A way to effectively balance things: Mass, volume, and density.

[Admiral.Piett]

I am making this thread to centralize ideas, and place them in a more appropriate place to be discussed.

By adding both things into the game calculations for ships and bases, VS the size of things (which is in part affected by density) we strike at several things. Before you read ahead, I need to make some things clear.

-Ships should, by no means, be invulnerable. ALL ships should have the ability to die. Simple as that.
-I accept all feedback that makes sense
-A single fighter will never kill a capital ship. Never. A wing or 2 maybe.
-I only do this to contribute into the game mechanics and balancing. If devs read of course.
-If you rate a disagree, please do make your point. All feedback helps.
-My motto here, is that the more flexible and balanced every ship is in the game, the more successful it will be.

Here come the ideas:

1.- Mass based costs for bases, and for docking, adds tons of design possibilities, by making more designs viable other than death cubes. Mass should be considered into several things, other than trust. Docking, turret balancing (I have another thread for that) and thrust. However, there is still a problem. With all block types being at 1 mass, all ships strike equal density if filled with blocks of any type, making death-cubes still king in this balancing. Mass should be taking directly into account for HP, ability to "steer" and ability to stop.

2.- The obvious solution, to limit the size of ships, while STILL making ships most ships viable, and to not go into "fit everything on a damn box" mode, DENSITY MASS must be different per block type. Proposed on another thread, with a wrong application, the idea is viable for balancing the game in a different way. We should be able to add each block type a different mass, making all designs more balanced. I won't make the whole calculations here (Although if the idea kicks in I might work on it to make it work and as balanced as possible) but I'll give in some thought to why this must be a thing. A normal armor block density is 1. Wedges are 50% of that mass, making it 50% the density (since all blocks occupy the SAME space), so instead of having a .1 mass, it should have a 0.05 mass. Scale that to all forms and materials into the game. This also applies to shields, power, and weapons. We now can AFFECT how big and small ships behave in the game, in more ways than just size and movement. We add the minimum complexity to ship design that would make sense into a game of this kind. Now efficient designs can strike even more balance towards death cubes.

This allows for ships with lots of wedges, designs that intend to be curvy or heavily wedged more
balanced. They should have the same HP (balanced by cost relation), just make their mass be less than a full cube's mass. That calls for better trust calculations and more efficient ships designs with less energy wasted/spent on thrusters, and when new thrust mechanics come in, it will make more sense. You would want to be ass mass-efficient as possible.

This mainly has performance drawbacks. But i see Into this 2 ideas, a lot of good can come out of it.

Please, discuss!!! I want to see if we can make this happen.

TL; DR
Mass should be the base for most calculations in the game, from collision damage, to turrets, and docking. Different mass per type of block will directly affect ships balance. Guns, shields, and energy storage/generators must have different mass values, adding depth and more careful ship building. Also, different block shapes should have different mass values. We also make a case for ship interiors, diminishing the extra mass from the details inside. Think of it. Suggested by CyberTao HP of block shapes should be proportional to their shape.

EDIT1

Edited the concept so you people don't go ballistic on the use of the word density. Volume/Mass is density, or something like that right? If all cubes occupy the same volume, then changing their mass affects their density.

I don't want "density" over mass for docking or anything, only to apply a more accurate representation of the actual mass of a ship, using it on a per block basis, not on the total ship size. get it? Therefore, we are using VOLUMETRIC MASS DENSITY.

Darth Plaigus -- mass and volume are the variables that make density up.. I am keeping the value here for its relation, not to indicate the size of anything. And yeah I am aware that is middle-school stuff, keep it that way.

Lecic -- Again, we are not using density for size, but using density to accurately represent mass and gameplay balance.

To anyone claiming this would be too complicated, we aren't actually adding density, just using the principle of the relation to more accurately represent the mass of a ship, therefore making mass the variable we use. Which is already in the game, and just needs to be adjusted/balanced.

 

[therimmer96]

-Ships should, by no means, be invulnerable. ALL ships should have the ability to die. Simple as that.

