Antiubericity

[snork]

You forgot the cargo hold size, and also the price.

Having a fast, manoeuverable (and maybe also small) ship that can still hold a considerable amount of cargo is

Compare to standard Oolite ships where the Fer-de-Lance has 12 tons, and the Asp has none at all.

For the price of a ship, ships that have a clear overall advantage over the Cobra3 availabble for the same 150K or slightly above - not for me.

One ok way to weaken ships imo. is denying them military shield enhancement.

[Smivs]

You forgot the cargo hold size, and also the price.
...
One ok way to weaken ships imo. is denying them military shield enhancement.

No I didn't, the cargo hold must come out of the available 75%, which is why we need to agree a dimension for 1 Ton of cargo, a cargo pod.
Things like shield boosters should have a nominal size as well, and if you want extras like a shield enhancer available, 'empty space' must be left to accommodate them.
Price is a contentious issue, because there does seem to be this prevailing thought that because something's good, its got to be expensive. You won't alter peoples opinions on this I suspect, and this is not an easy one to resolve.
Some fiendish calculation could probably be devised that factors in equipment, size, top speed and the miriad other elements that might affect cost, but I can't see this happening.
I suppose an approach like the equipment one might work. A hull of such and such size (up to so many cubic metres) would cost X credits, and a bigger hull would be Y credits. Maybe have four or five 'price bands' based on hull size, then if the equipment could all be priced as well we'd be half way there. Do the same for engines (small, medium and large based on hull size?) with bigger engines costing a lot more than small ones. This would also help to counter the silly-fast ships...you physically couldn't fit a huge engine in a tiny ship.

[DaddyHoggy]

You forgot the cargo hold size, and also the price.
...
One ok way to weaken ships imo. is denying them military shield enhancement.

No I didn't, the cargo hold must come out of the available 75%, which is why we need to agree a dimension for 1 Ton of cargo, a cargo pod.
Things like shield boosters should have a nominal size as well, and if you want extras like a shield enhancer available, 'empty space' must be left to accommodate them.
Price is a contentious issue, because there does seem to be this prevailing thought that because something's good, its got to be expensive. You won't alter peoples opinions on this I suspect, and this is not an easy one to resolve.
Some fiendish calculation could probably be devised that factors in equipment, size, top speed and the miriad other elements that might affect cost, but I can't see this happening.
I suppose an approach like the equipment one might work. A hull of such and such size (up to so many cubic metres) would cost X credits, and a bigger hull would be Y credits. Maybe have four or five 'price bands' based on hull size, then if the equipment could all be priced as well we'd be half way there. Do the same for engines (small, medium and large based on hull size?) with bigger engines costing a lot more than small ones. This would also help to counter the silly-fast ships...you physically couldn't fit a huge engine in a tiny ship.

A single cargo pod and 1 TC (notice TC and not Ton(ne)) of cargo are not the same thing - we know the dimensions of a cargo pod - it's in the .dat file, but as it was pointed out to me - the ship I'm currently creating although has real world dimensions - would actually fit inside a Cargo Pod because of the necessary gaming playability dimensions (so you could see it) of a cargo pod.

One REAL Tonne of water only takes up 1cu m of space - not even 5x the size of my domestic hot water storage tank (215 litres)

[Smivs]

It's good that we're already quibbling over details.
Do I take it that, as a general principle, this is an idea that might be both workable and beneficial? If it is, I'm quite happy to put some time and effort into compiling a 'prototype' guideline that can then be debated and fine-tuned.
Would you like me to do this?
If so, I would probably start by looking at the spec of the 'benchmark' Mk III Cobra, take its dimensions and all the extras that can be installed, factor in its known cargo capacity and performance and see what happens.
Obviously if this is clearly a non-runner, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know sooner rather than later!
What do you all think?

[Disembodied]

It's good that we're already quibbling over details.
Do I take it that, as a general principle, this is an idea that might be both workable and beneficial? If it is, I'm quite happy to put some time and effort into compiling a 'prototype' guideline that can then be debated and fine-tuned.
Would you like me to do this?
If so, I would probably start by looking at the spec of the 'benchmark' Mk III Cobra, take its dimensions and all the extras that can be installed, factor in its known cargo capacity and performance and see what happens.
Obviously if this is clearly a non-runner, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know sooner rather than later!
What do you all think?

It could be an interesting experiment ... a relatively simple, graph-paper-based, Car Wars-esque design scheme could be made to work, although you might find out that a lot of ships don't fit the scheme!

I think you'd be better off using the Cobra III as the baseline, though, instead of the cargo canister, as the latter is (I assume) oversized for gameplay reasons, as DH suggests. You'd also need to assume that the mass of a ship should have an impact on top speed, acceleration and manoeuvrability. This should build in some diminishing returns on engine size.

[Smivs]

It's good that we're already quibbling over details.
Do I take it that, as a general principle, this is an idea that might be both workable and beneficial? If it is, I'm quite happy to put some time and effort into compiling a 'prototype' guideline that can then be debated and fine-tuned.
Would you like me to do this?
If so, I would probably start by looking at the spec of the 'benchmark' Mk III Cobra, take its dimensions and all the extras that can be installed, factor in its known cargo capacity and performance and see what happens.
Obviously if this is clearly a non-runner, I'd be grateful if you'd let me know sooner rather than later!
What do you all think?

It could be an interesting experiment ... a relatively simple, graph-paper-based, Car Wars-esque design scheme could be made to work, although you might find out that a lot of ships don't fit the scheme!

Yes, I expect even some of the core ships would 'buck the system' but this is intended as a guide for OXP authors to help them to make 'sensible' ships.

I think you'd be better off using the Cobra III as the baseline, though, instead of the cargo canister, as the latter is (I assume) oversized for gameplay reasons, as DH suggests. You'd also need to assume that the mass of a ship should have an impact on top speed, acceleration and manoeuvrability. This should build in some diminishing returns on engine size.

The Cobra Mk III would be the logical starting point...I've just had a look at the pods on the Wiki and their size is described as 'Variable'...really useful
The effect of the ship's mass is probably one of the more challenging aspects of this, but it could work if maximum speed and manoevreability were recommended based on the cubic capacity of the ship and assuming it had the maximum possible number of the biggest available engines. Remember this is a rule-of-thumb guideline, not a rigorous technical exercise.

[Disembodied]

The Cobra Mk III would be the logical starting point...I've just had a look at the pods on the Wiki and their size is described as 'Variable'...really useful
The effect of the ship's mass is probably one of the more challenging aspects of this, but it could work if maximum speed and manoevreability were recommended based on the cubic capacity of the ship and assuming it had the maximum possible number of the biggest available engines. Remember this is a rule-of-thumb guideline, not a rigorous technical exercise.

Absolutely, but it would be a very useful rule of thumb to have! I think the Cobra III should probably be regarded as the best "sensible" ship, i.e. the one that gets the top levels of performance as regards speed, manoeuvrability, sturdiness and cargo capacity from standard technology.

Comparing it to other core ships is useful, too. The Asp II has 5 energy banks to the Cobra's 4, has a top speed of 0.4 to the Cobra's 0.35, is just as manoeuvrable, but has no cargo space and is almost half the size. So perhaps most of that size difference is cargo hold, crew quarters (with requisite life support, supplies etc.) and three extra missile bays.

Edit: it's also worth noting that an Asp II is more than twice as expensive as a Cobra III!

[ClymAngus]

It's good that we're already quibbling over details.
Do I take it that, as a general principle, this is an idea that might be both workable and beneficial? If it is, I'm quite happy to put some time and effort into compiling a 'prototype' guideline that can then be debated and fine-tuned.
What do you all think?

I think no one will ever download any of my oxp's ever again. Sure I have a reputation for "candy cane" OXP's but we were working on a system of oxp rating based on game balance (mind you we are working on a lot of things)

1) ablative armour
2) finding webspace
3) getting caduceus up to scratch (maybe with a bump map
4) the shard oxp
5) my own take on transitional huds.

one game 1001 ideas anyway the rating system was an idea regarding how in relation any oxp effected game balance based on the original game. That way people could see how oxp's might effect the playability. It was just at the idea stage. Couple of people involved loosely.

[Smivs]

one game 1001 ideas anyway the rating system was an idea regarding how in relation any oxp effected game balance based on the original game. That way people could see how oxp's might effect the playability. It was just at the idea stage. Couple of people involved loosely.

We'd be interested in hearing any ideas you had

[pagroove]

A while a go I suggested a reliability factor. So maybe you can have uber but it won't last long. Kinda like the last Le Mans Race. The Peugot 908 went uber fast but in the end they all had to give up due to mechanical failures.

So maybe ship x is very good specs wise but due to the new tech it fails fairly quick because no one can maintain it.

[snork]

Me being on poor old hardware, i can't install many of the fancy OXPs.

But some screenshots here made me wonder - Are there not some OXP missions that make flying an uber-ship adequate ?

See this screenshot from JazHaz for example :

[DaddyHoggy]

With regards to the Car Wars style thing - yes (similar too to Starfleet Battles I seem to recall) good idea.

Would be interesting given the game size of a cargo pod and the dimensions/volume of an Anaconda whether 750 1TC pods would actually fit inside an Anaconda. (as I have said anecdotally before - a coffee splodge turned a 150TC ship into a 750TC ship...)

[Cmdr James]

FWIW I think any real discussion on sizing is doomed, as sizes dont make sense. Big things are too small, small things are too big. Compare size of Corolis and the ships it contains, or an adder to an anaconda.

However, some guidelines on performance should be doable.

Pricing was already covered quite well by Lestradae, can you just steal his calculation?

[Eric Walch]

Would be interesting given the game size of a cargo pod and the dimensions/volume of an Anaconda whether 750 1TC pods would actually fit inside an Anaconda. (as I have said anecdotally before - a coffee splodge turned a 150TC ship into a 750TC ship...)

I just followed an Anaconda from which the cargo bay door fell off. Honestly, I had nothing to do with it.


On counting the containers I found 4 rows of 11 pods and 2 rows of 6 pods in this ship. A total of 60 pods.
A first estimated guess tells me that 10 times this quantity should also fit on a close packing. And when removing those extra missiles and the captains cocktail bar we could come up to 750.

[JazHaz]

Me being on poor old hardware, i can't install many of the fancy OXPs.

But some screenshots here made me wonder - Are there not some OXP missions that make flying an uber-ship adequate ?

See this screenshot from JazHaz for example :

Have you not tried GalNavy? I've not got a particularly powerful pc, and its non-shader, yet GalNavy works OK.