- 16,927
- 4,844
After taking a deeper look and thought into the newly recent standards added for flight speed, I found issues that I want to point out and discuss. And im putting this in the Q & A forum first as I want normal users to be able to weigh in on this too.
Obviously if things go..."sideways", then moving it to the staff forum for a more managed discussion is the better option. Now, lets get straight into this.
As was discussed in this thread sometime ago, and decided on, new rules for flight and travel speed was added in. Here is the new rule from the speed page.
Simply being able to stop accurately at the target destination does typically not qualify, as it can be spotted from a large distance to make preparations to stop or the character could even slow down before reaching the destination, assuming we only know the average speed with which they moved.
The typical example of such cases of travel/flight speed that doesn't necessarily scale to reactions is space travel. As space is incredibly empty there are virtually no objects one has to navigate around between destinations. Just flying in a straight line from A to B would be safe. At the same time the typical destinations, such as stars and planets, are so large that they can easily be seen from millions of kilometers away. As a result a character would only need reactions equal to a miniscule fraction of their travel speed to perform a safe and precise landing on them.
After putting some thought and analysis into this, this new rule has multiple issues. I will start with one if, if not, the most important problem.
The way we treat maneuverability and it's requirements right now are completely counter intitutive and, quite frankly, don't even allow us to use it as a method of scaling reactions to flight. At all. And here's why.
The problem with the standard as it is now is that the need for us to show or imply a character's maneuverability during space flight/travel, only to then have to calculate the reactions from said maneuverability, already makes it impossible for any actual scaling to the flight speed to be done. Why? Because the calculated reaction speed will always be much lower than the travel speed and sets up this wall to prevent scaling the 2 before anything is even done. No matter how good the maneuvering is actually done by the character. And at that point, it makes the purpose of having a rule for it extremely questionable.
For example to show this, there is this scenario that DMUA created to use in the thread where this discussion was held:
"For a clearer perspective, let's assume a highly unlikely scenario (credit for this goes to @DMUA):
A character is somehow blind enough to not notice a star system or planets from afar, and he ends up coming close to crashing into a planet, but by the time he's within the orbit of it's moon, he notices because it's an entire planet and turns to the side before he hits.
That's around 382,500,000 meters of leeway. Let's say he's flying 1,000,000 times the speed of light.
382,500,000 divided by 2.9979e+14 is a reaction time of 0.00000127589 seconds, Massively Hypersonic+ reaction time."
Notice what I bolded out here. The distance between the moon and Earth is roughly hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart from each other. And as the scenerio itself cites, these circumstances are something that are highly unlikely to happen, being over-generous to assume is the case for a certain character. Basically, a character even approaching a celestial object like this during flight over these distances is an extremely big rarity that doesn't happen common enough to have a rule for. However, this is not the most important aspect of this issue here.
Getting to the more important point, even if something like this does happen, because of the given distance being at play here when the character is maneuvering away, the reaction speed ends up ridiculously lower than the flight speed (in the case of DMUA's example, it becomes MHS+ reaction time compared to the MFTL+ flight) and thus becomes it's own thing entirely. It's not actually scaling to the flight speed, it's just being given it's own speed entirely without being relative to the travel speed.
So my issue is, why do we even have a rule for maneuverability and flight speeds needing specific evidence of scaling a character's reactions to their flight, when the very same rules at play here, that want the said reactions to be sticked with a calculation for them, completely makes that impossible?
To be more clear on why this is problematic, lets say we have a character who's flight speed is able to travel across the universe and they get a value of quadrillion times MFTL for their flight speed. I somehow need to have the character demonstrate their ability to react to obstacles while traveling at quadrillion times MFTL flight speeds, but then I need a calculation to prove their reactions are that fast? A calculation that then makes the reaction speed far far lower than the flight speed, even if going with a hugely unlikely interpretation of them being as close to the obstacles as they possibly can?
That doesn't make any sense and, the way im viewing this at least, makes this rule counter intuitive. If demonstrating maneuverability isn't enough and we need calcs for reactions, calcs that will make the reaction speeds lower than the flight speed no matter what is done, then what is the point in requiring maneuverability demonstrations in order to scale them? Or what is the point in needing a calc for them? The speeds will not be relative in pretty much any circumstance you can conjure up to your hearts content, making the idea that we can scale them just virtually non-existent. At that point, either we need to axe the need to calculate reactions and just prove/imply maneuvering is done while in flight, or we don't use maneuvering at all as a method of scaling reaction and flight speeds to each other.
