Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: iceball3
« on: September 01, 2015, 11:24:25 AM »

I think calling something imbalanced based on the max tech capacity may be a bit moot at the current time as max tech isn't really seen as "balanced" per se.
That said, adding in a scale that makes it exponentially more difficult to approach C would be significant in making sure you don't have relativistic rockets spoiling all point defence, though defending against it still might not be impossible due to Final Fire fire control useage.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 25, 2015, 10:39:05 AM »

Speaking military wise and performance/design wise you are always chasing the last few %.

An improvement with 10% is pretty big and a 50% improvement of a key characteristics such as speed is nothing short of a massive technological breakthrough.

Speaking of breakthrough, defining important we can actual use the data on how much each new engine tech will improve over the last one. Isn't it typically something like +20-30% better power=speed compared to last generation for most of them?

Something that can set you back an entire tech level should be important enough to show up in the design IMHO, ( which would be around 0.5 - 0.6 gamma ).
Posted by: Paul M
« on: August 25, 2015, 09:15:42 AM »

Quote from: alex_brunius on August 25, 2015, 09:05:08 AM
2% difference in speed may not sound like much, but many will still tweak their designs down to the last percent, and if rest of the fleet goes in 60000km/s then you won't accept a new ship design that goes 58823km/s as a result of 1.02 higher relativistic mass, so around this point is where it will have a noticeable impact on your practical design, as I understand it.

( But I am far from a theoretical physicist, so I might have missed something ).

What you say is correct, I won't argue with it...but my personal feeling is that the sort of person you are talking about has a different view of the word "signficiant" than I do. 

To be completely clear, I'm talking about reality, and no one not doing some sort of particularily high precision measurement is going to get excited by 2% relativisitic effects, for example when doing a typical scattering experiment, as they don't translate into anything that your detectors will see or will be masked by in general other things which have far greater uncertainties anyway.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: August 25, 2015, 09:06:04 AM »

Quote from: Paul M on August 25, 2015, 09:00:11 AM
Depends what you mean by noticable.  A 2% increase in mass or a 2% time dialation effect is probably not worth considering. 

If something is 1 kg or 1.02 kg is in general terms of what is its kinetic energy not a critical difference.  If you consider a typical error bar as 10% then beta = 0.5 is where you exceed that.  It is really odd ball I know but in most practical senses relativity really is only significant at velocities very close to c itself.  Basically at the point where something is twice as heavy as it would be normally or its dimensions or time is half or double what they should be.  That is usually easily measurable and plays a significant role in the objects behaviour.

You can use relativisitic effects on atomic clocks to measure gravitational well depth with extreme precision and do tests of Einstein space time with shifts of wavelength on the nanometer scale but frankly these are things mainly of interest to theorists...  A factor of 2 is something...2% is well...not so much something.

Or maybe lets get practical...if you drop a 1 kg bag of sugar on your foot...that smarts...a 1.02 kg bag of sugar I doubt you could tell the difference...but a 2 kg bag of sugar I'm pretty sure you would notice the extra mass.   

This is really neither hear not there in terms of Aurora or fixing the issue...to be frank as one theoretical physicist said "you have to allow for errors up to 2-pi" as that is a factor in a lot of formulas that it is easy to forget or improperly add in.  For dealing with objects up to beta = 0.75 you can ignore a relativisitic correction and still derive answers that are wrong but are not much worse off than a good approximation anyway....but at some point the values start to deviate strongly from even "good approximations" and you need to get serious about the relativisitic corrections.  Does this make sense?
It seems to but the physics part of my brain is switched off atm. What I got was basically:
TLDR: Relativity becomes significant after .75% lightspeed.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 25, 2015, 09:05:08 AM »

Quote from: Paul M on August 25, 2015, 09:00:11 AM
Depends what you mean by noticable.  A 2% increase in mass or a 2% time dialation effect is probably not worth considering. 

2% difference in speed may not sound like much, but many will still tweak their designs down to the last percent, and if rest of the fleet goes in 60000km/s then you won't accept a new ship design that goes 58823km/s as a result of 1.02 higher relativistic mass, so around this point is where it will have a noticeable impact on your practical design, as I understand it.

( But I am far from a theoretical physicist, so I might have missed something ).
Posted by: Paul M
« on: August 25, 2015, 09:00:11 AM »

Depends what you mean by noticable.  A 2% increase in mass or a 2% time dialation effect is probably not worth considering. 

If something is 1 kg or 1.02 kg is in general terms of what is its kinetic energy not a critical difference.  If you consider a typical error bar as 10% then beta = 0.5 is where you exceed that.  It is really odd ball I know but in most practical senses relativity really is only significant at velocities very close to c itself.  Basically at the point where something is twice as heavy as it would be normally or its dimensions or time is half or double what they should be.  That is usually easily measurable and plays a significant role in the objects behaviour.

You can use relativisitic effects on atomic clocks to measure gravitational well depth with extreme precision and do tests of Einstein space time with shifts of wavelength on the nanometer scale but frankly these are things mainly of interest to theorists...  A factor of 2 is something...2% is well...not so much something.

