Few Questions about Gameplay -- For everyone and Devs

RainstormRainstorm Montreal (Quebec) Join Date: 2015-12-15 Member: 210003Members Posts: 1,029 Advanced user
So ive been playing this game for over a year now and some things ive been wondering about are still un-answered after all this time. Its all stuff that i saw popping here and there in the Ideas and Suggestions forum but that ive never seen any answers to from the Devs tho, so i feel that posting this in there wasnt really appropriate anymore as to not clutter it with more of the same suggestions all over again.

Ive decided to share them with you all now since we are dangerously close the august, being the foreseen month of Official Release of the game (i know, we all think its gonna be later but its still official timeframe for now :smiley: )


For instance -- Beacons --

Its pretty cool that the Lifepod has its own icon-looking beacon, just like the seamoth and the cyclops, it helps alot i'll agree to differenciate them appart. The thing is however that this beacon system in its current form has a major flaw still. What i mean is that for players like me who likes to overdo it and create a few bases with 1 or more moonpools in each of them you eventually end up with several Seamoths. Also for reasons unknown even to me i sometimes feel like creating several Cyclops, just for the fun of it.

Surely you see where im going with this already :smiley: In the long run, with several Seamoths and Cyclops all over the world you see all those beacons ping'in all over the place. Add to this the Lifepod, all the Bases everywhere .... The only real solution to this is the use of the F6 button crazy to cycle thru all the options for All UI no mask, UI with mask, UI with mask no pings, with pings blah blah .... yeah.

Also with several seamoth pings and several Cyclops pings all over its hard to tell which Seamoth is which and where exactly, since unlike the Signals we dont see the distance to the target sadly. As you can see, the current beacon feature is somewhat helpful but far from user-friendly and fun


Suggestions ive thought off and seen from other people:

-Make a custom menu for the beacons, to customize beacon features like color of the ping icon, size/color of the font for text, put the name of the seamoth/Cyclops under the ping icon etc...
-a (F-''button'') to toggle beacons on/off specifically like F7 or another one i dunno :smiley: )
-Being able to see distance to target, just like with Signals
-Make a Seabase-looking icon, just like the seamoth-looking beacon for the Seamoth for instance (could look simple, like a mini Multipurpose room)


Those are just a few of the suggestions i saw, but these 4 are the ones i felt was the most useful and probably easiest to realize with the least amount of effort for a coder maybe. It would help GREATLY to make screen clutter a bare minimum and contribute to a better game experience imo


Also -- Depth --

Ive seen the Devs play around several times with the depth at which the Seamoth/Cyclops can dive to, the ''safe'' depth, the ''crush'' depth at which they start to take damage with and without upgrades 'n all but so far nothing about the player themselves. Since always the actual player can go out in the sea at any depth without starting to take damage

I know this is a game and that ''Realism'' needs to stop somewhere so that a game can be enjoyable instead of becoming a PITA, but ya know some things are in my taste wayyy too unrealistic to be overlooked. Im not necessarily speaking of a decompression system that would be way too tedious to be realistically enjoyable but at least put a maximum depth at which a player can go outside the Seamoth/Cyclops/Exosuit/Seabase in the sea without starting to take damage.

Personally i'd go with 100m, which is when the Depth meter turns red if i recall correctly when you're in the sea without being in any kind of vehicle. It should'nt be instant death but like a DoT which damages you maybe 4-5-6 pts of dmg every second or so. Im not holding dearly on the numbers im advancing here, its just for the sake of explanation.


What do you guys all think of these questions? Do you agree with me or disagree? (of course if you disagree i certainly want to know why :smiley: )
Also, as importantly, does any Devs have thoughts on these they could share with me/us please? :smiley:

Thank you ll for your time, it was indeed alot of text ....



Post edited by Rainstorm on
SolarC
«1

Comments

  • joni65joni65 Kansas Join Date: 2016-06-19 Member: 218763Members Posts: 166 Advanced user
    Love the beacon ideas. Especially the distance away from it, and one for the base. It would be awesome if the desk we are able to build could be upgraded to manage said beacons. Renaming and customizing them. By them I am referring to both the deployable beacons and the submarine beacons. Can only do this remotely after some kind of structure is built allowing the transmission from the Aurora to be used as a sort of broadband internet type setup.

