- Joined
- Dec 10, 2017
- Messages
- 205
- Reaction score
- 176
Integrity has been getting a lot of complaints lately. Too many. So, in response to the current harsh integrity values, I have taken some time to explore more options for integrity values. I created an array of nine inorganic structures, later supplemented by an organic structure and a similarly-sized cube, and fired a missile into each of them, recording the integrity before and after the damage using the current integrity values, as well as two sets of new integrity values, and compiled the results into an excel chart. What I am going to include is images of my setup, the values I used, the data I obtained, and analysis of my results.
SETUP
My experiment used a total of 11 structures composed of stabilizers. The tested shapes were as follows:
The method of damage infliction was a small ship, composed of 10 power reactors, 1 thruster, and a single 3x3x3 group of unmodified missile modules linked to a single missile computer.
In order to limit variation, a prescribed method was used for the damage infliction, in which the missile was aimed at the geographical center of each structure from the front at a distance of less than 100 meters and the missile was then fired once at the desired location.
After inflicting damage to each structure, the post-missile integrity was then recorded in each integrity configuration using the same damaged structures for each configuration.
TESTED VALUES
The following image defines the values used for each test, which correspond to specific rows in the final chart of the data. The three value sets are Current, Config1, and Config2. The number before the colon in each set of numbers corresponds to the number of faces touching another block of the same system. The number after the colon in each set corresponds to the integrity value assigned to that number of touching faces.
RESULTS
The following images were taken before and after damaging the tested structures with the missile setup. The images depicting the array of the first nine structures are labeled with letters corresponding to each structure's data in the table of integrity values. It should also be noted that the 3x5 array of 3x3x3 cubes was not hit in the center, but this unintended difference did not produce any errors in the final data. I will also be including two pictures of the undamaged organic structure (one front, one back) in order to give a better idea of the overall shape of it.
Before
After
Below is the final chart of the integrity values of each structure before and after taking damage from the missile.
DISCUSSION
For starters, as most people would probably expect, the 3x3x3 cube, 30x30x30 cube, and 3x5 3x3x3 cube array all wound up being mostly worthless for the purpose of my testing; however, I should note that the 9x9x9 cube served as a fairly accurate standard for the changes in integrity among inorganic shapes. Due to its interactions with the different integrity values and its relatively reasonable numbers, the changes in its before and after values seem to be fairly indicative of the changes made. The sheet and tube structures show the effects of minor structural differences in inorganic non-cubic structures within the various integrity configurations, which become more manageable and less debilitating in Config1 and Config2 compared to the current integrity setup. The 15x15x3 triangular prism gave an interesting viewpoint into shapes that have more low-integrity blocks.
The big takeaways come from the comparison between the organic and 7x7x7 cube. The organic structure, comparing current to Config2, showed a major difference in integrity that was not present in many of the larger non-cubic inorganic structures (the cubes were cubes and had ridiculous integrity). What became quickly apparent, to my surprise, was that the organic structure, specifically in Config2, showed a considerable resistance to changes in integrity, which showed itself especially as I was constructing the organic structure (which was done while using Config2). Upon the addition of new blocks, the integrity hardly changed, usually either staying the same, decreasing slightly, or increasing slightly to moderately (by 1-5 integrity most often). After observing the differences between pre- and post-missile integrity values in Config2, I became further aware of a resistance to integrity changes. When I looked at the individual integrity values assigned to each number of touching faces, I found that the addition of new system blocks simultaneously increased and decreased integrity in such a way that much of these changes cancelled out. This same concept applies in reverse, in that upon taking damage the effects of losing outer system blocks is mitigated, and sometimes reversed depending upon the situation.
The biggest feature of note is something I've decided to call a "negative buffer" that actually gives an advantage to textured and organic shapes in systems by using a negative-integrity outer envelope of stabilizers to slightly to moderately lower overall integrity, but simultaneously protect and mitigate the effects of taking system damage. Should a high-damage weapon such as a missile hit an organically-shaped or textured system, the first thing it will come across is the negative buffer. By damaging and destroying the blocks in this negative buffer, the integrity is actually raised, and if positive-integrity stabilizers on the inside are exposed or destroyed, the decrease in integrity will be considerably less drastic. In this sense, while organic shapes in Config2 have considerably less integrity than a cube of the same size, they are conversely far more resistant to changes in integrity caused by damage, making them as effective and viable as cubes.
Config2 is an immense improvement when compared to the current integrity values. While it is not perfect, and can definitely be improved upon with more testing, it provides a lot more building freedom and still strongly discourages spaghetti designs and other exploit-related build styles. I recommend trying it out on your own and testing it more thoroughly in order to better refine its values.
