Forum Rules ---- Game FAQ ---- Forum Search ---- Limit Theory Website

Return to “General”

Display posts from previous
Sort by
Post

Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:17 pm
    • #61 by Flatfingers
    At the risk of being boring (more so than usual, anyway), I'll mention the tabletop RPG Traveller again.

    It had what these days seems like an unusual definition of the "jump" idea: every normal jump, regardless of distance, takes exactly seven days of in-world time.

    Jump drives in Traveller are rated in parsecs. A Jump-1 drive goes 1 parsec; a Jump-6 drive (the fastest known to the best non-Ancient technology) goes 6 parsecs; but they, and all the ratings in-between, take seven days to get where they're going. Longer jumps take a multiple of seven days.

    This has a couple of effects. One is that it provides a rationale for gameplay aboard a ship that's currently jumping. You're encased in a magic bubble of space-time for seven days; you might as well do something. :)

    The other effect that these rules enable is that it's possible to calculate the very earliest moment that any piece of new information can arrive at a known destination. If an event happens on Planet A, and Planet B is six parsecs away, the earliest possible moment that anyone on Planet B can know what just happened on Planet A is seven days after the event. This lets you represent knowledge of events in Traveller sort of like raindrops on a still lake: each expanding, overlapping circle is a piece of information spreading at a fixed rate to more places. I find that fascinating for what it does to information as a commodity.

    I'm not suggesting LT needs that kind of definition for "jump" capability, though. A game that says you're literally going to be taking X amount of time (not really seven real-time days, but a fixed period of time) to make any jump would have to be built to give you many kinds of things to do inside a starship while you travel. Ships in LT aren't (as far as I know) meant to be gameplay locales, so this kind of jumping is not appropriate.

    Interesting to think about, though.
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Wed Oct 22, 2014 11:17 pm
    • #62 by Cornflakes_91
    Doomknight wrote:So... then what would be considered a "jump"? A few hundred thousand KM or a few light years?

    Also, for me whenever I've heard of a jump drive its always been the same as a FTL drive or Warp drive in that it provided a way to transverse great distances in a short period of time.
    We have no "warp drive" in the game (in a sense that you go in continous motion between systems) travel time >> 0
    We only have jump drives that take you from point A to point B in an instant. travel time ~0

    In the current (acknowledged by josh) model jumpdrives generate wormholes identical to those that are used as natural paths between systems. Which take no time to traverse

    Range is "x whatever interstellar measurement unit josh wants to use".


    Magus: i take for canon what josh says is canon :P
    Regardless of the unsolved gameplay problems that the canon has.
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Thu Oct 23, 2014 2:17 am
    • #64 by Cornflakes_91
    Doomknight wrote:Ohhh okay.

    So Jump Drives in Limit Theory is the equivalent of a Teleport spell in Dungeons and Dragons. Am I understanding that correctly?
    more like a portal cannon, you create the entry at your location and the exit wherever you want to be (with some limitations)

    Any ship can then use this way you created as long as the way, the wormhole exists
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:43 am
    • #65 by DWMagus
    Doomknight wrote:Ohhh okay.

    So Jump Drives in Limit Theory is the equivalent of a Teleport spell in Dungeons and Dragons. Am I understanding that correctly?
    ...which is why it's still hotly debated.

    For example; what prevents the enemy from 'teleporting' a bunch of ships in to take over one of your outposts as soon as you step away?

    That sort of thing. Balance is the big reason why there is still no 'canon' answer to this. There were many fights and many friendships broken during those threads.

    Like I said, there are plenty of threads already on jump drives. If this is going to turn into such one, it'll get merged like the others.
    Image
    Early Spring - 1055: Well, I made it to Boatmurdered, and my initial impressions can be set forth in three words: What. The. F*ck.
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Thu Oct 23, 2014 1:55 pm
    • #68 by Doomknight
    Ok ok. No more Jump Drive theorycrafting... though why one would lose friends and make enemies over a debate is a bit beyond me; its a debate not a declaration of war.

    Does anyone else have anything to add to the most recent batch of questions. Quite a few of the answers are only partial answers (or in the case of #67 not answered at all)
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Thu Oct 23, 2014 5:02 pm
    • #71 by BFett
    Doomknight wrote:
    However, some new questions:

    51) Will there be a way to fool our opponent's sensors with false sensor readings? (ie if the Scanner can pick up specific signals and identify them as this or that, could you make your opponent think you were something else, like say a space station compared to a freighter?)

    52) Will there be Jamming equipment to prevent the use of Missiles and/or scanners or communications equipment?

    53) Can we "accidently" warp-frag enemies or allies when coming out of warp? (think "tele-fragging" in First Person Shooters)

    54) Will there be mini-jump drive equipment that will allow us to make short-ranged jumps (ie the Riker Maneuver) and cover great distances quickly?

    55) Will ships need to charge up their jump drives / warp drives (or w/e they are called) before they can use them?

    56) If Asteroids could be destroyed, do you think one could bore a hole through an asteroid and use it as a tunnel?

    57) Can we hack into enemy missiles and turn them against the one who originally shot them?

    58) Can we hack into enemy ships in general? (ie take control of a ship that isn't ours)

    59) Can we mask our identity of our ship to make it seem like we are an ally of a faction when in fact we are an enemy (very useful if pirating)

    60) Will there be a black market for stolen goods acquired via pirating?

    61) Can we fly into a star and blow up or will we not be able to get close to a star?

    62) Can we get cooked by a star (if we can visit one) if we get too close to it?

    63) Can we fly into a planet and blow up, or we will automatically land at the nearest base?

    64) Will starship carriers exist in this game?

    65) Can a starbase launch fighters to defend itself?

    66) Can a starbase call for help, meaning that it will get reinforcements?

    67) Can a starbase build fighters on the fly?

    68) Will we be able to hide near a magnetic pole of a planet thus hiding us from sensors?

    69) Will we be able to hide near a star thus hiding us from sensors?

    70) Can we drain the energy supplies from other ships?

    71) Can we teleport resources off of another ship (ie pirating a freighter)

    All for now. Will update the list once these get answered.
    51) Possibly but not confirmed (I'd expect to see this one modded in)
    52) Same as 51
    53) I don't think so
    54) I don't think so
    55) Yes, if Jump drives are coded in
    56) Hypothetically yes, realistically no because they are programed not to be destroyed
    57) No
    58) No, that would have to be a hacking mod that ThymineC suggested
    59) Unknown, Josh hasn't said anything about this
    60) Unknown, although it's a great mod idea
    61) We'll find out during beta
    62) Same as 61
    63) Yes, Flying into a planet without docking results in death
    64) Yes
    65) Yes
    66) Maybe, I really haven't seen anything to indicate it one way or the other
    67) Yes
    68) No
    69) Yes, second video for the scanner stated this
    70) No, it's unlikely that this will be in vanilla LT
    71) Unknown, possibly no
    Image
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:06 pm
    • #72 by Doomknight
    Alrity thanks for the replies. Will combine those questions into the main post. However, in the meantime, some more questions:

    Some collision questions:

    72) Would a carrier have to drop its shields to allow ships to dock on it? (As normally I'd assume the shields would prevent you from getting inside)

    73) If a Carrier was moving, and your ship wasn't going fast enough, could your ship that is trying to land instead collide with part of the carrier and therefore do damage to both you and the carrier?

    74) If a Carrier was moving and you were trying to take off, would it be possible for the carrier to move forward faster than you could thrust out of the Carrier, and therefore cause you to collide with the Carrier?

    75) Probably an important question, but will docking bays be on the interior of a Carrier or on top of the Carrier?

    76) Will there be an automatic docking mechanism to land on starbases or carriers?

    77) Will there be a manual docking mechanism to land on starbases or carriers?

    78) Can we dock on a hostile Carrier or Starbase?

    79) Can we dock with a hostile ship in general (ie Pirate Boarding action)?

    80) Can we jettison cargo?

    81) Can we use jettisoned cargo to act as lure for pirates while we escape?

    82) Will we encounter a ship being piloted by Josh Parnell?

    All for now.
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:23 pm
    • #73 by Idunno
    Did you actually watch any of the Dev updates? A lot of these questions are answered by Josh in the Tech Demos. :roll:
    Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
    Post

    Re: Features in Limit Theory

  • Thu Oct 23, 2014 9:55 pm
    • #75 by MyNameWuzTaken
    72) no
    73) no
    74) no

    All of the above would be considered glitches. They have no redeeming gameplay value. I mean, come on.

    75) dont know. Would assume internal as it makes the most sense.
    76) yes
    77) maybe. Hasn't been addressed
    78) no
    79) no
    80) yes
    81) maybe. The AI should be smart enough to make that decision
    82) only if Josh puts his name in the list of possible names. I hope so though!
    Post Reply

    Return to “General”

    Online Now

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

    cron