Now im not done. Maneuvering is the bigger issue, but there are other problems I have with the new rules too.
Simply being able to stop accurately at the target destination does typically not qualify, as it can be spotted from a large distance to make preparations to stop or the character could even slow down before reaching the destination, assuming we only know the average speed with which they moved.
Now, lets dig into this.
First of all, this whole part here is being based off of assumptions that need to be proven first. "It can be"? Sure, but the question here is, is that actually being done? Is the character being proven to prepare to stop? Do we see them slowing down? These are all factors that are a burden of proof that need to be met. Claiming a character slows down before landing or seeing their desired landing spot from a distance and then preparing for it are claims that need to be proven. And if there's a flight speed feat done immediately and randomly with no demonstration of prep being done, the chances of them making preparations before stopping become very unlikely.
Second, this part of the speed rule, in regards to a character spotting their destination from a distance, doesn't account for other available factors that are just as likely and very much possible. How does this take into account scenarios where a character has a specific location on a celestial body they are aiming to land in? A town? City? Mountain? Or simply just a small area of land? It is one thing if they are flying through space and just see the planet itself from over a large distance. But if they are aiming to land in a specific area on the planet? They aren't going to be seeing that when so far away from the planet in space until entering it's atmosphere. Much like we wouldnt be seeing cities on Earth until we've actually entered the planet's atmosphere and close in on said cities. At that point, the notion that reactions only scale to a fraction of the flight speed are, at bare minimum, questionable. And that's assuming that any slowing down in speed is proven to be done for the character before landing.
It's also disregarding the factor that in order for a character flying into a destination to be able to land at precisely targeted points, they need to be able to think at comparable speeds to how fast they fly. You can't just stop or halt yourself at a specific desired point so fast, and so abruptly, without being able to think fast enough to halt your movement.
Now, on the note of seeing things from a large distance while in the middle of space-flight, this leads me to the last issue. A friend I spoke to about this to get his opinion gave me this interesting link that I'd like to point everyone reading this to.
Basically, traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything during mid-flight, except for fuzzines from bright light. Otherwise called leftover cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang. And this is just for near light speed travel. Which must make one imagine going AT light speeds, or the ridiculous degrees of MFTL+ that a large number of characters on this site are accepted as moving at. To even be capable of seeing anything from any given distance during travel, much less be capable of dodging something during travel, would have to make ones perceptions and reactions extremely impressive to scale here.
TL;DR
-Much of this speed rule is counter intuitive and defeats the purpose when accounting for maneuverability and reactions; needing to prove maneuverability somehow, and then need to calculate the reactions, that will then always be lower than the flight speed, makes scaling the 2 to each other impossible and we need to fix this. Either change how maneuverability is treated, or axe it as a method of scaling reactions to flight speed entirely.
-The speed rules are built on assumptions of a character doing x and y things that removes the needs for reactions, but haven't met the burden of proof of being done for the given characters in question. To claim a character prepares for landing, slows their descent for landing, whatever the given claim is, that has to be proven to be the case.
-The speed rules in regards to safe landing make no account for characters thinking at the speeds they are traveling at, or traveling to specific locations, making it different than just a case of "They see the planet they're going to in the distance, they'll make themselves ready to land", Specifically precise locations to land at makes that a different case that should be analyzed differently from seeing a big and much more easily noticeable celestial object.
-According to an article given to me, one moving at even near light speed would not even be able to see anything in a given distance, much less FTL or the crazy degrees of MFTL this site gives out; seeing anything out in the distance or dodging in and of themselves should already count as great reaction and perception feats based off this idea of what can be seen during space flight.
And that should do it for now, unless others want to weigh in their own issues with the standard too if any exists. Otherwise, here we are.
Obviously if things go..."sideways", then moving it to the staff forum for a more managed discussion is the better option. Now, lets get straight into this.
As was discussed in this thread sometime ago, and decided on, new rules for flight and travel speed was added in. Here is the new rule from the speed page.
