Polaris Map

A general area for the general things that generally happen in our server.

How do you feel about the Polaris map?

The map is good as-is.
6
21%
The map is fine with minor tweaks.
12
41%
The map needs a major overhaul.
11
38%
I want a different map entirely.
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 29

Re: Polaris Map

Postby arokha » Tue May 10, 2016 1:44 pm

Dhaeleena wrote:Do we -NEED- the place surrounded by rock? Is it functional in any way? does it make any good? is it any diferent than just having space?


It is easier to build on, as you can pressurize it since it has walls. Less dangerous for the same reason. I also just like the rocky look. I suppose it's just down to preferences on that.
User avatar
arokha
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:54 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Arbon » Tue May 10, 2016 1:54 pm

Personally I LOVE having bigger places to explore and get lost in. As a predator, bigger map = safety when I snag some poor snack who would rather not be chow~ Harder to find me~


As prey who wants to be snagged, and constantly ending up in scenarios where the predator WOULD have gotten me but other people keep getting in the way (the biggest reason I kept pushing for some sort of Subtle button, and kept using PDA's to emote back and forth until then) I completely agree here. The huge map is a good thing a lot of respects, the annoyance is we don't have enough people to fill it out and there's a lot of walking to get from place to place. I would love to see sections of this map taken over by something hostile, then it devolves into a literal terf war with territories we have to close off. Because wow it really is that big.

Ace just said everything I was going to bring up regarding the gravity issue, and yet somehow that conversation is still going? Putting a city on the moon is not going to make the moon immediately crash into the earth, nor is hallowing out the asteroid and putting similar mass inside going to threaten the gas giant bellow Virgo. If we were already at a scale where that could become a problem within the next decade (century, Millennia, ect) then we also could never mine the asteroid for resources. Taking that mass away would surely have a similar, opposite effect that flings us off into space according to the logic presented. Its a neat trivia, its not a reason to avoid using rocks as ablative armor and never build anything on the asteroid we've already built onto.

I still really enjoy the fact a kitchen is it's own separate place, set up like a cafeteria, and seems designed as a place to either sit down and eat (which means scene) or grab a quick meal and run off the way the kitchen is handled now. Merging the kitchen and bar (and the coffee-shop as well come to think of it) would be best handled by making them ALL on the exact same hallway, one after another, where you can walk from one and get into the next. Presumably with the bar in the center, and the kitchen and coffee shop on either side.

A bit less private and thus less viable for predatory snatch-and-grab scenes, but they're all food and leisure related. I think the normal reason they're spread out is an attempt at functional redundancy so there's less distance to walk to get to a place designated for relaxation, helpful with the station's size. But if we're shrinking the whole thing we don't really need as much redundancy.
User avatar
Arbon
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Polaris Map

Postby arokha » Tue May 10, 2016 1:56 pm

NW, you should ask for your money back on your astronomy classes.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/G ... entri.html

Centrifugal force does not exist in internal reference frames, only rotating reference frames, in which it is a ficticious force. Gravity is the thing what does the orbiting.

Also all those things you listed that slow orbital objects are applications of force.

Besides, what Ace said. Why does this station need to be in the same orbit? How do you know there wasn't already an asteroid there? Planets capture rocks. Phobos and Deimos are (let's be honest) pretty shitty moons but they are captured rocks. Why wouldn't NT just use one of those?
User avatar
arokha
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:54 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Arbon » Tue May 10, 2016 2:05 pm

How do you know there wasn't already an asteroid there?


We already do have an asteroid base, its called mining and xeno-archeology. With research stations built directly into the asteroid. Exactly like this station, on a smaller scale. There is literally no reason for us to move a new rock into the old orbit, when we can just find a new place with a new rock. Then start building on that rock. If centrifugal forces and shifts in gravity were enough of a problem to deter building on a rock, then we would never have been mining or building on the previous rock. The argument is mildly interesting but entirely irrelevant to the game or the lore. And even less relevant to the intentions of the thread.

i dont know why we cant just remove the asteroid and leave space, it wouldnt change much at all


It changes a lot for engineering actually, and even more on the case of asteroid impacts and hostile events where things are coming at us from space. The rocks serve as an extra bit of armor (the entire real world reason why you'd want to build into an asteroid, its a stable and defensible position) and they are existing walls making it easier to build out, because you aren't immediately in space the moment one wall breaks down. All you have to do is dig a bit through the wall and through the rock, and pump in air to let a bit of pressure build. Its a working ground, a base to build off of, making it much, MUCH easier to add new rooms than the existing method of building directly on space.

The reason to move into an asteroid is just logic, it's inherently superior and more economic than building a station on nothing.
User avatar
Arbon
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2015 2:57 pm
Location: California

Re: Polaris Map

Postby viveret » Tue May 10, 2016 2:14 pm

Nightwing wrote:In addition to my comments on the other topic (which I'll repost here soon), the most important thing is that this map is not designed for our gameplay type with our population. It's too big, too spread out.

This.

I'd rather see our current map's construction areas expanded.
User avatar
viveret
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:49 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Nightwing » Tue May 10, 2016 5:07 pm

arokha wrote:NW, you should ask for your money back on your astronomy classes.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/G ... entri.html

Centrifugal force does not exist in internal reference frames, only rotating reference frames, in which it is a ficticious force. Gravity is the thing what does the orbiting.

Also all those things you listed that slow orbital objects are applications of force.

