FD tries to put ships in niches, that's why all this handwavium (well, sometimes. Lot of ships checks out). While it feels impossible, at least in closest future, I would welcome rebalance that would make more sense scale/weight wise. Maybe that even might happen when doing ship internals. Who knows.
Frontier, it's time you balanced ALL ships and internals- Size/Mass.
The point is that, by way of analogy, if you take 2 identical beer cans, you can't make one of them tougher simply by "increasing it's hardness".
If you wanted to make one beer can tougher you'd have to either add more material, construct it from a different material or construct it differently.
When you do that, you're going to change a variety of variables in the process.
You're going to make the can heavier (as a result of adding more material) or more expensive (as a result of using a different materials or different construction methods).
The "toughness" is simply a function of the construction criteria.
Most importantly, you're going to end up with a can that is tougher than the standard one.
Again, don't get me wrong.
A value for "hardness" is a reasonable way to describe the result of all the construction criteria but it shouldn't be a variable itself.
You shouldn't be able to have a regular beer can with a "hardness" of 10 and then say "Okay, this is going to be a combat beer can so we'll just give it a hardness of 20 instead".
More importantly, with proper mathematical modelling in place, you wouldn't need to do that because you'd simply twiddle the other variables (material, thickness, construction method) until you did get your desired "hardness" value.
It's really not a big deal to implement either.
If somebody had access to all the data for ship surface area and volume (and any other "hidden" stat's FDev rely on) it'd only take a couple of days to knock together a spreadsheet that'd allow you to look at a ship, pick from a variety of predefined construction materials/methods and then adjust the amount of material used to obtain the desired properties; weight, integrity, hardness etc.
Don't forget, as well, that modules are an entirely separate issue too.
If for example, somebody looks at the model for the AspX, pumps all the numbers into a spreadsheet and discovers that really should weigh 400t and, thus, only be able to jump 35Ly, that isn't a problem.
If the AspX is intended to be a viable exploration ship, it just gets given a bigger FSD.
*EDIT*
Maybe worth saying, it might seem like I'm fixating on the issues surrounding hull design rather than anything else but that's not the case.
It's just that getting the hulls consistent seems like the first step required before you can look at things like internals - especially in regard to core modules such as thrusters and FSDs etc.
On that note, one thing I would say is that, having watched a bunch of video's on the subject, most people seem to be assuming that internal components will always scale linearly with class and I'm not sure that's always wise.
In the case of optional internals, a simple "rule of thumb" might be that all slots need to be physically large enough to contain the physically largest module that could fit in it.
A C6 limpet controller, for example, might only be the size of a golf-cart but a 6E passenger cabin has to be big enough to support 32 people, which means that every C6 slot has got to be at least 64m³ in volume.
On that basis, the physical size of optional internal slots is going to increase linearly.
4E cabin; 16m³, 5E cabin; 32m³, 6E cabin: 64m³....
However...
The same isn't true of core internal slots.
There's no reason to assume that, for example, a C6 Power Plant would be twice the volume of a C5 PP, or 4 times the volume of a C4 PP etc.
By way of analogy, the 250hp engine in a hot-hatch fits in the same engine bay as the 110hp engine in the econobox version of the same car.
It'd be pretty easy to just make the "engine room" of a ship in whatever size was convenient and then have 2 or 3 different 3D models for PPs and bung in whichever one was the most suitable representation.
Same thing for pretty-much all the core internals.
Last edited:
"On that basis, the physical size of optional internal slots is going to increase linearly.
4E cabin; 16m³, 5E cabin; 32m³, 6E cabin: 64m³...."
However...
The Anaconda internal size is about 83000m3 (3ds max says that).
The space is enough for 324 class 8 internal.
Simply, the air weight in the ship is 100tons;
That is my problem with the game.
4E cabin; 16m³, 5E cabin; 32m³, 6E cabin: 64m³...."
However...
The Anaconda internal size is about 83000m3 (3ds max says that).
The space is enough for 324 class 8 internal.
Simply, the air weight in the ship is 100tons;
That is my problem with the game.
400 tons = anaconda shaped 1/40 inch thick steel shell filled with air, nothing else.
400 tons = 21m3 gold (anaconda is 83000m3)
78 tons = An unloaded space shuttle orbiter, created with the lightest materials possible ~930m3.
205 tons = An unloaded lightest possible kellback ~13703m3 (14 times bigger than the space shuttle, should be at least 1000 tons).
Anaconda is 155m and 400 tons.
The Hindenburg is 245m and 250 tons.
An aircraft carrier is 330m and 90000 tons.
We are flying in airships.
400 tons = 21m3 gold (anaconda is 83000m3)
78 tons = An unloaded space shuttle orbiter, created with the lightest materials possible ~930m3.
205 tons = An unloaded lightest possible kellback ~13703m3 (14 times bigger than the space shuttle, should be at least 1000 tons).
Anaconda is 155m and 400 tons.
The Hindenburg is 245m and 250 tons.
An aircraft carrier is 330m and 90000 tons.
We are flying in airships.
Hardness is an abstraction, like hull integrity itself.
In a perfect world with better budgets and more processing power, every ship and projectile/directed energy weapon would be fully modeled in exacting detail with a complete physics simulation so that we'd need no abstractions. I could fire a small railgun, and at just the right angle, the penetrator would slip through shields with minimal deflection, smash into the canopy at a perpendicular angle, and take the head off the pilot. Conversely, I could put a million railgun shots through a non-critical area without even harming the combat capabilities of the ship because the initial damage was superficial and all subsequent shots only hit empty space. This sort of detail isn't quite practical though, so we need abstractions. I'm not always happy with the mechanism of the abstractions, or the specific balance between plausibility and whatever vision they have for combat effectiveness, but we are always going to need abstractions.
There's a limit to how 'fun' it is, going to such detail as you describe. War Thunder is proof of that. If I could have World of Tank's hitpoint/module system married to War Thunder's approach to ammunition and accuracy...*sigh* but alas instead both games have such glaring flaws that I can't enjoy either.
However, that doesn't apply to the variable statistics of the vehicles and equipment available to us. Being 'abstract' with that is what Blizzard does, and that's not a good thing - their games perpetually suffer from a lack of anything resembling 'balance' as a direct result of that approach.
Non-abstract consistency would go a very long way in the case of setting these variables.
Well, the first thing, there, is to realise that using the Anaconda as a comparison automatically creates an "edge case".
More plausible comparisons would involve, perhaps, the T9 or the Cutter, which weight 3x what an Annie might.
Using the Keelback, which you also mentioned, as a comparison we can see that a Space Shuttle weighs 78t and has a cargo capacity of 27t - or 34% of the vehicle's weight.
A Keelback, configured in a similarly basic manner, weighs around 230t and has a cargo capacity of 92t - or 40% of the vehicle's weight.
That's a fairly plausible scenario, especially if we consider the extra capability of a sci-fi spaceship and consider how technology is likely to have advanced 1000 years in the future.
If we move up to something like a T9, we see it weighs around 1100t and has a cargo capacity of 784t - or 71% of the vehicle's weight.
That would seem to be moving into the realms of "flying beer cans" but it'd still be plausible if we accept that the ship was deliberately designed that way.
That's where consistent, mathematically modeled, ships would be nice though.
It'd be possible to use variables such as the weight, materials, surface area and construction method of a ship to define it's integrity (or transpose that process to define another variable such as it's weight or building material) and still end up with plausible results.
You have absolutely right.
I do not argue with that.
My problem is the size/mass scale. It affects all of the elite ships.
Shuttle: inner space 930m3, total weight 113 tons
Kellback: inner space 13700m3, total weight ~465 tons, scale down to 3400m3, and it will match the shuttle, and I'm ok (length: 32.3, width: 26.2, height: 9.7)
T9: inner space 140000m3, total weight ~2480 tons, scale down to 20000m3, and it will match the shuttle, and I'm ok (length: 60.6, width: 61.7, height: 17,4).
T9 inner space is 140000m3, 800 tons gold is 42,1 m3. A bit ridiculous. if I forget, where to put that tiny bit of cargo in the huuuuge ship...
I set up an experiment to try this - I was unable to make one can tougher by increasing its hardness, but I did succeed in making one can weaker by opening it and drinking the beer.
A salutary lesson for us all, I think.
A real shame that complete shipyard rebalance was never included with Beyond, which this would indeed be a prime candidate for improving core mechanics/systems in the game.
Here's hoping it's at least "on the map" for development review. With the proposed changes to Powerplay, and the scanning mechanics for exploration, it appears at least Frontier is indeed looking at existing issues for rework. A shipyard rebalance, IMO is a bit less divisive on a whole as it improves the game for everyone- regardless of their "reasons" for playing the game. We all use ships, after all.
Well, OK- some use beer cans.
Here's hoping it's at least "on the map" for development review. With the proposed changes to Powerplay, and the scanning mechanics for exploration, it appears at least Frontier is indeed looking at existing issues for rework. A shipyard rebalance, IMO is a bit less divisive on a whole as it improves the game for everyone- regardless of their "reasons" for playing the game. We all use ships, after all.
Well, OK- some use beer cans.
I don't think there is any map beyond Beyond. And given the amount of incompetence that went in the Q4 reworks, as laid out, I'm not sure I want them to rework anything else. I'd rather have the current placeholder-mediocrity than any of the "reworked" and "improved" stuff.
Maybe FDev can refocus the mystical 100 people in a concerted effort to figure out how draw straight lines on ships again - that seems a much more realistic and fitting objective given the demonstrated game design skills as far as maps are concerned...
Sole Hunter
Banned
Some modules would scale up way too high, class 7 and 8 HRP's would probably be overkill making some ships like the cutter impossible to kill and a big balance issue for the current level of difficulty in PVE.
