Demystifying new Turn Rates feature

[John Sheridan]

This isn't me desmystifying, it's me asking for demystification :P

I can't say I am a total fan of this change but want to give it a fair go.

My "long" battleship now turns significantly slower. I can deal with that.

1. What I want to know is, if you make a giant one cube 200m stick long-wise, will it also turn like dog poo? Or does it factor in mass significantly?

It would be utterly terrible if it didn't.

Someone please clarify that, but I'll assume it does.

2. If you have a very "short" ship, and crazy width, does that turn faster than a very long ship, with same crazy width as the aforementioned? Does this average out the length and width to come up with the turn rate? Or does one simply need to hack on 500m power cells on each side of the ship and magically it turns fast?

My only issue with this turn rate feature is I don't really like the idea of pushing everyone to make wide ships to ensure faster turning... because that's basically what will now happen. No more "carrier" long ships... no one is going to make a carrier if it turns like poo, while making a wide version turns faster. Common sense. But maybe if there is an averaing formula factoring in length to width so things dont get out of control it might be OK.

My original suggestion for fixing the turn rates from before, was make thrusters like shields, their efficiency dies the more you have, and for huge ships, you need a lot more % wise than a smaller ship would need, to achieve the same turning/acceleration ability.

But I and others would like some clarify how the new turning scenario actually works (in some detail)

 

[lman94]

I don\'t know all the details, but I can clear up one for you.

a stick 1000 meters long, and stick of equal length with another 1000 meter long stick pointing sideways should turn the same. being wider doesn\'t make you turn faster. I know it would look that way, since people have been saying that cubes are the best for turning, but that is because, by going wider, it makes room to go shorter. a cube of the same mass as your battleship turns better because it has smaller dimensions.

 

[John Sheridan]

So a 1000m long stick turns as slow as a 100000mass 1000m long battle cruiser?

You are kidding right...

 

[lman94]

albeit to a small degree. my point was that making it wider in and of itself will not make it turn faster.

 

[John Sheridan]

Thanks. Know what the \"small degree\" is?

I guess I will test a long stick vs my battle cruiser and compare and report back

I am hoping the long stick turns a LOT quicker.

 

[John Sheridan]

Very wierd...

Long stick = great turning speed.

Long stick with 30% of length added into width on top = slow turning.

Something wrong with this turning situation...

 

[Dequire]

While the turning does still need a serious fine tuning, for the moment it works well, especially for ships that aren\'t planet sized. This is a temporary fix to a relatively bad turning system design, and I\'m sure that Schema will get back to it and fix it up a bit more when he has the spare time. As it is, this will have to work, and I\'m fairly content with it.



Before the update, Mass had everything to do with the turn rate, and because of that, most of my fighters turned like shit because they were relatively heavy compared to most \"light\" fighters. But after the update, they\'re much more manueverable. Even my attack frigates are doing fairly well. But I do understand the dismay that people\'s huge ships are suddenly not going to work as well, but surely there will be a way to increase turning speed/abilities.

 

[John Sheridan]

I would like to clarify for others, that before this update mass was a very simple \"brackets system\", but had very minimal brackets of mass.

Example (I dont know what it was, this is just an example)

If Mass > 100 Then Turn this Fast
If Mass > 500 Then Turn that Fast

And so few of them even a 500 mass ship turned as slow as 50000 mass ship.

Just ensure you understand this point. The existing brackets system was viable but required ALOT more brackets. I suggested an alternative mass system (first post above rehashes it).

I don\'t mind this new turn rate scenario but it definitely needs work. Its silly that a long 200m stick magically now turns slower because I added 40 hulls of width to it. Basically looks like a cross.

Just makes me question how reliable this path is... I can appreciate its goal but very easy to make it wierd... I think at the moment its in the wierd stage...hoping schema tweaks the formula and gets it into \"plausible\" stage. No idea how the formula works, but I am thinking mass should be a FAR more serious part of it.