Fix or Remove Docked Thrust

[GRHayes]

Ehm, sort of. If you live in Hawaii, assuming you are talking about highway speed limits. But that is in short sprints, like to outrun torpedoes when you really don't feel like turning out of the way. It can cause considerable stress to the hull and especially to the drive-shafts. Having the propeller be one to two turns behind the rotation at the other end twists and warps them, and while shortening the drive shaft can aleviate some of the issue, you also don't want to leave your turbines too exposed.

Really, the safe limit for them if I remember was somewhere below 50 knots, correct me if I am wrong.


Outrunning torpedoes is cheating. Nuclear Turbines is cheating. Put them on everything.

I'll see if I can explain this without getting myself thrown in a military prison.
Lets say a civilian ship is designed to do 30 knots so they build a safe limit in that is several percent less or they build over it for safety.
The US Navy takes that to an extreme. I'm going to use some bigger numbers here simply for simplicity sake not actual values.
The US Navy uses a 150% safety zone system plus some. So lets say the manufacture designed the craft to run 150, the navy sets maximum non war time non-emergency speeds then at 100. But they don't just go there they set a normal operational speed even lower. That normal operational speed is were the 30 comes from in so many quotes. I won't say if that is at the 50% mark or 80% mark. Honestly it has changed while I was in even depends on the command and administration.

I'm going to make this clear again. I am not saying the carrier can do 150 that is just a number used to make this easier to explain nothing else. In fact I will tell you no current carrier can do that not at war time / emergency speed with the rules thrown off even.
Everything from the reactors through the drive system are designed and implemented on that basis.
[DOUBLEPOST=1451890270,1451889587][/DOUBLEPOST]

As for the speed, i didnt know that(mostly because i keep auto dampening on, due to reasons stated above, can we please get a easy brake system in game, that works?).

And what about thinking of them like booster rockets? thats how ive been thinking of them at least. Booster rockets so far as i know dont use the shuttles power they are attached too, and thats how ive thought they should function since the changes, especially if they are self contained units like most of the ones ive been making lately that, because they cant be self sustained thrusters, ive been turning them into smaller power supply units, there isnt much point in making big docked engines like the(below image), which imo, you should be able to make self sustained, docked thrusters, and if the changes that lecic mentioned go through, there is no reason not to(that i can see), as all docked entity thrusters will be added to the main ships thruster count.

Example below, all four of those are massive docked engines.

Spoiler

For me turning auto damping the heck off was a blessing. It actually works the way I am used to in simulators.

Not sure if this is built in yet but key based adjustments to the thrust system without having to use the screen. Presets would also work. Then I could set the thrust the way I like it for take off and when I want to slow down I could set it for that condition. However the way it is is how most sims I ran into. Some space sims have had power adjustments for sending power to weapons shields or thrust. That might be something to look into also down the road as a suggestion.

My guess right now is they probably got some if not all of this already planned. Which is why I'm not bitching at the moment.

 

[Lecic]

The first issue trying to fight the laws of nature and reality has negative effects like we are seeing now. It only gets worse the more you try to break things. Nature has its own means of balancing things out. The more you mimic it the better it works.

Second paragraph so you think because a ship is suddenly getting power from another power source it should be come less efficient that if it was just flying on its own. Again backwards logic and why this game has issues!

"Fighting the laws of nature" is not the reason the game has balance issues. "Breaking its own internal laws" (such as docked thrust vs built in thrust) are part of the reasons the game has balance issues.

 

[Tunk]

Okey dokey, to help get the topic back on track and hopefully discussing the issue at hand rather than real world scenarios and why they should magically apply to a random online game or general real world wang waving, here are some simple excel formula for folks to use:

Base thrust for a single entity:

=POWER($thrustercount*5.5,0.87)*0.75

Takes thruster count, multiplies by 5.5, ^0.87, and finally that number is reduced by 25%.
Power usage?
Thrusters * 33.33

Slap this on a column and fill out your docked thrusters, add them together and viola you have your total thrust.

Want to do a even split?

=POWER(($thrustercount*5.5)/$splitcount,0.87)*0.75*$splitcount

Takes your thrusters, divides by split, then multiplies the end result by that.
So basically it calculates a the thrust from a single entity and multiplies it out again.

