FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:49 am

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 2:25 am 
Offline
Space Kraken
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 3:48 am
Posts: 131
utilae wrote:
If a race evolved on a high g world, that race would be strong enough to cope with the high g gravity, so upon going to a low g world, that race would be even stronger in the much weaker gravity.


They would be strong for a while. Their mussels would start to atrophy and their skelital structures would start to disintigrate. They would need to devote large periods of time to exercizing just to stay healthy. This would have a negative effect on all production. (Low gravity will be a very serious problem for our astronaughts when we go to Mars. A lot of excess mass will be devoted just to excercize equipment.) Another item that would cause the HG race problems is atmospheric preasure. They'd be accilmated to a heavy atmosphere and a LG planet would in most cases have a lower density atmosphere. (Again using Mars... even if Mars had the perfect combination of gasses that we have on Earth the lower atmospheric preasure would still cause Humans serious problems.)

Quote:
If a race evolved on a low g world, that race would be strong enough to cope with the low g gravity, so upon going to a high g world, that race would strugle under the stronger gravity.

Would these statements be true? They sound logical.


It is actually easier for a low gravity race to adapt to a higher gravity situation. They grow additional mussels and their sketital structure gains mass to support the larger mussles and support the additional weight. (NASA has run several experiments with rats on this and found that not only did the rats grow mussels and bone but their hearts improved and they lived longer under HG conditions. I don't remember the exact gravity/ies that the tests were conducted under.) So at first there would be some aclimation and then the populous would start acting normally... Their children would have no problems at all. << This assumes that the gravity isn't so high that it crushes the LG race in the beginning. >> Also there is the difference in atmospheric preasure. This may be a problem for the LG race.


However there is nothing to say that with tech a chemical cocktail can't be concocted and or gravity normalizers developed.


Thumper


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:16 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Posts: 383
Location: Texas
While this is all very interesting, its actually irrelevent. As far as gameplay is concerned gravity is pretty important at the beginning of the game. However once tech has increased sufficently gravity becomes pointless. on that note i say a low-g race should beable to function fine on anythign but a high-g world. A normal g race will recieve a minimal but semi significant on any of the otehr worlds. And high-g races will only recieve a penalty on a low-g world.

We can do a five way system too. for simplicity 1-5 1 being the lowest 5 being the highest. Then races would only be 1-3-5. Thus 1 would recieve no penalty on 1-3 planets. 3 races would have no penalty on 2-4 planets and 5 races would recieve no penalty on 3-5 planets. This i tihnk has a lot of potential for gameplay balancing etc.

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 10:01 am 
Offline
Graphics
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm
Posts: 708
This is exactly what I think. However, there is one other thing which came to my mind: there might be planets which have such extreme gravity that an adaption is impossible; e. g. a human can't adapt to the conditions on Jupiter because he would reduced to a puddle of organic substances upon arrival.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 8:29 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Posts: 244
Location: Bulgaria
PowerCrazy wrote:
We can do a five way system too. for simplicity 1-5 1 being the lowest 5 being the highest. Then races would only be 1-3-5. Thus 1 would recieve no penalty on 1-3 planets. 3 races would have no penalty on 2-4 planets and 5 races would recieve no penalty on 3-5 planets. This i tihnk has a lot of potential for gameplay balancing etc.


So far so good, but this way it is irrelevant whether you're high G or low G. Let's make thing more meaningful. Higher gravity also mean faster reflexes and more acceleration endurance. So give a small bonus to both space and ground combat for higher G. But the penalty for colonising planets with more gravity is less that the one for colonisisng ones with less gravity.

Say we have 0 for asteroids, 6 for gas giants, and for normal planets 1-5.
You can colonise planets up to two levels up from the race default, more than that and you can't survive.

Minor note: The strength of militia should be dependent on the gravity of the planet, not the default for the race. The bonus for normal troops should always be fpr default+2 gravtity, maximum habitable gravity. Ships should be a bit more expensive for higher G races.


Last edited by krum on Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 9:45 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Posts: 383
Location: Texas
Well we can add as much "good" complexity as we want. But i think this would be a good starting point. 5 planet types three types of race traits, and the freedom to add as much as we wish to differentiate them.

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 6:38 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Posts: 244
Location: Bulgaria
I dunno, why have intermediate types of gravity that a homeworld cannot have? If we have them, why not let the player pick them?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 6:36 am 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 2:35 am
Posts: 383
Location: Texas
Well the HW can be defined as Very Low-G or low-g just as the other spectrums homeworld could be Very High-g or High-G. The idea is for a Low-g race to have more advantages when it finds any Low-G world and the High-g race to have more advantages when it finds a high-g world. The 5 gravity classes only serve to differentiate planets more make them "more uniquer" ;).

_________________
Aquitaine is my Hero.... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:29 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 314
Location: Amidst the Inferno.
I just wanted to point out a couple of points for the sake of realism:

1) The speed that a planet spins has very little effect on the weight of objects on it's surface. Unless your planet was spinning fast enough for a day to last less then an hour you would feel almost no effects. Any planet spinning much faster then this would have to be made out of some sort of crystalline structure or it would tear itself apart. On the other hand, since you would weigh more on the poles of such a planet then on it's equator you could reasonably expect anything that evolved there to be more resistant to changes in gravity.

2) If our race is to be considered the galactic norm then it should be noted that if a baby was born on the moon and grew up there its bones would not atrophy. In fact it would be very well suited for life in low gravity environments and would consider the earth high gravity.

What I'm trying to say is that in reality a race would adapt to the gravity of a world in one generation and then suffer no further penalties.. although immigration and emigration would be difficult.

_________________
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:46 pm 
Offline
Lead Designer Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Posts: 761
Location: Austin, TX
see previous tirades on realism. please. :)

_________________
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:07 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am
Posts: 643
tyreth wrote:
I think a simple modifier with the above conditions would add a little diversity to the game, but I'm not sure if it's needed with everything else. I think it can't hurt either way. On that toptic, I am a lover of three's - environment, mineral richness, gravity :D


What ever happen to organic richness? and maybe research and economy richess (like paradise for resorts)? I guess we can factor in atomoshphere into environment, but we can do that with gravity.

I'm with Fish here. Gravity adds more depth. I think we should just do a simple 5 class system with different race having different preferences. This adds another incentive for wars as planets in certain system owned by different race won't be colonised as fast.

We can also add in empty variable for temperature and atomsphere and fill in the blanks latter.


Last edited by skdiw on Fri Sep 05, 2003 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 01, 2003 8:27 pm 
Offline
Cosmic Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 12:37 am
Posts: 2175
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Yes, it worked well in Moo2.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 7:14 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Posts: 1396
OK,

In MOO2, and probably here as well, LoG worlds stunk they tended to be small and poor.

I'd suggest that to balance that, LoG actually be a bonus.. essentially G could be a world's "Industrial Richness".. and a counter balance to the goodness of size.

If it only affected Industry, then you would mine Hi G (rich worlds) and your industry would be in either Large high EP worlds (with their large population balancing out the) or in small Poor Lo G worlds (worlds that would be very efficient even with their small populations)

So I'd say
Grav::Industry effect
VLo...+75%
Lo....+25%
Av....+0
High....-25%
VHigh....-50%


And to simulate medical effects, a Growth Rate, and probably Combat Penalty for being outside your G (*0.75 for one away, *0.5 for two or more away)

'Gravity Generators' would remove the Industrial Penalties, and lessen the Growthrate ones ('Physiological Engineering' could eliminate the Growthrate Penalties and maybe Defender Combat Penalties) (and 'Portable Grav Generators' and 'MultiG Tactics + Training' could remove the Combat Penalties)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:57 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 2:17 am
Posts: 643
I don't like that idea of lo G getting a bonus. I think small world/lo G should have higher probability of getting specials or mineral rich, but as a balancer, the planet can't support that much.

I think differing species should prefer differing gravity with maybe a unique gaseous race that are unaffected or penalties reduced.

We should lump gravity parameter into "environment," since we aren't dealing with temperature, atomsphere and all that complications. (maybe calling enviornment is wrong since we have tundra, inferno...) For realism's sake and arguement's sake, I say refer gravity as enironment even though gameplay it's the same.

I think enviornment should play a factor in many areas of concern like growth rate, building maint. cost, industry rates, research... but all things concerned, the added penalties can be just as ppl proposed, 50, 25, 0, -25, -50. One possiblity with "environment," since it is more generalized, is to use 7 levels instead of 5. Another possibility is reduce the penalties to encourage more clustered growth of races on the galaxy map or not, for reason I suggested earlier.

_________________
:mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:35 am 
Offline
Space Dragon

Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 12:27 pm
Posts: 289
IMO It should be a scale of like 9, and you sohuld be able to live on any planet with gravity within like 3 space of you ideal. 1-2 would be asteroids and such, 8-9 would be gas giants and such.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 60 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group