their parts so that they can trade with each other and increase their markets that is.
<<Would you prefer a Star Wars metaphor? Put the engine from an X-Wing in a Star Destroyer and see how fast it goes>>
-Actually, no, I wouldn't. I would prefer an argument as to why your change would make the game more fun instead of why it would make the game behave just like every other game out there.
Oh, and the answer to your question, they'd both go at the same top speed, the Star Destroyer would just take longer to reach it, which is EXACTLY what happens in Vendetta.
>You are trying to make the game behave based on your preconception of what the physics is supposed to work like, not what would be fun.
More like my ideas are based on the preconceptions I've gotten from PLAYING the game, but whatever.
> The only rule that was bent was the speed limit.
Wrong. Again, thanks for playing. Not only was the top speed bent, so was the ability to CONTINUE at any given speed without the need for additional thrust. If you boost up to 150m/s and release turbo, either friction (OMG TEH FRICTION!) or the ghost of space cows past drag you back to whatever your previous sub-turbo speed was.
If you're balderdash about alternative drive systems was true then we should be able to turbo sideways, backwards and up and down, and that is also not ture.
So my preconceptions are based on actual game dynamics.
> Your argument is flawed. Your making appeals to a "reality" that doesn't exist. You used cars as your analogies. Cars have nothing to do with Vendetta. You failed to provide any evidence for why it would be more fun, you just argued that it would be more real.
Cars have more to do with Vendetta than you see. I suppose that's a flaw in your preconceptions of the reality of the game.
>-Yes they would, because ships with heat trails coming out of their front are UGLY. So are ships that look like jagged, unaerodynamic boxes. While you could design them differently, there is no reason you would want to.
Well that's another misconception of yours. A flatter shape would avoid even more fire than a vulture and a box shape would allow for exponentially more weapons. What think of as ugly or pretty are merely YOUR preconceptions rather than the necessary intent of the developers. Touche.
-There you go with the car metaphor agin. When you see a chevy floating around Sector 7, call me. Until then, this metaphor holds no water.
Would a Winnobego driven by a fat catperson suit you? If the metaphor didn't hold than the EC-88 wouldn't look like a bus.
>Oh, and the answer to your question, they'd both go at the same top speed, the Star Destroyer would just take longer to reach it, which is EXACTLY what happens in Vendetta.
When the top speed is essentially infinite, then yes you are correct, if you have a feww hundred years to wait. But when you set an arbitrary limit based on the physics of planetary gravity (as the devs have done here) then it's YOUR theory that's flawed.
/done with Magus.
More like my ideas are based on the preconceptions I've gotten from PLAYING the game, but whatever.
> The only rule that was bent was the speed limit.
Wrong. Again, thanks for playing. Not only was the top speed bent, so was the ability to CONTINUE at any given speed without the need for additional thrust. If you boost up to 150m/s and release turbo, either friction (OMG TEH FRICTION!) or the ghost of space cows past drag you back to whatever your previous sub-turbo speed was.
If you're balderdash about alternative drive systems was true then we should be able to turbo sideways, backwards and up and down, and that is also not ture.
So my preconceptions are based on actual game dynamics.
> Your argument is flawed. Your making appeals to a "reality" that doesn't exist. You used cars as your analogies. Cars have nothing to do with Vendetta. You failed to provide any evidence for why it would be more fun, you just argued that it would be more real.
Cars have more to do with Vendetta than you see. I suppose that's a flaw in your preconceptions of the reality of the game.
>-Yes they would, because ships with heat trails coming out of their front are UGLY. So are ships that look like jagged, unaerodynamic boxes. While you could design them differently, there is no reason you would want to.
Well that's another misconception of yours. A flatter shape would avoid even more fire than a vulture and a box shape would allow for exponentially more weapons. What think of as ugly or pretty are merely YOUR preconceptions rather than the necessary intent of the developers. Touche.
-There you go with the car metaphor agin. When you see a chevy floating around Sector 7, call me. Until then, this metaphor holds no water.
Would a Winnobego driven by a fat catperson suit you? If the metaphor didn't hold than the EC-88 wouldn't look like a bus.
>Oh, and the answer to your question, they'd both go at the same top speed, the Star Destroyer would just take longer to reach it, which is EXACTLY what happens in Vendetta.
When the top speed is essentially infinite, then yes you are correct, if you have a feww hundred years to wait. But when you set an arbitrary limit based on the physics of planetary gravity (as the devs have done here) then it's YOUR theory that's flawed.
/done with Magus.
Speaking of EC-88s and buses, this came up on a Google image search:
http://www.busse-nordhessen.de/fuhrparklisten/werra-meissner/eckhardt/bilder/ec88.jpg
Just a heads up.
http://www.busse-nordhessen.de/fuhrparklisten/werra-meissner/eckhardt/bilder/ec88.jpg
Just a heads up.