Simple reference table for thrust gains on even splits among n entities?
Here we go:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lrtrCLqCdUNxQbjKQRVfJZc0AzZ_QUUVebp1z49FlAI/pubhtml

Now as for why this is silly,
Thrust power usage is determined PER BLOCK, when thrust is inherited that is also PER BLOCK.
Thrust however is calculated PER ENTITY, and added together.
For the same amount of power you will receive more thrust PER BLOCK than a non docked thruster.
In short you get more thrust for the same power consumed by docking some of those thrusters.

This means two ships, all being equal, the one with docked thrusters will have a significant advantage in maneuverability, top speed and acceleration as well as negating the thruster nerf and offsetting the diminishing gains.

Anyways, I hope we don't have to start reporting folks who love dragging these things off topic with their 'real world e-peens'.

 

[nightrune]

'real world e-peens'.

Uncalled for.

Simple reference table for thrust gains on even splits among n entities?
Here we go:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1lrtrCLqCdUNxQbjKQRVfJZc0AzZ_QUUVebp1z49FlAI/pubhtml

This is great information Tunk. Thanks for putting this together. One of the reasons it seems odd that docked engines only add thrust, is that your intuition is based on real life, and intuition and feelings will contribute to immersion. Normally a small ship parked on the side of a large ship could add a bit of thrust for its own power, but its likely to be rotational, since its off axis.

Now I'm not proposing we base it completely off real life but we could easily just add an inefficiency metric to each docked entity. This would represent extra control complexity and possible off axis thrust, but would be easy to add and reduce reliance on 100 docked thrusters.

 

[GRHayes]

"Fighting the laws of nature" is not the reason the game has balance issues. "Breaking its own internal laws" (such as docked thrust vs built in thrust) are part of the reasons the game has balance issues.

The problem you have is you assume the game is a closed system unto itself. That ceased the second math was being implemented along with real people are interfacing with it and their general perception.

A person with a higher understanding of math and physics is going to see more issues a person with less will see the more obvious issues like this one we are discussing now.

Why is this actually an issue is the point. The reason it is an issues is because in truth when you add engines out like that they should provide the same amount of power regardless where they are plugged in. That is what the development team did correct.
It stands out visibly because they went against general math principles in the aspects of the first engine with the decline in efficiency formula they added to it.

Every body bitches about wanting to have a small ship be worth something. But they don't get they are they just aren't all purpose. A small ship would be good for limited range defense in real life such as guarding a planet or inner solar system defenses and maintenance, mining and repair operation. Would they be destroyed in a capital ship battle sure. They could be equally effective against capital ships taking out small targets such as turrets and so on if the shielding system wasn't also contrary to the way things work. In truth if ships shields regenerated properly a capital ship could provide stronger shields to fighters on their inbound track till they dropped below the shields of an enemy ship where they would be effective. Then you have that issues on current system any field bases shielding would be volume based or field balanced driven. Right now we have shields that match the skin of the ship surface.

The point is the more you create math models that go against a natural system the more conflicts you will create when you try and mimic any part of the system.

It also means perception of the issue is directly proportional to the understanding of the properties at play. In short the less you understand physics, math,... the more you will not see the issues and like the game because it won't be a glaring slap in the face to what you know.
However, when a person sees something like that you will get issues like you see here were you are bitching about the symptom and not the cause. The symptom is the at when you add an external engine it gets its full power (witch makes 100% logical sense.) But you are attuned to the issue where engines get weaker the more you add and the less thrust it produces. Since it doesn't match up with your perception of how it should be then it creates a conflict for you. Had everything worked as it should from the start such conflicts would not exist and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Because they made such changes to the way things work every single time they add something they can't simply add it in because they will need to deal with the general conflicts it is going to make. For you this means they will need to make engines that are attach act as if they are part of the primary ship. That may not be what they want.

In truth for the Development team keeping this model is going to mean doing 5 times the amount of programming over time just to deal with all the conflicts it will create. Seriously glad that isn't my job. I quit jobs for less. My time and health is worth more to me than dealing with stuff like that which just creates aggravation and stress.

So again games are not closed systems. The less you involve math the more easier it is to pull off. Such as a fantasy or RPG game will do all sorts of stuff like magic and so on but based on dice roles. If you were to try and explain it using a math based science system it would fall the hell apart rapidly. Even so in the games when they implement things like rag doll physics they actually use fairly realistic simple formulas where they apply say an explosion to a character they provide a force vector to the character they use bone animation systems and so on. They don't go changing the formula to represent a negative curve when in fact is should be a positive curve. You don't see them taking x^2 and instead using sqrt(x). Which is pretty much what we have went we look at the physics in this game.

 

[Aynslei]

Please no more realism with regards to suggestions.

Your RP is killing me. (and yes realism is just RP)

 

[Master_Artificer]

Isnt this thread for bringing attention to an expliot.


Also holy hell Tunk, a 33% decrease in block count for the same amount of thrust? WHY AM I NOT USING THESE!!!
[DOUBLEPOST=1451924056,1451922915][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'll see if I can explain this without getting myself thrown in a military prison.
Lets say a civilian ship is designed to do 30 knots so they build a safe limit in that is several percent less or they build over it for safety.
The US Navy takes that to an extreme. I'm going to use some bigger numbers here simply for simplicity sake not actual values.
The US Navy uses a 150% safety zone system plus some. So lets say the manufacture designed the craft to run 150, the navy sets maximum non war time non-emergency speeds then at 100. But they don't just go there they set a normal operational speed even lower. That normal operational speed is were the 30 comes from in so many quotes. I won't say if that is at the 50% mark or 80% mark. Honestly it has changed while I was in even depends on the command and administration.

I'm going to make this clear again. I am not saying the carrier can do 150 that is just a number used to make this easier to explain nothing else. In fact I will tell you no current carrier can do that not at war time / emergency speed with the rules thrown off even.
Everything from the reactors through the drive system are designed and implemented on that basis.

Well if you know basic math you can take the length of the ship and plug it into an equation I easily found on wikipedia. But I bet they have made ways around that.

Still there is the candy-cane drive shaft effect. I wont say anything too specific, but 50-60 knots seems like flank speed. 30 knots is the speed at which the carrier needs wind across the deck in order to conduct flight ops, so if it is dead calm with no wind then it will need to of course travel at east the 30 knots, hence the 30+ you see everywhere.

 

[Deserea]

For me turning auto damping the heck off was a blessing. It actually works the way I am used to in simulators.

Not sure if this is built in yet but key based adjustments to the thrust system without having to use the screen. Presets would also work. Then I could set the thrust the way I like it for take off and when I want to slow down I could set it for that condition. However the way it is is how most sims I ran into. Some space sims have had power adjustments for sending power to weapons shields or thrust. That might be something to look into also down the road as a suggestion.

My guess right now is they probably got some if not all of this already planned. Which is why I'm not bitching at the moment.

This isnt a simulator and i dont think it should play as such in regard to ship movement, i know im not the only who hates the new thruster system on the server im in, mostly for the same reasons. Its a building game, and if they are trying to turn into a real life building simulator then i guess its time for me to scoot on out, i do not enjoy realism in games like this, if i did, id probably be playing SE which i hear, or heard, is far more complex, and a bit more realistic.

Realism in games like this is for RP purposes, thats pretty much the only reason i see for it, unless it adds to the game, and i dont think in this case that it did add to the game.

But all thats off topic


Tunk, be that as it may, if they remove how it works currently then they need to do some changes number wise to thrusters, otherwise there just isnt a point in using docked thrusters anymore that i can see.

 

[godmars]

The first issue trying to fight the laws of nature and reality has negative effects like we are seeing now. It only
gets worse the more you try to break things. Nature has its own means of balancing things out. The more you mimic it the better it works.

Okay.

Second paragraph so you think because a ship is suddenly getting power from another power source it should be come less efficient that if it was just flying on its own. Again backwards logic and why this game has issues!

Not at all

Tunk, be that as it may, if they remove how it works currently then they need to do some changes number wise to thrusters, otherwise there just isnt a point in using docked thrusters anymore that i can see.

If you're building big enough and/or they did go a certain way about dealing with docked thrust there wouldn't be. But in situations where space mattered using dock thrusters would be better because you have more space for other things, a larger weapon array or something maybe.

Leaving them the way they are means theres no point in putting thrust on the main ship and I don't really see how thats any better than the inverse.

 

[Deserea]

If you're building big enough and/or they did go a certain way about dealing with docked thrust there wouldn't be. But in situations where space mattered using dock thrusters would be better because you have more space for other things, a larger weapon array or something maybe.

Leaving them the way they are means theres no point in putting thrust on the main ship and I don't really see how thats any better than the inverse.

Thats my point. There should be a point to docked thrusters, you cant save power regen using them at the moment, though you can get more thrust per regen, changing it to were they count towards the thruster module count completely gets rid of that, as it triggers the curve, and thus reduces the effectiveness of them overly so. They are more vulnerable(unless you dock them inside your ship, which if you are going for space saving for weapons or other modules, they will be on the outside). There is a happy middle ground(at least, it seems to me to be), and its been pointed out a few times, and seemingly ignored. Make it so docked thrusters add to the module count, therefor triggering the curve, and reducing how much thrust they give, but, they dont add to the power usage if they have power systems set up on their entity. This makes them less effective, but still allows for them to be used to get more thrust, while not outright killing their usage. Might be difficult to code that, sure, but, i think it would work the best for everyone.

 

[Keptick]

Agreed with the OP, the current situation is kinda ridiculous. It just leads to unbalance and higher chances of collision lag...

Hopefully it'll be fixed soon.

 

[NeonSturm]

Technically if we looked at this from the perspective of reality this is something this game actually got right.
Larger ships would employ larger engines generators and as such if made correctly they would be more efficient than a scaled down version you would find in a fighter. Larger ships in real life also have a lower mass to space ratio. Where a fighter has to be more compact.
Given we aren't pushing against and atmosphere or body of water for movement those negative effects don't hold in space. Which is why star wars and star trek both have it right when they show larger ships having greater speed capability than smaller ships.

Technically in a real space battle fighters would be next to pointless. They only make sense when dealing with other ships on or near their size. however everyone wants this fanciful idea that they can be a hero flying down the canyon on death star and their little ship makes a difference. Where in reality they wouldn't ever get close enough to make a scratch let along fly down the pass because they would have been blown to bit 20,000Km out or further.

Atomic bombs have a minimum size because of the critical mass. Fission/Fusion reactors have a minimum yield because of the energy to start a fission/fusion-reaction.

Imagine a system where you need a minimum wall-thickness of 10cm independent of size (armour vs basic guns maybe). It would either weight more or would have a lower yield if built with 1m (20% wall) compared to 100m (0.2% wall).
But in turn, you have more value, being a more attractive target for more valuable ammunition or the valuable-time assassinations by a special-ops-comando take.

A 7x 5y 10z fighter needs to be 5m off the expected position to evade a projectile.
A 14x 10y 20z fighter needs to be 10m off the expected position, requiring 2x speed - being less efficient.
​

If a 7x5x10 and a 14x10x20 both can archive the goal and there is a risk of a trap, losing both for no result at all, you use the 7x5x10. This is the absolute opposite of the minimal-yield above.

You need all sizes. Just enough to full-fill a goal.
If you use less, you fail.
If you use more, you used more than necessary and have wasted "choices" or "blocks counted".
​

Why should a Death-Star not kill that puny little fighter?

Maybe it's designed to kill planets and maybe 10'000 fighters at a time and you came with 11'000.
And maybe 11'000 fighters would be easier than fighting it with 2 Destroyers which are an attractive target for it's main gun as much as everything above fighter-size.

Humans hear between 20 Hz and 20'000 Hz (maximum range). Imagine a gap at 400-600 Hz because of ambient white-noise in that range.
You make a sound, but you want to make a sound not possible to hear/identify. What frequency would you use? 20'000 Hz?

The very same applies to sizes 20m to 20'000m, linking from above example. You search the weak spot in every property range.

​

1. Now, I'm not exactly a scientist, but aren't larger machines are typically LESS efficient?
2. Greater max speed, yes, but usually slower acceleration.
3. Please explain how completely bypassing a downward curve (something not even docked reactors fully do) is not overpowered.

1..2: If you have a greater max speed anyway, you don't need engines the same size ratio (to save fuel, whatever) and thus have a slower acceleration.
3: With the intention of encouraging modular design.

 

[Jaaskinal]

I made a thing on Desmos calculator to show tunk's formulas in a more visual approach. (Well really their schema's but nevermind)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mhlfugbpeu
the X axis is thrusters
the Y axis is thrust
the red line is thrust per thruster on a singular entity
the purple line is thrust per thruster across multiple entities (click and drag 'a' to change this, or select the number and change it with your keyboard.)
the black line is additional thrust per thruster across multiple entities vs thrust per thruster on a singular entity.

 

[Keptick]

This isnt a simulator and i dont think it should play as such in regard to ship movement, i know im not the only who hates the new thruster system on the server im in, mostly for the same reasons. Its a building game, and if they are trying to turn into a real life building simulator then i guess its time for me to scoot on out, i do not enjoy realism in games like this, if i did, id probably be playing SE which i hear, or heard, is far more complex, and a bit more realistic.

Realism in games like this is for RP purposes, thats pretty much the only reason i see for it, unless it adds to the game, and i dont think in this case that it did add to the game.

But all thats off topic


Tunk, be that as it may, if they remove how it works currently then they need to do some changes number wise to thrusters, otherwise there just isnt a point in using docked thrusters anymore that i can see.

There shouldn't be a point to docked thrusters, that's the thing. Pure docked thrusters were definitely not intended by the dev team.

The reason thrust sharing was implemented was to allow people to make ships that can split up into multiple seperate entities, have cool rail contraptions that aren't just there for show, or simply allow people to use the thrust on docked ships if they want (like an externally docked frigate on a battleship for example).

The whole concept of gaining more efficient thrust by splitting up entities is bad for balance AND performance reasons.

 

[GRHayes]

Atomic bombs have a minimum size because of the critical mass. Fission/Fusion reactors have a minimum yield because of the energy to start a fission/fusion-reaction.

Critical Mass - is an amount of material required to have a sustained chain reaction. However, all fuel ends up spent at some point so there is no actual sustained other than for the length of the fuel lasts. Secondly, reaction rates differ depending on density and type of materials in use.

Imagine a system where you need a minimum wall-thickness of 10cm independent of size (armour vs basic guns maybe). It would either weight more or would have a lower yield if built with 1m (20% wall) compared to 100m (0.2% wall).
But in turn, you have more value, being a more attractive target for more valuable ammunition or the valuable-time assassinations by a special-ops-comando take.

First of 10cm is a measure of dimension thus size so how can it be independent of size? You are talking about a wall, what yield? Walls don't have yield. Yield means to produce what is the wall producing? ... Most confusing shit read all week.

Attractive target. What makes a target attractive militarily is strategic importance or actual value.

A 7x 5y 10z fighter needs to be 5m off the expected position to evade a projectile.
A 14x 10y 20z fighter needs to be 10m off the expected position, requiring 2x speed - being less efficient.

If a 7x5x10 and a 14x10x20 both can archive the goal and there is a risk of a trap, losing both for no result at all, you use the 7x5x10. This is the absolute opposite of the minimal-yield above.

Just got done explaining larger isn't less efficient only in this game is that true! Your math is off by the way. Just because the dimensions are double doesn't mean the size is 2x its actually 8x. because 2x2x2.

You need all sizes. Just enough to full-fill a goal.
If you use less, you fail.
If you use more, you used more than necessary and have wasted "choices" or "blocks counted".

Why should a Death-Star not kill that puny little fighter?

Maybe it's designed to kill planets and maybe 10'000 fighters at a time and you came with 11'000.
And maybe 11'000 fighters would be easier than fighting it with 2 Destroyers which are an attractive target for it's main gun as much as everything above fighter-size.

Humans hear between 20 Hz and 20'000 Hz (maximum range). Imagine a gap at 400-600 Hz because of ambient white-noise in that range.
You make a sound, but you want to make a sound not possible to hear/identify. What frequency would you use? 20'000 Hz?

The very same applies to sizes 20m to 20'000m, linking from above example. You search the weak spot in every property range.​

1..2: If you have a greater max speed anyway, you don't need engines the same size ratio (to save fuel, whatever) and thus have a slower acceleration.
3: With the intention of encouraging modular design.

No you don't need all sizes for each and every task you have different sizes to deal with different tasks.

If we assume the death star was strictly offensive then any military with one would but other defenses in the area to protect such a vital strategic target. Because asset protection is scaled on basis of threat what I said holds true no matter what.

the only way your fighters would get in range of it in reality would be if a capital ship flew up to it and dropped them off using is shields as their primary defense to get close enough.

We can get an exact position on voyager at 122 astronomical units away from us it has about a 27 watt transmitter if operating at full power. We can shoot a flying drone with a laser on a moving ship that is dealing with waves and so on and take it out of the sky. In space we don't have a horizon we have a few objects with a hell of a distance between them. There are no waves and bumpy rides. The only issue in space when it comes to hitting a target is will they detect the shot and move before it reaches them. In space you have 3 speeds of a shot. Sub light, light speed, and FTL. Since we now have a theory how to do FTL it can be applied to something like a torpedo. Since torpedo don't have humans on them you only have to deal with them being strong enough to handle the mechanical stress of the acceleration. Which means they can move a hell of a lot faster than a ship with people in them. That is until someone comes up with an dampener system to prevent those issues as well.

Here's a thought even with FTL we aren't going to be able to take something the size of the X-wing fighter and visit another solar system. the reason isn't top speed it is the time it takes to reach that speed. We could reach it very fast. We would be dead near instantly though paste dripping through out the ship in a rush to get to the back of the ship. In short there is only so many G-forces we can take when accelerating.
We will still need food and supplies to survive that journey. Which means no little puddle jumper will ever be used for going for solar system to solar system. So just to reach the death star unless you are on the planet it is about to attack or in that solar system you are going to have to ride a capital ship there and then board a fighter.

Like I said the more you actually understand about the science and math the more issues stand out and the less enjoyable this becomes.

 

[Tunk]

For those wondering what the point of docked thrust would be, well mainly aesthetics.
For example on most serenity reproductions with rail thrusters those rail thrusters are dead weight.
Now they can also be functional, a unfortunate downside is that it was implemented in a abusable way.

 

[Lecic]

The problem you have is you assume the game is a closed system unto itself. That ceased the second math was being implemented along with real people are interfacing with it and their general perception.

A person with a higher understanding of math and physics is going to see more issues a person with less will see the more obvious issues like this one we are discussing now.

Why is this actually an issue is the point. The reason it is an issues is because in truth when you add engines out like that they should provide the same amount of power regardless where they are plugged in. That is what the development team did correct.
It stands out visibly because they went against general math principles in the aspects of the first engine with the decline in efficiency formula they added to it.

Every body bitches about wanting to have a small ship be worth something. But they don't get they are they just aren't all purpose. A small ship would be good for limited range defense in real life such as guarding a planet or inner solar system defenses and maintenance, mining and repair operation. Would they be destroyed in a capital ship battle sure. They could be equally effective against capital ships taking out small targets such as turrets and so on if the shielding system wasn't also contrary to the way things work. In truth if ships shields regenerated properly a capital ship could provide stronger shields to fighters on their inbound track till they dropped below the shields of an enemy ship where they would be effective. Then you have that issues on current system any field bases shielding would be volume based or field balanced driven. Right now we have shields that match the skin of the ship surface.

The point is the more you create math models that go against a natural system the more conflicts you will create when you try and mimic any part of the system.

It also means perception of the issue is directly proportional to the understanding of the properties at play. In short the less you understand physics, math,... the more you will not see the issues and like the game because it won't be a glaring slap in the face to what you know.
However, when a person sees something like that you will get issues like you see here were you are bitching about the symptom and not the cause. The symptom is the at when you add an external engine it gets its full power (witch makes 100% logical sense.) But you are attuned to the issue where engines get weaker the more you add and the less thrust it produces. Since it doesn't match up with your perception of how it should be then it creates a conflict for you. Had everything worked as it should from the start such conflicts would not exist and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Because they made such changes to the way things work every single time they add something they can't simply add it in because they will need to deal with the general conflicts it is going to make. For you this means they will need to make engines that are attach act as if they are part of the primary ship. That may not be what they want.

