After 150-200 years of technological advancement, personally, I have no problem believing maybe the use of the word "stage" may have shifted so that it has nothing to do with a separately engined/fueled part of a rocket ship. If sounds like you either want "in-game" explanations of at least a handful of words that have radically changed meanings. Or, perhaps you want the entire game vocabulary to be radically different for you to believe this is really "Future English".
I think I see and understand your position. Thanks for the clarification.
I don't think all the proper nouns you listed should really be taken into consideration, but that's okay.
However, I feel the need to call you out about something else, though it does tie in to my point about science literacy. Frankly, your statement about "what kind of imbecile" really irritates me*
Haha, it's a valid complaint and well made. I'm not calling anyone a genuine imbecile, I'm merely a brash, abusive piece of sh*t with very little tolerance, and I'm the first to admit it.
Not actually calling anyone an imbecile, eh? Well, you are /really good/ at sounding sincere about it. But! I'm not here to suffer anyone's abuse, whether it's directed at me or not, and as you say you are abusive, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.
Or they could simply mean that the rocket is /built in stages/, a much more generic use of the word but confusing in this particular case.
Then the construction is in stages-- not the rocket. I've only heard it said that the rocket will have "three stages." That said, I recall hearing it from Youtubers and not the devs themselves, so this whole discussion may have been extraordinarily pointless!
I very much doubt your credentials for making a plausible argument along these lines. Please provide proof you are qualified to speak on the subject of the evolution of language over time. Without that proof, I'm going to put my support behind @elfcrisis and say the words can mean anything they want.
I'll do that just as soon as you are kind enough to provide proof you are qualified to speak, with absolute certainty, about the subject of the evolution of our language in the future. Considering the point @Mr_Endar made about the retention of technical terms from the original Greek, you may have you work cut out for you.
Most likely, the developers wanted to allow the player to construct the rocket in pieces rather than all at once. They probably heard the word 'stages' used in rockets and decided, "What the heck?!?", why don't we call these individual portions of the rocket "stages" even though we have no intention of actually separating them as in "old world" vernacular.
As has been pointed out: that was lazy of them. Not even 30 minutes of playing Kerbal Space Program is necessary to understand the technical term "stage" as it applies to rockets; staging is covered in the tutorial. There's also Wikipedia. If you want to go really old-school, physical books on the subject exist too. It's always safest to look something up before talking about it.
For all we know, in the future, they have such high technology that they don't need to separate the "stages" of rockets but still use that word.
Can you provide a logical reason for a technical term to degrade this way? Can you provide an example of a technical term doing so in similar fashion (i.e., going from something highly specific to something generic)?
Your argument earns an A. Oh, by the way, in the future, A is one-one thousandth the value of an F in today's scoring system. You see, in the future, we have raised the standards quite a bit.
Oh no. @garath disagrees with me. Whatever shall I do. How can I possibly go on.
Haha, it's a valid complaint and well made. I'm not calling anyone a genuine imbecile, I'm merely a brash, abusive piece of sh*t with very little tolerance, and I'm the first to admit it.
Do not bring that here. You won't get another warning from me.
I think everyone in this thread could do with toning it down a little. Read the rules as a refresher before writing your next comment.
The rocket isn't a multi-stage rocket. If I were to guess, I would say that Alterra doesn't build those. Rather, it's built in three stages as some of you have suggested. That seems a perfectly reasonable use of the word to me and I've thus far been able to hold the concepts in my head of rocket staging and building a rocket in stages without any apparent ill effects. That said, remember that this is a game that's still in active development and such things are subject to change. As with all things in-game we come up with a quick name for something so we can refer to it internally and be understood, before a writing pass is done. For what it's worth I've also seen each piece referred to by other developers as "sections".
TBH, having it as an actual staged rocket would be pretty neat visually, but also more work and possible bugs
Staged rockets would probably seem archaic in future lands though
As long as we're dealing with mass reactions exploding out the back end for thrust, multi-stages make sense, as you can shed unnecessary weight as you burn fuel (you'd have a bunch of rocket that is now only half full of fuel, but you'd still need to propel the empty part upwards at a cost of fuel). The benefit of multi-stage is somewhat offset by the need to have engine(s) at the end of each stage (so you're also hauling extra engines that aren't in use during initial stages). As it stands with current propulsion (fuel and engine) and material (hull) tech, multi-stage makes sense. In the future, I think you'd need some sort of gravity manipulation or insane energy density fuel (ion crystals?) to overcome this.
TBH, having it as an actual staged rocket would be pretty neat visually, but also more work and possible bugs
Staged rockets would probably seem archaic in future lands though
As long as we're dealing with mass reactions exploding out the back end for thrust, multi-stages make sense, as you can shed unnecessary weight as you burn fuel (you'd have a bunch of rocket that is now only half full of fuel, but you'd still need to propel the empty part upwards at a cost of fuel). The benefit of multi-stage is somewhat offset by the need to have engine(s) at the end of each stage (so you're also hauling extra engines that aren't in use during initial stages). As it stands with current propulsion (fuel and engine) and material (hull) tech, multi-stage makes sense. In the future, I think you'd need some sort of gravity manipulation or insane energy density fuel (ion crystals?) to overcome this.
That's why I said "future lands"
Also I'd expect them to have proper propulsion beyond ancient rocket tech in the late 22nd century by then in any case. Where is my bloody anti gravity plating, inertial dampening systems, so you could simply build a small shuttle to get out there beyond the stars or rather orbit. Escape velocity, you say? Get that limitation from 175 years ago out of here \o/
I mean gravity should only be an issue with the primitive, limited fuel rocket crap we are using. We're still entirely dependent on gravity slingshots for our long range missions FFS These people have interstellar space travel and even phase star gates...
Can you provide a logical reason for a technical term to degrade this way? Can you provide an example of a technical term doing so in similar fashion (i.e., going from something highly specific to something generic)?
Here are some examples of formerly technical terms that have changed meaning over time from the original very specific item to something much more broad:
Lever
Wheel & Axle
Wedge
Screw
Lever - to pressure someone to do something.
Wheel - to turn around quickly so as to face another way
Wedge - force into a narrow space
Screw - ... Not going to mention the common vernacular use of screw
So, in each of these cases the ancient name for these early technical machines is now widely used to mean something much more broad. Yes, it may be related to the original use but it is now much broader.
Consider a more modern example:
Telegraph - means to convey an intentional or unconscious message, especially with facial expression or body language
In terms of timing, the wheel technical term was invented roughly 5,000 years before Newton lived...
For all we know, in the future, they have such high technology that they don't need to separate the "stages" of rockets but still use that word.
Can you provide a logical reason for a technical term to degrade this way? Can you provide an example of a technical term doing so in similar fashion (i.e., going from something highly specific to something generic)?
It's not a technical term. It is a generic term that existed long before rockets. It has a variety of meanings that have nothing to do with rockets. Only a very small subset of the population probably even knows it means a part of a rocket that is ejected. Thus, if space ships in the future no longer have the requirement to be ejected, that more specific understanding of the word could easy fall away. Thus, when they talk about stages for space ships in the future, they can easily take on any of the meanings that existed before we had the old-school, very primitive and very short-lived rockets that required us to eject parts of the rockets.
In the context of rockets, IT IS A [bleeping] [censored] TECHNICAL TERM WITH A [censored] [bleeping] SPECIFIC MEANING. My God-- you've gotta be the wriggliest, goalpost-moving somebody I've ever tried to talk to. You know what? Just declare yourself the victor here; I've got better things to do than engage this obvious trolling even a second longer.
I mean, this issue was f***ing settled when it became clear that the devs are referring to the construction, not the rocket, being in stages, and that no empty fuel sections were going to be jettisoned, but no, let's just drag this conversation as far down into Hell as possible, shall we?
Kouji_SanSr. Hινε UÏкεεÏεг - EUPT DeputyThe NetherlandsJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16271Members, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue
edited August 2017
Which level of hell are we taking this to? And if we're going the opposite direction, my guess is that we would need a tunnel machine for that, instead of a rocket ey
Technically, its guided which would make it a missile [/jest] Then again rockets/missiles could be used to describe everything from hwacha projectiles to the space shuttle. As for reasons... well knowing Alterra it was simply inefficient for their purposes so they changed the dictionary.
Comments
Me either. I was hoping you wouldn't notice.
Not actually calling anyone an imbecile, eh? Well, you are /really good/ at sounding sincere about it. But! I'm not here to suffer anyone's abuse, whether it's directed at me or not, and as you say you are abusive, I'm just going to bow out of this conversation.
Good luck out there.
