Observation on equipment energy requirements

[Cmdr. Maegil]

This is a widespread problem: the Wiki's infoboxes say that such ship has X energy banks and a recharge rate of Y, but... what does it mean?

The info on, for example,  military lasers or the  military shield enhancement contain only their price and tech level, but no numerical data on their damage output/absorption or how much energy their operation drains.

Then, other pieces of equipment state things like "activating ECM will cause a drain on your energybanks, so be careful not to use it too much" and "the prodigious amounts of energy needed to create the electric current means that with all weapons the user should have an eye on their energy banks", but again we have no numerical data to correlate.

[maik]

But it says that military lasers are twice as effective as beam lasers which slice through 410mm FL metal. Unfortunately, further information is classified.

[Commander McLane]

The purpose of the Wiki template is to allow for meaningful comparisons between different ships, which are for instance useful for people who want to decide which ship to buy. I didn't like it very much, because it exposes too much of the numerical inner workings of the game for my taste, in a medium (imaginative ship page) which for me is about enhancing the immersion in the game world, not giving data for code monkeys. (There are other Wiki pages for that, mostly in the scripting category.)

Putting the whole numerical stuff on these "show room" pages would in my opinion make any immersion absolutely impossible. Does the occasional player have to be reminded everywhere that everything in his favourite Oonivere is totally deterministic: "one hit with weapon a costs always x energy points, regardless of circumstances" (in the real world the damage done even by two identical shots is never exactly the same)? I would hate that. It's basically the same as putting small boxes with "hit points" and "health" above everybody's head.

I'd rather remove the numbers completely from the Wiki ship templates and use the descriptions ("poor", "very good", etc.) only.

I feel okay with having the number of energy banks displayed, because it's an in-game term, and it is vague enough. Energy (as a numerical value), energy recharge (as a numerical value) and laser damage, however, are distinctly not in-game terms. The player never ever encounters them. They're not part of the experience, but of the engine. Exposing the engine distracts from the experience, in my opinion.

(That's not to say that there shouldn't be a reference page in the scripting part of the Wiki giving the information you're after. For scripters (and other people who want to take a look under the hood) that would certainly be a useful resource. I just think it doesn't belong on the "show room" pages which try to present game elements from an in-Ooniverse perspective.)

[maik]

Putting the whole numerical stuff on these "show room" pages would in my opinion make any immersion absolutely impossible.

[snip]

I'd rather remove the numbers completely from the Wiki ship templates and use the descriptions ("poor", "very good", etc.) only.

Take a walk into a car dealer's showroom. Every car has a reference sheet with more or less meaningful numbers. People want to compare numbers. It probably won't change much in the coming 2000+ years

[Eric Walch]

But it says that military lasers are twice as effective as beam lasers which slice through 410mm FL metal. Unfortunately, further information is classified.

When you want numbers you can look around line 4000 in the code for the playerEntity. It says:

Code: Select all

	switch (currentWeapon)
	{
		case WEAPON_PLASMA_CANNON :
			weapon_energy_use =			6.0f;
			weapon_shot_temperature =	8.0f;
			weapon_reload_time =		0.25f;
			break;
		case WEAPON_PULSE_LASER :
			weapon_energy_use =			0.8f;
			weapon_shot_temperature =	7.0f;
			weapon_reload_time =		0.5f;
			break;
		case WEAPON_BEAM_LASER :
			weapon_energy_use =			1.0f;
			weapon_shot_temperature =	8.0f;
			weapon_reload_time =		0.1f;
			break;
		case WEAPON_MINING_LASER :
			weapon_energy_use =			1.4f;
			weapon_shot_temperature =	10.0f;
			weapon_reload_time =		2.5f;
			break;
		case WEAPON_THARGOID_LASER :
		case WEAPON_MILITARY_LASER :
			weapon_energy_use =			1.2f;
			weapon_shot_temperature =	8.0f;
			weapon_reload_time =		0.1f;
			break;
		case WEAPON_NONE:
		case WEAPON_UNDEFINED:
			weapon_energy_use =			0.0f;
			weapon_shot_temperature =	0.0f;
			weapon_reload_time =		0.1f;
			break;
	}

So the energy for a military laser is 1.2 per shot or 1.2/0.1 = 12 per second. No idea if that are Watt, mWatt, MWatt or something completely different. Feel free to add the info at a appropriate location in the wiki.

It shows clearly that the military laser is only 20% stronger than the beam laser. And not twice as strong. That is like any high end stuff: For just a bit more power, you must pay a awful lot more.

[Eric Walch]

Take a walk into a car dealer's showroom. Every car has a reference sheet with more or less meaningful numbers. People want to compare numbers. It probably won't change much in the coming 2000+ years

Go buy some electrical equipment. In the Netherlands the main advertised energy use are cryptic numbers like B, A, A++ etc. To see the real consumption you have to read the small numbers on the back of the machine. Only a few people have a feeling for what is high and what not. A name like 'good' 'better' etc work better for dummies. That is most of the Dutch population and probably most of the word polulation

[Cmdr. Maegil]

But it says that military lasers are twice as effective as beam lasers which slice through 410mm FL metal. Unfortunately, further information is classified.

When you want numbers you can look around line 4000 in the code for the playerEntity. It says:

Code: Select all

	switch (currentWeapon)
(...)
	}

So the energy for a military laser is 1.2 per shot or 1.2/0.1 = 12 per second. No idea if that are Watt, mWatt, MWatt or something completely different. Feel free to add the info at a appropriate location in the wiki.

It shows clearly that the military laser is only 20% stronger than the beam laser. And not twice as strong. That is like any high end stuff: For just a bit more power, you must pay a awful lot more.

Regarding that, there's an old newscast on the holoware library's historical records regarding L&F's trial for misleading advertising - they were acquitted after demonstrating that the difference between their Military Laser and an overheated Ingram Beam Laser could indeed be construed as better than "twice as effective"...

Anyhow, thanks; at least now I know where to search.

[maik]

Go buy some electrical equipment. In the Netherlands the main advertised energy use are cryptic numbers like B, A, A++ etc.

True. Walking over into the laptop aisle gives you numbers again. Anyways, the truth lies in-between numbers and other symbols.

[Commander McLane]

Putting the whole numerical stuff on these "show room" pages would in my opinion make any immersion absolutely impossible.

[snip]

I'd rather remove the numbers completely from the Wiki ship templates and use the descriptions ("poor", "very good", etc.) only.

Take a walk into a car dealer's showroom. Every car has a reference sheet with more or less meaningful numbers. People want to compare numbers. It probably won't change much in the coming 2000+ years

Yes, and as I said I am not against number as such, as long as they are in-Ooniverse.

I don't expect to walk into a car dealer's showroom and see reference sheets with code extracts from the computer program that simulates me, the car, the showroom and the rest of the world. If we all are living in a Matrix, the Matrix will try to hide itself from our view, not expose itself. That's my point of comparison.

For me (and that is of course a personal and therefore subjective opinion) the ship pages on the Wiki are both part of the game world itself (which is oblivious to the fact that it's just a crude simulation on a computer) and information about the game (from an outside perspective). But the former trumps the latter. There are other parts of the Wiki where this is vice versa, or which are completely devoid of being a part of the game world, for instance the scripting pages. But at least some ship pages go to considerable lengths in order to create an immersive view on the ships. They name fictional manufacturers and give fictional backstories. They don't advertise the fact that "hey, actually it's all just '1's and '0's".

[Cmdr James]

If you want to compare numbers play EVE :p

Really its pretty clear that military lasers are by far the best, with the highest rate of fire, and range. There isn't much to compare.

[maik]

For me (and that is of course a personal and therefore subjective opinion) the ship pages on the Wiki are both part of the game world itself (which is oblivious to the fact that it's just a crude simulation on a computer) and information about the game (from an outside perspective). But the former trumps the latter. There are other parts of the Wiki where this is vice versa, or which are completely devoid of being a part of the game world, for instance the scripting pages. But at least some ship pages go to considerable lengths in order to create an immersive view on the ships. They name fictional manufacturers and give fictional backstories. They don't advertise the fact that "hey, actually it's all just '1's and '0's".

Yep. Agree.

[maik]

I'd rather remove the numbers completely from the Wiki ship templates and use the descriptions ("poor", "very good", etc.) only.

Speaking of this, I am just creating a template that shows Poor, Medium, etc. based on the energy recharge rate. Where can I find a translation from number ranges to classification?

[cim]

I'd rather remove the numbers completely from the Wiki ship templates and use the descriptions ("poor", "very good", etc.) only.

Speaking of this, I am just creating a template that shows Poor, Medium, etc. based on the energy recharge rate. Where can I find a translation from number ranges to classification?

It's not entirely consistent, but looking at the numbers in use on the main ships, I'd go for:
>5.0: Excellent
>4.0 <=5.0: Very Good
>3.5 <=4.0: Good
>=2.5 <=3.5: Medium
<2.5: Poor

[Commander McLane]

I'd rather remove the numbers completely from the Wiki ship templates and use the descriptions ("poor", "very good", etc.) only.

Speaking of this, I am just creating a template that shows Poor, Medium, etc. based on the energy recharge rate. Where can I find a translation from number ranges to classification?

It's not entirely consistent, but looking at the numbers in use on the main ships, I'd go for:
>5.0: Excellent
>4.0 <=5.0: Very Good
>3.5 <=4.0: Good
>=2.5 <=3.5: Medium
<2.5: Poor

Yes, that's about it. I originally created this classification system some years ago by making it up. So it's not in any way canonical. I just tried to fit the range which can be found in the original ship set into five levels from "poor" to "excellent". I think there may be an old thread with some discussion about it still lingering on the lower levels of the boards.

[Eric Walch]

Yes, that's about it. I originally created this classification system some years ago by making it up....... I think there may be an old thread with some discussion about it still lingering on the lower levels of the boards.

It is more than a few years back and it were not five levels.

Amazing that with a google search, you find this within 30 seconds on the first result page. Wouldn't work that efficient with the local search feature.