Spatial anomaly

posted on April 20th, 2009, 1:20 pm

When a large battle occurs (and ends)

How about introducing some form of spatial disturbance/anomaly, when a significant number of ships gets destroyed (explode) in some smaller area (all those warp cores explode). Shouldn't there be some radiation pollution or something?
Wouldn't it be great, if after a great battle (even in the middle of it) an anomaly would occur (a smaller nebula like map object)... It would spawn for a limited time, have an area effect damaging ability.

Btw, i'd really like more spatial map objects (i mean c'mon, a few asteroid belts, 4 nebula types... is that the best we can do?). With all the attention the races/ships get, i think the space itself has been neglected (too much decor, not as much substance).

Opinions?

posted on April 20th, 2009, 1:27 pm

We have Nebula's that blow up ships. We need Black Holes like in stock.

[Zebh]

posted on April 20th, 2009, 3:02 pm

Last edited by Zebh on April 25th, 2009, 9:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

Btw, i'd really like more spatial map objects (i mean c'mon, a few asteroid belts, 4 nebula types... is that the best we can do?). With all the attention the races/ships get, i think the space itself has been neglected (too much decor, not as much substance).

I agree. It would be great if there would be more spatial anomalies.

One spatial anomaly that I have been thinking is an anomaly that makes ships slower when they are in the anomaly (the slowing effect would only affects then when ship is in anomaly and ends instantly after it exits from anomaly). It could also have a feature that enables and disables the slowing effect periodically.

posted on April 20th, 2009, 3:35 pm

Yeah - spatial anomalies are like terrain.
the mutara nebs for example are a fantastic addition.... they really swing battles one way or the other.

We need more terrain related intricacies on our maps. these really emphasize the use of tactics and strategy in warfare.

the resource management exercises are already included in game for our future project mangers . Now if we include stuff for future generals and colonels we would have a complete rts 

[Zebh]

posted on May 7th, 2009, 9:47 pm

Last edited by Zebh on May 7th, 2009, 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

One other map object which was suggested some time ago was a anomaly which does damage based on ships speed and size. Small and fast ships would go trough almost unharmed, but big vessels would suffer considerable damage, and slower ships even more.

I don't remember what happened to this idea. In my opinion it would be very interesting addition.

posted on May 7th, 2009, 10:03 pm

*brrr* Spatial anorlamies ... what a phantastical rubbish.

What about more realistik things like the damaging effect of hot stars, the attractive effect of black hiles, the system-disturbing radiation of pulsars, moving komets, jets, protuberances, micro-meteoric showers,....and even more interesting nebulas (e.g. crew killing). Even a dust-field does damage proportional to speed.

What about NPCs?

posted on May 7th, 2009, 10:04 pm

How exactly do you know what is 'realistic' in space far from our Solar System? Been there?

posted on May 7th, 2009, 10:10 pm

micro-meteoric showers,....and even more interesting nebulas (e.g. crew killing). Even a dust-field does damage proportional to speed.

Micro-meteorites and dust-fields... that's what the deflector dish and shields are for. Such common occurences that pretty much every spaceship in the ST era is fitted with countermeasures against those.

posted on May 7th, 2009, 10:17 pm

Depends on the density. Also the deflector dish uses energy and consumes it up, when it pushes away particles. You can decide yourself if that energy is drained from the special energy of the shield energy. I don't care, as both are provided by the warp core.

I can't get the overall concept: One introduces the technology to overcome some kind of problem. Then the problem is introduced under different name again, because we miss that problem. LOL, very sensible.

[mimesot]

posted on May 7th, 2009, 10:22 pm

Last edited by mimesot on May 7th, 2009, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How exactly do you know what is 'realistic' in space far from our Solar System? Been there?

If a plane crashes, who would ask: Did Bernoulli's law fail there? Noone.

posted on May 7th, 2009, 10:28 pm

If a plane crashes, who would ask: Did Bernoulli's law fail there? Noone.

Your typical Planes fly in the air, air isn't space.

posted on May 7th, 2009, 10:54 pm

The man-made term science describes any systematic knowledge-collection or prescriptive practice, which is capable of making predictive statements. It's aim is the description of reality in past, presence and future. The science does not clame trueness, but delivers models, that allow arbitrary aprroximate description of reality. Reality in science is what we can observe more than once. Things that are not observable can just be assumed to be elements of reality, if there is a high probability for their existance. That probability is to be derived from any model, which represents the most close approximation to observed reality.

Thus you are enabled, yet even encouraged to create a model which discribes our world in a better approximation than all other common theories, and predicts with significant probability the existance of those 'spatial anormalies'. Good Luck!

posted on May 7th, 2009, 11:00 pm

Your typical Planes fly in the air, air isn't space.

Air isn't space, that's right. Air is located in space.

What does it matter, if that space is filled with air, vacuum energy, interstellar matter, or candyfloss?

Sometimes I wonder...

[Lt.Cdr.White]

posted on May 7th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Last edited by Lt.Cdr.White on May 7th, 2009, 11:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@ Reply #11:

But the script says so! 

Wants to say: Star Trek is about the balance between believable science and story telling. But story telling goes first. If something seems to be in the way of story telling, means of getting around this are legitimate.

Keyword: Heisenberg compensator, Subpace fields etc.

How do you control micro-black holes and gain energy from them? If the script says the Romulans can do this, then it's possible. Full stop.

Of course Star Trek is always under greater pressure of getting things nearly believable than, for example, Star Wars, being a fantasy space opera, is.

But without imagination and pseudo-science, Star Trek would be nothing.

Air isn't space, that's right. Air is located in space.

What does it matter, if that space is filled with air, vacuum energy, interstellar matter, or candyfloss?

Sometimes I wonder...

Still, aerodynamic flight is dependent on the presence of a gaseous medium... so the question if you're in an air filled environment or in the near-vacuum of space does matter in some way if you're talking about creating lift to fly. You can't fly in candyfloss, can you? Of course, except if you heat until it is gaseous...

Even unprecise use of words may contain some truth... call it wisdom, if you wish.

posted on May 8th, 2009, 12:11 am

If you look at starfleet command you can see "dust fields" that damage shields because the field is simply too dense to move everything out of the way with the deflector. Personally i would like to see something similar but the damage taken is based on a function of speed not the fact your in it.