| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wathiant
   |
Posted - 2004.06.21 22:49:00 -
[1]
Also posted in the Economics thread, but it turned into a broader idea as I typed...
The one thing truly fuelling any economy is in fact FUEL.
Eve doesn't have any, so now you can just fly around in your shuttle or BS at the same costs and as far as you want. This prevents economic interaction. Introduce fuel (not something that magically recharges itself), some relevant skills for fuel consumption and production and you'll soon see the galaxy needs to trade.
I'll leave the type of fuel to you, but anti-matter and proto-matter harvested from stars spring to mind. Add a free fuel-replenishment unit that can generate fuel in very low quantities (enough to jump 10 AU after an hour or so) from space dust and you're set.
You could even make the speed of your ship improve or decrease on the type of fuel used.
|
Jennyfyr
|
Posted - 2004.06.21 23:48:00 -
[2]
this could work very well gets my vote espically the super fuel (as long as it was rare etc.
|
Vel Kyri
|
Posted - 2004.06.22 07:03:00 -
[3]
basically you want a consumable for cap?!?!
sheesh
ammo for lasers :(
(or if you made it JUST for thrust.. then i'm more interested.)
-----
|
SoldierSSC
|
Posted - 2004.06.22 07:30:00 -
[4]
i think is not bad idea :)
|
Haratu
|
Posted - 2004.06.22 09:34:00 -
[5]
If you keep up to date with current ideas on gatehring fuel for space flight it is thought that fuel can be gathered from protons that are present in the solar wind... gathering these up they can easily be accelerated out the rockets at a reasonable velocity for forward thrust.
The energy for the acceleration of the particles can also come from the protons being placed into a fusion generator which would produce enough energy for all the ships functions.
Why dock for fuel when you can do this?
I roleplay... there is this computer game called "Earth - The First Genesis" where i play a character in the early 21st century. |
Gaijin Lanis
|
Posted - 2004.06.22 09:53:00 -
[6]
Current nuclear reactors run for months without refueling. Is that magic?
|
Zaldiri
|
Posted - 2004.06.22 19:43:00 -
[7]
No bad idea. Sorry but it is.
Rise of Valhalla is now recruiting. We are looking for players of any level of experience. Please contact me or SSJ2VEGETA |
Dao 2
|
Posted - 2004.06.22 20:35:00 -
[8]
but it would be a bit more balancing >< i liek it ;p (no warp fuel...)
|
Wathiant
|
Posted - 2004.06.22 21:23:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: Gaijin Lanis
Current nuclear reactors run for months without refueling. Is that magic?
You are right that they can, but you may not be considering the fact that current reactors don't need to propel objects through space at more than light speed. You're probably referring to nuclear submarines, most of which never even reach their first AU in total travelled distance...
What I'm saying is that the amount of power required to accelerate and decelerate massive objects hundreds or thousands of m/s in a few seconds is on a whole other scale than what earth-bound reactors need to produce.
If normal nuclear reactors would be able to do that, they wouldn't use those big disposable rockets that burn away enough fuel to power a city for a year on a single space shuttle launch, would they? That's the kind of power needed, you see.
And a note for Haratu. That type of engine only works a) close to a star and b) for very light vessels. Your battleship with its 3m thick armor is NOT a light vessel.
And c) it only works when there's no friction. In Eve space there definitely is friction... Otherwise there would be no max speeds, just max accelerations.
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 00:16:00 -
[10]
Edited by: YuuKnow on 23/06/2004 00:19:06
Ships already have a type of "fuel" that causes them to have to continually buy from the market, return to space dock, spend cash on...... its ammo.
Having to stop to pick up fuel would be no different than have to stop and restock ammo. It really would add nothing to the game or the market.
|
Paw Sandberg
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 06:00:00 -
[11]
instead of a fuel i would rather pay a upkeep for active ships (mind you this have been brought up before)
a ISK amount a day per active ship would be used for paying the crew and fuel etc etc
This would create a much (in my opinion) needed money sink and limit the BS (as these would be expensive to run)
mind you then we would also start needing crew and thats another ball of soup 
Thank You
Paw Sandberg
for all your BPC needs see
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
|
Paw Sandberg
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 06:00:00 -
[12]
instead of a fuel i would rather pay a upkeep for active ships (mind you this have been brought up before)
a ISK amount a day per active ship would be used for paying the crew and fuel etc etc
This would create a much (in my opinion) needed money sink and limit the BS (as these would be expensive to run)
mind you then we would also start needing crew and thats another ball of soup
Thank You
Paw Sandberg
for all your BPC needs see
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
|
CidHighwind
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 06:38:00 -
[13]
Thats all fine and good, but all the reactors in this game dont use consumable items, and if they did, they wouldnt run out for months. Nuclear reactors, Fusion reactors. Dont beleive me? Look at the Construction components.
|
Paw Sandberg
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 06:49:00 -
[14]
Originally by: CidHighwind
Thats all fine and good, but all the reactors in this game dont use consumable items, and if they did, they wouldnt run out for months. Nuclear reactors, Fusion reactors. Dont beleive me? Look at the Construction components.
lol alright the upkeep would pay for Food and Crew would that be better 
Thank You
Paw Sandberg
for all your BPC needs see
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=55706&page=1
|
Gaijin Lanis
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 08:37:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Wathiant
What I'm saying is that the amount of power required to accelerate and decelerate massive objects hundreds or thousands of m/s in a few seconds is on a whole other scale than what earth-bound reactors need to produce..