<More like my ideas are based on the preconceptions I've gotten from PLAYING the game, but whatever.>
-There are no cars in the game. Try again.
<Not only was the top speed bent, so was the ability to CONTINUE at any given speed without the need for additional thrust.>
-OOh! Semantics! There are 2 speed limits smarty. A speed limit while turboing and a speed limit while not turboing.
<If you're balderdash about alternative drive systems was true then we should be able to turbo sideways, backwards and up and down, and that is also not ture.>
-How do you know what an alternative drive system works? Have you ever seen a gravitic drive?
<So my preconceptions are based on actual game dynamics>
-There are no actual game dynamics in your argument. You used a current game dynamic to say: "Since we're already breaking one rule, lets break some more!" Sorry, I missed the part where you explained why we should bother.
<Cars have more to do with Vendetta than you see.>
-You must have downloaded some version of Vendetta sponsored by Ford. You're making assertions with no backup. What do cars have to do with Vendetta? How about explaining it instead of expecting us to take your word for it?
<A flatter shape would avoid even more fire than a vulture and a box shape would allow for exponentially more weapons. What think of as ugly or pretty are merely YOUR preconceptions rather than the necessary intent of the developers.>
-Hey, way to argue without refuting my point. So, how does this change the fact that heat trails facing forward wouldn't look good?
<Would a Winnobego driven by a fat catperson suit you?>
-Can you make an argument based on what would make the game more fun rather than what would make it more closely resemble the physics in your dream-world?
<If the metaphor didn't hold than the EC-88 wouldn't look like a bus.>
-The aesthetic design of the ships has nothing to do with the physics engine.
< But when you set an arbitrary limit based on the physics of planetary gravity (as the devs have done here) then it's YOUR theory that's flawed.>
-I didn't have a theory, I was just saying that yours is bad. The speed limit was set to make the game MORE FUN. Make a suggestion to make the game MORE FUN rather than more like Star Wars, more like cars, or more like whatever your preconceptions dictate what they should be like. Just because they broke one rule doesn't mean they need to throw everything else out the window. You haven't made a single argument as to why your changes would make the game fun. You've just been using cumbersome and unjustified analogies. Try going outside the box, I think you'll find it refreshing.
-There are no cars in the game. Try again.
<Not only was the top speed bent, so was the ability to CONTINUE at any given speed without the need for additional thrust.>
-OOh! Semantics! There are 2 speed limits smarty. A speed limit while turboing and a speed limit while not turboing.
<If you're balderdash about alternative drive systems was true then we should be able to turbo sideways, backwards and up and down, and that is also not ture.>
-How do you know what an alternative drive system works? Have you ever seen a gravitic drive?
<So my preconceptions are based on actual game dynamics>
-There are no actual game dynamics in your argument. You used a current game dynamic to say: "Since we're already breaking one rule, lets break some more!" Sorry, I missed the part where you explained why we should bother.
<Cars have more to do with Vendetta than you see.>
-You must have downloaded some version of Vendetta sponsored by Ford. You're making assertions with no backup. What do cars have to do with Vendetta? How about explaining it instead of expecting us to take your word for it?
<A flatter shape would avoid even more fire than a vulture and a box shape would allow for exponentially more weapons. What think of as ugly or pretty are merely YOUR preconceptions rather than the necessary intent of the developers.>
-Hey, way to argue without refuting my point. So, how does this change the fact that heat trails facing forward wouldn't look good?
<Would a Winnobego driven by a fat catperson suit you?>
-Can you make an argument based on what would make the game more fun rather than what would make it more closely resemble the physics in your dream-world?
<If the metaphor didn't hold than the EC-88 wouldn't look like a bus.>
-The aesthetic design of the ships has nothing to do with the physics engine.
< But when you set an arbitrary limit based on the physics of planetary gravity (as the devs have done here) then it's YOUR theory that's flawed.>
-I didn't have a theory, I was just saying that yours is bad. The speed limit was set to make the game MORE FUN. Make a suggestion to make the game MORE FUN rather than more like Star Wars, more like cars, or more like whatever your preconceptions dictate what they should be like. Just because they broke one rule doesn't mean they need to throw everything else out the window. You haven't made a single argument as to why your changes would make the game fun. You've just been using cumbersome and unjustified analogies. Try going outside the box, I think you'll find it refreshing.
This forum needs a rule where you can only quote someone twice. You both have stopped making coherent arguments and are just flying all over the place selectively addressing whatever you want. You can make anything sound stupid if you quote it and put a witty one liner under it.
So please, make a statement in paragraph form, with one or two quotes to support your position. Right now it's like you've got 50 mini-arguments going on every time you post.
So please, make a statement in paragraph form, with one or two quotes to support your position. Right now it's like you've got 50 mini-arguments going on every time you post.
