Which do you believe: Copenhagen Interpretation (your "living universe" that decoheres when you observe it, see Schrödinger's Cat thought experiment) Many-worlds (every action creates alternate universes) For a detailed argument from someone who prefers Many-worlds to Copenhagen Interpretation see: <a href="https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/9cgBF6BQ2TRB3Hy4E/and-the-winner-is-many-worlds
Paul and Fred should have left well enough alone. They reached my maximum tolerance when they asked you to rename Super-Melee but from your post it seems once they announced Ghosts of the Precursors they pushed for every legal attack on you. There is something unjust about the tone of this recent statement by Paul and Fred: "It is fun and informative to read your comments… even the ones that don’t see things exactly the same way we do." <
Not sure if this thread is in the proper place (is there a Misc subforum?), anyway: Yeah the double-slit experiment is pretty cool. The three theories to explain how the electron can go through both slits at once are the Copenhagen Interpretation, Many-worlds, and Broglie-Bohm Pilot-wave theory (relativistic part currently missing). Each theory has its weird parts (see below video for explanation of Pilot-wave theory and see the two videos the below video re
Do we need a dedicated server? One-on-one Fleet battles are just one ship vs another ship with a few background objects. Nowhere near as much polygon count as something like Ashes of the Singularity. Would peer-to-peer work instead? I don't know how much money that would save.
Cool :) Didn't Star Control Kessari Quadrant claim that the Precursors evolved right after the Eternal Ones took a break?
Why did the Precursors in the Kessari Quadrant de-evolve instead of leaving that universe entirely?
Did the Precursors evolve in the Origins universe and then spread through the Origin Portals to the other universes? Or are you saying you call it SC:O because that is the only universe with the portals? I'm just saying I think Ghosts of the Precursors won't agree that the Precursors evolved in the SC:O universe.
You're exactly right about the Star Control prototype ship making a trip to Jupiter. https://www.stardock.com/games/article/487813/star-control-origins---my-trip-to-jupiter
I don't think we'll find the Melnrome nor the Taalo because: "Stardock can include the SC2 aliens but out of respect for Paul and Fred chose not to." - Frogboy https://www.pcgamesn.com/ghosts-of-the-precursors/ghosts-of-the-precursors-legal-clash-star-control
Star Control 2's lander looked like a generic sci-fi shuttle too. Also the SC:O lander needs to be able to hover to be able to dodge in any direction while fighting creatures down there and have that boost ability to leap over terrain. The game Homeworld proves that polygonal does not have to be ugly. I think the lander looks fine even though it's cargo bay looks rather small compared to what I assume is a human-sized cockpit. Star Con
If I am remembering correctly Stardock decided planet random generation was not fun enough so they hand crafted a lot of planets although a lot are still randomly generated. I am hoping that the hand-crafted planets have mini-adventures on them like Stardock mentioned they could have.
I like the Human Commander voice. It reminds me of astronauts and the Homeworld game voices and not Mass Effect Shepard.
Is my guess right that the crashed Tywom ship did all that damage to the Scryve before the Earth Flagship faced the Scryve in the video?
I don't know if I agree that the starting lander should be slow and struggle up hills. Gameplay-wise Star Control 2 did not have a lander speed upgrade and that is good if you don't want the early game mining to be slow. Lore-wise this is a lander that can go to and from orbit even from the start, so it should not be slow. Maybe a compromise could be the lander starts out fast enough to mine minerals fast, but not dodge aggressive wildlife. How well do
Maybe the lander could get smaller but I don't think the mountains should be less extreme because their purpose is to be a barrier. I think the planets should not get any smaller or else they look like asteroids like you said. If the planets get bigger then the radar needs to be able to be upgraded so you aren't wandering endlessly looking for stuff. We will be landing on so many planets that my main concern is planets being optimized for no
I like how you need to aim your lander as it descends (it is buffeted by weather?) and if you miss your target you take damage. We should keep that whether or not that target is anywhere on the planet or just a few landing spots.
Do any planets have oceans?
The enemy AI should use wormholes too (I am sure when you have time you will get around to that). I like the little dot representing you travelling from one wormhole to another.
That makes sense. All I heard about Eternal and Infinite is that it will be a strategy game. Which is why I brought up multi-ship combat AI vs AI. sco-talk NDA: Volasaurus - 01/10/2018 Eternal and Infinite was supposed to be a more conquest and strategy oriented expansion for SC:O that would have used elements of SC1 to create a sort of 4X-lite. Afaik you would've controlled multiple fleets, establish colonies and mines, build Starbases. I th
[quote who="HenriHakl" reply="51" id="3704516"] @Prof Hari Seldon I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Kavik Kang and I refer to multi-ship combat, with (for example) 5 enemy ships and 5 friendly ships in combat at the same time . This is distint from the classic fleet battles. [/quote] Sorry I should not have called it fleet battles. I was talking about multi-ship combat. <p
The planned expansion for SCO called Eternal and Infinite, being a strategy game, pretty much requires more than 1v1 battles (fleet battles). I mean Star Control 1 did that you sent your fleet vs the enemy fleet and they fought automatically without input from you. So I hope there is time to put fleet battles (more than 1v1) in SCO and I hope that I could control my flagship in my fleet instead of relying on the AI. When fleet battles are implemented the cam
I like the asteroid edge because you can try to fly between the asteroids to get some cover.
That is the best idea, cuorebrave
There was a technological singularity and strong AI until those robots and cyborgs left. Maybe if you found where they went and found a surviving strong AI then you could bring it back to the starbase and the strong AI could do some research as powerful as another technological singularity if you gave it the right data on alien stuff.
Mowlings vs Dan'nath: High crew damage on both sides. You call for help and Jeff has time to appear once, which is not enough to kill the Dan'nath. Then if you are lucky with beam carver you might win, but almost always you lose. But it's a good point and crew trade. Mowlings vs Earthling Cruiser: You have time to call for Jeff twice. If Jeff appears he can take the Earthling Cruiser down to half health (for some reason Jeff that he can't come ba