Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NikolaiLev]

The most common occurence of this being if you attain the +50 flux speed boost, and continue holding down the forward thruster, raising shields or generating any sort of flux actually slows you down.  This is a little silly, as if you avoid using the thruster you will retain your momentum.

If you're travelling with +50 speed and try to correct your course, maneuver or slow down deliberately, sure, you stay at the normal cap.  I'm definitely not asking for a constant +50 speed.  That said, I'm not sure if merely generating flux is enough reason to lose the flux boost.  After all, if you have shields up or fire low flux weapons, your dissipation rate keeps your actual flux at 0, so why not allow the flux boost to remain?

[hydremajor]

In short

"Why am I loosing momentum from raising shields/firing wapons ?"

True, this makes little to NO sense at all

And the fact you can drift at max speed with your shields up and weapons going all out makes even LESS sense...

[aquatictoaster]

There is no reason it's balancing you can be fast or safe you pick

[StahnAileron]

I think the actual argument is this:

Why would using my main engines while pointed in the direction of my momentum while traveling over the standard (non-boosted) max speed suddenly make me slow down if I engage anything that creates flux while the engines are active? Logic would dictate that the engines would have no effect on my speed until/unless I change my orientation.

It's an odd conflict of logic since the game is using a very typcial (and simplified) inertia/space physics. Most space-based games have this problem unless they are a sim of some sort. The only space game I've played that had realistic inertia/space flight physics was Evochron Mercenaries (assuming you have the inertia dampening system or whatever it was called OFF.) "Maximum Speed" in speed makes no sense in reality. Maximum acceleration would be the real metric to go by... Oh, actually, Star Ruler had semi-realistic space travel physics, now that I think about it.

Anyway, as much as it does irk me at times, I consider it a gameplay mechanic you need to learn/live with. You just have to be a bit more conscientious of when/how to use your engines. The devs would porbably have to implement a new physics model to get velocity and acceleration vectors modeled semi-realistically/believeable. Or maybe they can just tweak the behaviour of the engines to not affect (i.e. decelerate) you when are over your max speed without changing your orientation as well.

You can explain it away in-game as some sort or inertia-control system that always kicks in when the engines are engaged to keep the max speed of a ship down to manageable level, kinda like Evochron Mercs' inertia control system. A side effect would be slowing down a vessel that's overspeed, even when you're pointed in the same direction as your direction of travel. Well, it's how I would explain it away, in any case. *shrug*

[Karmashock]

I'm actually not a fan of the speed cap.

I understand that turning on weapons etc will reduce acceleration. By why cap max speed? It's space. Oh, idiots will jam down on the throttle until they go spinning off the screen... Idiots do that.

I suppose the AI will have to predict matching speed which might make AI pathing more complicated. But generally I think the whole max speed idea is a bad one.

[StahnAileron]

For gameplay reason, it's a reasonable idea. People will jam down the accelerator for too long and realize too late that it will take them JUST AS LONG to slow down again. Space travel hinges more on acceleration rates and timing than fixed speed. The only reason any type of speed rating is mentioned in space travel ("XXXX probe is on it's way to YYYY traveling at ZZZZ km/sec) is due to fuel constraints. Otherwise it's faster to accelerate for half the journey and then decelerate for the second half.

Many people wold never take the above into consideration just to play game, much less want to think about the calculations required of them to properly travel from A to B efficiently. Hence, an artifical and arbitrary max speed mechanic for games in space. (Which is funny when you think about it and convert the common m/s speeds used in most games to KPH equivalents: 100m/s is only 360kph; 1000m/s is under 3 times the speed of sound. Orbiting the Earth at low earth orbit altitudes is around 7km/s, depending on actual altitudes.) It simplifies the gameplay mechanics quite a bit and makes the game easier to get into, manage, and most importantly play. I don't want my games to make me feel like I'm working instead of playing.

I'm prefectly fine with the currentflight movement system for the most part. Kinda wish strafing would be a bit more useful for the larger/heavier ships, but that would be a bit unbalancing for them (they're more about firepower than speed/maneuverability in most cases, afterall.) I do find it a bit odd that I can accelerate backwards to the same speed cap as I have going forward, though. Most other games I've played let you accelerate/travel directly backwards at a slower rate. (Usually some percentage, like 50%, though X3 had a fixed max reverse speed of only 10m/s for all ships.) But that's another topic.

[Catra]

most hard-science sims will have a max speed due to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

while some things do take a hit for vanilla balance / for keeping it "fun" (missiles and ballistics come to mind), proper movement doesn't and it appears alex did his homework on the subject since hounds / tempest go exactly as fast as the human body maximum g-force tolerance can take them.

[StahnAileron]

most hard-science sims will have a max speed due to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

That has nothing to do with a maximum speed. That would be maximum acceleration you're referring to with that article. There's a big difference between the two. From the same article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force:
The term g-force is technically incorrect as it is a measure of acceleration, not force. While acceleration is a vector quantity, g-forces are often expressed as a scalar, with positive g-forces pointing upward (indicating upward acceleration), and negative g-forces pointing downward. Thus, a g-force is a vector acceleration.

If I was moving at say a constant speed of 10m/s, I would feel no acceleration. If I then decide to speed up to say 100m/s and it took me 18 seconds to reach that new speed, I would experience an acceleretion of 5m/s each second during those 18 seconds (i.e. 5m/s² acceleration for 18 seconds). Hard-science sims would give you no speed limit, but you would have a limit on acceleration forces. As I mentioned earlier, Evochron Mercs is the only space sim I've played so far that actually has a fully working inertia model implemented. Tunring off the IDS in that game will let you accelerate to the numerical-handling limit of the game has instead of just some arbitrary limit (it could be a probably 16-bit number, so perhaps 65535 is the limit. Dunno since I never tested the limit and it's been a while since I played the game. 32-bit would be a 4,294,967,295 speed limit.)

• Zero Speed = Zero Acceleration BUT
• Zero Acceleration = CONSTANT Speed

[Sörre]

most hard-science sims will have a max speed due to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

That has nothing to do with a maximum speed. That would be maximum acceleration you're referring to with that article. There's a big difference between the two. From the same article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force:
The term g-force is technically incorrect as it is a measure of acceleration, not force. While acceleration is a vector quantity, g-forces are often expressed as a scalar, with positive g-forces pointing upward (indicating upward acceleration), and negative g-forces pointing downward. Thus, a g-force is a vector acceleration.

If I was moving at say a constant speed of 10m/s, I would feel no acceleration. If I then decide to speed up to say 100m/s and it took me 18 seconds to reach that new speed, I would experience an acceleretion of 5m/s each second during those 18 seconds (i.e. 5m/s² acceleration for 18 seconds). Hard-science sims would give you no speed limit, but you would have a limit on acceleration forces. As I mentioned earlier, Evochron Mercs is the only space sim I've played so far that actually has a fully working inertia model implemented. Tunring off the IDS in that game will let you accelerate to the numerical-handling limit of the game has instead of just some arbitrary limit (it could be a probably 16-bit number, so perhaps 65535 is the limit. Dunno since I never tested the limit and it's been a while since I played the game. 32-bit would be a 4,294,967,295 speed limit.)

• Zero Speed = Zero Acceleration BUT
• Zero Acceleration = CONSTANT Speed

There is a topic about the maximum speed on the evochron forum where one guy test how fast he can go.
He never reach the maximum speed in the game becuse as he goes faster the less he accelerate per second and after a few minutes he runs out of fuel.

[Catra]

most hard-science sims will have a max speed due to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force

That has nothing to do with a maximum speed. That would be maximum acceleration you're referring to with that article. There's a big difference between the two. From the same article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force:
The term g-force is technically incorrect as it is a measure of acceleration, not force. While acceleration is a vector quantity, g-forces are often expressed as a scalar, with positive g-forces pointing upward (indicating upward acceleration), and negative g-forces pointing downward. Thus, a g-force is a vector acceleration.

If I was moving at say a constant speed of 10m/s, I would feel no acceleration. If I then decide to speed up to say 100m/s and it took me 18 seconds to reach that new speed, I would experience an acceleretion of 5m/s each second during those 18 seconds (i.e. 5m/s² acceleration for 18 seconds). Hard-science sims would give you no speed limit, but you would have a limit on acceleration forces. As I mentioned earlier, Evochron Mercs is the only space sim I've played so far that actually has a fully working inertia model implemented. Tunring off the IDS in that game will let you accelerate to the numerical-handling limit of the game has instead of just some arbitrary limit (it could be a probably 16-bit number, so perhaps 65535 is the limit. Dunno since I never tested the limit and it's been a while since I played the game. 32-bit would be a 4,294,967,295 speed limit.)

• Zero Speed = Zero Acceleration BUT
• Zero Acceleration = CONSTANT Speed

the only part of your post that is marginally correct is my goof up, the rest just shows you have no idea what it is being discussed.

[StahnAileron]

There is a topic about the maximum speed on the evochron forum where one guy test how fast he can go.
He never reach the maximum speed in the game becuse as he goes faster the less he accelerate per second and after a few minutes he runs out of fuel.

I didn't get into the game enough for me to bother with the games forum. I am aware of the fuel system in the game (and how I hated it sometimes ), but I didn't know there was a an acceleration loss as speed increased. (If anything, acceleration should INCREASE as you burned fueled. ) Then again, it's a game, afterall.

the only part of your post that is marginally correct is my goof up, the rest just shows you have no idea what it is being discussed.

Well, if your post had an accurate basis (i.e. correct usage of the term "G-Force"/acceleration versus speed), perhaps I wouldn't have felt inclined to veer off-topic to correct your "goof up"

[Catra]

The most common occurence of this being if you attain the +50 flux speed boost, and continue holding down the forward thruster, raising shields or generating any sort of flux actually slows you down.  This is a little silly, as if you avoid using the thruster you will retain your momentum.

If you're travelling with +50 speed and try to correct your course, maneuver or slow down deliberately, sure, you stay at the normal cap.  I'm definitely not asking for a constant +50 speed.  That said, I'm not sure if merely generating flux is enough reason to lose the flux boost.  After all, if you have shields up or fire low flux weapons, your dissipation rate keeps your actual flux at 0, so why not allow the flux boost to remain?

i would say it's because of the high tech vs low tech balance, if the high tech ships use exclusively beam weapons(with optics + ITU), then they can forever have a +50 speed boost, whereas -none- of the low techs would be able to keep up to get into range, and those that do would only get 1 shot since ballistics cause a huge flux spike to cancel the speed boost.

the only part of your post that is marginally correct is my goof up, the rest just shows you have no idea what it is being discussed.

Well, if your post had an accurate basis (i.e. correct usage of the term "G-Force"/acceleration versus speed), perhaps I wouldn't have felt inclined to veer off-topic to correct your "goof up"

uhm,

the term g-force is being applied correctly, if you don't think it is then by all means please explain how it isn't.

also, lol @ your smugness, take your complex elsewhere bro.

[Sörre]

There is a topic about the maximum speed on the evochron forum where one guy test how fast he can go.
He never reach the maximum speed in the game becuse as he goes faster the less he accelerate per second and after a few minutes he runs out of fuel.

I didn't get into the game enough for me to bother with the games forum. I am aware of the fuel system in the game (and how I hated it sometimes ), but I didn't know there was a an acceleration loss as speed increased. (If anything, acceleration should INCREASE as you burned fueled. ) Then again, it's a game, afterall.

Got the link from the evocrhone forum: http://www.starwraith.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=8677
Got some intresting things in it that should transfer to our universe.

Edit: Missed a dot in the last scentens

[BillyRueben]

Wouldn't the "easiest" and most balanced way to correct this would be to make firing weapons and raising shields reduce your speed regardless of whether or not you are using thrusters?

Also, while I don't remember exactly where he said it, Alex said that he did try the combat without a speed cap. He said it really didn't work out well.

[StahnAileron]

The only problem I have with that is that is doesn't make too much sense from a logical viewpoint. How does simply raising a defensive shield or firing weapons somehow reduce my current speed by a significant amount? Shields I could explain away if we were in an atmosphere of some short (drag and effective surface area stuff), but the weapon part still wouldn't make sense. It makes less sense than the current situation in my mind. My previous possible in-game explanation seems more plausible:

You can explain it away in-game as some sort or inertia-control system that always kicks in when the engines are engaged to keep the max speed of a ship down to manageable level, kinda like Evochron Mercs' inertia control system. A side effect would be slowing down a vessel that's overspeed, even when you're pointed in the same direction as your direction of travel. Well, it's how I would explain it away, in any case. *shrug*

I think I also recall the "no speed limit" remark someplace as well. It's an understandable gameplay versus reality compromise I'm willing to live with in game.