To cut things off:
1. We are in space.. it's a little diffrenet then here on earth
2. No gravity here..
3. You CAN use free engine to move frigate.. it would even move quite fast.. but accelerating should take you about a year or two
4. There is a speed limit (depend on the engine) and we can't do nothing about that..
And my opinion:
the time the ship accelerate should ONLY! be caused by ship mass and engine. Not the ship agility...
So if centurion is smalles (and lightest) ship ingame it should accelerate faster then vult (a bit havier) than maybe warthdog, bus and valk, after that should go hornet, maud (empty one!) wraith and so on and so on.. everything is related to spellcast (i belive it was him) thread about mass and ships agility
BTW me loves that idea..
And one more idea: what about making max turbo speed 250m/s? Only accelerating obove engine turbo speed would be very slooow (like ragnarock with two FC and two Hvy power capatitors 1400energy + 100energy/sec and two medium engines could go at the end with about 190 - 195m/s)
1. We are in space.. it's a little diffrenet then here on earth
2. No gravity here..
3. You CAN use free engine to move frigate.. it would even move quite fast.. but accelerating should take you about a year or two
4. There is a speed limit (depend on the engine) and we can't do nothing about that..
And my opinion:
the time the ship accelerate should ONLY! be caused by ship mass and engine. Not the ship agility...
So if centurion is smalles (and lightest) ship ingame it should accelerate faster then vult (a bit havier) than maybe warthdog, bus and valk, after that should go hornet, maud (empty one!) wraith and so on and so on.. everything is related to spellcast (i belive it was him) thread about mass and ships agility
BTW me loves that idea..
And one more idea: what about making max turbo speed 250m/s? Only accelerating obove engine turbo speed would be very slooow (like ragnarock with two FC and two Hvy power capatitors 1400energy + 100energy/sec and two medium engines could go at the end with about 190 - 195m/s)
Ciuciu, the "agility" is a rough estimate of the ships mass (and moment of inertia) so that players can get a judgment of how fast the ship is. It has no game effect what so ever, and at the moment is often inaccurate.
"the time the ship accelerate should ONLY! be caused by ship mass and engine. Not the ship agility..."
Congradulations, your wish is granted retroactively. It's always been like that.
As for the Centurian agility, my understanding is that its supposed to have the same agility (or a little better) than the Valk, but for some reason it doesn't quite work. Apparantly, below a certain mass, the current algorithm gets buggy.
As for the rest of this thread, I cannot tell exactly what people are arguing about and it looks much like argument for the sake of argument to me.
Congradulations, your wish is granted retroactively. It's always been like that.
As for the Centurian agility, my understanding is that its supposed to have the same agility (or a little better) than the Valk, but for some reason it doesn't quite work. Apparantly, below a certain mass, the current algorithm gets buggy.
As for the rest of this thread, I cannot tell exactly what people are arguing about and it looks much like argument for the sake of argument to me.
In that case the vult should also have a better agility than valk (it's lighter). Valk should have a bit better agility than warthdog and bus...
Allright here we go, I made a very accurate and describing story which might explain a bunch of the current Vendetta in-game's physics problems:
"3690, Big Cheese Factory; Hydras Beta C; planet 4
Some idiot pushed the wrong button and now the whole universe is flooded with air!
Suddenly the whole universe had the same atmosphere and pressure as the Earth on sea level.
Oh, and Dr. Something changed the laws of physics when he tried out his new Nuclearisometricquantumelectrodimensionrealignmentsystem (limited edition) he bought from eBay for 25 credits in 3567"
"3690, Big Cheese Factory; Hydras Beta C; planet 4
Some idiot pushed the wrong button and now the whole universe is flooded with air!
Suddenly the whole universe had the same atmosphere and pressure as the Earth on sea level.
Oh, and Dr. Something changed the laws of physics when he tried out his new Nuclearisometricquantumelectrodimensionrealignmentsystem (limited edition) he bought from eBay for 25 credits in 3567"
"In that case the vult should also have a better agility than valk (it's lighter). "
-It's smaller, yes, but it is not lighter. The value of the mass the devs set on the vult is higher than on the valk. The valk is the lightest (least massive) and therefore, the most agile ship in the game. The vult looks lighter, but it's not. You can just assume that the valk was built with lighter materials or something.
-It's smaller, yes, but it is not lighter. The value of the mass the devs set on the vult is higher than on the valk. The valk is the lightest (least massive) and therefore, the most agile ship in the game. The vult looks lighter, but it's not. You can just assume that the valk was built with lighter materials or something.
Sheean, let's find and killa that idiot. :)
Me can't wait until the spellcast's system of weapon/engine/cargo mass would be implemented (in that or other form) it could provide a very varius scale of agility (and therefore acceleration speed) to all ships