    As for taking damage on the player at depth, I would go for this if we could also upgrade our scuba gear to negate the effect. Like upgrade one allows us to go undamaged to 100 feet. Upgrade two allows us to go undamaged to 200 feet, etc.
    Gaming: It's not just for kids.
    RainstormDigli
  • NamelessChaosNamelessChaos Germany Join Date: 2016-02-17 Member: 213158Members Posts: 259 Fully active user
    Not that I like some of the ideas, but like they will start adding/programming more stuff before the official release... . Would just mean the need to adjust/bugfix more stuff than they have to now. Let`s just hope they add more stuff after the release and it`s not another "done and nothing more game".
  • joni65joni65 Kansas Join Date: 2016-06-19 Member: 218763Members Posts: 166 Advanced user
    Not that I like some of the ideas, but like they will start adding/programming more stuff before the official release... . Would just mean the need to adjust/bugfix more stuff than they have to now. Let`s just hope they add more stuff after the release and it`s not another "done and nothing more game".
    But I think one of the key reasons for having early access is to get the community involved in the ideas and help find bugs.
    Gaming: It's not just for kids.
    RainstormDigli
  • Rooks_NemesisRooks_Nemesis Ontario Join Date: 2016-06-11 Member: 218388Members Posts: 152 Advanced user
    I had a similar thought about depth and wetsuits, not that I'm trying to spotlight my suggestion and ideas. But are you thinking something along this line?

    http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/143294/re-imagining-of-the-wet-suits#latest
    Rainstorm
  • Rooks_NemesisRooks_Nemesis Ontario Join Date: 2016-06-11 Member: 218388Members Posts: 152 Advanced user
    scubamatt wrote: »
    You realize that you don't get crushed like your submarine, because there are two entirely different systems at work, right? I mean in real life, as well as in this game. You're breathing pressurized air at depth, which matches the pressure of the seawater around you - this is why you consume more of your supply (faster) the deeper you go, but you don't get crushed like a beer can. Your submarine uses a pressure hull to keep from being crushed, not high pressure air. Below a certain depth (the crush depth) the strength of the hull is not sufficient to withstand the pressure from the seawater, and it does get crushed like a beer can.

    Two completely different processes at work, and completely realistic.

    Lets start here shall we https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_diving_suit

    In this link above the only way they got to these depths is with HIGHLY sophisticated and specialized equipment.. In fact his wet suit is more of a submersible then a suit..

    And even this suit has its limits.. 500 meters let alone 1000 meters would be fatal to anyone outside of submersible without proper gear..

    So you are correct in saying what you stated. That is only to a degree.. As I stated in suggestion about wetsuits.. At 1000 meters we would in fact be crushed by the sheer weight of the ocean.
    Rezca
  • RainstormRainstorm Montreal (Quebec) Join Date: 2015-12-15 Member: 210003Members Posts: 1,029 Advanced user
    I had a similar thought about depth and wetsuits, not that I'm trying to spotlight my suggestion and ideas. But are you thinking something along this line?

    http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/143294/re-imagining-of-the-wet-suits#latest

    Added suits or having the ability to upgrade them would indeed be awesome, that post is indeed ispirationnal :smiley:

    Rooks_Nemesis
  • Rooks_NemesisRooks_Nemesis Ontario Join Date: 2016-06-11 Member: 218388Members Posts: 152 Advanced user
    Rainstorm wrote: »
    I had a similar thought about depth and wetsuits, not that I'm trying to spotlight my suggestion and ideas. But are you thinking something along this line?

    http://forums.unknownworlds.com/discussion/143294/re-imagining-of-the-wet-suits#latest

    Added suits or having the ability to upgrade them would indeed be awesome, that post is indeed ispirationnal :smiley:

    Thank you Rainstorm :)
  • RainstormRainstorm Montreal (Quebec) Join Date: 2015-12-15 Member: 210003Members Posts: 1,029 Advanced user
    edited June 2016
    scubamatt wrote: »
    You realize that you don't get crushed like your submarine, because there are two entirely different systems at work, right? I mean in real life, as well as in this game. You're breathing pressurized air at depth, which matches the pressure of the seawater around you - this is why you consume more of your supply (faster) the deeper you go, but you don't get crushed like a beer can. Your submarine uses a pressure hull to keep from being crushed, not high pressure air. Below a certain depth (the crush depth) the strength of the hull is not sufficient to withstand the pressure from the seawater, and it does get crushed like a beer can.

