I'm glad you're calling people science noobs now. :\ Could've phrased that nicer, just a tiny bit insulting there.The science noobs
The remainder of players will be able to use an acceleration value to roughly estimate things like being able to dodge incoming fire to 'will I run into my own weapons when I shoot them?'.
So I see no downside to this.
I'd also like to point out that GMs rarely get along nicely. We've already had numerous problems with this in the past that could have been avoided with better rules. We already have rules for this that need improving so why not improve them to be more accurate?
It feels a little dumb to me. Isn't gravimetric technology a staple of Sublight propulsion? Those are essentially inertialess drives, whom can propel a ship in the same 'falling in the direction you want' method as CDD does, except on a smaller scale.
That's instant acceleration.
If anything the trend has been for increasing complexity of the star ship template and increased participation in star ship design.
Uso said:You wouldn't need a rear view, just a shot that shows the engines. Wouldn't be to hard as most people already have DOGA art for their ships.
Also I strongly suggest that if we do this that engines be rated based on efficiency, not tech. It would give a more accurate picture of ship acceleration to know how big the engine is x its efficiency as an engine or something along those lines. That way we don't accidentally nerf the spacers and don't give an unfair advantage to people who just throw technobabble into their submissions and hope for the best.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?