However, I do agree some stuff is plain stupid and needs proper balance. The python, conda and cutter are prime examples.
Last edited:
I'm a bit conflicted on this.
The way the module system works with arbitrary slots makes it seem like doing what the OP suggests is a good idea.
However, I'm a firm believer that the intended function of a ship is important, and that design follows function.
To make that more concrete using the OP's example, the interior layout of a Cruise Liner is very different to a Container Ship.
The ability to load cargo and the access points to do that are entirely different.
Sure, you could strip out all the cabins from a cruise liner, but how practical would it be to actually fill that space with cargo containers.
You'd end up having to cut the ship up and put it back together - and it would still not be as effective as a Container Ship.
So please, take a step back. Yes, the module system does give the appearance of an entirely flexible interior space, but no, realistic design just doesn't work like that.
Completely agreed on some of the other points though.
- the Anaconda mass is dumb
- the T7 height is dumb
- etc.
The way the module system works with arbitrary slots makes it seem like doing what the OP suggests is a good idea.
However, I'm a firm believer that the intended function of a ship is important, and that design follows function.
To make that more concrete using the OP's example, the interior layout of a Cruise Liner is very different to a Container Ship.
The ability to load cargo and the access points to do that are entirely different.
Sure, you could strip out all the cabins from a cruise liner, but how practical would it be to actually fill that space with cargo containers.
You'd end up having to cut the ship up and put it back together - and it would still not be as effective as a Container Ship.
So please, take a step back. Yes, the module system does give the appearance of an entirely flexible interior space, but no, realistic design just doesn't work like that.
Completely agreed on some of the other points though.
- the Anaconda mass is dumb
- the T7 height is dumb
- etc.
Last edited:
Indeed. Some modules would clearly have to be limited for balance purposes- which can be clearly justified and actual reason(s) also clearly stated as such.
Most of the issues with ships are very disjointed and makes no logical sense whatsoever. As stated previous- it's a result of slapping new systems on top of old, without regard to questioning current issues before future changes. Frontier has a habit of this, but it looks like with recent announcements they may indeed be changing their tune a bit. Things like discussion of PowerPlay, Scanning mechanics changes, etc. are clear proof that they're wanting to at least discuss issues, so I remain hopeful they'll have a look in this direction as well.
Although we all have different playstyles, or engage in different activities, we all use ships (and modules) therefore this should be a bit of a no-brainer for Frontier.
I owe you rep for this, too.
As with many points others have made in this thread they are ALL great points for discussion.
I'd love to see a FFF opened on this for such discussion someday...
If everything was consistently modeled, there'd be no reason why you couldn't either adjust the performance of specific modules or adjust a ship's slots (or twiddle a ship's mathematical model) to achieve the desired end result.
For example, let's say all the ships were modeled consistently and, as a result, it turned out that a bunch of ships with a C5 FSD didn't jump as far as FDev want them to.
They could simply add a bit of extra performance to the C5 FSD's, thus getting the ships back where they're intended to be.
Doing that might increase the performance of some other C5 FSD ships unintentionally though.
So, instead, it'd be possible to look at the individual ships that you do intend to have a bigger jump-range and then twiddle their mathematical models to see if you can give them the required jump-range simply by making them lighter and, if necessary, giving them a different construction method.
Even so, you might end up finding that, say, the Krait has a similar jump-range to an AspX and you want the AspX to have better jump-range.
In that case, as a last resort, you can replace the AspX's C5 FSD with a C6 FSD and then, if that creates too big an advantage, you can go back and twiddle the build again to make it heavier again, until it has the intended jump-range.
It wouldn't be all that complicated to achieve.
Basically, all you'd need is a spreadsheet that included separate pages for each ship and then a "summary" page that showed all the current stat's for the ships next to all the stat's defined using the "new system".
You could look at the differences between the current stat's and the new stat's and then, if you see anything that's horrifically out of whack, you go to that ship's spreadsheet page and twiddle the build until you get the stat's where they need to be.
Again, the main benefit of all this wouldn't necessarily be to buff or nerf existing ships (except in cases where their current stat's are out of whack) but to create a consistent framework so that new ships can be created without having to faff around manually tweaking a ship's stat's and then ending up in a situation where one ship is better than another for no apparent reason.
Sole Hunter
Banned
Right but at the moment class 7 and 8 HRP's would be overkill and would defeat the purpose of flying any other ships but the big 3.
I thought hrp's didn't exist past 5?
They don't, it's a hypothetical argument.
"If these existed they would be overkill" etc.
Last edited:
Really? I kinda get that, I do, but there's enough actual stuff in this thread to argue, no need to bring in hypo's or this is never gona get resolved (haha it's funny cuz we know it never will)
For me i'ts more "don't touch my ship to increase this guy REALISM / Immersion.
Sadly frontier seems to listen too muchg this kind of people.