Main Engine as Upgrade

Talk among developers, and propose and discuss general development planning/tackling/etc... feature in this forum.
ShadowOblivion
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:31 am
Location: Dirac Sea

Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by ShadowOblivion »

Overview:
This proposal seeks to give the player greater control over the power of the ship's Main Engine(this is separate from the Overdrive Upgrade). It is more of an expansion of Erk's overall idea to make more components customizable at http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/forum ... =6&t=10162. This idea focuses on Engine Upgrades.

Explanation:
Currently the power of a ship's engines are dependent wholly on the ship's type. The number of G's an engine is able to maintain on all the axes is greatly affected by the mass of the upgrades and cargo of the ship. This feature would seek to give the player the option to limit the effect a large mass induces on a ship's agility by making Engine Upgrades, that is; allowing Engines to be treated the same way as other upgrades such as Shields, Weapons, Overdrive.... with level representing power. Unlike the other upgrades, the Engine upgrades will not be absolute across all ships(Level 1 won't always increase agility by 5G's), rather the increases will be dependent on the ship's Affected Base Acceleration(Acceleration+Mass Effects), as a percentage. Therefore a Level 1 Engine Upgrade may increase the Base by 10%, Level 2 by 20%, Level 3 by 30%, and so on. As an extentsion of this feature, there may be different types of engines, that boost movement along certain axes by a greater percentage than other axes. Since this upgrade will also have mass(which will be accounted for before the increased velocity, since the base speed will be decreased by the mass of this upgrade), there will need to be a dynamic situation where the higher-level Engine Upgrades will only be useful to very heavy and slow ships. Perhaps this could be done by increasing the mass of the upgrade faster than the benefit. Larger and heavier ships will be affected less by such an increase, but will still benefit from the greater agility(which still won't be anywhere near that of a smaller ship, but would nonetheless bring a noticeable improvement).

Example:
A player buys a starship that can do 10G's going forward, and also purchases upgrades for the ship that decrease the acceleration to 6G's. In order to fix this, the player buys a Level 3 Engine Upgrade(small mass, +30% acceleration along all axes), which increases the player's ship's mass and boosts its acceleration. In the end the ships is capable of pulling 7.8G's.
The signal is calling! Our planet is falling!
MC707
Venturer
Venturer
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Quito, Ecuador.
Contact:

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by MC707 »

PS Love your way of putting your proposals - very neat and organized. Good for us to understand and for proper first impressions :P :)

I like your idea. It might go well with the current FTL and normal travel system. I am not sure though (since the posts are immense and I read them tons of time ago), but your idea may collide with safemode's new travel mode and balancing issues. Check the forum thread where Deus and safemode discussed quite a lot of issues concerning these things.
My Machine: OS: Ubuntu 8.10 (intrepid) 64 bit in a 500GB Maxtor HD @ 7200 RPM, Windows Vista PsyChoses Edition 2009 32 bit in a 500GB Samsung HD @ 7200 RPM CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz GPU: nVidia GeForce 9400 GT @ 1024 MB RAM: 3891 MB
Earthlings|The End of the Internet?|FreeWebsite
ShadowOblivion
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:31 am
Location: Dirac Sea

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by ShadowOblivion »

Thank you :D . I figured there would be a greater chance my proposals are going to be implemented if they're easy to understand :twisted: . I'll look into that forum, see what's going to be happening. Is there a coherent goal for VS, of what it should end up as a game, or is it made up as things go along?
The signal is calling! Our planet is falling!
MC707
Venturer
Venturer
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:18 am
Location: Quito, Ecuador.
Contact:

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by MC707 »

ShadowOblivion wrote:Thank you :D . I figured there would be a greater chance my proposals are going to be implemented if they're easy to understand :twisted: . I'll look into that forum, see what's going to be happening. Is there a coherent goal for VS, of what it should end up as a game, or is it made up as things go along?
You're welcome :mrgreen:

Well, as you can see my friend, we're still halfway through (0.5.0), so things can still be changed according to possibility (no, pleasure borgs won't be usable even if we port to Ogre :evil: xDDD), nor we will be able to use boats or submarines (I assume, anyway). So the answer is, both. VS has a coherent goal of what it should end up as a game (a space sim for trading, battling, missions, maybe even minigames [casino planet anyone? xD]), etc; whilst things are made up too as things go along (see the "and now for something different" and the "a new take on wormholes" threads).
My Machine: OS: Ubuntu 8.10 (intrepid) 64 bit in a 500GB Maxtor HD @ 7200 RPM, Windows Vista PsyChoses Edition 2009 32 bit in a 500GB Samsung HD @ 7200 RPM CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz GPU: nVidia GeForce 9400 GT @ 1024 MB RAM: 3891 MB
Earthlings|The End of the Internet?|FreeWebsite
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

I was going to suggest this myself at some point.

The ships are already almost fully modular, you can swap out parts that affect any individual aspect of the craft's performance, except for engines and engine performance. But if the engines were modular as well, then you would have full control. Then the ship hull is about base durability and a limitor on what kind, size and quantity of upgrades you can mount on it.

I'm thinking the only reason the upgrade system doesn't already work this way is because engines are the only upgrade you really need (they provide their own power, so you don't need a reactor to run them) otherwise newbes could get marooned in space in alot of cases by leaving a planet or such without engines or just anyone could ge marooned by loosing their engines in combat or a collision.

To compensate, there'd just need to be a prompt or warning that comes up when you try to take off without engines, that basically tells you you can't. Then you would only become marooned if you had no money to buy engines with. To compensate for this too, you could have emergency backup thrusters that are part of the hull and that produce minimal acceleration for your ship if your main modular engines were sold or destroyed.
ShadowOblivion
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:31 am
Location: Dirac Sea

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by ShadowOblivion »

@ Deus Siddis:
I can see what you mean, but I think there is an easy way around that. In my proposal, I discussed the modifications of existing, default engines(hence the percent change vs absolutes for other upgrades). The ships would always possess a Level 0(+0% modification on affected acceleration), that any additional upgrades would mask. This wouldn't give the player absolute control over their engines(because the upgrades will always cause an effect that would be based on the ship's original accelerations), while still allowing some flexibility.
The signal is calling! Our planet is falling!
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

ShadowOblivion wrote:@ Deus Siddis:
I can see what you mean, but I think there is an easy way around that. In my proposal, I discussed the modifications of existing, default engines(hence the percent change vs absolutes for other upgrades). The ships would always possess a Level 0(+0% modification on affected acceleration), that any additional upgrades would mask. This wouldn't give the player absolute control over their engines(because the upgrades will always cause an effect that would be based on the ship's original accelerations), while still allowing some flexibility.
And I think that is a very good idea, as long as the base engines are fairly minimal- like only enough to provide the ship with the acceleration of an escape pod. You could still get back to someplace where you could buy real engines, but it would take some time and you'd be an almost sitting duck during the process (same as if you left with no shields or armor or weapons).
Sarin
Mercenary
Mercenary
Posts: 103
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 3:38 am

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Sarin »

A little late, but I'll add my 2 credits to that. You proposed a % boost...I think an absolute +power would be better. For example a 10% boost on Schroedinger would have the thrust of 5 KW (not a real number, I'm just guessing), but on Clydesdale like 10 MW...for the same price and space used.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by TBeholder »

Yeah, exactly. Make them _add_ type. The hull in config got a limit on upgrade type, and now you can just say "it got 50 thruster nodes", yeah... Also, more direct damage/repair handling.
I tried it, but didn't proposed, 'cause there's a little, but annoying thing: since there's no slots for non-weapon upgrades now, you'll either get fore and aft thruster as two completely different devices ("here's 25 fore thrusters to buy and no aft!"), or you'll have to bind them in pairs one-to-one, both variants looks silly.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
ShadowOblivion
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:31 am
Location: Dirac Sea

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by ShadowOblivion »

@Sarin:
You're exactly right in that a percentage increase would make different acceleration increases on different ships. However, this is also(in my opinion), the most realistic method, and that an absolute increase would be much less realistic. My reasoning is as follows: I assume that light ships are small ships(they have similar density, even if it varies, it can't be by much, although this is just my guess) and heavy ships are large ships. Since spacecraft must carry an entire array of various devices in order to function, space(volume) becomes a limited resource. I see that this is going a bit out of the VS universe, where there's a ton of "upgrade space". But if we take both internal and external components of surface area and volume into account, the logic becomes more sound. Not only is some internal volume required, but also a place on the exterior, where maneuverability upgrades will compete with weapons, shields, and missile launchers(let's not forget the right power and fuel connection, for different engine upgrades will likely have different ways of functioning). Unless VS can be made so realistic that every spacecraft has its own unique upgrades(and a variety, at that) it's easier to assume(in my perspective) that a given device can only give a limited boost on a smaller frame since it may not be possible to place the device where it can achieve its maximum effect. Conversely, if we take a look at a ship like the Clydesdale, we can see that there is much more flexibility on where the device can be placed on its hull, meaning a greater thrust effect becomes possible due to more favorable positioning of the device on the ship(since it's less likely to encounter and compete with another system).Therefore the boost would vary with the size(and mass) of the ship.

I think we shouldn't use the linear system(unless it becomes possible to devote enough resources to it). Let's take a look at what happens if we do. Let's say there is an upgrade that will give a +5G on any ship at all and that we're going to put it on a Schroedinger(initial 30G) and a Clydesdale(initial 1G, since I don't know actual...). The Schroedinger experiences a moderate 1/6 gain, while the Clydesdale's acceleration increases by a titanic 500%. Do you see where this is going yet? Let's say there is a high end upgrade that gives a 10G bonus. Again the Schroedinger experiences an excellent 1/3 gain while the Clydesdale achieves a ridiculous 1000% gain. If turning jets are similarly affected, now we have a Clydesdale that's faster than the unupgraded Llama or even the Plowshare. This would create a significant disadvantage to players who are just starting out. In reaching this conclusion, however, I assume that the base acceleration of the ship is that of the ship at 100% mass and that the base accelerations are not changed with this new system.
The signal is calling! Our planet is falling!
ShadowOblivion
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:31 am
Location: Dirac Sea

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by ShadowOblivion »

@ Deus Siddis:
I disagree with minimizing the base engine power and/or making the base acceleration of all ships the same("as an escape pod"). The reason for the latter is that since, in this system, the increases will be percentage based, and if all the ships will have similar capabilities, the gameplay will be destroyed. Minimizing the base engine power would also be a problem because it would nullify the need for a percentage-based increase in the first place much for the same reason as in the previous sentence.I think the engines should remain as they are and these upgrades should only do so much and have the main purpose of negating some of the ill effects of a mass greater than base and otherwise providing a moderately significant boost to velocity and/or agility.
The signal is calling! Our planet is falling!
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by TBeholder »

ShadowOblivion wrote: Let's say there is an upgrade that will give a +5G on any ship
And why would we do such thing, if units.csv format already has force? ;)
ShadowOblivion wrote: You're exactly right in that a percentage increase would make different acceleration increases on different ships. However, this is also(in my opinion), the most realistic method, and that an absolute increase would be much less realistic. My reasoning is as follows: I assume that light ships are small ships(they have similar density, even if it varies, it can't be by much, although this is just my guess) and heavy ships are large ships. Since spacecraft must carry an entire array of various devices in order to function, space(volume) becomes a limited resource. I see that this is going a bit out of the VS universe, where there's a ton of "upgrade space". But if we take both internal and external components of surface area and volume into account, the logic becomes more sound. Not only is some internal volume required, but also a place on the exterior, where maneuverability upgrades will compete with weapons, shields, and missile launchers(let's not forget the right power and fuel connection, for different engine upgrades will likely have different ways of functioning).
As i see this: it's not like you remove one thruster from a bunch and put a shield generator right near the inferno of other jets, so ship would have places for, e.g. 10 thruster nodes. Old lighters can be replaced with better (and expensive) thrusters, but it would require extra power equipment, etc - so this requires a bit (not much) of extra space for each (outside of non-flexible thruster mounts). Or you can just remove half of them, with all secondary equipment - that frees a bit (not much) of extra space for each.
Then Progeny may have, say, 3 jets x 5000 t*m/s*s, Franklin 6, and Goddard 26. But then Clyde would have 40000. So it would be better to use several incompatible classes, much like with some other things - e.g. upgrades/Thrusters/ Light (basic 1.5 ktms2, Seaxbane has 2, Franklin has 20), Medium (10 ktms2), Heavy (500 ktms2), Capital (2500 ktms2, Clydesdale has 80).

Then in the next revision we could get rid of the "afterburner type" and do it in a way unified throughout equipment instead: set normal and maximum consumption-per-second of a resource.Tthen it would go to the thrusters (i.e. it's strong and economic cruising thruster with bad boosting capability, or a fuel hog capable of much greater maximum power). Which still wouldn't prevent from keeping afterburners themselves as several corresponding types of mul_ upgrades tweaking combined stats of existing thrusters if we'll like it this way.
ShadowOblivion wrote: Conversely, if we take a look at a ship like the Clydesdale, we can see that there is much more flexibility on where the device can be placed on its hull, meaning a greater thrust effect becomes possible due to more favorable positioning of the device on the ship(since it's less likely to encounter and compete with another system).
Therefore the boost would vary with the size(and mass) of the ship.
It's simpler (and quite reasonable) to assume capships are designed to use bigger and thus both more powerful and efficient thrusters.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

ShadowOblivion wrote:@ Deus Siddis:
I disagree with minimizing the base engine power and/or making the base acceleration of all ships the same("as an escape pod"). The reason for the latter is that since, in this system, the increases will be percentage based, and if all the ships will have similar capabilities, the gameplay will be destroyed.
No I am saying percentage based would not work, it is totally unrealistic and imbalancing. There is no single piece of equipment that can increase a main battletank's acceleration by the same percentage as it would a dirt bike.

You need to have it be additive. For a llama, say hull main thruster power is 10, then the cheapest engine you can put on that ship might be 1,000. So the llama has main thrust of 1010.
Minimizing the base engine power would also be a problem because it would nullify the need for a percentage-based increase in the first place much for the same reason as in the previous sentence.I think the engines should remain as they are and these upgrades should only do so much and have the main purpose of negating some of the ill effects of a mass greater than base and otherwise providing a moderately significant boost to velocity and/or agility.
Hmm, I thought there already were some thrust upgrades. Either way, to really make engine equipment a serious consideration though, theplayer should really be able to choose the primary engine for his ship.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by TBeholder »

Deus Siddis wrote:No I am saying percentage based would not work, it is totally unrealistic and imbalancing. There is no single piece of equipment that can increase a main battletank's acceleration by the same percentage as it would a dirt bike.

You need to have it be additive. For a llama, say hull main thruster power is 10, then the cheapest engine you can put on that ship might be 1,000. So the llama has main thrust of 1010.
...
Either way, to really make engine equipment a serious consideration though, theplayer should really be able to choose the primary engine for his ship.
But why ever bother with "main thruster" or "primary engine" ? The table already gives a force (in ton*m/s*s). So just set it to zero for ".blank" ships and install N x add_thruster_light_basic upgrades to get an original value, then make N maximum amount of thruster upgrades allowed for this hull, as simple as this. Much the same with back thrust - "separate aft/fore thrusters" issue can be lessened for now if you'll set far-over-the-top amount for thrusters reserve on stations when they are available at all. Which is quite believable: they should be baked in heaps, like tyres.

Edit:
technically, some basic value could be assigned as a work of maneuver jets, 'cause turning rates are ship-dependent. But it's a lesser part anyway, and perhaps still can be processed much the same way. I just checked RecomputeUnitUpgrades (in src/cmd/unit_util_generic.cpp), and yes, effects of "add_" upgrades' are calculated before "mult_" upgrades. This means adding some irremovable tweaker "upgrade" in a ship's packgage should work: engine would first calculate turning jets' total turning force, then adjust it for an arm (ship's size). So we'll get N sets of maneuver jets (full or even per axis) which adds both a fixed thrust to an axis (all or one) and a set of fixed turning forces. Former are used as is, latter are adjusted by ship's basic configuration (packgage). Then it would be easy to implement advanced variants and different size classes.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

Turbo Beholder wrote:But why ever bother with "main thruster" or "primary engine" ? The table already gives a force (in ton*m/s*s). So just set it to zero for ".blank" ships and install N x add_thruster_light_basic upgrades to get an original value, then make N maximum amount of thruster upgrades allowed for this hull, as simple as this. Much the same with back thrust - "separate aft/fore thrusters" issue can be lessened for now if you'll set far-over-the-top amount for thrusters reserve on stations when they are available at all. Which is quite believable: they should be baked in heaps, like tyres.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it sounds like you are just talking about an implementation. I'm talking about game design and balance, not how this could be done in units.csv.

And you wouldn't want to set the built-in engines to zero, that would leave players stranded if their engines were sold or destroyed.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by TBeholder »

Deus Siddis wrote:I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it sounds like you are just talking about an implementation. I'm talking about game design and balance, not how this could be done in units.csv.
That defines what can be implemented right now.
Deus Siddis wrote: And you wouldn't want to set the built-in engines to zero, that would leave players stranded if their engines were sold
If all thrusters are removed, they would most likely be stranded in the base's dock. ;) Also, if maneuver jets are counted, it will be mostly the same - ship will move... a little. Just like it moves laterally.
Deus Siddis wrote: or destroyed.
And if the reactor is destroyed, ship is dead. So what? Also, that's why i propose multiple thruster modules. Which will (with the current engine) work somehow if they are damaged but not utterly destroyed. It would take so many critical hits to the thrusters that ship would more likely lose shield and reactor and be killed before it's completely stranded.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
ShadowOblivion
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 38
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 3:31 am
Location: Dirac Sea

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by ShadowOblivion »

I'm liking this discussion, gentlemen! There are definitely great ideas being thrown out there.
Deus Siddis wrote: No I am saying percentage based would not work, it is totally unrealistic and imbalancing. There is no single piece of equipment that can increase a main battletank's acceleration by the same percentage as it would a dirt bike.
I can see where you're going with that. The division of engine types into size/faction/manufacturer would be a more ideal solution.
Deus Siddis wrote: And you wouldn't want to set the built-in engines to zero, that would leave players stranded if their engines were sold
Perhaps instead of "selling" we could "replace" engines? That way the player can't sell his engine, and thus be stranded. If he wants to make some credits, he could instead trade his engine in for a weaker, stock model. Perhaps we should have "required" upgrades like shields, engines, and reactors(the rigor of future space travel) may require those?

Turbo Beholder wrote: That defines what can be implemented right now.
Isn't this the Future Development and Requests Forum :lol: ?
Turbo Beholder wrote: But why ever bother with "main thruster" or "primary engine" ?
In many real-world cases(I'm going to make an educated guess here), the hull and engine of a vehicle must be co-designed in such a way in order for them to work well, or even fit together properly. This tends to sacrifice interchangeability, however. I think that all spacecraft should come with some type of engine(stock engines designed specifically for the craft they come with. later the player can exchange them for something else that works better and fits your hull). When's the last time you bought a car without an engine?
The signal is calling! Our planet is falling!
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

Turbo Beholder wrote:That defines what can be implemented right now.
The main hurdle is official approval, this would be a fairly big balance change.
If all thrusters are removed, they would most likely be stranded in the base's dock. ;)
No, for some reason when you load a save game or launch from a planet, you are dropped outside a docking box. You could then be stranded.
Also, if maneuver jets are counted, it will be mostly the same - ship will move... a little. Just like it moves laterally.
Retro and Lateral thrusters are part of the engine, or at least be separate upgrades as well. Plus having to crab back to someplace would be ridiculous.
And if the reactor is destroyed, ship is dead. So what?
So you are not dead, you sit in space forever or you self destruct. Given how the VS universe is presented, that's a bug.
Also, that's why i propose multiple thruster modules. Which will (with the current engine) work somehow if they are damaged but not utterly destroyed. It would take so many critical hits to the thrusters that ship would more likely lose shield and reactor and be killed before it's completely stranded.
Well you don't need that "somehow", if you allow hulls to keep their base thrusting values, only now they are set to 1% of what they once were. Like you said, this is a way for an immediate implementation. And one that makes the most sense if we unhook engine performance from ship hulls (directly).
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

ShadowOblivion wrote:I'm liking this discussion, gentlemen! There are definitely great ideas being thrown out there.
Thanks, the same to you for bringing this up, it is a worthy topic for discussion.
I can see where you're going with that. The division of engine types into size/faction/manufacturer would be a more ideal solution.
Agreed. For each ship there could be a few engine options, which may or may not be available to another particular ship.
Perhaps instead of "selling" we could "replace" engines? That way the player can't sell his engine, and thus be stranded. If he wants to make some credits, he could instead trade his engine in for a weaker, stock model. Perhaps we should have "required" upgrades like shields, engines, and reactors(the rigor of future space travel) may require those?
It'd take some extra code I think, and it still wouldn't solve the losing your engines in combat issue. Being in great danger is one thing, but you shouldn't be permanently stranded. And having working AI for useful tugs, instead of Uln thugs, is a long ways off still.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by TBeholder »

ShadowOblivion wrote:Perhaps instead of "selling" we could "replace" engines?
No, it looks like a way into complete mess.
ShadowOblivion wrote:Perhaps we should have "required" upgrades like shields, engines, and reactors(the rigor of future space travel) may require those?
Yeah, basic "safety" validation can be good thing. Hmmm, "Hangar/Launch" is a part of base interface... i'll look whether this check can be done in base's python code.
ShadowOblivion wrote:
Turbo Beholder wrote: That defines what can be implemented right now.
Isn't this the Future Development and Requests Forum :lol: ?
The Future is one picosecond away! ;) Future Development part here is such a way to handle things like thruster nodes and shield emitters that they could be set into groups at will and add to their group's power, so we would not need to specify them by sectors. It's also the path toward more "simulated" handling of thrusters.
ShadowOblivion wrote:
Turbo Beholder wrote: But why ever bother with "main thruster" or "primary engine" ?
In many real-world cases(I'm going to make an educated guess here), the hull and engine of a vehicle must be co-designed in such a way in order for them to work well, or even fit together properly. This tends to sacrifice interchangeability, however.
And the technical development generally moves toward the unification and modular design unless some really big issue (like aerodynamics) stands on its way or thing's a basic item already (missile).
For once, this makes replacement easier (which is also appliable to VS implementation ;)). So, 4..6 main thruster sizes and some variation for each would fit our needs.
ShadowOblivion wrote:I think that all spacecraft should come with some type of engine(stock engines designed specifically for the craft they come with. later the player can exchange them for something else that works better and fits your hull). When's the last time you bought a car without an engine?
That would be "without wheels". :) It's another issue entirely - appliable to reactor, shields, etc. Then they will sell mostly basic configurations at normal stations and ".blank" ship hulls at shipyards. Why not? This can be done even now.
Deus Siddis wrote:
Turbo Beholder wrote:That defines what can be implemented right now.
The main hurdle is official approval, this would be a fairly big balance change.
How, if the resulting values would be the same?
Deus Siddis wrote:
If all thrusters are removed, they would most likely be stranded in the base's dock. ;)
No, for some reason when you load a save game or launch from a planet, you are dropped outside a docking box. You could then be stranded.
This one needs a patch indeed. For now, not saving while naked would help. But then, all this applies to other parts, so we're back to the launch validator script...
Deus Siddis wrote:
Also, if maneuver jets are counted, it will be mostly the same - ship will move... a little. Just like it moves laterally.
Retro and Lateral thrusters are part of the engine, or at least be separate upgrades as well. Plus having to crab back to someplace would be ridiculous.
:mrgreen: I mean, if maneuver jets are separated from cruising, they give both turning and lateral thrust, so some of them add to the main axis thrust as well, and they will be still present in absence of main thrusters. Of course, they can be stripped away too - what can't? - but it would be more than an accidental trouble.
Deus Siddis wrote:
And if the reactor is destroyed, ship is dead. So what?
So you are not dead, you sit in space forever or you self destruct. Given how the VS universe is presented, that's a bug.
No, you can eject. ;)
As to the development, "player-generated missions" is one of constant feature requests, so it would be "someone tow in my derelict" once ejected pod lands. Also, outright emergency tow request by radio contact with a station (for a sensible price).
Deus Siddis wrote:
Also, that's why i propose multiple thruster modules. Which will (with the current engine) work somehow if they are damaged but not utterly destroyed. It would take so many critical hits to the thrusters that ship would more likely lose shield and reactor and be killed before it's completely stranded.
Well you don't need that "somehow", if you allow hulls to keep their base thrusting values, only now they are set to 1% of what they once were. Like you said, this is a way for an immediate implementation. And one that makes the most sense if we unhook engine performance from ship hulls (directly).
What's point? Also, if it becomes possible only after having lots of critical hits to the thrusters alone... which means armor is shredded and hull is ready to fall apart. Having all thrusters disabled but ship still alive would be by far less probable event than having shield wrecked by shield and reactor hits and then ship blown up.
Deus Siddis wrote:And having working AI for useful tugs, instead of Uln thugs, is a long ways off still.
Agreed. All i see of it right now, is a drone that adds (or becomes) a subunit (maybe with a lookup for thrusters' locations) that gives some thrust (as an upgrade) but retains its own script AI so it can detach itself later. Though it's obviously zero steps away from a field repair drone.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
loki1950
The Shepherd
Posts: 5841
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: Ottawa
Contact:

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by loki1950 »

Turbo Beholder wrote::mrgreen: I mean, if maneuver jets are separated from cruising, they give both turning and lateral thrust, so some of them add to the main axis thrust as well, and they will be still present in absence of main thrusters. Of course, they can be stripped away too - what can't? - but it would be more than an accidental trouble.
The binding is the flight computer system it controls the manoeuvring jets to simply flight so you just point in the direction you want to go toggle it off and the jets are under manual control.

Enjoy the Choice :)
my box::HP Envy i5-6400 @2Q70GHzx4 8 Gb ram/1 Tb(Win10 64)/3 Tb Mint 19.2/GTX745 4Gb acer S243HL K222HQL
Q8200/Asus P5QDLX/8 Gb ram/WD 2Tb 2-500 G HD/GF GT640 2Gb Mint 17.3 64 bit Win 10 32 bit acer and Lenovo ideapad 320-15ARB Win 10/Mint 19.2
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

Turbo Beholder wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:No, for some reason when you load a save game or launch from a planet, you are dropped outside a docking box. You could then be stranded.
This one needs a patch indeed. For now, not saving while naked would help. But then, all this applies to other parts, so we're back to the launch validator script...
No it doesn't apply to the other parts, because as long as you have thrusters you can go to the nearest station/planet where you can buy a new reactor, shields, etc.
:mrgreen: I mean, if maneuver jets are separated from cruising, they give both turning and lateral thrust, so some of them add to the main axis thrust as well, and they will be still present in absence of main thrusters. Of course, they can be stripped away too - what can't? - but it would be more than an accidental trouble.
I'm thinking that thrusters should come in complete packages, with each one handling all of your ship's maneuvering. This avoids messy situations and makes balancing more interesting.
No, you can eject. ;)
Without a spec drive (escape pods have none) you are effectively not going anywhere. You are stranded. Until this is fixed, escape pods are basically a feature so buggy that they serve no purpose.
As to the development, "player-generated missions" is one of constant feature requests, so it would be "someone tow in my derelict" once ejected pod lands. Also, outright emergency tow request by radio contact with a station (for a sensible price).
Relying on an AI functioning successfully and efficiently on a complex task, for a feature to work, is not good game design. The fact that that AI isn't even close to being implemented yet makes it even more of a long shot.
Deus Siddis wrote:Well you don't need that "somehow", if you allow hulls to keep their base thrusting values, only now they are set to 1% of what they once were. Like you said, this is a way for an immediate implementation. And one that makes the most sense if we unhook engine performance from ship hulls (directly).
What's point?
To give the player a simple mechanism for limping back to a port where he can get a new thruster package. And this mechanism cannot be destroyed independently from his ship.
denyasis
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 10:31 am

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by denyasis »

I like ShadowOblivion's % based system and would like to propose in extension of that may help balancing issues brought up.
Abconding reality for a tiny second here, why not take a CRPG approach to this (and other component upgrades as well)?

If you think about it, The player character is the ship for all intents and purposes - Upgrades are our items.

I think leaving the original stats of the ships in regards to the engine output would be best at the moment. Buying a blank hull and outfitting it from scratch would be cool, but, you'd end up with a balancing nightmare, not to mention a very confused beginner player (what parts do I need to take off? Which part is best? What the hell is this thing?). Case in point: Terminus. (actually - that would prolly be a really fun feature for a more advanced player - but it shouldn't be a requisite for a newer player to get off the ground - it would just in frustration)

Going back to our CRPG mindset here, some of our upgrades to components could function entirely as precentages. The cost, volume, mass, power draw, etc would all be a percentage based on the original stats of our ship. This would help maintain balancing as the upgrade would always be a reasonable proportion of our host ship. The game itself would do the calculations behind the scene for the player, so the player could see the net cost, effect, etc prior to purchasing. You may not want this model for *every* upgrade (weapons come to mind), but it could be useful for many.

For example:
Engine upgrade Level I
-Added to the engine, this part blah blah description stuff
Cost: 10% of base value of hull
Volume: 10% of base volume of hull
Mass: 10% of base mass
Effect: 10% increase in thrust
-------
Actual Cost: X
Volume: Y
Mass: Z
Effect: V

Using the base value of the ship would prevent players from cheating (ie removing all components prior to purchasing to reduce the upgrades size/mass/cost).

Someone pointed out that a percentage increase is not realistic and they are totally right, if you view it as the same component.
Heres a little fictional Thought Experiment:
If a Russian's rocket engine breaks, there is no way they are going to say, "We'll just get an American Engine and strap it on" or Vice Versa. Both engines do the same thing, but the technological backends are so different, they are incompatible. Taking it to the VS universe, we have multiple species, factions, etc. No way a Lancelot engine will work on a Llama. This could be easily explained in our Fiction in that the space port mechanic simply orders the corresponding part for your model of ship (like an auto mechanic would)

Its all just done "behind the scenes". Instead of making one component for every ship (a hassle for devs, playtestors, etc), we are just making one with variable stats and claiming it is many. This avoids tons of balance and frustration problems. :D
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by TBeholder »

Deus Siddis wrote:
Turbo Beholder wrote:This one needs a patch indeed. For now, not saving while naked would help. But then, all this applies to other parts, so we're back to the launch validator script...
No it doesn't apply to the other parts, because as long as you have thrusters you can go to the nearest station/planet where you can buy a new reactor, shields, etc.
...and fuel...
Deus Siddis wrote:I'm thinking that thrusters should come in complete packages, with each one handling all of your ship's maneuvering. This avoids messy situations and makes balancing more interesting.
...multiplied by the number of ships? :shock: As if packgages weren't enough. Interesting, indeed.
Deus Siddis wrote:
No, you can eject. ;)
Without a spec drive (escape pods have none) you are effectively not going anywhere. You are stranded. Until this is fixed, escape pods are basically a feature so buggy that they serve no purpose.
That's too needs a little fixing, but it's simplest part (not enough to circumvent 3 lines of component set with 300). The only problem is to decide what it should do in the end.
Deus Siddis wrote: Relying on an AI functioning successfully and efficiently on a complex task, for a feature to work, is not good game design. The fact that that AI isn't even close to being implemented yet makes it even more of a long shot.
Everything's on AI. But when i re-read this, it occured to me that AI isn't necessary: once eject pod lands, players can just buy some tow and pull their ships...
Deus Siddis wrote:
What's point?
To give the player a simple mechanism for limping back to a port where he can get a new thruster package. And this mechanism cannot be destroyed independently from his ship.
As a "save-ass" feature? :) Well, maneuver thrusters are close to this. Especially if we'll not separate them for now (after all, for symmetrical and fully 6 DOF outfit it may be 6 groups of 4 thruster placements or 3 groups of 8, so let's just skip it for a time being).
denyasis wrote: why not take a CRPG approach to this (and other component upgrades as well)?
I'm already properly horrified. ;)
denyasis wrote: Engine upgrade Level I
-Added to the engine, this part blah blah description stuff
Cost: 10% of base value of hull
Break point. Here's a problem.
denyasis wrote: Heres a little fictional Thought Experiment:
If a Russian's rocket engine breaks, there is no way they are going to say, "We'll just get an American Engine and strap it on" or Vice Versa.
Yeah, we has no love for imperial units, at all. :mrgreen: More seriously, the same was true for the first computers. Even for electric wall and lamp sockets. And how much of them there's now?.. It's a generic direction of development. As in "you really need only so much tyre sizes, and a little compatibility usually helps a lot".
denyasis wrote: Both engines do the same thing, but the technological backends are so different, they are incompatible. Taking it to the VS universe, we have multiple species, factions, etc.
And sizes. Yeah, this gives more classes, like "Thrusters/Confed/Medium" (kl'kk would simply follow Andolians, Spaceborn inherited their masters' industry, uln could be different, but since there's a big market even they have a reason to comply) and incompatible "Thrusters/Aera/Medium". Rlaan are happy without jets anyway. So, 7-8 classes instead of 4, not so great a difference.
denyasis wrote: No way a Lancelot engine will work on a Llama.
Why not? And what "engine"? They has 3 and 10 torches respectively. As to the performance, let's see. Well, let's see. In raw force Llama has 3x main thrusters for 17 k (t*m/s*s) total or 13 k over maneuver thrust; Lancelot has 2x big + 8x small for 27 k / 22 k, but it can't take thruster enhancements, so we can assume it already has something like this built-in. It's rather close to 3x 5k = 15 k and (2x 5k + 8x 1k) *1.25 = 22.5 k :)
denyasis wrote: This could be easily explained in our Fiction in that the space port mechanic simply orders the corresponding part for your model of ship (like an auto mechanic would)
Why would anyone ever do such a weird thing? If they has no prohibition of useable turret AI without Butlerian Jihad, they (all) must at least have some wild quirk?
denyasis wrote: we are just making one with variable stats and claiming it is many. This avoids tons of balance and frustration problems. :D
I fail to see how it could avoid more problems that it introduces, what are "balance problems" here and how any more simple approach would have more "frustration problems" than the lack of automatical/guaranteed/lightning-quick escape pod launcher. ;)
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Main Engine as Upgrade

Post by Deus Siddis »

Turbo Beholder wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:
Turbo Beholder wrote:This one needs a patch indeed. For now, not saving while naked would help. But then, all this applies to other parts, so we're back to the launch validator script...
No it doesn't apply to the other parts, because as long as you have thrusters you can go to the nearest station/planet where you can buy a new reactor, shields, etc.
...and fuel...
Deus Siddis wrote:I'm thinking that thrusters should come in complete packages, with each one handling all of your ship's maneuvering. This avoids messy situations and makes balancing more interesting.
...multiplied by the number of ships? :shock: As if packgages weren't enough. Interesting, indeed.
I don't really understand what you're getting at?

Fuel? Number of ships? Packages? How do these things relate to the discussion or each other?
Everything's on AI. But when i re-read this, it occured to me that AI isn't necessary: once eject pod lands, players can just buy some tow and pull their ships...
Pods take forever to get anywhere that isn't already within eye-shot. If you are lightseconds from the nearest colony, you are not going to get there ever.
Deus Siddis wrote:
What's point?
To give the player a simple mechanism for limping back to a port where he can get a new thruster package. And this mechanism cannot be destroyed independently from his ship.
As a "save-ass" feature? :) Well, maneuver thrusters are close to this. Especially if we'll not separate them for now (after all, for symmetrical and fully 6 DOF outfit it may be 6 groups of 4 thruster placements or 3 groups of 8, so let's just skip it for a time being).
Again I don't understand what you mean. I don't understand what using maneuvering thrusters have to do with making thrusters in general a separate upgrade from the ship while keeping the game functional.
Post Reply