Diminishing returns for propulsion stacking

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by RadElert_007, Jan 6, 2019.

  1. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Currently:

    Any ship regardless of its weight is able to achieve max speed and acceleration by stacking enough thruster blocks, this creates a "bigger is better" meta in PvP combat which has negative consequences for the enjoyment of PvP players including:

    • Fights are significantly more laggy due to the meta revolving around building bigger and bigger, higher size class ships create more strain on the server which makes fights un-enjoyable
    • Smaller vessels have no real place in the meta aside from being simply cheaper variants of more expensive vessels
    • CV Space fights are stagnant as everyone moves at the same speed, most CV fights consist of conga lines where neither vessels even shoot due to them being out of weapons range and since both ships move and accelerate the same, there is no means to get your ship into range unless someone allows you too

    Request:

    Add diminishing returns for thrust output from propulsion blocks are more are stacked on a vessel, meaning that as more and more thruster blocks are placed, they will provide less and less thrust. As more thrusters are placed, the thrust output each individual thrust block outputs will be reduced.

    Larger ships will turn into "durable but slow" while smaller ships will turn into "fragile but fast", which encourages the use of smaller, less laggier ships and means that builders will now need to choose between being well armoured or fast.

    Warp speed requirements for vessels will need to be adjusted so that it is still possible for the "durable but slow" ships to warp, rather then a flat speed requirement, larger ships should simply be required to be travelling in the direction of their destination and will have a "charge up time" before they warp.

    Ships who initiate this warp charge up at higher speeds will have a slower charge up time, meaning that "fragile but fast" ships will be able to warp significantly faster then "durable but slow" ships.

    Results of the proposed:

    Small ships will have a proper place in the Empyrion PvP Meta thanks to them having a workable advantage against larger, tankier and higher size class vessels, that advantage being higher speed and acceleration since lighter and less armored ships will have less of a need for thrusters and thus will not be affected by dimishing returns.

    Larger, tankier ships will still have a place in the Empyrion meta, pilots of these ships simply will no longer be able to move as fast as smaller, less armored opponents but will be significantly more durable in return.

    Encouraging the implementation of smaller ships into PvP faction doctrines will also mean that factions will not be placing as much larger, laggier ships into a playfield as they would do currently. This eases strain on server owners and players who participate in these battles.


    The only player dynamic who will be negatively affected by this change if implemented would be players who abuse the currently broken state of thruster stacking and wish to continue to abuse it.
     
    #1
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
    Politary likes this.
  2. Neal

    Neal Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    3,135
    Personally i like bigger = Better approach when it comes to Starships.
    I'm really annoyed by sci fi games that encourage/force players to fly one seater or small ships in general, i have learned to really hate that approach.

    If you want to brainstorm ideas on how to make the game less laggy but still allow people to have bigger ships:
    https://empyriononline.com/threads/...and-si-for-ships-but-not-like-you-think.9938/

    Btw. not everyone is a passionate PvP player.
    People who do not want to play PvP shouldn't be enforced to have the same limitations as PvP players imo.
     
    #2
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2019
  3. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    64
    I actually think the same thing could be accomplished by making some weapons capable of point defense and better at tracking smaller targets. That would give us a reason to build ships to fill combat roles. Tanks, AA escorts. anti missile screening ships.
     
    #3
  4. Sephrajin

    Sephrajin Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Before adding dimishing Returns, lets just wait how CPU settles in.
    I'm pretty sure that with turrents and thrusters requiring CPU, it'll become 'better' (more adjusted) over some time.

    Because as of NOW (A9.0 public) Building in/for PvE is utterly annyoing (much much more challenging, while lots less rewarding).
    Absolute nobody stops you from doing so already… only yourself.
     
    #4
  5. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Proper moment of inertia calculation (rotation rate being affected by the actual radius * weight, rather than the bounding box of the ship being "evenly filled with its weight") along with RCS rebalance to take more power would go a long way toward making large ships unwieldy. You would need a ridiculous amount of power and hull replaced with RCS to rotate large ships anywhere near as fast as they do now.

    Thrust can stay as it is, although it should have better progression curves so that larger thrusters are more incentivized to cut down on device count (assuming that matters). The HV 3x1x1 thruster is so bad compared to the 2x1x1, while the SV 3x1x1 is the best thing ever (both larger and smaller are worse).

    Of course in my dream world there are thrust blocks for water, oxygenated air, unbreathable/vacuum, and then Hover engines would get omnidirectional thrust with great power efficiency--near surfaces, ships in space, asteroids, ...
     
    #5
    geostar1024 and Inappropriate like this.
  6. Inappropriate

    Inappropriate Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    94
    You have to be out of your mind to think the game is in a state where pvp is a good idea. Why the devs even have it enabled at all when they don't even have the net code in place to back it up is a mystery to me. Just wait till the game at least hits beta before trying pvp. At least then you should have a more or less stable feature set to work with.

    At any rate nerfing thrusters would do nothing to fix the underlying problems with pvp. This is you how fix pvp:

    Finish balancing weight and volume for storage and have the effect ship weight > thruster/RCS stat balancing pass > proper moment of inertia calculation > weapon damage and rate of fire balancing pass > shields and other game mechanics? > proper docking code that includes the weight of docked entities with the parent entities weight > fix systemic combat issues like lag shot > better, more accurate collision between blocks and projectiles > optimization pass > draw distance increase > weapon range increase > optimization pass > draw distance increase > more optimization passes > balancing pass of energy draw for ALL devices > increase the speed limit to something reasonable > general balancing pass to ensure that game play is fun, self consistent, and self balancing > net code optimization.

    Yeah, that's a long list...
     
    #6
  7. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    64

    The issue I run into is none of the truets seem to have a setting, to let them, target things like incoming missiles that's what I mean by point defense. sure you can set your smaller high rate of fire guns to engage players drones small vessels ect. or am I missing something?
     
    #7
  8. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    47
    You won't be prevented from using larger ships, it just means your size class 20 CV with 6 layers of combat steel armor won't be able to move and accelerate at the same speed as a fighter.

    This isnt a limitation, you are not prevented from using capital ships, you just need to decide between being fast and being durable.

    That would make the "bigger is better" meta even worse since less durable ships are not less viable due to weapons existing specifically designed as a hard-counter against them which would further encourage the use of larger and more laggier designs.

    I can get behind this, however...

    Nerfing the ability for capships to turn as fast as fighters without inhibiting speed will not resolve the issues I am talking about.

    I can get behind a lot of these ideas, however I think they are best discussed in their own thread
     
    #8
  9. Neal

    Neal Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    3,135
    Don't get me wrong, i'm the same boat as you.
    But the problem i see is that if ideas like your proposed ones get introduced, Game developers tend to get way overboard with them, making anyhting bigger than a corvette practically unplayable.

    I'm not a PvP player, nor i'm interested in it, but as i said every change that is being done to "balance" includes ALL game modes.

    Have you considered the introduction of energy shields?
    Especially If they can work as a substitution for Armor, so even lighter ships could get a strong defence, without the need to be a flying brick?
    (Think of a science ship that relies on shields rather than on heavy armor for example)

    I would say, ship classes (CV, SV) should have a hard maximum on how fast they can go, how fast they ca accellerate and how fast they can turn. I know this is not ideal, but i see no other way to prevent Huge Battleships zipping around like Spacefighteres or make then basically unplayable on the other hand.
    Also, i don't want to see Small Spacefighters that could take on a Battleship 50x its own size, that would be stupid too. (I know there are examples in Sci Fi, but they should never be the norm, because it was mostly plot armor and hero bonus and so on.)

    Even better would be to introduce diverse subclasses of SVs and CVs which allow various different tech being installed and different maximium accelleration rates and other values.

    With everyting else (like your proposal on charging up for Warp speed) i fully agree with you.
     
    #9
    IronCartographer likes this.
  10. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    If large CVs are so costly to turn quickly that they must slow down to have sane structural and power requirements, then it will be possible for SVs to have a meaningful impact by getting close and focusing on one part of the craft. Turrets will have to cover all angles rather than being focused on a frontal blast array.

    At least part of that is absolutely what it seemed you were talking about. :)
     
    #10
    geostar1024 likes this.
  11. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    I've been wondering about this, especially as it pertains to the possibility of merging HVs and SVs--so that you could make a physical justification for not being able to layer armor and lots of turrets on an SV and expect it to maintain dogfighting capability. I think that's the main reason the devs want SVs to be restricted the way they are.

    Maybe layers of armor and weight (make turrets heavy!) could "interfere" with shielding, making it only suitable for light-weight craft? Hmmmmmm.... @geostar1024?
     
    #11
    Neal likes this.
  12. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    47
    The solution to that is to simply report these balance issues so that they may be fixed, not to oppose change at all.

    I fail to see what kind of negative effects this proposition would have to PvE playstyles, especially considering that 99% of PvE content consists of POIs which can be solo'd in a tiny SV with only Gatling guns.

    The only players who would be negatively affected by this are the players who abuse the unbalanced nature of large laggy ships and want to continue to be able to abuse them.

    So now capital ships are even more tankier and can still move as fast as a fighter, that just makes it worse

    They already do, SVs can travel at around 40-ish m/s faster than CVs, but the problem I am talking about has nothing to do with SV to CV combat but with CV to CV combat.

    In the current meta there is no reason to not use the largest, tankiest and most laggy ship you have over a smaller ship since a dreadnought is able to travel and accelerate just as fast as a corvette. This suggestion is so that smaller ships have one aspect that they beat larger ships in so that they have a proper place in the meta.

    Which is not what I am suggesting, I am simply saying that a dreadnought should not be able to accelerate and move as if it was a fighter.

    Just like thrusters, generators and power storage can be stacked and scaled infinitely so power requirements is a non-issue.

    Structural requirements are not an issue for ship already since they can their size to accomidate whatever internal systems they need infinitely as well

    The entire point of this suggestion is so that thrusters cannot be scaled infinitely and thus ships have to choose between speed and being durable.

    I can get behind your ideas with RCS however I believe this could be implemented in conjunction with my suggestion rather then being implemented as a replacement.
     
    #12
  13. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Linear acceleration is very different from angular. The force required for turning a given mass increases so fast with its displacement from the center of mass that it creates diminishing returns naturally.

    When I say structural I don't mean like SI, I mean having holes everywhere in your armor because of the sheer number of RCS units required. :D Stacking more and more on top just digs you into a deeper and deeper hole as the volume expands and the curve gets worse.
     
    #13
  14. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    47
    Again, slower turning rates is something I believe is beneficial however it does not fix the issue of ships being able to achieve maximum speed and do so as if they were a fighter.

    As I said in the original post, of the issues I seek to address is how most CV to CV fights devolve into conga lines where neither ship is able to shoot at eachover due to being out of range and there is no way to close that gap unless someone allows you too.

    It should not be noted that you are able to turn your ship without loosing velocity simply by turning off auto-brake
     
    #14
  15. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Ahh.. I'd greatly prefer tractor beams (or even a strong enough tether to clamp on and turn the enemy CV into a PvP POI if walking on moving ships is implemented), sensor systems, in-system warp jumps, and cloaking mechanics instead of simply imposing speed caps.
     
    #15
    Neal likes this.
  16. Neal

    Neal Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    3,135
    Most probably because PVE will not just consist of the need to attack some lone POIs, but contain battles between player CVs and AI controlled CVs in the future.

    And to be honest i don't want to be limited when building ships, just because some stupid kids abuse some game mechanics to win some PvP match (a game mode many player have nothing to do with in the first place).
    On the other hand, i'm very much for the idea of having diminshing returns for some devices, but only if it applies for all types of vehicles, not just CVs.
    I'm pro to this idea, because i like to get a semi realistic feel for the game, but i am strongly against some arbitary limitations, just so some people can have another generic Sci Fi game where small spaceships can destroy ships 10x their own size.

    An idea:
    Have the amount of diminishing return be made into a variable which could be set at the start of a game or by the moderator of a dedicated server.


    As is already said, the game shouldn't need some arbitary limitations just to prevent lag.
    Heck, weapon range in space and even view range in space are already laughably short, your suggestion alone wouldn't help making it any better, just preventing the game from getting worse.

    I'd say go both routes and have diminishing returns for some devices (Engines, RCS) for all Vehicles, but also add the feature of merge and un-merge building blocks to finally increase view and Weapon ranges in space to allow massive CVs battle each other.
     
    #16
  17. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    47
    The only people who would be negatively affected by this change would be players who abuse the lack of proper speed balancing in different ship sizes and wish to continue to abuse them.

    Your capital ship will still be able to participate in AI controlled CVs, it just won't have the speed and agility of a fighter.

    No offence dude, but based on your replies you seem to be one of the "stupid kids" who wants to be able to continue to abuse the lack of balance.

    While this suggestion is primarily aimed at fixing balance issues with CVs, I believe that if it was to be implemented it should be implemented with every vessel type.

    I am not suggesting a weapon buff or other idea that would allow fighters to pull a death star on a capital CV so your reply is confusing, I am simply suggesting that smaller less armoured vessels should be faster so that they have a workable advantage against more durable capital vessels who what they lack in speed make up for in durability.

    I agree, I think that server owners should be allowed to customise block behaviour as they please.

    Perhaps the config files could include an option for adjusting how much effect diminishing returns with a standard baseline which server admins can adjust to be higher, lower or even opt out of it if they wish.

    This suggestion isnt exclusively a lag prevention measure.

    Half the point of this suggestion was so that ships designed with speed in mind could close distance to get within weapon range and I firmly believe that if the developers were to implement this correctly, then short weapon ranges would not be such a bad thing since ships can be designed so they can close the gap.

    That being said, I do believe that weapon ranges in general are way too short. I think render range needs to be increased and weapon ranges as well.
     
    #17
  18. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Another approach to diminishing returns would be thermal management. The bigger the vessel, the harder it is to dump all the heat generated (lower surface area : volume ratio) from thrusters and such. This is actually even more interesting as it means you could achieve high acceleration for short bursts, or lower acceleration for a longer time, and all other devices could be similarly affected as an alternative to the whole "CPU" system in the pipeline. Probably won't happen though. :/

    I'd argue it would have been more fun than volume and cargo mass. :rolleyes:
     
    #18
    geostar1024 likes this.
  19. Neal

    Neal Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    3,135
    To me it is not about abusing anything but to find the right balance that also feels right, regardless if PvP players think it ok or not.
    As i probably stated 10 times already, i'm with you in preventing some 1million Ton battleships to zip around like spacefghters, my concern is rather who to determine what is ok and what is not.
    I would hate to see Big CVs become static mountains, just because of the games clunky definition of Ship Class (because of many interior decorations or something else).


    Since i don't do PvP anyways, your statement was pretty nonsensical either, since there's nothing to abuse if there's no one else to take advantage of in the first place.
    If i would want to cheat in my single player game that's my problem. I would be the only one whose fun gets ruined, lol.

    As i said above, what i meant was who determines how much is the right balance and what would be too much or too little?
    Everyone's taste is different imo, that's why i'd say leave that to each server owner and single player to find the best balance for it.


    If we're talking about CV vs CV i think a bigger ship should have certain advantages that should overweight a small ships maneuverability to a certain extend. Don't forget that building (resources) fueling and repairing a really big ship should also have a proper advantage compared to a rather cheap and smaller ship.
    Speed being a advantage shold be ok, but it shouldn't be too big of a advantage imo.


    That's what i meant.
    I think this would be the best sollution for this matter.

    Short weapon ranges are one thing, but what we have at the moment is more than rediculus.

    Imagine a CV - CV battle where both ships need to be closer than 1Km to each other in order to even open fire at.
    This would be acceptable distance for Carronades (or a Sci Fi equivalent of it), a short range but highly devestating weapon.

    Normal CV weapons should have a range of at least 8 or 10 Km in my opinion.
    (maybe the heavier the longer the range for some weapon types)
    Heck there are so many possibilities, like long range energy weapons/Missiles (10-15 Km), short range shorgun like Weapons (<5Km) Standard energy and ballistic Weapons (<10 Km) or even whole batteries of energy weapons for broadsiding . :)
     
    #19
  20. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,165
    Likes Received:
    7,095
    There's no good (read: consistent) way to give ships different max speeds in the absence of friction (in atmosphere, the concept of terminal velocity based on available thrust and cross-sectional area applies, but that's not relevant here). We have a couple of problems right now: the thrust/power ratio for most thrusters is too high, armor and weapons aren't dense enough, and turning ships require only trivial amounts of power. Even in the absence of other limits like CPU, fundamentally you should only be able to choose no more than two of: acceleration, armor, weapons. Right now, the problem is that you can choose all three with little in the way of consequences.

    Weapon targeting/ranges are definitely a problem, but playing with the physics of ship movement is not the right way to fix them.
     
    #20
    TNTBOY479, Kieve and IronCartographer like this.

Share This Page