This is why i hate the war against gigantism. Big ships can die, to ships that are equal or better to it, or lots of weaker ships.

 

[Lecic]

This is why i hate the war against gigantism. Big ships can die, to ships that are equal or better to it, or lots of weaker ships.

The "War Against Gigantism" is ultimately a good thing. The entirety of combat is building a bigger ship than the other person, or getting enough smaller ships that you might as well have a big ship. Less gigantism is less lag. They specifically said "ALL ships should have the ability to die." anyway. What has the ability to die? HMM, I WONDER. PERHAPS THE BIG SHIPS, WHICH YOU JUST SAID COULD DIE.

Now, on the actual topic instead of whatever rimmer is talking about.

Not all blocks have the same mass. Hardened hull weighs more than normal hull, in game, right now. It weighs .2 mass/block as opposed to the .1 of every other block.

I still have no idea how or why we'd want a density based system over a mass based. Mass is a good judge of the size of an object, especially in this game. Density is a ratio that gives NO clues as to the size of an object.

 

[Bedlamite316]

I think that it's logical that capital ship can't be killed with one small fighter. Like Amiral.Piett said a wing or two or some bombers with fighter assistance can do it with no problem, personally tested that kind of fight with my friends, killing capital was hard but not impossible. Anyway back to the topic A great idea,would be a great addition to the game but i think that this density thing could make things a little bit too complicated, but varying mass is a nice concept

 

[Darth Plaigus]

I will have to disagree with you this day Peitt, soulfully on one thing only. Density don't mean shit in space. I know this is a game, but in reality density has nothing to do with space or space ships really. Every thing is always determined by mass and volume.

 

[Planr]

Not all blocks have the same mass. Hardened hull weighs more than normal hull, in game, right now. It weighs .2 mass/block as opposed to the .1 of every other block.

This is not true. Have you even played the game?

 

[Megacrafter127]

This is not true. Have you even played the game?

It was like this before the revamps of the weapons update, if I recall right.

 

[therimmer96]

Not all blocks have the same mass. Hardened hull weighs more than normal hull, in game, right now. It weighs .2 mass/block as opposed to the .1 of every other block.

I think this is how it is supposed to be, but just isnt.

 

[Lecic]

This is not true. Have you even played the game?

After a quick in-game test, I've found that hardened hull weighs the same as normal hull. However, I am 100% certain that hardened hull used to weigh .2mass/block instead of .1mass/block

 

[Admiral.Piett]

I've made several changes to the OP. be kind enough to check them again, lads.

 

[Planr]

After a quick in-game test, I've found that hardened hull weighs the same as normal hull. However, I am 100% certain that hardened hull used to weigh .2mass/block instead of .1mass/block

It never weighed more. Hardened hull has always weighed the same as every other block.
Just for you, however, I will load up one of the old builds from last year just to confirm this.

 

[Admiral.Piett]

I beg you please, people, to not deviate from the main objective of this thread. I appreciate however, the stating that current block mass is same for all block types,further strengthening my points.

 

[karkinosz]

The OP seems to entirely miss the point of how to balance things. (Mostly directed at 2. 1 has already been discussed so stop making new threads for it)

One mentioning density EVER is stupid.
I've said this before but I'll reiterate, density is akin to mass as resistivity of a material is to resistance(electrical resistance).
The point of resistivity is to divorce the length and cross sectional area of a material from resistance. R = ((lambda)*A)/L or something along those lines. Thus the result is a value that can be reapplied for any wire of the same material to determine the wires resistance in a circuit.

Likewise the point of density is to divorce the size of an object from its mass and allow you to derive a value that can be used on objects of different volumes. For example the density of water is 1000kgm^-3, now I can find the mass of any volume of water. Except we already know the masses.. so ever mentioning density is moot.

Two changing masses in any large way causes LOADS of issues. A block is a block is a block, best keep like that. What we are trying to do is balance against death cubes, but this is not the way to go. It really wouldn't affect how ships are made at all. Just the amount of thrusters the death cube driver slaps on. Except you will probably make all those guys spending 100+hrs building titans have to redesign their ships... while the death cube is up and running in minutes once again.

