Another fine idea....

[wd-40]

I know there are lots of servers online that pretty much require you to go fast or be killed. And there are others that don't want people going fast, but instead to play the classic way.

What about an option of like CYCLE_OVERHEAT and CYCLE_OVERHEAT_TIME. The CYCLE_OVERHEAT value could be used to determine a speed at which the cycle would shut down for the amount of time declared in the CYCLE_OVERHEAT_TIME. When the cycle overheats it would cause the player to lose control of the bike, whether it be total loss of control, or chatbot controlled, for the amount of time specified.

[Phytotron]

Death at a certain speed. So if you go too fast, you die. This is kinda in anticipation of other stuff that's yet to come (if it shows up, that is), but stands on its own as a worthwhile feature, imo.

Yes, the speed cap. I've wanted that forever. I never understood why there's a CYCLE_SPEED_MIN but not a MAX. Blow 'em up.

Posted: Tue Jun 06, 2006: http://forums.armagetronad.net/viewtopi ... 4311#54311

[wd-40]

thats great...the idea is similar, but not the same. my idea wouldnt kill the player, but instead it would keep them from controlling the cycle for a few moments...if they die, so be it.....if not, they got lucky

[Fonkay]

Maybe instead of losing control, they would stop (like if you stalled you car due to overheating) for a certain amount of time. Once you "cooled off" you would start back gradually into starting speed.

[Tank Program]

Stopping from overheating would be too advantageous in tunneling situations...

[Z-Man]

Have you tried CYCLE_DELAY_TIMEBASED 3?

The explosion thing has the advantage that it is automatically compatible with old clients.

[belenus]

Well technically a lightcycle should have the speed of light as maximum speed and minimum speed as well, except of cause in areas of great gravitation, like a black hole. I am sure Z-Man can explain it a little better as physican =)

What I just want to say is, wtf is with max speed? Most people cannot control fast bikes anyway and just crash, don't need an artificial method to kill those people who can.

[Phytotron]

Um, it would be an optional server setting, not something ubiquitous—just like every other setting that's already there. It also is not something that completely alters or is (in some people's view) apart from the concept of the game, such as maps, multi-axes, or zones of various sorts. If you support those things, I don't know how you could object to something as mundane as a speed cap that would cause an instant core dump. So OMG WTF yourself.

[wd-40]

So OMG WTF yourself.

i couldnt have said that any better myself

[Lucifer]

I think I'd like to see less trampling of people's ideas and more ideas coming, even if they're repeats. (face it, the only way to stop the repeated suggestions is to release a version that has them in it)

I've noticed a lot of resistance to change recently, and I can't say it's making me feel good all over. What are we supposed to do if we're not changing the game somehow? Just sit on it? You can pick your version and never upgrade if you'd like...

Edit: I thought they were called light cycles because they were made out of light, not because they travelled at the speed of light...

[Phytotron]

Nah, see, just about the only popular resistance is to things that might in any way change or hinder what has become the conventional way to play: 180s galore, "ironing" or "double grinding" or "whateverthehellyouwanttocallit," consecutive adjusts, super hyper speed, hyperkinetic triple binding, gross amounts of rubber. Ya know.

If instead you said, "new test on Bugfarm: laser beams and flying cycles with force fields!" then I wager you'd get very little resistance and instead much fanfare.

[wd-40]

i dont mind people sharing duplicate ideas, because 90% of the time, that idea is partially different and sometimes that difference makes the idea that much better