6
C337Skymaster, on 23 August 2021 - 07:29 AM, said:
Walls like that are defensive, or they don't exist. Whether they're tall enough, or not: walls are never tall enough. That's a universality about walls. If those were just going to be office buildings, they would have been a much more uniform height, uniformly distributed around the installation. If they need to maintain a safety radius from the dish, then they start there and spread outwards, but still maintain a lower height over a wider area. You don't build a ring-wall unless its purpose is to keep things out.
As for "low gravity environment", I wish. It'd make more sense if it was, but PGI seems to know less than Activision of 1995, and all of their maps are 1g.
And you think too much about your next competitive match and too little about whether a map looks appropriate or makes sense given what it supposedly represents. If all we care about, now, is that there are ramps everywhere and the map is evenly balanced, and we don't give a **** about what it actually looks like, then we might as well go back to the rainbow colored test-maps and stop kidding ourselves that we're trying to create interesting visuals, because the reworked maps look like dog crap compared to what they're supposed to be and what they used to look like, due to the artificiality of the ramps, and the fact that there are ramps EVERYWHERE. Canyon Network looks Bulldozed and Graded for crying out loud. There's nothing natural about that. I'd rather have a photo-realistic copy of the North Dakota Badlands, or even shallower parts of the Grand Canyon, than a recreation of the local playground sandbox.
As for one big antenna vs 20 smaller ones: I'm taking that straight from NASA: they literally build arrays of 20, 30, even 40 smaller antennas so they can get better resolution of deep space signals, rather than building a single giant antenna that can do the same job, because the physical stresses are exponentially less, and the overall maintenance cost is significantly less as a result.
As for "low gravity environment", I wish. It'd make more sense if it was, but PGI seems to know less than Activision of 1995, and all of their maps are 1g.
And you think too much about your next competitive match and too little about whether a map looks appropriate or makes sense given what it supposedly represents. If all we care about, now, is that there are ramps everywhere and the map is evenly balanced, and we don't give a **** about what it actually looks like, then we might as well go back to the rainbow colored test-maps and stop kidding ourselves that we're trying to create interesting visuals, because the reworked maps look like dog crap compared to what they're supposed to be and what they used to look like, due to the artificiality of the ramps, and the fact that there are ramps EVERYWHERE. Canyon Network looks Bulldozed and Graded for crying out loud. There's nothing natural about that. I'd rather have a photo-realistic copy of the North Dakota Badlands, or even shallower parts of the Grand Canyon, than a recreation of the local playground sandbox.
As for one big antenna vs 20 smaller ones: I'm taking that straight from NASA: they literally build arrays of 20, 30, even 40 smaller antennas so they can get better resolution of deep space signals, rather than building a single giant antenna that can do the same job, because the physical stresses are exponentially less, and the overall maintenance cost is significantly less as a result.
Honestly, this nonsensical complaining seems more like you are just a vocal anti-cauldroner.
"The map doesn't make sense, the walls aren't defending it"
Like Navid said, if you want to destroy it... orbital bombardment.
If you want to capture it, you have to take the command building with encoder/decoder, transceiver, etc, and don't give two shits about the antenna itself.
