|
Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Unfortunately, I don't have time for another PBW game right now, but I just thought of an idea for a game that might spark ideas for someone else. The idea is a normal game of SE4 with Ship Construction turned off or limited such that you only have Frigates (Ankle-Biters) and Colonizers as ship sizes available. That's right, no other ship sizes. Yes, there would be some components that you just couldn't put onto a ship - like spaceyard components. Minefields would now be much more of a threat because it would take a fleet of minesweepers to sweep them. Planet defenses would now be formidable. Defense bases would inspire the fear that they should. Basically you would have to use massive amounts of Frigates to overwhelm your targets. You would have to be very creative in your ship designs. Anyone wanting to use this idea, feel free.
edit: spelling. Slick. (Appolgies in advance to Slick for editing the thread title. Didn't want to start a new thread. I will switch it back when we get someone.) [ February 06, 2004, 21:35: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Interesting idea, but I'd set up for ships up to the destroyer size. They're a bit more flexible and will make this sort of the game more fun.
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY IT GETS A HAMMER!
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
I'd allow warships up to destroyer size, light carriers, medium transports, colony ships, and starbases up to battlestation.
However, I would also trim off large fighters and large weapon platforms, as they might each in their own way pose too great a challenge to ships of destroyer size or smaller. It sounds like a GRAND idea for a game, mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
If you allow light carriers, they'll be used as warships. Half fighter bays still gives you 400kt weapons space, and enougg size to use Huge mounts (IIRC, at least Large)
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
You could create a 300kT "escort carrier", or increase the fighter bays requirement of carriers to something like 75%...
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Allowing carriers would most definetly break this idea. Geoschmo [ July 26, 2003, 19:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Oops.
I had forgotten that LCVs were 800kT in the unmodded game; I was thinking they were 400-500kT. So, drop the LCV to ~400kT, adjust remaining features to suit, and allow them in. Versus 300kT destroyers, the 200kT space not occupied by fighter bays isn't going to win the day. And, keep in mind, that s NOT 200kT of weapons space, that space is also eaten up by engines, control components, sensors, ECM, shields, armor, etc, etc. As for mounts .... just chop 'em out. ... I may work up something for such a game, myself. Maybe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif [ July 26, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: Pax ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
So, here's my idea for hull sizes.
ECM%'s were based on a combination of EpM and mass; 300kT and 3EpM were pegged as "nomodifier" (IOW, Destroyers). Every 50kT or 1 EpM difference was worth a 20-point shift in inherent ECM; higher EpM was worth a penalty, as was greater mass. Base hulls (the Spacedock, Outpost, and Starbase sizes) were assigned a basic progression independant of their size; these hulls, by rights, would have far more efficient built-in active and passive ECM measures (different materials, lack of engine radiation, etc). The differing EpM is not a stab at newtonian movement, it's merely meant to allow some hulls to get more out of a given engine component than others (the Fast-class hulls, including the PRobe), and others to get less (carriers, transports, the heavy destroyer). There's no seperate colony ship hull; simply use a Light Transport hull for that. I think it may be a good idea to cut the size of the Spaceyard ship component to 100 or 200 kT -- or else give it a (for it's size) small amount of cargo space (maybe 600kT, enough for one Large Weapons Platform), so that the 600kT Bulk Transport hull could use it. Thus you could still have spaceyard ships. So. Thoughts, comments, ideas ... ? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">| Hull | Short | Size (kT) | ECM% | EpM | |----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----| |Probe | PR | 50 | +140 | 1 | |Scout | SC | 100 | +80 | 3 | |Fast Frigate | XF | 150 | +80 | 2 | |Frigate | FF | 200 | +40 | 3 | |Destroyer | DD | 300 | +0 | 3 | |Heavy Destroyer | HD | 350 | -40 | 4 | |Fast Carrier | XV | 300 | +20 | 2 | |Carrier | CV | 400 | -60 | 4 | |Fast Courier | XT | 200 | +60 | 2 | |Light Transport | LT | 300 | -20 | 4 | |Bulk Transport | BT | 600 | -140 | 4 | |----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----| |Spacedock | SD | 200 | +50 | n/a | |Outpost | OP | 500 | +0 | n/a | |Starbase | SB | 1,000 | -50 | n/a | |----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----| |Satellites | | | | | | Small | SSa | 60 | ? | n/a | | Medium | MSa | 90 | ? | n/a | | Large | LSa | 120 | ? | n/a | |----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----| |Fighters | | | | | | Small | SFr | 5 | ? | ? | | Medium | MFr | 10 | ? | ? | | Large | LFr | 20 | ? | ? | |----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----| |Weapon Platforms| | | | | | Small | SWP | 200 | ? | n/a | | Medium | MWP | 400 | ? | n/a | | Large | LWP | 600 | ? | n/a | |----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----| |Troops | | | | | | Small | SFr | 10 | ? | n/a | | Large | LFr | 20 | ? | n/a | |----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Some notes: </font>
[ July 26, 2003, 22:18: Message edited by: Pax ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Wow! Pax, I don't want to sound negative so please don't take this the wrong way, but that is certainly different than what I originally had in mind. Run with these ideas, this project may turn into a fun mod. If you would like a little more about my original thoughts I would be happy to post them here.