Besides, what Ace said. Why does this station need to be in the same orbit? How do you know there wasn't already an asteroid there? Planets capture rocks. Phobos and Deimos are (let's be honest) pretty shitty moons but they are captured rocks. Why wouldn't NT just use one of those?


[REDACTED BY ADMIN] I typed "Centripetal" force. The difference is that centripetal force is a thing that exists. There are diagrams and equations of its existence.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Centri ... etal_Force

Why would NT spend all that money on one? We've got existing stations that're much cheaper to maintain for the reasons I laid out.
Last edited by Aces on Tue May 10, 2016 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Rule 6
Nightwing
 
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:10 am

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Zeke Sturm » Tue May 10, 2016 5:37 pm

It's also worth noting that, even if the thing is already in orbit, unless the tunnels that existed inside it were perfectly laid out for NT's needs (unlikely) there would have to be blasting or drilling involved. ANd even if an asteroid were in stable orbit (like phobos or sommat) blasting the thing would hold huge risk for knocking it out of orbit, as would disposal of excess material. Granted, the disposal problem would be equally prevalent in our current station with the trash, but on a much smaller level that would probably be easier to account for.

Personally I sorta like the idea of an orbiting asteroid base, but I can't see the logic of it. It's a bit too supervillain logic-y to make much sense. It'd be harder to construct, harder to maintain, immensely more difficult to sort out the logistics of it in general. All in all, it's a cool idea, but I can't see it being the practical choice, basically.

That said, I can concede a bigger map with more spaces for preds to nab prey would also be a good thing. Even with that in mind it might be worth making sure we have some clearer pointers to the various departments and such posted around than we do now. I know we've got the wall signs, but maybe a clickable wall map that uses the same UI as the laptops for the camera maps that instead just has the department logos displayed and such? Maybe a "you are here?" If only to help out the newbies.
Zeke Sturm
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 6:37 pm

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Aces » Tue May 10, 2016 6:03 pm

Zeke Sturm wrote:It's also worth noting that, even if the thing is already in orbit, unless the tunnels that existed inside it were perfectly laid out for NT's needs (unlikely) there would have to be blasting or drilling involved. ANd even if an asteroid were in stable orbit (like phobos or sommat) blasting the thing would hold huge risk for knocking it out of orbit, as would disposal of excess material. Granted, the disposal problem would be equally prevalent in our current station with the trash, but on a much smaller level that would probably be easier to account for.

Personally I sorta like the idea of an orbiting asteroid base, but I can't see the logic of it. It's a bit too supervillain logic-y to make much sense. It'd be harder to construct, harder to maintain, immensely more difficult to sort out the logistics of it in general. All in all, it's a cool idea, but I can't see it being the practical choice, basically.

That said, I can concede a bigger map with more spaces for preds to nab prey would also be a good thing. Even with that in mind it might be worth making sure we have some clearer pointers to the various departments and such posted around than we do now. I know we've got the wall signs, but maybe a clickable wall map that uses the same UI as the laptops for the camera maps that instead just has the department logos displayed and such? Maybe a "you are here?" If only to help out the newbies.


First off, we don't use explosives when mining. Even if we did, the scale of such explosives would have to be more massive than anything we can reproduce in-game. Second, the asteroid orbits a massive Phoron Giant in the system, and it's not simply going to fall out of orbit because we remove some stone from it. Gravity does not work that way. Newton's first law does not work that way. When you remove mass from an object in orbit, you're not changing its velocity unless you literally throw that mass off the object creating an opposite force. Even if we wanted to do that deliberately, we'd have to strap massive-ass rockets onto it. There's a reason NASA hasn't considered trying to alter the orbit of an asteroid just by strapping rockets to it. It wouldn't work. There wouldn't be enough fuel. All this you guys keep talking about the asteroid falling out of orbit or drifting off into space makes no sense and you all severely overestimate how quickly such effects would even be noticeable. In fact, where was all this complaining over our own asteroid? Why is it suddenly an issue only now? You are literally talking about trying to move the mass of an entire mountain. You could hit it with a nuclear bomb and it wouldn't care.

Now, here's my answer to "Why an asteroid?"

Why waste time and energy flying off to mine on an asteroid when you can just latch into it and mine it? What never made sense to me is we could always get to the mining asteroid even though it's in a completely different place. It's not anchored to the station and it sure as hell doesn't have enough gravitational force to keep a station in orbit around it. So how come we could always reach the asteroid on our station? That made absolutely no sense. Two objects in orbit of dramatically different mass are going to noticeably and severely drift apart.

The map being too big is a fair criticism and matter of opinion. I will not contest that. However I am sick and tired of this ridiculous discussion about orbital mechanics. I shouldn't even be humoring the debate because it has literally nothing to do with anything we are ever doing on the server.
User avatar
Aces
 
Posts: 1700
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 4:13 pm

Re: Polaris Map

Postby JoanRisu » Tue May 10, 2016 6:23 pm

I like the Asteroid though I much prefer working on a large station (Due to a Star Trek DS9 Bias c:)
Image
User avatar
JoanRisu
 
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 3:59 pm

Re: Polaris Map

Postby Vorrarkul » Tue May 10, 2016 7:38 pm

So, can someone tell me about the elevators? Do we have some sort of pseudo multi-level thing going on with z-levels and 'shuttle' elevators?
ImageImageImageImageImageImage
User avatar
Vorrarkul
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 3:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests