Ship Max Speed Determined by Mass

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I can't steal the manifesto tag-line from Keptick, so I'll just throw this text wall into general and see what comes out, eh?

    Right now, max speed for all ships is pretty standard. Put big enough engines on it, and no matter the mass, your ship could accelerate as fast a fighter does. So long as you keep the thrust ratio above 1.0, you can hit max speed. This leads to some fairly game-breaking situations, especially in combat. For example, ships will spiral around each other, attempting evasive maneuvers while also toeing the range line. Suddenly, one or both of the ships will decide to surprise the enemy by bumrushing them in a (usually) vain attempt to gain an angle on a turret or their core. This can lead to painful collisions that often leave the server reeling, sometimes killing it.

    In an attempt to both encourage creative ship building on a smaller scale and prevent high-speed, high-mass collisions, let's make a ship's max speed a factor of their mass.

    Here's how this will work:

    The admins of the server will set a value in the config to be the highest maximum speed (smaller ships), then adjust another value, the mass multiplier. Essentially, that number will determine the slope of the speed-mass curve. If it is negative, speed increases with mass, but if it is positive, speed decreases with mass.

    The admins could also be given a lowest maximum speed, so as to prevent a 600k mass ship having a speed of, say, 10 or 5 or something insanely small that renders the ship useless. There could be an endpoints value as well. This would allow the admins to set the beginning and end of the speed-mass curve.

    Why is this a good idea?

    First off, capital ships shouldn't be able to accelerate to high speeds like a fighter can. It takes away a significant advantage from fighter- and frigate- class vessels. By adding in harsher speed limits for larger ships, you encourage fleet play and mixed fleets, instead of just *the largest ships we got.*
    Also, soon we will be getting fleet control, and I am willing to bet that someone is going to come up with a fleet made of huge, fast moving vessels with lots of turrets that cannot be killed because they cannot be outmaneuvered.

    Second, it gives the admins the tools to enforce size limits. Essentially, you could just set the speed of all ships above a certain mass to zero by making it an endpoint and adjusting the formula accordingly. It's usually fairly easy to spot ships over the size limit, but sometimes being preemptive is a better choice. :)
    It also gives admins the tools to be more flexible with the size limits. If that big battleship of 500k mass cannot move more than 20km/h, why would you be worried about it crashing into anything at high speed? You could allow ships of that size, they just wouldn't move very fast.

    Third, Overdrive would still give ships the x2 speed bonus it does now, so the limit is semi-flexible. You can still build a *fast* flagship - it just wont be as fast as the frigates or fighters.

    What could go wrong?

    Ship battles will probably take longer as a rule, since the bigger ships will take more time to get there and start shooting. Interdictor fields would be really nice to have here :)

    I'm pretty biased here, as I've been mulling this over for about a month now. What else could be skewed about this idea?
     

    therimmer96

    The Cake Network Staff Senior button unpusher
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    3,603
    Reaction score
    1,053
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    • Top Forum Contributor
    I always have an issue with these. It limits gigantism. I like big ships.

    This sort of thing accidentally got added when calbiri broke the thrust calculations awhile back, and alot of people hated it and threw up a fuss. Granted, that was much more extreme than this would be, but still, big ships are fun, and thrust is not the way to limit them.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Keptick

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    I always have an issue with these. It limits gigantism. I like big ships.

    This sort of thing accidentally got added when calbiri broke the thrust calculations awhile back, and alot of people hated it and threw up a fuss. Granted, that was much more extreme than this would be, but still, big ships are fun, and thrust is not the way to limit them.
    First off, is it fun to have your server crash because some guy crashed his massive ship into a station?

    I don't deny that big ships are AWESOME - they just need to be discouraged in combat. Right now, there really isn't an incentive to build a compact and efficient vessel for PvP. It's just BUILD IT BIG DUDE. Can't afford it? Mine more! :D

    btw, have you seen the admin popups that happen when a large ship gets into a fight? Points to something, right?
     

    therimmer96

    The Cake Network Staff Senior button unpusher
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    3,603
    Reaction score
    1,053
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    • Top Forum Contributor
    First off, is it fun to have your server crash because some guy crashed his massive ship into a station?
    Get a better server. EE doesn't crash, I have several million block ships in constant contact with a station. Collisions are better now.

    I don't deny that big ships are AWESOME - they just need to be discouraged in combat. Right now, there really isn't an incentive to build a compact and efficient vessel for PvP. It's just BUILD IT BIG DUDE. Can't afford it? Mine more! :D
    Yeah, it incentives progression in the game. and there is a reason to build small, it's cheaper.

    btw, have you seen the admin popups that happen when a large ship gets into a fight? Points to something, right?
    I'm admin on EE. Doesn't happen that often. Don't expect magical performance on shitty hardware in an alpha game.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Mariux

    Criss

    Social Media Director
    Joined
    Jun 25, 2013
    Messages
    2,187
    Reaction score
    1,772
    • Master Builder Bronze
    • Video Genius
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    You mentioned interdictor fields and I am more interested in that honestly. Lol. Anyway. I get this. I might even agree with this. So far I do not see any major issues. I am sure it won't be as hard to build capital ships as it stands currently. IMO capital ships provide a completely different role on the battlefield and should in some way be treated differently than fighters.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Mered4

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Get a better server. EE doesn't crash, I have several million block ships in constant contact with a station. Collisions are better now.


    Yeah, it incentives progression in the game. and there is a reason to build small, it's cheaper.


    I'm admin on EE. Doesn't happen that often. Don't expect magical performance on shitty hardware in an alpha game.
    The server I play on does not have shitty hardware. What it does have is a lot of volume.

    The incentive for progression should be towards more ships, not necessarily towards large ones. If you have a steady production line, you can afford to go to war because that ship you are using can be easily replaced.

    I'd love to see what would happen if you crashed a Saiph or Argus into a planet above 75 km/h. :D
     

    therimmer96

    The Cake Network Staff Senior button unpusher
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    3,603
    Reaction score
    1,053
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    • Top Forum Contributor
    can afford to go to war because that ship you are using can be easily replaced.
    This is bad. Ships should be worth something, something you want to keep, actually have an impact if lost rather than "oh well, I have 20 more".

    I'd love to see what would happen if you crashed a Saiph or Argus into a planet above 75 km/h. :D
    Yes, a planet. because those are buggy as fuck, and will crash any server. That's not what you said, you said battle.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Mariux

    Winterhome

    Way gayer than originally thought.
    Joined
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages
    1,929
    Reaction score
    636
    The thrusters you can slap on take increasingly larger and more impossible quantities of power to keep them working.

    If you want to make a ship over 20k mass accelerate like a fighter, half the ship ends up being thrust and the other half ends up being power... Not to mention the fact that thrusters have diminishing returns based on quantity.


    The only thing that should be lower is acceleration. It's not like in the ocean, where you have to constantly push against water to keep moving. Realistically, a ship should be able to accelerate on an exponential curve towards the speed of light (horizontal asymptote being c). If a big ship gets going really well, there's no way a fighter should be able to keep up with it - while fighters should be able to effectively dodge fire when fighting against capitals at the right ranges using that acceleration value.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Mariux

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    The thrusters you can slap on take increasingly larger and more impossible quantities of power to keep them working.

    If you want to make a ship over 20k mass accelerate like a fighter, half the ship ends up being thrust and the other half ends up being power... Not to mention the fact that thrusters have diminishing returns based on quantity.


    The only thing that should be lower is acceleration. It's not like in the ocean, where you have to constantly push against water to keep moving. Realistically, a ship should be able to accelerate on an exponential curve towards the speed of light (horizontal asymptote being c). If a big ship gets going really well, there's no way a fighter should be able to keep up with it - while fighters should be able to effectively dodge fire when fighting against capitals at the right ranges using that acceleration value.
    Unfortunately the dodging part is nigh on impossible, what with the AI being super accurate within the config value (def 1k, I think).

    This is bad. Ships should be worth something, something you want to keep, actually have an impact if lost rather than "oh well, I have 20 more".


    Yes, a planet. because those are buggy as fuck, and will crash any server. That's not what you said, you said battle.
    If ships are worth something to you because you only have one of them, why are you in PvP? Semi-regular PvP requires that you have replacements so you can fight again quickly. You shouldn't have an attachment to your ship, because you will probably lose it to someone bigger than you at some point and you'll need another one.
     

    therimmer96

    The Cake Network Staff Senior button unpusher
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    3,603
    Reaction score
    1,053
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    • Top Forum Contributor
    Unfortunately the dodging part is nigh on impossible, what with the AI being super accurate within the config value (def 1k, I think).


    If ships are worth something to you because you only have one of them, why are you in PvP? Semi-regular PvP requires that you have replacements so you can fight again quickly. You shouldn't have an attachment to your ship, because you will probably lose it to someone bigger than you at some point and you'll need another one.
    You have backups, old ships, ships not as good, stuff like that. It creates you a need to keep the ship, and makes it more valuable. No, you should not have an emotional attachment, but they should still be worth something.
     

    Winterhome

    Way gayer than originally thought.
    Joined
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages
    1,929
    Reaction score
    636
    Unfortunately the dodging part is nigh on impossible, what with the AI being super accurate within the config value (def 1k, I think).
    Which should be addressed. But you can easily dodge cannon fire at 1.5km or longer ranges just by moving in circles, while a capital ship can't really do much to dodge your own shots (ie: you can kill their turrets at long range).

    Slap some point defense guns on your fighter and suddenly you're nearly immune to most of the capital's possible countermeasures, short of it trying to turn and shoot you properly, which will take somewhere in the neighborhood of a minute, and you're doing it wrong if there's not a swarm of allies too.
     

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    You have backups, old ships, ships not as good, stuff like that. It creates you a need to keep the ship, and makes it more valuable. No, you should not have an emotional attachment, but they should still be worth something.
    What I'm getting at is that you should be prepared to lose whatever you bring to the battle. Usually this means you can replace it in a relatively short amount of time.
    [DOUBLEPOST=1418315846,1418315679][/DOUBLEPOST]
    Which should be addressed. But you can easily dodge cannon fire at 1.5km or longer ranges just by moving in circles, while a capital ship can't really do much to dodge your own shots (ie: you can kill their turrets at long range).

    Slap some point defense guns on your fighter and suddenly you're nearly immune to most of the capital's possible countermeasures, short of it trying to turn and shoot you properly, which will take somewhere in the neighborhood of a minute, and you're doing it wrong if there's not a swarm of allies too.
    That's an unfortunate factor of Cap ships right now - turrets can turn fast enough to hit a small fighter at close range. The long range bombing practice works great until you start trying to kill the shields of your enemy - but that's what allies are for, right? :)

    Were I to take a dreadnought into battle, I'd never go without a fleet behind me. The big ship will win the fight for your side, but it can also be a liability if you have no fighter cover.
     

    Mariux

    Kittenator
    Joined
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages
    1,822
    Reaction score
    658
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Silver 1
    • Legacy Citizen 8
    No. Just no. What's wrong with all you people? Sometimes it feels like you folks have some personal problem with titans. They're already hard to get as it is (with the new crafting system) plus the power requirement increase, as Azereiah said. Why double-nerf them? Plus, this is wildly against the laws of physics.
     

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    No. Just no. What's wrong with all you people? Sometimes it feels like you folks have some personal problem with titans. They're already hard to get as it is (with the new crafting system) plus the power requirement increase, as Azereiah said. Why double-nerf them? Plus, this is wildly against the laws of physics.
    It's not. The strain of accelerating a large mass at that speed without inertial reinforcement would tear the ship apart.

    I don't have anything against titans - I just would prefer some variety.

    Right now it's fairly boring. Is my ship bigger than yours? No? You win. Yes? I win. In general, ofc.

    :)
     

    Winterhome

    Way gayer than originally thought.
    Joined
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages
    1,929
    Reaction score
    636
    It's not. The strain of accelerating a large mass at that speed without inertial reinforcement would tear the ship apart.:)
    Not necessarily. You could very, very easily ramp up your acceleration rate in order to prevent ship damage, and you could avoid the entire problem completely by placing a few weaker thrusters at the front end of the ship to offset the push force behind it.
     

    therimmer96

    The Cake Network Staff Senior button unpusher
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    3,603
    Reaction score
    1,053
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    • Top Forum Contributor
    It's not. The strain of accelerating a large mass at that speed without inertial reinforcement would tear the ship apart.

    I don't have anything against titans - I just would prefer some variety.

    Right now it's fairly boring. Is my ship bigger than yours? No? You win. Yes? I win. In general, ofc.

    :)
    Of course that's how it works. A fighter can't take on a capital. It just makes sense. If you want to run, jump drive out of there. A small ship has it easier for them on jump systems so should have a pretty fast recharge. There is your better acceleration
     

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    Of course that's how it works. A fighter can't take on a capital. It just makes sense. If you want to run, jump drive out of there. A small ship has it easier for them on jump systems so should have a pretty fast recharge. There is your better acceleration
    I never said fighters should be able to 1v1 a cap ship. They should be able to 10v1, or 20v1 a cap. Currently they cannot, from what I've seen.

    Yes, drones in an equal mass fight are completely superior to dreadnoughts. Practically, however, they aren't.
     

    Winterhome

    Way gayer than originally thought.
    Joined
    Jun 29, 2013
    Messages
    1,929
    Reaction score
    636
    I never said fighters should be able to 1v1 a cap ship. They should be able to 10v1, or 20v1 a cap. Currently they cannot, from what I've seen.

    Yes, drones in an equal mass fight are completely superior to dreadnoughts. Practically, however, they aren't.

    24 80 mass drones can kill a 6k mass ship. That's substantially lower mass total.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Mariux

    therimmer96

    The Cake Network Staff Senior button unpusher
    Joined
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages
    3,603
    Reaction score
    1,053
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    • Top Forum Contributor
    I never said fighters should be able to 1v1 a cap ship. They should be able to 10v1, or 20v1 a cap. Currently they cannot, from what I've seen.

    Yes, drones in an equal mass fight are completely superior to dreadnoughts. Practically, however, they aren't.
    They can, ask keptick who has spent the last few months messing around with them, and who was also killed by the drones at my base on EE.
     

    Mered4

    Space Triangle Builder
    Joined
    Jan 12, 2014
    Messages
    662
    Reaction score
    190
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Legacy Citizen 4
    They can, ask keptick who has spent the last few months messing around with them, and who was also killed by the drones at my base on EE.
    Yep. I've read his findings and can appreciate them as fact.
    24 80 mass drones can kill a 6k mass ship. That's substantially lower mass total.
    Someone needs to build their 6k mass ship better......