Re: FT3 DEVELOPMENT QUESTION: Movement system(s)? was: Re: [FT] Quiet in here, isn't it.

How many games?  Maybe one or two in Jon and company's FTJava app.  On
the
tabletop?  At ECC with the big tables I've seen speeds in excess of 20 a
few times.  On regular tables  generally in the 12 - 16mu range.  In
cinematic it is easier to maintain speed so average speed is higher than
vector where you make a pass, slow down to zero, and then accel again.

In my experience high speed results in missed firing opportunities.

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Jon Tuffley <jon@gzg.com> wrote:

> Supplementary question arising out of this discussion…..
>
> How many people here have found very high speeds in play to be a REAL
> problem in actual games, rather than a theoretical one?
>
> I'm VERY wary of introducing maximum speeds if it can be avoided. What
are
> folks' real in-game experiences?
>
> Moving very fast has its own difficulties, not least of which is the
high
> risk of overshooting your target unless you judge things EXACTLY right
> (which is a large reason why I've never worried too much about the
> "problem" of passing ships not being able to shoot at each other -
yes, it
> may be a very big abstraction and seem odd, but it does have the
effect of
> making players keep their speeds down if they want to avoid this
happening).
>
> Please discuss……?  ;-)
>
> Jon (GZG)
>
>
>
>
> On 22 Oct 2015, at 13:45, Indy <indy.kochte@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Unless you are defending an area or region, then it is easier to
justify.
> :-)	Often, though, that usually involves some sort of 'space
terrain'
> (depending on scale being used, could be a base, an asteroid, a moon,
or a
> planet), or maybe a disabled ship.
>
> Mk
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Roger Bell_West <roger@firedrake.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:46:11PM -0400, Damond wrote:
>> >I'd think the size of the table would limit practical speeds.
>>
>> Because space is finite? :-)
>>
>> (Seriously, a non-floating table is a game-ish solution, which is
>> perhaps hard to justify.)
>>
>>
>
>