Fuel price in proportion to ship?

[CheeseRedux]

I've been following this thread with some interest, and thought I'd toss another element into the mix: Efficiency.

Just like modern cars are more fuel efficient than older ones, it might make sense to make this differentiation for the Oolite ships as well.
For instance:
- Different models of the same ship; We already have the "rusty" versions of the standard shipset that are cheaper but slightly underperforms - it could be sensible to also give them worse fuel efficiency than the standard models.
- Based on which generation the ship belongs to; the old Cobby should logically have less efficient engines than the new Caddy.
- Engine upgrade as buyable equipment.

The common thread here is that you can buy the cheap/old version and suffer higher running costs, or shell out for the flashy new one and (hopefully) make it up in the long run.


On a slight tangent: Once we start looking into differentiating fuel usage, we may have to separate injector usage from wormhole usage.
To me, it appears logical that the amount of energy required to create a wormhole depends on the size of the object that needs to pass through it, rather than the mass. Otherwise a fully loaded Anaconda would need a lot more fuel than an empty one. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but as wormholes are "tunnels" through space, it's the creation of the tunnel that requires the energy, not the driving through it.
Injectors, on the other hand, logically depends much more on how much tonnage you have to push along. To make it really interesting, injector fuel usage, or even better speed, could be made dependent on how much cargo you're hauling. That would make dumping cargo to escape pursuers a viable (but painful!) strategy.

[Cmd. Cheyd]

Keep in mind - Fuel is purchased (In Oolite) not by the raw quantity (liters, kilotons, Bill & Ted's Excellent Unit Of Volumetric Measurement), but by the distance that fuel will take you. i.e. - You're not buying 5 gallons, you're buying enough to travel 5 light years. So the fuel utilized by an empty anaconda and one that is fully loaded may indeed be different, but it is not presented in a fashion that would allow you to determine as such.

[Sendraks]

- Based on which generation the ship belongs to; the old Cobby should logically have less efficient engines than the new Caddy.

While this is logical, the problem from a game design point is that you should not use the cost of the vessel to justify game imbalancing high performance.

The argument that the Caddy should be more fuel efficient than the Cobra MkIII can easily be turned on its head. The Caddy should be less fuel efficient than the Cobra because it is larger, faster, tougher and has far more weaponry, all of these systems create a draw on fuel which means the Caddy requires more fuel to run.

The engines/powerplant of the Caddy is more efficient in the sense that it can generate enough power to make the ship faster, tougher etc etc. That doesn't mean that it should, by default, use less fuel. From a game design standpoint it should use more fuel.

- The common thread here is that you can buy the cheap/old version and suffer higher running costs, or shell out for the flashy new one and (hopefully) make it up in the long run.

While I don't have rusties installed, I do like the idea of older/poorly maintained "rusty" versions of ships having poor fuel efficency as a default.

[Cmdr James]

Guys, I think we are starting to get a little carried away.

Oolite isnt a space simulator, and I dont see fuel as a core component of the game. There is an opportunity to make fuel a bit more sensibly priced, to reflect the differences between superhuge and tiny ships. Im not convinced we should go any further.

[Sendraks]

Guys, I think we are starting to get a little carried away.

Sorry.

There is an opportunity to make fuel a bit more sensibly priced, to reflect the differences between superhuge and tiny ships. Im not convinced we should go any further.

I really don't see that something that simplistic will work. The other performance aspects of a ship need to be taken into account when determing fuel useage, especially if this is something to be sensibly applied to oxp vessels as well.

[Cmdr James]

Well, then lets leave it as it is. Take the hyperdrive, the lasers or any of the other things that we have, none are as complex as what we are talking about, which will only ever be a minor point in game. Dock, fill up, then look at commodities and map and work out what to buy and where to take it. Fuel should not be a big deal.

[Poro]

Whilst I'd like the original basic idea implemented - I suspect that this is something that will be included if people complain about some other aspect of the game more and more, rather than implemented for its own merits.

So if people routinely make complaints about large ships having it too easy, then maybe fuel may be used to redress the balance.

[Sendraks]

Well, then lets leave it as it is. Take the hyperdrive, the lasers or any of the other things that we have, none are as complex as what we are talking about, which will only ever be a minor point in game. Dock, fill up, then look at commodities and map and work out what to buy and where to take it. Fuel should not be a big deal.

Well I think the plist suggestion, with the default being what the current cost is, would be the best option. That way fuel in the game can be as simple or as complex as individuals want.

[another_commander]

Guys, I think we are starting to get a little carried away.

Oolite isnt a space simulator, and I dont see fuel as a core component of the game. There is an opportunity to make fuel a bit more sensibly priced, to reflect the differences between superhuge and tiny ships. Im not convinced we should go any further.

Fully agree and quoting for emphasis.

[_ds_]

I've tweaked the patch a bit. It now scales the scooping speed and the fuel price according to the calculated ‘mass’ of the ship (as used for wormholes), relative to the ‘mass’ of the Cobra Mk. 3.

In strict mode, it's always 1; but then, you always have a Cobra Mk. 3…

[CheeseRedux]

The argument that the Caddy should be more fuel efficient than the Cobra MkIII can easily be turned on its head. The Caddy should be less fuel efficient than the Cobra because it is larger, faster, tougher and has far more weaponry, all of these systems create a draw on fuel which means the Caddy requires more fuel to run.

The engines/powerplant of the Caddy is more efficient in the sense that it can generate enough power to make the ship faster, tougher etc etc. That doesn't mean that it should, by default, use less fuel. From a game design standpoint it should use more fuel.

The apples&pears comparison of the Cobby and Caddy was in hindsight not the best to illustrate my point. I was in no way inferring that the Caddy would use less fuel than a Cobby.
But if you have two ships that are otherwise close to identical, it makes sense that the older design would be cheap to buy and expensive to run, whereas the newer would be expensive to buy and cheap(er) to run.




To address the point on how far to carry the whole fuel cost discussion:

The initial idea was to alter the current system where the Adder&Anaconda both pay the same amount of Cr for a LY worth of fuel, when it seems logical (and game balancing) that the Anaconda should need more fuel to travel the same distance. A simple mass x constant suggestion was put forward. While this may be viewed as too simplistic, and may suffer some yet unforeseen drawbacks, it is my opinion that this would be, at the very least, less imperfect than our current system and should be implemented.

As for the other ideas on the subject that have been put forward on the subject, I do very much see the point that they may make things overly complicated. That absolutely also includes the points I myself brought up.
I can of course only speak for myself here, but just because I bring forward an idea does not necessarily mean I think it's a good one. To me there is a very clear distinction between saying "this may be another point worth considering" and "this is something I think should be done."



Addendum:
After re-reading this entire thread, I've come up with a suggested formula to calculate fuel consumption/price.
Based on the standard formula

y = ax^n + bx + c

I'd suggest using either using the linear bx or the exponential ac^n for simplicity's sake.
The important bit to me though is the constant c. The logic would be that a certain amount of energy is needed to create a wormhole of a specified length, and an additional amount is spent enlarging the "tunnel" to a size that will allow your ship to pass through. Fiddling around with the 2 (or 3) constants should make it fairly simple to arrive at a "fair" formula.

[_ds_]

After re-reading this entire thread, I've come up with a suggested formula to calculate fuel consumption/price.
Based on the standard formula

y = ax^n + bx + c

I'd suggest using either using the linear bx or the exponential ac^n for simplicity's sake.

Using an updated patch which allows use of that formula and setting a=0, b=1, c=0, x=mass(player ship)/mass(Cobra Mk. 3), I get this for the default ships plus a few OXP outliers:

Code: Select all

    buzzer-player:   0.08
     adder-player:   0.13
     moray-player:   0.22
  morayMED-player:   0.22
ferdelance-player:   0.28
       asp-player:   0.32
  cobramk1-player:   0.51
   boa-mk2-player:   0.98
    cobra3-player:   1.00
       boa-player:   1.04
    python-player:   1.20
  anaconda-player:   2.31
  kirin-cv-player:  22.64
  kirin-xm-player:  22.67

(Output is sorted using "sort -gk2". Results are normalised such that x=1 gives 1.00.)

[CptnEcho]

Well, then lets leave it as it is. ... ...Fuel should not be a big deal.

Agreed.

[CheeseRedux]

Using an updated patch which allows use of that formula and setting a=0, b=1, c=0, x=mass(player ship)/mass(Cobra Mk. 3), I get this for the default ships plus a few OXP outliers:

Code: Select all

    buzzer-player:   0.08
     adder-player:   0.13
     moray-player:   0.22
  morayMED-player:   0.22
ferdelance-player:   0.28
       asp-player:   0.32
  cobramk1-player:   0.51
   boa-mk2-player:   0.98
    cobra3-player:   1.00
       boa-player:   1.04
    python-player:   1.20
  anaconda-player:   2.31
  kirin-cv-player:  22.64
  kirin-xm-player:  22.67

(Output is sorted using "sort -gk2". Results are normalised such that x=1 gives 1.00.)

Once again I'm struck by the Oolite version of Hofstadter's Law: That Cobra3 is not a small ship!

The huge leap from the Anaconda to the Kirins is more puzzling though. I would never have thought the Kirin would weigh in at almost 10x the mass of an Anaconda. Is it the complexity of the model that does it?

I've been juggling some numbers, but have so far not come up with anything I'm completely satisfied with; Closing the gap between Anaconda & Kirin is easy enough, but it also reduces the Anaconda's factor below 2x, which seems a bit low to me.

I'll keep fiddling around some more.

[JensAyton]

Once again I'm struck by the Oolite version of Hofstadter's Law: That Cobra3 is not a small ship!

And here I thought the Oolite version of Hofstadter’s Law was “no, there still isn’t a new ‘stable’ release.”