Realitivity states, accelerating any object of any mass to the speed of light would require more energy than exists in the entire universe (for more information, see high school physics).
Originally by: Wathiant
Otherwise there would be no max speeds, just max accelerations.
CONSTANT THRUST DOES NOT EQUAL CONSTANT ACCELERATION!
For more information, see high school physics.
|
DoZ3r
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 14:14:00 -
[16]
Edited by: DoZ3r on 23/06/2004 14:16:28
taken from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A600436
Bussard's Solution
The entry on Jets and Rockets explains in detail why jet engines don't work in space. In summary, it is because a jet engine works by accelerating a medium, such as air. In space, of course, there is no such medium. Or is there?
Space is not, in fact, completely empty. Even between the stars there is hydrogen gas, at a density of about one or two atoms per cubic centimetre. This is the 'medium' for the Bussard ramjet.
As with conventional ramjets, the Bussard ramjet cannot accelerate from a standing start. Some other drive technology must first be used to accelerate the ship to a measureable fraction (say 1%) of lightspeed1.
When the ship is moving fast enough, it is encountering enough atoms of interstellar hydrogen every second to make it worth collecting them and using them as fuel.
so fuel for flying around systems - yes
for warping - no
|
Joe Redpawn
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 16:16:00 -
[17]
Well. I do see logic in wanting to throw away thousands of ISK money on gassing up your starships every once in a while at the docking port. But the thing is our ships are powered by constant recharging energy power core.
Now maybe if it was a requirement to replace the power core every week for a couple thousand ISK, that would be cool. 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joe Redpawn
Order of Chivalry Corp, EVE | EVE Online Rocks
MADBLAST.Com | Joe Cartoon.Com | XM Radio |
Zaldiri
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 18:21:00 -
[18]
Quote:
Realitivity states, accelerating any object of any mass to the speed of light would require more energy than exists in the entire universe (for more information, see high school physics).
May I direct you to the to the scientific articles:
So what is the elusive answer to FTL travel? It was found through advanced research in the field of quantum electrodynamics. By creating depleted vacuum, that is, vacuum as found in space but completely stripped of all energy, and then expanding this depleted vacuum to envelop a ship, the ship is capable of moving faster than light through this bubble of depleted vacuum. A depleted vacuum bubble is more than frictionless û it is so anti-friction that things (including light) actually move faster in it than they would in complete vacuum.
Rise of Valhalla is now recruiting. We are looking for players of any level of experience. Please contact me or SSJ2VEGETA |
Wathiant
|
Posted - 2004.06.23 23:01:00 -
[19]
I'm not going to discuss physics with you after this post, since that was not the point of this thread. However...
Originally by: Gaijin Lanis
Realitivity states, accelerating any object of any mass to the speed of light would require more energy than exists in the entire universe (for more information, see high school physics).
Which supports my point: ordinary reactors won't produce enough energy to power your ship.
Originally by: Gaijin Lanis
CONSTANT THRUST DOES NOT EQUAL CONSTANT ACCELERATION!
For more information, see high school physics.
Take a physics class and you'll see that it in fact does. unless there is friction or when you're approaching light speed. In the latter case the normal rules of physics still apply, but you'll have to understand that you don't actually gain velocity (speed) but impulse, which is a function of your mass and, as you know, your mass increases when you go faster.
Originally by: DoZ3r
Bussard's Solution
The entry on Jets and Rockets explains in detail why jet engines don't work in space.
Jet engines don't work, because they expand and propel air. Rockets do work, because they usually expand some solid or fluid fuel source. The main problem is usually getting enough oxygen in the mix.
Originally by: CidHighwind
Thats all fine and good, but all the reactors in this game dont use consumable items, and if they did, they wouldnt run out for months. Nuclear reactors, Fusion reactors. Dont beleive me? Look at the Construction components.
A fusion reactor runs on fuel, as does a nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors usually run on uranium, plutonium and other unstable materials. Fusion reactors usually run on hydrogen. Both require rare isotopes and preferably in a very pure form. They need to refuel occasionally, why else would the people against nuclear power try to stop nuclear waste disposal trains? That stuff doesn't come out of the air.
The reason that nuclear reactors can run a long time without refueling is that the fuel is extremely compact for the amount of energy it produces, so you can take a lot of it along with you.
It's just an idea that might add another dimension to the game...
|
YuuKnow
|
Posted - 2004.06.24 00:54:00 -
[20]
I would advise not bothering to explain the physics to people. 99% of people don't understand physics. And 50% of the 99% that don't understand physics don't even know that they don't understand physics.
I learned this the hard way when I bought up a physics point in a thread and got a endless supply of erroneous post and dead wrong theories.
But anyway, adding fuel wouldn't really add anything to the game. It would basically serve as just another "ammo" that needed to be resupplied periodically. Nothing substantial there.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |