Do something to the Gravity Drive exploit.

I agree with this. It wouldn't break gravity propelled ore containers!

That's a great idea! It would allow for bigger ships to set up "gravity acceleration fields", and propel smaller ships (or torpedos) with AM blocks on them. I could get behind that.

You can already do this! We’re trying to find a way to balance the mechanic without generating free energy or screwing with current builds.

You can propel huge amounts of mass with a gravity generator. its max power input of 560kw+ that of the artificial mass block(s) is (usually) MUCH lower than what thrusters require at several MW of energy.

Currently, you can mount GG and AM on the same grid and they will produce net force in a direction. this is not very realistic if you consider our current understanding of physics. Its horridly unbalanced, anyway.

That's not how gravity works though, gravity drives actually do make sense. Gravity works by compressing or stretching space, inducing an *acceleration*, not a force. The generator induces a linear warp on local space, and the block is propelled by spacial inductance. It's basically a low energy warp drive.

Acceleration of an object requires force. What you're thinking of is it induces the ship to move with space, rather than moving itself through space.

It is basically a warp drive, but that's not how it works.

That's what gravity is, it's the warping of space by mass. Objects which follow this curvature experience it as a constant acceleration respective of the degree of warpage. Masses under the effect of this acceleration PRODUCE a force, this is how we determine the mass of an object by its weight, we use a reference force (such as that produced by a spring) and compare the counterforce, in newtons, then use an assumed gravitational acceleration to derive the mass. A 98 Newton force is a 10kg object being accelerated by an assumed local gravity of 1G, which is usually defined as 9.8m/s^2 or 9.81 as a needlessly more specific assumption (given local gravity actually varies quite a bit by altitude and region). The alcubierre concept uses a hypothetical high energy particle accelerated to near the speed of light in order to artificially warp space. It induces a negative flux on the forward end and positive flux on the rear end, effectively compressing space ahead of the vehicle and stretching space behind it. An object in the right location relative to the drive would experience an acceleration akin to gravity, both attractive and repulsive depending on the end of the drive it was at. The "warp bubble" is the region of space unaltered by the polarized fields due to each interfering with the other; Were only one half of the drive operating it would result in a net attraction/repulsion respective of the polarity. The gravity generator's most unrealistic trait in this regard is its capacity to effectively linearize the warpage of space, resulting in a unidirectional acceleration. Were such an effect possible, then yes it would absolutely work (albiet on ALL masses, not a special "receiver" akin to a mass block) as a constant acceleration.

Yes, but the ship itself doesn't move. Space moves around it.

You clearly did not read all the way through, an asymmetric field (such as that evidently produced by the gravity generator) would absolutely induce an acceleration, resulting in movement through space.

You evidently know nothing of warp drives. There is not an acceleration applied. Space shifts around the ship to accommodate the apparent change in position.

Rather than exceeding the speed of light within a local reference frame, a spacecraft would traverse distances by contracting space in front of it and expanding space behind it, resulting in effective faster-than-light travel. Objects cannot accelerate to the speed of light within normal spacetime; instead, the Alcubierre drive shifts space around an object so that the object would arrive at its destination faster than light would in normal space without breaking any physical laws.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive

Just let it go man, let it go!

:D

This isn't me continuing to accuse him of being an ass when he wasn't one.

No, instead you're squabbling about hypothetical gravity/warp drives in a computer game; I'm not sure what's worse; at least I didn't jump into someone else's debate and hurl profanities around.

The point is, gravity drives should be here to stay because they're fun to play with- they were nerfed once upon a time, but like I said already there was an uproar so keen un-nerfed them; I fail to see the need to go through all of this again- they only work well in a straight line and perfectly balanced ship anyway, unless you know how to use a script to control them, in which case it's advanced users playing with them so let them have their fun and stop being killjoys, please.

"at least I didn't jump into someone else's debate and hurl profanities around."

Of course not. You just did that in your own argument. And that's not what I'm doing anyway.

I'm all for gravity drives. Love em. But he explained the concept of warp drive wrong, and that's unforgivable.

It's like talking to a brick wall. :D

@Zachary- actually, I just went and checked- not once did I or anyone else swear in the other thread- only you.

As for warp drives- yes, we must burn him at the stake immediately, how very dare someone make a mistake when describing how a non-existent object would function...

It wasn't just that he made a mistake. It was that, and then doubled down on it when a simple google search would prove him, wrong.

It went like this.

Him: It's a warp drive, and it works like this.

Me: It is a warp drive, but it actually works like this.

Him: You know nothing Jon snow. Long winded rant about it actually working like he said it did, and other things.

Me: Yes, you've got it all down, except for one part. That part is this.

Him: You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Buzzwords

Me: Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. You don't. Brings in source to back myself up.

Seems like a pretty typical argument to me. And it was finished when you first commented.

@Ver Snuffaluffagus

You have something else to say? The wikipedia entry clearly states it works the way I said it does. Brick wall I may have been, but I was still right, and you didn't bother to at least confirm what you were saying before you said it.

Heh

*cracks fingers*

Sure, I've got a couple minutes.

Pantherdave said;

"Ideal solution, if you don't mind breaking gravity drives (I don't), and it doesn't cause massive performance issues:

Implement gravity generator being pulled toward AM with the same force... Newton's third law. Equal and opposite reaction."

Errantly suggesting that a gravity generator warping space (because that's what gravity IS) should induce a counterforce on itself despite the mechanism of action not being a force with reactive properties, but a linear and unidirectional bending of space. It's like taking a cross-section of a planet's gravity well (in this case, at most a 150x150x150m cube at approximately Earth's surface) and localizing it around your ship, the ship will experience an acceleration as if it's falling toward a massive object that never gets any closer.

I replied;

"That's not how gravity works though, gravity drives actually do make sense. Gravity works by compressing or stretching space, inducing an *acceleration*, not a force. The generator induces a linear warp on local space, and the block is propelled by spacial inductance. It's basically a low energy warp drive."

Because for all intents and purposes, a drive system that generates a localized curvature in space that your craft will perpetually "fall" into, resulting in linear translation, is a DRIVE that WARPS SPACE, like some kind of WARP DRIVE or something! See where comprehension can get you? It's almost like there's more to concepts than parroting wikipedia articles.

YOU said;

"Acceleration of an object requires force. What you're thinking of is it induces the ship to move with space, rather than moving itself through space.

It is basically a warp drive, but that's not how it works."

And you were wrong, what I was speaking of WASN'T that it induces the ship to move with space, what I was speaking of was a massive body interacting with a local spacial curvature, resulting in a net acceleration through space due the the unidirectional nature of the generator and resultant curvature. See above.

I corrected you;

"That's what gravity is, it's the warping of space by mass. Objects which follow this curvature experience it as a constant acceleration respective of the degree of warpage. Masses under the effect of this acceleration PRODUCE a force, this is how we determine the mass of an object by its weight, we use a reference force (such as that produced by a spring) and compare the counterforce, in newtons, then use an assumed gravitational acceleration to derive the mass. A 98 Newton force is a 10kg object being accelerated by an assumed local gravity of 1G, which is usually defined as 9.8m/s^2 or 9.81 as a needlessly more specific assumption (given local gravity actually varies quite a bit by altitude and region). The alcubierre concept uses a hypothetical high energy particle accelerated to near the speed of light in order to artificially warp space. It induces a negative flux on the forward end and positive flux on the rear end, effectively compressing space ahead of the vehicle and stretching space behind it. An object in the right location relative to the drive would experience an acceleration akin to gravity, both attractive and repulsive depending on the end of the drive it was at. The "warp bubble" is the region of space unaltered by the polarized fields due to each interfering with the other; Were only one half of the drive operating it would result in a net attraction/repulsion respective of the polarity. The gravity generator's most unrealistic trait in this regard is its capacity to effectively linearize the warpage of space, resulting in a unidirectional acceleration. Were such an effect possible, then yes it would absolutely work (albiet on ALL masses, not a special "receiver" akin to a mass block) as a constant acceleration."

