Re: [FT] Vector Silliness

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, Roger Books wrote:

> On 11-Aug-99 at 10:27, Keith Watt (kwatt@ExodusProject.com) wrote:
>
> > Roger Books wrote:
> > 
> > > > 3) Limit "push" movement to 1 and allow a ship to "push"
forward. This
> > > > brings "push" movement back to what it should be. Minimal,
adjustments
> > > > for docking. Rationalization: Maneuvering thrusters are MUCH
less
> > > > powerful than the main drive.
> > > 
> > > You forgot
> > > 
> > > 4.  Do not allow a push and a thrust to be separated by a rotate.
> > 
> > Or even simpler and more realistic, don't allow pushes at all.  A
> > thruster push, I feel sure, was inspired by the idea of "docking
> > thrusters" for finely-controlled movements, but in order to use
those
> > thrusters to get the kind of results you see from pushes in the
rules,
> > you've got to have a main drive mounted on all four sides of the
ship. 
> > Aside from the fact that this would look silly (note none of the
minis
> > do this!), it's really totally unnecessary.  Just allow any number
or
> > combination of rotates and main drives and all the problems are
solved.

i'd agree - thrusters arren't powerful enough to give sideways motion of
the same order of magnitude as the main drive (if they were, turning
would
be free). the only amendment we need to make is to take out pushes. good
for realism and consistency, possibly bad for playability. personally,
i'd
do it, but i imagine many people wouldn't.

> So if you have X thrust you may rotate (any amount, costing one) and
> then thrust X-1?  Sounds good to me.

i don't think this is what Keith was suggesting.

> Hmmm, Kr'vak (sp?) still get pushes?

how to deal with the KV under vector is a big problem - now that
everyone
can spin like sufis, the KV need a new edge. perhaps they get an extra
turn or something?

tom