Lynneth Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 "might work" means it'll work but we're too far into a buggery session with this recession we don't feel like funding it.More importantly, and this trumps all of your arguments no matter how much you whine, !@#$%*, scream and act like a little child: He has it in-game. "Might work" might 2 (mt)aux.v. Past tense of may 1. a. Used to indicate a condition or state contrary to fact: She might help if she knew the truth. b. Used to indicate a possibility or probability that is weaker than may: We might discover a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. See 1 b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) -snip- And if I call you a !@#$% I'm not calling you a jet of water, Lynneth. Dictionary definitions don't mean a thing. Edited November 2, 2009 by Sargun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Kevz Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 "might work" means it'll work but we're too far into a buggery session with this recession we don't feel like funding it.More importantly, and this trumps all of your arguments no matter how much you whine, !@#$%*, scream and act like a little child: He has it in-game. I have nukes ingame and yet I am not being allowed to have stupidly high megaton warheads even though there is nothing really stopping me as I have nukes in game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 And if I call you a !@#$% I'm not calling you a jet of water, Lynneth. Dictionary definitions don't mean a thing. Dictionary definitions mean the proper use of a word. If you think that "might" says "it will work, it just doesn't because we're in a recession", and everybody else thinks it means [see dictionary definition], then you're wrong. Not the others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 I have nukes ingame and yet I am not being allowed to have stupidly high megaton warheads even though there is nothing really stopping me as I have nukes in game. Are you trying to be an idiot? You have nukes in-game and there are rules that are in place specifically so that nobody can go "LOL 200 MEGATON NUKE". So, yes, there is something stopping you. Dictionary definitions mean the proper use of a word. If you think that "might" says "it will work, it just doesn't because we're in a recession", and everybody else thinks it means [see dictionary definition], then you're wrong. Not the others. No, it just means that the definition is wrong. Duh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynneth Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Are you trying to be an idiot? You have nukes in-game and there are rules that are in place specifically so that nobody can go "LOL 200 MEGATON NUKE". So, yes, there is something stopping you.No, it just means that the definition is wrong. Duh. I see what you did there. <3 Bedtiem. Still not recognising Marsbases without proper RP, which should imo consist of 20+ quality posts. Bai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 (edited) I see what you did there. <3Bedtiem. Still not recognising Marsbases without proper RP, which should imo consist of 20+ quality posts. Bai Your opinion doesn't matter in any way whatsoever. Edited November 2, 2009 by Sargun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Your opinion doesn't matter in any way whatsoever. Funny, I could say the same about yours... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 2, 2009 Report Share Posted November 2, 2009 Funny, I could say the same about yours... I am not voicing my opinion. I'm voicing the rules that A) He has it in-game so he has it in RP, and B) No matter if you recognize it or not, it still exists. Tell me how either of those established rules are my opinion. Make it convincing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohazard Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Funny, I could say the same about yours... Lies. EVERYTHING SARGUN SAYS IS THE LAW, SPOKEN FROM THE GREAT DEITY KNOWN AS NUGRAS. Sargun is Nugras' Prophet. All hail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 I am not voicing my opinion. I'm voicing the rules that A) He has it in-game so he has it in RP, and B) No matter if you recognize it or not, it still exists.Tell me how either of those established rules are my opinion. Make it convincing. Hmm...for someone who claims to be an expert on sarcasm...you don't seem to be able to recognize it in others. Is your sarcasometer broken? Lies.EVERYTHING SARGUN SAYS IS THE LAW, SPOKEN FROM THE GREAT DEITY KNOWN AS NUGRAS. Sargun is Nugras' Prophet. All hail! Sorry, that ploy only works for ERP... B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loannes Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Hmm...for someone who claims to be an expert on sarcasm...you don't seem to be able to recognize it in others. Is your sarcasometer broken? No, you're just bad at sarcasm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) Rail/coil guns- Energy expensive. Unless if your spaceship is dragging a multiple tons of solar panels or batteries, its going to deplete the power supply within a few shots. Laser weapons- Also energy expensive. Balletic weapons- The kickbacks from the shells/bullets/rounds will push the ship off course since there is very little gravity to hold the ships in place and air to serve as brakes. You will need a recoiler/damper, which might reduce the weapons' efficiency. Another option is stick rocket thrusters all over the ships and only activate them if the ship gets pushed too off course, but that would sharply increase the cost and fuel usage. Missiles/rockets- Most efficient space weapon I see in modern technology. Unless if the RPer does a good job of RPing the building of a Mars colony (not 5 posts, at least 25+) while sticking to RL modern technology and a realistic time line, then I'd say Mars colonization is a no-no. Space warfare shouldn't be banned, but it should be limited to very few space ships. A single space shuttle or rocket cost multiple billion dollars. A space ship with armoring, weapons, defense systems, radar, and extra batteries/solar panels will cost much more! It would be much cheaper to simply throw missiles into the outer space from Earth/Moon/Mars or stick with ground/naval/air forces. Edited November 3, 2009 by HHAYD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Missiles/rockets- Most efficient space weapon I see in modern technology. Only thing I have an issue with in your post...blowing up the enemy creates shrapnel...bad idea if you want your own ship to remain intact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargun II Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Only thing I have an issue with in your post...blowing up the enemy creates shrapnel...bad idea if you want your own ship to remain intact. Nuclear weapons are the most effective. More specifically, neutron bombs. Just kill the !@#$%*es that live in the ships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) No, you're just bad at sarcasm. So You say... Nuclear weapons are the most effective. More specifically, neutron bombs. Just kill the !@#$%*es that live in the ships. What if they're too close for that? EDIT: I like your new avatar... Edited November 3, 2009 by Subtleknifewielder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerreyRough Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 With enough RP and some RL basis, mars bases are alright with me. Rail/coil guns- Energy expensive. Unless if your spaceship is dragging a multiple tons of solar panels or batteries, its going to deplete the power supply within a few shots.Laser weapons- Also energy expensive. Balletic weapons- The kickbacks from the shells/bullets/rounds will push the ship off course since there is very little gravity to hold the ships in place and air to serve as brakes. You will need a recoiler/damper, which might reduce the weapons' efficiency. Another option is stick rocket thrusters all over the ships and only activate them if the ship gets pushed too off course, but that would sharply increase the cost and fuel usage. Missiles/rockets- Most efficient space weapon I see in modern technology. Unless if the RPer does a good job of RPing the building of a Mars colony (not 5 posts, at least 25+) while sticking to RL modern technology and a realistic time line, then I'd say Mars colonization is a no-no. Space warfare shouldn't be banned, but it should be limited to very few space ships. A single space shuttle or rocket cost multiple billion dollars. A space ship with armoring, weapons, defense systems, radar, and extra batteries/solar panels will cost much more! It would be much cheaper to simply throw missiles into the outer space from Earth/Moon/Mars or stick with ground/naval/air forces. Although the laser weapons would be far more useful in space and more damaging (because there is no air hampering it), largely why laser weapons are near useless in ranged warfare on the ground. With the amount of money being pumped into it, the laser weapon would be a good addition; extremely long range, accurate, and either it or less powerful lasers could either destroy or disable missiles, rockets, nukes, etc. To add to your post: And the ballistic weapons could stress-damage the hull without the right dampeners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 (edited) For space weaponry: Why not have guns/turrets that are mounted on the ends of jutting 'arms'. Each turret is mounted at the end by a rotating ball turret. Now, with respect to recoil, why not simply have a thruster built directly into the back of each weapon in line with it, but opposite facing and that is simply attached or is a part of the weapon housing, so that when it fires, no matter at what angle, there is always an equal force pushing against it, negating the recoil. Every time a shot is fired from a weapon, its thruster is engaged simultaneously (the gun's recoil could be a part of the process itself, think of a modified Gast gun, where the movement of the guns parts for shell replacing and ejection is created using the recoil of the fired shot, but instead of using the energy for arming and firing another gun like a Gast, have it fire the thruster) that has the exact same magnitude of force, in the opposite direction, causing the net force to be zero. Always seemed like a no brainer to me. Edited November 3, 2009 by Executive Minister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html This website will solve all of your problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHAYD Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 For space weaponry:Why not have guns/turrets that are mounted on the ends of jutting 'arms'. Each turret is mounted at the end by a rotating ball turret. Now, with respect to recoil, why not simply have a thruster built directly into the back of each weapon in line with it, but opposite facing and that is simply attached or is a part of the weapon housing, so that when it fires, no matter at what angle, there is always an equal force pushing against it, negating the recoil. Every time a shot is fired from a weapon, its thruster is engaged simultaneously (the gun's recoil could be a part of the process itself, think of a modified Gast gun, where the movement of the guns parts for shell replacing and ejection is created using the recoil of the fired shot, but instead of using the energy for arming and firing another gun like a Gast, have it fire the thruster) that has the exact same magnitude of force, in the opposite direction, causing the net force to be zero. Always seemed like a no brainer to me. Until you find yourself using twice the amount of fuel if only one side of your ship is firing. Running out of fuel in space is bad, very bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Until you find yourself using twice the amount of fuel if only one side of your ship is firing. Running out of fuel in space is bad, very bad. Well, at least if you are off course when you do, anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Minister Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 I'll admit, im no techie, however the proposition is better than having thrusters all over the place like one person said earlier... I dunno, maybe whip up some doohickie that turns the spent shell's left over propellant into fuel? Maybe have them solar powered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subtleknifewielder Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Huh...that might actually work... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberstein Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Just go to the weaponry area of the website, it explains everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tahsir Posted November 3, 2009 Report Share Posted November 3, 2009 Or just make a system that turns the recoil gases and force into a null trajectory change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.