| Author |
Click Here |
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
|  Posted: 2006-08-04 08:06
Quote:
|
Sta-tion. n.
1. a. A place or position where a person or thing stands or is assigned to stand; a post : a sentry station.
b. An area where a person is assigned to work.
2. The place, building, or establishment from which a service is provided or operations are directed: a police station.
3. A Stopping place along a route, especially a stop for refueling or for taking on passengers; a depot.
4.. etc etc etc..
|
|
-source http://www.dictionary.com
I would like to call for the reclassifacation of vessels known commonly here as "Stations".
Ask yourself, are "stations" still stations when they arent designed to be stationed?
Call them mushrooms, toad stools, pumpkins or whatever... but stop confusing the term.
-Brian
[ This Message was edited by: CharAznable on 2006-08-04 08:07 ]
_________________
|
Veronw
Marshal
Joined: December 13, 2004
Posts: 554
| Posted: 2006-08-04 14:46
i agree, but that might end up requiring a rework of the current ships, their roles, ect.....
PS: altho i can c a station being buildable in orbit of a planet via a command dread to act as a depot, planetary defense thingy, but its static and AI controlled.....
_________________
|
YIIMM
Grand Admiral
Joined: June 16, 2005
Posts: 851
From: Barcino, Hispania Tarraconensis
| Posted: 2006-08-04 16:11
Suggested alternative names:
Platforms
Rigs (closest analogy I can think of)
Fortresses
I don't expect these to be implemented. I agree the semantics of "station" don't fit the ship (which in truth is what it really is), but from a gameplay point of view, if stations really didn't move they wouldn't be very popular.
_________________
|
Obiwan Kenobi
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 14, 2005
Posts: 99
From: Mooresboro , North Carolina United States
| Posted: 2006-08-04 17:19
well remember (all you star trek ds9 fans should remember this one) that they do have a limited mobility as in the show when they relocated from bajor to the wormhole. sorry im a trekkie hehe but i agree that they shouldnt really be able to jump or as i stated in a forum topic about removing the wh devices that they shouldnt be able to create a wh
sorry im a trek fan 
_________________
Do or Do Not, There is no Try.
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2006-08-04 19:40
Thanks for all the Replys..
yeah, im a realist. I dont see anything happening on this for at least "2weeks". Otherwise known as a "DarkSpace Fortnight".
Yes, I do remember that Episode of DS9, if memory serves me correctly, it was one of the very first ones.
In asking for the a Reclassification, I am hoping to accomplish 2 things.
1st: The current "stations" be renamed to something like Juggernaughts..
and
2nd: The eventual Formation of True Stations. And yeah IE drives are fine with me.
-Brian
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2006-08-05 03:14
The current name is perfectly fine. It defines what they are quite aptly. The fact that stations are mobile in DarkSpace is not important. The quote you posted above defines them perfectly.
As it is, the mobility of Stations is severly restricted; they are limited to travelling at 6gu. They provide shelter and support for a fleet, or a rally point to fall back on during battle. They are generally considered to be in command when present ingame. If you wanted to change the name of the DarkSpace station you owuld have to redesign it to fit the new name.
A Juggernaught would be considerably more mobile. In DarkSpace terms, you would be looking at something with a max. speed of around 10gu. It would have no suppy drones, no WHD, but it would have extra armor and weaponry.
Essentially you would have the UGTO Battle Dread, only a lot tougher and with more guns.
A platform is comparable to an automated supply point, or a sentry gun.
A fortress in DarkSpace is a well built planet, and in future, it will probably be a well built planet with a crapload of platforms surrounding it.
A station is exactly what it says. It provides a rally point, repairs, even some fortification and, due to the WHD, is a stop off point on long journeys.
No. The DarkSpace Station does not need a name change.
[ This Message was edited by: Drafell on 2006-08-05 03:21 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2006-08-05 05:46
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-05 03:14, Drafell wrote:
No. The DarkSpace Station does not need a name change.
|
|
Thank you for your Response. Drafell, I have to disagree with your opinion. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and you call it Station? I think its time for a change.
