'Landing mechanic'?

[Fantoompje]

Heya all, I have been browsing the forum a bit and came across this post:

In terms of Island maps, that would be rather nice to look at, but from a gameplay view they wouldn't work too well- far too open, and you couldn't drop people into the terrain due to the 'landing' mechanic that's present when you hit water.

My question being: What kind of landing mechanic is Wazulu talking about? I admit it's easy for me to get the answer: start a game myself and just test, see what happens! However, since I don't really have the wonderful opportunity to do some !!science!! for a few days, I wonder what happens!
Logically, the ship would be degraded to a measly nautical ship; or is this a faulty assumption?

[zlater75@hotmail.com]

I would imagine from some hints in the maps that the airships would need to dock to a station since lowering altitude with these airships be it water or ground has a high impact. But this is just guessing..

 

[Fantoompje]

On the other hand: maybe the ships have been altered in such a way that they are physically unable to function as a 'normal' ship (too heavy, too little buoyancy etc.)?

[zlater75@hotmail.com]

Got a point there. Also the environment aspect. Clouds, storms and other dangers. The air is prob the safest place to be for traveling. The water might also be hazardous in consistence and perhaps house seamonsters? 

[Fantoompje]

Dangerous chemicals in the seawater? Or just the negative effect water has on 'delicate' machinery?

Pilot: "What do you mean, a cup of water wrecks the engines? You are whacking it with a large mallet as we speak!"
Engineer: "Caen't haf wad-ur in the juicer, ser. Woudn't wan to gid rust on me wrench yousee"

[zlater75@hotmail.com]

I just assume the War left it's mark on the planet and changed the environment. Seawater as such ain't good for machinery other than cooling but the rust would be a problem. Hazardous? Maybe.

[Watchmaker]

No reason for an airship hull to be watertight in the same way.

(The game currently counts the water on maps like Water Hazard and Anglean Raiders as "ground"; colliding with it deals damage.  If you want a semiphysical explanation: think about drowning a hot boiler in cold seawater.)

[Captain Smollett]

Heya all, I have been browsing the forum a bit and came across this post:

In terms of Island maps, that would be rather nice to look at, but from a gameplay view they wouldn't work too well- far too open, and you couldn't drop people into the terrain due to the 'landing' mechanic that's present when you hit water.

My question being: What kind of landing mechanic is Wazulu talking about? I admit it's easy for me to get the answer: start a game myself and just test, see what happens! However, since I don't really have the wonderful opportunity to do some !!science!! for a few days, I wonder what happens!
Logically, the ship would be degraded to a measly nautical ship; or is this a faulty assumption?

Wazulu is talking about game balance when referring to the possibility of island maps. 

His fear was two fold: one that the landscapes would be to open and lacking vertical cover leading to long sniping matches and two that due to all the flat  water across the map blending would be less effective. 

Currently blending a ship into terrain for whatever reason does a lot more damage to ships on rugged terrain and trying to kill a ship that has "landed" in the water takes a lot longer with just balloon popping weapons than it does on a map like paritan rumble with all sorts of jagged obsticles that hit the ship from all sorts of angles.

[The Churrosaur]

From a purely rp perspective I love the idea of being able to land an airship in water (semi) safely as an emergency measure or in lieu of a docking port.

[Fantoompje]

No reason for an airship hull to be watertight in the same way.

(The game currently counts the water on maps like Water Hazard and Anglean Raiders as "ground"; colliding with it deals damage.  If you want a semiphysical explanation: think about drowning a hot boiler in cold seawater.)

Thanks for the answer. I don't exactly need a rational explanation but it certainly is fun to ponder about it!