Coil Thrusters: Variable nerf

[GaeasSon]

I have heard the angst of those who build large ships, and have discovered that rather than being buffed as thrust arrays get larger as it once was, the thrust per block actually decreases.
the formula seems to be: Thrust=(A*B)^C where

A=the number of thrust blocks on the ship
B=5.5 (a base value for thrust per block)
C=.87 (the buff/nerf based on number of thrust blocks)​

It's that "C" value. If it's less than 1 larger thruster groups are nerfed. if it's larger than one, larger thruster groups are buffed.

Well variety is the spice of life so why not have both? Canoes suck on the ocean. Cruise ships suck in streams. Why not make that "C" variable change depending on how close you are to the nearest star? Heck Coil thrusters are imaginary tech. No reason they couldn't be affected by something as simple as the "flatness" of space.

For example... Let C=1-(10000/(1+distance to nearest star))

Now you have a dynamic where huge engines work best in deep space while small engines work best in planetary systems while Big engines work better in deep space, with equality about 10000km from the nearest star. This would add navigational challenge to the game. It would add a real reason to have both large and small ships and give each an advantage under different circumstances. Now it makes sense to fly your Uberhulk carrier to the edge of a starsystem then hop in a shuttle/fighter to travel to the planets.

​

 

[Megacrafter127]

This would create the need for recalculating the thrust of a ship many times.
Instead I suggest:

The same as above, but:

1. If in a StarSystem, C=0.95
2. If in a planet's sector, C=0.85
3. If in a VoidSystem(no star near), C=1.05

Since C can only have 3 values, just calculate 3 different thrust values, each time thrust has to be recalculated(thruster got added/removed), and apply the corrosponding one in the corrosponding location.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

You can change it in the block config.

 

[Vakna]

You can change it in the block config.

Really grinds my gears when people just spout that same crap for every suggestion, "you can config it yourself". We know, but that is no excuse at all. The game needs a basic set of rules that are balanced, add depth, and make relative sense. You simply cannot just "config everything yourself" in a game that revolves around importing blueprints built on different servers, if everywhere had their own config, that would not be possible.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

It appears that I responded without reading the whole post. I just saw: variable nerf, and I answered without reading. I agree that it is annoying when every server has a different config, but I don't dislike it. I just think people should be told what was changed and what effect it has so they know what they're getting into. And now for my opinion on this idea after I actually read it: I don't like this idea, for the simple reason that it would be annoying to refit everything, but that isn't the most important issue. The main problem I can see is that people would just start building and testing their ships in the most nerfed place. So in Vakna's idea in a planet sector, and in the idea of the main post, near a star, or people would just simply make sectors larger (so change distance in blocks to distance in sectors, just a nice tip), but overall, it doesn't seem to make any sense, except for the the planet part in Vakna's post, but there sector would have to be changed to a certain range, since sectors can be larger, and having a large sector with a nerf, doesn't seem like a good idea. (I changed my sector size to 2000, so this especially applies in my case. I recommend doing the same as me though, because space is more like space then. However, you will want to compensate by changing the server speed limit to 150)

 

[Vakna]

I didn't make any posts about planet sectors. >.<

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Sorry, wrong name.

 

[Planr]

There is a (rather significant, in my opinion) problem with this idea that you're proposing. This might seem to some like a bit of a nitpick, but I think it could be a really big problem.

This will simply encourage players to avoid flying large ships deep inside systems. Which of course means they are more likely to build their faction bases farther from stars as well, which in turn means that factions at war that are attacking each others homebases with large ships will not be having balanced combat vs other ship sizes in the battles, which of course completely negates the efforts schema and others have gone to in getting one step closer to killing giganticism via the thruster nerf.

Canoes suck on the ocean. Cruise ships suck in streams. Why not make that "C" variable change depending on how close you are to the nearest star? Heck Coil thrusters are imaginary tech. No reason they couldn't be affected by something as simple as the "flatness" of space.

I'm sorry but I just don't see the logic behind this analogy.

Cruise ships cannot move well in streams because they are too big to maneuver or even move because the water is too shallow, and their bottom touches the water bed and they get stuck. Canoes technically do not "suck" in the ocean, they simply are an impractical means of travel because they are so slow (canoes are extremely low on the technological scale anyway). But, relatively, canoes can move at mostly the same speeds regardless of their location.

So you see that both cruise ships and canoes have movement problems in these situations because they are not meant to be used in these ways. Likewise, starships are not meant to be used like fighters, and small ships should not be naturally moving at the slow speed of a capital ship. Starships meanwhile do not suffer these "canoe and cruise ship issues" because they are in space and they do not suffer the movement issues that planetary-bound craft do. So the movement issues those cruise-ships and canoes suffer are completely unrelated to what starships have to deal with.

The only movement issues starships really have to deal with is related to the gravity pulls of nearby cosmic objects (so they have to plot "slingshot-courses" around planets to leave a solar system), and the ship's own mass and inertia. When moving they have to exert enough thrust to overcome their own mass and move forward. When they are very massive, they require a very large amount of force to slow themselves down- with so much inertia- and no external forces slowing down their craft aside from the gravity of nearby massive objects. When the craft are closer to the star, they can actually slow down more easily if they are thrusting away from the star. However, this effect is still very very low-impact on the ship's movement performance.

I think I see though what you are trying to say, that you think the gravity of stars should play a larger role in the movement performance of capital ships, and that therefore, the farther away they are, the faster and more easily they move. While I do find it interesting, the only real application I see for it is a very-low-level FTL mechanic for traveling between star systems with larger ships. The balancing issues of this cannot be ignored.

However, if the effect is a very slight one, I think this idea is acceptable to have, in such a low-level form. Like say, only changing the thrust ability of a 20k-mass ship by a few hundred thrust units (not that much on large ships, so it allows some greater movement without unbalancing the movement of different ship sizes in combat).

Another alternative to allow this idea to be /fully/ implemented would be to have this thrust effect ONLY take place in rare and special environments, like nebulas that slow down ships or "contain compounds" that "boost/nurture" thruster output. Having it applied to the entire universe's star system outskirts is simply too problematic when the thrust changes-vs-environment are high.