Antiubericity

[Arexack_Heretic]

I don't think you should focus on volume though, as Oolite/elite has some serious reality breaks in that department due to gameplay considerations.

A better approach would be to focus on gameplay mechanics as well:

shipspeed is a function of hullenginepercentage. (disregarding efficiency, cargoships may go for lowyield engines to save on initial cost or fuelconsumption, quite likely not upgradable with injectors)
roll and pitch multiply this percentage. As maneuvring is an inverse function of shipspeed, to be able to maneuver at higher speeds, altitude jets need to be beefed up as well, increasing HE% even more.

edit:
hey, ICE is still selling books online!
You'll need the warhounds annex to find the rules for designing cargoships etc.

[Cody]

I think the most reliable ship dimensions are stated in each ship’s data (.dat) file. Reference sheet dimensions are often incorrect, according to Ahruman (at least, I think that’s what he said).

[Smivs]

Sounds like you're thinking along similar lines to me, CheezeRedux.
The consensus seems to be to use the Mk III Cobra as the benchmark, but accept that some of the core ships may not fit in too well with the system...the Anomaly, sorry Anaconda, I think should be left out of the equation all together.
As I said earlier this is proving far harder than it should to sort out, so I guess if we end up with anything out of this, it will be a bit of a fudge/compromise.
At least we seem to be agreeing on a methodology of sorts, and that's something.
As for the specs, I think we've got to use the Wiki as that does relate to the ships as we know them in Oolite with respect to dimensions, equipment options and cargo capacity etc. It's complicated enough already without factoring in other things, and the essence of what I'm trying to do is produce a simple solution that anyone can use quickly.

[CheeseRedux]

I don't think you should focus on volume though, as Oolite/elite has some serious reality breaks in that department due to gameplay considerations.

Well, it's not so much a question of volume as it is dimensions; talking game balance, if a ship is a bigger target, compensation of some kind is in order. It just feels natural to use the hull as the starting point, kinda like a designer looking at an empty shell wondering how much equipment it's possible to cram in.

And we don't have to consider the whole "über-size cargo cannister" thing, because the only thing relevant when comparing ships is the ships!

[CheeseRedux]

I think the most reliable ship dimensions are stated in each ship’s data (.dat) file. Reference sheet dimensions are often incorrect, according to Ahruman (at least, I think that’s what he said).

You're talking about the ones with a "redux" suffix located in Oolite\oolite.app\Resources\Models, yes?
Extremely helpful, thanks!

[CheeseRedux]

Now this is simple. Way too simple, but scarily accurate: (WxHxL)/(Speed^2) gives the following weighted results for "Expected Cargo Capacity" (with the C3 as the benchmark):

Code: Select all

Ship    Cargo       ExpCargo
Cobra 3    20         20
															
Adder       2          1.81
Anaconda  750        377.22
Asp         0          5.5
Boa       125     	 75.25
Boa 2     175  	    44.53
Cobra 1    10          8.26
Constrictor	         0.87
FerDeLance 12	       8.21
Moray       7	      10.47
Python    100	     100.51
Viper Int			     2.93

Some are spot on, some within reasonable distance. In fact, if we ignore the "broken" Anaconda and Boa2, the regular Boa is the only one that comes out really askew.
Now this compares just 3 things; size, speed and cargo, but it might actually be a valid starting point for adding in the other stuff.
(Yes, I know there are ships missing. I decided to include only hyperspace capable vessels in the first test run.)

Edit: Apologies for the 3rd post in a row. 'tfeels like'm talking to meself!
But now RLtm really has to take the driver's seat.

[pagroove]

I think this is a good start. A formula which can be expanded on.

[Arexack_Heretic]

How about:
If only has traderrole (eg specialist): maximum cargospace multiplied by 3 maybe 4.

[Pluisje]

Some are spot on, some within reasonable distance. In fact, if we ignore the "broken" Anaconda and Boa2, the regular Boa is the only one that comes out really askew.
Now this compares just 3 things; size, speed and cargo, but it might actually be a valid starting point for adding in the other stuff.

If you devide the cargo-score by <roll x pitch> (perhaps relative to the Cobra mk III, because that score doesn't need to change?) it might come even closer. Eg. the FdL is very manouvrable, so would have less cargo.

edit: oops, for the FdL the formula already gives a score that's too low

[Arexack_Heretic]

I figured those values were already accounted for in the 'formula'.

It might be a good idea to make this formulation public, so we can know what factors are used and such and make more educated suggestions. ;P

[Sendraks]

I haven't posted in a while, but I just wanted to say how much I've enjoyed reading this discussion and while the simple formulas cheeze has posted clearly is only a start, it is a really good one.