    Two completely different processes at work, and completely realistic.

    youre right, i mixed the 2. In the end tho, a human cannot dive to 1000m by themselves in 1 minute and live. hence why my suggestion of limiting safe diving for the player to under 100m (suggestive number) before starting to experience pain

  • SmarterThanAllSmarterThanAll Holland Michigan Join Date: 2016-06-24 Member: 219021Members Posts: 16 Fully active user
    scubamatt wrote: »
    You realize that you don't get crushed like your submarine, because there are two entirely different systems at work, right? I mean in real life, as well as in this game. You're breathing pressurized air at depth, which matches the pressure of the seawater around you - this is why you consume more of your supply (faster) the deeper you go, but you don't get crushed like a beer can. Your submarine uses a pressure hull to keep from being crushed, not high pressure air. Below a certain depth (the crush depth) the strength of the hull is not sufficient to withstand the pressure from the seawater, and it does get crushed like a beer can.

    Two completely different processes at work, and completely realistic.

    Lets start here shall we https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_diving_suit

    In this link above the only way they got to these depths is with HIGHLY sophisticated and specialized equipment.. In fact his wet suit is more of a submersible then a suit..

    And even this suit has its limits.. 500 meters let alone 1000 meters would be fatal to anyone outside of submersible without proper gear..

    So you are correct in saying what you stated. That is only to a degree.. As I stated in suggestion about wetsuits.. At 1000 meters we would in fact be crushed by the sheer weight of the ocean.

    Yeah well if you read the codex thing it says the suit was made to handle the most extreme conditions of the Universe so I assume that's the Devs excuse for that.
    DrownedOut
  • Rooks_NemesisRooks_Nemesis Ontario Join Date: 2016-06-11 Member: 218388Members Posts: 152 Advanced user
    edited June 2016
    Yeah well if you read the codex thing it says the suit was made to handle the most extreme conditions of the Universe so I assume that's the Devs excuse for that.

    And badoom trumpt by the devs lmao!


  • DrownedOutDrownedOut Habitat Join Date: 2016-05-26 Member: 217559Members Posts: 1,050 Advanced user
    I cannot agree with the 100m limit thing. Maybe at P.R.A.W.N.-essential depth something can be done, but certainly not sooner (100m is nothing). It would greatly reduce exploration potential, which is at the core of the gameplay, when you're essentially punished for going outside. Scanning fauna would be a disaster outside of eggcare. Also, my favorite parts in the game are when I have to leave the safety of my vehicles to get just a bit further than they can and I'd hate to lose that experience.

    100% with you on the icons though. All four suggestions are necessary improvements. I'd like to add that I'd like to see a wallmounted or otherwise "stable" alternative for the portable beacon to use for bases.
  • yomamayomama On the freeway Join Date: 2016-04-17 Member: 215861Members Posts: 302 Advanced user
    This is some of what I was curious about when I asked Scubamatt how right the devs got things in this game.

    Thanks for the interesting info!
    Qelsar
  • yomamayomama On the freeway Join Date: 2016-04-17 Member: 215861Members Posts: 302 Advanced user
    But...it's on the internet...so it must all be absolutely true..
    joni65Tarkannen
  • WaviestBow6WaviestBow6 Join Date: 2016-06-05 Member: 218131Members Posts: 135 Advanced user
    edited June 2016
    yomama wrote: »
    But...it's on the internet...so it must all be absolutely true..

    "The internet does not lie!" -Smek 2015

    (I sorry just had too)
    joni650x6A7232
  • DrownedOutDrownedOut Habitat Join Date: 2016-05-26 Member: 217559Members Posts: 1,050 Advanced user
    I mean, as someone who really likes editing wikis I deeply hate it when people act so cynical about them. More often than not, it shows they are the ones who are lacking (and often ableist and classist). You just need to know how to read wikis. Heck, even in this very case, Scubamatt says the article is correct; it's the initial interpretation that was incorrect.

    Like, show some manners to people who spend a good amount of their time making information accessible for free.
    scubamattJozroz
  • Rooks_NemesisRooks_Nemesis Ontario Join Date: 2016-06-11 Member: 218388Members Posts: 152 Advanced user
    I do regret that I should have been alot more precise with my words and simply just linking to a wiki site was a broad stroke attempt at backing up what I was trying to say.

    At extreme depths and long before your body (skeletal structure, extremities ) your chest would in fact be crushed, the amount of pressure that surrounds your chest would completely squeeze your lungs. Now yes this is all without the use of specialized suits. A simple wet suit a couple tanks and a decent mask would NOT suffice.

    After around 100 feet humans (or untrained free divers) start to require atmospheric suits which can take you down towards 2000 feet (roughly 609m)

    Shortly there after you do indeed need further specialized suits. Which is what I was trying to state above. Our character in game is wearing (presumably by what it looks like) a standard wetsuit. Now you may have used a fancy balloon science experiment but I'm about to go all mathematical.

    You are always under pressure. Air presses down on you at all times at 14.5 pounds per square inch, also called one bar or one atmosphere. Human beings can withstand 3 to 4 atmospheres of pressure, or 43.5 to 58 psi. Water weighs 64 pounds per cubic foot, or one atmosphere per 33 feet of depth, and presses in from all sides. So 33 feet x 4 = 132 feet which in meters is 40.23 (which is far away from the depths we are talking) the ocean's pressure can indeed crush you.

    All of this.. Both your side and mine has given credence to each others case. No a body wouldn't be crushed out right like the sub.. But with out the proper suits after certain depths your chest and lungs would be squeezed to the point where you can no longer breathe, Requiring the use of different suits! Which is where this all started in the first place isn't it?

    *the record i posted was a free dive! Again i should have been more precise.

    And now that we are back to where we started I bid you farewell. And at the risk of this escalating further I apologize for my earlier post. If I would have been less vague all of this would infact have been avoided.
  • joni65joni65 Kansas Join Date: 2016-06-19 Member: 218763Members Posts: 166 Advanced user
    edited June 2016
    DrownedOut wrote: »
    I mean, as someone who really likes editing wikis I deeply hate it when people act so cynical about them. More often than not, it shows they are the ones who are lacking (and often ableist and classist). You just need to know how to read wikis. Heck, even in this very case, Scubamatt says the article is correct; it's the initial interpretation that was incorrect.

    Like, show some manners to people who spend a good amount of their time making information accessible for free.
    The fact that anyone can edit is what makes them unreliable as a citation. They are not always wrong, and make a great place to start researching, but you have to check the citations and verify the veracity of the claims. Not doing so doesn't make a person an elitist, or classist or ableist, it makes them responsible and credible researchers.

    Gaming: It's not just for kids.
    QelsarMyrmyomama
  • joni65joni65 Kansas Join Date: 2016-06-19 Member: 218763Members Posts: 166 Advanced user
    yomama wrote: »
    But...it's on the internet...so it must all be absolutely true..
    Oh ... Duh.. I forgot! :o :p

    Gaming: It's not just for kids.
  • QelsarQelsar Lansdowne, MD Join Date: 2016-05-09 Member: 216536Members Posts: 41 Advanced user
    ROFL @scubamatt ! As a fellow diver myself, I find your knowledge on the subject abundant. Granted I'm still a new diver, but I completed my Advanced PADI cert last year and hope to do other certs in the future. Good to know a fellow diver appreciates Subnautica. ;-)
    Rezcascubamatt
  • DrownedOutDrownedOut Habitat Join Date: 2016-05-26 Member: 217559Members Posts: 1,050 Advanced user
    edited June 2016
    joni65 wrote: »
    DrownedOut wrote: »
    I mean, as someone who really likes editing wikis I deeply hate it when people act so cynical about them. More often than not, it shows they are the ones who are lacking (and often ableist and classist). You just need to know how to read wikis. Heck, even in this very case, Scubamatt says the article is correct; it's the initial interpretation that was incorrect.

