Asthetic: Tritanium moon larger than dilithium moon
posted on April 2nd, 2010, 10:42 pm
posted on April 2nd, 2010, 10:51 pm
Hm... why is it necessary to do that in your opinion? 
posted on April 2nd, 2010, 11:41 pm
the planets would have to be bigger too 
posted on April 3rd, 2010, 12:39 am
yep a redo of the environment, including resource-sources and planets is on todo for later this year 
i think we could go with a few more different sources, like larger asteroids
i think we could go with a few more different sources, like larger asteroidsposted on April 3rd, 2010, 12:44 am
@dom: Totally not 'necessary', and I'm not talking more than say 10-20% bigger (just bigger enough to be visibly bigger, not much more than that).
But, since you asked ... Di and Tri have distinct roles in ship production. Combat ships take more di, support ships take more tri. So there's an association between what mining you emphasis and what ships you produce. So, currently their color differentiates them on the 'quick glance' (i.e. you can just look, don't have to read tool tip, which is usefull b/c you can get the info of what moon this is without having to spend time to do that). Having a different size re-emphasises that difference. And color blind folks get a benifit as now they can differentiate the moon with a quick glance.
...and the pathing difference, while small, would make the larger moon slightly more difficult to defend, adding some strategic varience to the economy raiding/defending.
(now: why tri moon larger? mainly 'cause I associate tri=metal, di=energy - and volume wise, tri would seem to take up more space.
Oddly enough, with the current non-unit measurements, it takes more di than tri to make a combat ship, which seems counter intuitive to me. I would think that a support ship would have more energy needs than a comparable combat ship (because they have larger special weapon energy reserves on the ship). So there's, in my mind also an association of di = energy = special weapons). Right now that's in the FAQ and explained away, but I think the fact that it's a common question points to the fact that the current measurements are non-intuitive. Intuitive is a good thing. I would actually also like it if the tri and di units were made intuitive - i.e. make them m^3, have the tri spendable in units multiplied by ~1000 and di in units multiplied by ~100. The difference in spending units might maybe help differentiate them more.. (?))
modified: the optec-ninja strikes again!
But, since you asked
... Di and Tri have distinct roles in ship production. Combat ships take more di, support ships take more tri. So there's an association between what mining you emphasis and what ships you produce. So, currently their color differentiates them on the 'quick glance' (i.e. you can just look, don't have to read tool tip, which is usefull b/c you can get the info of what moon this is without having to spend time to do that). Having a different size re-emphasises that difference. And color blind folks get a benifit as now they can differentiate the moon with a quick glance. ...and the pathing difference, while small, would make the larger moon slightly more difficult to defend, adding some strategic varience to the economy raiding/defending.
(now: why tri moon larger? mainly 'cause I associate tri=metal, di=energy - and volume wise, tri would seem to take up more space.
Oddly enough, with the current non-unit measurements, it takes more di than tri to make a combat ship, which seems counter intuitive to me. I would think that a support ship would have more energy needs than a comparable combat ship (because they have larger special weapon energy reserves on the ship). So there's, in my mind also an association of di = energy = special weapons). Right now that's in the FAQ and explained away, but I think the fact that it's a common question points to the fact that the current measurements are non-intuitive. Intuitive is a good thing. I would actually also like it if the tri and di units were made intuitive - i.e. make them m^3, have the tri spendable in units multiplied by ~1000 and di in units multiplied by ~100. The difference in spending units might maybe help differentiate them more.. (?))
modified: the optec-ninja strikes again!
posted on April 3rd, 2010, 2:38 am
posted on April 3rd, 2010, 2:54 am
Haha @ Yandon because most forms of color-blindness affect hues of red and green, not gold's and blue's 
. True color-blindness in the sense that everything is grey is not really real.
Although I suppose if I got REALLY drunk it would be a nice way to differentiate
. True color-blindness in the sense that everything is grey is not really real.Although I suppose if I got REALLY drunk it would be a nice way to differentiate
posted on April 3rd, 2010, 6:43 am
posted on April 3rd, 2010, 1:55 pm
Hm, for the same logic I'd like to see it remain the same size - just with more varied sources as Optec suggested. We don't know the purity of the moons etc, so how can we tell the size 
. Mineable asteroids, mayble some mineable derelicts or something, and maybe even an alien "silo" where you can fill up
As for changing the value of the quantities, I think it is a bit of a misnomer: even if tritanium is gathered in kg, and dilithium in grams, for all we know there could be a different unit scale for the two resources in Star Trek (as often occurs in real life for different types of materials - say ... bullion). Furthermore, dealing with such large numbers is a pain and is much more difficult to compare if you are gaining instead of 200 tri a minute, 20,000 tri a minute (since dilithium is probably in grams and tritanium in 10's of kg). Who knows, maybe dilithium is measured in energy output - not even in grams/ounces etc - because that would make the most sense of all. You only fill your quota when you've got the highest quality stuff - just cuz you put a bunch of rocks in your load doesn't make it worth more
My point of all this is that there are a lot of different ways to logic this out, and I think they should all give way to the current easily comparable system. It isn't a simulation afterall, and the Romulans aren't "collecting" singularities instead of dilithium
. Mineable asteroids, mayble some mineable derelicts or something, and maybe even an alien "silo" where you can fill up As for changing the value of the quantities, I think it is a bit of a misnomer: even if tritanium is gathered in kg, and dilithium in grams, for all we know there could be a different unit scale for the two resources in Star Trek (as often occurs in real life for different types of materials - say ... bullion). Furthermore, dealing with such large numbers is a pain and is much more difficult to compare if you are gaining instead of 200 tri a minute, 20,000 tri a minute (since dilithium is probably in grams and tritanium in 10's of kg). Who knows, maybe dilithium is measured in energy output - not even in grams/ounces etc - because that would make the most sense of all. You only fill your quota when you've got the highest quality stuff - just cuz you put a bunch of rocks in your load doesn't make it worth more
My point of all this is that there are a lot of different ways to logic this out, and I think they should all give way to the current easily comparable system. It isn't a simulation afterall, and the Romulans aren't "collecting" singularities instead of dilithium
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests