Jump to content

Cmdr Nova

Members
  • Posts

    1,524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cmdr Nova

  1. Blah. Sounds just like the Engineering 101 incident.
  2. From one Mike to another, nice to see ya. quote:Originally posted by aramike: Thanks guys! Now where the hell is Derek? I have to find something stupid or another to argue with him about. Hiding, most likely.
  3. I might've saved a copy, chief. Lemme check. Update: (Nope. Guess not. And if it was on my old filehost, it's gone now.)
  4. I was so pissed, because I only caught hte last 15 minutes of the episode. But that last part wasn't any less wicked than usual. I'm heading over to teh site to read the summary now...
  5. I don't really know. In everyday use, simply quoting the source should've been enough. Unless you're simply putting up TONS of articles from other sites, that should be okay, you know, for reference or informative use. SC's policy looks good as-is.
  6. quote:Originally posted by APOLLO: Has anyone wondered why SC releases cheats for his own game? I have thought 3 possible reasons:I'd have to say 2, and to keep the userbase quiet. Some of us don't have the time to play the game to the fullest, in usual fashion. So, we'll have to use cheats to at least get a taste of it. And some of us (like myself) simply enjoy exploring for easter eggs and cool shiznit around the universe. Cheating won't be allowed in MP (duh), no need to "hope" for SC to do anything about it--he will. He already has the plan to use serial numbers for registration, and to ban violators from multiplayer servers. Sounds like a great plan to me. To me, playmod's more than cheating. It gives you some special features (debug-ish style), like being able to create intruders in certain places, create guests, and modify ship/crew vital stats and personal factors. It's helped a couple times when trying to recreate bugs in the game.
  7. Assumptions can lead to a lot of confusion in the long run. Lots of us have had run-ins with the SC for that reason. quote:Originally posted by ToxicFrog: However, this still doesn't answer the main thrust of my question: should ships under hyperdrive be killable? I don't remember seeing this before RC32, but on the other hand, it's not in the VCF and I hardly ever see ships making "short" jumps. It could well be that while making long jumps ships move too fast to be accurately fired upon. In any case, I've seen three AI ships destroyed by ODS fire whiel in hyperspace, and I've been hit with a missile myself while jumping. Is this a feature that I haven't noticed until now, or a bug?Nothing's changed. It's been that way since BCM v1.0.00. I'd say that they should be destroyable, because of issues of ships with short HJ recharge rates and such. And for the fact that engaging enemies is different when factoring that in. Maybe from a scientific or technical standpoint you shouldn't be able to be damaged in hyperspace, but it's a game, so 1) simulation of realistic stuff isn't important, and 2) that's the way it's been (and I assume all of us here are comfortable with the current thing), then "why fix it if it ain't broken"?
  8. Cmdr Nova

    Recall

    Well, I'm practically ready for this awakening. I'd like you guys to look over the following to reconsider this stuff. Most of which was written by Hamblin back in the day, when the FleetDB was still up. Deployment Timetable (Discussion) Deployment Classifications, Rules of Engagement, Standing Orders, Salvage Operations, General Quarters, Etc. Urgent email, revisions, and other little info can be sent to my personal email, madmannova at myrealbox dot com This stuff's for the handbook, which I still intend on finishing. Sometime. "I love the wooshing sound deadlines make as they go by." -Douglas Adams
  9. quote:Originally posted by Serondal: I take joy in killing these hackers with my bare skills and if any people start to cheat online in BC I will take that same joy in destroying them.They won't. And if they try, you won't enjoy it, because SC's already going to be halfway there.
  10. quote:Originally posted by ToxicFrog: But...has the hyperdrive been modified? The hyper transit time for the Firestorm appears to have been increased to 180s, and rather than hyping to 999999... m/s it accelerates smoothly until the midpoint, at which point it decelerates at the same rate. Is this a permanent change, or am I the victim of some very weird bug?[/qb]Explanation, Part I HJ transit time is constant. THat is, the time is the same wether you're jumping a distance of 1000km or 1000000000000km. (180 seconds in a Firestorm.) If you jump at a short distance (barely far enough to be able to hyper), then your apparant speed seems to be slower than a usual jump of a long distance, because it's traversing a much smaller distance, but takes the same amount of time to do it. That's a pretty simple explanation, I think. Explanation, Part II Here's some more, though: Time is constant, instead of speed. You know, r = (d/t); rate = distance / time In everyday use, rate (or speed; mph or kph) is constant (in this example). You'll use the t=d/t version of the formula to get time, since that isn't the constant here. If you went 40 miles at 80 mph, then you'd have spent half an hour going. On the other hand, the speed is determined by the distance and time, since you already have the transit time predetermined in Hyperspace. Using r=d/t, pretending you're going to a body 42000000km away, and you're going to take 180 seconds, you'll end up going 233333k/s on average. Since BCM accelerates until halfway, and decelerates after, then the numbers will tick up until a certain point, and count back down. That number would end up being several times larger than 233333 (I'm not in the mood to make it exact). So anyway, BCM caps off the displayed speed at a certain speed like 169999 or whatnot. (Not even sure if that's close, since I haven't paid attention to that in a while.) If the current speed of the ship is above that, then it'll display that. If not, then it'll display the actual. This means that unless you're hyperjumping short, you'll always see that number through most of the transit. So, you probably thought that that number changed or something. Well, guess what? That number's a cap, and you've really been going much faster than that, and that's not your HJ speed. (YOu don't have a set HJ speed, remember?) There is no HJ speed, so the HJ speed couldn't have been changed. It's HJ Transit Time; look it up in the appendix, for the ship stats. Confused? Then forget Part II and only pay attention to Part I. Way too much time on my hands, and way too much Mt. Dew. (This post kinda reminds me of that Engineering 101 thread in RP, ages ago. ) [ 01-10-2003, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Nova ]
  11. Omg omg. I was going to reply yesterday, but IE crashed. quote:Originally posted by IceCold: If a random has no effect on the planet, and you cannot walk on a seemingly earth like environment, perhaps the planet is not truly there as we see it. Perhaps it is a hologram. This would explain why the probe cannot be removed.You can destroy the probe. (Which, in a way, is removing it.) A random still destroys whatever's planet-side on the planet, IIRC. THe random works like on a gas planet, in Obsidia's case. So does the atmosphere, apparantly. (i.e. visual effects, ship damage, AE death, etc.) quote:Originally posted by APOLLO: But, is it possible for an LRT or an MRT to enter Obsidia, or any planet with similar environmental conditions, without taking damage? For example: "DRO/DIP LRT-15 FLEE OBSIDIA"...When leaving a region, ships will either jump out, or enter a planet. Some ships (like colonist or explorer caste ships) enter the atmosphere automatically. The answer is no, but the computer doesn't care I guess. quote:Originally posted by APOLLO: I hope you don't suppose I thought anything from above. After all, anyone of us could try something like that, just by curiosity. Who said that I didn't think to try it, too? I tried it. So don't start trippin' on each other about it, either. This is research. quote:Originally posted by Greg Miller: Hmm, let me see here. The CC gets damaged, but the Shuttle can land. Did anybody try to take a Fighter down and fire on the probe to see what happens? Or are only non armed vessels safe?I've taken down the probe first-hand, before. It was either a fighter or an OC, though. It was by accident, too. Sorta. You know, just testing out if it could be damaged and whatnot. I got kinda pissed when I destroyed it, because I'd have to reload to continue the exploration and shiznit.
  12. quote:Originally posted by Gryphon: Anyway, some questions for you guys: 1) Has anyone tried to RANDOM Obsidia and see if it can be made tolerable to ships/organics?Used playmod to do this. No apparant effect, as if bombarding a gas planet. Note: You can get planetside on Obsidia safely. (If this is what you mean by "making it tolerable".) Put your AE in a shuttle. Launch the shuttle and go for it. There really isn't much of interest down there, from my explorations. quote:Originally posted by Gryphon: 2) Has anyone tried to figure out where this station is - based on where these ships are coming out of - and, perhaps, hailling, or just shooting blindly? Anyone with the front mounted laser weapon should have a field day with this. There is no station, by my understanding. Ships do spawn out of nowhere, on a regular basis. Some ships are cloaked carriers, which'll launch some fighters, which adds to the illusion of a station being around.
  13. The appendix didn't say they created life in the universe, but only seeded the galaxy with it's first lifeforms. It's only speculation, as well. quote:Originally posted by APOLLO: I have to agree with Cmdr Nova's conclusion. The best explanation is that Droidans and Syrions have a very close relationship with the Galaxians, although they try to cover it very, very well. Otherwise, why would they spend so much Iridium to maintain an entire starstation in Obsidia cloaked? If there isn't a starstation out there, would someone explain to me how could Droidan and Syrion cruisers appear out of nowhere at a certain orbital position, very close to the planet itself? As we know, a cruiser can not cloak, so... what else could it be? There isn't any station out there. I've checked the game's data files. There are, in fact, cloaked carriers that prowl the region, and several other regions (supernovae) in space. Cruisers cannot cloak, but carriers can, and since there aren't any other cloakable objects at the moment, by deduction it has to be carriers. Besides, SC said several times that high-intelligence AI ships do, in fact, roam around certain parts of space while cloaked.
  14. quote:Originally posted by Sebbish: BTW isn't there sometimes another probe flying by the crashed one? Haven't seen it on my most recent ventures to the region, meaning to say it may have been removed.
  15. Cmdr Nova

    Recall

    Reporting in, currently running light duty.
  16. quote:Originally posted by Kalshion: I figure'd you couldn't sense you can't even find them ingame.. And I know you can't be them cause there not listed in the Race menu.. However what baffles me is that I spent 4 hours in Vega Eridani and didn't find the probe.. I know im overlooking something Fluxfields, boys. Use them fluxfields. What you search for is the planet Obsidia In the Vega Eridani system. (Remember? Planetary systems? It is in Vega Eridani, but that's just the name of the general area.) There is a specific region (the only one marked on the map), and a probe will lie there. Beyond Obsidia is a wormhole to a rather interesting supernova in the region, which appears to contain a planet, StarGazer. There also appears to be a planet region there, under the "Gal/Exp" listing, but is empty. The probe is real. The truth is out there. The mystery surrounding all of this is the fact that there's a planet out there, with only fluxfields as a way in. (Alteris.) If you observe the Galaxy Map Links map from your Appendix (Nav Chart Page), fluxfields appear to have been placed "strategically" to make the galaxy "smaller". According to Appendix Data, the Droidans and Syrions both keep the region extremely restricted. The appendix states that "[syrions] refuse to be referred to as cyborgs and think of themselves as organisms that have descended from a higher intelligence," which would hint at the actual existance of the Thirteenth Race themselves. And the fact that there are rumors surrounding the origins of fluxfields coming from Syrions and Droidans also increases the assumption that the Galaxians were, in fact, a "super-species" of sorts. Anyway, I'm out for now. Exploring the galaxy and speculating about stuff is how most of current information was uncovered. (Lol, and I remember being the first one to post about the probe.) I think I hold the most conclusive (not really, though) speculation and information regarding the Galaxians, Droidans, and Syrions at the moment, besides SC's own information. Still, there's nothing more powerful than the truth.
  17. quote:Originally posted by Cmdr. WeeGee: OMFG. Your joking me, that site has got to be a friggin joke.I said it probably was.
  18. SW00T! Hehe. Let's see what it's got....
  19. Media sucks. People suck, and are always too biased. Trust me. If I were a few years older, I'd go out and buy BMX XXX myself. Not joking. BMX XXX isn't mainstream, it's supposed to be for a small portion of the gaming community, specifically 20-30 year olds. The game itself has a very strong bike engine underneath, and is more than a simple "let's build a new game on this engine" game. From what I've seen, heard, and experienced of the game, it's got the a class of estranged humor that's typical of pop culture shocks suck as Jackass, Bevis & Butthead, The Osbournes, etc. It's aimed at the kind of people who watch that kind of stuff anyway. You're not supposed to take stuff for face value. Ever. You have to look at it from the eyes of the target audience. Some people are wayyyy to sensitive about certain things. Oh sure, "it's bad for children", etc. It's not for children, numbnuts. They're not marketing it for kids, idiots. And then they'll blame some game of leading to some shooting. Try attacking something like domestic trouble first, before blaming trouble on everything else. If someone's too on the edge or pissed to think straight, then it's not the fault of the influence, it's the fault of whatever got him to lose himself and believe that influence. People are way too sensitive, and way too stupid. Like this. (I've been ranting about over-sensitive propaganda-spewing idiots all day. Specifically arguing that link above. (I'm damn sure it's a fake site, but similar messages piss me off.) Sorry if I appear a bit jumpy today.) [ 12-19-2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Nova ]
  20. I enjoy framerates on my consoles. (If I had enough money to upgrade my computer to the max, I'd do it. But the console is basically the only good one-shot win.) I enjoy having games that never crash. I enjoy not having to configure anything. There's nothing wrong with PC gaming, it's just the fact that I'm not so much a PC gamer, than a consoler. (I was born and raised living by the NES and SNES.) I say both are completely good, in their own respects. I used to be all for PC gaming, only because of multiplayer. But with the next generation of console games out there, that advantage is out. I share the same view on this as most of the other teens in my area, more or less. Consoles are for gaming. Computers are for the internet, chat, instant messaging, big online games, and basically every other feature you need to get actual work done. I'm not an obsessive-compulsive gamer. (I have a friend who is.) I'm simply a gaming fan. Either way, I don't care about the console vs. PC war. If SC said he'd go all out console from now on, I wouldn't care as much as everyone else (I'd probably care, because of the thought of a final BC game on the PC). If he said he'd do all PC games and never try out the console, I wouldn't really care; that'd be his loss. There is no argument between console and PC. The average PC gamer is just simply brainier. But that never bothered me. I've always had some sort of love for consoles. Always. It's basically comparing Windows to Linux, or PHP to BASIC, or Windows Media Player to Winamp. Simpler was almost always better. Less ways to screw things up and complicate things. But both things cater to different tastes. So there's no real good or bad, it's just bias and propaganda. [ 12-19-2002, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Nova ]
  21. quote:Originally posted by DREADA: I don't quite understand myself the attraction of the XBox platform over PC or even (dare I say it) PS2It's called not having to upgrade your rig when the next-generation of games comes out. ATM, I can't play BCG. It's taking me forever to be able to assemble the upgrades. Also, with consoles, you'll end up with better-quality games, because you don't have 4 OSes out there and a billion-and-one possible combinations of hardware and software configurations running around. (Which is one of the hardest support factors in PC games and patches for them, etc.) The game only needs to be developed for one kind of hardware, and one only. No need to worry about people using alternate settings, different configurations. You can push the hardware to the max, whereas on the PC, you really should at least keep soem sort of low setting to keep the average user accessible to the game. Those are my 2 cents on console gaming.
  22. OMG, am I the only person here who's more used to console gaming? (I'm like, the only person who's okay with moving away from the PC, thus far.) ANyway, I can't wait to see the official press release and get the full details. This'll be interesting.
  23. Heh. Myself and Urza seem to be more optimistic about this than the rest. Sounds good. Lets you put more time into quality and features for the games. Knowing the past, I'm pretty sure you're already confident with this publisher, considering the fact that you made an actual deal with them and all. (Which is a good sign.) The game plan sounds good. The first-person portion would be pretty damn cool in BCO. And the fact that you're spending more time working on developing the games..... Man, this makes me want BCG and BCO even more. Just hoping the decision leads to a good ending. [ 12-18-2002, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Nova ]
  24. 41.09 released. Windows 9x/Me Windows XP/2k
  25. You need to 1) fix your sig, and put up your system specs link in your sig, according to that page, and 2) fix that spelling. Derek runs a tight ship around here, and if that spelling in your topic isn't fixed by the time Derek reads it, or your system specs link isn't in your sig (because you're posting in the support forum), then this thread's most likely going to be deleted. Fair warning. Be happy I caught you before the airlock did. (And yeah, that system specs registration would really help in figuring out some sort of problems with your comp.) [ 12-15-2002, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Nova ]
×
×
  • Create New...