Mass = Thrust + Weapons + Shields + Armour + Power

OR

Mass - Power = Thrust + Weapons + Shields + Armour

Mass Formula (MF) (Non system blocks & decorative blocks are classified as Armour. Power includes stabilizers and chambers.)

Power = Thrust + Weapons + Shields

Power Formula (PF) (e/sec) (PF doesn't have to be 100% balanced. For the ease of this discussion I am assuming that the formula is set and that total power usage = total power output. Ie no redlining / overdrawing the reactor.)

From the PF it can be shown that if you want to increase power then you also have to increase one/some of Thrust, Weapons or Shields. You're wasting power otherwise. It follows that if you want to increase Thrust, Weapons or Shields you have to increase Power or decrease one of the other two factors. This is a balanced

From the MF it can be shown that if you want to reduce your Mass the obvious thing to do is to increase your Power. However from the PF we already know that if you increase Power you will also want/have to increase one of either Thrust, Weapons or Shields.

The ONLY thing that you can do to balance the MF equation after increasing Power(and one of the other variables) is to reduce Armour... The extra Power gained (not mass) has to be put into one of the other variables on the other side of the equation, ie Thrust, Weapons and Shields subsequently also increasing their mass, further requiring that Armour is reduced... If we follow this loop to it's natural conclusion then the Mass calculation formula ends up looking like this.

Mass - max_Power = Thrust + Weapons +Shields + 0

Look familiar? Anybody spot a problem?

The loop quite literally continues until there is no Armour left and we have a maximum powered ship with zero armour, a very powerful, very unbalanced glass cannon... this is why people who base their builds / competition on Mass ALWAYS end up with glass cannons complaining that Armour sucks. The reason armour sucks is because the way you are measuring your ships performance is fundamentally flawed. It grossly distorts the weighting of Armour in the equation that is used to measure performance. To add to that, the reason the balancing keeps failing is because no amount of balancing can ever fix this... re-balancing the same equation is never going to make it give a different answer.

If you measure with Mass then it is a FACT that if you want to decrease Mass and increase Power you HAVE TO REMOVE ARMOUR. There is no other option!!!

I've had the feeling something was up with measuring based on mass since I first heard that's how it was done. I'd always based my ship comparisons off Power and thought doing it from Mass was a little odd but never bothered to look at the issue in detail. After sitting down and working it out I am now of the firm belief that a large amount of the grief on these forums has been caused by this base error in measurement. Half the forums basing their performance on Mass (pvp), half basing it on Power (pve), both sides coming up with vastly different results, shit fight ensures because nobody bothers to clarify their starting assumptions and assumes that all their base assumptions are the same as everybody else.

Like I have stated previously.

In order to determine balance, you MUST have a way to measure.

In order to measure you have to have a solid unit of measurement.

For the above reasons. Mass is a flawed measure. This is mathematical proof that it unfairly weights Armour against ALL other systems.

The only option for ship comparison must be Power as it is the only

If there is an error here I would very much like to know about it so I can correct it.

Until such time as the flaw in my reasoning is corrected I personally will not accept any judgement of performance based on Mass as it's provably a flawed measurement.

If the devs continue to 'try' and balance a game based on a provably flawed method then I'm going to be needing a paddle, anybody got a spare?

For anybody out there who genuinely wants to see this game succeed and who has previously built their ships according to Mass. I beg you, seriously, I am begging, go back and review your ships and assumptions based on a measurement of Power and see if some of the issues with armour and balancing don't evaporate immediately? Run some tests based on Power! See what happens? Pretty please?

Cheers,

MrGrey1

Edited speeling n stuff., ;p

OR

Mass - Power = Thrust + Weapons + Shields + Armour

Mass Formula (MF) (Non system blocks & decorative blocks are classified as Armour. Power includes stabilizers and chambers.)

Power = Thrust + Weapons + Shields

Power Formula (PF) (e/sec) (PF doesn't have to be 100% balanced. For the ease of this discussion I am assuming that the formula is set and that total power usage = total power output. Ie no redlining / overdrawing the reactor.)

From the PF it can be shown that if you want to increase power then you also have to increase one/some of Thrust, Weapons or Shields. You're wasting power otherwise. It follows that if you want to increase Thrust, Weapons or Shields you have to increase Power or decrease one of the other two factors. This is a balanced

*constant*equation. What effects one variable effects all other variables equally. One goes up the others go down, exactly like the equation for the Pressure/Volume Law.From the MF it can be shown that if you want to reduce your Mass the obvious thing to do is to increase your Power. However from the PF we already know that if you increase Power you will also want/have to increase one of either Thrust, Weapons or Shields.

The ONLY thing that you can do to balance the MF equation after increasing Power(and one of the other variables) is to reduce Armour... The extra Power gained (not mass) has to be put into one of the other variables on the other side of the equation, ie Thrust, Weapons and Shields subsequently also increasing their mass, further requiring that Armour is reduced... If we follow this loop to it's natural conclusion then the Mass calculation formula ends up looking like this.

Mass - max_Power = Thrust + Weapons +Shields + 0

Look familiar? Anybody spot a problem?

The loop quite literally continues until there is no Armour left and we have a maximum powered ship with zero armour, a very powerful, very unbalanced glass cannon... this is why people who base their builds / competition on Mass ALWAYS end up with glass cannons complaining that Armour sucks. The reason armour sucks is because the way you are measuring your ships performance is fundamentally flawed. It grossly distorts the weighting of Armour in the equation that is used to measure performance. To add to that, the reason the balancing keeps failing is because no amount of balancing can ever fix this... re-balancing the same equation is never going to make it give a different answer.

If you measure with Mass then it is a FACT that if you want to decrease Mass and increase Power you HAVE TO REMOVE ARMOUR. There is no other option!!!

I've had the feeling something was up with measuring based on mass since I first heard that's how it was done. I'd always based my ship comparisons off Power and thought doing it from Mass was a little odd but never bothered to look at the issue in detail. After sitting down and working it out I am now of the firm belief that a large amount of the grief on these forums has been caused by this base error in measurement. Half the forums basing their performance on Mass (pvp), half basing it on Power (pve), both sides coming up with vastly different results, shit fight ensures because nobody bothers to clarify their starting assumptions and assumes that all their base assumptions are the same as everybody else.

Like I have stated previously.

In order to determine balance, you MUST have a way to measure.

In order to measure you have to have a solid unit of measurement.

For the above reasons. Mass is a flawed measure. This is mathematical proof that it unfairly weights Armour against ALL other systems.

The only option for ship comparison must be Power as it is the only

*constant*equation we have.If there is an error here I would very much like to know about it so I can correct it.

Until such time as the flaw in my reasoning is corrected I personally will not accept any judgement of performance based on Mass as it's provably a flawed measurement.

If the devs continue to 'try' and balance a game based on a provably flawed method then I'm going to be needing a paddle, anybody got a spare?

For anybody out there who genuinely wants to see this game succeed and who has previously built their ships according to Mass. I beg you, seriously, I am begging, go back and review your ships and assumptions based on a measurement of Power and see if some of the issues with armour and balancing don't evaporate immediately? Run some tests based on Power! See what happens? Pretty please?

Cheers,

MrGrey1

Edited speeling n stuff., ;p

Last edited: