Oolite Bulletins

Switeck wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 5:18 am

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

Just a few lines of code I think. Might take longer to upload to the manager than to write if I wasn't so rusty...

Switeck wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 5:18 am

fuel costs would have to be silly to stop credits from going up.

Thus I also mentioned rarity. Only 1LY per customer? No fuel for sale at all? Some systems could have some of those restrictions (including higher prices) some of the time. As long as it were at least semi-predictable which systems would be affected then it becomes strategic.

Meanwhile there's always sunskimming and wormhole diving to stop the player from getting completely stuck.

The price of fuel would only matter early in a commander's career, when life is tough enough already.
Scarcity would affect all, rich or poor - but then there'd be a black market for it. Hermits, perhaps?

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:54 am

Switeck wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 5:18 am

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

Just a few lines of code I think. Might take longer to upload to the manager than to write if I wasn't so rusty...

Switeck wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 5:18 am

fuel costs would have to be silly to stop credits from going up.

Thus I also mentioned rarity. Only 1LY per customer? No fuel for sale at all? Some systems could have some of those restrictions (including higher prices) some of the time. As long as it were at least semi-predictable which systems would be affected then it becomes strategic.

Meanwhile there's always sunskimming and wormhole diving to stop the player from getting completely stuck.

Very-high fuel prices could create a much better rationale for all those ships weirdly whizzing off to the witchpoint from the safety of the station aegis in order to hyperspace over to the next solar system (and running into pirates en route).

If there was a decent saving on very-highly priced quirium fuel (the extra fuel left over after jumping would be a bit akin to the various fuel tanks in terms of in-game effect) - or if one could use a cheaper quirium fuel (which would not work otherwise) - then one creates the classic "risk vs cost" choice. And maybe one might factor in time savings as well, if the economics did not suffice all on its own.

Reference: a previous explanation


But in terms of making all travel eat up fuel, Stranger's Hard Way already does this (and more) and could be tweaked to (i) change the fuel devoured in regular/torus/injector travel and (ii) cure its dependency on Sun Gear (needed for Solar Flux collection).

Cody wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:42 am

The price of fuel would only matter early in a commander's career, when life is tough enough already.

Which is why I suggested it (price) be linked to system safety:

More dangerous place to sunskim, more expensive fuel.
If you're in a corporate or even confederacy then you needn't even notice; in an anarchy however you might feel its effect.

Cholmondely wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 9:44 am

But in terms of making all travel eat up fuel, Stranger's Hard Way already does this

And I'm suggesting that such is neither needed nor necessarily self-evident for 'realism' (I'm not not sating its 'wrong' just that there are other no less realistic options). Negligible fuel cost may equate to no fuel cost in game but does not equate to rationalising travel without fuel.

There both already exist and yet remain other ways to make travel choices strategic and/or troublesome. Further, they needn't be 'blanket rules' (same for every system).

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 11:17 am

Which is why I suggested it (price) be linked to system safety:

For a relatively new commander, every system is dangerous!

Cody wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 11:20 am

For a relatively new commander, every system is dangerous!

True but my proposed change would only affect the most adamantly pro-risk amongst them.

If it makes no difference in the safer systems them the average new commander is unaffected.

It would depend upon exactly how it was adjusted of course but it neither intends nor requires that a new commander's life be made any more difficult.

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 2:19 am

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.

A couple of examples:
1. I can see them, not on scanner but as a glint out of range, not using it but flying at engine speed. They are not in company so they are not masslocked. If they have it they are just abstaining from its use. This is actually my strongest argument for time lapse: if they had it, noone would not use it (the incentive proof).
2. They don't use it in chases.
3. If I leave an area and come back, their progress (final position upon my return) invariably accords with direction * engine speed. This is absolutely not insignificant, it has saved me many times before.

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 2:19 am

But what of catching up with other ships? Perhaps they stopped/slowed for any one of a number of reasons.

Oh, come on! With all due respect I dont think we can take this answer seriously. This is why thinking in terms of general (mass) incentives is so important. Rational actors simply would not and do not choose to subvert their own purposes and motives for no reason, particularly when freely understood superior choices are present -- and they certainly don't and wouldn't do it as a general rule. To assert this collapses the entire basis of how we would explain anything ever. We see this both in economics and in sociology: people simply would not zig-zag to their locations en masse, stab themselves in the face just because "they can", nor offer to pay double for things that they want or need, etc. We can always say, correctly, that some will be detouring or wandering or lost, some are suffering incredibly levels of narcotic stupor and mental illness, and the overpayers might have political or other motives --- but they will be the infinitesimal exception to the rule and they still have explainable motives.

It reminds me of a quote I once heard about capitalist theory not being a "belief system" but an acknowledgement and deferment to the nature of incentives themselves.

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 2:19 am

It was time lapse in the original game but some conversions 'fixed it'. I prefer the latter.

Well, at least we're both admitting to suspending strict objectivity while injecting our preferences into our arguments.

So at this point I concede quite some consistency in the arguments, but I remain unconvinced and I'm still never going to approve the of use of Torus in any player-centric way that has a measurable effect on any meaningful stragetic outcome that would not be so without its use. That, however, is my preference and I cheerfully accept that I am in the superminority

Cody wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 8:42 am

The price of fuel would only matter early in a commander's career, when life is tough enough already.

Switeck wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 5:18 am

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.

Just here to say that this was always a matter of degrees, not of wiping out profits. I have played lots of crap in former Oolite saves, stacking up the easy shoot-em-ups and ratings with an OP ship and getting silly-rich and squeezing 20 jumps into a 50 minute session and everything hard and fast and riskless and so boring. In a meaningful game -- for me -- there is an effort:reward matrix where I actually care about every cost and gain. Fuel increase (as with price increases generally) doesn't stop profiteering, it only makes things cost just enough so as to make certain decisions business decisions and more strategic. Frankly I was sick of fuel costs being something I never had to care or worry about. But even then it's not like it chewing through all my income, it's just putting a damper on it and making me think twice here and there.

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 11:41 am

True but my proposed change would only affect the most adamantly pro-risk amongst them.

Haha where do I sign? Like a lot of what you do, it sounds awesome

If you don't like the torus, then maybe  Power To Engines would be more your speed.

Cmdr Wyvern wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 12:50 pm

If you don't like the torus, then maybe  Power To Engines would be more your speed.

I've seen it, might add and/or tweak it later.

Reminder: the original reason for Redspear and I hashing out the reality of the Torus Drive started with my mention of "presumable realities" and Redspear suggested that the realities which may be "presumed" might not find easy agreement. I picked at one of his examples to demonstrate, we (have as yet) failed to convince one another. So I think he has done a good job of demonstrating his original point. And if I may venture to say it, while I absolutely believe all that I wrote about Torus Drive, I think what we were each really doing was defending how we prefer to play.

That right there might end up being the theme to interpreting lore/mechanics disparities, generally. It certainly has with the communities of other games.

szaumix wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 1:02 pm

And if I may venture to say it, while I absolutely believe all that I wrote about Torus Drive, I think what we were each really doing was defending how we prefer to play.

That right there might end up being the theme to interpreting lore/mechanics disparities, generally. It certainly has with the communities of other games.

Pretty much, yeah.

Since Oolite is a singleplayer game, balancing isn't as much of an issue as it would be in multiplayer games.
It boils down to what YOU want from it, and what you can do to achieve that goal. How the other guy rolls don't affect your game at all.

With that said, we really picked probably one of the most controversial mechanics issues to battle over. Issues that led to less dramatic gameplay changes would probably yield agreement.

Cmdr Wyvern wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 1:11 pm

How the other guy rolls don't affect your game at all.

Speak for yourself. How others play their single-player games keeps me up nights. I'm just one more start-new-column-with-non-king-card incident from going on Solitaire related shooting spree number 4.

Cmdr Wyvern wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 1:11 pm

Since Oolite is a singleplayer game, balancing isn't as much of an issue as it would be in multiplayer games.
It boils down to what YOU want from it, and what you can do to achieve that goal. How the other guy rolls don't affect your game at all.

It does make comparing results trickier.

szaumix wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 11:48 am

Redspear wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 2:19 am

But what of catching up with other ships? Perhaps they stopped/slowed for any one of a number of reasons.

Oh, come on! With all due respect I dont think we can take this answer seriously. This is why thinking in terms of general (mass) incentives is so important. Rational actors simply would not and do not choose to subvert their own purposes and motives for no reason, particularly when freely understood superior choices are present -- and they certainly don't and wouldn't do it as a general rule. To assert this collapses the entire basis of how we would explain anything ever. We see this both in economics and in sociology: people simply would not zig-zag to their locations en masse, stab themselves in the face just because "they can", nor offer to pay double for things that they want or need, etc. We can always say, correctly, that some will be detouring or wandering or lost, some are suffering incredibly levels of narcotic stupor and mental illness, and the overpayers might have political or other motives --- but they will be the infinitesimal exception to the rule and they still have explainable motives.

Reasons to not be using torus drive:

• Mass-locked
• Mining
• Salvage
• Recharging

Note that the last of these may offer no evidence to anyone arriving (via torus drive) at the scene.

None of the above is theoretical but rather genuine reasons for a player (who of course actually has a torus drive) not to use it.

If you want some theory on top of that then maybe torus use is impossible with escorts in tow - and why wouldn't it be when it might be expected that the presence of one would mass-lock the other?

That would actually be a rational explanation for why most ships aren't using a torus drive: a trade off between speed and safety (torus and escorts).

No desire to push my 'reality' over yours but rather to argue against the idea that anyone's version of such is ultimately correct and warrants championing as such.

And there are several OXP's which clobber use of the Torus drive.

Bullet Drive - can only travel in a straight line
Shaky Drive - drive as though drunk! Somehow, I downloaded this unknowingly in my early Oolite days, and it made Torus drive utterly miserable until I eventually worked out what made my Torus so hokey.
Hard Way - manouvering greatly inhibited (virtually no yaw, pitch is slow), shields knocked down to 25%, uses up fuel, poor maintenance clobbers performance even more.