The main focuses for ship design appear to be:

Cargo space
Speed
Energy + Recharge
Handling
Weapon Mounts
Missile number

With the actual dimensions being an afterthought in some cases (so you have cargo ships that are too small and combat ships that are sometimes unintentionally too large).

Another attribute that isn't fiddled with much is the thrust. Some people have designed their ships to accelerate very quickly, others have just left the value as the default. I've never tinkered around with the Thrust settings much, so I don't know what effects having really low values would have on ship performance, but if it is profound enough it would certainly be worth exploring for balancing.

That way you could have two very similar ships in terms of speed, handling and cargo, but the newer version would sport the better acceleration. The advantage certain ships have in combat is not just their speed, but the ability to reach that speed near instaneously. Having longer acceleration times would certainly mean a revision to how you approach combat.

If I get chance, I'll tinker with a few plists and see what happens.

[Arexack_Heretic]

Don't forget expandability!

A supercobra would not be very uber if it did not have the expansionsockets for the extra energy units and above.

[Switeck]

Missiles and Laser mounts are no doubt big.
A Cobra 3 could in theory lose its side Laser mounts and 2 of its 4 missiles and add a lot of cargo space. 50 tons cargo maybe?

While it would be unheard-of for a ship to not have a forward Laser mount (unless it was an unarmed transport), not having a rear Laser mount may be a "weakness" of an otherwise uber-ship.

[Hemlock]

First off sorry if I am posting a mish-mash of ideas already bandied about but I feel the need to hop in and give me 2 Cr worth.

It seems to me that most - if not all - of the so called uber-ships are OXP based and since this seems to be the case the individual player has the ability to decide if he/she wants to install that particular OXP into his/her ooniverse.

Those ships discussed herein, who are part of the core game of Oolite that are considered uber are just that; in the core game live with it, for that is life as we know it.

Having said that, and knowing my limitations on programming and coding perhaps the core game could be amended to reflect the following.
Taking a Bulk Standard Cobra Mk-3 as a base line.

1. Cobra Mk-3 with Engines - Standard cargo capacity 25 tons
2. Add Extended Cargo Bay - 40 Tons
3. Start adding equipment:
Pulse Laser - weight 1 ton - Cargo 39 Tons
Beam Laser - weight 2 tons - Cargo 38 Tons
Military Laser - weight 5 tons - Cargo 40 Tons
etc. etc....
Obviously, I think the base cargo capacity for each and everyship would have to be adjusted up slightly to enable equipment to be fitted. Already fitting a passenger berth does this anyway...why not other equipment. Additions to the basic flight computer etc would have minimal weight if any...and would not be a burden (no pun intended) additionally, indeed, one can already carry a virtual boa-load of gold and platinum behind the seat of the Cobra already.
My point being that each and everything in the game has a basic mass which detracts from the basic cargo capacity. Then those players with a propensity for uberness would have to think which equipment is really needed......

As I said...my coding skills are in the negative column...but throwing this out for comment and discussion.......


Let the flaming begin

H

[Sendraks]

I think the suggestion of equipment fitted having an impact on cargospace leads to the game straying into frontier territory, which isn't a good thing. While the whole cargo space = capacity for lasers, shields etc added a degree of customisability to Frontier, it basically came down to a simple formula of size = win.

In Frontier a big ship loaded with shields and big gun would win over a small vessel, simply down to the small vessel packing insuficient firepower to overcome the shield regen and the hull repair. At the same time the big ship could pack a big enough gun to instantly vape the smaller combat vessel.

I was never a fan of this.

Elite and Oolite have small, very potent, combat vessels. Fast, tough and able to pack the best weaponry. They're not great for trading, which is how it should be, but there are not limits beyond what they can fit beyond the core design of the ship. I actually think this encourages more imaginative ship design, because it is not just about the raw cargo space the vessel has.

In so far as OXP ships go, given the conversations happen on these boards over and over again "this is too uber" or "this doesn't make sense" it would indicate that there is an issue. While a lot of imagination and hardwork goes into designing some ships, others come across with a more hastily thrown together set of ridiculous stats and a backstory of "the military/police/bounty hunters wanted an uber ship that was uber and so they made one." I do think for the most part though, people are willing to listen to constructive feedback about their creations and take it on board.

I think starting with the core ships and trying to apply a consistent design formula to these, taking into account their size and attributes is a good place to start. Then from this coming up with a set of guidelines for ship design so people have a feel for what constitutes "cutting edge" for any given attribute.

For example: in the context of Oolite an engine that goes 0.4lm is pretty damn fast and beyond all galtech in the core game. Only Thargoids go faster. Ships that exceed 0.4lm are bleeding edge, state of the art and will be exceeding 0.4lm in tiny increments, not huge 0.1 increases. A really fast ship might go 0.41 or 0.42lm, but somebody creating a ship that goes 0.5lm as the "next military advancement" isn't recognising what has gone before.