To explain to you two things; How gravity works, since you said acceleration REQUIRES a force- which in the case of the curvature of space, it does not -and to explain to you how the alcubierre concept works, even breaking it down for you as to how the two phenomena are identical in nature if not for the design of the alcubierre drive intentionally working around it. I then go on to explain that, were such a device as the gravity generator from space engineers possible, it would be able to induce a constant acceleration on anything inside its field.

YOU persist:

"Yes, but the ship itself doesn't move. Space moves around it."

To which I can only accuse you of NOT HAVING READ WHAT I WROTE, or not comprehending it, because you still stubbornly seemed to either believe I was talking about your singular understanding of a warp drive, the alcubierre concept, or completely ignored my explanation of how an object could simply honest-to-god-no-tricks ACCELERATE using a unidirectional warp field, like an apple in an orchard.

I expressed that;

"You clearly did not read all the way through, an asymmetric field (such as that evidently produced by the gravity generator) would absolutely induce an acceleration, resulting in movement through space."

To which you once more persisted, going so far as to parrot a wikipedia article;

"You evidently know nothing of warp drives. There is not an acceleration applied. Space shifts around the ship to accommodate the apparent change in position."

YOU evidently know nothing of warp drives, as your knowledge clearly comes in composite from this SINGULAR conceptual approach to an FTL drive utilizing a spacial curvature. If you could generate an artificial, local curvature of space and manipulate the curvature however you liked, you could do HUNDREDS of things with that field, and the alcubierre concept is just a specific configuration of that field manipulation which would result in the neutral interference bubble translating respective to uncurved space. The alcubierre concept is not and has not at any point been what I was talking about in refutation of PantherDave's conclusion that they should have a conservation of momentum, other than in response to YOU, because YOU saw the term "Warp Drive" and with your narrow understanding took it upon yourself to regugitate your very rigid and incomplete understanding of what YOU think a warp drive actually is. Any system that utilizes an artificial spacial curvature to move a vehicle is effectively a warp drive, science fiction notwithstanding.

Maybe try understanding the fundamental principals of a thing instead of just regurgitating a narrow slice of someone else's extrapolation from those principals if you want to climb up on a high horse and militantly impress your understanding while claiming others are wrong.

Now shall we whip out those pitchforks and torches? I feel like having a FALSE PROPHET WEENY ROAST.

I've got some roasted weeny here, you want some?

I don't see a source. I'll bring in another one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive

"Einstein's theory of special relativity states that energy and mass are interchangeable, and speed of light travel is impossible for material objects that weigh more than photons. The problem of a material object exceeding light speed is that an infinite amount of kinetic energy would be required to travel at exactly the speed of light. This can theoretically be solved by warping space to move an object instead of increasing the kinetic energy of the object to do so.[2] Such a solution to the faster than light travel problem leads to two directly opposite approaches to light-speed travel in science fiction: in the first, spaceships themselves are brought to light speed and beyond; in the second, not-yet-local space itself is made to come to the ship while the ship moves at sub-light speeds."

In order to do FTL speeds, it has to work the way I've said it does. The literally is no way around that, that we know of at this time. Unless you have something that says we can break the light speed barrier in normal space-time...

Boy, you are thicker than cold porridge.

Cut. Your. Losses.

My losses? You're the one that's not backing up your assertions with anything other than your own musings.

That you're falling back on "sauce or fake" in response to such basic principals doesn't look good on you in either context, you're either so ignorant on the subject that anyone participating in the discussion cannot assume you know the first thing about what you're saying, making the discussion pointless as you're already hopelessly entrenched in parroting watered down wikipedia articles and challenging any exterior input, or that you're so out of your league with what little knowledge you possess that correcting you has taken you utterly aback, embarassing you, that you have no legitimate refutation and instead move the goalposts to the validity of the discussion as a whole, which were you really so concerned would have been your utmost priority in demonstrating from your very first refutation and demanded in turn. Of course that rather foolishly assumes you've yet provided any "sources" at all that actually carry weight in the discussion and aren't loosely related chaff thrown out by you in a vain attempt to add authority to your scrambling to maintain your imaginary high ground.

If you really want me to embarrass you more, we could set up a quaint little classroom right here to help you graduate highschool physics, or we could both concede that you have no idea what you're talking about and save us the time. Honestly I'm starting to feel sorry for how important it is to you that you not be wrong even when everyone can so painfully see you're grasping at straws.

I'll make the decision for you, and stop entertaining whatever it is you think you're doing at this point, since it's obvious you're willing to run this off a cliff just to scream you were right on the way to the bottom. Consider it a small mercy. I'd say it's been fun but really it's just been kind of sad seeing your floundering drop into my inbox every other day. Get help.

"That you're falling back on "sauce or fake" in response to such basic principals doesn't look good on you in either context,"

Warp drive functionality is not basic principles. The fact that you are decrying my request for sources shows you have none. Show one, please. I am very interested in the functionality of warp drives, due to watching Star Trek atm, and Wikipedia is kinda lacking, as is the Star Trek wiki. The recent release of classified documents regarding it by the US government was quite fascinating, and I would like more of that.

"you're already hopelessly entrenched in parroting watered down wikipedia articles and challenging any exterior input"

You're not contributing anything, and you have the gall to condemn me for actually sourcing my claims?

"I'll make the decision for you, and stop entertaining whatever it is you think you're doing at this point,"

Says the one refusing to even attempt to source their claims. You're not even trying to prove yourself right, you're just going "LALALALALALALALLALALALALALALALA".

Or add a checkbox for enable/disable AM blocks.

The solution needs to be optimal for both sides of the argument. Taking them out entirely will break current designs that people like, yet leaving them in allows for competitive players to exploit the mechanic. Imo the solution lies in tuning the energy consumption of AM or GG blocks, i.e. an AM block will consume energy while producing thrust in a gravity field.Either way, something needs to be done...

Gravity generators energy consumption is proportional to the mass they are pushing.

I like this solution. Balances the drives while keeping them around for those that want them. Good thinking.

If we were to have the increased power usage, something I would really like is more variable gravity fields, and variable artificial mass, so you can push more power into it to make it go faster.

Gravity generators only being able to make a 1 G fields seems weak.

Obviously it shouldn't be crazy, but a little variation would be nice.

PCU can used as a balance thing, so lets say the pcu limit for a faction is 400k, one faction might have 2 ships with grav. drives, and the other might have 4 ships that don't. which makes factions decide weather they want to use a grav. drive/cannon or not use them and it all comes down to the strategy also have you seen what happens when you blow a hole in a grav. drive or cannon, it can cause the ship using the grav drive problems it is defiantly already quite well balanced if you don't want grav. drives just get a mod that disables AM and SB.

And that completely ignores that gravity drives are exponential in how effective they are.

It also assumes that 1 PCU in a gravity drive is the same effective as that 1 PCU anywhere else, which is not the case.

As a side note, that is the 'balance' we have now. And it's shit

don't work on planets, they arnt that good interms of price to performance, and any sufficiently small ship that has a grav drive is way to expensive, easy to kill and similar results can be got with some hydrogen thrusters. So they are balanced really. To be honest the most outrages use of a gravity gen that could be considered unbalanced is, gravity cannons but even so they are usually incredibly expensive if you want one that could devastate a ship. not to mention these types of projectiles can be shot down before they even get within 400m. with PCU its the amount of PCU that a gravity gen has i could build more ships with out a gravity drive than i could build with a gravity drive on a server and to be honest i fancy the more ships option. if your saying its op in a single player world then don't use them.

None of that is PCU balancing it.

i could build more ships with out a gravity drive than i could with a gravity drive due to pcu limits on servers and such

And? That doesn't balance the gravity drives themselves.

And it still misses the point. PCU is not a good way to balance gravity drives as they are now, because the effectiveness per PCU is not always the same.