Then the construction is in stages-- not the rocket. I've only heard it said that the rocket will have "three stages." That said, I recall hearing it from Youtubers and not the devs themselves, so this whole discussion may have been extraordinarily pointless!
I'll do that just as soon as you are kind enough to provide proof you are qualified to speak, with absolute certainty, about the subject of the evolution of our language in the future. Considering the point @Mr_Endar made about the retention of technical terms from the original Greek, you may have you work cut out for you.
As has been pointed out: that was lazy of them. Not even 30 minutes of playing Kerbal Space Program is necessary to understand the technical term "stage" as it applies to rockets; staging is covered in the tutorial. There's also Wikipedia. If you want to go really old-school, physical books on the subject exist too. It's always safest to look something up before talking about it.
Can you provide a logical reason for a technical term to degrade this way? Can you provide an example of a technical term doing so in similar fashion (i.e., going from something highly specific to something generic)?
Oh no. @garath disagrees with me. Whatever shall I do. How can I possibly go on.
Do not bring that here. You won't get another warning from me.
I think everyone in this thread could do with toning it down a little. Read the rules as a refresher before writing your next comment.
The rocket isn't a multi-stage rocket. If I were to guess, I would say that Alterra doesn't build those. Rather, it's built in three stages as some of you have suggested. That seems a perfectly reasonable use of the word to me and I've thus far been able to hold the concepts in my head of rocket staging and building a rocket in stages without any apparent ill effects. That said, remember that this is a game that's still in active development and such things are subject to change. As with all things in-game we come up with a quick name for something so we can refer to it internally and be understood, before a writing pass is done. For what it's worth I've also seen each piece referred to by other developers as "sections".
Staged rockets would probably seem archaic in future lands though
There are several signs throughout the game that it's not operating with all its thrusters.
Dat pun though
As long as we're dealing with mass reactions exploding out the back end for thrust, multi-stages make sense, as you can shed unnecessary weight as you burn fuel (you'd have a bunch of rocket that is now only half full of fuel, but you'd still need to propel the empty part upwards at a cost of fuel). The benefit of multi-stage is somewhat offset by the need to have engine(s) at the end of each stage (so you're also hauling extra engines that aren't in use during initial stages). As it stands with current propulsion (fuel and engine) and material (hull) tech, multi-stage makes sense. In the future, I think you'd need some sort of gravity manipulation or insane energy density fuel (ion crystals?) to overcome this.
That's why I said "future lands"
Also I'd expect them to have proper propulsion beyond ancient rocket tech in the late 22nd century by then in any case. Where is my bloody anti gravity plating, inertial dampening systems, so you could simply build a small shuttle to get out there beyond the stars or rather orbit. Escape velocity, you say? Get that limitation from 175 years ago out of here \o/
I mean gravity should only be an issue with the primitive, limited fuel rocket crap we are using. We're still entirely dependent on gravity slingshots for our long range missions FFS
Here are some examples of formerly technical terms that have changed meaning over time from the original very specific item to something much more broad:
Lever
Wheel & Axle
Wedge
Screw
Lever - to pressure someone to do something.
Wheel - to turn around quickly so as to face another way
Wedge - force into a narrow space
Screw - ... Not going to mention the common vernacular use of screw
So, in each of these cases the ancient name for these early technical machines is now widely used to mean something much more broad. Yes, it may be related to the original use but it is now much broader.
Consider a more modern example:
Telegraph - means to convey an intentional or unconscious message, especially with facial expression or body language
In terms of timing, the wheel technical term was invented roughly 5,000 years before Newton lived...
That's not degradation; that's expansion. None of those terms have lost their original meanings. I said "degrade" and not "change" for a reason.
It's not a technical term. It is a generic term that existed long before rockets. It has a variety of meanings that have nothing to do with rockets. Only a very small subset of the population probably even knows it means a part of a rocket that is ejected. Thus, if space ships in the future no longer have the requirement to be ejected, that more specific understanding of the word could easy fall away. Thus, when they talk about stages for space ships in the future, they can easily take on any of the meanings that existed before we had the old-school, very primitive and very short-lived rockets that required us to eject parts of the rockets.
In the context of rockets, IT IS A [bleeping] [censored] TECHNICAL TERM WITH A [censored] [bleeping] SPECIFIC MEANING. My God-- you've gotta be the wriggliest, goalpost-moving somebody I've ever tried to talk to. You know what? Just declare yourself the victor here; I've got better things to do than engage this obvious trolling even a second longer.