Shark wrote:I am having trouble understanding the OP... I'm OK with the added delay when starting SPEC, but I don't understand exactly how a cold start is supposed to differ from a warm start. Could someone please explain that to me?
"opposite 'Full Manual SPEC'"? "opposing spec fields"? Over Powered? I'm not sure, so I will just answer the second part of the questions. As for cold starts verses hot starts, I was throwing around ideas a fair bit and some particular ideas are not really necessary, but they highlight some funky power control. This is similar to the feature request to be able to turn off the reactor. If I remember we talked about both cold starts for SPEC and cold starts of the rector. A warm start for SPEC means that it has already established everything but the actual space warping. Once activated the drive would consume significant power even when the ship is not moving at all yet. In this case it has been activated by the same method that we activate SPEC now, by pressing [Shift+A]. If SPEC's set speed is kept at default zero then indeed the shields would stay up until SPEC's speed setting is increased by pressing [+] or any relevant button for the SPEC accelerate function. The shields would then be retracted back into the ship which is much faster than dropping them and waiting for the materials to disperse. Once space is mostly clear SPEC emitters would be free to start warping space to into the alcubierre bubble and the space in the bubble containing the ship would be propelled onward to the speed of light and beyond.
Shark wrote:Not to sound mean, but it took me over a half hour to read that post.
The issue is that we where kind of talking about things that where already discussed in the lost forum. Also my writing style is purposely short with as much information as I can pack into the sentence. It is a bit lazy but it also makes it so people can either quickly skim the words to get a picture of my meaning, or read those same words deeper to get my full meaning. Sometimes I use analogies in parallel for clarity, but sometimes I don't do all that I could when it comes to, using examples. It takes a lot more typing to use a proper example or analogy and I prefer to practice using more specific words using a thesaurus.
Shark wrote:don't think interdiction missiles are very 'fun'.
I have seen them in games before but they worked a bit different. For example in Iwar2 ships can initiate LSD FTL travel at any moment when far enough away from massive objects, but Interceptor missiles can travel FTL to stop the player from escaping for another 60 seconds. This makes little sense because why can't all missiles do that, but it did force a player to finish a mission or die. The player also had moments where he could fire those missiles on escaping NPC's, or chase down a FTL ship at speeds as if they where moving at normal speed for the final approach; but normally the NPC's would fight to or near their destruction.
Shark wrote:IansterGuy wrote:The most difficult thing I'm trying to accomplish it seems is making interceptors able to intercept. Though I don't think the solution is to go back to a lower spawn density. That would be like stopping the rain in the sky to fix the hole in the roof. In games it's easy too easy to stop the rain but that does not make the game any more dynamic to changes.
That is an awesome metaphor! I might put that in my sig.
Sure go right ahead, it's not like I was planning to. It could use a few alterations to hold it's own in a single sentence though.
Shark wrote:IansterGuy wrote:[#2. Temporary target effect using time released plasma from missiles and mines called 'SPEC-busters'.]Completely disable the SPEC of a target until only 10 percent of the hull is covered in SPEC inhibiting compound. This could take like 30 seconds average. Inhibit SPEC proportional to the last 10 percent of saturation. Remove the compound at a constant rate, but pause the removal when SPEC is activated.
I don't think suggesting chemistry as a means of starting/stopping SPEC is a good idea. I think we should stick with the physics we have already. Otherwise, it will open the door for SPEC-inhibiting microbes, and then all hell will break loose.
I should have started that quote by claiming something like, 'every spec buster has the potential to cover the hull with a certain amount of SPEC inhibiting compound, where percent saturation would depend on the size and quality of the SPEC buster and the size of the target.'
I think this reasoning is more a physical conduction reason than a chemical reason, because essentially the space around the ship should be clear even calculation wise to avoid variables needing to be accounted for. Klauss liked shields interfering catastrophically with SPEC, and Log0 liked missiles, so I figured add that to SPEC busters with a unique behavior.
Spamming missiles for duration of dogfights would be common. Though with physical countermeasures, I think that since there would be a chance of avoidance they would also contribute to forcing an early crucial decision weather to stay longer or to run.
To create unique game play and to differentiate the SPEC inhibiting compound from the other wave interference, SPEC busters would have an effect that only effects one ships and gradually wanes. This instead of effecting a hole area at the cost of energy or effecting an area for a short time at the cost of a self destructing device.
To make it more difficult to escape using a half disabled SPEC drive SPEC would not further recover from any inhibiting substance on the hull once the SPEC drive is activated. To reason is that if the target runs too soon they are easy to catch by a ship is not inhibited and travel time does not count for further recovery but rather would drain the SPEC drive for the next attempt.
I had two possible explanations for this and I like the second one now only. First was that once SPEC is activated the substance would be attracted to the emitters, directly interfering as they stick to them and temporary stop fuming the interference substance. What I prefer now is the shield clean up method. Where while activated the shields clean up the compound at a constant rate and really the shields themselves also cause catastrophic interference with SPEC so cannot propel through space the ship till shields are retracted.
I didn't answer your comment about avoiding microbe weapons because I think why not have them. They are essentially the same problem as Nanites and micro robots, which also need an explanation. The shield clean up explanation would solve both of these. My thought is that the shield system would not just protect from projectiles and energy weapons, but would consist of all kinds a tricks to thwart every known type of attack on the ship, including microbes and nano-bots. If the shield can project and concentrate particles and energy into a semi rigid fabric, why would it not be able to pull small particles away from the hull or fry them or radiate the proper interference patterns to hinder them. I think it all works, not point in stopping their implementation, it just needs an explanation.