New Nebula Types
posted on April 8th, 2010, 3:36 pm
posted on April 8th, 2010, 3:39 pm
i want a nebula that disables weapon systems 
posted on April 8th, 2010, 4:02 pm
posted on April 8th, 2010, 11:01 pm
posted on April 8th, 2010, 11:04 pm
sounds like the baddie from voy: bliss. that should be a map object. fools your sensors into making u see a rich patch of res moons 
posted on April 9th, 2010, 2:59 pm
Last edited by mimesot on April 9th, 2010, 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dircome wrote:1) Detectotronic Nebula
All ships inside the nebula gain cloak detection and possibly a sensor range increase.
2) Damophasic Nebula
Ships inside the nebula gain an increase in weapon damage but consiquently take more damage from ships fireing at them
3) Defenctastic Nebula
Ships inside the Nebula take less damage from attackers but deal less damage as well.
4) Hullsbegone Nebula
Ships inside the nebula are hidden from view and once a ships shields are down deals significant damage to the hull
1) A bit unintentional. Why should a nebula give a ship an additional device? And for inside the nebula, we already have decloaking there anyway.
2) Again i feel a little uncomfortable. What shall a nabula do to a beam of nadion particles. It can shorten the effective range of the weapons hrough interaction with the beam, and it can disperse the energy carries, but this are all lowering effects.
A nebula, where all damages (sending and receifing) are reduced by 75% would be interesting for gameplay.
3) Well, as said, i love that idea!
4) Why not, interesting combination of features.
1337_64M3R wrote:1) Dark Matter Nebula:
Drains all systems of function.
2) trathon Nebula:
Hyper-Accelerates the ship within nearly doubling its speed.
3) Yengurion Nebula:
Makes ships temorally asynchronis to the rest of the map causing erratic movement (at least in appearence) and sometimes being briefly invisble to all players when applying commands involving movement.
4) Zephanon Nebula:
A nebula that disables weapons, jams sensors, and also knocks out shields
5) Tythonisoh Nebula:
A rare nebula that its behaviour varies depending on the configuration of the ship. Certain propulsion systems may be disabled or retarded while others remain unharmed. Some shields may be giving only intermitent (aka flickering) protection while others remain the same.
6) Xuhcre Nebula:
A nebula that is constantly having gaseous explosions occur within. Extremely dangerous even to the heavily shielded.
7) Iiithous Nebula:
A nebula that seems to actually extend sensor range of ships inside.Cuchion Nebula:
An unstable nebula that could actually collapse causing a large explosion. Not recommend being near them early to mid game.
1) Give it a different name. Dark matter is likly not to have effects like that. I'd suggest something of subspace-particles, that have a field-effect, that prohibits the plasma-condiuts and warpcore to function correctly. What exactly do you mean by draining systmsfrom function gameplay-wise? Dysfunction after some time, discontinual function. I'd additionally suggest continuous loss of special energy and shields. All in all a good idea.
2) Sreams of gravimetric particles that eventually stretch space to your favour, which the caprion uses to double speed. Sounds cool.
3) Same mechanism, but chaotic, so your diecribed effent is gained. Cool!
4) Mutara XL, sounds fine to me.
5) Most interesting. Please go into mire details.
6) Yes, indeed. The known damaging nebulas are not dangerous enouh.
7) As i can't find a reason, why a nebula should do so, i'm against it.
Must be a huge nebula to collapse. But, if it is large enough, this is likly to happen. Not a good thing for regular maps, but a nice special map-object.###############################
My own suggestions:
1) Dense dust field:
As simples as it can be. It just does nothing except lowering your movement-speed and minimally using up shield-energy. As it s such a normal thing, it can be widly used and form a middle between free space and asteroid belt.
2) Instable nebula:
Of any highly-reactive material. You can pass it, but don't dare to use your phasers in there, as that will cause explosions and shockwaves there, which does heavy damage to anone inside.
posted on April 9th, 2010, 3:18 pm
posted on April 9th, 2010, 3:25 pm
Last edited by 1337 64M3R on April 9th, 2010, 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1337_64M3R wrote:Dark Matter Nebula:
Drains all systems of function.
Etrathon Nebula:
Hyper-Accelerates the ship within nearly doubling its speed.
Yengurion Nebula:
Makes ships temorally asynchronis to the rest of the map causing erratic movement (at least in appearence) and sometimes being briefly invisble to all players when applying commands involving movement.
Zephanon Nebula:
A nebula that disables weapons, jams sensors, and also knocks out shields
Tythonisoh Nebula:
A rare nebula that its behaviour varies depending on the configuration of the ship. Certain propulsion systems may be disabled or retarded while others remain unharmed. Some shields may be giving only intermitent (aka flickering) protection while others remain the same.
