Controversy Corner

[PhantorGorth]

I am going to throw in an idea that would require a change to the game but would give a reason for ships to head to the witchpoint. This is to make the accuracy of a jump be dependent on the distance from the planet/sun. If you jump straight after leaving the station (and out of the aegis) then you are likely to end up far from the witchpoint at the other end and a long journey to make and maybe a riskier one too. If you travel to the witchpoint you are further away and likely to end up at the witchpoint at the destination.

This means traffic along the lane is 50/50 in each direction.

This could be further heighten if we make the witchpoint beacon a device that can help you lock on to the witchpoint in the other system increasing the accuracy significantly.

Phantor Gorth

[Cholmondely]

I am going to throw in an idea that would require a change to the game but would give a reason for ships to head to the witchpoint. This is to make the accuracy of a jump be dependent on the distance from the planet/sun. If you jump straight after leaving the station (and out of the aegis) then you are likely to end up far from the witchpoint at the other end and a long journey to make and maybe a riskier one too. If you travel to the witchpoint you are further away and likely to end up at the witchpoint at the destination.

This means traffic along the lane is 50/50 in each direction.

This could be further heighten if we make the witchpoint beacon a device that can help you lock on to the witchpoint in the other system increasing the accuracy significantly.

Phantor Gorth

Yes!!

I like it.

[Switeck]

There is no obvious reason for any of those ships to be travelling to the witchpoint unless they are police or pirates.

Or bounty hunters (which the core game adds) and sort-of for assassins (which I wish it wouldn't).
Bounty hunters patrol the space-lanes like police looking for pirates to kill.
Assassins generally lurk at/near the witchpoint beacon for specific targets to eliminate...but I don't know if there's specific code for them traveling from the main station to there.

[Nite Owl]

I am going to throw in an idea that would require a change to the game but would give a reason for ships to head to the witchpoint. This is to make the accuracy of a jump be dependent on the distance from the planet/sun. If you jump straight after leaving the station (and out of the aegis) then you are likely to end up far from the witchpoint at the other end and a long journey to make and maybe a riskier one too. If you travel to the witchpoint you are further away and likely to end up at the witchpoint at the destination.

This means traffic along the lane is 50/50 in each direction.

This could be further heighten if we make the witchpoint beacon a device that can help you lock on to the witchpoint in the other system increasing the accuracy significantly.

Phantor Gorth

Odd that you have brought this up. Been thinking about something similar for a while now but do not have the coding expertise to implement it.

Being a bit of a Bounty Hunter in game my tendency is to almost always jump from the Witchpoint Beacon. The travel from a Station to the Witchpoint Beacon allows for extra opportunities to find the Bad Guys. Also have the DEEP HORIZON ADVANCED NAVIGATION COMPUTER OXZ in the mix so that fuel savings are earned by its use of a specific alignment with the system being jumped to and a longer jump countdown (DOWNLOAD). My usual procedure is to fly to the Witchpoint Beacon, come to a stop within half a Kiloometer of it, and then initiate a jump. As in, being at a complete stop and not moving away from the Witchpoint Beacon at all while the countdown is in progress. Once inside the Wormhole the throttle is brought up to full so that my ship is not standing still upon exiting. Probably a bit of a stretch for a new pilot but it seems the most realistic procedure to me.

Having explained the above my idea is as follows. A Commander would get even more fuel savings from the Deep Horizons - Advance Navigation Computer if you are close to the Witchpoint Beacon in the system you are leaving, say within 1 Kiloometer of it, and do not move further away from the Witchpoint Beacon from the time you initiate the jump to the time you enter the Wormhole. Currently the fuel savings is about half a Light Year. This should be increased to a full Light Year or more in fuel savings when the above jump procedure is used.

Reads simple but the coding... ah yes the coding, there in lies the rub. Ah well, finally put the idea out there. Crazy stuff, right.