Slick. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Your original thought was, ISTM, just to chop out the bigger hulls, but then I got to thinking abotu how you could make a small-ships game still have a variety of hulls. That requires greater variation in more than just size, since you're workign in such a small "window" of possible sizes, so some speed variations seemed appropriate. So I came up with 2 scout, 4 warship, 2 carrier, and 3 transport hulls, for 11 ships in all. Starbases should also drop in size (or they become absolute TERRORS on defense). The possible changes to the Spaceyard componentare intended solely to permit spaceyard ships; I'm in favor of dropping it to 100kT, since that'd fit on a spacedock, and you could push the 500kT base hull out a ways, tech-wise. I do plan to explore this further. Generally, I won't likely touch much beyond the hull sizes, and the tech fields that affect them. To re-introduce some design variation, OTOH, I may *cough*"borrow"*cough* mounts form other sources. Some of the Gatling moutns could be amusing, for example. Oh ... one thing I forgot to work in is Drones. Make them 50/100/150 (2EpM), perhaps. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Please don't feel obligated to incorporate any of these ideas, but use them if you like.
There were a few of ideas that I was trying to combine. One was the idea that the ratio of ship size to planet size seems too large. Indeed some ships can have more firepower and/or storage than small planets. I think this is unrealistic. Limiting the size of ships to Frigate would go a long way to correct this. Also, based on most sci-fi, planet defenses should be a more formidable. It should be very hard for a ship to glass a planet - even a tiny planet. Taking on a homeworld would take a huge number of ships and the better course of action might be to attack the economy instead of the large planets. The caution here is that planet defenses must be kept vulnerable to fleets or else the game would end in stalemate. Large Weapon Platforms would be very formidable, but still be suceptible to attacks of large numbers and/or blockading. Also, having small ships would somewhat un-nerf minefields, and make defense bases more formidable as they should be. In the unmodded game a Battlecruiser is larger than a Space Station. Under this scheme, the smallest base should be larger than the largest ship. Another idea was that there would be only 3 available ship sizes (on purpose): Escort, Frigate, and Colony Ship. Colony Ships would be used only as colonizers. That leaves only Escorts and Frigates (rarely used in the unmodded game) for everything else. You would have to make many different configurations of Escorts and Frigates to accomplish all the functions of an empire. They could do all the essentials: attack ships, carriers, troop transports, mine layers, mine sweepers, etc. However, you couldn't build a spaceyard ship - the best you could do is a repair Frigate with very limited movement (2 engines, or 1 engine and 1 solar sail). Again, these ideas would make more of a challenge out of supply, repair, minesweeping, etc., which come all to easy with large ships. You would have to deal with being unable to put spaceyards and other large components on ships - you could use them only on bases if appropriate. Only having 2 real hulls for all ship designs would really create a creative duel against humans. This is why I didn't mention creating other hull sizes or using qnp to give more space in the smaller hulls. There is no doubt that, under this system, large fleets would rule small fleets. But there would be real attrition during fleet battles instead of quite lopsided battles where the winning side takes little no losses. I believe that, in general, a small fleet would still be able to take out a somewhat (maybe slightly less than) proportional number of ships against a large fleet. Also, the non-availability of mounts for Escorts and Frigates was intentional. Mounts would only work for WP's and bases to make up for their immobility. I also think that some of the non-used weapons would be much more useful. I am thinking that a small plague bomb fleet would be a good alternative to attempting to glass a planet (which would mean heavy losses). Because of the limited capacity of Frigates, planet capture would not be so easy anymore. It would also involve heavy losses, but the fruits of victory are great. Drones, being comparable in size to ships, now also become a much more viable option. Also, the cost of ship maintenance would be more significant. Frigates and Escorts have lots of "overhead" space used for non-combat systems. Since the obvious way to win a game like this would be to massively produce ships, the economic pain of ship maintenance would really come into play. Do you attack the enemy fleet or his economic base? Basically if someone wanted to create a full blown mod to address all these issues, it could be done. But a "quick & dirty" way to get a new twist on the game would be to simply eliminate all hulls except Escort, Frigate and Colony Ship. Of course, AI controlled empires would probably not be very good at this, if they would even work at all. Well those are the things I was thinking about when I made this post. Use or discard any ideas you like. Slick. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Why not leave ships sizes as they are but get rid of ship mounts alltogether ? There would'd be much advantage to build bigger ships as it is now.
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Another idea for including the larger components in the smaller hulls would be to add miniaturization mounts, just make them cost a lot.
Half size components cost twice or even three times as much... Further miniaturization costs even more... You then have a choice, make LOTS of ships with standard components OR fewer (more powerful) ships with miniature (but high cost)components. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Slick. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Slick.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">True http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Then may be give smaller ships attack and defence bonuses ? Like in Proportions or AIC mods. It's got to be more difficult to hit smaller ships. It follows from basic physics and mathematics, I think. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well, we'll see what I can cook up (if anything). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
With larger hulls, it might have to be called "Knee-Biters" instead of "Ankle-Biters" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
Slick. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
So slick, are you gonna do this?
Geoschmo |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Well, here I come with my big mouth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .
Just random thoughts. I'm somewhat/curiously interested in Slick's suggestion for a game. I'd rather see it go up to a destroyer (mentioned below, I think) than hang at frigates. I'm just guessing but having frigates be your "dreadnaughts" might make a planet impregnable. Certainly, one with moderate cargo space for WPs. Throw in 100 mines and some space defenses and it becomes a real problem. Also, did I just miss it or have satellites been mentioned? Would fighters be allowed (you just can't build a carrier)? The other discussion, which would seem to indicate a mod, is interesting, too. I rarely play mod games, though (hell, it took me years just to become a half-assed player with the standard game...I'd hate to think of my learning curve in a mod... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ). Besides, Slick's game could start right away http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . The mention of miniturization of components would seem to defeat the purpose of a game with small hulls. After all, if one can build a 5 or 600Kt ship with all the components (due to miniturization) that a dreadnaught can currently hold, doesn't the game really stay about the same? Slick, what kind of racial points were you comptemplating? |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Quote:
If I were going to do this (I don't plan to in the near future), I think the easiest way would be to edit only vehicles.txt. Then play a test game to find if there are fatal flaws, tweak if necessary, then start a real game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Sheez. I feel bad now. I just wanted to post an interesting idea I had. I sure wish I had more time to run with it. Either on the mod side or on the play side. Work and real life will be keeping me very busy well through the end of the year and possibly into next. Pax, best of luck with any of your efforts. You may be right about planets being too hard to attack with Frigates. I guess playtesting will tell. I also agree that miniaturization (sp?) mounts will counteract the idea. Slick. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Not sure why vehicles.txt would have to be edited. If you mean removing ship classes, I think honor could take care of that. Otherwise, perhaps I missed a suggested change or two somewhere... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .
I once played a game with Lord Chane where we did something a LITTLE bit different. We limited fleet sizes to 10 ships. Gentleman's agreement. So, even with ships of any size, it was hard to take large and huge breathables. I guess because people knew there could only be 10 ships in a fleet, so it became more worthwhile to build WPs as it became more possible to defend planets. So, in a way, "ankle-biting" will be a bit similar, I think. Of course, with 10 ships to a fleet, there was a finite limit of total tons one could throw against a planet. It wouldn't be the same with 100 frigates... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif . |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Problem is, IF one thinks they don't have time, it's usually the case. After all, there are lots of players who THINK they have time for another game and DON'T... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif . |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
I did some quick tests and frigates might be fine. Yeah taking out big planets would be a lot tougher, but I don't think it would be impossible. Even with the big weapons plats with high tech weapons you can overcome it with enough ships. What it would do is make you build ships with the anti-planetary weapons and keep you fleets in formation. For example it might take 200-300 frigates with APB and no formation to take out a homeworld, but 50-75 frigates with napalm in a wall formation might be able to pull it off. And a mass of drones might do the job even easier. I havn't tested that. On the other hand since you are limiting ships you could also limit weapons platform sizes. and maybe Drones as well. One thing that could be a problem though is some fo the stellar manip comps won't fit on a frigate, or even a destroyer. Geoschmo [ July 27, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
I did some quick tests and frigates might be fine. Yeah taking out big planets would be a lot tougher, but I don't think it would be impossible. Even with the big weapons plats with high tech weapons you can overcome it with enough ships. What it would do is make you build ships with the anti-planetary weapons and keep you fleets in formation. For example it might take 200-300 frigates with APB and no formation to take out a homeworld, but 50-75 frigates with napalm in a wall formation might be able to pull it off. And a mass of drones might do the job even easier. I havn't tested that. On the other hand since you are limiting ships you could also limit weapons platform sizes. and maybe Drones as well. One thing that could be a problem though is some fo the stellar manip comps won't fit on a frigate, or even a destroyer. Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Nope, NOT talking about anyone in particular, Geo. Just remembering the number of games where it seems someone dropped out due to lack of time. Wall formation? Hehe, since I see my "walls" turned every-which-way, it'd be my luck they'd go in "single file" formation to the planet... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif . http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif NO Stellar Manip? Well, you can't put an opener and a repair component on a frigate (and without the repair, it's not worth the build). Those 2 items are 250Kt alone. Now, you can work a bit with a destroyer (if you have master comp 3, quantum engine...note, I said "engine", and sail 3). |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
You'd just start having 2-ship "mini-fleets" for stellar manip. One with the opener/closer, one with the repair. Not as pretty or convenient, but still functional. Of course, I get the idea that's the whole point of this mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
1 MC 1 Engine 5 Fighter Launch Bays 1 Solar Sail Slow but viable. If the engine was a QE and a Solar Sail III, the speed would be 7 which isn't too bad. I would envision trading engines for space in lots of designs. This goes back to the idea of having to pay much more attention to managing supplies. Slick. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Oh oh... It's beginning to happen... Must resist... I may (repeat may ) rethink about working on something along these lines. Excuse me while I go soak my head to get this foolish idea out of my head.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Slick. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
I'm actually going to work on this small-ships mod; it'll be a nice break form bashing my head against the "wth weapons do I give each paradigm" brick wall I've reached with Exodus, and it sounds like a real fun game in it's own right.
On the subject of stellar manipulation: methinks I shall have to work on those too; get most of 'em at least able to shoe-horn into a bulk freighter with minimal engine/control components ... hmm, giving them 1kT of cargo would work. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Pax, if you give a comp the Cargo ability with 0 cargo space, it still counts as a cargo space to satisfy vehicle requirements.
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Well, I'm almost done ... I'm just finishing up the VehicleSizes.txt file now.
I got a touch ambitious,and tweaked a few other ocmponents -- more range for torpedoes, gave the GHB armor-skipping, cut the range of the PPB by one, upped MB range by one ... the general sort of things being discussed in the Stock Balance mod. Tweaked the unit-launch components to have their launch rate be porportionate to their tech level (1/2, 2/4, 3/6 respectively). Lowered PDC range. Improved the Shard Cannon slightly. A few things like that. Also a couple minor stylistic/concept things (TK Projectors now skip all shields ... their cost may need to be tweaked later). OH, yes: upped armor hp/kt significantly for normal armor, and slightly for most others. Added a couple neat toys: MultiColony Twice as big and costly as any one module, but, can do the work of all three. Need to have all three colonisation techs to build it. Advanced Bridge 10% sensor/ECM bonus and small antiboarding defense. Advanced Crew Quarters Does double-duty as CQ and LS. Advanced Fighter Cockpit As Advanced CQ, for fighters Drone Fighter Control Computer MC for fighters Lastly, I co-opted Deathstalker's Mount Mod, adjusted a few to be useful for the smaller ships, trimmed out all miniaturising mounts (except those aimed at remote mining), and chopped off the bigger mounts. As for changes to Technology, the only real changes (other than organising things a bit differently in the research screen) are these: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ship Construction Old = 9; cost = 10,000 New = 6; cost = 20,000 SC Hull(s) 1 Scout, Light Transport 2 Probe 3 Frigate, Fast Courier 4 Destroyer 5 Fast Frigate 6 Heavy Destroyer, Bulk Transport Base Construction Old = 3; cost = 100,000 New = 3; cost = 100,000 BC Hull 1 Spacedock 2 Outpost 3 Starbase</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hull sizes, ECM, EpM, etc are all per my table below. I should probably be ready to upload a beta Version in a couple hours (gonna break for supper ... a man's gotta eat, after all! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ). |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
But then, you're down to three fighter bays, each one with not a WHOLE lot of cargo capacity in and of themselves. You can launch, what, twice? Three times? In Groups of three? No thanks. Give me ~100kT more, so I can pile on two more launch bays, another cargo bay, and a second PDC ... and we're beginning to talk "Carrier" rather than "auxiliary Fi-Con" ... |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
The weapon, as a result, will almost definitely need to be adjusted to be more costly, both in terms of research and price to build. But it better fits how I "see" telekinesis working. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
File uploaded (sucker compressed to under 90KB, lol):
Small Ships mod, v 1.0a, Beta 1. Feedback and such will be welcome. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
But your mod idea is cool too. I like them both. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Geoschmo [ July 28, 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
So why would the shields not interfere with the mental energy going out to create the telekinetic bLast? They could still block that, forcing the telekinetic bLast to begin just outside of the shield layer.