Except you started talking about wedges... just why? wedges constitute less than 1% of the blocks on ANY ship of reasonable size(this number gets smaller as ships get larger). Up to maybe max 10% on fighters. Thrust is now pretty balanced and your idea does nothing at all. Now we have linear thrust to achieve the same mass/thrust ratio a capital ship needs the same proportion of thrusters as a fighter or a frigate. (Or it should be) Instead of a fighter needing 5% a frigate 1% and a capital ship more like 0.001% (This is why box-dims are bad and promote building bigger).

If you hate death cubes just ask yourself. What makes death cubes so great?
-They turn better. Turning is affected by mass(a given) and length of ship in that axis. Cubes are compact thus will out turn anyone.
- More efficient. Power works best by maximizing dimensions with least blocks used. Turns out a cube is the best way to do that. Thrusters used to work the same bigger dimensions = more thrust.
-Minimal interior. This simply means its more compact. Causing the first point.

They probably have more advantages like cubes needing the least hull (Only a sphere requires less) meaning more of their mass is useful things like shields and power. It's funny as hell reading some suggestions the thing is that its extremely difficult to nerf death cubes. (nerfing titans is far easier but the majority are against it) the game doesn't differentiate between cubes and well designed ships. It only cares about statistics and nothing you've suggested will change them in any meaningful way.

Mass simply isn't the way to go when balancing between ships. Density shouldn't ever be mentioned on this forum again on pain of dismemberment.

So how do I suggest we balance ship sizes? Or death cubes? Well killing titans (mechanics wise) is very easy, simply make it so larger groups are less effective and increase energy cost for each group. Boom, now anything with more than 10k mass may as well not exist. (Let alone a decent sized ship I mean 100k blocks is only a frigate.) That doesn't sound any fun doesn't it? Except that's the only way the game knows how to differentiate between ship sizes (beyond mass and dimensional volume)

I have more but after my last paragraph any respectable ship builder will need some time to recover from the shock and get their lawyers ready lest I refuse to relent.

TLDR: Mass isn't what's going to fix balance. Mentioning density ever again is harmful to ones health.

EDIT:My walls of text increase in size exponentially, does the suggestions forum stand a chance?
EDIT2: Cyber its good to post and state what you disagree with. Just sayin'

 

[CyberTao]

however, the stating that current block mass is same for all block types,further strengthening my points.

Yes and No, Ship and station type Blocks (shield dispensers, Hull, glass, weapons, etc) all weight 0.1, But terrain blocks (dirt, rock, leaves, ice crystal) Has always weighed 0.2. o -o Is what Lecic was probably confusing.

As far as Mass on wedges, if you reduce the Mass because it is not a full block, then you would also have reduce the Hp of said Block (Cause you can replace walls of Normal hull with wedges with their flat sides out). I would have to say Wedges are fine as they are, because while they do not take up a full block, they do act like one, and when the HP system finally comes out, that extra HP inside the ship may be a saving Grace.

I am not a fan of Mass based docking either, as it doesnt really Allow for anything more then Un-centered Turrets, which you can do just by Turning off docking validation (We need a new turret system anyways, with all this clipping and uncontrollable arcs). Cause while people may rave for it, Most turrets will still be rectangles or close to it.

Collision Damage is still a WIP experimental thing, and I hope some consideration to mass is added, but not too much (Else when new thrusters are out, I could just Turn my Battleship and wipe out a Fighter squadron).

But all in all, changing the mass of modules wont really fix much, cause honestly, all thats gonna happen is the average Larger ship will get slower, and this Suggestion seems more Pointed at promoting RP style ships, rather then the Pvp Giants, which may sound great, but not everyone really cares for "RP" ships (I believe alot of space games just put you in charge of the ship, never letting you explore it, so it would feel unnecessary to those who just want to pilot ships).

 

[Admiral.Piett]

*sigh* that was a reaaaally unnecessary post of yours lad karkinosz, But i will discuss some things. Your definition of Density is completely accurate, but my use of it as a simple way to represent the mass of a ship in the more accurate form is what yo are missing. We are not in real life, so lets keep it a volume/mass relation, yes? I made that point very clear. Secondly, it is an alpha game. Our task here is to bring ideas that will bring balance into the game or add features that MIGHT be of use to Schema.

Using easy to learn and hard to master concepts. Why is using density to explain why should wedges weight half as much as a complete cube, anything wrong? I aim to make ship interiors viable, since It would be reducing the mass of some block shapes largely used in several ship designs. And if we are using mass to balance docking.

Last, you are talking as a man that has made tons of ship designs and is afraid to lose what he has achieved if gameplay mechanics were to change in this direction. You are deflecting, and i find it rather pointless, we are not going defensive here. With proper collision mechanics, and docking logic, mass is way better at making the game work. Yet again, I am using the middle school definition of density to more accurately represent the mass of a ship, and nothing less or more.

And CyberTao Exactly. Making Big ships taking longer to turn or move is something that must happen. I do give you the point: probably wedges
and tetras and those shapes should have an amount of HP proportional both to its material and the mass it has. Again, this all gives more into actually thinking, and adding creativity in more aspects than just the aesthetics of a ship. And I am so glad to hear that we are getting the thrust system reworked. It makes mass even more relevant. Also, your point of why mass based docking is not a good idea is totally wrong, read the game mechanics and how docking works, please.


I am not implying this is the only balancing the game needs. The balacing karkinosz mentioned is needed too, until we find a sweet spot for all this things. But seriously, a block is a block? Not a good argument, at all. Yes deathcubes will most probably remain always the most efficient ship of all, because it is a bloody cube game! But we can aim to make all other ships as close to it in performance as we can. I don't hate any particular style of ships, but i aim to make them all the more balanced.


Lastly, this ain't any MMO game, so eventually everyone will be able to set up this little things any way they want in their servers, I am striking to implement this as a core feature to be implemented, and completely configurable by the user.

 

[Lecic]

What are you even saying anymore, Admiral.Piett ? Density is a better judge of mass than mass is?

 

[Admiral.Piett]

Err, not? I'm using its basic principle to state that, the game is wrongly calculating the mass of an object. A wedge 50% the volume of a cube should have the same mass (when made of the same material)? Density explains why that shouldn't be the case. And since we cant have "half cubes" while building, density comes into play to explain why the mass of that object should be less. Lecic

It ain't a mass VS density discussion, but a mass and density vs how the game calculates mass.

 

[CyberTao]

Quite honestly, its a Place holder in my honest opinion. Else why would leaves weight more then a block of Hardened Hull? Its basically Just counting Blocks and feeding that Number into equations.

But even then, from what I gather, weapons and shields will be basically interchangeable -w- so will all probably be around the same mass

 

[Admiral.Piett]

I like do think the same, and i agree up to the fact weapons should be interchangeable, between weapons types.. But power tanks, power blocks and shields could do use some balancing this way. Specially by making ships heavier.

 

[Malacodor]

There are more things that should be considered regarding mass and HPs of wedges. Currently they are more valuable than full blocks since they can cover a bigger surface area (if the builder wants smooth surfaces that is). Reducing their HPs would make slopes more vulnerable than horizontal or vertical faces. Tetra/penta slopes complicate things further. Pentas offer a 100% coverage on their on, adding tetras creates a pattern of triangles with additional protection. Game-play-wise it would maybe make most sense to treat tetras as pure decoration and give it 0 mass and 0 HP, but it might confuse players. I'm glad I'm not the one to decide on this.

Except you started talking about wedges... just why? wedges constitute less than 1% of the blocks on ANY ship of reasonable size(this number gets smaller as ships get larger). Up to maybe max 10% on fighters.

Yes, most blocks in a ship are cubes, but most of these cubes aren't hull blocks, for which HPs are most important.

I am using the middle school definition of density

Since when is there more than one definition of densitiy? I really think it's better you stop using this word, the only thing it does is creating confusion.