FTL travel

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Yes, but giving premade Tech Objects an advantage over player-made TOs is negating the goal of this game: freedom.

There is an advantage for premade Tech Objects? Where?

I think playermade TOs would naturaly have an advantage because they would be better suited to the environment thab premade TOs.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Having the player make a basic firearm (it's a bit much to expect them to make anything else) is understandable.

I think we should try to cover the widest spectrum of players we can. There are casual players that want the game simple and clean, but there is also the hardcore that wants to do everything by itself. They are in minority, but they are far more active on internet than casuals, so they are equally important for us.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But you're saying that it's optional to have everything beyond that, and the player has to create them? I hope you mean with FPs...

Could you please explain this a bit? I don't quite understand what you there.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

but there needs to be FPs for siege weapons. Expecting players to make a ballista bow or a catapult mechanism is a bit much.

If you mean a huge ballista with everything on place, then I disagree. I don't want players to build it by every gear and nail, but a complete "Ballista" FP would be the same as premade TO "Ballista". I think two FPs would be ideal number.

Commander Keen wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Yes, but giving premade Tech Objects an advantage over player-made TOs is negating the goal of this game: freedom.

There is an advantage for premade Tech Objects? Where?

I think playermade TOs would naturaly have an advantage because they would be better suited to the environment thab premade TOs.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Having the player make a basic firearm (it's a bit much to expect them to make anything else) is understandable.

I think we should try to cover the widest spectrum of players we can. There are casual players that want the game simple and clean, but there is also the hardcore that wants to do everything by itself. They are in minority, but they are far more active on internet than casuals, so they are equally important for us.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

But you're saying that it's optional to have everything beyond that, and the player has to create them? I hope you mean with FPs...

Could you please explain this a bit? I don't quite understand what you there.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

but there needs to be FPs for siege weapons. Expecting players to make a ballista bow or a catapult mechanism is a bit much.

If you mean a huge ballista with everything on place, then I disagree. I don't want players to build it by every gear and nail, but a complete "Ballista" FP would be the same as premade TO "Ballista". I think two FPs would be ideal number.

Well, unless i understood your post, you were saying that Research Levels would give you improved premade TOs, but the function parts would not be updated. That would give the premade TOs an advantage over player-made ones. And if you were actually suggesting that FPs need to be improved too, how do you do that without messing up the player's creation and where they placed it?

The second and third thing you asked were coming off of that statement. You said that they would make the lock and barrel, and everything else is optional. But if the player wants to improve the accuracy, distance and effectiveness i don't think they should have to do it piece by piece. Function parts that achieve this would be much appreciated.

As for the ballista argument, two FPs will be fine. Just as long as i don't have to create them from the bottom up.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Well, unless i understood your post, you were saying that Research Levels would give you improved premade TOs, but the function parts would not be updated. That would give the premade TOs an advantage over player-made ones. And if you were actually suggesting that FPs need to be improved too, how do you do that without messing up the player's creation and where they placed it?

FPs should surely improve too, but they should not break TOs in any way. I think they should not change visually at all, just get a boost in effectivness. Maybe player should be asked to update his creations when a FP gets leveled up.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

The second and third thing you asked were coming off of that statement. You said that they would make the lock and barrel, and everything else is optional. But if the player wants to improve the accuracy, distance and effectiveness i don't think they should have to do it piece by piece. Function parts that achieve this would be much appreciated.

Oh, certainly by FPs. You are right, it would be quite a stress even for the most hardcore to make everything themselves. I apologize for any misunderstanding I could have made by above posts of mine.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

As for the ballista argument, two FPs will be fine. Just as long as i don't have to create them from the bottom up.

No, I certainly don't want anyone to build siege machines from scratch. Again, I apologize for misunderstandings I may have caused.

My concepts, may not nessicarily fit with actual science behind it.

WARP: Good for Solar Travel. This is a ship-mounted tech and has multiple research levels for effectiveness. Ranges from lightspeed to only taking hours to span the system.

HYPERSPACE: Good interstellar. Usually requires external tech for ships to use, but could concievably function on larger ships too. Stargates/Jumpgates/Tesseract(sp?) would be good examples. Requires some time to pass through hyperspace, but drastically shorter than warp tech would require.

WORMHOLES: Um.... A wormhole. Always external. Conceivably you could make one but thats REALLY high tech, so as a rule you have to use naturally occuring ones. Functions essentially like Portals do in Portal (Valve).

Tenebrarum wrote:

My concepts, may not nessicarily fit with actual science behind it.

WARP: Good for Solar Travel. This is a ship-mounted tech and has multiple research levels for effectiveness. Ranges from lightspeed to only taking hours to span the system.

HYPERSPACE: Good interstellar. Usually requires external tech for ships to use, but could concievably function on larger ships too. Stargates/Jumpgates/Tesseract(sp?) would be good examples. Requires some time to pass through hyperspace, but drastically shorter than warp tech would require.

WORMHOLES: Um.... A wormhole. Always external. Conceivably you could make one but thats REALLY high tech, so as a rule you have to use naturally occuring ones. Functions essentially like Portals do in Portal (Valve).

