I think the fact that people joined a power specifically for a module they expected to be super powerful in comparison to regular modules, proves how PP is broken. Not a personal dig at people who do that, you can play however you want - that's the point/beauty of the game - but the principles of PP don't fit with that kind of mentality in my opinion. I go into more depth in this video if anyone wants to agree/disagree. https://youtu.be/yl1cxHO_Ww8
Utopian Enforcer Cannon is a multi-cannon ?
- Thread starter Darth Ender
- Start date
It's OK to promote diversity over power, but I still see nothing wrong with having heavily souped up small weapons that are just very expensive due to the extremely high quality components or complex manufacture
. I would love to have a sidewinder that packs a class 4 punch Not really, but it is the ONLY way to get any modules not being the basic guns we have.
I want variety but if i spend a month working my ass off for a corporation and they sell me a weapon that is limited AND more expensive then it should be SOMEWHAT better or specialized and not just broken.
Cytoscramler could be made to shoot straight if armour protected modules (and we let smaller weapons do full damage on larger ships to balance that part out)
All these modules they have added should really be in the game as STANDARD modules in all shape and sized but could be added to REGULAR ranks instead.
NOONE would CARE for PP if it was not for the modules. PP itself is a badly thought out feature with surprise modules tacked on.
Ok that is not proof for anything. Many times in history of science one person was right and all others were just close minded fools.
Not saying OP is right but it would be glorious if he was, call it space magic or midichlorians I dont care.
Anyway, this thread is great, one of the best ever in this forum. Lots of reps given. You guys are great.
I'm seriously enjoying this.
You've proven my point(s) sir/madam.
On the very specific point of the modules though: yeah sure, some could def be bigger than small hardpoints. A little incentive to use them over other modules would be nice.
On the very specific point of the modules though: yeah sure, some could def be bigger than small hardpoints. A little incentive to use them over other modules would be nice.
You don't know what velocity is. Speed is how fast your going. Acceleration is how much speed your gaining. Velocity is speed AND direction.
Read this:
http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_velocity.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/23l4ae/why_cant_we_just_keep_accelerating_in_space/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/acceleration-in-space.323510/
take the test here (if you don't mind)
http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit5/unit5_sub1.htm
If what you say is true, we would not be able to have things in orbit! Due to all objects continuing to gain or lose velocity. We would be unable to reach Mars. In your world, we would gaining speed the whole trip, then when we arrive, we wouldn't have the fuel to counteract the speed we gained.
Making this impossible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_using_constant_acceleration
Using this guys logic, we can not maintain any velocity as the initial force placed on a object continues to act on that object. If I sneeze on a small stationary rock, at some point in time, it will reach near speed of light.
I'm sure I wont get a response due to backing up my point with facts.
Last edited:
You're absolutely right that if everybody else disagrees with you or doesn't mean you're wrong. But it might be a good idea to reopen these physics books again.
And if OP really has a grand New theory about physics, these forums might not be the best place to discuss these grand ideas.
Yes F=ma, where m is mass, and that is constant. a is acceleration, which is the rate of velocity change per second. FORCE is the F there you know... it is NOT constant. Never. Ever. In no physics theory even the worst and craziest . Force is Never Constant. Get it into your thick skull please. I don't know what degree you have - obviously none - but some of us actually do have physics degree among other things (like common sense or average intelligence) and yes i'm getting real hostile to you because it's just so stunning how thick you are... 500 people replied in this thread telling you that you are extremely wrong, and you still refuse to even look at your own formula?
Rhea said:
I think you should try it before you condemn it. The recipe is in your local bookstore, in the science section, in any of a number of books on 'physics.'
At this point I can't tell if the OP is even serious or not. Oh well... but, his main point -- about the Utopian Cannon -- is probably correct. So, I guess we can give him some credit for bringing that up.
Are you for real? You really ARE delusional!
F=ma
Yes
BUT
Energy can't be created nor destroyed, only transferred
So pray tell, with your reasoning, does kinetic energy build to infinity with an initial input of force? Please! Tell us! Because if it does, it violates the law of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics) and the first law of motion! This is not possible!
Your logic...
Impart 100 joules of energy into 1 kg object. Object accelerates to infinity unless acted upon by another force. So... velocity over time continues to build. After a year of acceleration, the velocity has continually increased to such absurd levels the kinetic energy is through the roof.
This means...
KINETIC ENERGY HAS BEEN CREATED and CONTINUED TO GROW with a MINIMAL input and BEYOND the initial input! This is IMPOSSIBLE! THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN!
The sum of energy in the object at motion is proportional to the energy lost from the source providing the initial transfer to move it from at rest to at motion!
STOP THE MADNESS NOW. Just STOP IT! Please! Do it now... before he comes for you... For the sake of us all! Please!
Last edited:
The enforcer:
I like the enforcer on my D-Bag Scout, it is a nice weapon for chasing ships,
has a decent damage output and what is best, an excellent projectile speed.
Back it up with c2 laser weaponry and you got a nice fitting, with quite some punch.
The weapon seems to perform especially well against bigger targets, and
i think it has less penalty when firing on big targets damage wise.
You asked for an autocannon?
Here it is, snipe subsystems with it, or just hammer in that hull there?
Go ahead!
Enforce the vision!
I like the enforcer on my D-Bag Scout, it is a nice weapon for chasing ships,
has a decent damage output and what is best, an excellent projectile speed.
Back it up with c2 laser weaponry and you got a nice fitting, with quite some punch.
The weapon seems to perform especially well against bigger targets, and
i think it has less penalty when firing on big targets damage wise.
You asked for an autocannon?
Here it is, snipe subsystems with it, or just hammer in that hull there?
Go ahead!
Enforce the vision!
Yes. In a few rare, but celebrated occasions, the scientific community will rally against a view that is shown, over time, to be correct.
This is not one of those times.
The OP has taken his own personal understanding of the meaning of terms and used them to develop his own interpretation of what Newtonian physics means that is painfully incorrect. At this point I don't even know if he is being serious, he is so wrong, and he is clearly not looking at what others have said on the topic to see where his misunderstanding stems.
The good news is, as someone else pointed out, it is allowing the rest of us on the forum to come together, something that also happens only on rare occassions.
Last edited:
if it gets everyone to stop crying about decay for a few minutes then it was worth it. Nobody wants a slighly more powerful Class 1 multi-cannon. Everyone assumed based on the terminology (called it a cannon and not a multi-cannon) that it would be a cannon. It would have slower refire rate but more damage (maybe less ammo) than the normal cannon. This would have balanced, and provided a benefit to equipping it in terms of power management over a plasma cannon (which may be identical otherwise except having more ammo and plasma also dealing thermic damage where as the enforcer would not). I wanted, and I think many others wanted, to equip a class 4 enforcer cannon. I trade off thermic damage (so it'll be less effective against shields than a plasma) and ammo. it would have been awesome. Plus we're the smallest power so we probably only have a limited time to utilize it. Instead we have this garbage multi-cannon.
Oh, no , no no no, it doesn't work like that. You don't sweep this one under the rug. It's time to fess up, OP. Fess up and admit you are wrong so physics can rest well again. Please. The blatant stand you took can't simply fall off into an abyss. We need to be sure you understand physics properly now.
Are these numbers?