An alternate way of looking at uber ships

[Bugbear]

I've been lurking around and indulging in the odd bit of thread seancing (is that even a word? i.e reading up old/dead threads).

There's the recurring theme of what makes a ship too uber and the uber vs standard debate (which is highly entertaining in its own right - long may it endure).

There's also the question over how one justifies, for example, the improvement of a Cobra III to a Cobra IIIe (or whatever your favourite variant is this month) - where all the stats have been improved and the only negative is a higher purchase price.

I'd like to propose a mechanism to justify this - while I'm sure it's not possible given the current structure of Oolite, perhaps it's worthy of consideration when the core is updated.

At it's simplest, allow attributes of a ship to degrade over time. So in other words, you Cobra IIIe's top speed of 0.375 when you bought it degrades by whatever function you like as time goes on, so for example, after 5 years, you're only getting 90% of the 'new ship' top speed (the actual numbers would need to be determined as a result of balance testing).

This pseudo-degradation would then provide the illusion of technological progress. Presumably, a Cobra variant with a more recent design/build date should be faster than the standard Cobby of 3200 vintage.

The same could go for other components - ECMs could become less effective as time goes on, necessitating the need to upgrade to a better one; older model missiles become less effective; older, less effective components become cheaper in the shipyard as newer, more expensive components become available (and these in turn would degrade as time goes on).

Such a mechanism could also justify the frankly outrageous price being asked for a Fer de Lance - not only are you paying for the genuine walnut cockpit inlay and sumptuous leather seatings, made to measure for all space faring species, you also get rock solid reliability and longevity (i.e. the ship's degradation function is much flatter than, say a cheap as chips Adder) - and from a gameplay point of view, it's that longevity that the player will notice over time.

I don't know....this is just another one of my ramblings while I try to avoid doing actual work

[Smivs]

I think we're looking at two factors here.
Uber-ships are uber-ships because some people make them that way because other people like them that way. Frankly I think they're stupid and detract from the game, but that's just my opinion. They cannot be justified in any way that makes sense 'in-game', and trying to justify them is a waste of time.
As for equipment deteriorating over time, well yes it probably does, but that's why we have to spend a fortune on overhauls and maintenance. A 'service' on a ship will bring it back to almost as-new condition, and thus its performance will not noticeably deteriorate over time. The Pythons are a good example of this - they are all several hundred years old, but are still going strong. In other words, in the Ooniverse technology has reached a peak where improvements are small and rare events, so the tech is fairly static. As a consequence of this the concept of 'built-in obsolescence' has been abandoned and for many years (centuries even) ships have been designed and built to be durable and easily maintained to ensure a very long lifespan.
It is for this reason that new ships (again this is my personal opinion based on the immersive game I play) can only be adaptations of existing ships or existing technology. If you want a faster ship, rather than 'inventing' a new super-engine you'd fit more or bigger engines of an existing type, and this will require space. You therefore have to give something up, like cargo space or energy banks or pylons.
When you look at the core ships, you see a range of nicely balanced vessels with a variety of attributes and prices. With the exception of the Anaconda and it's hold, they all make sense and 'fit together' well as a range of ships. As soon as you start giving new ships unreasonable qualities this breaks down, and that's the problem with uber-ships. They just don't sit comfortably in the Ooniverse as it is.
Like I said it's a personal choice as to what ships people have and use in their game, but please don't try to 'massage' the game in a bid to justify the un-justifyable. It can't be done, makes no sense, and in some ways actually devalues the game itself.
Oolite as it's downloaded is an excellent game, well thought through and well balanced, and in it's own funny way it hangs together and makes some sort of sense. Those who want to make it into a different game can do so by adding OXPs that change fundamentals - this feature is one of the great things about the game - but please let's leave the 'core' game alone in both practical terms and in terms of belief and immersion. Lets leave the core game alone to be the exciting, absorbing and challenging game it is, and leave the uber-ship brigade to play their own game without trying to marry the two. It's pointless, un-necessary, impossible and to my mind un-desirable to do so.

[Disembodied]

I'm very much with Smivs's take on the ooniverse, and on ship technology (especially on the idea that it has pretty much hit a plateau) – that's how the game-in-my-head works for me!

However ... there might be a way where something like this can be incorporated into the core game. We'd need to find some method of calculating where on a scale of capability a ship might lie: some sort of calculation that would take into account top speed, energy banks, recharge rate, manoeuvrability, missile mounts, cargo space, other weapon mounts (i.e. plasma cannons), ability to tkae upgrades e.g. Naval Energy Unit, Cargo Bay Expansion etc.

These factors, suitably weighted (eight plasma cannons, for example, should probably count for more than the ability to add a Cargo Bay Expansion) could be combined to produce some sort of score of overall ship power, in much the same way as Lestradae did to calculate prices in the original Realistic Shipyards OXP. This score could be used in that way to calculate levels of running costs and frequency of maintenance overhauls. A bleeding-edge ship, filled with gidgets and gazmos and operating at the top end of drive and power-plant technologies, would require more expensive, and more frequent, maintenance than a nuts-and-bolts faithful workhorse like (say) the Python.

If this calculation was used by the core game to determine overhaul cost and frequency – even fuel cost, why not? – then it could go some way to helping the uberships fit in with the rest of the game.

Of course, that would mean imposing my ideas on those people who just want to fly around in a kickass ship (and who, by so doing, affect me and my game not in the slightest, so I'm not complaining). What might be a fairer way around this would be to take this proposed ship-power calculation and add it in as an extra ship statistic, with the default value (if one has not been assigned) equal to the Cobra III. That way, the core game ships can be balanced around the Cobra III baseline, and those people who want to design a fast, powerful ship, but who want to try to make it still sit in with the core game, can make their ship a high maintenance money-sucker: you want it, you can have it, but you have to work for it! The option would still exist, for those who want to, to create a superb, huge-cargo, tiny-profile, fast, massively shielded, etc. etc. ship that was cheap to run as well.

[ClymAngus]

Hmm, I would have to agree. One of the great things about oolite is it's capacity to be many things to many people. If something can't be done as OXP then your taking away choice from the player. As such any "core" change has to be carefully thought about. Could it be argued that this attitude is needlessly nostalgic? Well, possibly but it IS the main selling point of the game.

There are lots of space trading games out there with variable stats for ships. Some are free, some are PPV. Some degrade over time some don't take being shot up too well. A lot has been done extra cargo capacity, different weapons, pylons, etc etc etc. That said if you or someone you can bribe can come up with an innovative oxp then all fine and dandy. I'll be the first in line to give you a hearty slap on the back.

As we've seen from some serious oxp winners recently, the system is no inhibition to the inventive questioning mind. Thargoid continually innovates and we've seen some truly spectacular advancement in the HUD field recently. All elegant solutions and ALL optional.

[maik]

I'm actually surprised by the strong reaction to justify the existence of something. After all, this is the discussion forum, so cutting a discussion short by terming it a waste of time does seem a bit harsh.

With regards to the universe in Oolite having reached some technological plateau: There are the Thargoids who might have one or the other trick up their sleeves. There are advances by the military R&D that sometimes trickle down to the consumer market or are found by the player, such as the cloaking device. In fact, I believe that when thinking hard enough everyone here can come up with reasons why there will still continue to be technological advances.

And on on a meta-level, there are ingenious engineers such as CommonSenseOTB who already made some things that seemed impossible possible (though that is on a different tangent).

[Smivs]

...so cutting a discussion short by terming it a waste of time does seem a bit harsh.

I don't mean to be harsh. The real beauty of Oolite is that it can be all things to all men. All I'm doing is stating that in my opinion uber-ships cannot be justified within the standard core game because they make no sense within the core game. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole is a waste of time, and pointing that out is not harsh, it's just being honest.
People are free to re-invent the game how they wish, and I'm fully in favour of that, but in doing so they end up with a different game, and all I'm asking is that the original game is not affected in any way by this.

[drew]

I agree that there should be balance in order to allow the game to work. It's a game after all and it needs to be fun to play.

However, I disagree with the justification for balance based on a 'technology plateaux' to be honest. For two reasons:

1. The Ooniverse is at war with the Thargoids. Technology progresses dramatically in time of war
2. All technology is subject to compromise due to staff, resource, materials, time-to-market at the point of manufacture. These do not remain constant. Improvements will always be possible, and as the manufacturing profile changes, will become viable.

Cargo capacity and size? No reason why that matters. We take for granted the existance of technology which has effectively removed inertia. These ships can go from relative zero to a reasonable fraction of the speed of light in mere seconds. If you can manage that making 500 tonne ship handle more nimbly than a 250 tonne ship will be a doddle: neither have any inertia anyway. The better ship will simply be more expensive.

On the 'speed' issue. The Oolite universe is effectively a Capitalist system, thus there will always be room for the 'uber' with those who have the means to pay.

I see the variants on the ships in much the same way as variations on cars today. Take Audi for instance.

1.8 Audi A4 = Entry level consumer model (Cobra mk3)
2.0T Audi A4 = Exec class middle of range model (Cobra Courier)
4.2 Audi S4 = Ranging topping, cool but impractical and unaffordable for most (Super Cobra)

An Audi S4 costs more than twice as much as the entry level A4, but is no bigger, or better at carrying stuff. However, it goes like stink. It has a more powerful engine (344 bhp v8 4.2 litre) which takes up no more space than the simple base model (150bhp inline 4 1.

I see no reason why the equivalent of a compact v8 engine and a run-of-the-mill 4pot doesn't exist in the Ooniverse.

Likewise, lots of people modify cars - I'll bet they modify spaceships in a 1000 years. Plenty of Golfs and Astras running around with the engines out of Bentleys and Holdens. I bet there will be a few Cobra's running around with their engines transplanted.

How fast do you want to go? How much cash have you got?

My bottom line. Balance for the good of the game: yes. Balance because it makes some kind of internal sense in the Ooniverse? You're on a hiding to nothing there!

Cheers,

Drew.

[Disembodied]

My bottom line. Balance for the good of the game: yes. Balance because it makes some kind of internal sense in the Ooniverse? You're on a hiding to nothing there!