I thought Stargates were wormholes...

Hyperspace is.. Image space as a flat piece of paper. Bend the paper, this is 3 dimensional space in a higher dimension. Travelling across the paper is what we would call a straight line, but the more direct route is in a higher dimension. Hyperspace is the true straight line, leaving the paper.

A wormhole is where you bend the paper enough to make two parts of space touch, meaning that at certain points in space, you can simply move into a distant point in space, because it is distant, but right next to you simultaneously.

This is probably hard to understand. Let's face it, it is.

If you want to give him difficult to understand explanations, just link him to Wikipedia.

Alcubierre (warp) drive
Hyperdrive
Wormholes

The hyperdrive on wikipedia seems to use a more... Fantasyspace, rather than hyperspace.

The thing is, it doesn't say anything about using the direct route in four dimensions, which is what using hyperspace to get from one location to another is, using the concept of 3 dimensional space curved in the fourth dimension.

And we are going to include the curved space theory in-game to mean you can have hyperspace and wormholes, aren't we? We could have an option to curve space, letting you choose how curved/crumpled up space is, altering the effects of hyperspace, basically disabling it when space is flat.

Speaking of the 4Dness of the universe, a good 'cloaking' tactic would be (best in flat 4D space, no hyperspace traffic) to move in the forth dimension, go to the destination of attack, then without warning leap back in the 4th dimension and attack!

You know 4th dimension is time, right?

There are many theories what is hyperspace like and if it exists at all. I just linked to the first I found.

Commander Keen wrote:

You know 4th dimension is time, right?

There are many theories what is hyperspace like and if it exists at all. I just linked to the first I found.

Spacetime you mean. The fourth dimension is also gravity. But that's debatable. A bend in spacetime acts as a gravity well, but can also function as a wormhole.

Commander Keen wrote:

You know 4th dimension is time, right?

There are many theories what is hyperspace like and if it exists at all. I just linked to the first I found.

I mean the 4th spacial dimension, 4 dimensional in the same way as a hypercube, which uses the same prefix. (Wikipedia page) (2D image of a 3D representation of a 4D hypercube).

My theory of hyperspace, which I got from somewhere... It's my idea of it, anyway. I said it in my other post(s), so I don't think I need to repeat myself again. My theory of hyperspace uses the 4th dimension (of space), the same dimension as a hypercube would use.

And Tenebrarum, I think it would become a wormhole, not if it just curves a bit, but if it bends enough to make two parts of space-time meet (meet is the important word here)
(but it can only curve enough to meet if space is curved, the same way as you would have to curve a piece of paper over two make two point of it meet. There is a good image on the wikipedia article linked in this thread that shows what I am describing (this is the link to that image))

The Uteen wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

You know 4th dimension is time, right?

There are many theories what is hyperspace like and if it exists at all. I just linked to the first I found.

I mean the 4th spacial dimension, 4 dimensional in the same way as a hypercube, which uses the same prefix. (Wikipedia page) (2D image of a 3D representation of a 4D hypercube).

My theory of hyperspace, which I got from somewhere... It's my idea of it, anyway. I said it in my other post(s), so I don't think I need to repeat myself again. My theory of hyperspace uses the 4th dimension (of space), the same dimension as a hypercube would use.

And Tenebrarum, I think it would become a wormhole if it bends enough to make two parts of space-time meet (meet is the important word here), but it can only curve enough to meet if space is curved, the same way as you would have to curve a piece of paper over two make two point of it meet. There is a good image on the wikipedia article linked in this thread that shows what I am describing.

I'm quite confused with the hole idea of 4D. You used the example of a piece of paper. But the paper surface is 2D and curving it won't be a problem. But if it was 3D then wouldn't beding it distort every thing? Says you use a flexible tube, by bending it the space inside it will change. But in the 4D thing the space stays the same.
This is to complicate for my small brain.

Albalrogue wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

You know 4th dimension is time, right?

There are many theories what is hyperspace like and if it exists at all. I just linked to the first I found.

I mean the 4th spacial dimension, 4 dimensional in the same way as a hypercube, which uses the same prefix. (Wikipedia page) (2D image of a 3D representation of a 4D hypercube).

My theory of hyperspace, which I got from somewhere... It's my idea of it, anyway. I said it in my other post(s), so I don't think I need to repeat myself again. My theory of hyperspace uses the 4th dimension (of space), the same dimension as a hypercube would use.

And Tenebrarum, I think it would become a wormhole if it bends enough to make two parts of space-time meet (meet is the important word here), but it can only curve enough to meet if space is curved, the same way as you would have to curve a piece of paper over two make two point of it meet. There is a good image on the wikipedia article linked in this thread that shows what I am describing.

I'm quite confused with the hole idea of 4D. You used the example of a piece of paper. But the paper surface is 2D and curving it won't be a problem. But if it was 3D then wouldn't beding it distort every thing? Says you use a flexible tube, by bending it the space inside it will change. But in the 4D thing the space stays the same.
This is to complicate for my small brain.

It would distort everything, one suggested method of testing whether space is curved is using lasers, and seeing what angle they are to each other, with space curved a certain way a huge, massive triangle could possible end up with each corner a right-angle, so looking for anomalies like this is how to work it out.

And another thing you may be wondering about distortion, you yourself can tell the paper was curved, but if you were a stick-man drawn on it, seeing the 2D paper as all of space, how could you tell it was curved? Not very easily.

I hope you understand it a little better now.

According to M-Theory there are 10 dimensions and an extra Spatial-Dimension. Apparently the extra 6 dimensions, apart from time (the 4th), are curled up tightly and wrap around themselves (I don't really much understand it).

GamerXA wrote:

According to M-Theory there are 10 dimensions and an extra Spatial-Dimension. Apparently the extra 6 dimensions, apart from time (the 4th), are curled up tightly and wrap around themselves (I don't really much understand it).

M theory is bull, IMO, as is string theory. Too many solutions, it's a complete cop-out. I think the laws of the universe change with relative distance.

Do we really need to argue about how many dimensions there are, guys? This thread is about FTL travel. So unless it relates DIRECTLY to an FTL research, i wouldn't bother posting any theory.

Your most definitely right Alaska. We should get back on the discussion at hand.

Are their any more FTL methods of travel that exists apart from the three that we have?

Some one mensioned something about teleportation. Could this be clasified as FTL?

Albalrogue wrote:

Some one mensioned something about teleportation. Could this be clasified as FTL?

No, because the information is sent using particles of some sort, and they cannot go faster than light, only as fast if electromagnetic radiation is used. Nice guess, though, and I think we forgot about this, it could be a mode of travel that does not require a ship, or just pre-FTL.

i don't think so, teleportation would require it not only to be FTL but infinity fast

The Uteen wrote:

Albalrogue wrote:

Some one mensioned something about teleportation. Could this be clasified as FTL?

No, because the information is sent using particles of some sort, and they cannot go faster than light, only as fast if electromagnetic radiation is used. Nice guess, though, and I think we forgot about this, it could be a mode of travel that does not require a ship, or just pre-FTL.

Well, if we're including FTL researches, then i dare say that teleportation could be improved to be instantaneous through other researches.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Albalrogue wrote:

Some one mensioned something about teleportation. Could this be clasified as FTL?

No, because the information is sent using particles of some sort, and they cannot go faster than light, only as fast if electromagnetic radiation is used. Nice guess, though, and I think we forgot about this, it could be a mode of travel that does not require a ship, or just pre-FTL.

Well, if we're including FTL researches, then i dare say that teleportation could be improved to be instantaneous through other researches.

Teleportation scans you and transmits all the information using radio-waves or another form of electromagnetic radiation and creates a clone at the other end, then destroys the original. It is not instantaneous, photons cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

I think you've all been watching too much science-fiction. Instantaneous travel is not possible, hyperspace shortens the amount of time by using a higher spacial dimension, warp drive distorts space to make travel faster (not sure about how realistic that idea is), and even a wormhole limits you by the time it takes to get to it and go through it. No possible method of travel can be instantaneous.

Anyway, we already have instant travel in game, ascension, and we all know that isn't possible (do we?), so including your ideas of instantaneous travel will make ascension pointless.

The Uteen wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Albalrogue wrote:

Some one mensioned something about teleportation. Could this be clasified as FTL?

No, because the information is sent using particles of some sort, and they cannot go faster than light, only as fast if electromagnetic radiation is used. Nice guess, though, and I think we forgot about this, it could be a mode of travel that does not require a ship, or just pre-FTL.

Well, if we're including FTL researches, then i dare say that teleportation could be improved to be instantaneous through other researches.

Teleportation scans you and transmits all the information using radio-waves or another form of electromagnetic radiation and creates a clone at the other end, then destroys the original. It is not instantaneous, photons cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

I think you've all been watching too much science-fiction. Instantaneous travel is not possible, hyperspace shortens the amount of time by using a higher spacial dimension, warp drive distorts space to make travel faster (not sure about how realistic that idea is), and even a wormhole limits you by the time it takes to get to it and go through it. No possible method of travel can be instantaneous.

Anyway, we already have instant travel in game, ascension, and we all know that isn't possible (do we?), so including your ideas of instantaneous travel will make ascension pointless.

Yeah, I must of missunderstood the meaning of teleportation.

Slightely off topic (if not total off topic) : do we actually know if wormholes exist? Cause I've been reading a bit lately on astronomy and it doesn't mension any wormholes. It even sayed that blackholes are only suspicion on an anomaly in certain systems.

wormholes and still theoretical as black holes were until not so long ago

Albalrogue wrote:

Slightely off topic (if not total off topic) : do we actually know if wormholes exist? Cause I've been reading a bit lately on astronomy and it doesn't mension any wormholes. It even sayed that blackholes are only suspicion on an anomaly in certain systems.

Black holes are widely regarded to be fact, but wormholes are still only a theory based on mathematical extrapolation of current physics concepts.

I have only one comment on ideas for different FTL systems: Sword of the Stars.

EDIT: If flying to where you wanted to go and then time traveling back to when you wanted to arrive counts, Achron.