[Cody]

Once inside the Wormhole the throttle is brought up to full so that my ship is not standing still upon exiting.

Can't happen (in the vanilla game at least).

[Nite Owl]

Once inside the Wormhole the throttle is brought up to full so that my ship is not standing still upon exiting.

Can't happen (in the vanilla game at least).

Should have been clearer. Yes, you cannot reach full speed inside a Wormhole but if your throttle is at max upon exiting the Wormhole you will hit full speed eventually. How quickly depends on the responsiveness of your ship.

[Cody]

Should have been clearer.

<grins> I should've been clearer too, but my head's full of fog these days. You always emerge with a hard-coded velocity (I forget the number, somewhere between 20% and 30% I think), so you can't be stationary as you exit the wormhole.

[cbr]

I am going to throw in an idea that would require a change to the game but would give a reason for ships to head to the witchpoint. This is to make the accuracy of a jump be dependent on the distance from the planet/sun. If you jump straight after leaving the station (and out of the aegis) then you are likely to end up far from the witchpoint at the other end and a long journey to make and maybe a riskier one too. If you travel to the witchpoint you are further away and likely to end up at the witchpoint at the destination.

This means traffic along the lane is 50/50 in each direction.

This could be further heighten if we make the witchpoint beacon a device that can help you lock on to the witchpoint in the other system increasing the accuracy significantly.

Phantor Gorth

Interesting Concept



So when I jump from system a with r distance from wp1, I enter the target system b 'randomly' anywhere on a sphere with distance r from wp2.
Could be a good thing or a bad thing ( greater distance from the lane and the systemplanet) .

[Redspear]

I am going to throw in an idea that would require a change to the game but would give a reason for ships to head to the witchpoint. This is to make the accuracy of a jump be dependent on the distance from the planet/sun. If you jump straight after leaving the station (and out of the aegis) then you are likely to end up far from the witchpoint at the other end and a long journey to make and maybe a riskier one too. If you travel to the witchpoint you are further away and likely to end up at the witchpoint at the destination.

This means traffic along the lane is 50/50 in each direction.

This could be further heighten if we make the witchpoint beacon a device that can help you lock on to the witchpoint in the other system increasing the accuracy significantly.

Phantor Gorth

Interesting Concept

Unfortunately (from a surface reading), any masslock saving made heading to the station would be lost if subsequently headed to the witchpoint. Add in the time to cover the distance and travel times have increased overall.

Traffic Redistributer oxp was a bit disapointing (speaking as the author) in that even slowing down most of the traffic drastically didn't affect masslocks as much as I'd have liked. You just need a handful of fast ships, evenly spaced throughout the spacelance, and you're going to be there a while.

So while a 50/50 split might sound like a 50% saving, in practice it likely isn't - and if the player is also headed to the witchpoint then it definitely isn't.

Elite famously had ALL of the traffic headed towards the (purely conceptual) witchpoint. Even back then that raised a fairly obvious question.

So, if some must/should be headed to the station then how to slow them down without it being silly?
Thus my earlier suggestion re reasons to slow down that a lone-wolf player might wish to resist at the player's discretion.

[PhantorGorth]

I am going to throw in an idea that would require a change to the game but would give a reason for ships to head to the witchpoint. This is to make the accuracy of a jump be dependent on the distance from the planet/sun. If you jump straight after leaving the station (and out of the aegis) then you are likely to end up far from the witchpoint at the other end and a long journey to make and maybe a riskier one too. If you travel to the witchpoint you are further away and likely to end up at the witchpoint at the destination.

This means traffic along the lane is 50/50 in each direction.

This could be further heighten if we make the witchpoint beacon a device that can help you lock on to the witchpoint in the other system increasing the accuracy significantly.

Phantor Gorth

Interesting Concept



So when I jump from system a with r distance from wp1, I enter the target system b 'randomly' anywhere on a sphere with distance r from wp2.
Could be a good thing or a bad thing ( greater distance from the lane and the systemplanet) .

It would be more like:

Code: Select all

Range_Dest = 
	if r(wp) < a(wp1) then
		a(wp2)
	else 
		a(sun)/r(sun) + a(planet)/r(planet)

where a(...) are constants and you end up anywhere in volume of radius Range_Dest (You may get lucky.)

[PhantorGorth]

Unfortunately (from a surface reading), any masslock saving made heading to the station would be lost if subsequently headed to the witchpoint. Add in the time to cover the distance and travel times have increased overall.

Traffic Redistributer oxp was a bit disapointing (speaking as the author) in that even slowing down most of the traffic drastically didn't affect masslocks as much as I'd have liked. You just need a handful of fast ships, evenly spaced throughout the spacelance, and you're going to be there a while.

So while a 50/50 split might sound like a 50% saving, in practice it likely isn't - and if the player is also headed to the witchpoint then it definitely isn't.

Elite famously had ALL of the traffic headed towards the (purely conceptual) witchpoint. Even back then that raised a fairly obvious question.

So, if some must/should be headed to the station then how to slow them down without it being silly?
Thus my earlier suggestion re reasons to slow down that a lone-wolf player might wish to resist at the player's discretion.

Yes you save time on lane time (I would guess that wouldn't be 50% saving anyway) only to effectively double the distance and time because you have to travel the lane twice could be seen as a net increase in time. This assumes lane population or length of lane remains the same, or other measures can't be taken. I was only suggesting a reason to make the game generally make more sense. Also it adds further game-play dynamics as you can on the outward journey jump earlier to escape attacks but end up a longer distance from your destination system. This may be a good choice if in a dangerous system heading to a safe system.

[Cholmondely]

Viper Interceptors

Just to go back to the earlier debate on Viper Interceptors for a moment.

Now that I've been playing and keeping on eye on the Viper variants which show up, I've come to notice that the Viper Interceptors seem to appear in pretty much all the systems. Regularly, but not all the time. Visiting patrols?


This seems to me to contradict our official lore on the decline of GalCop, especially if RedSpear is correct regarding their inherent superiority to the pirates.



Possible solution
Might it make more sense to restrict their vanilla game appearance to the wealthier systems? (as implied by the official lore)

Say just one or two in TL11 and above, and the current numbers in TL13 and above.
(I suppose that it should really be determined by wealth, but I can't find a spreadsheet or a searchable wiki page with gross productivity information on it.)


Other Issues: Politics
And I'm not so sure about their presence in Commies or Dictatorships which might be urging GalCop to keep away and thus not pay for the enhanced GalCop presence (especially where those Systems OXPs are up and running - as those systems then inherit their own dedicated navies! There might be an argument to rejig those OXPs to lessen the GalCop influence there... GalCop do indeed want to be there to exert influence, but the systems will not be paying them for their presence).


Other Issues: Piracy
Am I correct in presuming that (apart from Missions OXPs?) we lack OXPs amplifying the pirates?

What I seem to see in-game are merely lone pirates or small gangs of them. Pirate coves which spit out pirates in feeble dribbles. And (recently pirate-)captured sentinel stations in anarchies.

I'm thinking especially of the sort of scenarios introduced in Oolite literature - Imprint, for example, with its marauding pirate fleets (or Carver's Anarchy & Inflexible), where we find organised piracy. I know that we do have ships OXPs which add pirate ships, but that's not quite the same thing. And also Hotrods which is unfinished.

How about something which introduced properly organised pirate bases with defensive fleets?
And piratical armadas which attack things in an organised fashion - Liners, Sentinel stations in anarchies or feudal hinting lodges, etc.
It could also give some support to those choosing a piratical career.

[Redspear]

Possible solution
Might it make more sense to restrict their vanilla game appearance to the wealthier systems? (as implied by the official lore)

IMHO, yes, or at least to limit them by tech level (which I thought they were???)

Meanwhile, another one...

Rear Firing Lasers - Problem presented as a Solution?

They're canonical, they're damn useful and they change the rules of engagement quite significantly once you can afford a decent one.
In many respects I'd be tempted to get rid of them altogether. The player can do what they like of course but for non-player ships it's rather different. So problem or solution, what do I mean?

As a Solution

Life is tough out there in space an a rear firing laser can do two things in particular: encourage pursuers to reconsider, or at least back off briefly to give your shields some respite; it can also (if powerful enough) grant kills even when in retreat.

As a Problem

It seems to me that only the former is really encouraging fun gameplay. What makes me an authority on such matters? Nothing in particular but that you can get reward whilst avoiding risk sounds like cheating. Again, that's a subjective opinion but the game design shouldn't be encouraging a largely risk free approach I don't think.

Controversial Suggestion

If the first use is desirable and the second not then rather than ban rear firing lasers, can we just restrict which positions some lasers can be fitted to?

Pulse Laser Specification: Ingram Model 1919A4 Pulse Laser is recommended for all positional laser mountings, but is especially effective for rear-shooting. Fires intermittent laser "rods" 610mm in length, with a cycle rate of 1500 RoPM. The barrel is of high grade Allutium fiber, lined with tempered QuQorian Silica. Power provided directly from inverse energy banks contained in main ship's drive. Each rod is capable of piercing 267mm of Flux-Locked metal.

Beam Laser Specification: Ingram Model M1928A2 is highly recommended for front shooting. beam lasers fire continuous laser strands, up to 150 in parallel. Barrel is Allutium + lined with tensioned plastiglass, and as with the 1919A4 Pulse laser, power is provided by main drive link. Beam lasers are capable of slicing through 410mm FL metal.
...
Military Laser Specification: Range and penetration twice as effective as the Ingram Model M1928A2 beam laser. This is Lance & Ferman's entre into the laser market. Hitherto known for their highly effective and relatively cheap missile systems, in the military laser they have in effect created a whole new laser market. The LF90 is the current computer-aided model and comes with x4SUSAT sights.
...
Mining Lasers Specification: Kruger Model ARM64 Sp. Mining laser is highly recommended as both a trade and combat addition. Uses variable frequency laser rods of 200mm length, fired in wide beam, 100 channels/beam. Automatic debris-pattern lock ensures no fragments of large size of target asteroid impinge on ship space. can be fitted with a fuel and matter scoop.

Only one of the standard lasers is referenced as being particularly useful for rear shooting. I could be wrong but I don't think that there's anythng else in the manual regarding options for other types rear mounted lasers, although obviously all four were possible within the game itself.

So, my suggestion specifically:

Make the military laser an exclusively front mounted weapon. *

Want to kill something while you're fleeing? How about a missile, ECM hardened if you like? Not good enough? A well timed cascade mine should do the trick. Still not enough? Engage them on fairer terms then with a rear-facing beam laser. Or fish in a barrel / turkey shoot it is (not always, admittedly but very, very often).

* Presumably this can be coded but I've yet to work it out.

[Cholmondely]

Make the military laser an exclusively front mounted weapon. *

An interesting one, this. Especially with the implied support of the original manual!

Personally, it would scupper my lousy combat abilities which rely heavily on a rear mounted military (for range and power), every single shielding contraption known to the eight and sniper lock. But I've already added in the earlier (tougher) version of Weapon Laws and seem to manage dodging the McNasties until I'm kitted out, so I'd probably give it a shot.

[Redspear]

Personally, it would scupper my lousy combat abilities

I think it would pair well with having ecm be less common. A belly full of missiles in elite was often very useful, much less so in oolite.

Yes, there are hardened missiles in oolite I know, so it's a little more complicated than that.

Effective, cheap missiles however could be a lifesaver while the player got their skills (and indeed ship) together. More fun-centric than player-centric as other ships could of course have them too... although the player ship seemed to be a little more resistant to a missile hit.