Or maybe lets get practical...if you drop a 1 kg bag of sugar on your foot...that smarts...a 1.02 kg bag of sugar I doubt you could tell the difference...but a 2 kg bag of sugar I'm pretty sure you would notice the extra mass.   

This is really neither hear not there in terms of Aurora or fixing the issue...to be frank as one theoretical physicist said "you have to allow for errors up to 2-pi" as that is a factor in a lot of formulas that it is easy to forget or improperly add in.  For dealing with objects up to beta = 0.75 you can ignore a relativisitic correction and still derive answers that are wrong but are not much worse off than a good approximation anyway....but at some point the values start to deviate strongly from even "good approximations" and you need to get serious about the relativisitic corrections.  Does this make sense? 
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 25, 2015, 08:18:03 AM »

Quote from: amimai on August 25, 2015, 07:32:36 AM
as i said there is a simple way to go about this
a flat reduction to the thrust output of all thrusters by 25% or 50% should do the trick


No it wouldn't, it would wreak havoc on all game balance, and not just like my suggestion have a big impact on lategame balance for extremely fast objects ( only missiles or possibly some fighters )...

As you point out yourself further down the post listing a few of all the things that need to change like fuel efficiency. But we also have fire controls ability to hit ships, fighters and missiles lower techs, distances and travel time, ability to escape black holes pull, how harsh nebula's impact ship speeds, trade income from shipping and the list never ends.

At least consider fixing only what you think is broken ( extreme missiles ), and not breaking all balance in the entire game at once?



And Paul M, isn't 2% noticeable for 0.2C ?

As you say the big impact only happens at 0.75C which is precisely when amimai is starting to notice problems ( and as a solution wants to cut all thrust by factor 0.25  ).
Posted by: amimai
« on: August 25, 2015, 07:32:36 AM »

as i said there is a simple way to go about this
a flat reduction to the thrust output of all thrusters by 25% or 50% should do the trick

curent max tech 50%MSP engine = light speed (100% light speed)
25% thrust nerf max tech engine = 225k km/s  (75% light speed)
50% thrust nerf max tech engine = 150k km/s  (50% light speed)

25% is my preference all things considered, just past that is where relativistic effects would really start screwing missiles over

this should also effect ship, so missile vs ship accuracy would not change at all

this would make ships slower, so fuel efficiency of engines should be buffed accordingly?
(pro:no fuel shortages | con: missiles will effectively have 2x the range they currently have, slow space travel)

all that would really change is that Beam weaponry would have a better chance vs missiles in a fight
(pro: Beams can actually hit missiles | con: Change in meta, no more macros missile massacres, possible coiler wars)

its just tiring playing while consciously knowing that the best option to win will always be a cube made out of 75% missiles tubes
Posted by: Paul M
« on: August 25, 2015, 06:41:22 AM »

Quote from: alex_brunius on August 25, 2015, 03:53:42 AM
Could be solved elegantly by adding a relativistic component to effective speed once it becomes noticeable ( around 0.2C or 60000km/s )

Relativity is only important starting around 75% of the speed of light.  Even a 500 MeV proton beam (beta = 0.75) didn't need a lot of relativistic corrections.

for beta of 0.2 gamma = 1.02
for beta of 0.5 gamma = 1.15
for beta of 0.75 gamma = 1.51
for beta of 0.9 gamma = 2.29
for beta of 0.95 gamma = 3.2
for beta of 0.99 gamma = 7.1
for beta of 0.999 gamma = 22.3

beta = v/c  gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(beta)^2)

effective_mass = rest_mass*gamma  so this could be used to increase the effective mass of the missile as its speed increases...but that doesn't really work, at least I can't figure out how to sensibly calculate what the missiles final speed would be.
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: August 25, 2015, 03:53:42 AM »

Quote from: MarcAFK on August 25, 2015, 03:28:13 AM
I'm in favour of making the power requirement for speed curve more vicious towards the end of the tech tree.

Could be solved elegantly by adding a relativistic component to effective speed once it becomes noticeable ( around 0.2C or 60000km/s )
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: August 25, 2015, 03:28:13 AM »

I'm in favour of making the power requirement for speed curve more vicious towards the end of the tech tree.
Posted by: linkxsc
« on: August 25, 2015, 01:14:26 AM »

Remove the 2x modifier for missile engine power settings. Perhaps a 1.5 instead.

Though I havent been around for a real long time, werent missiles slower in an earlier version, but because of that wound up kinda useless?
Posted by: amimai
« on: August 24, 2015, 10:34:42 PM »

Im personaly in support of the range cap more or less, its adds an interesting byplay between beam and missile armed ships

the only problem is that this byplay is somewhat broken by the fact that missiles can go so bleeding fast, that's why I proposed a reduction to all engine thrust output
Posted by: Barkhorn
« on: August 24, 2015, 08:29:22 PM »

I think an easier fix is to remove the range cap on beam weapons.  I get that they're limited right now to how far light can travel in 5 seconds, but nothing else in this game has any relativistic effects.
Posted by: swarm_sadist
« on: August 24, 2015, 03:18:04 PM »

Seems like an easy fix. Make higher speeds require more engine power to reach exponentially. The closer to c you get, the more engine power you require, up to infinity.