    Like, show some manners to people who spend a good amount of their time making information accessible for free.
    The fact that anyone can edit is what makes them unreliable as a citation. They are not always wrong, and make a great place to start researching, but you have to check the citations and verify the veracity of the claims. Not doing so doesn't make a person an elitist, or classist or ableist, it makes them responsible and credible researchers.

    I'll put this point by point so to make clear where this logic falls short:
    • Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia. But lets be realistic: who is going to invest time in editing a page about diving? Someone who dives, or someone who doesn't? Someone who loves diving, or someone who hates it? Basically, the only difference between RN believing Wikipedia and you believing Scubamatt, whose explanation also is covered by "But...it's on the internet...so it must all be absolutely true.", is that Scubamatt personally tells you he loves diving and that that's where his knowledge comes from. I am willing to buy a hat solely to eat it if the Wikipedia article on diving isn't ~98% made by "other Scubamatts", so to speak (and the remaining ~2% is spelling/readability). So you're not actually the less gullible one here.
    • For that matter, would the suggestion to "check the citations and verify the veracity of the claims" be your only credibility check, then you don't actually know yet how to read Wikipedia articles. Article history, article talk pages, intra-wikilinks, inter-language links, controversy level of the subject, etc. are all important to keep an eye on.
    • As well, fact-checking is recommended for everything, not just when using Wikipedia. There's no reason to single it out like this.
    • I can personally attest that wiki work is something that is particularly attractive and meaningful to various forms of neurodivergency, like autism. So when you make a broad statement that wikis are unreliable? You're picking on those people. Mind that there's a vast difference between saying wikis are unreliable or "not always wrong" and saying that you need to know how to read them, which I profusely agree with.
    • I'm an analytical chemist (hope that qualifies as "serious research" to you). I use and contribute to Wikipedia. I am not the only one among my colleagues to do this (well, the using part. Haven't heard of any of them contributing so far). I am perfectly aware I can't use Wikipedia and most other internet sources as a citation, but this isn't a paper to be defended. This is a forum conversation, and in here it's perfectly acceptable to bring up Wikipedia articles. I wouldn't present it as absolute fact if it's not a topic you're already knowledgeable of, again because it is an underestimated skill how to read Wikipedia and knowledge in general requires knowledge for interpretation, but it's not undone. And in this scenario, you have no pointer either way if RN has read up on the matter beyond the Wikipedia article and simply linked it alone for accessibility or not. You draw the conclusion of "no" based on nothing.
    Rezca0x6A7232
  • joni65joni65 Kansas Join Date: 2016-06-19 Member: 218763Members Posts: 166 Advanced user
    DrownedOut wrote: »
    joni65 wrote: »
    DrownedOut wrote: »
    I mean, as someone who really likes editing wikis I deeply hate it when people act so cynical about them. More often than not, it shows they are the ones who are lacking (and often ableist and classist). You just need to know how to read wikis. Heck, even in this very case, Scubamatt says the article is correct; it's the initial interpretation that was incorrect.

    Like, show some manners to people who spend a good amount of their time making information accessible for free.
    The fact that anyone can edit is what makes them unreliable as a citation. They are not always wrong, and make a great place to start researching, but you have to check the citations and verify the veracity of the claims. Not doing so doesn't make a person an elitist, or classist or ableist, it makes them responsible and credible researchers.

    I'll put this point by point so to make clear where this logic falls short:
    • Yes, anyone can edit Wikipedia. But lets be realistic: who is going to invest time in editing a page about diving? Someone who dives, or someone who doesn't? Someone who loves diving, or someone who hates it? Basically, the only difference between RN believing Wikipedia and you believing Scubamatt, whose explanation also is covered by "But...it's on the internet...so it must all be absolutely true.", is that Scubamatt personally tells you he loves diving and that that's where his knowledge comes from. I am willing to buy a hat solely to eat it if the Wikipedia article on diving isn't ~98% made by "other Scubamatts", so to speak (and the remaining ~2% is spelling/readability). So you're not actually the less gullible one here.
    • For that matter, would the suggestion to "check the citations and verify the veracity of the claims" be your only credibility check, then you don't actually know yet how to read Wikipedia articles. Article history, article talk pages, intra-wikilinks, inter-language links, controversy level of the subject, etc. are all important to keep an eye on.
    • As well, fact-checking is recommended for everything, not just when using Wikipedia. There's no reason to single it out like this.
    • I can personally attest that wiki work is something that is particularly attractive and meaningful to various forms of neurodivergency, like autism. So when you make a broad statement that wikis are unreliable? You're picking on those people. Mind that there's a vast difference between saying wikis are unreliable or "not always wrong" and saying that you need to know how to read them, which I profusely agree with.
    • I'm an analytical chemist (hope that qualifies as "serious research" to you). I use and contribute to Wikipedia. I am not the only one among my colleagues to do this (well, the using part. Haven't heard of any of them contributing so far). I am perfectly aware I can't use Wikipedia and most other internet sources as a citation, but this isn't a paper to be defended. This is a forum conversation, and in here it's perfectly acceptable to bring up Wikipedia articles. I wouldn't present it as absolute fact if it's not a topic you're already knowledgeable of, again because it is an underestimated skill how to read Wikipedia and knowledge in general requires knowledge for interpretation, but it's not undone. And in this scenario, you have no pointer either way if RN has read up on the matter beyond the Wikipedia article and simply linked it alone for accessibility or not. You draw the conclusion of "no" based on nothing.

    You spend way to much time looking for reasons to be offended, and high jacking other people's posts to do it. Exactly like you did with my Female Divers post. Just because you like to edit wiki's that does not mean that anyone who points out that they are not credible as sole references is being offensive. You having your feelings hurt does not automatically mean that someone is out to be offensive. You like to point out how other people are rude, only to be completely oblivious to the fact that you are being just as rude, if not more so.
    Gaming: It's not just for kids.
    yomama
  • Rooks_NemesisRooks_Nemesis Ontario Join Date: 2016-06-11 Member: 218388Members Posts: 152 Advanced user
    @scubamatt I tire of this rather quickly, again you just pick out the things that further your argument while cleverly dodging what we where in fact talking about at the start of this.. If you didn't read what I had said, I regretted not being more precise with my words. And had fixed my statement.. Your still going after the "crushed bones" thing and picking and choosing certain parts of sentences. And now your actually getting quite obnoxious about it to boot.

    The free diving record I had commented on was another correction on my part. Yet you again obnoxiously set forth on another tangent.

    If you could be so inclined to now apply what you have just thrown out there and apply that to the depths we are actually talking about 1000+ meters (3280 feet) you couldn't. Not with the gear stated above by you.

    Its very easy to make someone look horribly wrong by misdirecting the topics at hand.. Heck you should have been a lawyer.

    The math I included above Is completely sound.. Keep multiplying that number the deeper you go down.. A human body NO matter what mixtures are in your tanks, without the proper gear you would be done.. By your own admission this is fact..

    Instead of me being "out of my depth" (clever by the way) why don't you leave your shallow arguments behind and come into the deep end.


    Rezca
  • scubamattscubamatt Georgia, USA Join Date: 2016-05-22 Member: 217295Members Posts: 340 Advanced user
    edited June 2016
    @scubamatt I tire of this rather quickly, again you just pick out the things that further your argument while cleverly dodging what we where in fact talking about at the start of this.. If you didn't read what I had said, I regretted not being more precise with my words. And had fixed my statement.. Your still going after the "crushed bones" thing and picking and choosing certain parts of sentences. And now your actually getting quite obnoxious about it to boot.

    The free diving record I had commented on was another correction on my part. Yet you again obnoxiously set forth on another tangent.

    If you could be so inclined to now apply what you have just thrown out there and apply that to the depths we are actually talking about 1000+ meters (3280 feet) you couldn't. Not with the gear stated above by you.

    Its very easy to make someone look horribly wrong by misdirecting the topics at hand.. Heck you should have been a lawyer.

    The math I included above Is completely sound.. Keep multiplying that number the deeper you go down.. A human body NO matter what mixtures are in your tanks, without the proper gear you would be done.. By your own admission this is fact..

    Instead of me being "out of my depth" (clever by the way) why don't you leave your shallow arguments behind and come into the deep end.

    You stated flatly that at 132 feet of depth, a diver will be crushed by water pressure.
    So 33 feet x 4 = 132 feet which in meters is 40.23 (which is far away from the depths we are talking) the ocean's pressure can indeed crush you.
    I showed you that you are completely wrong, using math, pictures and common sense. You won't be crushed at five times that depth, in fact you won;t feel any pressure at at all, thanks to your regulator.

    You also said that after 100 feet of water depth, divers require atmospheric suits (the kind that are needed at 2000 feet depth).
    After around 100 feet humans (or untrained free divers) start to require atmospheric suits which can take you down towards 2000 feet (roughly 609m)
    Again, I showed you that you are completely wrong, with pictures and video. You don't need an armored suit or any kind of 'atmospheric suit' to dive to 100 feet. Wet suits and dry suits have nothing at all to do with resisting pressure. Nothing.

    Then you presumed to lecture a diver on water pressure, and merely demonstrated how little you understand about the difference between diving with Scuba gear, and free diving.
    Now you may have used a fancy balloon science experiment but I'm about to go all mathematical.
    Your awesome math skills were something that every diver learns on day one of their training, and absolutely support why scuba divers must use pressurized tanks and regulators while diving. Apparently that point escaped you, much to my amusement. This was further demonstrated when you completely and utterly missed the point of the 'balloon science experiment' by not grasping that its the *equal pressure* that keeps you from being crushed.
    At extreme depths and long before your body (skeletal structure, extremities ) your chest would in fact be crushed, the amount of pressure that surrounds your chest would completely squeeze your lungs. Now yes this is all without the use of specialized suits. A simple wet suit a couple tanks and a decent mask would NOT suffice.

    I'm not cherry picking your statements, I'm pointing out that they are simply wrong. You cannot seem to grasp how scuba diving actually works - or you cannot simply admit you were mistaken.

    As far as getting back to where we started, it started _here_ when I politely asked if you understood the difference between the two methods of diving, and pointed out that you do not in fact get crushed by water pressure while scuba diving, as a submersible might be:
    You realize that you don't get crushed like your submarine, because there are two entirely different systems at work, right? I mean in real life, as well as in this game. You're breathing pressurized air at depth, which matches the pressure of the seawater around you - this is why you consume more of your supply (faster) the deeper you go, but you don't get crushed like a beer can. Your submarine uses a pressure hull to keep from being crushed, not high pressure air. Below a certain depth (the crush depth) the strength of the hull is not sufficient to withstand the pressure from the seawater, and it does get crushed like a beer can.

    Two completely different processes at work, and completely realistic.

    The obnoxious attitude began with YOU, when you posted a link to a Wiki article that offered nothing to support your argument, while taking a condescending tone with me and telling me that I'm only 'correct to a degree'.
    Lets start here shall we https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_diving_suit

    In this link above the only way they got to these depths is with HIGHLY sophisticated and specialized equipment.. In fact his wet suit is more of a submersible then a suit..

    And even this suit has its limits.. 500 meters let alone 1000 meters would be fatal to anyone outside of submersible without proper gear..

    So you are correct in saying what you stated. That is only to a degree.

    You weren't being imprecise, or vague. You were simply wrong on two counts. First, you assumed I knew nothing about diving. Second, you did not understand the key difference between diving with pressurized air and diving without it. Everything you've posted since has been an attempt to evade admitting you were wrong and that you don't understand the science behind it. Its clear you aren't incapable of reading and parsing the sentences, so it must be willful ignorance on your part. And with five replies in the thread, you haven't tired quickly, you've just run out of excuses.

    Its OK, though. Other players who didn't know how it works have learned something, and we've both demonstrated our respective level of knowledge on the topic of scuba diving. I sincerely hope that some day you take your interest in diving to the next level and get some real training - nothing in the world compares to wonders you experience while scuba diving. Have a great day.
    Rezca0x6A7232Jozroz
«1
This discussion has been closed.