+1 on that. The only way to achieve "internal sense" is to do it for yourself, in your own head, and limit – and/or adjust – the OXPs you download so that your personal game matches your personal ideas.

Anything that alters the core game mechanism, though, can only be justified because it makes the game better – and here the key judgements on what actually does make the game better come from the devs, who are the ones who have to do the actual work. If something comes along which makes the game better, but which doesn't seem to fit with my current personal take on the ooniverse, then I'm prepared to do my own internal-sense-justification after the fact ...

A good example of this is the non-Newtonian physics. Why do we have non-Newtonian physics? The real answer is, because it wasn't possible to program Newtonian physics in to the original 32K game. But now we've got the computing power, why don't we have Newtonian physics? Because non-Newtonian physics make for a better game – which we then paint over with a large dollop of in-game rationalisation.

[Fatleaf]

Reading the above we have two lines of thought: What makes sense and what will keep the enjoyment of the game. Both can exist together but it takes balance to do so.

I like having Uber ships in my Ooniverse. But I personally fly an S9. I like from time to time having my but handed to me on a sling. Just my hard cheese for not doing the wise thing and hitting the injectors sooner.

But altering the core game is something that should only be done very subtly and only with great consultation. As Smivs said it is a very well thought out balanced game, why upset it? And to give the player plenty of options to alter it as he wishes is a good thing.

I have no problem at all with uber as long as it stays OXP only.

[Mauiby de Fug]

Interestingly, I do like Bugbear's concept. But as far as I know, maintenance prices vary between ships, and I'm pretty sure that the Caddy's is more expensive than a Cobby's. So that takes care of it in my head.

I can see no reason at all why there should be a technology plateau. I agree with Drew's post completely, but also, take into account the size of the GalCo-op! There are 256*8=2048 planets, of which many are high tech and industrial! I find it impossible to imagine that in a population of that size, there are no geniuses employed by a shipyard that can adapt and innovate and create new technology which can be used in either updating or creating a new ship.

My personal take is that the core ships are the older generation of ships - numerous, reliable, and still produced by shipyards as proven sellers. But oxp ships are newer, and either have improvements and thus better stats, or are cost-saving measures/re-arrangements of the older ships, and so have worse/equal stats and price.

The tricky part of balance is that such improvements should be 'realistic' and not too drastic (such as a ship capable of going at 0.650, say), and not completely invalidate the core ships, so that a player can still use them without making life impossible. These higher tech ships should also be rarer than the core ones, and the cost appropriately higher (exactly what these values are is a whole other matter!) so that they can co-exist. And the power of oxping lets us do that, and tweak the values according to our own judgements. My own upper limit is the Caddy. Others will always vary.

[Killer Wolf]

having just bought an A4, i like the above comparison

i don't think this will ever be addressed by the game engine. the game is what it is and all discussions on uber ships (i've started at least one myself) end up at the same place : the only uber ships are OXP ones, and if you don't like em, you don't install them. Can't see this discussion being any different, to be honest.

[DaddyHoggy]

Drew's right - war does lead to massive advancements in technology and yet it also doesn't...

We've been killing each other now with balls of lead accelerated by the rapidly expanding gas of gunpowder (or its modern variants) for hundreds of years now - very little has changed in that respect.

Most ships and vehicles are still powered by some variant of the ICE and have been for 100 years.

Nuclear tech briefly shifted the dynamic - both from an engine point of view (subs and big ships) and mass destruction (threat of) - but all wars since WWII have thankfully been "conventional".

Armour has got better, engines more efficient, sensors more sensitive, weapons "smarter", but all in all, we haven't moved that much.

[ClymAngus]

Let us not forget that unless you have kiilit installed, unbalanced oxp won't make up for bad piloting.

Game balance wise does everyone remember how we all hummed and harred about the energy bomb? Yup it's in the original but for some players it was a bit of a "get out of jail free card" so we nixed it in an oxp (I seem to remember). It's the "either" instead of "or" attitude that is so refreshing.

This stuff is mostly doable, I like to see the oxps as the other side of the oolite coin. Making something and flying it around is a tanker load of hot soapy fun.

[Cmdr. Maegil]

Wiith regard to the technological plateau, I think necessary to remind that new engineering solutions often occur even without advances on pure science - while science supplies the tools to work with, how to use them is up to creativity.

[Disembodied]

There are lots of reasons why technologies can plateau, from the cultural to the economic to the physical. Recent human history has seen a lot of technological progress, and it's currently running (in many areas) at incredible rates. Taking a longer historical perspective though I think it's a mistake to see this as a constant of all technologies and all societies – even technological ones – in all ages, not least because we're currently running a little overclocked ... But in game terms this is purely a matter of choice. I see my ooniverse as a fairly static place, with little or nothing new being developed anywhere by anybody: it's a decaying, if not decadent, culture, a downbeat place with all its glory days behind it. Its ships are old, its political structures stagnant. Not a place for heroic virtue: "brave" and "bold" lose out to "sly" and "surreptitious". There's nothing new under these suns, just repeated variations on the same low-key themes.