-Brian
_________________
|
Ospolos
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 31, 2004
Posts: 567
From: ON, CANADA
| Posted: 2006-08-05 07:57
Most of of defs. match up.
Since when does everything need to be classified under all definitions of its name? Also, its a mobile station.. station for short. Lots of games have this, no need for a change. 
[ This Message was edited by: Ospolos on 2006-08-05 08:00 ]
_________________
Honoured,
Osp
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-08-05 12:00
Station's aren't broken. They may not match up to all the real world definitions, but they do match up to one or two. Remember this is sci-fi. Just because FTL drives havn't been invented yet, does that mean we now have to remove them?
So what if stations in real life would be stationairy (they aren't infact, they move very, very fast (just in orbit), if it where to break orbit, they'd move very quickly away from the planet), it doesnt mean they have to be in real life. Sometimes realism has to be sacraficed for people to have fun.
They're aren't broken.
Don't try to fix it.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2006-08-05 12:01 ]
_________________
|
Lawman
Fleet Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: February 28, 2003
Posts: 276
From: New Jersey
| Posted: 2006-08-05 12:30
Likewise the entire system of movement in this game is silly.
We should have true newtonian phychics in the game, like independence war.
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2006-08-05 12:49
@Jack, reread what im asking for. you act as if I want something more than a name changed. Thats it.. a simple name changed.
I will restate this again..
As many of you have so aptly stated, our "stations" do fit many of the terms quite nicely. But as you all know, our "stations" are very dynamic! Posessing vast range and offensive roles. The only reason we still cling to this term is that visually these vessels resemble Stations. But they are in fact much more than that!! And simply put you cannont disagree with me on that.
-Brian
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-08-05 12:59
They're stations. They can sit around planets repairing you or protecting it, or they can be a station far away in open space where oyur fleet takes refuge. 6gu is considered very slow, any slower (less than 5gu) is just silly because at that level, it becomes more work than play/fun to pilot the things. They don't need a name change, because there are no other stations in the game. Perhaps if we got another type of station that sat around planets we might need to call them mobile stations. But until that time, I see no issue with the way they are named.
The Elite Assault Dreadnought isn't heads above the others (and never has been), yet its name is clearly something more than just Assault Dreadnought (what ICC have). Why isn't it better?
Because it's just a name. Even if they where changed, people would still call them stations (because that's what they are). Mobile or not, they're still stations.
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2006-08-06 07:47
But it confuses peoples common notions of what a station is. Possibly turning people off on Darkspace. Now im sure that if there were a babylon 5 or DS9 that warped into planets every once in awhile.. I would probably understand your position.
_________________
|
Binks
1st Rear Admiral
Joined: November 28, 2003
Posts: 469
| Posted: 2006-08-06 14:56
Quote:
| Ask yourself, are "stations" still stations when they arent designed to be stationed |
|
First off, I dare you to say that 5 times fast.
Now then, onto your definitions. May I point out something you're missing? The actually usage of the word station in modern life. The word station can be used as in that definition, but it can also be used when talking about people or vehicles on patrol, which is anything but stationary, as in the military slang of calling KC-135's flying gas stations.
I'm not saying it's correct usage of the word but actually the KC-135 is the perfect example, it performs a similar duty as the stations in DS, it lets planes fly farther than they normally could and resupplies them...it's not armed but that's another thing entirely.
If we were perfectly grammaticly correct they would be flying gas repositories or something silly like that but they're called gas stations, so why should DS not do the same thing the military does?
And to be even more confusing I'd like to point out that in space, there is no such thing as stationary. And that if you get really nit-picky with the definition you can't have stations in space.
_________________
Midshipmen still need Engineering or Supply Ships
Powered by Stormtroopers and Red Shirts
|
Sixkiller
Marshal
Courageous Elite Commandos
Joined: May 11, 2005
Posts: 1786
From: Netherlands
| Posted: 2006-08-06 15:16
i think we all just got pwned
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
