Oolite essay: game lore, features and mechanics

[szaumix]

Exceptions should only exist in order to improve a rule's implementation I think

excellent, a fellow purist

So it's clearly faster but is it easier? If so how so?

Well, the evasion maneuver stated earlier -- and this is very significant. Which I never use. I could not even begin to tell you how many real life hours, and how many in-system flights, have been a whole lot of me manually corkscrewing away from pursuers hot on my tail for a very long time until help arrived or I reached a dock. Sans torus, that's standard procedure. With torus, that's really only for ships with something broken. Big big consequences!

I see torus drives as something that anyone could equip but only makes sense for those travelling alone to actually use.

Aaaaaah now this is interesting! And this changes everything! If this is true then logically, it would be quite expensive and not owned by all -- just like many "essential" items are out of reach of poorer or more lowly or non-career ships/pilots. Since my current hyper-purist save has never once used the Torus in any strategically significant manner, my ship is functionally absent a Torus Drive. I would therefore be interested and possibly justified in making this an equipment item available for purchase. (Yes, I already know about breakable Torus Drive -- I don't have it because it would be a tacit acceptance of Torus Drive as a mechanical device).

I mean.. I'm interested, but all decisions that big need a lot of thought. I can't taint my pilot's purity for anything. I have scrubbed long-invested saves and started entire new Jamesons for less.

EDIT: Oh, and -- this equipment item Torus would be one of the less controversial NPC additions, surely? I mean if only lone trader NPCs had it (sometimes), and they only used it as an extension of where they were already headed... it might not have too dramatic an effect on game balance regardless of the mods we're all running.

[szaumix]

OK, so firstly the obvious part: torus isn't teleport. Key differnce is that one would remove risk (of travel) the other only saves time in the absence of risk

Risk wasn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about two very different intergalactic states-of-being:
1. The one where everyone can zoom from anywhere to anywhere really really fast using Torus Drive -- VERSUS --
2. The one where engine speed, injector boosts, and witchspace jumps are the only speeds.
Even discarding risk as a factor, this basically speeds up the world, speeds up travel and trade, makes both evasion and avoidance easier (separately) -- and unless Torus Drives are really really expensive, that's all standard equipment. And while the masslock risk would be higher away from spacelanes, one would expect a hell of a lot more traders zooming around them like we do. (Yes I have deepspacepirates and I have tried and rejected its remake)

Here's another comparison. Imagine the logical flow-on effects, on our real world, of the following two hypotheticals:
1. Flights from anywhere to anywhere in the world now take 1/10th of the time, cost no fuel, and are slowed only for the moments that jets come near other jets
2. the equipment for this is something so cheap and available that everyone has it

The travel, trade and military implications of this are so staggering it would need an entire dedicated thread just to hash out. This right here is the spirit of my long-term objections to Torus Drive as a thing.

[cim]

3) You have to (as the partial implementations in Escort Contracts and RRS do) have a way to bind an entire fleet together in a single torus bubble, or most NPCs will never use torus even if they have it.

(I realise that the above is an explanation more than a recommendation but I quote it just to make the following point.)

I would personally wish to avoid this as then everyone is torusing everywhere with significant consequences.

The main issue is that if you've made the system bigger to accomodate the possibility of NPCs moving at torus speeds, pirates need to be able to move on torus to intercept a player trader doing the same, and in most cases for any challenge that needs to be more than one pirate. So it's necessary to get back important parts of the original gameplay.

(My suspicion from Altmap is that by the time you've implemented NPC torus and then all the other stuff on top of that needed to get encounter gameplay working again, the correct answer is: "don't bother, encourage the player to use the torus as skip-to-next-encounter only")

[Cholmondely]

I'd just like to point out that at least two of the Torus drive modifications substantially changed my game.

Shaky Drive made Torus travel a nightmare. You would not end up where you aimed for (despite feverishly trying to correct things during flight) and would need to find your destination when you exited the drive. I usually found it best to stop en-route and re-calibrate - and might well need to do this several times.

Hard Way turns using Torus into a skill needing mastery.
There is firstly the feebleness of pitch and the virtual inexistence of yaw.

But secondly, as one starts adding the various shield-enhancing equipment, it takes longer and longer and longer to recover (enhanced) full shields. As this happens there is a major depletion of one's energy banks (down to c. 25%). This has major implications for combat.

So (e.g.) approaching (possibly pirate-ridden) rock hermits in the more dangerous systems becomes a finely-judged matter. I'd want to exit Torus some 85,000 cavezzi (c.25 miles) from the hermit with my starting Jameson. But as I improved my shields, this would extend to circa 175,000 cavezzi. The stronger shields take longer to recharge, but with Naval Grid.oxp added, there is a serious drain on the energy banks too.

And mass lock could be fatal (and much more difficult to avoid due to the reduced manoueverability).

And of course, if one leaves Torus, there is the long wait before shields are recharged - and a longer wait until energy banks are recharged. Re-entering Torus with depleted energy banks means that they do not recharge (they are trying to recharge the shields during flight, fail to do so and remain depleted, so when one next exits Torus, one has depleted shields and depleted energy.).

With my feeble combat skills, the Strangers World "Torus drive" makes the game much more difficult.

[Redspear]

Redspear wrote: ↑
Exceptions should only exist in order to improve a rule's implementation I think

excellent, a fellow purist

Well, being the player is arguably the exception that currently improves the rule's implementation. I'm happy enough with that but I doubt that you are.

The point of my arguing the rest is for why the game often provides me (as a player) with evidence (rather than proof within game) that NPC's aren't ever using a torus drive.

I know damn well that they don't have it just as I know that Quitiri is entirely empty whenever I'm in Ensoreus. Neither situation is truly realistic but as long as the game isn't making either blindingly obvious to me all of the time then I don't give two hoots.

I regularly see vessels not using torus when I as a player could be, so what I need is a reason why they either couldn't (e.g. masslocked by their escorts) or wouldn't (e.g. recharging energy banks from previous encounter). In both cases it only becomes truly obvious when I either follow them or if I refrain from using the torus drive myself.

Well, the evasion maneuver stated earlier -- and this is very significant. Which I never use. I could not even begin to tell you how many real life hours, and how many in-system flights, have been a whole lot of me manually corkscrewing away from pursuers hot on my tail for a very long time until help arrived or I reached a dock. Sans torus, that's standard procedure. With torus, that's really only for ships with something broken. Big big consequences!

The consequences you describe are to you the player, not to your in game avatar/ship/character. Ever been blown up whilst corkscrewing? It's costing you time no doubt, arguably fatigue and keyboard maintenance but little else. Do you arrive at the station any less reliably via your method of travel?

Interestingly, I consider the corkscrew manouver forbidden in my own game as it highlights that every opponent I face in game doesn't have the intellect to work it out. So your current solution would make the situation (of NPC's being incapable in some regards) worse for me personally, just as mine would appear to for you.

Aaaaaah now this is interesting! And this changes everything! If this is true then logically, it would be quite expensive and not owned by all

Well, I think it's quite logical that if you don't have the opportunity to use something then you might not take it with you. If this were to be reflected for the player then (thinking only of the mk III for the present) I'd have it instead of (or occupy the bulk of) the large cargo bay. It's easy to forget just how large that ship is and so similar options might exist for the smaller vessels which wouldn't necessarily require an equally large torus drive.

I've said before that I think the LCB was a mistake in the original elite but once equipment starts to cost space then it starts to look like a good idea IMHO.

Here's another comparison. Imagine the logical flow-on effects, on our real world, of the following two hypotheticals:
1. Flights from anywhere to anywhere in the world now take 1/10th of the time, cost no fuel, and are slowed only for the moments that jets come near other jets
2. the equipment for this is something so cheap and available that everyone has it

You're not factoring in time spent in hyperspace or (necessarily) just how often jets would come into contact.

I use torus whenever I can BUT I stick to the space lane whenever possible. The bulk of my travel time is spent in masslock and hyperspace, the latter of which occupies hours of in-game time. Even if I use torus and you don't, I would only be saving a relatively small proportion of in game time (25% maybe) compared to a significant amount of real life time (perhaps 75%). That's the right way round for me.

I mean.. I'm interested, but all decisions that big need a lot of thought.

The travel, trade and military implications of this are so staggering it would need an entire dedicated thread just to hash out. This right here is the spirit of my long-term objections to Torus Drive as a thing.

It seems to me that, via your own admission, your prior conviction that you should not use torus drive was arrived at prior to the level of thought you describe above... and that's fine.

You stuck it on a thread and so someone like me sees an opportunity to explore it further and see if his own ideas could be refined by exchange with different viewpoints. I offered some things you hadn't considered but regarded as "compelling". Job done. I don't want you to play in a way that makes you unhappy just because it might be closer to mine.

The main issue is that if you've made the system bigger to accomodate the possibility of NPCs moving at torus speeds, pirates need to be able to move on torus to intercept a player trader doing the same, and in most cases for any challenge that needs to be more than one pirate. So it's necessary to get back important parts of the original gameplay.

You of course know the system populator much better than I do but any ship placed along the lane will likely encounter a faster ship placed closer to the witch point. This is especially true if the latter is both travelling to the station and equipped with a torus drive when the former is not.

If prey with escorts couldn't use torus then pirates could still pursue them. As for prey with torus them ambush tactics should still work just as they do against the torus using player.

I believe it is the case that traders are still spawned along the lane (upon the players arrival) so as not to draw attention to the fact that it was entirely empty seconds earlier. So (pursuing this line of thought) there may need to be a bias placing the average pirate a little further down the lane in order to predate more of the traders. Keep traders on the lane and pirates can act like spiders in their masslocking webs.

(My suspicion from Altmap is that by the time you've implemented NPC torus and then all the other stuff on top of that needed to get encounter gameplay working again, the correct answer is: "don't bother, encourage the player to use the torus as skip-to-next-encounter only")

My personal 'solution' would be not to implement it at all as the player would rarely see it and it's gameplay benefits would likely approximate zero.

My ramblings here are largely to justify why it might be rare and also why it might not create seismic changes to economy and/or player experience even if it were (at least if it were implemented with the considerations that I offered).

In other words: expecting that NPC's would generally have similar torus behaviour to the player is perhaps more unrealistic than not, to the extent that it would even appear to contradict an observable law: masslock.

[Cody]

I like hot doughnuts!

[Redspear]

I like hot doughnuts!

You say that but have you fully considered the merits of cold doughnuts?...

[Cody]

You say that but have you fully considered the merits of cold doughnuts?

If they're the English variety - not toroidal, but stuffed with raspberry jam - then cold is fine. Hot apple doughnuts are scrumptious!

[Redspear]

Agreed on both counts.

[szaumix]

Look it's probably my bad for publicly going full doubtful heretic on the main sacred cow of Oolite (Torus Drive) and I was going to let it go, but then you said...

some things you hadn't considered but regarded as "compelling". Job done.

No, not as long as the arguments that Torus=time lapse are more net consistent than the arguments for Torus=standard 32x speed equipment!

I'm happy enough with that but I doubt that you are.

worse for me personally, just as mine would appear to for you.

It seems to me that, via your own admission, your prior conviction that you should not use torus drive was arrived at prior to the level of thought you describe above...

Nope, I've got no mission here, I really truly just find one position more tenable than the other (as Oolite currently presents its reality by default, that is) -- and while I've seen compelling attempts to justify the default game theory, I remain unconvinced by its arguments. In good faith, and without an axe to grind mind you. And I use the Torus, I just use it as time lapse, abstaining only where strategical significance is at stake -- so it's not even like our playing is wildly different. But since you (incorrectly) take a shot at guessing my motives, I might bring up that not only many of your own mods but even your current posting signature is a testament to your frustration with the speed of the default game! Cheap shot, no? So let's stay on point!

The consequences you describe are to you the player, not to your in game avatar/ship/character.

WHAT!!???? How is there a difference? What we must endure as the pilot without superspeed Torus Drive -- albeit behind computer -- the pilot must endure in his own in-Ooniverse way in the cockpit, even if it's only a watered-down representative, with all the danger and strategic implications. Unless you can justify that distinction, the only possible thing such distinctions could possibly lead to is the collapse of all arguing about anything and of all Oolite realities ever! There is, I would have thought obviously, a notable difference between being unable to escape an attack and being able to whip away at 32x speed as soon as you escape the masslock bubble (when in the very same post you write several paragraphs on how long you think we "should be" masslocked as a gameplay/fun issue)?

I regularly see vessels not using torus when I as a player could be, so what I need is a reason why they either couldn't (e.g. masslocked by their escorts) or wouldn't (e.g. recharging energy banks from previous encounter). In both cases it only becomes truly obvious when I either follow them or if I refrain from using the torus drive myself.

You've put the cart before the horse here. Since I do play as though Torus=time lapse and most don't, you'll either never notice or (as you here admit) handwave all affirming evidence. So what you originally posted as a clever thought experiment to all the freely torus-zooming commanders, was to me a really easily answered "problem" with really obvious consequential evidence. I'm not saying it's an invalid way to think, you guys play however beefs your britches for all I care, nor is your Quitiri/Ensoreus knowledge analogy invalid in theory, except that that one has no measurable effect on your in-system flying dynamics and strategies. We immerse ourselves as best we are reasonably able and to the extent we really care, I guess.

Lastly:

You're not factoring in time spent in hyperspace or (necessarily) just how often jets would come into contact.

Actually, I was. Hyperspace wasn't the analogy, that was strictly an in-system and intra-system Torus analogy. I raised all the bushy eyebrows I've got at cim's thoughts on how giving masslock to NPCs changed the game, with no surprise at all, obviously.

----------------------
And just incidentally, "corkscrewing" was a catch-all for dodging. I too am painfully aware of the unintelligence of the NPCs so believe me or not, I do in fact mix up my dodging for exactly that reason! Us f***ing immersive purists, I swear

Also just incidentally, cold donuts are completely untenable and i reject the proposition on its face!

[Redspear]

As you say, in good faith and trying to clear up some misunderstandings.

Hard to strike a balance between a full forensic breakdown of what you've written or a concise summary but here goes...

then you said...

Redspear wrote: ↑
some things you hadn't considered but regarded as "compelling". Job done.

No, not as long as the arguments that Torus=time lapse are more net consistent than the arguments for Torus=standard 32x speed equipment!

Job done as in point made, not argument won, not you proved wrong, just you getting my point. You understood it enough to see that I at least had a point. That is as far as I wished to go, I got my message across, so my job was done. Nothing there to your detriment (or that of your position) only credit to your understanding.

Perhaps it was lazy phrasing on my part but explaining everything in anticipation of misunderstandings is very text heavy (as this post demonstrates). I clearly got lazy at the wrong point, apologies if I caused offence.

Redspear wrote: ↑
It seems to me that, via your own admission, your prior conviction that you should not use torus drive was arrived at prior to the level of thought you describe above...

Nope, I've got no mission here... But since you (incorrectly) take a shot at guessing my motives, I might bring up that not only many of your own mods but even your current posting signature is a testament to your frustration with the speed of the default game! Cheap shot, no? So let's stay on point!

ADmission, not mission, admission. Mission would be guessing at your motives, admission however is referring to what you yourself wrote. There is no claim with regards to your motives here. I did go on to describe some of my motives however.

And yes, I personally find the default planet-bound masslocks to be too time-consuming (my time rather than my character's) within oolite... I should probably use the word 'personally' more often...

And I use the Torus, I just use it as time lapse, abstaining only where strategical significance is at stake -- so it's not even like our playing is wildly different.

This however I had misunderstood.

Unless you can justify that distinction, the only possible thing such distinctions could possibly lead to is the collapse of all arguing about anything and of all Oolite realities ever!

Clearly they're not literally the same. I've died many times in Oolite yet here I am in real life, (thankfully) unexploded. So you don't mean that literally I suspect. So how about figuratively then? They do overlap so likely it depends upon exactly what one means. If it costs my character a few hours to install a ship upgrade then I have no wish for it to cost me personally a similar amount of time. I might feel it more if I was running a contract in game but I don't wish to experience it, even as a simulation.

Perhaps my taking your "corkscrewing" remark literally further explains the misunderstanding here. As you explain that's not what you meant but I think you can see the source of my confusion. My mistake.

You've put the cart before the horse here.

This is a game, right?

I'd put it this way: I don't see a problem to fix (regards torus use specifically).
I can reason why things might appear as they do in game and crucially I can further reason both why not every ship would be able to use a torus drive and why those that could/should wouldn't create some sort of collapse of recognisable oolite game experience.

The "affirming evidence" that I handwave is of ships not using torus drive. I'm very rarely observing ships when they are not mass-locking me however and those are precisely the circumstance in which they would be unable to use their torus drive. I can't observe them easily when I'm using torus drive. So if they're not masslocking me and I can see them then... why aren't I using torus drive?

Yes there are other ways to see it but this one is both perfectly serviceable for me and one I can argue for to a by now mind-numbing degree. So I won't push that further.

As for the cart before the horse I do generally put the experience before the simulation when it comes to games. One of the reasons that I find this to be more satisfying is that I can typically imagine several ways in which the simulation might work, each of sufficient viability that I can pick the one that matches the most satisfying experience. Game first, simulation second for me.

Lastly:

Redspear wrote: ↑
You're not factoring in time spent in hyperspace or (necessarily) just how often jets would come into contact.

Actually, I was. Hyperspace wasn't the analogy, that was strictly an in-system and intra-system Torus analogy.

Your real world flights analogy made no mention of hyperspace but did mention near instantaneous travel. It also didn't mention being permanently masslocked within the planet's atmosphere but with oolite being a space game I'd given you a free pass on that one rather than on the hyperspace (had you factored that in too?) In neither scenario would significant travel take less than hours, so the near instantaneous claim remains questionable I think.

As for the no fuel part I tackled that up thread but to convert for this example: jets have an atmosphere to deal with as well as carrying a fuel not suitable for spaceflight where every trade/delivery journey in the oxp-free game DOES cost you fuel AND hours.

Key distinction being that intrasystem travel nearly always follows (and is rewarded by) hyperspace travel in game. This is true for trading and contract running at least. The other professions make their money not from travel times but from engagement with time consuming tasks. So near instananeous delivery is not evidenced here I don't think.

Maybe you wanted to say it differently but can you see how the analogy itself doesn't necessarily further your argument?


Speaking of which, does anything I've written mean that you were wrong to hold the position that you did/do? Absolutely not. Your game your business. Nothing that I've offered ridicules your position, rather I've simply shown another position and how it might be more valid than it may initially appear.


To sum up from me (or at least try to)...

This is what I think and why I think it
I could be wrong (very important)
Anyone reading is free to take it or leave it
I respect other opinions but may challenge them
Likewise I welcome challenges to my opinions

Anything beyond that from me is either misunderstanding, questionable attempts at humour or exploring a chain of thought.

You're just plain wrong about doughnuts however

[Old Murgh]

I do wish this exchange could strive fore a little more nuance.

For instance, your typical US style doughnuts covered in frosting, toppings and possibly inserted with some jam or cream are usually sold at lower temperatures, while more rustic variations of deep-fried batter ring lose their consumer value when no longer warm.

[szaumix]

[deleted]

[Redspear]

I do wish this exchange could strive fore a little more nuance.

Icing, jam and cream can all work together on/in a cake but for a doughnut... Just the one, which of course should ideally be the jam.

The doughnuts are gone
The doughnuts are gone
In spite of all my baking
With icing that was flaking
Still by Giles, they're all gone...

Queen, The Show Must Go On

[szaumix]

Happy Sunday, inferior donut enjoyers (plot twist: I don't even eat donuts at all ever due to my general patrician superiority).


I feel like the best takeaways from Redspear's original point which led to the Torus Drive exchange (which is far from over and on which I have some really good points to make in the future.. *shakes fist*) are these:

• Most or all of us are interested in some immersive factor
• Immersion implies realism
• Open-world realism is multi-faceted by design
• Shockingly.. it's a video game so it is inherently unrealistic: its diminishing unrealism has no vanishing point, we can only improve on it in bites ad infinitum
• Some levels of realism are not fun -- this is of course somewhat subjective -- and was highlighted in the exchange, I think.
• Therefore logically, we must all turn a blind eye to its unrealities, some of us will explain these or those and some of us will "forgive" them... unless or until they are improved in the future
• As incredibly obvious as this summary list seems, it is crucial to remember these points in all consideration of the game's immersive reality, unreality, balance and fun factor. The various thought experiments, critiques and experimental mods I've watched and read come out of these bb over the years -- made in valiant super-seriousness (which I share) is testament to this final point.
• We all have a crapload of fun playing this video game... which is a video game that we presumably play for fun! (duuuuh)

As Redspear wisely noted, and it's a feeling we all know well: he "knows" that the next planet is unpopulated until the code populates it upon coming out of hyperspace. Same for markets. We all have to accept some level of wilful ignorance. I'm not sure if Redspear picked up on what I meant, but I've used the word "representative" a couple of times -- and just as his handwaving is good enough for him, I have to accept representation as good enough because it's the best the programming-vs-hardware can do, and it's probably at its most fun:tolerable realism tradeoff ratio that players will generally accept. I explain Torus Drive as time lapse or else I am forced to forgive the many outstanding problems I have with it (most noteably NPC non-use and economic implications). We all have to either forgive or consider representative: population density, interstellar size & distance, economic values/amounts/dynamics, a million little NPC deficiencies screaming their lack of sentience... I could definitely go on.

My original wall of text -- which is actually heretofore uncontested -- was more about the fact that that the manual+lore simply can not be consistently representative or forgivable in terms of game realism.