Diminishing returns for propulsion stacking

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

  1. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    Unless/until we get in-system warp jumps, speed caps definitely matter. Travel to moons, stations, etc.
     
    #41
  2. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    122
    When I say the should not really matter. , is there effectively unlimited realistically. and should be high enough that even if you burned half way too the moon and then started a braking maneuver or retro burn , you should not reach what ever the theoretical speed cap. keep in mind with out something like an inertial compensator, and just are gravity generator to help dampen acceleration , We would not be able to handle an constant acceleration of more then about 4 or 5 gs and that would be unpleasant 1 gee we would not feel at all and 2 gees would be much more conferrable as we would only feel one gee of the accel . unless we assume that pilots and passenger seats are acceleration couches, and even then I don't see us being able to handle more then 10 gees or so... thought that might explain why we cant get out of or seats well the ship is moving, if we assume the ship is always doing a burn or retro burn. un less at a rest relative
     
    #42
  3. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    No, it's because of the inner workings of the game engine's physics combined with network latency making it impossible to guarantee relative coordinates and collision sensibility without certain assumptions and simplifications: Most notably, top speed, but also co-moving coordinate precision and/or relativism.

    This illustrates the challenges nicely:
     
    #43
  4. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    122
    I understand because game engine limits there need to be things like top speeds. what would be nice is if the could be high enough so as not to matter realistically to us the player with the acceptation of being in a planets amto but that gives us a handy way to deal with that, and that's the terminal velocity. there is only so fast you can go throw a gas or a liquid as it takes time for the molecules to get pushed out of the way , I not sure what the top seed is now, but it use to belike wait 50 in amto and 100 in space, problem is that 100m/s is not even orbital speed that's like around 2 or 3 km/s well if your dealing with earth any one I think 100 m/s might be orbital speed for the moon
     
    #44
    TNTBOY479 likes this.
  5. TNTBOY479

    TNTBOY479 Commander

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2017
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    115
    I think the only thing that needs to be limited in terms of speed with big CVs is the turning speed that you can acheive with enough RCS blocks. Them acheiving top speed i dont consider an issue at all. Besides they would be pretty obsolete if they became too slow.
     
    #45
    TmikeS3 likes this.
  6. Sephrajin

    Sephrajin Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2017
    Messages:
    987
    Likes Received:
    2,453
    And they dont.
    Stacking Imbalance sounds absolutly wrong to my ears.
    For a ship of bigger size you need more than juts 1 thruster per side.

    Dont get it wrong, just because there are high acceleration values, doesnt mean ist Combat capable.
    Specialy CV's that cant turn on a dime, are vulnerable = thus need to be a dreadnough = which shold not turn fast -> circle closed.

    It is up to the builder (you!?) to decide what s/he builds.
    It is up to the Player (you!?) to decide what he uses.

    If you neither build, nor subscibe builds that match what you're asking for/suggest to be used, you're not supporting that idea, but just demanding, while mainwhile cut off the freedom to build whatever we like -> for those that do not share the same point of view.

    For example, my builds often have 'high values' (30-70), because I want them to be compatible with my Scenario.
    True it only offers planets up to 3g as of now, but that doesnt mean higher G's are not planned.

    Meaning:
    Allthough (many of) my ships have a (too) high acceleration (not really, been told so by People who then chosen a ship with even higher values) , that doesnt make them 'fighters' but merly high gravity compatible.

    Conclusion:
    I know it is a new and strange concept nowadays… but find a place where you can fight with Honor!
    A place where other PvP'er share your PoV, and build/choose their ships according to predefined rules (such 'outlines' you mentioned).
    Only then you'll find the challenge and joy you're looking for.

    Oh.. and if you think 250 RCS are much, no it's not.
    It depends on the ship. I have a ship with 700 RCS, and it turns as much as 0.3°... and I know of a ship using 1500 RCS which handles just as bad...

    Realism aside, it's a game and this should make fun -> one should be able to build hughe fanstastic ships and be able to enjoy them.
    But to my feeling, we're heading very much the Sim way, why not play SE or ED then?

    Dreadnought:
    20181227004524_1.jpg

    'Fighter':
    20181226081701_1.jpg
    I agree on the speedcaps, in terms of: should be higher for both of them -> in space.

    my 2 cents
     
    #46
    IronCartographer likes this.
  7. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    51
    Which is exactly what people do that allows CVs to turn on the dime.

    That and RCS spamming, both RCS and thrusters can be stacked infinitely.

    Well duh, obviously a ship can have the agility of a fighter but that doesnt make it good. However this is the same for any building technique.

    Yes... thats exactly what I am saying. Dreadnoughs should still be allowed to be durable, they just should not have the agility of a fighter while doing so.

    Building however you want is one thing, abusing mechanics which are objectively broken is another.

    You will not be forbidden from using capital ships, they just won't have the agility of a fighter while having 10 layers of CS.

    So you want to be continued to allow to abuse broken thruster stacking mechanics because you are unwilling to adapt your scenario to permit more balanced ships to be usable?

    The same flawed logic can be applied to people who believe that it is ok to abuse broken mechanics because "MUH FREEDOM", if you don't like the game being balanced then why not find a group who has no problem with game breaking balance issues existing?

    I did state that if this was to be implemented, I would like for server owners to be able to adjust how much diminishing returns effects thrusters on their server so they can change it from vanilla to whatever or even opt out completely.

    I never mentioned anything about RCS numbers...

    All I have said about RCS was that they could be stacked infinetly just like thrusters. Please read the posts so you understand what I am even saying before offering criticism.

    The "I should be allowed to abuse broken mechanics because muh freedom xDDDD" argument is a fallacy.

    Ok so you build some ships, what does this prove?
     
    #47
  8. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    122
    What I would like to know is what are ships are using for Reaction mass, The Engines look like Ion or plasma engines, but those require reaction mass , I wonder if that would salve is problem, Which incidentally why I stooped using Ion engines in SE when they added the Hydrogen Engines. I know we need some had waving but Even the Enterprises impulse engines are basically plasma rockets using fusion reactors to heat of the reaction mass . and RCS also needs some kind of Reaction mass.
     
    #48
  9. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,582
    Likes Received:
    7,763
    I've always thought it was Promethium, after it's been . . processed . . by generators. Unfortunately, fuel tanks have a constant mass right now, though with the advent of mass and volume they could finally have wet and dry masses.

    Reaction wheels and CMGs don't, though technically angular momentum desaturation is needed eventually with both (which usually means propellant unless you can be clever and use gravitational or magnetic gradients). Given that even KSP doesn't model angular momentum saturation in its reaction wheels, Empyrion probably definitely doesn't need to model it. RCS devices need very high power consumption when active, though.
     
    #49
  10. Slipstream

    Slipstream Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    1,429
    My $0.02:

    The RCS system should be a 'battery' that charges up over time. When it is time to engage them for a PRY maneuver (pitch, roll, yaw) then you trade off RCS potential energy for your vector change. Thus, a large ship with enough RCS potential could PRY very quickly. Once. Then you have to recharge your RCSes.

    A lower mass ship with the same amount of RCS will be inherently more nimble, and can sustain "combat maneuvering" for much longer.

    As always, YMMV.

    --Brian
     
    #50
  11. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,582
    Likes Received:
    7,763
    I guess I don't see the point in introducing yet another mechanic when physics will do the job just fine. We know what needs to be done: RCS devices need to increase in volume with increasing torque output, and active power consumption needs to be proportional to torque output. The devs just need to do it :p.
     
    #51
    Moonsugar likes this.
  12. Kaloriaa

    Kaloriaa Commander

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2015
    Messages:
    387
    Likes Received:
    218
    Wait what? That makes no sense. More engines you put on something more power your going to get. The drawback would be more fuel consumption.

    I never like diminishing returns mechanic it doesn't make sense to me ever. ((2+2=4)) not 2+2=2 nor 2+2=3. So what if you have a 100 thrusters on a ship? The drawback more fuel being consumed not reduced performance cause that don't make since.
     
    #52
  13. TmikeS3

    TmikeS3 Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    122
    For some things it makes Since, I agree for things like Engines not so much. But for thing Reaction wheels that is really a thing. I could also see it for things like Point defiance, Ecn, Fire control, and sensors
     
    #53
  14. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    51
    Balance > Realism

    If you want a game with realism then space engineers is a waaaay better choice then Empy
     
    #54
  15. Mojomann71

    Mojomann71 Ensign

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2019
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    14
    More thrusters would also add more mass which in turn can "eat up" any extra output you were expecting.

    Something like that anyway. :)
     
    #55
  16. IronCartographer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    1,273
    Realism is a good starting point for balance, as it ensures consistency and meeting expectations. There are games where it can be satisfying for things to behave wildly different from your intuition, but in this case real physics should be the starting point with a few adjustments.

    I do believe in diminishing returns, but rather than placing it on the thrust output, I believe it should be in the form of a limited budget--something along the lines of the CPU system planned, except with more dynamic behavior (the ability to upgrade the budget itself with the ultimate diminishing returns being rapidly increasing cost to upgrade the device limit).
     
    #56
    geostar1024 likes this.
  17. Samoja

    Samoja Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2019
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    10
    In space bigger IS better, but i disagree that there is no place for SVs, clearly the bigger the ship, the more fuel it will drain, also using bigger ships means you have larger blind spots, probably the easiest way to take down a large ship is boarding, if your boarding craft is capable of boring a hole in the hull without being blasted to pieces you can go after the core and make the whole big hunk of steel as worthless as a wreck.
     
    #57
  18. RadElert_007

    RadElert_007 Commander

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2016
    Messages:
    171
    Likes Received:
    51
    Realism shouldnt be the be all end all for any balance what-so-ever

    While it can be used as something to draw inspiration from, we need to be open minded to turning to other sources of balance.

    This is something I could get behind so long as the CPU usage for blocks is appropriate, considering the current balance with CPU I am not exactly confident in that, but I do hope the developers could prove me wrong.

    Just like thrusters, fuel tanks can be stacked for infinity to the point where fuel is a non issue, especially considering that you can carry spare fuel in your inventory and refuel without even needing to leave the cockpit.

    Any blind spots your ship may or may not have are invalidated when you realise that RCS can be stacked to infinity as well and you can make CVs with the agility of a fighter interceptor.


    Yeah.... no

    Boarding isnt viable because

    1. The agility a CV can be just as much as fighter interceptor in both turning and velocity
    2. Armour stacking makes breaching hulls with an SV effectively impossible
    3. As soon as you exit your "boarding craft" your velocity becomes 0, you will remain still while your boarding target effortlessly flies away from you and your boarding craft, even if you are inside you will just clip through the walls

    The only way you could make this work would be to find a large enough gap in the enemy interior to fly a sizeable CV into said gap which causes the enemy to be unable to move with the error "There is an undocked entity in your ship", however this is considered by some to be an exploit and is difficult to do due to how fast CVs can move.
     
    #58
  19. Beasthammer

    Beasthammer Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 4, 2018
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    16
    Hi Guys,

    I do not want to interfere between simcitiers and harcore pvp fans but the only way to solve this problem is introducing structural integrity to vessels too.
    The problem start with acceleration where if you build something with enough thrusters it will overwhelm the total mass of the steel brick you are accelerating.
    This is why bigger is better at the moment. But if there was working structural integrity, you should maintain the balance of the structure across the whole grid.
    In this way if you would attach too many thrusters at the end of your ship it would crush its middle because of the force.
    Too high turn rate? Same. If there was structural integrity with too high mass and too high turn rate your ship would tear apart itself, because that is how physics work.

    I do not think that devs can make it work ever... Just see SE. really really long devtime and they still have issues with proper physics.

    We need diminishing returns on npc spawning and not on stacked thrusters...
     
    #59
  20. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    5,582
    Likes Received:
    7,763
    There are generally 3 different ways to end up in a balanced state: starting with reality and taking abstraction steps carefully and consistently; constructing a system from scratch with a set of mathematical models that give self-consistent results; endless iteration on an initial state by tweaking various values and relationships as needed. The second is really hard to do right (particularly if you also want some actual physics as part of it), and the third suffers from the fact that it seeks local extrema rather than a global extremum (meaning there's no guarantee you'll ever reach a state that's self-consistent or balanced). The first approach works quickly, yields excellent self-consistent results as long as you're careful with the abstraction steps, and is incidentally also compatible with normal physics.

    Perhaps you missed the recent announcement that fuel in fuel tanks now has mass? Also, the limited volume of the player's inventory means that your ability to carry spare fuel without affecting the mass of the ship is greatly reduced (the devs are still considering how to handle the player's inventory when seated in a ship, but I doubt it will remain massless). So, no, you can't just stack fuel tanks without being subject to the rocket equation.

    It's been long known that RCS needs to have massive power draws (comparable to thrusters or larger) when active. And it's also well-known that SV/HV thrusters are underpowered compared to their CV counterparts. Diminishing returns for stacking here would be fixing the symptoms rather than the underlying problems.
     
    #60
    IronCartographer and dichebach like this.

Share This Page