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
"[...] does not cross the intervening space [...]" I don't think any mental energy goes from Point A (the projector) to Point B (the target ship), at all. Therefor a shield between A and B is of no use, and has no effect. That is how I envision telekinesis working -- and therefor that is how it will work in the SmallShips mod. So far, as a preliminary balance, I've cut the damage of the weapon in half (making it always inferior to the PPB, except against phased shields). Considering the increase in relative armor hp/kt, it's not a be-all end-all weapon. Against Crystalline races, you want shields (and armor-skipping weapons); against Psychic races, you probably want armor (and MCs). I don't see why it's such a problem for you. |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
One thing I forgot to mention: turns out SE4 is hard-coded NOT to allow an MC-like control component for fighters. 8P So the Drone Fighter Control is out.
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Something has to travel between the projector and the target. It can't just magically leap there.
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
You can also have identical fighter hulls that do not require these components. Call it built in drone fighter control or something. But that might not be what you were wanting. Geoschmo [ July 28, 2003, 00:43: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Geoschmo |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Well, I was going under the assumption that he was not wanting to include magic in the mod. Anything technological or pseudo-realistic has to make some sort of travel path. Instantly warping there is absurd unless you are doing something like folding space (an absurd notion in and of itself), which is well beyond the scope of telekinesis. Even wormholes have a path of travel in realspace.
|
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
But nothing about telekinesis requires a path. It's using mental energy to manifest a force out of nothing. If we are going to accept a weapon that violates the laws of thermodynamics as it's fundamental operating principle, we don't have to say the force is created out of nothing at the point of the projector. We can simply say the force is being created out nothing at the point of the target. Either one is acceptable once we get past the initial violating assumption.
EDIT: Put it this way, if the force required a path from the mind creating it to the target it would punch a hole through their own ship on the way out. Unless the psychics are strapped to the outside of the hull. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Geoschmo [ July 28, 2003, 01:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
Quote:
Matter -- that's matter not just energy -- instantaneously jumps form point A to (say) point H ... and does not pass through points BCDEF or G. And it's a real-world current thing, not just SF. Further, there's also the whole "quantum pair" infinite-distance instantaneous information transfer effect. Create two particles; they will have opposite spin. They will always have opposite spin. If you send particle B to the other side of the universe, uncountable billions of lightyears away while keeping particle A HERE ... and then reverse B's spin ... at the exact same moment, particle A will also reverse it's spin. All that's required is, they both be in the same universe. (as far as we know so far, anyway; it migh even work across THOSE barriers). A forcefield wouldn't change that. Heck, fourty billion klometers of armor wouldn't change that. So it is entirely within the realm of quantum physics to posit a mechanism, by which energy can be "created" or otherwise accumulated at some marked distance from teh generator, without effect upon or from intervening energy, matter, space, etc. So much for your "it has to be magic" argument, hmm? I guess "everything technological or pseudo-realistic" doesn't actually HAVE to have apath of travel, now, does it? 8P Oh, as for folding space being absurd: tell it to Einstein. He was under the (apparently absurd) notion that space IS foldable, warpable, bendable,e tc. Seems he had this crazy notion gravity does JUST that. But, of course, that's not possible; never mind the fact that we've PROVEN gravity warps space (that bit, at least, is no longer theory). |
Re: Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.