In truth for the Development team keeping this model is going to mean doing 5 times the amount of programming over time just to deal with all the conflicts it will create. Seriously glad that isn't my job. I quit jobs for less. My time and health is worth more to me than dealing with stuff like that which just creates aggravation and stress.

So again games are not closed systems. The less you involve math the more easier it is to pull off. Such as a fantasy or RPG game will do all sorts of stuff like magic and so on but based on dice roles. If you were to try and explain it using a math based science system it would fall the hell apart rapidly. Even so in the games when they implement things like rag doll physics they actually use fairly realistic simple formulas where they apply say an explosion to a character they provide a force vector to the character they use bone animation systems and so on. They don't go changing the formula to represent a negative curve when in fact is should be a positive curve. You don't see them taking x^2 and instead using sqrt(x). Which is pretty much what we have went we look at the physics in this game.

Idk what thread you're reading, dude, but at some point it completely diverged from the topic in this thread.

Tunk, be that as it may, if they remove how it works currently then they need to do some changes number wise to thrusters, otherwise there just isnt a point in using docked thrusters anymore that i can see.

3: With the intention of encouraging modular design.

Encouraging modular ship design (simply for the sake of modular ship design, and not because it actually adds anything to the game) is Bad. We need ships to have fewer entities, not more.

 

[Deserea]

There shouldn't be a point to docked thrusters, that's the thing. Pure docked thrusters were definitely not intended by the dev team.

The reason thrust sharing was implemented was to allow people to make ships that can split up into multiple seperate entities, have cool rail contraptions that aren't just there for show, or simply allow people to use the thrust on docked ships if they want (like an externally docked frigate on a battleship for example).

The whole concept of gaining more efficient thrust by splitting up entities is bad for balance AND performance reasons.

How do you know it wasnt intended? Maybe they had booster rockets in mind. it wouldnt surprise me if it was, what would surprise me is if the where intended to work as they do now. Externally docked ships would work exactly how the system would work now, from a logical standpoint. the problem they have is again the curve, docked entities get around it, which is great for this exploit and people who use it, but it has and ive admitted it, bad for overall gameplay.

problem really is thrusters should be more efficient, the larger they are, which is the exact opposite of the case now.

Balancing it is harder sure, but for example, lets use mass as a balance point(that may be a problem), after a certain mass(this would allow fighters to be fighters still), you A.) stop gaining as much maximum speed to the point you arent getting any, just increased acceleration, which decreases after another mass threshold has been achieved as well. B.) the amount of thrusters required to increase the thrust is so large that there would be a maximum amount of thruster modules one could resonably place on a ship of a given size.

Docked thrusters count towards over all thruster modules in the above system, but because they are probably going to be smaller than the main engines, they arent as effective and add less thrust, than the backwards system we have now.

 

[Lecic]

How do you know it wasnt intended? Maybe they had booster rockets in mind. it wouldnt surprise me if it was, what would surprise me is if the where intended to work as they do now. Externally docked ships would work exactly how the system would work now, from a logical standpoint. the problem they have is again the curve, docked entities get around it, which is great for this exploit and people who use it, but it has and ive admitted it, bad for overall gameplay.

problem really is thrusters should be more efficient, the larger they are, which is the exact opposite of the case now.

Balancing it is harder sure, but for example, lets use mass as a balance point(that may be a problem), after a certain mass(this would allow fighters to be fighters still), you A.) stop gaining as much maximum speed to the point you arent getting any, just increased acceleration, which decreases after another mass threshold has been achieved as well. B.) the amount of thrusters required to increase the thrust is so large that there would be a maximum amount of thruster modules one could resonably place on a ship of a given size.

Docked thrusters count towards over all thruster modules in the above system, but because they are probably going to be smaller than the main engines, they arent as effective and add less thrust, than the backwards system we have now.

I'm pretty sure Lancake said in chat that this was NOT intended.

It's easier to balance by just making everything work the same.

 

[Deserea]

I'm pretty sure Lancake said in chat that this was NOT intended.

It's easier to balance by just making everything work the same.

WELP if thats what they said then thats what they meant!

I wont deny that at all, just throwing out some other ideas to use possibly