Oolite essay: game lore, features and mechanics

[Cody]

Too lazy, didn't read?


Heresy? TANSTAH

[Old Murgh]

Heresy? TANSTAH

There ain’t no such thing as heresy?

[Cody]

Give the man a coconut!

[cim]

I certainly don't see any general lack of willingness to depart from the 1984 gameplay / lore / manual among either OXP writers or users. [1]

Even going way back to the ones which existed pre-1.76 you've got:
- Commies / Dictator / Feudal which set up whole cross-galactic organisations never hinted at in Elite
- Galnavy which foregrounds and militarises the Thargoid conflict to a massive extent
- hundreds of different ships many of which are not named after any sort of snake at all (including some from Star Wars...) to the extent that if you installed them all you might see a classic Cobra or Python only rarely.
- a whole range of stations, equipment items, and so on which really diverge considerably from Elite's lore and gameplay constraints
- missions with a wide variety of perspectives on the powers and nature of Galcop ... or other entirely new organisations
...and that's before a lot of the ways you could really change things up were available to OXP authors, which expanded things further

I think very few OXP authors have even particularly cared about the lore implications of their OXPs with respect to the original Elite, and why would they? Where are the people saying that they should stick to the original lore? And which original lore, anyway, since it's not like anyone agrees on what that is...

If there's not a mod taking the game in a particular direction it'll be because no-one has simultaneously had the skill, time and motivation to write it. (Or it's actually impossible under current Oolite, but that's rare nowadays, I think)

[1] Or indeed the core team. Oolite contains a bunch of content and gameplay inspired by various 8-bit and 16-bit Elite releases, plus FE2/FFE, plus a whole bunch of its own innovations

[szaumix]

If there's not a mod taking the game in a particular direction it'll be because no-one has simultaneously had the skill, time and motivation to write it.

This is encouraging. I guess I have just noticed so many references to manual/lore over the years, in all sorts of arguments, at least a few of them were in a "b-but manual/lore states" (ie: we can't have that) kind of way.

[Cmdr Wyvern]

How many spontaneous comments could you shoot off about planet Ass, or some asshole from planet Ass?

My twisted sense of absurd could find quite a few.

[Switeck]

As I've said elsewhere the commodities rewrite didn't go down particularly well - I still think it's technically a lot more comprehensible than what it replaced, but it should have had an explicit compatibility mode, and I should have done more to ease the migration.

The awesome thing about the commodities rewrite is it's easy for OXP makers to have their extra stations either duplicate the main station's prices and amounts, be a multiplier of them, or set some prices/amounts/max capacity on certain commodities to 0 without having to use the hard-to-understand archaic tables used in earlier versions of Oolite...or using scripts setting the commodity amounts directly which risk not being transparent change-wise to any mod that also seeks to change that station's commodities.
I can set a "small" OXP secondary station's capacity to only 31 TC for items without having to code a javascript file to do it.

once you're out of the really early game only Computers, Furs, Liquor and Narcotics are really worth considering pretty much regardless of where you trade from and to - that still had an Elite feel but made better use of the full commodity set. Obviously that was never going to get anywhere.

Lower-profit commodities exist mainly to give freighters something to fill up on...since the scarcity of Furs at a Poor Agri for instance often leaves even a Cobra 3's bay half empty.
Because the other commodities are less profitable, freighters get progressively less profit for each increase in cargo capacity. An Anaconda has far less utility than a Boa 2, due to its other limitations despite having cargo capacity over 4 times greater.
Cargo contracts don't "balance" that out because cargo contracts are far more annoying to do than system pair RI<->PA "milk runs"...and once you start getting Gold/Platinum/Gemstone contracts, there's little desire to do the 100+ TC bulk kind. ...even if in my mod I made those TC bulk contracts worth twice as much reputation boost.

[szaumix]

Lower-profit commodities exist mainly to give freighters something to fill up on...

Because the other commodities are less profitable, freighters get progressively less profit for each increase in cargo capacity. An Anaconda has far less utility than a Boa 2, due to its other limitations despite having cargo capacity over 4 times greater.
Cargo contracts don't "balance" that out because cargo contracts are far more annoying to do than system pair RI<->PA "milk runs"...and once you start getting Gold/Platinum/Gemstone contracts, there's little desire to do the 100+ TC bulk kind. ...even if in my mod I made those TC bulk contracts worth twice as much reputation boost.

Discussion like this is peak useful for getting balance tweaks just right and I wish I could find more of it. I would never have realized these since I'm not hauler mode right now and I doubt I will be for a while.

[Cmdr Wyvern]

The freighting contracts are kinda messed up that way.

They look tempting when your starting out, but out of reach cause most contract loads are too much for the Cobra. Gotta splurge on at least a Python to get into the long haul trucking...

Then as your trucking rep builds, the loads get smaller and more lucrative, making the Cobra a handsome choice again.

[Redspear]

*In my view, the Dark Wheel and the Elite manual's specs were written by a juvenile fat horned orange lizard from some planet who was accounting for the universe the way greek historians accounted for Persia's army at the hot gates, or the way greeks used to dramatize (semi)true stories generally. You believe the general story but you take the historians with a bucket of salt!

Not a big fan of The Dark Wheel but I see the manual as the rough guide, rather than the final word: in otherwords a starting point rather than the finish.

I knew as I was typing that this was the case. It goes for games with zealous or loyal-to-concept player bases generally.

EDIT: nevertheless, the only thing required for an increased general willingness among modders/modellers/et al to allow for probable or necessary realities to supersede Lore/Manual... is for the "heresy" to be said aloud (acknowledged) and encouraged, really.

I wonder if this is true for anybody other than Cody and Redspear - and I wonder to what extent Cody is loyal to Elite and to what extent he just prefers playing the core game with his mere handful of oxp's. After all, he's playing Oolite, not Elite. When you stop in Oolite, you don't drift. No energy bombs. And from his screen shots, he's not using the wireframe option. etc.

Hmm...

I just feel the Oolite modding community would be slightly less restricted if they conformed to presumable realities rather than Elite lore, so that's why I said a lot of words on the internet.

Well, making a case is no bad thing in my book and doing it with even a modicum of humility gets a thumbs up from me, however...

'Presumable realities' suggests either no assumptions or 'reasonable' assumptions.

Example: acceleration through space requires fuel, consequently in-system travel should drain fuel reserves. The farther one travels from the witch-point the more likely one is to have expended fuel (due to the stop-start nature of both mass-locks and combat).

But... A fuel tank can propel a ship up to 7 light years, with fuel expenditure correlating to distance travelled. Distance from sun to earth = approx 8 light minutes. With over 525,000 minutes per year it's perhaps not unreasdonable to suggest that fuel expenditure within each system might be negligable (8 / 525,000 = not very much at all). Even for the most exploratory of flights fuel consumption would likely be much less than 0.1LY. True, fuel injectors are a complicating factor but then there are gameplay reasons for that.

Assumptions abound within the above but then they likewise do in any 'presumable reality' that I've heard with regards to oolite.
Witch space fuel consumption could work differently of course but then should it? How so and why so when greater distance costs more fuel?

Seems to me that folks are likely to presume in rather different directions (to me at the very least ) and I would suggest that is no bad thing.

[szaumix]

Witch space fuel consumption could work differently of course but then should it? How so and why so when greater distance costs more fuel?

OK let's take this example from a "presumable realities" perspective. And we'll use real life as a basis.
If everyone could instantly teleport anywhere they wanted in real life right now, the entire economy as we know it would collapse. There would be reason -- but far less reason -- to pay for cars, bikes, flight tickets, fuel, etc. The flow-on effect on every level of small business, large business, corporations, government decisions and the functioning of society would be unreal.

The ease and cost of doing something is an economic factor and presents us with presumable realities.

So just on your witchspace example specifically, I've long thought about this from an economics, game-balance, and realism perspective specifically. Since I advocate for fuel being a more serious economic cost (which it absolutely is not in Vanilla), I've been considering that balance-wise:
- fuel should cost more: so much more that it has a measurable effect on your travel and injection decisions.
- injection burns should use a little less fuel (maaaaaybe 30-50% less), but should result in a smaller top speed multiplier (say.. 7x becomes 5x), so that with higher fuel costs it becomes an economic decision to use them.

The Torus drive -- player misuse and NPC non-use -- is actually my all time biggest head scratcher. Figure that one out if you can. I don't even have an answer as to how I use it to and from the sun but (am forced to) consider it "time lapse" in all other contexts.

Otherwise, everyone would do it all the time.

EDIT: the other idea I've tentatively toyed with is that Torus = some kind of fuel injection, if not just time-lapsed fuel injection. How exactly that would have to be tweaked to work I don't know yet but it's doable. The thing is there would have to be greater delineation between hyperspace jumps and injection use -- you can travel without going bankrupt, but injection gets you places more safely but at a serious wallet pinch. As far as I can figure, it's the only explanation that makes sense.

[Redspear]

Witch space fuel consumption could work differently of course but then should it? How so and why so when greater distance costs more fuel?

OK let's take this example from a "presumable realities" perspective. And we'll use real life as a basis.
If everyone could instantly teleport anywhere they wanted in real life right now, the entire economy as we know it would collapse. There would be reason -- but far less reason -- to pay for cars, bikes, flight tickets, fuel, etc. The flow-on effect on every level of small business, large business, corporations, government decisions and the functioning of society would be unreal.

The ease and cost of doing something is an economic factor and presents us with presumable realities.

My example concerned what should cost fuel, not how much should it cost.

- fuel should cost more: so much more that it has a measurable effect on your travel and injection decisions.
- injection burns should use a little less fuel (maaaaaybe 30-50% less), but should result in a smaller top speed multiplier (say.. 7x becomes 5x), so that with higher fuel costs it becomes an economic decision to use them.

- fuel remaining (distance of jump) equates to fuel available for injection use and therefore there is already a strategic (if not necessarily financial) element to such decisions in one's travel plans.
- less speed means they must burn for longer to be achieve the same effect, thereby nullifying most of the fuel saving (100 -30 = 70% fuel to travel at 100/7 x 5 = 71.4 % of the speed), so... your first change is being (at least partially) countered by your second - it would just take longer.

The Torus drive -- player misuse and NPC non-use -- is actually my all time biggest head scratcher. Figure that one out if you can. I don't even have an answer as to how I use it to and from the sun but (am forced to) consider it "time lapse" in all other contexts.

Well quite, it's an odd one but assuming mass-lock interrupts torus use for everyone...

• You needn't see anyone use it if scanner range equalled visual range
• Off scanner all but the largest vessels are essentially dots (slight delay before they activate?)
• Torus drive could essentially be intra-system hyperdrive (negligable expenditure due to negligable distance)
• Mass-locks would be critical factors in drive functioning - i.e they determine max speed and exceeding this costs fuel
• Hyperspace jumps and torus drive use are both sufficiently free of mass-locks to achieve speeds that don't warrant extra fuel use in order to exceed them

You might not like it but I think it might be both logically consistent and representative of in-game events.
Yes, you can torus straight back into a faster vessel who's just sped ahead of you but it's up to the player whether or not to repeatedly peep behind that particular curtain.

By the way, I do have plans to make fuel more expensive/rare in some instances (e.g. if it's aquired from the local star then it's harvesting should be more dangerous in some systems and that might be reflected in the cost).

[szaumix]

My example concerned what should cost fuel, not how much should it cost.

Yes but it is an example of a real-world incentive case. The economist in me is much more interested in the fact of any given incentive, disincentive, lack of any incentive than the specifics of it. Incentives are almost invariably the reason for the mechanics of any strategy, economic or otherwise.

- fuel remaining (distance of jump) equates to fuel available for injection use and therefore there is already a strategic (if not necessarily financial) element to such decisions in one's travel plans.

granted.

- less speed means they must burn for longer to be achieve the same effect, thereby nullifying most of the fuel saving (100 -30 = 70% fuel to travel at 100/7 x 5 = 71.4 % of the speed), so... your first change is being (at least partially) countered by your second - it would just take longer.

So there you've got me spitballing and I probably leaned to personal preference. But the preference was generated by how much Torus always irritated me, which again was like the free teleport analogy.

The Torus drive -- player misuse and NPC non-use -- is actually my all time biggest head scratcher. Figure that one out if you can. I don't even have an answer as to how I use it to and from the sun but (am forced to) consider it "time lapse" in all other contexts.

Well quite, it's an odd one but assuming mass-lock interrupts torus use for everyone...

• You needn't see anyone use it if scanner range equalled visual range
• Off scanner all but the largest vessels are essentially dots (slight delay before they activate?)

Ah but you absolutely need'st see NPC's using it! Take an example reason I don't use it in any context but time lapse: faster-ship-than-mine is behind me in hot pursuit. Maybe he's part of a gang, maybe he's a clean assassin, but for whatever reason I have better things to do than engage. I can (a) dodge forever as I get to station, (b) burn fuel and attempt to outrun/ make him give up or (c) do b, but only until I am out of "masslock" and suddenly I can torus away, rendering his superior speed and inevitable catch-up moot. In this example Torus is absolutely a player-centric escape mechanism. It also applies for dodging out-of-range ships you can see and know are there, so you Torus "around" them. If it is time-lapse, none of these are the case, and if it is a real hyperdrive every NPCs has it too? (One time long ago I was flying and pondering this and thinking, maybe Torus Hyperdrive is something that only you have? Like you are some genius inventor's son. A long shot, basically).

[*]Torus drive could essentially be intra-system hyperdrive (negligable expenditure due to negligable distance)
[*]Mass-locks would be critical factors in drive functioning - i.e they determine max speed and exceeding this costs fuel
[*]Hyperspace jumps and torus drive use are both sufficiently free of mass-locks to achieve speeds that don't warrant extra fuel use in order to exceed them[/list]

Actually, I accept these as reasonable answers postulations for the time being. But since I'm a hyper-purist, I won't change how I play personally until I'm sure

[Redspear]

(c) do b, but only until I am out of "masslock" and suddenly I can torus away, rendering his superior speed and inevitable catch-up moot.

This assumes that torus speed is relative to ship speed. Whilst we know that to be true (x32) it is far from obvious in game unless one switches to a significantly faster/slower ship. By comparison we know that every other galaxy is completely lifeless until the player arrives (entirely unrealistic yet equally serviceable).

Intersystem travel speed is not variable by ship and that torus speed happens to be is only a quirk of oolite (never directly observable because no other ship has torus). Assume they have they same torus speed as you (after all we'd be assuming that they had it anyway - either/or).

But what of catching up with other ships? Perhaps they stopped/slowed for any one of a number of reasons. Again, my peeping behind the curtain analogy applies.

In this example Torus is absolutely a player-centric escape mechanism. It also applies for dodging out-of-range ships you can see and know are there, so you Torus "around" them. If it is time-lapse, none of these are the case, and if it is a real hyperdrive every NPCs has it too?

That's why it's there of course (reduce time spent with nothing happening). It was time lapse in the original game but some conversions 'fixed it'. I prefer the latter.

(One time long ago I was flying and pondering this and thinking, maybe Torus Hyperdrive is something that only you have? Like you are some genius inventor's son. A long shot, basically).

I've suggested similar as a possibility somewhere on these boards before.

Consider a challenge through in game observation:
Try to prove that non-player ships never use a torus drive in the same system as the player.

Maybe it's not fair to ask to prove a negative but then what would be to gain if we could do so anyway? To suggest that there is a solitary definitive rationale?

If you see it one particular way then good luck to you, but the idea that there is only one reasonable way to see it is, I would suggest, more limiting than enabling both in terms of realism and in terms of fun.

[Switeck]

By the way, I do have plans to make fuel more expensive/rare in some instances (e.g. if it's aquired from the local star then it's harvesting should be more dangerous in some systems and that might be reflected in the cost).

A whole lot of programming trouble for more realism...but I'd use it if it was made.

Early on, when every credit counts, fuel prices matter. But if/when you're making >500 credits profit per jump (on milk runs at least)...fuel costs would have to be silly to stop credits from going up.