Xuhcre Nebula:
A nebula that is constantly having gaseous explosions occur within. Extremely dangerous even to the heavily shielded.
Iiithous Nebula:
A nebula that seems to actually extend sensor range of ships inside.
Cuchion Nebula:
An unstable nebula that could actually collapse causing a large explosion. Not recommend being near them early to mid game.
mimesot wrote:1) Give it a different name. Dark matter is likly not to have effects like that. I'd suggest something of subspace-particles, that have a field-effect, that prohibits the plasma-condiuts and warpcore to function correctly. What exactly do you mean by draining systmsfrom function gameplay-wise? Dysfunction after some time, discontinual function. I'd additionally suggest continuous loss of special energy and shields. All in all a good idea.
2) Sreams of gravimetric particles that eventually stretch space to your favour, which the caprion uses to double speed. Sounds cool.
3) Same mechanism, but chaotic, so your diecribed effent is gained. Cool!
4) Mutara XL, sounds fine to me.
5) Most interesting. Please go into mire details.
6) Yes, indeed. The known damaging nebulas are not dangerous enouh.
7) As i can't find a reason, why a nebula should do so, i'm against it.
1] How about Anti-Energy Nebula? Oh... and about draining of function, it is a constant drain and once they're dead, its dead until you can get out of there.
5] Basically when you play as different races, you get differing effects. Also ships with non-standard propulsion systems can have different effects. For example: a Federation Galaxy's engines react to the nebula in a way where it emmits high frequency EM waves that disrupt the shield generator. Like wise it is disabled. On the other hand, a Klingon Bird of prey's engines react differently where it's exhaust explodes in contact of the nebula having this bird of prey constantly bombarded by micro-explosions damaging its shields and hull.
7] Well understood mate.
8] Well, what if instead it was high in density, letting gravity pull it into itself until it explodes from the compression?
posted on April 9th, 2010, 4:06 pm
posted on April 9th, 2010, 5:16 pm
posted on April 10th, 2010, 1:21 pm
1337_64M3R wrote:1] How about Anti-Energy Nebula? Oh... and about draining of function, it is a constant drain and once they're dead, its dead until you can get out of there.
5] Basically when you play as different races, you get differing effects. Also ships with non-standard propulsion systems can have different effects. For example: a Federation Galaxy's engines react to the nebula in a way where it emmits high frequency EM waves that disrupt the shield generator. Like wise it is disabled. On the other hand, a Klingon Bird of prey's engines react differently where it's exhaust explodes in contact of the nebula having this bird of prey constantly bombarded by micro-explosions damaging its shields and hull.
8] Well, what if instead it was high in density, letting gravity pull it into itself until it explodes from the compression?
Dircome wrote:You could just call it an EM nebula. and if it was higher in density it really wouldn't be a nebula it would be like asteroids or something
1) @64M3R: Anti-Energy is a funny term. Of course one may think, that, if there is Matter and Antimatter, this may apply for Energy, precisly photons (and perhaps gravitons), too. But this is, though unintuitive, not the case. The Symmetry calling for Anti-particles does not inverse all properties of a particle, more precisly all but the non-additive quantum-numbers (mass, spin,...), and especially not energy. Reason: A particle can change it's energetical state by absorbing or emitting energy. Naturally they tend to emitt photons, thus lower their energetical state (every-day-observation) . If there was negative energy this process could go on infinitly. This is not the case in our universe. Particles stop emitting energy, when they reach their ground state (another every-day-observation), thus they don't have a negative energy state. This is why i always log fo subspace particles in case any physical problems occur.
@dircome: In principle strong EM-pulses (due to ionic storms in that nebula or nuclear explosions) can disrupt the EPS by perturbating the plasma-guiding fields. Aren't the systems shielded by superconducting webs, like all the cables in air force one?
We need a tractor beam again!
8 ) The higher the density, the lower the temperature has to be. Temperature drives the gases apart. The more dense the nebula gets, the higher the temperature. The forces of gravitational pull and pressure by heat will compensate each other. The cloud has to be huge (and preferably of gasous lead) to collapse suffiviently to initiate an explosion. Ever wondered why jupiter does not emit light itself? It is too few gas there to initiate a nuclear process.
You get what i mean by "it has to be a huge nebula".posted on April 10th, 2010, 4:13 pm
posted on April 10th, 2010, 5:47 pm
posted on April 10th, 2010, 7:02 pm
Hehe, that's not quite right mate . If you use water as an example, ice is less dense than liquid water, not more - due to the crystal lattice structure of course 
What Mimesot explained is simple ideal gas-law kinetics .
. If you use water as an example, ice is less dense than liquid water, not more - due to the crystal lattice structure of course What Mimesot explained is simple ideal gas-law kinetics
.posted on April 10th, 2010, 10:29 pm
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 19 guests