Fair enough, I should have been more precise. The current class size system is largely a measure of the performance impact of a structure on the hardware that's running the game, and is basically irrelevant to the in-game performance (DPS, maneuverability, etc) of the ship itself. So you'd likely have to make a separate rating system. I specifically picked the T2 RCS because, at 60 tons, it's the densest block available. Meaning that, under a system that implements device restrictions based on mass, a player that wants to maximize the weapons available to them will place as many T2 RCS on their ship as possible (that their ship would be able to flip in a fraction of a second would be an interesting side effect, but not the primary reason they'd be mounting all those T2 RCS). It's an excellent example of the unintended consequences of using mass for this purpose.
Right. With the secondary constraint of how fast the player wants the ship to accelerate and how much fuel per unit time they're willing to burn.
That were exact my thoughts, thus the suggestion of different profiles based on cores. Open control panel, see available roles, pick one, get a set of restrictions. Want to circumvent them - put an utility core or upgrade boosters in the core cluster. We would need core rooms on CVs, that is very sci-fi. The system is easy to code, obvious to use and open-ended enough (I hope) for people to live with it, not edit it away. How long it would take for a person who wants a gazillion turrets and edits himself a gazillion^gazillion CUs despite all reasoning? Should CUs have max amount? Based on what exactly?
That's fair. I'm not factoring performance for the sake of argument, since it's so subjective. Recent graphic tweaks have probably hit that way harder than a less restrictive class system would. Since all blocks/devices have weight, a weight-based system might still mostly accomplish that limitation for the purpose of resources. At least in so far that the larger and more complex something is (with less empty space), the heavier it would be, and since that weight is all represended by actual geometry, it is at least relatable to graphic demands. edit: actually, weight might be better here too, since the current class system can result in a massive empty box being a high-class vehicle yet taking up no real system resources, whereas a smaller vehicle densely-packed with complex geometry from devices which is smaller but heavier, would take up more system resources while being a smaller class of ship. Weight tells that tale more accurately than dimensions do. I don't see how that's an advantage. Weight effects the amount of thrusters needed and by extension the fuel consumption you need. If you have a tiny 200ton ship built on a bunch of RCS2, it isn't necessarily at any advantage over a 200ton ship that spent that weight on more armor or other devices instead. Arguably the more armored ship is better off, even. edit: Actually, I'm pretty sure a ship that just stacked on RCS2 is actually going to be at a DISADVANTAGE against most ships in its class. You maybe get the advantage of a smaller profile, but you're still handling like a ship in your weight category except specifically when it comes to turning since all that weight went into RCS. So you have a ship that can spin like a top and is smaller, but is less armored, and possiby less armed, less flexible, slower acceleration, and has fewer devices, hangers, etc, than a ship that weighed the same but DIDN'T stack a ton of RCS. Unless I'm missing something, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
A CU-producing device has a mass, a volume, and an input power requirement. The number of CUs produced by all CU-producing devices in a ship is given by: T1 CU device output * (#T1 devices)^p + T2 device CU output * (#T2 devices *)^p + ... Where p < 1. I proposed p=0.5, so that the CUs available to a ship is proportional to the square-root of the number of CU-producing devices. In this way, the mass, volume, and power requirements for every additional CU increases, creating a soft limit on the CUs one could produce. If the output of thrusters were reduced and inventories had mass, then this might have a chance of working. But as it stands, any ship can achieve 50 m/s^2 acceleration without much trouble, so ship mass isn't much of a concern at present. Fuel consumption really isn't an issue either, except possibly for the largest ships when landing on planets. The point of vastly increasing the ship's mass was to be able to mount more and larger weapons, under the assumption that the type and/or number of weapons would be limited based on the ship's mass.
Time taken done right Quality >>>>>>>> Fast Crap. *Puts foot down* Artificial Mass Blocks say "Hi.". *Still wonders why Artificial Mass Blocks are allowed on all Creation Designs when only the HV has any actual practical use for them...* Diminishing Returns > Arbitrary Hard Number. Based on Diminishing Returns.
It's a monumental issue. Acceleration isn't about acheiving max speed, it's about how quickly you can change direction, how quickly you can revserse. In short, literally your ability to evade is all acceleration and yes, weight has a massive impact here. (and I know this because I just finished building an HV whose life depended on these factors). So yes, if your only consideration for acceleration is traveling speed, then sure, weight to thruster ratio doesn't matter much. But if we're talking actual mobility in combat, it's huge. edit: and fuel consumption is just a practical perk. An efficient ship that needs less fuel and operates at a lower cost is just better off than a ship that can't for no good reason.
Go play Elite Dangerous. Tell me how many hours that game keeps you occupied for. It's a perfect examples of a game where the devs put enormous amounts of time into very specific things(and did those things peerlessly-well), and got a game that lacked everywhere else as a result. It's pretty as fuck, and you'll potentially never run out of places to go to. But everything else wears out quick. No Man's Sky is another example where they focused so much on having huge planets and a massive limitless universe that they forgot that there had to be a fun game along with it all. I know it's really tempting to just want all the best things done the best way, but that's just not how it works in reality. Anything the Devs put too much time on is something that will cost somewhere else. It's never free.
It's not black and white. There are degrees to over-focusing that can make a game worse without crippling it. But I'd wager every game you can find was never INTENDED to be overspecialized. They just focused on what they thought mattered, and then run out of budget/time. It's a slippery slope. edit: and to Eleon's credit, they balance out their focuses pretty well.
Nope, I'm definitely talking about mobility in combat. Consider the XL thruster (600 tons), which puts out 800 MN for 30 MW input. Put one of those in each direction on a CV, and you get 40 m/s^2 in all directions for CV with total mass 20 kt, for a only 180 MW input power and about 10% of the ship's mass. Let the outer layer be a layer of combat steel, for ~5 kt, and suppose there are ~200 T2 RCS, for 12 kt. Let the rest be a few fuel tanks, one T2 large generator, and many weapons. One can quibble about the exact number of T2 RCS to place, but the fact remains that putting as many T2 RCS in a ship as one could without decreasing its acceleration below 40-50 m/s^2 in order to maximize the weapons it could mount would be better than trying to do the same with just combat steel.
And it's still less armored, potentially has less systems, and less space for hangers, storage, rooms, etc. Put that ship up against a ship that spent all this weight on things like armor, hanger space for added vehicles, and other equipment(more weapons if we're not talking about capped weapons already). They're the same speed, one has slightly better turning, the other is potentially WAY more armored at the expense of being a larger target with more space it can comfortably soak hits on anyhow. I still don't see how this is an exploit and not just a design choice. Yes, a dedicated min-maxed combat ship should be valid so long as it has appropriate drawbacks, and those sound like appropriate drawbacks. You're basically looking at what's essentially a battleship vs carrier comparison, where both ships are in a similar class range, but one is smaller and way more combat focused than the other.
Also, for the sake of argument, my idea focused more on SVs than CVs. I think that after a certain minimal point, CVs shouldn't be restricted. Maybe this sytem would allow for 'micro CVs' and 'small CVs' to have restrictions, but anything past that wouldn't need any device constraints at all. So if we're talking about super-tonnage CVs with all possible weapons and max size thrusters, etc, etc, etc. In my mind we're talking about a class of CV that wouldn't have different options at these sizes anyways. It'd have to go down a lot before that would kick in. Past a certain point CV building becomes less about optimized design and more about what you WANT the CV to do. Past a certain size it's just a given that they'll have all-weapons, huge thrusters, etc. A CU system might not change this either by itself.
You make good points; maybe it wouldn't be as bad as I fear. However, how would this system handle inventories with mass? Fair enough. The CU system would still force tradeoffs even for the largest CVs, simply because of the nonlinear nature of obtaining CUs. Suppose there is a T2 CU device (2x2x2 size, 50 tons, 60 kW) that nominally produces 100 CU, and that a square-root scaling is in place. After placing the 10th T2 CU device, the ship has 316.2 CU available to it. After placing the 20th CU device, the ship has 447.2 CU available to it. And after placing the 100th CU device, the ship has 1000 CU available to it. At this point, the ship might be able to mount dozens of artillery turrets (20 CU each), but the CU devices are consuming 6 GW (1666 fuel/s) continuously; that would require 250 T3 autominers to keep supplied. So, I'd argue that this system does impose a practical limit on the capabilities of even the largest ships.
I don't know. As mentioned previously, it would depend on whether or not an 'overweight' system is added. I should think they would HAVE to do this, because otherwise even if they factored weight, if it can't dynamically penalize the vessel for carrying tons of cargo, what would be the point? Also it depends on how the cargo weight matters vs the initial weight of the ship. If you have a several kiloton CV, a few tons of cargo boxes should have functionally no impact on it by simple virtue of the ratio of weight that's being changed. Also would such a system factor space? In space the impact of carrying tons of cargo would be far less. Indeed, it's entirely possible (reasonable, even) to have CVs that just can't enter atmo because they're just too heavy to fly once they get there (and this would once again create a role for lighter 'dropship' CV/SVs to do that job so a larger parent CV doesn't have to). So, the short answer would be that it would handle cargo weight the same way the game would handle it anyways. If cargo really is going to have enough of an impact that it would represent a significant percentage of a ship's overall weight, then I see no reason at all why being burdened with cargo shouldn't impact a ship's performance. As far as device limitations go, I think it would make more sense if Cargo didn't factor into class, but just weight and whatever penalties come with weight. But again, I don't know if/how they plan to implement that. I can say for sure that if they implemented one before the other, it would be far easier to balance one with the other already established. Both could be adjusted to suit the other constraint in a sensible manner. If they essentially added my suggestion exactly as it stands, then cargo weight can be balanced with that in mind and, as suggested, possibly just be excluded from class definitions. And that's potentially a problem. If it's feasible to build a massive balanced CV with appropriate CU costs, then it should also be feasible to build a massively skewed CV that is basically 100 rocket launchers strapped to an engine and some essential components. The former should be totally possible and reasonable and fun, but the later will probably crash a server the moment it's fired, and even if it doesn't, it'll bisect whatever it shoots at, especially if the rockets are staggered properly.
Damnit Midas, it's mass not weight. I cringe with every post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_versus_weight Geo does bring up good points I hadn't considered on some of what doesn't work and why, although I'm still not sold on the CU thing. It certainly is better than the idea put forth in this thread, which we should walk away from and let die an ignominious death.
Damnit, dog, I'm a designer, not a mathematician! (Or a physicists. Or whoever would care about the distinction)
So only the mass of placed blocks/devices would matter? Well, cargo ships would definitely be screwed even more than they'd already be, that's for sure. I guess the next question would be how device counts "unlock"? Would it be a continuous function of mass (the most workable case, I think)? True. Well, we could always switch to a log scaling and/or decrease the nominal CUs per device and/or just make weapons more expensive CU-wise. Because you're right that someone is going to come along and build one of these pathological ships, no matter what system is used. Both physicists and mathematicians care .
If the idea is a failur, but it can be learned from, it wasn't a waste of time. Kinda like that old addage about how one learns more from failure then from success. I love Carnage & doing damage most, above all, so ya better believe i'd be among this crowd. IMHO going Heavy Offense & Brawn is not an invalid Playstyle. I'll Contest any claim to the contrary. Might is Right! With that said i'm sure it's not Intended for any one single Archetype to rule all & leave the others in the Dust. That means Warriors don't get to hog all the fun, Rogues don't get to hog it all, & Wizards don't get to hog it all. There must be a place for all three in this game. Edit: How the hell did I miss this Post before...? CV Weapons on a SV, i'd be among the first to try like hell to make it work!
I don't see how a cargo ship would be screwed unless it's spawned empty and the cargo boxes are added as needed - which makes no sense to me for anything but aesthetic. If the cargo boxes are part of the build then the only thing changing is their contents, which as mentioned I feel should be separate from what determines class. And, again, if the ship is dynamically recalculated (which it has to to factor dynamic changing weight anyhow), then any time you modify your ship close to the extremes of its class you may risk an invalid build. How you would be punished for creating an invalid build after spawning the BP could be handled any number of ways, from severe penalties to performance and power consumption, to simply changing the ship to the new class and rendering illegal systems inoperable or individually penalized. But if you're going to add those limitations, they are no less arbitrary than a fixed class system. You're balancing back to front, which makes sense if it's a simple system designed to achieve the maximum benefit for the minimum cost, but if you have to take a complex system and design it back to front with arbitrary limitations anyways, then what's the point?
