Forums » Suggestions
Ahh here we go again, this is actually the third time i've started to type this out. My thought aren't totally clear yet, but I feel the need to get it posted. Keep that in mind as i am quite likely to drastically revise parts of this suggestion as people respond to it and offer comments. Also, this is an idea that i have been hashing out in my mind for several days, so this post has the potential to get LONG.
Before I do anything else I appreciate that the developers are working on the missions and reputation and such right now, and in no way am i suggesting that anything presented here needs implimented now. What i do see is a potential for future expansion of the game to run into a balance problem much worse than anything we have now.
Problem as I see it: At present there are balance issues with the weapons that occur specifically when several of the same type of weapon are mounted together on the same ship. These weapons are fairly well balanced individually, one to one, but on certain ships and/or in certain combinations they become overwhelmingly powerful. In a universe with larger ships and many more possible weapon/equipment combinations, balancing everything with the current limits may be much more difficult.
This is a problem that in my opinion cannot be solved with the ports as they currently exist, and one that will become much more significant as you begin to have larger ships with higher numbers of ports on them. I propose the following solution(s), all of which are meant to work together.
Part one: Revamp the port system with the addition of mass. The ports would remain almost exactly as they are currently, however everything you can equip to a ship would gain a mass value. Weapons, engines, power generation & storage*, cargo and any future equipment, armor, sheilds etc; all of these would have a number associated with them to indicate how much they mass, (eg how much inertia they present to an engine attempting to move them.)
[* i'm going to discuss this farther down in step 2]
(this next part is where my ideas are still slightly confused, so please bear with me, i'm about to ramble)
Each ship would then have a "base mass count", an amount of mass that each hull is designed to support (an amount based on a balanced design, and a full cargo hold). As long as the components mounted to the hull were within this range, the hull would perform at it's rated agility. After the mass exceeds the limit, agility would begin to be reduced depending on how much over the limit you were. optionally if you outfitted the ship with minimal equipment, and came in under the mass limit it might be possible to get better agility out of a ship.
Larger engines would, of course, have higher mass numbers, meaning that in some cases giving your ship a heavy engine for maximum maneuver would limit you to not filling all of the weapons ports, or taking weapons that were not as potent but having a lower mass. For instance given that they have to carry ammunition, loading mechanism's, & equipment to expel the projectile from the ship ammunition based weapons would have a higher mass than a pure energy weapon. Large port weapons of course mass more than their small port cousins, and any future port styles such as armor or equipment from celebrims toy thread would have mass appropriate to it's function and quality. For the most part with better items having higher mass amounts (with the possible exception of some very high priced or hard to find items which might have the same qualities as a lower priced item but a smaller mass)
Step 2: Now, on the subject of power, By splitting the "battery" slot into 2 types of slots, one for power generation (powerplants)and one for power storage(capacitors? batteries?), the mass system would allow for some truly effective balance in the roles of ships.
The way I propose to do this is by giving all of the powerplants the same amount of built in storage, say 200 units, with the differences in the powerplants being how FAST they generate power. Powerplants that have a higher generative capacity, would have a correspondingly higher mass. The amount of energy needed to warp would then be fixed at the capacity of the built in storage. Ships would then have an additional port type to hold capacitors which would be able to store additional energy beyond the basic amount. The number of such ports would be determined by the hull of the ship, and start at none (on the centurian maybe?) and go up depending on the size of the hull. There would be different size capacitors that you would be able to mount, they would provide no power generation, only power storage, the more energy the capacitor would be able to store, the more mass it would have.
This would provide balance in some unique ways. For instance, on a ship mounting nothing but mass heavy projectile weapons, you would need to either sacrifice extra capacitors, giving you a low total energy limit (and as such limited turbo); install a smaller powerplant (longer time between bursts of turbo); or go with a less powerful engine, (reduced top speed).
A ship mounting all energy weapons would want a large powerplant with a full group of capacitors, and as such might not have the mass free for a powerful engine. Such a ship could also sacrifice a large powerplant for something that recharges more slowly in order to give it the best speed along with a powerful punch, but without a fast power gain, it might not be effective in a long battle.
In either case, a ship could fill every slot with the best equipment for the chosen layout to have a truly powerful ship that has a reduced agility. (something designed to attack targets unawares maybe, since in a straight out battle there is going to be a maneuvering disadvantage to a ship of the same class that is within it's mass limit)
(Obviously the first two parts of this idea would require modification of code that allready exists and functions well. The third part I have to assume is allready in the works, and only mention it to explain how it ties in with the other parts of this idea. )
Part 3: Limit the availibility of equipment based on reputation and location. If certain equipment, weapons, engines, etc are only options to players with some experience playing, or who have chosen certain paths in the game, balance becomes easier to provide and the learning curve becomes more gradual. When the areas that an advanced hull or weapon can be purchased in are sufficiently far from the areas where new players spawn into the universe the odds are that they will only be used by and against players who have some experience with the game. A gradual learning curve means that the balance of equipment and ships can be very tight in areas where people are just learning, keeping options low and providing time in which our noobs can get familiar with the game and not be bombarded with an insane number of possibility and combinations to confuse them. This is an issue especially in a situation where overequipping a ship can turn a fast efficient fighter into a plodding target.
All of the above ideas and thoughts are still somewhat rough, (typing this out solidified some ideas) however I am interested to find out what the rest of you feel about them. I do not believe that this system would provide a significant amount of additional balance at the level the game is at currently, the amounts of items being equipped are just not large enough to significantly affect the agility of our ships except in drastic cases. However what happens when a larger ship (say something along the lines of a Heavy Corvette from Homeworld) becomes an item to be balanced. If it has say, 2 small ports, 5 large ports and 2 very large ports, plus armor and equipment mounts, the possible combinations become much harder to balance without another limit. 5 powerful large weapons are much more effective than 5 weaker large weapons, and putting multiple copies of the same weapon on a ship will drastically change the way that weapon balances out. (just look at our current difficulties with the sunflares. by itself a single sunflare tube is pretty well balanced against the other weapons, put 2 or 3 together and it changes the whole aspect of the weapon)
in closing, I would like to provide an example from our current game universe, just to kind of apply my ideas in something other than abstract terms.
I am going to use the Valk, because it is currently the most discussed ship in vendetta. :)
Our theoretical Valk, using the system outlined above might have the following ports/stats.
Engine
Powerplant
3 small ports
1 Capacitor slot (the only ships we have now that would have more than 1 would be the rag, prom and centaur with 2 each)
4 cargo
and be able to carry 10-14 mass (I'm actually pulling these numbers more or less out of my ahem, and they are in no way more than very roughly balanced against each other. as a matter of fact the mass limit has been intentionally set low on the valk due to my personal preferences about high agility ships and how much durability/firepower they should provide. Also it is a more noticable difference and provides more opportunities for variation in the example with the lower mass capacity)
a maxed out Valk geared for long chases using rockets against slow ships might have the following:
A Fast Charge Powerplant (Generates 50 energy/sec, holds 200 energy) - 5 mass
A Heavy Engine (stats same as current) - 4 mass
3 Sunflares (current) @ 3 mass ea = 9 mass
1 Heavy Capacitor (holds 450 additional energy) - 3 mass
4 cargo (each cargo unit would take up 1 mass point)- 4 mass
for a total of 25 mass, since this is significantly over its limit, (it's more than twice the avg) the ship would only have approximately half of it's agility.
a more moderate version might be equipped with the following
A Medium Powerplant (Generates 40 energy/sec, holds 200) - 3 mass
A Heavy Engine (stats same as current) - 4 mass
3 Sunflares (current) @ 3 mass ea = 9 mass
No capacitors (no additional energy storage) - 0 mass
No Cargo - 0 mass
now it has a total of 16 mass, since that would still be above 14, it would take a hit on it's agility, though not too large of one, since it is only 2 points over. On the other hand if it collects 4 cargo (say it pirates someone) the mass would rise to 20, and it's agility would become correspondingly worse.
A version geared to be an efficient rocketship might have
A Light Powerplant (Generates 35 energy/sec, holds 200) - 2 mass
A Medium Engine (stats same as current) - 3 mass
2 Sunflares (current) - 3 mass ea = 6 mass
1 light capacitor (holds 150 additional power) - 1 mass
No Cargo - 0 mass
with a total mass of 12 this ship would operate at peak agility, If it never plans to pick up cargo adding a tachyon blaster for another 1 mass (energy weapons i see as being lighter, their mass determined basically by autoaim effectiveness ) would make it a good medium range interceptor. with 350 total energy storage it can turbo for a short distance and still warp, but doesnt have the stamina for a long chase.
Changing the layout to the following:
A Fast Charge Powerplant (Generates 50 energy/sec, holds 200) - 5 mass
A Medium Engine (stats same as current) - 3 mass
3 tachyons (current) @ 1 mass ea = 3 mass
1 Heavy Capacitor (450 additional energy) - 3 mass
No Cargo - 0 mass
And you have a decent long range patrol / intercept craft, or a scout etc.
Ok, I'm more or less done, honest :) I'll check back in a day or so and see what thoughts and ideas have been attached to this thread.
Obviously to provide more detail in the balance of individual items the mass units i've presented could be doubled or tripled to provide more levels of differentiation amoung the items. if the valk carried 20-28 mass & a sunflare weighed 6 mass not 3, maybe a tachyon would be 3 instead of 2. this would allow for a larger number of different values to be assigned to various weapons depending on their effectiveness.
Before I do anything else I appreciate that the developers are working on the missions and reputation and such right now, and in no way am i suggesting that anything presented here needs implimented now. What i do see is a potential for future expansion of the game to run into a balance problem much worse than anything we have now.
Problem as I see it: At present there are balance issues with the weapons that occur specifically when several of the same type of weapon are mounted together on the same ship. These weapons are fairly well balanced individually, one to one, but on certain ships and/or in certain combinations they become overwhelmingly powerful. In a universe with larger ships and many more possible weapon/equipment combinations, balancing everything with the current limits may be much more difficult.
This is a problem that in my opinion cannot be solved with the ports as they currently exist, and one that will become much more significant as you begin to have larger ships with higher numbers of ports on them. I propose the following solution(s), all of which are meant to work together.
Part one: Revamp the port system with the addition of mass. The ports would remain almost exactly as they are currently, however everything you can equip to a ship would gain a mass value. Weapons, engines, power generation & storage*, cargo and any future equipment, armor, sheilds etc; all of these would have a number associated with them to indicate how much they mass, (eg how much inertia they present to an engine attempting to move them.)
[* i'm going to discuss this farther down in step 2]
(this next part is where my ideas are still slightly confused, so please bear with me, i'm about to ramble)
Each ship would then have a "base mass count", an amount of mass that each hull is designed to support (an amount based on a balanced design, and a full cargo hold). As long as the components mounted to the hull were within this range, the hull would perform at it's rated agility. After the mass exceeds the limit, agility would begin to be reduced depending on how much over the limit you were. optionally if you outfitted the ship with minimal equipment, and came in under the mass limit it might be possible to get better agility out of a ship.
Larger engines would, of course, have higher mass numbers, meaning that in some cases giving your ship a heavy engine for maximum maneuver would limit you to not filling all of the weapons ports, or taking weapons that were not as potent but having a lower mass. For instance given that they have to carry ammunition, loading mechanism's, & equipment to expel the projectile from the ship ammunition based weapons would have a higher mass than a pure energy weapon. Large port weapons of course mass more than their small port cousins, and any future port styles such as armor or equipment from celebrims toy thread would have mass appropriate to it's function and quality. For the most part with better items having higher mass amounts (with the possible exception of some very high priced or hard to find items which might have the same qualities as a lower priced item but a smaller mass)
Step 2: Now, on the subject of power, By splitting the "battery" slot into 2 types of slots, one for power generation (powerplants)and one for power storage(capacitors? batteries?), the mass system would allow for some truly effective balance in the roles of ships.
The way I propose to do this is by giving all of the powerplants the same amount of built in storage, say 200 units, with the differences in the powerplants being how FAST they generate power. Powerplants that have a higher generative capacity, would have a correspondingly higher mass. The amount of energy needed to warp would then be fixed at the capacity of the built in storage. Ships would then have an additional port type to hold capacitors which would be able to store additional energy beyond the basic amount. The number of such ports would be determined by the hull of the ship, and start at none (on the centurian maybe?) and go up depending on the size of the hull. There would be different size capacitors that you would be able to mount, they would provide no power generation, only power storage, the more energy the capacitor would be able to store, the more mass it would have.
This would provide balance in some unique ways. For instance, on a ship mounting nothing but mass heavy projectile weapons, you would need to either sacrifice extra capacitors, giving you a low total energy limit (and as such limited turbo); install a smaller powerplant (longer time between bursts of turbo); or go with a less powerful engine, (reduced top speed).
A ship mounting all energy weapons would want a large powerplant with a full group of capacitors, and as such might not have the mass free for a powerful engine. Such a ship could also sacrifice a large powerplant for something that recharges more slowly in order to give it the best speed along with a powerful punch, but without a fast power gain, it might not be effective in a long battle.
In either case, a ship could fill every slot with the best equipment for the chosen layout to have a truly powerful ship that has a reduced agility. (something designed to attack targets unawares maybe, since in a straight out battle there is going to be a maneuvering disadvantage to a ship of the same class that is within it's mass limit)
(Obviously the first two parts of this idea would require modification of code that allready exists and functions well. The third part I have to assume is allready in the works, and only mention it to explain how it ties in with the other parts of this idea. )
Part 3: Limit the availibility of equipment based on reputation and location. If certain equipment, weapons, engines, etc are only options to players with some experience playing, or who have chosen certain paths in the game, balance becomes easier to provide and the learning curve becomes more gradual. When the areas that an advanced hull or weapon can be purchased in are sufficiently far from the areas where new players spawn into the universe the odds are that they will only be used by and against players who have some experience with the game. A gradual learning curve means that the balance of equipment and ships can be very tight in areas where people are just learning, keeping options low and providing time in which our noobs can get familiar with the game and not be bombarded with an insane number of possibility and combinations to confuse them. This is an issue especially in a situation where overequipping a ship can turn a fast efficient fighter into a plodding target.
All of the above ideas and thoughts are still somewhat rough, (typing this out solidified some ideas) however I am interested to find out what the rest of you feel about them. I do not believe that this system would provide a significant amount of additional balance at the level the game is at currently, the amounts of items being equipped are just not large enough to significantly affect the agility of our ships except in drastic cases. However what happens when a larger ship (say something along the lines of a Heavy Corvette from Homeworld) becomes an item to be balanced. If it has say, 2 small ports, 5 large ports and 2 very large ports, plus armor and equipment mounts, the possible combinations become much harder to balance without another limit. 5 powerful large weapons are much more effective than 5 weaker large weapons, and putting multiple copies of the same weapon on a ship will drastically change the way that weapon balances out. (just look at our current difficulties with the sunflares. by itself a single sunflare tube is pretty well balanced against the other weapons, put 2 or 3 together and it changes the whole aspect of the weapon)
in closing, I would like to provide an example from our current game universe, just to kind of apply my ideas in something other than abstract terms.
I am going to use the Valk, because it is currently the most discussed ship in vendetta. :)
Our theoretical Valk, using the system outlined above might have the following ports/stats.
Engine
Powerplant
3 small ports
1 Capacitor slot (the only ships we have now that would have more than 1 would be the rag, prom and centaur with 2 each)
4 cargo
and be able to carry 10-14 mass (I'm actually pulling these numbers more or less out of my ahem, and they are in no way more than very roughly balanced against each other. as a matter of fact the mass limit has been intentionally set low on the valk due to my personal preferences about high agility ships and how much durability/firepower they should provide. Also it is a more noticable difference and provides more opportunities for variation in the example with the lower mass capacity)
a maxed out Valk geared for long chases using rockets against slow ships might have the following:
A Fast Charge Powerplant (Generates 50 energy/sec, holds 200 energy) - 5 mass
A Heavy Engine (stats same as current) - 4 mass
3 Sunflares (current) @ 3 mass ea = 9 mass
1 Heavy Capacitor (holds 450 additional energy) - 3 mass
4 cargo (each cargo unit would take up 1 mass point)- 4 mass
for a total of 25 mass, since this is significantly over its limit, (it's more than twice the avg) the ship would only have approximately half of it's agility.
a more moderate version might be equipped with the following
A Medium Powerplant (Generates 40 energy/sec, holds 200) - 3 mass
A Heavy Engine (stats same as current) - 4 mass
3 Sunflares (current) @ 3 mass ea = 9 mass
No capacitors (no additional energy storage) - 0 mass
No Cargo - 0 mass
now it has a total of 16 mass, since that would still be above 14, it would take a hit on it's agility, though not too large of one, since it is only 2 points over. On the other hand if it collects 4 cargo (say it pirates someone) the mass would rise to 20, and it's agility would become correspondingly worse.
A version geared to be an efficient rocketship might have
A Light Powerplant (Generates 35 energy/sec, holds 200) - 2 mass
A Medium Engine (stats same as current) - 3 mass
2 Sunflares (current) - 3 mass ea = 6 mass
1 light capacitor (holds 150 additional power) - 1 mass
No Cargo - 0 mass
with a total mass of 12 this ship would operate at peak agility, If it never plans to pick up cargo adding a tachyon blaster for another 1 mass (energy weapons i see as being lighter, their mass determined basically by autoaim effectiveness ) would make it a good medium range interceptor. with 350 total energy storage it can turbo for a short distance and still warp, but doesnt have the stamina for a long chase.
Changing the layout to the following:
A Fast Charge Powerplant (Generates 50 energy/sec, holds 200) - 5 mass
A Medium Engine (stats same as current) - 3 mass
3 tachyons (current) @ 1 mass ea = 3 mass
1 Heavy Capacitor (450 additional energy) - 3 mass
No Cargo - 0 mass
And you have a decent long range patrol / intercept craft, or a scout etc.
Ok, I'm more or less done, honest :) I'll check back in a day or so and see what thoughts and ideas have been attached to this thread.
Obviously to provide more detail in the balance of individual items the mass units i've presented could be doubled or tripled to provide more levels of differentiation amoung the items. if the valk carried 20-28 mass & a sunflare weighed 6 mass not 3, maybe a tachyon would be 3 instead of 2. this would allow for a larger number of different values to be assigned to various weapons depending on their effectiveness.
Because I am on a break from my CAP (Combat Air Patrol) for the SDF, I only read part of the post. But, wouldn't the Base Mass Factor NOT include cargo, since the density of Water and say Electronics differs severely? Shouldn't each cargo piece effect the craft differently? Say a base Mass Factor was designed aroudn the most DENSE widget you could find, then if you bought a LIGHTER widget you'd still have a more agile craft. Each crafts Bass Mass would have to be built around only NON-CHANGABLE items. The eventuall plan for say...SHIELD GENERATORS, each would have a different mass so therefore would count INTO the algoritum separately instead of as part of the Base Piece.
Now for every chanagable piece then a Mass Factor would have to be added for each individual item, now if done soon, it would initally take some time but then not so often as long as it was kept up to date. NON-Changable items coukld immeditely be added as part of the Base Factor since the option for chaging them and therefore changing their mass is non-existant, it's safe to add in for now, but as soon as their ability to be changed then you will need to remove them and make them like Guns and Cargo, a separate piece of the puzzle.
[SDF] Black 1
CO, SDF
Now for every chanagable piece then a Mass Factor would have to be added for each individual item, now if done soon, it would initally take some time but then not so often as long as it was kept up to date. NON-Changable items coukld immeditely be added as part of the Base Factor since the option for chaging them and therefore changing their mass is non-existant, it's safe to add in for now, but as soon as their ability to be changed then you will need to remove them and make them like Guns and Cargo, a separate piece of the puzzle.
[SDF] Black 1
CO, SDF
I sort of look at cargo as being a standardized weight. the lighter but more delicate electronics add up to the same weight as the bulk ores because they need stabalization feilds and shock absorbers that are built into the cargo container. (if the devs wanted to apply a different mass to each type of cargo wigit, obviously they could, however I don't feel that it is neccesary)
the base mass count is the amount of mass that can be mounted on or in the hull pyro. An empty hull has a mass of 0 as far as my system is concerned. Everything that can be mounted in a port, slot or cargo bay would have a mass value. the base mass count is how much mass a ship can contain and still maintain it's listed agility.
I dont forsee anything ever being "built in" to the hull. radar upgrades and the like would have an equipment port, sheild generators would have a shield port. Upgrading thrusters is included in the engines, (i see the engine, and all control/thrusters as one system) adding armor or HP above the Baseline for the hull would take Armor slots or something similar.
the base mass count is the amount of mass that can be mounted on or in the hull pyro. An empty hull has a mass of 0 as far as my system is concerned. Everything that can be mounted in a port, slot or cargo bay would have a mass value. the base mass count is how much mass a ship can contain and still maintain it's listed agility.
I dont forsee anything ever being "built in" to the hull. radar upgrades and the like would have an equipment port, sheild generators would have a shield port. Upgrading thrusters is included in the engines, (i see the engine, and all control/thrusters as one system) adding armor or HP above the Baseline for the hull would take Armor slots or something similar.
Id personally like to see an equip system like how mechwarrior4 had. I know these games are pretty differents and all but i think it would be pretty apropriate for vendetta too. I would like to see seperate equip and theyre masses add up and count in the ships movement too. That would make centurions as agile as they should be (carying nothing and all).
As for cargo mass, if youre gonna make traders even more vulnerable, gotta give the cargo ships more defenses or better engines for all this mass theyd have.
-oh yeah if anyone ever played starscape, that loadout system was real cool too
As for cargo mass, if youre gonna make traders even more vulnerable, gotta give the cargo ships more defenses or better engines for all this mass theyd have.
-oh yeah if anyone ever played starscape, that loadout system was real cool too
I don't think anyone is reading the whole post. (understandable if annoying)
Zombie, no one said anything about making the traders weaker. Since they allready have lower agility, I envision them being able to cart around much more mass as a basic amount. the amount of mass you can put on a ship i see as being basically an inverse of it's agility. If a hull is designed to be fast and agile, it doesnt make much sense for it to be able to hold a large amount of equipment. If you choose the best, most powerful equipment to put on a ship, it probably masses more than weaker systems.
A ship (such as say the centaur) with a low agility, isn't designed for a fast dash and a dogfight. it's designed to get a large amount of mass from one point to another. If the valk had the above mass range, i would expect a centaur to be able to carry something in the range of 30-44 mass and maintain it's agility.
Zombie, no one said anything about making the traders weaker. Since they allready have lower agility, I envision them being able to cart around much more mass as a basic amount. the amount of mass you can put on a ship i see as being basically an inverse of it's agility. If a hull is designed to be fast and agile, it doesnt make much sense for it to be able to hold a large amount of equipment. If you choose the best, most powerful equipment to put on a ship, it probably masses more than weaker systems.
A ship (such as say the centaur) with a low agility, isn't designed for a fast dash and a dogfight. it's designed to get a large amount of mass from one point to another. If the valk had the above mass range, i would expect a centaur to be able to carry something in the range of 30-44 mass and maintain it's agility.
I guess I'm mostly for your original post, but will try none-the-less
@Zombiebagel:
MW4 was taking a good game, and ruining it .. They should have stopped with MW3 when it came to load-out as it allowed for greater versatility/customization. Something I as a tinker likes :)
As for items 1+2 I'd suggest keeping batteries as capacitors, with carge-time and storage, and have engines generate energy. Then add more diverse engines >:)
Simply put I would like all parts (even cargo) of a ship to have:
Passive Energy Usage (heating, life-support, forcefield, stabilizers, scanners, charge for batteries)
Active Energy Usage (where applicable)
Mass (In some obscure measurement)
Size, S,M,L or XL
and all parts be interexchangeable, just dont mount your tach-blaster in the shower-room!
The only item not falling under the above would be engines, as they would have a passive energy-production instead of usage, and a nominal energy-usage measured at full thrust (Optionally allowing for a smaller usage when cruising, and more when manuvering wildly.) Active usage would then be "turboing." They will also have a sweetspot for mass contra torque sorta like what was given in the first posting.
Now, as Spelly noted, if you overload your ship, you loose mobility, but what if you strain the engine energy-wise? Suddenly your fast-charge battery arent getting the juice fast enuff, and charges more slowly...
As for cargo having the same requirements, then in the case of energy it will mostly be 0 or negligent (1/sec to store holo-disks?), and have no active energy-usage (Insane idea: Stabilizers to keep slaves from falling all over the place during combat!)
Now if we take our theoretical Valk, we could give it a moderate engine, 1 fast-charge battery for storing juice quickly, and one slow-charge for the longer skirmishes at the cost of manuverability (extra weight) or that extra weapon. OR (bad way to start a sentence), we could give it 1 medium battery, 1 energy weapon and a shield-generator, straining it for power.
An Atlas on the other hand might choose a nice, big engine, 2 big capacitors, no weapons (like me), better scanner and a shield-gen. Oh, and a pack of cargo, naturally. It would be heavy, but would be able to maintain its shield for a LONG time untill it reaches a wormhole (where is drops shield for 2 secs, and then jumps).
As for saying that port-sizes, despite Spellness saying that they should stay, should be changed, is to make it more diverse, and some items more restricted. Our Valk would have no L-XL ports (except its cargo-bay?), while a Wraith-pilot might choose to load something smaller into his L-port(s). The idea is that 2 small items can fit 1 large port and 2 medium items in 1 XL port. Finally, this "rectifies" the all-cargo-takes-up-same-space issue. A load of metal takes up less space/mass than slaves do :)
This last notion of variable sized poses two major problems, name balancing (oups, I'm going against the idea behind of this thread) and newbies - its rather complex when all you want is to blow shite up. For this I'd suggest having pre-config'd ships available (2nd hand market?) To make matters worse, ports might even have to be internal/external. Some things will then work in both places (scanners, radio, shield-gens, tach-blasters), where some combos make little sense (Spycam in the locker-room, or cargo-bay life-support on the wing-tip?).
Uhm, think I'll stop my insane ramblings now, before things get out of hand. Just promise me you'll think about it :)
Cheers,
/G gets ready to duck!
ps: please refrain from "Size Does Matter"-jokes .. for me .. please ..
@Zombiebagel:
MW4 was taking a good game, and ruining it .. They should have stopped with MW3 when it came to load-out as it allowed for greater versatility/customization. Something I as a tinker likes :)
As for items 1+2 I'd suggest keeping batteries as capacitors, with carge-time and storage, and have engines generate energy. Then add more diverse engines >:)
Simply put I would like all parts (even cargo) of a ship to have:
Passive Energy Usage (heating, life-support, forcefield, stabilizers, scanners, charge for batteries)
Active Energy Usage (where applicable)
Mass (In some obscure measurement)
Size, S,M,L or XL
and all parts be interexchangeable, just dont mount your tach-blaster in the shower-room!
The only item not falling under the above would be engines, as they would have a passive energy-production instead of usage, and a nominal energy-usage measured at full thrust (Optionally allowing for a smaller usage when cruising, and more when manuvering wildly.) Active usage would then be "turboing." They will also have a sweetspot for mass contra torque sorta like what was given in the first posting.
Now, as Spelly noted, if you overload your ship, you loose mobility, but what if you strain the engine energy-wise? Suddenly your fast-charge battery arent getting the juice fast enuff, and charges more slowly...
As for cargo having the same requirements, then in the case of energy it will mostly be 0 or negligent (1/sec to store holo-disks?), and have no active energy-usage (Insane idea: Stabilizers to keep slaves from falling all over the place during combat!)
Now if we take our theoretical Valk, we could give it a moderate engine, 1 fast-charge battery for storing juice quickly, and one slow-charge for the longer skirmishes at the cost of manuverability (extra weight) or that extra weapon. OR (bad way to start a sentence), we could give it 1 medium battery, 1 energy weapon and a shield-generator, straining it for power.
An Atlas on the other hand might choose a nice, big engine, 2 big capacitors, no weapons (like me), better scanner and a shield-gen. Oh, and a pack of cargo, naturally. It would be heavy, but would be able to maintain its shield for a LONG time untill it reaches a wormhole (where is drops shield for 2 secs, and then jumps).
As for saying that port-sizes, despite Spellness saying that they should stay, should be changed, is to make it more diverse, and some items more restricted. Our Valk would have no L-XL ports (except its cargo-bay?), while a Wraith-pilot might choose to load something smaller into his L-port(s). The idea is that 2 small items can fit 1 large port and 2 medium items in 1 XL port. Finally, this "rectifies" the all-cargo-takes-up-same-space issue. A load of metal takes up less space/mass than slaves do :)
This last notion of variable sized poses two major problems, name balancing (oups, I'm going against the idea behind of this thread) and newbies - its rather complex when all you want is to blow shite up. For this I'd suggest having pre-config'd ships available (2nd hand market?) To make matters worse, ports might even have to be internal/external. Some things will then work in both places (scanners, radio, shield-gens, tach-blasters), where some combos make little sense (Spycam in the locker-room, or cargo-bay life-support on the wing-tip?).
Uhm, think I'll stop my insane ramblings now, before things get out of hand. Just promise me you'll think about it :)
Cheers,
/G gets ready to duck!
ps: please refrain from "Size Does Matter"-jokes .. for me .. please ..
It seems like I've been involved in this discussion before. Maybe it was even you that started it last time.
The biggest problem I have with your current thinking is it adds a new feature to ships which would complicate thier balance rather than make it simplier. My chief problem is that we would have to come up with a new set of 'mass limit' numbers for every ship and fair masses for every gizmo. I'm not sure that adding a new parameter to a ship would make them any easier to balance than they are with the 3 or so parameters we have now. I'd also MUCH MUCH MUCH rather you not demonstrate the system for the Valk, because you seem to have tailored all the numbers for that specific case. I'd much rather see what the system would do for or to more generic ships. Showing that the system would 'fix' the Valk is highly suspicious to me.
As a secondary problem, I find the system a bit gamish. Why doesn't the first bit of mass count? Where does it go? Does it just vanish? In many cases you'd have a ship with light batteries and no weapons weigh just as much as one that was completely loaded.
Rather than disecting your system in detail and making suggestions as to how to fix it, I'm just going to focus on what your system as outlined basically does.
1) You put the weight of sunflares at three times the weight of tachyons. More or less, this change seems intended to keep sunflares off of small/agile ships. In fact, I would say that the entire point of your rather long post could be summarized as sunflares should be heavy.
2) You tried to set the situation up so that a light ship couldn't really mount both sunflares and large engines/batteries. All this really accomplishes is reduces the difference in the agility of between two fighters, and again, it goes back to your thesis 'sunflares should be heavy'.
All this emphasis on Sunflares and Valks makes me think you've thought less about the total impact of your system than the length of your post might otherwise indicate. I thought we were going to see why mass was essential for balancing 'medium-sized' ships, not a heavily disguised 'nerf the sunflare'/'nerf the Valk thread'. If all you want is to weaken the flare or the Valk, it can certainly be done without putting anyone to nearly as much trouble.
The biggest problem I have with your current thinking is it adds a new feature to ships which would complicate thier balance rather than make it simplier. My chief problem is that we would have to come up with a new set of 'mass limit' numbers for every ship and fair masses for every gizmo. I'm not sure that adding a new parameter to a ship would make them any easier to balance than they are with the 3 or so parameters we have now. I'd also MUCH MUCH MUCH rather you not demonstrate the system for the Valk, because you seem to have tailored all the numbers for that specific case. I'd much rather see what the system would do for or to more generic ships. Showing that the system would 'fix' the Valk is highly suspicious to me.
As a secondary problem, I find the system a bit gamish. Why doesn't the first bit of mass count? Where does it go? Does it just vanish? In many cases you'd have a ship with light batteries and no weapons weigh just as much as one that was completely loaded.
Rather than disecting your system in detail and making suggestions as to how to fix it, I'm just going to focus on what your system as outlined basically does.
1) You put the weight of sunflares at three times the weight of tachyons. More or less, this change seems intended to keep sunflares off of small/agile ships. In fact, I would say that the entire point of your rather long post could be summarized as sunflares should be heavy.
2) You tried to set the situation up so that a light ship couldn't really mount both sunflares and large engines/batteries. All this really accomplishes is reduces the difference in the agility of between two fighters, and again, it goes back to your thesis 'sunflares should be heavy'.
All this emphasis on Sunflares and Valks makes me think you've thought less about the total impact of your system than the length of your post might otherwise indicate. I thought we were going to see why mass was essential for balancing 'medium-sized' ships, not a heavily disguised 'nerf the sunflare'/'nerf the Valk thread'. If all you want is to weaken the flare or the Valk, it can certainly be done without putting anyone to nearly as much trouble.
It seems like I've been involved in this discussion before. Maybe it was even you that started it last time.>>
we have had several discussions on mass, however to the best of my knowledge they were of the, "give everything a mass and do away with slots" variety. Also I have never started one.
actually the weapons and ship i chose were primarily because they are the most commonly used. Also i was not at a computer with vendetta loaded onto it last night, and the valk's loadout is well known.
My main concern is the following.
3 flares or gauss make the valk overpowered, when the ship hull by itself is mostly balanced with other loadouts, and the sunflare is balanced by itself against other weapons.
given the above, what combinations will pop up once we have a ship with 8 or 10 ports for weapons, 3 equipment ports, engine & battery ports, a sheild port, a few armor ports, etc. While it might be possible to mount one of everything on such a ship, having EVERYTHING loaded would seem to me to make the ship have MUCH more mass than the same hull mounted with just an engine and a battery. Giving a ship an amount of mass that is designed to carry would allow for all the ports to be availible, thus giving a LARGE range of customization, while still providing somewhat reasonable limits on the total amount of equipment that can be bolted to the hull.
<< As a secondary problem, I find the system a bit gamish. Why doesn't the first bit of mass count? Where does it go? Does it just vanish? In many cases you'd have a ship with light batteries and no weapons weigh just as much as one that was completely loaded. >>
I seem to have miscommunicated something somewhere as I have no idea where you got the idea that the first bit of mass doesn't count. I'm operating under the assumption that each "hull" has a task that it is developed for. As such it is designed to carry a certain amount of mass, with a certain responsiveness. going over that amount of mass lowers the hull's agility, putting a minimal load on it, (say just an engine, a powerplant and a light weapon) and ending up underneath the amount of mass the hull is designed to carry would increase agility.
>> You put the weight of sunflares at three times the weight of tachyons. More or less, this change seems intended to keep sunflares off of small/agile ships. In fact, I would say that the entire point of your rather long post could be summarized as sunflares should be heavy. >>
once again I didn't exactly balance the numbers i was presenting, I also didnt include the concept of a launcher being a lower weight and each 8 ammo weighing 1 mass (for the flares anyhow). This way if you choose to load a smaller amount of ammo your ship gains agility, same if you expend munitions during a fight. I envision the empty launcher of a sunflare being approx the same mass as a tachyon blaster (if somewhat less useful).
As for balancing other ships, lets take a quick look at the Rangarok.
Using the sytem outlined above our thoretical rangarok would have
1 Engine port
1 Powerplant port
2 Capacitor slots
3 small ports
2 Large ports
8? cargo (once again i'm not at a computer with vendetta on it, that computer is on the other part of the network and my wife is using it for homework atm)
I would envision the rangarok being designed, with it's low agility, to carry approx 30-36 mass (+ however many i've underremembered the cargo by if any).
Now, maximizing the requirements, a heavy engine(4), fast charge powerplant(5) and 2 heavy capacitors(2x3=6) would take up 15 of that mass, give it a top speed of 65m/s and a power reserve of 1100. It can now turbo for much longer than any fighter, giving it some chance of escape in the hands of a pilot who's paying attention.
This would leave 15 - 21 mass for weapons and cargo. Assuming it was being outfitted to use dumbfire missiles as it's large weapon (screamers) it would add another 14 mass ( 2 launchers @ 7 mass each, the basic launcher would be 3 mass empty and each 4 rockets an additional 1 mass, after all they do twice the damage of a flare) Since a Rangarok isn't exactly a dogfighter, i've elected to put gemini's in the small ports, adding another 9 mass. 9 + 14 is 23, so it would loose just a touch of agility. On the other hand replacing one of the gemini's with a tachyon would drop the total added mass back to 21. Of course any cargo the ship picks up will reduce it's agility a little bit, the more cargo, the more agility it would loose. Using Avalon's (if/when we get them back) would up the mass a bit more, (i'd picture an avalon launcher taking up 4 mass and each individual torpedo taking up a mass point by itself for a total of 8 mass apiece)
Hmm, looking at it however the engine/powerplant masses would need to be basically tripled or quadroupled, so that there is a significant difference in mass between the sizes there. In turn that would need the base mass each hull is designed for to go up correspondingly. As i said in the original post, my ideas aren't totally clear yet, i'm still working them out and was hoping for some input on them.
we have had several discussions on mass, however to the best of my knowledge they were of the, "give everything a mass and do away with slots" variety. Also I have never started one.
actually the weapons and ship i chose were primarily because they are the most commonly used. Also i was not at a computer with vendetta loaded onto it last night, and the valk's loadout is well known.
My main concern is the following.
3 flares or gauss make the valk overpowered, when the ship hull by itself is mostly balanced with other loadouts, and the sunflare is balanced by itself against other weapons.
given the above, what combinations will pop up once we have a ship with 8 or 10 ports for weapons, 3 equipment ports, engine & battery ports, a sheild port, a few armor ports, etc. While it might be possible to mount one of everything on such a ship, having EVERYTHING loaded would seem to me to make the ship have MUCH more mass than the same hull mounted with just an engine and a battery. Giving a ship an amount of mass that is designed to carry would allow for all the ports to be availible, thus giving a LARGE range of customization, while still providing somewhat reasonable limits on the total amount of equipment that can be bolted to the hull.
<< As a secondary problem, I find the system a bit gamish. Why doesn't the first bit of mass count? Where does it go? Does it just vanish? In many cases you'd have a ship with light batteries and no weapons weigh just as much as one that was completely loaded. >>
I seem to have miscommunicated something somewhere as I have no idea where you got the idea that the first bit of mass doesn't count. I'm operating under the assumption that each "hull" has a task that it is developed for. As such it is designed to carry a certain amount of mass, with a certain responsiveness. going over that amount of mass lowers the hull's agility, putting a minimal load on it, (say just an engine, a powerplant and a light weapon) and ending up underneath the amount of mass the hull is designed to carry would increase agility.
>> You put the weight of sunflares at three times the weight of tachyons. More or less, this change seems intended to keep sunflares off of small/agile ships. In fact, I would say that the entire point of your rather long post could be summarized as sunflares should be heavy. >>
once again I didn't exactly balance the numbers i was presenting, I also didnt include the concept of a launcher being a lower weight and each 8 ammo weighing 1 mass (for the flares anyhow). This way if you choose to load a smaller amount of ammo your ship gains agility, same if you expend munitions during a fight. I envision the empty launcher of a sunflare being approx the same mass as a tachyon blaster (if somewhat less useful).
As for balancing other ships, lets take a quick look at the Rangarok.
Using the sytem outlined above our thoretical rangarok would have
1 Engine port
1 Powerplant port
2 Capacitor slots
3 small ports
2 Large ports
8? cargo (once again i'm not at a computer with vendetta on it, that computer is on the other part of the network and my wife is using it for homework atm)
I would envision the rangarok being designed, with it's low agility, to carry approx 30-36 mass (+ however many i've underremembered the cargo by if any).
Now, maximizing the requirements, a heavy engine(4), fast charge powerplant(5) and 2 heavy capacitors(2x3=6) would take up 15 of that mass, give it a top speed of 65m/s and a power reserve of 1100. It can now turbo for much longer than any fighter, giving it some chance of escape in the hands of a pilot who's paying attention.
This would leave 15 - 21 mass for weapons and cargo. Assuming it was being outfitted to use dumbfire missiles as it's large weapon (screamers) it would add another 14 mass ( 2 launchers @ 7 mass each, the basic launcher would be 3 mass empty and each 4 rockets an additional 1 mass, after all they do twice the damage of a flare) Since a Rangarok isn't exactly a dogfighter, i've elected to put gemini's in the small ports, adding another 9 mass. 9 + 14 is 23, so it would loose just a touch of agility. On the other hand replacing one of the gemini's with a tachyon would drop the total added mass back to 21. Of course any cargo the ship picks up will reduce it's agility a little bit, the more cargo, the more agility it would loose. Using Avalon's (if/when we get them back) would up the mass a bit more, (i'd picture an avalon launcher taking up 4 mass and each individual torpedo taking up a mass point by itself for a total of 8 mass apiece)
Hmm, looking at it however the engine/powerplant masses would need to be basically tripled or quadroupled, so that there is a significant difference in mass between the sizes there. In turn that would need the base mass each hull is designed for to go up correspondingly. As i said in the original post, my ideas aren't totally clear yet, i'm still working them out and was hoping for some input on them.
I agree with the general concept of the post. I would like to see mass be more under the control of the player, this would really open the 'modularity' possibilities up. But like Celebrim I've got some serious concerns about the details of the implementation.
As it is now each ship has a mass, which is roughly (but sometime inaccurately) reflected by the agility rating; the agility rating is otherwise completely meaningless (as far as I can tell). So I see no need for a 'base mass count'. The hull itself could have a mass, and certain slots for weapons, cargo, etc. (maybe exchangeable from the defaults in the future). Then each thing you add could have a mass that would be added your total mass. I agree with Celebrim that this is not a solution to balance, but will actually make it more difficult, but I think it will lead to more interesting 'custom' jobs on ships, giving fighters more personality and unique styles. Eventually I would imagine being able to shave off some of your armor to make your racing ship better, or putting a little more on at the cost of speed. Maybe you'll be able to stick an extra port on (at the cost of cargo space?) but you'll be more massive even if there's nothing in the port. I don't see any reason why ammo based weapons would be heavier than energy. It should be completely based on balance not ammo vs non-ammo, but as far as realism goes energy weapons may be quite sizable given they have to change electricity into some sort of damaging projectile. Ideally the ammo itself would have a mass separate from the weapons, so that the players mass would change during the fight, but this really isn't necessary and might just make balancing more difficult.
As for your second point mass would allow batteries (note: a capacitor stores electricity and releases it all in one instant i.e. Charged Cannon, while a battery stores electricity releases it gradually over time) and power sources to be separated without losing balance. So if your first suggestion is implemented this may make sense.
GThang: Engines don't create energy. They generally convert it from some form to kinetic energy (movement). In the case of cars they convert natural gas into kinetic energy and then a small amount of the kinetic energy is converted into electricity and stored in your car battery. Since the ships in vendetta appear to be electrically powered instead of carbon fuel powered they would never be able to give the batteries more power.
As for your third thought the devs have said they'll be doing that.
As it is now each ship has a mass, which is roughly (but sometime inaccurately) reflected by the agility rating; the agility rating is otherwise completely meaningless (as far as I can tell). So I see no need for a 'base mass count'. The hull itself could have a mass, and certain slots for weapons, cargo, etc. (maybe exchangeable from the defaults in the future). Then each thing you add could have a mass that would be added your total mass. I agree with Celebrim that this is not a solution to balance, but will actually make it more difficult, but I think it will lead to more interesting 'custom' jobs on ships, giving fighters more personality and unique styles. Eventually I would imagine being able to shave off some of your armor to make your racing ship better, or putting a little more on at the cost of speed. Maybe you'll be able to stick an extra port on (at the cost of cargo space?) but you'll be more massive even if there's nothing in the port. I don't see any reason why ammo based weapons would be heavier than energy. It should be completely based on balance not ammo vs non-ammo, but as far as realism goes energy weapons may be quite sizable given they have to change electricity into some sort of damaging projectile. Ideally the ammo itself would have a mass separate from the weapons, so that the players mass would change during the fight, but this really isn't necessary and might just make balancing more difficult.
As for your second point mass would allow batteries (note: a capacitor stores electricity and releases it all in one instant i.e. Charged Cannon, while a battery stores electricity releases it gradually over time) and power sources to be separated without losing balance. So if your first suggestion is implemented this may make sense.
GThang: Engines don't create energy. They generally convert it from some form to kinetic energy (movement). In the case of cars they convert natural gas into kinetic energy and then a small amount of the kinetic energy is converted into electricity and stored in your car battery. Since the ships in vendetta appear to be electrically powered instead of carbon fuel powered they would never be able to give the batteries more power.
As for your third thought the devs have said they'll be doing that.
Spellcast the weapons aren't what makes the valk powerful. A valk with three tachs easily beats a vult with two (assuming two highly, equally skilled pilots).
As for your second point mass would allow batteries (note: a capacitor stores electricity and releases it all in one instant i.e. Charged Cannon, while a battery stores electricity releases it gradually over time)
I was actually aware of this, but i gave them a different name in order to remove confusion with our current batteries.
It actually is a form of balance, since adding heavy, more effective items instead of lighter less effective items causes a penalty in the form of lowered agility. I could see having each hull mass a certain amount based on the number of slots/cargospaces it has, then have each engine provide enough force to move differing amounts of mass.
The amount of mass the engine can move could then be worked out in some form of ratio to the amount of mass that was mounted on the ship to determine agility. Since the only thing currently "built in" to our ships are the ports themselves and the armor (hull) I would guess that this would provide a result very similar to what I am envisioning. (i'm afraid i'm just not able to express the ideas as clearly as I would like in written form)
I was actually aware of this, but i gave them a different name in order to remove confusion with our current batteries.
It actually is a form of balance, since adding heavy, more effective items instead of lighter less effective items causes a penalty in the form of lowered agility. I could see having each hull mass a certain amount based on the number of slots/cargospaces it has, then have each engine provide enough force to move differing amounts of mass.
The amount of mass the engine can move could then be worked out in some form of ratio to the amount of mass that was mounted on the ship to determine agility. Since the only thing currently "built in" to our ships are the ports themselves and the armor (hull) I would guess that this would provide a result very similar to what I am envisioning. (i'm afraid i'm just not able to express the ideas as clearly as I would like in written form)
Only reason for that note was because I was going to make another suggestion, involving capacitors separate from batteries, but then I realized it would only be significant if batteries and engines are ever separated, so I'll suggest it if and when that happens.
Spellcast no one's saying it doesn't add another piece to the balancing equation. It just won't make the problem any easier, it's another piece that would have to be carefully balanced in with everything else. That said I still think it's a piece that would make the game more interesting.
Spellcast no one's saying it doesn't add another piece to the balancing equation. It just won't make the problem any easier, it's another piece that would have to be carefully balanced in with everything else. That said I still think it's a piece that would make the game more interesting.
I would merely like to point out, that SIZE DOES MATTER (nothing to do with male reprodutive organs) just that I'd rather have a Howitzer or AC-130 Spectre Gunship at my back rather than some Glock 9mm.
Same thing applys ingame, rather have an AGT/Missile Rag with you or some weak Centurion Tachyon fighter? Honestly
Same thing applys ingame, rather have an AGT/Missile Rag with you or some weak Centurion Tachyon fighter? Honestly
@Eldrad:
The reason I allowed for engines being the energy-source, was to do away with the term "powerplant". At best, have ships have a built-in drive (thrusters) such as an ion-engine(1), and a reactor (Neuclear, matter-antimatter or whatever?) and finally a capasitor (current batteries). Basically, I dislike having batteries being able to charge themselves, unless they come with a large supply of hamsters!
/G
ps: I accept that Vendetta-ships arent driven in a manner such as by an ion-drive, since they are usually slow-acceleration, and (currently) rely on not being slowed down by an opposing force (gravity or drag). Was just used as an example.
1: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/xips/nstar/ionengine.html
The reason I allowed for engines being the energy-source, was to do away with the term "powerplant". At best, have ships have a built-in drive (thrusters) such as an ion-engine(1), and a reactor (Neuclear, matter-antimatter or whatever?) and finally a capasitor (current batteries). Basically, I dislike having batteries being able to charge themselves, unless they come with a large supply of hamsters!
/G
ps: I accept that Vendetta-ships arent driven in a manner such as by an ion-drive, since they are usually slow-acceleration, and (currently) rely on not being slowed down by an opposing force (gravity or drag). Was just used as an example.
1: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/bss/factsheets/xips/nstar/ionengine.html
I guess I don't see the reason to do away with the term power plant, but if I were to I'd suggest powersource instead of drastically changing the gameplay.
Essentially, GTHANG, the battery inside a car or truck works the same way. Using a large amount of power at a time also generates some which is shunted BACK into the battery for storage. Essentially, if you could keep a car running 24/7 the battery would in theory last at least 10 years. Simply because the worst strain is on STARTUP when the battery is taking all the power it can get to turn over the engine. Afterwards it doesn't need to supply nearly that much power as the pistons inside the engine are going somewhat by pressure from the internal combustions.
Now the craft ingame are propelled by drives similar to Electric Drives but aren't directly reliant on the internal mounted Weapons Functions Battery (the purchasable one) the way I see it is that the engines come with a built in power plant and there is some way that that plant converts power back into itself. Perhaps through the use of UV or Solarpanels or some futuristic power supply. There is also the Fusion/Fission option for power. You could, in theory and this has been tested before, take a Fission or Fusion unit and use the force generated by splitting the atom to create kinetic energy to propel the craft. And since in space, the craft is weightless, only the mass density of the craft and surrounding object swould effect the craft.
I've rambled right off Powerplants there^^^
I think that stations and roids should generate their own gravity wells since they are obviously EXTREMELY dense compared to even a Prometheus or Ragnorok. This density factor could slow down acceleraton close in to the station but the engine would behave under "optimal performance conditions" wjere no gravity well was present, such as in deep space.
Now the craft ingame are propelled by drives similar to Electric Drives but aren't directly reliant on the internal mounted Weapons Functions Battery (the purchasable one) the way I see it is that the engines come with a built in power plant and there is some way that that plant converts power back into itself. Perhaps through the use of UV or Solarpanels or some futuristic power supply. There is also the Fusion/Fission option for power. You could, in theory and this has been tested before, take a Fission or Fusion unit and use the force generated by splitting the atom to create kinetic energy to propel the craft. And since in space, the craft is weightless, only the mass density of the craft and surrounding object swould effect the craft.
I've rambled right off Powerplants there^^^
I think that stations and roids should generate their own gravity wells since they are obviously EXTREMELY dense compared to even a Prometheus or Ragnorok. This density factor could slow down acceleraton close in to the station but the engine would behave under "optimal performance conditions" wjere no gravity well was present, such as in deep space.
If you do the math on force of gravity, you'd find that the gravitational force of a station or similar object massing only a few 10's of thousands of tons was on the same scale as the force of normal human breath (through the nostril). I'd guess the acceleration rate would be in millimeters (or slower) per second per second, and 'the well' would be due to the polynomial decay of the gravitation force only a few score meters deep. I can't see it effecting ships to any degree.
UPDATE: I actually overestimated the force significantly. The gravity generated by the stations is on the order of millions of times less powerful than human breath. Objects placed a few 100 meters above a station would take literally months to accelerate to a noticable speed.
UPDATE: I actually overestimated the force significantly. The gravity generated by the stations is on the order of millions of times less powerful than human breath. Objects placed a few 100 meters above a station would take literally months to accelerate to a noticable speed.
Well, it was just a thought. And I dunno about the idea of not implementing it since even here on Earth, gravity doesn't FEEL strong but to reach Escape Velocity the craft has to accelerate to an unbeleivable speed to escape Earth's direct gravitational pull. I'm talking about ships not being able to reach top speed inside say 300-500 meters of the station.
Escape velocity is difficult to reach because the earth is REALLY huge. If you want an idea of how huge it is, go outside, pick a direction and start walking. When you find yourself back home, you've just circumnavigated the earth (and probably made it into a book of world records.) The roids in vendetta, however, could generally be walked around in a few minutes.
Besides which, the difficulty in escape velocity also comes in breaking out past the horizon before the Earth spins away. It's pretty easy to generate 10N/kg of thrust. That's about all you need to stay above the ground. But you also have to go fast enough to break gravity AND get past the horizon before it spins away. In space, there is no horizon.
Besides which, the difficulty in escape velocity also comes in breaking out past the horizon before the Earth spins away. It's pretty easy to generate 10N/kg of thrust. That's about all you need to stay above the ground. But you also have to go fast enough to break gravity AND get past the horizon before it spins away. In space, there is no horizon.
Okay, that last post was really just my Death Throes. It was my last, rather vain attempt at recovering some of my now severely damaged dignity.
/me goes back to Law Schhol and leaves NASA alone.
/me goes back to Law Schhol and leaves NASA alone.