Regarding Travel/Flight Feats and Reactions
If a character travels or flies very fast through a very empty terrain, in which it doesn't necessarily have to react to sudden obstacles, the speed in question is travel or flight speed, but not necessarily reaction speed. In order for it to also be reaction speed, and the speed in total hence applying to the character's combat speed, the character either must have demonstrated the ability to react to sudden obstacles while traveling at this speed, have a calculation made that supports the character having corresponding reaction speed/time or otherwise demonstrate having comparable reactions.Simply being able to stop accurately at the target destination does typically not qualify, as it can be spotted from a large distance to make preparations to stop or the character could even slow down before reaching the destination, assuming we only know the average speed with which they moved.
The typical example of such cases of travel/flight speed that doesn't necessarily scale to reactions is space travel. As space is incredibly empty there are virtually no objects one has to navigate around between destinations. Just flying in a straight line from A to B would be safe. At the same time the typical destinations, such as stars and planets, are so large that they can easily be seen from millions of kilometers away. As a result a character would only need reactions equal to a miniscule fraction of their travel speed to perform a safe and precise landing on them.
After putting some thought and analysis into this, this new rule has multiple issues. I will start with one if, if not, the most important problem.
First Issue: Treatment of Maneuverability
The way we treat maneuverability and it's requirements right now are completely counter intitutive and, quite frankly, don't even allow us to use it as a method of scaling reactions to flight. At all. And here's why.
The problem with the standard as it is now is that the need for us to show or imply a character's maneuverability during space flight/travel, only to then have to calculate the reactions from said maneuverability, already makes it impossible for any actual scaling to the flight speed to be done. Why? Because the calculated reaction speed will always be much lower than the travel speed and sets up this wall to prevent scaling the 2 before anything is even done. No matter how good the maneuvering is actually done by the character. And at that point, it makes the purpose of having a rule for it extremely questionable.
For example to show this, there is this scenario that DMUA created to use in the thread where this discussion was held:
"For a clearer perspective, let's assume a highly unlikely scenario (credit for this goes to @DMUA):
A character is somehow blind enough to not notice a star system or planets from afar, and he ends up coming close to crashing into a planet, but by the time he's within the orbit of it's moon, he notices because it's an entire planet and turns to the side before he hits.
That's around 382,500,000 meters of leeway. Let's say he's flying 1,000,000 times the speed of light.
382,500,000 divided by 2.9979e+14 is a reaction time of 0.00000127589 seconds, Massively Hypersonic+ reaction time."
Notice what I bolded out here. The distance between the moon and Earth is roughly hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart from each other. And as the scenerio itself cites, these circumstances are something that are highly unlikely to happen, being over-generous to assume is the case for a certain character. Basically, a character even approaching a celestial object like this during flight over these distances is an extremely big rarity that doesn't happen common enough to have a rule for. However, this is not the most important aspect of this issue here.
Getting to the more important point, even if something like this does happen, because of the given distance being at play here when the character is maneuvering away, the reaction speed ends up ridiculously lower than the flight speed (in the case of DMUA's example, it becomes MHS+ reaction time compared to the MFTL+ flight) and thus becomes it's own thing entirely. It's not actually scaling to the flight speed, it's just being given it's own speed entirely without being relative to the travel speed.
So my issue is, why do we even have a rule for maneuverability and flight speeds needing specific evidence of scaling a character's reactions to their flight, when the very same rules at play here, that want the said reactions to be sticked with a calculation for them, completely makes that impossible?
To be more clear on why this is problematic, lets say we have a character who's flight speed is able to travel across the universe and they get a value of quadrillion times MFTL for their flight speed. I somehow need to have the character demonstrate their ability to react to obstacles while traveling at quadrillion times MFTL flight speeds, but then I need a calculation to prove their reactions are that fast? A calculation that then makes the reaction speed far far lower than the flight speed, even if going with a hugely unlikely interpretation of them being as close to the obstacles as they possibly can?
