I've been noticing that quite a few interesting game threads gradually evolve into highly-technical conversations about some theoretical concept that will have little to no impact on the playability of the *game*. I emphasize that because I sometimes think that the people who care about these minutiae may be more concerned about having Frontier build a perfect simulation of the universe, following every known law of physics and mathematics, rather than a playble game that exists in a not-quite-perfectly-simulated universe.
Now I undersand that some of these conversations help to raise interesting and thought-provoking ideas. But I also realise that the creator of this game's universe is a Cambridge grad with a passion for Astronomy, and a skill for creating playable games. So his take on what will work is probably better than "good enough".
I also find that when an interesting thread starts becoming a battle of who-knows-the most-about-this competition, I tend to tune-out and stop following the thread. A shame when the initial premise is interesting but I'm battling with brains far more educated than mine...
I'm interested to know what level of technical skill the forumers have - whether most people have just a passing interest in Science Fiction (or Science Fact), or are the proverbial Rocket Scientists or Quantum Physicists. I'm sure that we mostly skew somewhere in-between. Personally, I'm a Sci-Fi fan myself; I read Popular Science, New Scentist, BBC Future and follow the news; have a Computer Science degree and love SciFi books, tv and films...but that is not my main interest, just one of them.
I think others might find this interesting too. You never know, if we discover that most readers really *are* Rocket Scientists, perhaps we'll find the level of technical discussion rises since most people will find it interesting. Conversely, if most people turn out to be casual SciFi fans, perhaps we'll reduce the peer-reviewed research paper approach...?
Now I undersand that some of these conversations help to raise interesting and thought-provoking ideas. But I also realise that the creator of this game's universe is a Cambridge grad with a passion for Astronomy, and a skill for creating playable games. So his take on what will work is probably better than "good enough".
I also find that when an interesting thread starts becoming a battle of who-knows-the most-about-this competition, I tend to tune-out and stop following the thread. A shame when the initial premise is interesting but I'm battling with brains far more educated than mine...
I'm interested to know what level of technical skill the forumers have - whether most people have just a passing interest in Science Fiction (or Science Fact), or are the proverbial Rocket Scientists or Quantum Physicists. I'm sure that we mostly skew somewhere in-between. Personally, I'm a Sci-Fi fan myself; I read Popular Science, New Scentist, BBC Future and follow the news; have a Computer Science degree and love SciFi books, tv and films...but that is not my main interest, just one of them.
I think others might find this interesting too. You never know, if we discover that most readers really *are* Rocket Scientists, perhaps we'll find the level of technical discussion rises since most people will find it interesting. Conversely, if most people turn out to be casual SciFi fans, perhaps we'll reduce the peer-reviewed research paper approach...?
Last edited: