So, I'm one system past St. K's playing a wolfen. I've been feeling like my turning was sluggish, so I decided to do some tests. I timed a full rotation (plus a little) with a 0.96a wolfen at the beginning of the game, a 0.97 wolfen at the beginning of the game, and my current ship.
The first two took 1.3 seconds or so each.
The wolfen I'm currently using took twice as long.
I don't remember this sort of thing happening before; does cargo affect turning speed? Does the tritium propulsion upgrade? Has it always done this?
It's getting kind of annoying, and doesn't make much sense to me.
0.97: wolfen turning rate?
-
Fossaman
- Militia Captain
- Posts: 556
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:56 am
- Location: Traveling to the galactic core
I would like to suggest that this feature be de-implemented...it's cool and realistic and all, but it's a pain in the neck! I'm sure I could learn to watch my cargo space and never use the sixty tons that give me acceptable turning with the smuggler's hold, but I think the acceleration penalty is enough, in this case.
X-ray laser! Pew, pew pew!
> = = = = ۞
> = = = = ۞
Or at least have thrust upgrades work on turning speed..
Hmmm...actually, on second thought this would almost require one in later stages of the game when heavy armor is needed. Perhaps non-device slot using turn upgrades from Tinkers or the like?
Or maybe it could be merely toned down? Say, by 50-75%, so it's only noticable when your enhanced hold is close to full?
Hmmm...actually, on second thought this would almost require one in later stages of the game when heavy armor is needed. Perhaps non-device slot using turn upgrades from Tinkers or the like?
Or maybe it could be merely toned down? Say, by 50-75%, so it's only noticable when your enhanced hold is close to full?
-
george moromisato
- Developer
- Posts: 2998
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:53 pm
- Contact:
OK, maybe I went a little overboard on that feature.
Here is my original train of thought:
1. Armor doesn't have enough variety. A level V capital ship has the same armor as a level V gunship, just more plates. Wouldn't it be cool to have thicker armor with more HPs for capital ships?
2. But if the player starts using the thicker armor, then the game might be unbalanced. What's the trade-off for using thicker armor?
3. I know! A ship with heavy armor loses maneuverability.
4. But how do you rationalize that? Why is armor so special? Wouldn't any excess mass decrease maneuverability? OK, then I guess a ship's maneuverability should suffer with any increase in mass. There, are you happy now?
Maybe I should have stopped at step 3.
Here is my original train of thought:
1. Armor doesn't have enough variety. A level V capital ship has the same armor as a level V gunship, just more plates. Wouldn't it be cool to have thicker armor with more HPs for capital ships?
2. But if the player starts using the thicker armor, then the game might be unbalanced. What's the trade-off for using thicker armor?
3. I know! A ship with heavy armor loses maneuverability.
4. But how do you rationalize that? Why is armor so special? Wouldn't any excess mass decrease maneuverability? OK, then I guess a ship's maneuverability should suffer with any increase in mass. There, are you happy now?
Maybe I should have stopped at step 3.
I like the concept in general, especially if it is applied to some of the more powerful weapons.
If the higher level (well, not level, but strength...) armors have their mass increased a bit more, and the effect on turning is diminished slightly, then perhaps it could have the same effect, but more focused on armors.
I think that it makes sense, a capship might have 20 ton plates of armor or more if it's bg enough.
If the higher level (well, not level, but strength...) armors have their mass increased a bit more, and the effect on turning is diminished slightly, then perhaps it could have the same effect, but more focused on armors.
I think that it makes sense, a capship might have 20 ton plates of armor or more if it's bg enough.
I've always envisioned armor plates as being molded a bit to your ship.
I figure it's not like you slap a plate on the front, another aft, a third plate starboard and another port.
I've imagined your ship in dry dock while workers cut and weld armor plating to your ship's contour.
It'd probably be too much work to redefine armor weight to (examples) 70% of each plate for the freighter, 60% for the sapphire, and 40% for the small hull of the wolfen, but that's how my mind rationalizes "armor plate goes on one side of ship."
Another reason I think in this mode while playing is because it makes sense to me. I don't expect Joe McCommonwealthmechanic to have the tools or skills necessary to fabricate and weld octocarbide plate. However, I can see Ringer Shipyards reconfiguring a diamond lattice to fit around my hull.
My point? I had a point.... Oh yes:
If a level ? capital ship has the same armor as a level ? gunship, the gunship's plates are going to be the same thickness, but probably smaller than the cap ship.
It'd be a pain in the butt to have to collect armor "by the ton" to put on your ship, so the best thing to do is assume the tonnage of armor scales with the ship hull size. Smaller ships would still turn faster than larger ships. I hope that makes sense to someone because I have no clue what I just typed. It's not going to stop me from hititng "submit" though.
I figure it's not like you slap a plate on the front, another aft, a third plate starboard and another port.
I've imagined your ship in dry dock while workers cut and weld armor plating to your ship's contour.
It'd probably be too much work to redefine armor weight to (examples) 70% of each plate for the freighter, 60% for the sapphire, and 40% for the small hull of the wolfen, but that's how my mind rationalizes "armor plate goes on one side of ship."
Another reason I think in this mode while playing is because it makes sense to me. I don't expect Joe McCommonwealthmechanic to have the tools or skills necessary to fabricate and weld octocarbide plate. However, I can see Ringer Shipyards reconfiguring a diamond lattice to fit around my hull.
My point? I had a point.... Oh yes:
If a level ? capital ship has the same armor as a level ? gunship, the gunship's plates are going to be the same thickness, but probably smaller than the cap ship.
It'd be a pain in the butt to have to collect armor "by the ton" to put on your ship, so the best thing to do is assume the tonnage of armor scales with the ship hull size. Smaller ships would still turn faster than larger ships. I hope that makes sense to someone because I have no clue what I just typed. It's not going to stop me from hititng "submit" though.
No. None of the drives improve your maneuverability. The Fichikai Maneuvering Drives do, thoughPlayMeNow wrote:Isn't the maneuverability improoved with the pteracnium drive?
Yeah, I like that idea. I should think something like 60% would be sufficient.Oddbob wrote:Or maybe it could be merely toned down? Say, by 50-75%, so it's only noticable when your enhanced hold is close to full?
To Hooka:
It sounds like you're inferring that the shape or contour is what is affecting manuverability. It's actually mass - the same amount of energy will accellerate motion more slowly for something heavy. If fact, if rotation was "realistic" then as you start to rotate, it would be slowly at first then rotate faster and faster has you continue to apply maneuvering thrust. Same would go to stop turning - maneuvering thrust in the opposite would need to be applied until rotation slowed and stopped. The current method of rotation is "inertialess" which is better for playability purposes anyways.
It sounds like you're inferring that the shape or contour is what is affecting manuverability. It's actually mass - the same amount of energy will accellerate motion more slowly for something heavy. If fact, if rotation was "realistic" then as you start to rotate, it would be slowly at first then rotate faster and faster has you continue to apply maneuvering thrust. Same would go to stop turning - maneuvering thrust in the opposite would need to be applied until rotation slowed and stopped. The current method of rotation is "inertialess" which is better for playability purposes anyways.
-
Clear Air Turbulence
- Closed Account
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:49 pm
How about having the weight of equipped gear effect your turning speed more than the weight of gear in the cargo hold? It stands to reason that a ship would keep the heavy cargo near it's center of mass, and it would not slow down it's rotation as much as the mass that is on the outside of the ship.
So maybe keep the maneuvering penalty for armor, weapons, and other equipped gear, but halve it for the cargo in the ship's hold.
Another possibility would be to modify how the cargo effects maneuverability for various ships. The Wolfen's advantage could be that it has powerful maneuvering jets that allow it to turn quickly even when loaded down with armor and cargo.
So maybe keep the maneuvering penalty for armor, weapons, and other equipped gear, but halve it for the cargo in the ship's hold.
Another possibility would be to modify how the cargo effects maneuverability for various ships. The Wolfen's advantage could be that it has powerful maneuvering jets that allow it to turn quickly even when loaded down with armor and cargo.
I think what I was actually thinking was that smaller ships have extremities a lot closer to their center point than larger ships and thus can turn faster because they're not rotating mass so far away from their midpoint.
Also that smaller ships should be able to field heavier armor with little negative effects because they'd need proportionally less tonnage to cover their smaller hulls.
I wrote that last post way too late at night.
Also that smaller ships should be able to field heavier armor with little negative effects because they'd need proportionally less tonnage to cover their smaller hulls.
I wrote that last post way too late at night.
The farther away from your midpoint the thruster is, the more it can do. I don't think it makes much of a difference.I think what I was actually thinking was that smaller ships have extremities a lot closer to their center point than larger ships and thus can turn faster because they're not rotating mass so far away from their midpoint.