SETUP
My experiment used a total of 11 structures composed of stabilizers. The tested shapes were as follows:
- A 3x3x3 cube
- A 9x9x9 cube
- A 30x30x30 cube
- A 15x9x2 sheet
- A 15x9x3 sheet
- A 15x15x3 triangular prism
- A 30x3x3 tube
- A 30x6x6 tube
- A 3x5 array of 3x3x3 cubes
- An organic shape composed of 268 blocks
- A 7x7x7 cube to be used as a relative comparison to the organic shape
The method of damage infliction was a small ship, composed of 10 power reactors, 1 thruster, and a single 3x3x3 group of unmodified missile modules linked to a single missile computer.
In order to limit variation, a prescribed method was used for the damage infliction, in which the missile was aimed at the geographical center of each structure from the front at a distance of less than 100 meters and the missile was then fired once at the desired location.
After inflicting damage to each structure, the post-missile integrity was then recorded in each integrity configuration using the same damaged structures for each configuration.
TESTED VALUES
The following image defines the values used for each test, which correspond to specific rows in the final chart of the data. The three value sets are Current, Config1, and Config2. The number before the colon in each set of numbers corresponds to the number of faces touching another block of the same system. The number after the colon in each set corresponds to the integrity value assigned to that number of touching faces.
RESULTS
The following images were taken before and after damaging the tested structures with the missile setup. The images depicting the array of the first nine structures are labeled with letters corresponding to each structure's data in the table of integrity values. It should also be noted that the 3x5 array of 3x3x3 cubes was not hit in the center, but this unintended difference did not produce any errors in the final data. I will also be including two pictures of the undamaged organic structure (one front, one back) in order to give a better idea of the overall shape of it.
Before
After
Below is the final chart of the integrity values of each structure before and after taking damage from the missile.
DISCUSSION
For starters, as most people would probably expect, the 3x3x3 cube, 30x30x30 cube, and 3x5 3x3x3 cube array all wound up being mostly worthless for the purpose of my testing; however, I should note that the 9x9x9 cube served as a fairly accurate standard for the changes in integrity among inorganic shapes. Due to its interactions with the different integrity values and its relatively reasonable numbers, the changes in its before and after values seem to be fairly indicative of the changes made. The sheet and tube structures show the effects of minor structural differences in inorganic non-cubic structures within the various integrity configurations, which become more manageable and less debilitating in Config1 and Config2 compared to the current integrity setup. The 15x15x3 triangular prism gave an interesting viewpoint into shapes that have more low-integrity blocks.
The big takeaways come from the comparison between the organic and 7x7x7 cube. The organic structure, comparing current to Config2, showed a major difference in integrity that was not present in many of the larger non-cubic inorganic structures (the cubes were cubes and had ridiculous integrity). What became quickly apparent, to my surprise, was that the organic structure, specifically in Config2, showed a considerable resistance to changes in integrity, which showed itself especially as I was constructing the organic structure (which was done while using Config2). Upon the addition of new blocks, the integrity hardly changed, usually either staying the same, decreasing slightly, or increasing slightly to moderately (by 1-5 integrity most often). After observing the differences between pre- and post-missile integrity values in Config2, I became further aware of a resistance to integrity changes. When I looked at the individual integrity values assigned to each number of touching faces, I found that the addition of new system blocks simultaneously increased and decreased integrity in such a way that much of these changes cancelled out. This same concept applies in reverse, in that upon taking damage the effects of losing outer system blocks is mitigated, and sometimes reversed depending upon the situation.
The biggest feature of note is something I've decided to call a "negative buffer" that actually gives an advantage to textured and organic shapes in systems by using a negative-integrity outer envelope of stabilizers to slightly to moderately lower overall integrity, but simultaneously protect and mitigate the effects of taking system damage. Should a high-damage weapon such as a missile hit an organically-shaped or textured system, the first thing it will come across is the negative buffer. By damaging and destroying the blocks in this negative buffer, the integrity is actually raised, and if positive-integrity stabilizers on the inside are exposed or destroyed, the decrease in integrity will be considerably less drastic. In this sense, while organic shapes in Config2 have considerably less integrity than a cube of the same size, they are conversely far more resistant to changes in integrity caused by damage, making them as effective and viable as cubes.
Config2 is an immense improvement when compared to the current integrity values. While it is not perfect, and can definitely be improved upon with more testing, it provides a lot more building freedom and still strongly discourages spaghetti designs and other exploit-related build styles. I recommend trying it out on your own and testing it more thoroughly in order to better refine its values.
Last edited:
