Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I personally don't like this explanation. What are these laws of the universe, and why are they so? Are they scientific laws? If a scientific law can be observed to be broken (or bent), then they need to be revisited and revised, because that would mean there is something wrong with those laws. Because of that, it seems tech here is operating under their own self-imposed rules, not any laws of the universe. Why can't tech bend these laws too? It seems like this explanation relies on the reader having a shoddy understanding of what scientific laws are, or that you just accept "universal laws" are some poetic-sounding thing that just works here

And now you are understanding why Magic and Science are not opposites.

But it is simple the scientific law is like... at regular pressure water freezes at 0c for example... If you did it a million times it would end up the same way. This works because the forces that allow the water to freeze act like they normally would.

Magic, however, works on a higher set of laws that allows it to interject and alter the first set to rather flexible degrees.

In a similar way that we found out that pressure alters when water freezes. Magic is that pressure.

The reason why magic and technology are opposed in that system is because technology REQUIRES a certain set of conditions to function and when changed slightly... it just doesn't work or doesn't work correctly. It requires very precise calculations and calibrations that magic makes completely irrelevant.

and because the laws that magic operates under are incredibly flexible and only vaguely known. It means that you cannot possibly use tech under those conditions.

What do you do with a Combustion engine when gasoline is no longer a flammable gas? or it suddenly has twice the explosive yield? You can only buffer it so much.

Add in that magic can only be used by a VERY select few and requires you to be specialized in it... while Technology can be used by anyone of differing levels of education... and you actually have a genuine "magic versus technology" class as magic can be considered the aristocracy.

[Sheb]

In effect, what you're describing is Magicians having some secret knowledge using it to gain an edge over the rest of the populace rather than magic and tech being different. You "magic" sounds more like Greek fire: something more advanced than what the rest of the world have, that seems to contradict stuff the rest of the world knows ("Things cannot burn on water!") and is kept secret by a caste of people that benefits from it.

[SealyStar]

High Viscosity Space
Inspired by the concept of "Newtonian Aurora" from "Games you wish existed", I need to vent about this one major issue. Space combat/simulation games are rare enough as it is, and almost all of them are guilty on some level of not only having Space Friction but space where you have a maximum velocity (that isn't the speed of light) and stop fast if not Big-Rigs-Over-The-Road-Racing-instantaneously the moment you let up the thrust key/button.

The only space games that simulate realistic Newtonian physics as far as velocity and acceleration go seem to be full-out realistic-ish space simulators like KSP and Space Engine. Any more-science-fiction-type space game seems to have magic inertia cancelers and speed limiters built into every ship. Maybe it's a side effect of the Unobtanium FTL Drives?

[Shadowlord]

I think it's because flying a frictionless Newtonian spaceship is really confusing.

Additional examples I can think of:
I've Found Her, which is a free Babylon 5 game where you're piloting a fighter and doing stuff.
Frontier: Elite 2, when you switch to manual/engines off (the gravity simulation is not great, but it's from the 90s).
Hazeron's helicopters in space, which were more realistic rockets than the actual rockets, and thus, more fun. Haxus eventually changed it so they could no longer reach space, sadly. And then he killed Hazeron.

[Delta Foxtrot]

I don't think it would be that confusing if people actually bothered to play and make that kind of games. But as is there's hardly any Newtonian flight models, ergo picking up a newtonian flight model will be confusing to start. At least I've Found Her was fairly easy to grasp (as easy as moderately detailed sims are) when I tried it years ago.

[Shadowlord]

In IFH's case, it helps that you're flying something you're already familiar with the performance and handling characteristics of from watching Babylon 5, and you probably wouldn't be playing it if you hadn't watched it.

[Delta Foxtrot]

Fair enough.

[yamo]

small fonts

I want the option to make all in game text havebigfonts.

Squinting is a deal breaker.

[hector13]

small fonts

I want the option to make all in game text havebigfonts.

Squinting is a deal breaker.

That is actually quite annoying. Especially if you have no control over the text on screen, so it disappears before you can read it all

[Rose]

Apparently, frontier actually had realistic drag physics in space. Well, realistic for water.

[Neonivek]

High Viscosity Space

This falls under what I call "Acceptable breaks from reality" for gameplay reasons. It would get rather annoying to have your ship just bounce all over the place.

But then again this is the Gaming Pet Peeves topic and not a "justify your rage" thread... but I just wanted to comment >_>

[hector13]

High Viscosity Space

This falls under what I call "Acceptable breaks from reality" for gameplay reasons. It would get rather annoying to have your ship just bounce all over the place.

But then again this is the Gaming Pet Peeves topic and not a "justify your rage" thread... but I just wanted to comment >_>

What about sound in space?

[GreatJustice]

High Viscosity Space

Willing to accept this for two reasons. First, controlling a ship that you can't modestly accelerate without having to decelerate an equal amount to stop would be annoying. and second, how the hell am I supposed to catch a ship with theoretically near-infinite velocity that shoots past when I'm waiting stationary for a target?

[Shadowlord]

To catch a ship moving at "near-infinite"* speed towards you: You have to see it coming, do math to figure out how fast you can reach the same velocity (or the game does it for you), and then start accelerating early enough that you can basically accelerate away from it until it catches you, by which time it should be moving much more slowly relative to you.

If you're too late, well, you'd better hope it isn't still accelerating and that it's acceleration isn't better than yours.

As for flying to destinations, either you do like in KSP, or you do like anyone with a magical unlimited-fuel drive with no space debris problem would do: you burn straight towards your target to get to some relativistic speed (or not, if you're not going that far), and then once you're halfway there you start burning straight away from it until you've slowed back down. This is much less efficient than what you do in KSP (or in real life). (You also have to aim at where your target is going to be when you arrive instead of where it is when you start, obviously, and account for gravity's effect on your vehicle.)

* I assume you mean they're moving spectacularly fast compared to you.

[alexandertnt]

Willing to accept this for two reasons. First, controlling a ship that you can't modestly accelerate without having to decelerate an equal amount to stop would be annoying. and second, how the hell am I supposed to catch a ship with theoretically near-infinite velocity that shoots past when I'm waiting stationary for a target?

Both points ignore the fact that velocity is relative in space. You don't decelerate unless its relative to something, you can't "stop", and how do you even wait "stationary" in space? Why are you doing nothing if they are going to shoot past you, when you should be trying to match their velocity?

I think your trying too hard to frame this thing as a WWII dogfighting game, when such a game would just be totally unlike that. It would require completely new skills, and a completely different way of thinking.

There is also no need to worry about ships moving near the speed of light. Assuming jet fighters magically worked in space, it would take an impracticaly long time for even our fastest jets to reach these speeds. You would have to worry about enemies constantly accelerating away from you (since you physically coundn't catch up, assuming your craft had the same handling characteristics), but thats trivially solved by just not programming the AI to do that (standard video game design solution. Game AI rarely works optimally in games, even when the optimal solution is trivially computable, because that is often just not fun). Multiplayer might be a bit more problematic, but that would result in a stalemate, as the other person couldn't score any kills either.

I think it's because flying a frictionless Newtonian spaceship is really confusing.

At first, yes. But that's what makes games fun, learning and mastering new things. And that is what could make a game like this both fresh and fun.

I don't know about you, but personally for me, KSP was the most fun when everything was really confusing. It gave me with something new to understand and conquer.