I think nebulae and black holes should be visible from the start of the game, and should not have to be 'discovered.' I say this because even TODAY we can detect nebulae and black holes from Earth, without the fancy future technology in the game. We find black holes either by the gravitational effect they have on other celestial bodies, or when they distort light passing near them, creating cool effects like doubling images of stars behind the black hole. Nebulae are even easier, as many are visible with the naked eye or simple instruments.
I do not think making these visible is unbalancing... everyone will know where these features are, and their primary strategic value (i.e., presence of resources) will still be unknown until they are explored.
Note: I'm not sure if 'storms' should be visible... I am not sure they even exist as they are portrayed in the game.
I agree, though I could see them having to recode AI to knowingly search for Anti-matter near black holes. Today I don't think they search a blackhole until they see/find the anti-matter. (I could be wrong though).
Does the AI knowingly search for resources now... and if so, how does that work?
Even if it does, finding a black hole does not mean finding antimatter, any more than finding an asteroid field guarantees that you will find durantium, or finding a solar system guarantees that you will find promethion or thulium. And yet, you start the game knowing where all of the solar systems are. So if knowing did where the black holes were did guarantee finding resources it would be no different than the other resources.
slight distortions in the fog of war blackness to represent such things would not go astray.
However, the evidence we use now for detecting black holes does not guarantee its a black hole, it only means there is an 'effect' which 'may' be a black hole because we lack knowledge of what else may do that.... it could be any kind of unfathomable natural phenomenon we have no clue about, hell it could be a giant alien device, highly unlikely, but not impossible! that's why we will never know for certain unless someone goes and takes a closer look.
Raises hand! Anyone a rocket scientist?
I prefer electro magnetic lifters. Anyone with money.
To that end.... Lets hope reality is not stranger than fiction!
Event Horizon
Lost in space
planet of the apes
Startrek first contact
The list of scariness goes on! lol
This borders on sophistry. Yes, we identify a series of phenomena that together we ascribe to a 'black hole,' but which could in fact be the result of some other phenomenon. Yes, our scientific explanations might be wrong at any time. Sure, some day we would like to park by Cygnus X-1 and take a few selfies out the porthole. Not having those pics does not mean the black hole didn't happen.
It would seem on the surface that going to a black hole would be the only way to actually make sure we have black holes right. However, the tools used to detect black holes (gravitational lensing. observing the effect of gravity on orbits) are pretty much the only ones available. Even if you fly right up to a black hole (at least, according to theory), you cannot touch it, and you dare not get very close for fear of being ripped apart by tidal forces. So, you can make the SAME observations from your observatory at home, or go out in a cold spaceship and make the those observations slightly closer. In this case, closer only makes it more dangerous.
There ARE scientists out here, although technically this is more in the purview of a regular astronomer (at least, until rockets get good enough).
This borders on sophistry. Yes, we identify a series of phenomena that together we ascribe to a 'black hole,' but which could in fact be the result of some other phenomenon. Yes, our scientific explanations might be wrong at any time. Sure, some day we would like to park by Cygnus X-1 and take a few selfies out the porthole. Not having those pics does not mean the black hole didn't happen.It would seem on the surface that going to a black hole would be the only way to actually make sure we have black holes right. However, the tools used to detect black holes (gravitational lensing. observing the effect of gravity on orbits) are pretty much the only ones available. Even if you fly right up to a black hole (at least, according to theory), you cannot touch it, and you dare not get very close for fear of being ripped apart by tidal forces. So, you can make the SAME observations from your observatory at home, or go out in a cold spaceship and make the those observations slightly closer. In this case, closer only makes it more dangerous.
Sophistry?? strange. We generally put way too much faith in our current theories about Astronomy.... in the distant future people will look back and giggle to themselves about how cooky and silly our current theories are - of that i am certain.
The problem with a rocket it can only go so fast itcan only go so far and you need propellant which causes weight wich slows down the rocket. I would rather an electro magnetic ion engine lifter.
I'm sure someone on another forum will be fascinated by your opinions on the future of cosmology, and I think that is where you should take them. This is a discussion about the relevance of modern science to a science fiction game. We are not discussing Carlos Casteneda, Shirley McClaine, or other alternative worldviews, nor are we discussing an unexpected and naturally unpredictable future where logic no longer applies. If you want to imagine a different way to discover the universe, if you think nothing we have learned to date is worth anything, or if you believe that the black helicopters are never going to let us understand anything anyway, go post it on an appropriate thread, make up your own thread, put it in your mod. But let's keep this discussion on track, ok?
Now your just talking rubbish, science and science fiction are very much intertwined and take inspiration from each other both ways.... in this case, how does the various aspects of astronomy inspire us to imagine how we want or do not want black holes to be detected in the game?
The point i am making is that astronomy does not guarantee what is detected is a black hole... only that 'something' is there having certain detectable effects which 'seem' to indicate a black hole based on our best but limited understanding.
It reminds me of a game called Alpha Centauri actually. In that game you can just make out distortions in the fog of war that indicates the possibility of land masses. So in Galciv3, i am wondering if there can be visible distortions in the fog of war to indicate the possibility of black holes, nebulas, planets and asteroids. But, i dunno, probably a little cheesy is my thinking?
I'm not the one calling Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Steven Hawking fools.
NOTE: The contraction you are attempting to form is spelled 'you're.' It is short for 'you are'; the apostrophe indicates that the words have been run together and one or more letters have been elided from the combination. What you wrote is 'your,' which is the possessive form of the second-person formal singular pronoun 'you.' What you wrote means, "now of you talking rubbish," which makes no sense. Before you accuse others of speaking counter-factually, you might take the time to learn the language you are attempting to use.
This is generally true of ALL situations. I cannot be sure that the person I see across the road is not an illusion. My vision detects certain visual phenomena that 'seem' to indicate that a person is there. If I approach and reach out, my hand will detect physical phenomena that 'seem' to indicate that the person is there as well. But I can NEVER truly 'know' that the person is there, all I have is my senses and their interpretation. The same is true of black holes: no matter how close we get, we can never truly KNOW they are there. All we can do is detect them, and we can do that just as easily from here. You cannot hide from ambiguity of an uncertain universe; we can never know if any of us is what we think we are. Ditto chickens, video games, internet trolls. Heck, how do I know YOU are a person? You could be an alien, or a computer program, or a sapient slime mold living three kilometers below me...
However, we cannot use this ambiguity as an excuse to eschew reason. we CAN be reasonably certain of some things. That is what science is. You are so quick to discard black holes, but you wouldn't question gravity, would you? Certainly not while standing under an anvil! Science has brought us a great distance, and there is no reason to assume it can't take us to the very limits of understanding. However, science is not an a la carte affair, you cannot accept the parts you like, and reject the parts you don't because science 'isn't perfect.' If you want to throw out science, you have to throw out the bathwater, such as computers, antibiotics, and weather forcasting.
This is Philosophy 101. If you want to challenge science, go read up on both science and philosophy. And then put your thoughts on an appropriate thread, not here.
science and science fiction are very much intertwined and take inspiration from each other both ways....
If you will re-read my post, that is exactly my point. This discussion is about the science in science fiction. One thing we don't usually do in sci fi is pretend we will know less in the future than we know today (there are notable exceptions, of course). The situation you propose, in which some magical, unknown force or forces is misleading us completely with regard to the nature of the universe, is not scientific. We have no evidence of any such force. We have no reason to anticipate that the structure of reason will break down in the future, and that is what it would take to obviate all of our present scientific accomplishments. If fiction trumps science, you have fantasy, not science fiction. This is a sci-fi game, not a fantasy game.
I'm not the one calling Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, and Steven Hawking fools.NOTE: The contraction you are attempting to form is spelled 'you're.' It is short for 'you are'; the apostrophe indicates that the words have been run together and one or more letters have been elided from the combination. What you wrote is 'your,' which is the possessive form of the second-person formal singular pronoun 'you.' What you wrote means, "now of you talking rubbish," which makes no sense. Before you accuse others of speaking counter-factually, you might take the time to learn the language you are attempting to use.
This is generally true of ALL situations. I cannot be sure that the person I see across the road is not an illusion. My vision detects certain visual phenomena that 'seem' to indicate that a person is there. If I approach and reach out, my hand will detect physical phenomena that 'seem' to indicate that the person is there as well. But I can NEVER truly 'know' that the person is there, all I have is my senses and their interpretation. The same is true of black holes: no matter how close we get, we can never truly KNOW they are there. All we can do is detect them, and we can do that just as easily from here. You cannot hide from ambiguity of an uncertain universe; we can never know if any of us is what we think we are. Ditto chickens, video games, internet trolls. Heck, how do I know YOU are a person? You could be an alien, or a computer program, or a sapient slime mold living three kilometers below me...However, we cannot use this ambiguity as an excuse to eschew reason. we CAN be reasonably certain of some things. That is what science is. You are so quick to discard black holes, but you wouldn't question gravity, would you? Certainly not while standing under an anvil! Science has brought us a great distance, and there is no reason to assume it can't take us to the very limits of understanding. However, science is not an a la carte affair, you cannot accept the parts you like, and reject the parts you don't because science 'isn't perfect.' If you want to throw out science, you have to throw out the bathwater, such as computers, antibiotics, and weather forcasting.This is Philosophy 101. If you want to challenge science, go read up on both science and philosophy. And then put your thoughts on an appropriate thread, not here.
Thanks for putting allot of effort into your reply, i appreciate that,
But really its all allot of double talk rite, be honest?
On topic... do you know that game Alpha Centauri?
http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html
How does anyone have the energy to be a grammar nazi? I find myself highly uninterested in the topic, and besides, i have some exciting grass to go and watch growing! lol
Wow this is more of a gamewise topic than trying to argue science.
We could continue this topic here
https://forums.joeuser.com/480398
Please watch who you call a Nazi and why. I grew up with Holocaust survivors; they didn't find anything at all funny about the people who murdered their families and friends and innocent bystanders and pretty much anyone with impunity. In fact, these Holocaust survivors were mostly educators, and I think they would be as offended as I am to hear you invoke the name 'Nazi' because you are simply too lazy to bother to learn the language.
Please don't continue to mask your ignorance of basic social requirements with random accusations regarding other people's sociopolitical affiliations, it is insulting. I doubt your boss will appreciate being compared to Mao ZeDong for expecting you to come to work every day, nor should you declare your waitress to be an anarchistic babykiller because you aren't happy that she dotted her 'i' with a smiley face on the check. The IRS auditor will not be amused that you filled out your forms in crayon, and even less so that you call him Pol Pot to his face.
If you don't want to be bothered to learn the language, just simply say, "I enjoy being an ignorant troll," and no one will bother you. For that matter, just start your first response to every thread with, "I'm just a troll who wants to waste everyone's time with my ridiculous mind-pablum, then call people names when they insist that I at least do it using something approaching correct vocabulary, grammar, and usage." I, for one, would have appreciated the heads-up.
If trolls were inclined to be redirected to a different thread, they wouldn't be trolls.
I am in love with the English language and how it is used, both formally and colloquially. There is never a good reason to be ashamed of that or for anyone to mock anyone else for it. While it pains me to see people mangle it, using that enthusiasm I have to criticize others is generally a waste of time, as well as pushy. On the other hand there seems to be no one as proud as someone proud of their ignorance. Ah well.
The corrections on science, philosophy, and the extrapolation of science in science fiction are all well made. Grammar correction dilutes that message.
To the OP, I am not thrilled with the suggestion. I am not sure why, but I prefer a mostly blank map for a game's start. It may have to do with a general taste for the typical 4X exploration phase. The present starting display of just stars works for me. My narrative interpretation is that this is not an all inclusive map. It is not even a 3D accurate map. It is an executive tool for managing the galaxy that just looks like a map to help the Emperor visualize what's going on. (Emperors often need help with that.) There are gazillions of stars, black holes, nebulae, whatever, out there. Not all are marked. The stars that we initially see on the map are just the ones most likely to be relevant. The black holes and other "terrain" details that we reveal are just the ones that turn out to be more navigationally and strategically relevant than the millions of others out there. Otherwise, the map would be a useless blur of data points to stare at. It would bring whole new levels of meaning to the annotation, TMI.
You are wasting your tears on a troll. If you check above, you'll find this:
Mystikmind accused ME of 'double talk.' I was responding by demonstrating that it was in fact Mystikmind who was not speaking correctly, using the power of grammar. I didn't bring that up to mock Mystikmind for being ignorant or backward, I was responding in kind to Mystikmind's mocking me! Is turn-about no longer considered fair play on the interwebs?
Need I remind you:
Thanks for putting allot of effort into your reply, i appreciate that,But really its all allot of double talk rite, be honest?
Now, that is pretty damned rude, don't you think? "Thanks for all that crap you just spent so much time on, I'm not going to read it?" Really a class act! Then to call me a Nazi on top of that? I don't feel at all bad for pointing out that the person who was insulting me was doing so in baby-talk. I promise I'll be sorry for hurting Mystikmind's feelings if and when I get an apology for Mystikmind being so rude to me earlier. I don't really expect an apology, or tears for that matter, from a troll.
General Pants, you are so boring.
There are thousands upon thousands of teaching evaluations to support that assertion. My suggestion? Stop reading... reading never made anyone smarter...
Stars should be visible as well.
Kinda hard to miss seeing a star, FOW or not.
Would have to mask names though to keep from giving away the locations of opponents' home worlds.
Well, you CAN see the stars, just not what kind they are. I have a mod that color-codes them so you can tell what kind they are, but it only matters is you have different kinds of systems for each kind of star...
Mystikmind accused ME of 'double talk.' I was responding by demonstrating that it was in fact Mystikmind who was not speaking correctly, using the power of grammar. I didn't bring that up to mock Mystikmind for being ignorant or backward, I was responding in kind to Mystikmind's mocking me! Is turn-about no longer considered fair play on the interwebs?Need I remind you:
Wrong all over the place.
I will try to be very specific..... What your doing is taking a small amount that i say, aggrandize it, and then arguing why its wrong! Its almost like i feel left out of the debate your having with yourself! lol
Wrong all over the place. I will try to be very specific..... What your doing is taking a small amount that i say, aggrandize it, interpolate it, and then arguing why its wrong! Its almost like i feel left out of the debate your having with yourself! lol
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