That doesn't make any sense and, the way im viewing this at least, makes this rule counter intuitive. If demonstrating maneuverability isn't enough and we need calcs for reactions, calcs that will make the reaction speeds lower than the flight speed no matter what is done, then what is the point in requiring maneuverability demonstrations in order to scale them? Or what is the point in needing a calc for them? The speeds will not be relative in pretty much any circumstance you can conjure up to your hearts content, making the idea that we can scale them just virtually non-existent. At that point, either we need to axe the need to calculate reactions and just prove/imply maneuvering is done while in flight, or we don't use maneuvering at all as a method of scaling reaction and flight speeds to each other.
Now im not done. Maneuvering is the bigger issue, but there are other problems I have with the new rules too.
Second Issue: Precise Safe Landing
So you all aren't confused, this issue is in reference to this part of the new speed rule:Simply being able to stop accurately at the target destination does typically not qualify, as it can be spotted from a large distance to make preparations to stop or the character could even slow down before reaching the destination, assuming we only know the average speed with which they moved.
Now, lets dig into this.
First of all, this whole part here is being based off of assumptions that need to be proven first. "It can be"? Sure, but the question here is, is that actually being done? Is the character being proven to prepare to stop? Do we see them slowing down? These are all factors that are a burden of proof that need to be met. Claiming a character slows down before landing or seeing their desired landing spot from a distance and then preparing for it are claims that need to be proven. And if there's a flight speed feat done immediately and randomly with no demonstration of prep being done, the chances of them making preparations before stopping become very unlikely.
Second, this part of the speed rule, in regards to a character spotting their destination from a distance, doesn't account for other available factors that are just as likely and very much possible. How does this take into account scenarios where a character has a specific location on a celestial body they are aiming to land in? A town? City? Mountain? Or simply just a small area of land? It is one thing if they are flying through space and just see the planet itself from over a large distance. But if they are aiming to land in a specific area on the planet? They aren't going to be seeing that when so far away from the planet in space until entering it's atmosphere. Much like we wouldnt be seeing cities on Earth until we've actually entered the planet's atmosphere and close in on said cities. At that point, the notion that reactions only scale to a fraction of the flight speed are, at bare minimum, questionable. And that's assuming that any slowing down in speed is proven to be done for the character before landing.
It's also disregarding the factor that in order for a character flying into a destination to be able to land at precisely targeted points, they need to be able to think at comparable speeds to how fast they fly. You can't just stop or halt yourself at a specific desired point so fast, and so abruptly, without being able to think fast enough to halt your movement.
Now, on the note of seeing things from a large distance while in the middle of space-flight, this leads me to the last issue. A friend I spoke to about this to get his opinion gave me this interesting link that I'd like to point everyone reading this to.
Basically, traveling at even near light speed will not allow us to actually see anything during mid-flight, except for fuzzines from bright light. Otherwise called leftover cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang. And this is just for near light speed travel. Which must make one imagine going AT light speeds, or the ridiculous degrees of MFTL+ that a large number of characters on this site are accepted as moving at. To even be capable of seeing anything from any given distance during travel, much less be capable of dodging something during travel, would have to make ones perceptions and reactions extremely impressive to scale here.
TL;DR
-Much of this speed rule is counter intuitive and defeats the purpose when accounting for maneuverability and reactions; needing to prove maneuverability somehow, and then need to calculate the reactions, that will then always be lower than the flight speed, makes scaling the 2 to each other impossible and we need to fix this. Either change how maneuverability is treated, or axe it as a method of scaling reactions to flight speed entirely.
-The speed rules are built on assumptions of a character doing x and y things that removes the needs for reactions, but haven't met the burden of proof of being done for the given characters in question. To claim a character prepares for landing, slows their descent for landing, whatever the given claim is, that has to be proven to be the case.
-The speed rules in regards to safe landing make no account for characters thinking at the speeds they are traveling at, or traveling to specific locations, making it different than just a case of "They see the planet they're going to in the distance, they'll make themselves ready to land", Specifically precise locations to land at makes that a different case that should be analyzed differently from seeing a big and much more easily noticeable celestial object.
-According to an article given to me, one moving at even near light speed would not even be able to see anything in a given distance, much less FTL or the crazy degrees of MFTL this site gives out; seeing anything out in the distance or dodging in and of themselves should already count as great reaction and perception feats based off this idea of what can be seen during space flight.
And that should do it for now, unless others want to weigh in their own issues with the standard too if any exists. Otherwise, here we are.
Last edited: