The Balancing Act

[s2odan]

There's been a lot of discussion over the past few months on this kind of thing, so its best to put all of this into its own thread.As for the poll, It would be nice to know what everyone thinks. Personally, my choice is ships based on Realism, or at least plausible values for a ship over 1000 years in the future.As its been discussed, adding Volume to a ships stats could help to solve a lot of problems.I've made a start on this, hopefully I know enough to get it working correctly.For those who missed the discussions on this it was something to this end:A ship would no longer be arbitrarily limited by its mass, but rather by its volume.A ship would have a given volume in m^3 that it can use. Then the power of the engines would decide its maximum lift-off weight.A ship full up with metal would then have more mass than a ship full up with feathers. Because you can of course fit more metal inside than feathers in terms of mass due to its density.To further this, we could even add gaseous, solid or liquid tags to an object, which could perhaps let it use up more or less of the available volume based on its shape.IE: Liquids and gasses would fill the enitre volume of the ship, however solids cannot, as the ship contains many recesses that are too small for a slave for example, or a block of metal, but could be used to store fuel. Like the wings of an Eagle.

[sscadmin]

I voted plausible but sometimes I lean towards fun. I try to look at things like a simple gamer. If you put too much thinking into a game it only will be popular with that crowd. But if you can make it fun and still have the realism then all the better. Or just do it in the background so any non space gaming players can hop into the game and have fun without having to know anything about mass and volume

[s2odan]

Yeah I perhaps should have clarified the 'realism' setting a little more. I mean psuedo realism hehe, it has to feel right and we have 1200 years of technology to help us do that ;)The game would never be as hard-core as Orbiter, nor should it ever try to be, but it can at least have 'plausible' ideas that dont seem stupid or arbitrary.Anyway, heres where I am with the goods volume:[attachment=335:pioneer-msvc-9 2010-12-08 18-34-22-52.jpg]The figures for volume were literally pulled out of my, well you get the idea They are there purely so I have something to work with.But you can see the effect it would have, for example 1 ton of metal ore now takes 1 m3 of space, and 1 ton of liquid oxygen takes 5m3 of space.I welcome someone finding some accurate figures, it would save me a lot of time and allow me to concentrate on the next step of this.[attachment=336:pioneer-msvc-9 2010-12-08 19-30-25-93.jpg]Now I have to make the game track the volume of a ship and subtract used volume from maximum volume.

[s2odan]

Let me know what you guys think of these additions, see if you can notice a small little extra toward the bottom of the ship info screen :

[Marcel]

Quote:
This ship is Death Incarnate

Realism is what interested me in Frontier in the first place. I was delighted when I actually managed to get into orbit around a small planet. The idea of volume seems exactly right, even if the figures were pulled out of Uranus. (oh no, not that again!) I think that the mass and volume of a hyperdrive should be substantial, perhaps more than some small ships can accommodate. I remember some Star Wars blueprints where the jump drive on an X-Wing was about the size and distribution of potsmoke's "nazzles" on his Eagles, which seems ridiculous to me. Even in 3200 this would be a piece of serious kit. Then again, do we want to have to use jumpgates? In conclusion, a balance between plausibility and fun is what I think we should strive for.

[curtsibling]

I think if we get sucked into the mire of "realism" it begins to kill the overall fun.I reckon Braben and the team had the correct balance, except for laser damage.I would prefer the FFE sim model, and not to be governed too much by astro-nerd-physics.As long as it is not Star Wars-type silliness, I am happy.

[HawkerT]

Plausible realism for me all the way!In my book it would add a fine new dimension to what is otherwise a relatively shallow purchasing and mining experience.For me at least it would be part of the attraction to finding the best buys and mining gigs. This whole mass/volume/space/acceleration coherence is very sound logic and so basic a premise for all travel that it should be accounted for and I feel it fits right into the already proposed realism presented by the current star system generation and flight model. Fantastic work on all this s20dan, much appreciated!All the best

[Geraldine]

Yep, I am with Darkone on this one, realism most certainly but up to a point. Love the idea of volume, it adds a nice layer of complexity to the game as you would have to think about how much space your ship has vs the volume of the goods you are transporting. This will make using the big ships interesting again and perhaps this might finally convince me to trade in my long suffering Sidewinder, but I will keep that savegame though

[s2odan]

Im glad the majority agree then and we may be able to win the others over to the dark side once we show them the benefits of a little realism and depth
Quote:
it adds a nice layer of complexity to the game as you would have to think about how much space your ship has vs the volume of the goods you are transporting.
I agree, realism can actually improve gameplay. It certainly should add in another dimension to the game, and allow ships to be a little more different from each other.It will correct fighters too. Fighters should be able to carry a lot of 'weight' or mass, however they should have barely any volume to put it in...I was planning on giving some of the equipment 0 volume, to simulate how it is carried outside the hull. This is especially true for lasers and missiles, this kind of thing can help to ensure small fighters still have a use, like they do in real life.This would only really apply to the smallest of equipment though. Larger stuff would have to use up volume.
Quote:
I would prefer the FFE sim model, and not to be governed too much by astro-nerd-physics.

Don't worry we won't be sacrificing any gameplay for realism, it should be that we are improving gameplay for realism, or by adding in realism. :)But remember we are Astro Nerds, so there has to be some of that nerdy stuff in
Quote:
Fantastic work on all this s20dan, much appreciated!All the best
Cheers mate, glad you guys like the idea.

[tomm]

Hi people,It's exciting to see the codebase being actively worked on in my semi-absence :)I'm against having volume as well as mass, because I think it risks turning the game into a bit of a tedious spreadsheet. I considered it originally but stuck to the Frontier formula. It seems reasonable that cargo comes in fixed volume containers. Them all being the same 1 tonne is a bit unrealistic, but not hugely so. Realism for games is a big matter of taste. We have slow floating 'laser' projectiles, which is totally unrealistic but necessary to put a bit of skill into combat. Similarly I think we need to make some concessions on realism with inventory & equipment management. I just don't think it will be a positive addition to the gameplay.But please prove me wrong :)Unfortunately right now I'm really tied up with work (I'm manual sorting mail 8 hours a day) and also need a break from coding anyway, so besides playing with greenhouse gas models for the planet generator I don't think you will see much code from me this side of Christmas.

[s2odan]

Quote:
I'm against having volume as well as mass, because I think it risks turning the game into a bit of a tedious spreadsheet. I considered it originally but stuck to the Frontier formula. It seems reasonable that cargo comes in fixed volume containers. Them all being the same 1 tonne is a bit unrealistic, but not hugely so.
Thats a valid point and if it ends up feeling like that then I will forget about the idea.The plan I had with it is to basically buy everything in 1m3 boxes or barrels instead of 1ton boxes or barrels.This is because a 1ton barrel of liquid-hydrogen is probably going to be about 30 times bigger than a box of metal ore.I suppose you could use super compression techniques to squash the hydrogen, but it would most likely go nuclear So you would buy your 1m3 of hydrogen, and it weighs approx 100kg or 0.1 tons, and the 1m3 of metal you buy would weigh 3 tons perhaps.Now the ships would have no arbitrary limit of mass, so the player could just concentrate on filling up the ships volume and not worry about mass.Mass will simply be used to calculate the ship's acceleration.
Quote:
But please prove me wrong
I will try I'll have to add it either way to see if its viable or not, so hopefully it will work out well.
Quote:
....We have slow floating 'laser' projectiles, which is totally unrealistic but necessary to put a bit of skill into combat....
Plasma Accelerators ;)I was actually going to put a laser back into the game as a 'secret' weapon Also I was thinking of another secret bit of tech, a Quantum Compressor, basically it has a negative volume allowing you to put more stuff in your ship. But these things are like cheats, so you certainly couldn't get them in the regular way.

[s2odan]

Right, so here's whats been added so far:All Trade goods are now sold in 1m3 containers.Different goods will now weigh different amounts.Changed equipment and cargo mass into kilograms to allow smaller weights, this is good for fighters.Let me know what you guys all think, feel free to criticise if you feel inclined Its still WIP and suggestions are most certainly welcome.Btw, if anyone has some time and feels like testing this out, let me know and I can make a quick test release.Cheers,Dan.Edit// Who picked the option : "Fun Fun FUN " ? Hehe, I bet it was Tom

[curtsibling]

No worries! I'm proud to be a space nerd too! :DI am just happy that we potentially won't ditch gameplay in favour of too much logistical realism.People don't want to spend half their game time doing math in order to take off. Not that I amagainst math, but a game is a game. That said, more depth is always good.And speaking of which, I wonder if the militaries are going to be implemented? Creating a good, balanced rank structure is something I'd like to try!

[s2odan]

Quote:
I am just happy that we potentially won't ditch gameplay in favour of too much logistical realism.People don't want to spend half their game time doing math in order to take off. Not that I amagainst math, but a game is a game. That said, more depth is always good.
I'm all for gameplay thats for sure, but I am not for sacrificing too much realism for gameplay.... but I am also against sacrificing gameplay for realism.. err that might sound like a contradiction but its not. As there are many ways to achieve a good feeling of gameplay.Most of my favorite games combine realistic elements in an interesting way which adds a spin to the gameplay.I suppose thats what bought a lot of us to Frontier and FFE. The way an entire galaxy were simulated more realistically than had ever been done in a space game, I also loved the flight system. For example, Tom's proposed system for star-system generation and mining is far more realistic than the one present in Frontier or FFE, however it will also have the potential to be far more fun! :)I feel the same way about my wip volume system for ships, as it allows more variety between different goods and more variety in ships too. And by keeping it simple, we retain some realism but dont reduce in gameplay, if anything it should improve it.As those that don't care can simply ignore the system and play as normal, as it is simple enough to do so. And those that do care about such things will be pleased with the changes, as it helps 'suspend disbelief' for those people.

[NewtonianFreak]

I voted FFE/frontier, though I like the m^3 idea, in the hope that for a "regular play" the addition of volume would not change dramatically how things work out, but if someone wants to overload his ship with uranium then he/she should feel a serious difference.Perhaps a good solution would be to simply have 3 cathegories (light/medium/heavy) for goods instead of a specific density different for each ?

[KingHaggis]

Realism, although Orbiter is a bit too realistic for me, realism is nice to a certain level so I voted that. But I also liked FFE's flightmodel. There's a game around that switches to planetary flight mode when inside a planet's atmosphere so the spaceship handles like a jet from a FSX-like flightsim but switches to spaceflight when in space. I forgot which game that was but I thought that was kinda nice. I think I've seen it in the Evochron series and in Starshatter. Difficult to implement I think, and of course it would always matter which planet you were on but that only adds to the fun.But I already like Pioneer the way it is. I'm more focussed on seeing more gameplay and maybe better day/night support for planets (blue skies on earth like planets, no more visible stars during daytime), but that's only a minor thingy. More gameplay is a must, though.

[UncleBob]

As far as realism goes, Pioneer already has lots of it due to gravity simulation. Too realistc stats for the ships are out of the question, because you'll need a totally different breed of autopilot when your acceleration drops too far below one G (or your burn-times below a day. And realism means either low acceleration or low burntimes). And a completely different breed of players, too. Battles would be stand and shoot instead of dogfights, and voyages would be painstaking planing of launch windows and trajectory (basically: Orbiter). If you make things the hard SF way, you'll loose the majority of the player base.I think the volume system is the way to go, but requires one addition to all screens where you can add ship mass (i.e. epuipement and stock market): Display max acceleration of the ship with current load. That way, you have effectively avoided spreadsheets (someone might still want to use them to calculate the most efficient bucks/volume he can make, but that would be for the hardcore gamers who wouldn't have it any other way). If you always see your current maximum acceleration, you can just add stuff to your ship until either the volume runs out or the acceleration gets too low. You might even want to hard-code a limit of 2G minimum acceleration, because some people will certainly manage to try landing their fully ladden freighter that can barely make a G on a world with 1.5 G surface gravity... It'll also make things easier for the autopilot.

[s2odan]

Quote:
There's a game around that switches to planetary flight mode when inside a planet's atmosphere so the spaceship handles like a jet from a FSX-like flightsim but switches to spaceflight when in space. I forgot which game that was but I thought that was kinda nice.
AdAstra does that, ships even have lift. But its non-newtonian which is a shame so it still feels like flying in an atmosphere even using the space flight model.X-Plane also does that but its a sim, not really a game.It would be great to have a giant trading ship that doesn't have the capacity to lift itself when fully loaded, however it can deploy a set of wings to help landing and take-off.
Quote:
though I like the m^3 idea, in the hope that for a "regular play" the addition of volume would not change dramatically how things work out, but if someone wants to overload his ship with uranium then he/she should feel a serious difference.
The way its set-up at the moment, you would hardly notice it. You just buy things in m3 instead of tons, and can pretty much ignore the rest. However when all the ships have the correct volume, then it may require a little bit of managing, thats where UncleBob's great idea would come into play:
Quote:
I think the volume system is the way to go, but requires one addition to all screens where you can add ship mass (i.e. epuipement and stock market): Display max acceleration of the ship with current load. That way, you have effectively avoided spreadsheets (someone might still want to use them to calculate the most efficient bucks/volume he can make, but that would be for the hardcore gamers who wouldn't have it any other way). If you always see your current maximum acceleration, you can just add stuff to your ship until either the volume runs out or the acceleration gets too low.
Excellent idea. I had planned to just add an updating acceleration display into the player's ship-info view but this is far better.
Quote:
You might even want to hard-code a limit of 2G minimum acceleration, because some people will certainly manage to try landing their fully ladden freighter that can barely make a G on a world with 1.5 G surface gravity... It'll also make things easier for the autopilot.
This is basically how I have the test ships now that I'm working with.It can easily be done by just keeping the current check for mass, but increasing the max capacity for ships in the .lua

[UncleBob]

Quote:
Something like this perhaps?
Yeah, that should do the trick pretty nicely.

[Marcel]

Ha Ha! Love that banana ship! If potsmoke were here right now he'd code it and post it tomorrow!
Quote:
realism means either low acceleration or low burntimes
Well, in the 32nd century you can have realism mixed with a lot of handwaveium. In Star Trek they used "inertial dampers" to avoid being reduced to a puddle of inedible jelly during acceleration, and we just state that our engines run on some as yet undiscovered principle. It doesn't have to be totally realistic, just plausible enough to create a suspension of disbelief.