Talk:NPB Neutralizer OXZ - Revision history

Phkb at 21:50, 11 May 2026

2026-05-11T21:50:59Z

Reval: /* Theory */ correct sequence (with _ions_) reiterated.

2026-05-11T18:21:26Z

‎Theory: correct sequence (with _ions_) reiterated.

Reval: /* Theory */ further response - 'atoms' vs. 'ions'

2026-05-11T18:13:08Z

‎Theory: further response - 'atoms' vs. 'ions'

Reval: Low comparative power of the Neutralizer compared with other lasers... Possibility of fitting Neutralizers to NPC Police...

2026-05-11T17:32:42Z

Low comparative power of the Neutralizer compared with other lasers... Possibility of fitting Neutralizers to NPC Police...

Reval at 16:49, 11 May 2026

2026-05-11T16:49:26Z

Reval at 16:47, 11 May 2026

2026-05-11T16:47:08Z

Reval at 16:42, 11 May 2026

2026-05-11T16:42:17Z

Reval: /* Theory */

2026-05-11T15:45:35Z

‎Theory

Cholmondely: Oops!

2026-05-11T09:47:03Z

Oops!

Cholmondely: /* Theory */ new section

2026-05-11T09:44:02Z

‎Theory: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:50, 11 May 2026
Line 29:		Line 29:
	[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 17:42, 11 May 2026 (BST)		[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 17:42, 11 May 2026 (BST)

		+
		+	Re: Giving weapon to NPC's. The difficulty you face, as with any specialised weapon, is what happens to the player when they're hit by it. Will all the same criteria apply? And how will a player feel if they get a game over screen when they still had 90% of their shields? Will it feel like satisfying gameplay, or a bug? My recommendation is to leave it as a player-only weapon, rather than go down that rabbit hole.
		+
		+	It's fine for it to be player-only. Just don't suggest the player will be coming up against it by saying it's being retro-fitted on Vipers. Don't say something that isn't true.
		+
		+	Re: Most players play with a forward weapon only. In my experience, and from what I've read of other players methods, forward and rear lasers are actually quite common. Port and starboard are rarer. As a test, install the Neutralizer in the rear position, install a Military laser in the forward position, and see how the game play feels. One good solid hit by the military laser will quickly be converted into a kill by the Neutraliser, sub 1 second.
		+
		+	Re: Not being intended for missions. That's fine - but it needs to be stated up front that using this weapon as designed is incompatible with all missions that require ship destruction. See the [[Railgun OXP]] where a similar problem is declared.
		+
		+	As an aside, it might be worth testing the [[Derelicts don't count OXP]]. Your weapon is doing similar things and it's likely to be incompatible.
		+
		+	[[User:phkb\|phkb]] 7:52, 12 May 2026 (AEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 11 May 2026
Line 60:		Line 60:

	But I concede your point that Hydrogen 'atoms' was somewhat inexact and even misleading. I will change it to 'ions'.		But I concede your point that Hydrogen 'atoms' was somewhat inexact and even misleading. I will change it to 'ions'.
		+
		+	The correct sequence is:
		+
		+	* Hydrogen atoms are ionized to create negative hydrogen ions (H⁻).
		+
		+	* These ions are accelerated to near-light speed using a particle accelerator.
		+
		+	* The accelerated ions are then neutralized (by stripping away the extra electron) to form a beam of neutral hydrogen atoms for firing.
		+
		+	So, the beam is accelerated as charged '''ions''', not neutral atoms. The neutralization happens after acceleration to allow the beam to travel in a straight line. (clarification via Brave AI Search).


	[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 16:45, 11 May 2026 (BST)		[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 16:45, 11 May 2026 (BST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 11 May 2026
Line 58:		Line 58:

	Learning the ins-and-outs of this form of potential space weaponry was in fact the inspiration for attempting to code it as an OXP. Even in embryonic 'version 1.0' form, NPB Neutralizer does what an NPB beam would do.		Learning the ins-and-outs of this form of potential space weaponry was in fact the inspiration for attempting to code it as an OXP. Even in embryonic 'version 1.0' form, NPB Neutralizer does what an NPB beam would do.
		+
		+	But I concede your point that Hydrogen 'atoms' was somewhat inexact and even misleading. I will change it to 'ions'.
		+

	[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 16:45, 11 May 2026 (BST)		[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 16:45, 11 May 2026 (BST)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 First priority is the Clean record - prohibiting installation for Offenders, as included already in Defence Rider Drones (and to be fully fixed for version 1.3).
-Because of their existing unfair advantage, NPCs will never be given this piece of equipment! Not that it would necessarily make _their_ life any easier...
+Because of their existing unfair advantage, NPCs will never be given this piece of equipment! Not that it would necessarily make _their_ life any easier... In fact, it could make their operations more difficult, given the comparatively low hull damage inflicted by the Neutralizer (damage=3, compared to damage=12 for a standard Military Laser.)
 This OXP is not intended for those who play missions - which would vastly complicate coding. Anyway, there is nothing to prevent you from 'keeping on firing' until the derelict explodes (you have already collected any bounty and had your score increased).

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 This OXP is not intended for those who play missions - which would vastly complicate coding. Anyway, there is nothing to prevent you from 'keeping on firing' until the derelict explodes (you have already collected any bounty and had your score increased).
-Most players play with a forward laser. I have never used a Port, Starboard, or rear one. But I suppose something could be worked out to satisfy those rare eccentrics who put beam weapons on all their facings!
+Most players play with a forward laser. I have never used a Port, Starboard, or Rear one. But I suppose something could be worked out to satisfy those rare eccentrics who put beam weapons on all their facings!
 [[User:Reval|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval|talk]]) 17:42, 11 May 2026 (BST)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
-Yes, mostly valid objections (and thanks for voicing them!)
+Yes, mostly valid comments (and thanks for making them!)
 The first thing by way of response is that Oolite pirate NPCs already have a vastly '''unfair advantage''' over the player and most of my OXPs are attempts to balance this core game failing out.
-I say 'most', because NPB neutralizer is NOT one of these! It is no 'uber weapon', requiring, as it does, players to engage in normal combat, to keep an evading opponent in their sights and to fire a sustained burst to disable it. This burst amounts to '''at least 3 seconds''' for a weak-shielded and relatively low-energy Transporter, and substantially longer for a higher-energy ship. Thus my 'green' rating for the AddOn. It makes nothing in combat any easier.
+I say 'most', because NPB Neutralizer is NOT one of these! It is no 'uber weapon', requiring, as it does, players to engage in normal combat, to keep an evading opponent in their sights and to fire a sustained burst to disable it. This burst amounts to '''at least 3 seconds''' for a weak-shielded and relatively low-energy Transporter, and substantially longer for a higher-energy ship. Thus my 'green' rating. It makes nothing in combat any easier.
 Your other points were already on my To Do list for version 1.1. This is merely an initial release - only the basic functional elements implemented. That's the way I work.
@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 This OXP is not intended for those who play missions - which would vastly complicate coding. Anyway, there is nothing to prevent you from 'keeping on firing' until the derelict explodes (you have already collected any bounty and had your score increased).
-Most players play with a forward laser. I have never used a Port, Starboard, or rear one. But I guess something could be worked out to satisfy those rare eccentrics who put beam weapons on all their facings!
+Most players play with a forward laser. I have never used a Port, Starboard, or rear one. But I suppose something could be worked out to satisfy those rare eccentrics who put beam weapons on all their facings!
 [[User:Reval|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval|talk]]) 17:42, 11 May 2026 (BST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 11 May 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:

	phkb		phkb
		+
		+
		+	Yes, mostly valid objections (and thanks for voicing them!)
		+
		+	The first thing by way of response is that Oolite pirate NPCs already have a vastly '''unfair advantage''' over the player and most of my OXPs are attempts to balance this core game failing out.
		+
		+	I say 'most', because NPB neutralizer is NOT one of these! It is no 'uber weapon', requiring, as it does, players to engage in normal combat, to keep an evading opponent in their sights and to fire a sustained burst to disable it. This burst amounts to '''at least 3 seconds''' for a weak-shielded and relatively low-energy Transporter, and substantially longer for a higher-energy ship. Thus my 'green' rating for the AddOn. It makes nothing in combat any easier.
		+
		+	Your other points were already on my To Do list for version 1.1. This is merely an initial release - only the basic functional elements implemented. That's the way I work.
		+
		+	First priority is the Clean record - prohibiting installation for Offenders, as included already in Defence Rider Drones (and to be fully fixed for version 1.3).
		+
		+	Because of their existing unfair advantage, NPCs will never be given this piece of equipment! Not that it would necessarily make _their_ life any easier...
		+
		+	This OXP is not intended for those who play missions - which would vastly complicate coding. Anyway, there is nothing to prevent you from 'keeping on firing' until the derelict explodes (you have already collected any bounty and had your score increased).
		+
		+	Most players play with a forward laser. I have never used a Port, Starboard, or rear one. But I guess something could be worked out to satisfy those rare eccentrics who put beam weapons on all their facings!
		+
		+	[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 17:42, 11 May 2026 (BST)
		+
		+

	== Theory ==		== Theory ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 11 May 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:

	:''Cholmondeley 10:44, 11 May 2026 (BST)''		:''Cholmondeley 10:44, 11 May 2026 (BST)''
		+
		+
		+	"Particle Beam Weapons Theory
		+
		+	Neutral particle beam (NPB) weapons are directed-energy systems that accelerate subatomic particles, typically hydrogen ions, to near-light speed and neutralize them before firing to prevent deflection by magnetic fields. Unlike lasers that burn surfaces, NPBs penetrate deep into a target’s interior, causing catastrophic damage through kinetic penetration, thermal superheating, and ionization that destroys electronics or triggers nuclear fission.
		+
		+	The theoretical mechanics involve three key stages:
		+	* Acceleration and Neutralization: Charged particles (like negative hydrogen ions) are accelerated to high energies (100–1000+ MeV) using particle accelerators. Before leaving the device, they pass through a neutralizer cell or gas stripper to remove an electron, creating a beam of electrically neutral atoms. This neutrality allows the beam to travel in a straight line without being deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field.
		+	* Target Interaction: Upon impact, the neutral particles capture electrons from the target material, becoming charged ions. This allows them to penetrate deeply into the vehicle’s shell or exterior, depositing their kinetic energy internally.
		+	* Destructive Effects: The energy deposition causes near-instantaneous superheating of the target material, potentially melting it, igniting fuel supplies, or frying onboard electronics. For nuclear warheads, the particles can induce fission processes and neutron generation, leading to premature detonation or structural failure.
		+
		+	Historically, the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative explored NPBs as anti-satellite and anti-ballistic missile weapons capable of intercepting targets in their boost phase. While the Beam Experiments Aboard Rocket (BEAR) project successfully tested a prototype in space in 1989, significant technical hurdles remain, including the need for lightweight, high-power accelerators and methods to maintain beam coherence over long distances. Despite recent interest in testing space-based variants, NPBs remain largely in the research stage due to the immense power requirements and engineering challenges involved in miniaturizing the necessary accelerator technology."
		+
		+	(from Brave AI search)
		+
		+	Learning the ins-and-outs of this form of potential space weaponry was in fact the inspiration for attempting to code it as an OXP. Even in embryonic 'version 1.0' form, NPB Neutralizer does what an NPB beam would do.
		+
		+	[[User:Reval\|Reval]] ([[User talk:Reval\|talk]]) 16:45, 11 May 2026 (BST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:47, 11 May 2026
Line 14:		Line 14:


−	Umm... neither hydrogen molecules or hydrogen atoms have a charge, as far as I know. Hydrogen ions ''do'' - either anions (for hydrogen: electrons) or cations (for hydrogen: protons).	+	Umm... neither hydrogen molecules or hydrogen atoms have a charge, as far as I know. Hydrogen ions ''do'' - either anions (for hydrogen: a proton with two electrons) or cations (for hydrogen: protons on their tod).
		+
		+	See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion#Anions_and_cations which talks about hydrogen in particular

	:''Cholmondeley 10:44, 11 May 2026 (BST)''		:''Cholmondeley 10:44, 11 May 2026 (BST)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:44, 11 May 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:

	phkb		phkb
		+
		+	== Theory ==
		+
		+	"... Neutral Particle Beam weapon that works by accelerating hydrogen atoms to near-light speed and then neutralizing their charge. Upon hitting a target, the high-energy particles penetrate deep into a ship's structure, depositing their energy inside critical systems like electronics and power conduits."
		+
		+
		+
		+	Umm... neither hydrogen molecules or hydrogen atoms have a charge, as far as I know. Hydrogen ions ''do'' - either anions (for hydrogen: electrons) or cations (for hydrogen: protons).
		+
		+	:''Cholmondeley 10:44, 11 May 2026 (BST)''