I get the tier system, and for the most part it works. However, I think it would be VASTLY improved IF: Tier 1 - Core Tier 2 - Core + T2 Extenders (up to 4) Tier 3 - Core + 4 T2 Exenders + T3 Extenders (up to 2) Tier 4- Core + T4 Extender (1) Why? First, allow each Extender to add a value to the Tier 1 base, so: HV: 5.000 (T1), 6750-12.000 (T2)*, 21,000-30.000 (T3), 70.000 (T4) SV: 6.000 (T1), 8,250-15.000 (T2)*, 27,500-40.000 (T3), 100.000 (T4) CV: 200.000 (T1), 275,000-500.000 (T2)*, 1,000,000-1.500.000 (T3), 10.000.000 (T4) BA: 80000 (T1), 110,000-200.000 (T2)*, 350,000-500.000 (T3), 1.300.000 (T4) * Each T2 HV Exetnder adds 1750 CPU, up to the maximum of T2 Extenders. Each HV T3 Extender added 9000 CPU, and the T3 reaches the CPU cap. Each SV T2 Extender adds 2250 CPU, T3's adds 12,500 Each CV T2 adds 75,000 CPU, T3's add 500,000 Each BA T2 adds 30,000, CPU each T3 adds 150,000 The singular T4 added the remaining balance to each type of construct and does not provide a range. It is the "be-all-end-all" of upgrades. Again, why? First, it may not require so much CPU for an HV, SV, CV or BA to accomplish it's task. Cumulative progression makes logical sense, if CPU is meant to represent the computational power of each construct, then these can be thought of like data centers, with each Extender representing a new rack of servers. The T2 servers are smaller, slower, but in numbers can accomplish a great deal more than they could individually. As the data needs grow, bigger (T3) servers are brought in to handle larger workloads, while the smaller (T2) servers are repurposed to less demanding roles (file servers/DNS/Domain Controllers). As the workload continues to grow, big, state-of-the-art servers (T4) are brought in, the smaller (T3) servers are repurposed to handle less demanding loads, like backups, provide some redundancy, or provide terminal service roles. To me this just seems a logical progression. From a game standpoint, it would mean needing fewer of the hard-to-obtain materials required for crafting the high-end Extenders, and the cumulative progression would still allow for some construct expansion as you amass materials to craft the remaining Extender units, and work your way up to the larger units. I also think the units themselves should be sized a little differently - T1 (Core) is fine as 1x1x1. T2 likewise works as 1x1x1. T3 is good at 1x2x1. T4 should be 2x2x2.
Note that with an actually modular system, the concept of tiers for the structure itself is completely unnecessary. Also, a more granular approach (smaller values for the extenders, but more of them) would allow better fine-tuning of a structure's capabilities.
Odd request for cpu, but could we get a "show actual values" button for thrusters? It's kind of odd to build a ship in CPU and trying to judge thruster values if you can't quite afford the teir of CPU extenders the ship will be.
I don't know that in a fully modular system the Tiers themselves would be unnecessary - I'd say you shouldn't be able to drop in a T4 Extender without the T3 framework to support it. The T3 framework would need the T2 framework to support it, and the T2 obviously requires the Core (T1) to function at all.
If I were designing the physical side of "CPU" I'd treat it like rw computers. It's, no pun intended, "a cluster". heh. Lots of computers working together = cluster. It's a combined total processing capability. 20 old & slow boxes may have more compute than 1 new & fast box has. No limits of 'only x number of old-N-slows'. And "tiers" would just reflect amount of compute per block. Extenders upgradable & the same power. Core & T1 extenders = old & slow = 4000 CPU each. Iron/Cop/Sili T2 = bit better = 6000 CPU each. Iron/Cop/Sili/Cob T3 = good stuff = 8000 CPU each. Iron/Cop/Sili/Cob/Sath/Neo T4 = best stuff = 10000 CPU each. Iron/Cop/Sili/Cob/Sath/Neo/Zas/Eres If you needed 40,000 CPU could be the Core + 9ea T1 extenders. Or Core + 3ea T4 & 1ea T2. Any mix n match, all contribute to the clusters compute. Power draw the same is more than fair. Your phone has hundreds or more times the compute of the 486 that flew the space shuttle, and draws a lot less juice. To address PvP or other server needs simply add a config to cap max usable CPU by ship type and a settable hard limit (where the decline in efficiency hits zero). As I personally don't like to be dependent on rng or traders I wouldn't use special bits. If a builder wants to use 5 more spaces to avoid rare materials, fine by me. Warp, Shields, better Thursters, weapons, ammo & armor all require more exotic materials already. So if someone wants to build a massive kick butt, high CPU, HV tank out of only Iron/Copp/Sili I say have at it and post a pic please.
What is the logic behind this? Every block consumes cpu. I go in a battle and i lose blocks of my ship. My damaged ship will became faster and more efficient. (less blocks=less cpu) Since when damaged/destroyed stuff leads to speed/efficiency? Seems spaghetti logic here.
Well in theory if an engine is pushing a 100ton object at 10m/s and you loose some non critical blocks, your object now only ways 80tons, the same engine will propel and be able to change direction faster then if it was still 100tons. or B if you control the engine power and you match the power to push the 80ton object at the rate of 100ton object the engine will use less power and thus be more effiecent
and the drag caused by the air? think also about atmosphere flying. A plane with a hole will not fly faster and better. Is not anymore Aerodynamic.
So it heavily depends on the design of the ship and if its in atmosphere or the vacuum of space. As it was previously stated this is the first iterration and there is still lots of other itterations to happen to get to a final product.
Well my theory is that something damaged / destroyed couldnt lead in efficiency/speed. But i am just a regular guy that thinks things.
Well agree if its the engine or RCS or some vital part but if its just blocks that reduces the objects weight then it would lead to a faster/effiecent object (depending on design and location)
Acceleration increasing due to loss of mass is fine and expected (that actually gives ships a bit of 'alive' feel in combat), energy output and thrust increasing when you lose armor is certainly not fine... On top of that you don't have to lose heavy armor just some glass will do.
That is already handled by mass / thrust relationship. Your on-board GPS, microwave, and MP3 players don't work better because a hole was blown through the door.
Just doing silly calculations here... Cannon use 30 mm bullets, weighting 0,4 kg each, shoots at 100 rpm. Minigun use 15 mm bullets, weighting 0,2 kg, shoots at 300 rpm. A SV comes under fire of let's say 5 cannon and 5 minigun turrets, well inside shooting range, so I guess practically no shots are missed. After 1 minute, all the projectiles fired will amount to 500 kg. Where do all these projectiles go ? Never mind...
On the sillyness factor; could be fun if the impacted force from incoming rounds were calc'd and added to recieving ships velocity... So that poor SV would become a tangle of wreckage bouncing away from the POI that pounded it into scrap
The imparted velocity would be close to zero. Ships mass tonnes. The impacting mass in measured in fractional kilos. Momentum is linear to mass. Even assuming a full absorption of momentum, it might matter in space over the course of minutes if the target is inoperable already, but that's the only case where it'd matter at all.
You're not completely wrong, but you're not completely right either. Let's look at it this way: The M1 Abrams tank weighs in at 60 tons. It can be upgraded to carry depleted uranium armor, which raises the weight of the tank to 65 tons. This armor is designed to ablate, that is, to be shed as damaged. As this ablative armor is shed, the tank becomes lighter, which in turn will raise its ground speed and maneuverability. Or in human terms, a suit of tempered steel armor for a human weighs in at 65 pounds. If you've ever seen men in plate armor move around, let's just say they're not particularly nimble. Shed that armor though, and the man underneath could be an Olympic gymnastics champion. They just won't be doing any back-flips in plate mail. On the flip side of this - that same ablative armor may not shed completely, could impede mobility, visibility, or, in the case of our armored entertainer - a damaged knee joint could virtually immobilize them, or a badly compressed chest-plate could make breathing so difficult movement becomes nearly impossible, or they simply pass out from the heat and strain of trying to move about in a heavy steel can. Hence, you're neither completely right or completely wrong here.
Depending on what you use for the projectile velocity, you could end up giving the target a few m/s velocity if half a ton of projectiles were actually lodged in the ship. Of course, that is half a ton of projectiles . . . Oof, yes, heat rejection in full plate is no joke; dousing with copious amount of water is recommended.
@sillyrobot , granted I was thinking of a small SV and conflating what I've seen a main battle tank round do to smaller targets. call a 15mm similar to a .50 cal. ~650 grain projectile at 2800 fps, ~11,000 foot-pounds 30mm harder to find data on so guesstimate as a ~1750 grain projectile at 2640 fps, ~27,000 foot-pounds MBT main gun has some sabot penetrator rounds massing ~9 kg (19.8 pounds) fly at over 5,000 fps but lets try something a bit more mundane, say a 15 pound projectile at 4600 fps, ~almost 5 million foot-pounds Of course, lots of energy converted to noise and heat, redirected in shrapnel, etc., so you're basically correct, but un-fun I was being silly!
