Author Topic: Dev Diary #3: FTL  (Read 16072 times)

XTRMNTR2K

  • Modder Extraordinaire
  • Delusional
  • ****
  • Posts: 1564
  • Karma: +177/-2
  • I aim to misbehave.
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2014, 11:19:27 AM »
Except they're not apples, they're generic fruit.

*I* know that, but tell that to the people who were actually going "Wha...? Apples?!"  ;D


Of course you *have* to have some sort of recognizable example, and I assume that most people know what an apple looks like. It's really funny how some people tend to focus on the details instead of seeing the bigger picture.
But like I said, it's better to have some nitpicky stuff to point out than having issues with the underlying gameplay mechanics. :D

Space Voyager

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 185
  • Karma: +6/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #31 on: May 26, 2014, 07:49:23 AM »
Ah, but the devil is in the detail... An ugly detail will make the big picture look bad, no matter how good it might be.

Besides, we don't know the big picture yet, so details are all we gnaw on. ;)

Septimus Oraka

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #32 on: May 26, 2014, 05:31:49 PM »
The crystals aren't the source of FTL, they're just a naturally occurring substance that collects the particles. Other means of producing FTL rely on capturing these particles through other means, and don't produce crystals.

Well, that explains a lot. But I still prefer the idea of collecting hydrogen in some orbital facility/specialized mining ship and use it to create "FTL particles"...

Septimus Oraka

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #33 on: May 26, 2014, 05:32:25 PM »
I think it's safe to say it's a good sign that people get worked up over minor designations instead of gameplay mechanics.


Besides, I'm pretty sure all references to "FTL crystals" could be changed for something else within minutes. Hell, with all the fuzz that "apples" and "FTL crystals" have caused so far, I'm willing to bet money that the first mod to be released will be a "NO CRYSTALS AND APPLES MOD"! ;D

Kkkkkkkkkk! I don't have any doubts about that.  ;D

mockingking

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: +3/-10
  • I am disappointed.
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2014, 09:39:49 AM »
I think it's safe to say it's a good sign that people get worked up over minor designations instead of gameplay mechanics.
Actually I'm quite opposed to FTL in general and all the proposed FTL mechanics specifically. But I know I'm pretty much alone with it, so I'll resign myself to complaining about the crystals :P
This game could have been much more.

Space Voyager

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 185
  • Karma: +6/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #35 on: June 03, 2014, 06:32:37 AM »
IMO crystals are ok. We find new materials every day, so crystals with exotic properties are perfectly plausible. I know I'm digging too far and frankly further than my actual knowledge of physics, but... those particles that would be gathered with crystals seem less plausible to me. Not their existence but their ability to propel matter FTL. For instance - tachyons are theoretically possible particles that would, should they exist, always move FTL. The less energy they have, the faster they move.

So, let's say they exist and we have crystals to collect them. Somehow they are trapped in that crystalline structure and so forth. That does not help with moving any other matter FTL. You would need to find a way to transform the regular matter into tachyons to move FTL.

Thinking about it, there might be an explanation... These particles could be naturally "producing warp bubbles" and you need a lot of them to fit a ship into their bubble. Hmmm... like photons can be massless despite the Higgs field. No other particle known so far is without interaction with Higgs field, so one could say photons have their own anti-Higgs bubble. These particles might be moving through space in a warp bubble and are not interacting with the space at all.

Then again, one can't bathe in photons and be massless. Probably. :D My head is starting to hurt.

Bah, gone waaaaaay over my head. Please, physicists, tear this apart and find a better solution.

TritAith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel:
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #36 on: June 03, 2014, 07:32:24 AM »
Well, the particels could be exotic matter...
Exotic matter is the source of energy one would need to build a warp drive in real because it has a negative errr energy density? I dont know the english term... But well, Exotic matter woulld be a physical plausible explanation!
Sorry, English is not my native language, but I'm trying :)

DatonKallandor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #37 on: June 03, 2014, 04:10:48 PM »
There is no physically plausible explanation, because we don't have FTL, nor a sensible scientifically accepted method of achieving it. Nitpicking a gameplay element because of "physics don't fit" is completely absurd. FTL is firmly in the "fiction" part of science fiction.

TritAith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel:
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #38 on: June 04, 2014, 06:06:06 AM »
Well, we may not have achived FTL yet, but that isn't to say it's impossible...
Of coure I don't want to say yoou could be actually travelling faster than light, but you can reach your destination in less time than light would need to travel the same distance, this is commonly named FTL, but, of course, it isn't, because you are not actually moving faster than light. The most simple way to do so would be a whormhole, but whormholes are quite difficoult to set up and maintain... but a far more realistic way of traveling would be the Alcoubierre drive. This one is based on the warp tecnology of Star Trek and contracts space in front of your spacecraft and expands space behind it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive)...
Sorry, English is not my native language, but I'm trying :)

Space Voyager

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 185
  • Karma: +6/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #39 on: June 04, 2014, 06:50:29 AM »
Also, tachyons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon) are in accordance with Einstein's equations, making them physically plausible, however improbable.

DatonKallandor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2014, 10:03:43 AM »
If we knew how to build a Warp drive - we would have. If we knew how to go faster than light - we would have. Even if it they had been small unmanned test versions - we would have. But we don't. Every college level physics student can come up with a dozen "plausible" FTL versions, but they're fictitious all the same.

TritAith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel:
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2014, 10:37:53 AM »
They aren't fictious at all, we just dind't build them as jet because we don't have the resources to build and the Enregy to FTL it jet...
Sorry, English is not my native language, but I'm trying :)

DatonKallandor

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2014, 01:13:08 PM »
They aren't fictious at all, we just dind't build them as jet because we don't have the resources to build and the Enregy to FTL it jet...

To use an Alcubierre drive, even if we could get the energy (which according to most physicists is either unfeasibly large or negative) we would need a way to create matter out of pure energy. We can't. And that's assuming the theory behind the drive is sound in the first place, which, considering it deals with both high gravity, high energy and miniscule scale is doubtful. It like all FTL theories deals in areas in which Quantum Physics and Einsteinian Physics overlap - and fatally conflict. Once we get a Unified Field Theory and can integrate large and small physics we can reevalute FTL, but until then it's Fiction and Speculation.

mockingking

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: +3/-10
  • I am disappointed.
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2014, 04:13:12 AM »
I always figured that SR took place with a heavily accelerated flow of time, i.e. one day passing per second played, or somesuch. Explained the FTL to me, as well as the whole bit where civilisations go from basic space flight to galactic empire in the space of hours.
This game could have been much more.

Thy Reaper

  • BMS Lead Developer
  • BMS Administrator
  • Hopeless
  • *
  • Posts: 3237
  • Karma: +397/-8
    • View Profile
    • Blind Mind Studios
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2014, 12:12:35 PM »
Star Ruler's speed has always been inconsistent and exaggerated. Fights last possibly minutes as ships move around, while populations can grow so fast that they use the elderly as defense against orbital bombardment. However long the span of time has appeared to be, it is certainly a long time.

TritAith

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel:
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2014, 04:11:10 PM »
Well, unless our population is some kind of bacteria multiplying really, really fast... :)
Sorry, English is not my native language, but I'm trying :)

Stellar-Zee

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2014, 11:25:55 AM »
You can't FTL without Beacons if you go with Beacons. They don't need a secondary function when they already are essential. For a beacon user, they're the only way to FTL - you don't need any more reason to set up a network of them (if you can afford to).

I REALLY hope this changes. I want the option to research another way to FTL later, such as having gates and hyperdrives.

Septimus Oraka

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #47 on: August 09, 2014, 06:51:23 PM »
I REALLY hope this changes. I want the option to research another way to FTL later, such as having gates and hyperdrives.

Look, I don't have nothing against using beacons/stargates/stardrives/whatever for FTL travel, but if my civilization(s) in SR2 will use any of these ways to conquer the galaxy, I would like to see these beacons/stargates/stardrives being their only way of achieving FTL travel - without any other option available.

Of course, if there is an option, I would like to see this option being extremely difficult to being researched, to avoid any unbalance in gameplay.

P.S: sorry for my grammar. I'm brazilian and my English is suffering of Cosmic Rust (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/Cosmic_Rust_%28episode%29).

kingdark

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #48 on: August 27, 2014, 10:35:47 AM »
Well, logically, if civilization A that uses slipspace conquers a civlization B that uses hyperdrive then it should be logical to assume they can add hyperdrive technology to their ships right?

Isn't there a saying along the lines of 'better have it and not need it then need it and not have it?
Knowledge is power

Space Voyager

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 185
  • Karma: +6/-2
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #49 on: September 01, 2014, 11:50:45 PM »
Right, unless it breaks the gameplay, in which case I don't care too much for logic.

Septimus Oraka

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #50 on: September 17, 2014, 03:45:31 PM »
My thoughts exactly.  8)

Vladplaya

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #51 on: December 18, 2014, 08:41:10 PM »
One thing that I really don't like about SR2 flt approach is the fact that capital ships use FTL resources from a single pool from anywhere.

I believe it would create much deeper game if individual fleets had their individual FTL chargers, which would have to be refill from, say a star or planets with certain resource, after jump(s). Also having a cool down on FTL hyperdrives would be good idea too. Basically before you would use FTL you would have to make sure you would have place to refill and you would have enough time to cool down/recharge in case of an attack.

So basically making people manage their fleets and resources that required for FTL travel instead of one click trolololo hopping over the galaxy.



« Last Edit: December 18, 2014, 09:58:27 PM by Vladplaya »

Septimus Oraka

  • Sentient
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: +4/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Diary #3: FTL
« Reply #52 on: December 25, 2014, 06:44:01 AM »
One thing that I really don't like about SR2 flt approach is the fact that capital ships use FTL resources from a single pool from anywhere.

I believe it would create much deeper game if individual fleets had their individual FTL chargers, which would have to be refill from, say a star or planets with certain resource, after jump(s). Also having a cool down on FTL hyperdrives would be good idea too. Basically before you would use FTL you would have to make sure you would have place to refill and you would have enough time to cool down/recharge in case of an attack.

So basically making people manage their fleets and resources that required for FTL travel instead of one click trolololo hopping over the galaxy.

Sorry, but I am against micromanagement - and that includes the management of my fleets. Personally, I think that the FTL is good the way it is now. Of course, your idea about individual fleets having their own hyperdrives and the hyperdrives having a cooldown time is interesting.