Why can’t fines be proportionate to the commanders wealth
????
????
I have just been fined 60cr for accidentally smashing into a ship whilst exiting a station. I have a lot of credits, so why shouldn’t I have a fine that’s significant enough to make me meant to fly more carefully?
Want
Want
It's easy to abuse. Take this example: say for argument's sake that the fine for killing another cmdr is 10% of the perpetrator's total wealth. Then let's say that CMDR JimBob is a successful trader worth a couple billion and he's running missions in his cutter. Assume that as CMDR JimBob is going through the slot on his latest run, he's paying attention to the other ships going through and doesn't realize that he's going at 105 m/s. At that point CMDR Itchy Potter, the infamous griefer, decides to ram a damaged sidey into him. CMDR JimBob was ready for this eventuality, so he's got engineered shields and hull and survives the station's reprisal for his murder by ramming of CMDR Itchy Potter (space law dictates that in case of collision in a station, whoever is going over 100m/s is at fault; the damaged sidey did not survive the collision, so it's murder). Unfortunately now CDMR JimBob is a hunted man with a couple hundred million bounty on his head (10% of a couple billion).
Last edited:
What matters is how fast you were going, not how you got to that speed. You can fly as carefully as you are physically able to, and still get into trouble.
Hi Ant, I strongly suggest you not fix this "bug".
There are stars IRL that appear to be older than the universe. There are also areas of heavy element content that seem impossible given the age of the universe and how these elements are made.
As opposed to a single incident big-bang and "the start of time", an eternal, oscillating universe would account for excess of heavy elements observed and is to me more logical and compelling idea of the life of our universe.
Example discussion of this topic (note lots of ideas of modifying physics models far into the site; changes to make the big-bang model work "better", but which c/would fundamentally alter various other areas of physics): http://www.pnas.org/content/94/13/6579.full
Perhaps like the Trappist system, a nice win for Stellar Forge, rather than an error.
Last edited:
Supposedly there is a stream with lead developer Mark Allen about how the Thargon swarm was created. Ed Lewis doesn't normally put a thread up until the afternoon (UK time).
Last edited:
Why not make engineered modules degrade over time so they start at 100% but take a small amount of damage over time. As a opposite to them giving players a brilliant "constantly better" roll they need fixing a lot more often and pirates who use them will need to get a safe haven to fix them as well?
Because that would suck.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
No it wouldn't. It would make sense and it would be a good addition in my opinion.
I disagree. It just adds another layer of "busy work" and performing repeated actions for the sake of it, rather than because it rewards skill. Instead of doing what they enjoyed it'd be a sisyphean task of no fun for the player.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed.
Arguably if module degradation of the type mentioned (i.e. performance) were to be a thing then it would apply to all modules - not just Engineered modules.
Last edited:
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
Who you calling a sissy
Everyone has to repair their ship anyway. Even if you take no damage on your modules, your ship integrity will degrade over time. How does having to repair modules that have been tampered with so they operate outside their normal parameters "add another layer of "busy work"". Unless you're saying we should remove Ship Integrity degrading because it doesn't reward skill and isn't fun.
One of the commonly stated downsides of overclocking a PC or chipping a cars ECU is that it can shorten the life of components, or at least put them closer to their design limit. If integrity were to be applied to modules it would make some sense that modified modules might have significantly increased degradation.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That would equally apply to A-grade modules compared to E-grade modules, in my opinion - same weight, different performance.
You have a point, but it could go the other way too. An A-graded module is a higher quality product than an E-rated one rather than just one with different specs. It could therefore make some sense that if you modify an E-rated module it might lose integrity more quickly than an A-rated one. Several factors could interplay, potentially giving complex results from a few simple parameters.
Although that said, I guess the natural progression is probably to first A-rate important modules, then to engineer the A-rated module so depending on the actual usage stats there might not be much benefit to spending time on the difference between modules.