Wasn’t really thinking of exploding rocks but sure why not - it is a game after all and the universe has some pretty strange stuff that boggles the imagination. Personally I think asteroids destruction from kinetic energy would benefit gameplay and not just for PvP but mining as well. And who knows maybe even exploding asteroids. As to whether that is feasible I leave that to the DEVs; if not then that is how the asteroid crumbles (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun again).
I’m no longer part-time faculty in the department, and haven’t been since August, which is why you’ll only find my name on archived versions of the faculty list. Sadly, they didn’t have enough open classes or labs to make it worth my while to keep teaching. The observatory itself doesn’t post a public list of employees (though I have no idea why not)
Space rocks be fer drillin’, not fer asplodin’, says I!
They have a list of staff…anyway, contact them and see to it your name is added.
Please keep this thread on-topic and civil or I will close it. I understand some of you have strong opinions regarding a variety of topics, asteroids apparently being one of them, but any disagreement can be voiced with civility.
6 Likes
Damage to ones ships also from clipping or scrapping along the hull etc. This should also be a good dynamic to both see from the wingman’s perspective and your own cockpit POV.
Also crashing into one ought to break off or dislodge some bits making for quiet a spectacle to watch up close. Mind you, on a super large asteroid its just going to be a tiny splash of dust and rock if seen from any distance. Would be best seen if your giving chase to your enemy and you force an error in his flying making him crash.
Blowing bits of one sounds cool if it can be done. affecting the orbit/trajectory of smaller rocks for game play value might be worth exploring, also if possible. The weapons we will have are only going to be impacting the surface of asteroids so its only ever going to be surface rock and dust/ice etc blown off. Cool to do, and watch I bet.
2 Likes
The Wrath of Huck knows no limits…
6 Likes
I wonder if it would be possible to install trusters on a metroid to steer it to a target and use it as kinetic weapon against ground installations. Sort of like a controlled tunguska event. The benefit would be the that you probably can’t defend yourself against it with an iron dome because it probably just would split up instead of exploding nearly completely like a missile.
1 Like
The Expanse Spoiler
Isn't that happening in the "the expanse" series? If I remember correctly earth is under attack from people who do that deliberately, or at least thats what I assumed was going on in one scene (indian lady on rooftop scene).Regarding the heated discussion: Bringing science into is is fine with me and I like that, but the way it is done is important too. I personally don’t like it when people school other people in the way it was done here and other threads by some members, especially when it is unsolicited.
2 Likes
I just read some interesting things about comets. Apparently comets can contain frozen gases like methane, and also ethanol and ethane. I don’t know if this would be explodable in space, there is probably also very little of it in the comet. But the thought of shooting a comet and it exploding is pretty awesome. Maybe somebody with a background in these matters can chime in. Maybe if the comet largely consists of this stuff that could happen. Maybe there are solar systems out there were these elements are more common than water.
Probably not but who knows?!
Also a very fitting clip on the whole debate in this thread:
2 Likes
As far as I’m concerned, the value to showing damage to the environment is to communicate the power of the weapons. If a capital fires at the surface of a planet, produces a tremendous explosion - and everything at the point of contact is unchanged - then you’re going to cause the player’s mindset to transition from “I’m in space!” to “I’m in a game.”
Shooting at rocks is the same as shooting at anything else in the environment. If I have lethal weapons then I expect to make a mark in the world when I use them. Shoot a tree with a blaster. If it makes a pit in the trunk, then it has one level of power. If it takes out a foot-long section of the trunk and also plows through three more trees behind it, then it has a different level of power.
That said, implementing destructible environments is tough. In a multiplayer game they’re even tougher. ARMA 3 has implemented a basic form of destructible environments in a multiplayer setting. Trees, walls and fences can be knocked down by vehicles and explosions. Buildings can be damaged to a couple different levels. Even the grass can be flattened as soldiers crawl through it. Having those things in the game adds to the sense of reality and reminds the player of the mass of a vehicle or the power of a given weapon.
This is icing stuff. It’s really nice to have, but when working on a limited budget it’s the sort of thing that waits for a later version of the product.
Edit: I should add that being able to interact with the environment also sells the mass of the ships. If I land my ship on trees and they are knocked down, then that’s one behavior. If I land my ship on trees and it perches nicely on the tips of branches, well, that’s another behavior.
10 Likes
Or if you try to land on a tree but they’re incinerated by your thrusters 
1 Like
Ooh, thruster scorch marks <3
1 Like
SPOILER DAMNIT !!
That’s kind of a huge deal in one of the books, yeah. Please edit that out for those who have yet to get there.
1 Like
Oh, I only have seen the tv series so far, I think it wasn’t explictely mentioned, its just something I have inferred.
1 Like
That said, asteroid deflection could make for a nice Point of Interest. With the basic system, it would probably be pre-set bases on asteroids in orbit around the planet, with the side controlling it pointing it on the base of their choice below, and severely damage it.
As those would have only a few pre-set targets, there could be pre-made effects for it (cloud, crater). Maybe with a few options, for example if base defences are up, it can knock it sideways and have a near-miss. Problem is, this would require crafting those effects, which requires development resources…
Note that those asteroids would be in close orbit around the planet itself (say, in this ring for example), as well as about the same orbital plane (if in low inclination). Otherwise, it will never have time to reach the target before the end of the match.
Also, we’ll need a lore explanation on why we don’t have interplanetary mass drivers, or even the dreaded interstellar relativistic missiles (ISRM), because damn you reactionless thrusters. But I’m sure we’ll find something.
2 Likes
All I’m remembering from this thread is @Arkenbrien 's post. Because Guild Wars. And poney. And rainbow. So I raise you a… humm… Norn… pink-ish warrior?
Nevermind me, carry on! 
1 Like
-
Mutually Assured Destruction. Do you really want to start destroying the other guy’s planets when he can just as easily destroy yours?
-
Abundance of Raw Materials. There’s far too much in the way of raw materials available. Any moron can go find raw materials. What’s difficult to find is factories, power plants, finished goods, space stations, cities, civilizations. It’s tough to build those things up and if you’ve done it, you’ve created a truly valuable commodity. So destroying the most valuable thing in the galaxy makes no sense.
2 Likes
There is a lot of input about damage to asteroids caused by ship weapons but asteroid damage could also play a role in Mining. As an avid miner it would be really nice to see asteroids break apart or split in two, or have scarring of some kind. Or better yet, explode depending on the type of ore. Asteroids comprised of ice could also play a role in mining with the added benefit of breaking apart easier than asteroids comprised of ore/minerals. Of course none of this maybe possible given budget constraints but the benefits of a damage mechanic can extend beyond combat.
Yes. Yes I want, because I am a nihilist and I hate your world more than I care about the one I am living on (or surviving). Which isn’t mine anyway, and I live on a starship.
Reactionless drives = ISRM, the same way relativity makes FTL = Time Travel. It’s not even that a society that can build one can build the other - it’s that one is the other.
And from the moment individuals can have access to ISRM-enabling reactionless drives, some of them will hate a world enough to risk killing everyone just to blow them up.
If today we had ship = nuke, there would be no stone on stone left, MAD or not. There are simply too many people with access to it, some of them will be nihilists.
So what we need is a defence against relativistic projectiles, and it needs to be specialized enough to not have unintended consequences.
But again, I’m sure we can find something in time.
I think there is a little nihilist in everyone, even raccoons.