Change Log for 6.00 discussion

[Steve Walmsley]

What would you do for submunitions then? Would you just require the submunitions to have onboard sensors or large comm units? I think it would be an interesting way to relegate multiple warheads to large missile designs, but I can see it reducing the flexibility of large launchers.

Sub munitions would have the same restriction so perhaps they might be better with onboard sensors instead. I haven't decided on this whole idea yet though.

Steve

[CheaterEater]

One idea I thought of was to change how fuel was stored in missiles.  If you made it less cost effective to store a very small amount of fuel, you would prevent a size-1 missile from having a very long range in the same way that you're making it more cost effective to store very large amounts of fuel in 5. 7.  It would be better then to put all the fuel in one large tank rather than a dozen tiny ones.  It would be consistent with your stated plans for ship fuel storage as well.

Edit: Also, I made a post in the bug reports forum about how adding fuel to a missile makes it cost less. I'm not sure if it's WAD or not, but it doesn't make much sense to me. Reworking missile fuel costs could fix that issue as well.

[chrislocke2000]

Move went well. 5.7 is at the stage where I am creating a test campaign. Two problems - one is I can't settle on the theme of the campaign (started two without really getting into them and now thinking of trying a third), and second one is that I have started playing EVE again .

Steve

Funnily enough I've started playing eve again as I didn't want to start a new Aurora campaign ahead of 5.7! My wife is very disappointed...

[wedgebert]

I should have read this before posting my last reply

I have considered the limits on fire control as well. This is one of the better options, although it would add a degree of micromanagement as players would want the ability to release missiles to their onboard sensors to free up control links.

The option of having an onboard link to the fire control system is one I have mentioned, although the idea of relating the size of this system to distance is one that mnight work well, especially with the missile design changes. AMMs would still be viable because they would only need a small comm unit. I guess a new tech line could be based on comm distance per MSP. My only concern is for internal consistency. Not sure yet if this would cause a contradiction somewhere else. I'll give it some thought.

Steve

One thing I was thinking of with the fire control link limitation vs comm gear was that along with a more powerful transmitter receiver, a missile could also contain more processing power/better passive senors for automously dealing with enemy ECM, evasive maneuvers, etc. This way if the missile is "cut loose" from an active fire control link, it doesn't have to suffer a big a penalty to its accuracy as a missile that was 100% reliant on its launching platform. Its possible that a smart enough AI on the missile could reduce the fire control requirements. So a short range AMM might take one link per missile, but a ship-killer with some room to spare might be able to squeeze in enough processing power to afford a five missiles per four FC links ratio (or better).

For submunitions, you could say the bus doesn't get destroyed when it releases its submunitions and acts like a relay between the launch platform and the submunitions along with letting the bus AI partially guide. This gives more reason to add processing power/comm space to the bus, as it would be cheaper to beef it up and have it control its cargo than having the parasite missiles have to coordinate back with the ship.

[ollobrains]

eve is bad for youre health 

[Deutschbag]

Just read through the 5.7 change log notes... Hot damn is this looking like an impressive release. I can not wait. I'm particularly impressed by the reworking of Sol. And the fact that civilian shipping lines will make their own designs. And keep them modern. And that you can take POWs and track them as separate entities. And that you can create specific missile engines. And...

I think it'd save time to just say it's looking amazing.

[Theokrat]

I just want to explain a little more about my earlier point re missile engines vs ship engines. They are really the same thing now and ship engines have improved fuel efficiency with size. Most missile engines though are likely to be smaller than a size 1 ship engine, so I can't really make them more efficient than the equivalent ship engine.

Steve

I understand that missile engines and ship engines are about to be merged in one system that makes them the same thing really. I also understand that you want to keep internal consistency. But it is possible to use a consistent approach and make the size of missile engines have an effect on fuel efficiency.

You announced that (ship) engines get increased fuel efficiency with size, such that increasing the engine by 1 Hullsize reduces fuel consumption by 1 percentage point. (i.e. a 25 HS engines uses 75% of the fuel per generated power-point). Obviously, missile engines are not that different in absolute size, maybe between 0.01 and 0.1 HS so the resulting difference would be really small in this regime.

An alternative method would be to use a different formula for the entire range of possible engines. Instead of the announced formula FU = 1 – ES/100 (FU= Fuel Usage, ES = Engine Space), one could also use FU=ES^(-0.1)[EDIT: fixed mistake]. The effect on ship-engines would be similar, a size 1 engine would use 100% fuel, while a size 25 engine would use 72% (instead of the 75% you suggest). However, now this would also become relevant for missile engines- a size 0.01 missile engine would use 158% fuel, while a size 0.1 would use 126% fuel. Of course the difference is not tremendous, but missiles can be expected to be “boosted” (more power, less fuel efficient), and this is a multiplier, so the difference could stack up. At any rate, it would be an incentive to use larger missiles. Another alternative would be to use FU=1-ln(ES)/10: A size-1 engine would use 100% fuel, a size-25 engine would use 68%, a size-0.1 would use 139% and a size-0.01 would use 146%.

The point is it is possible to create a system that:

• Is consistent and applies the same rules to all engines
• Replicates the fuel-efficiency values you envisioned for ship-engines
• Extends this consideration to become meaningful for missile-engine designs, which provides an inventive for larger missiles
• does not materially effect AMMs, since those require minimal fuel at their short ranges

That being said, the other options are of course also appealing, as mentioned before.

[xeryon]

Without wading into the coding/equation feasibility discussion on missile engine size the precedent is already there for very small scale systems being inefficient.  Once a given system declines in size to a degree you reach a point were certain parts of the system cannot be made smaller and/or declining size and energy output do not remain parallel.  I like the idea of engines smaller then 1hs ramping up in fuel cost.

[Steve Walmsley]

Without wading into the coding/equation feasibility discussion on missile engine size the precedent is already there for very small scale systems being inefficient.  Once a given system declines in size to a degree you reach a point were certain parts of the system cannot be made smaller and/or declining size and energy output do not remain parallel.  I like the idea of engines smaller then 1hs ramping up in fuel cost.

Aha! I hadn't considered it from that perspective. I was thinking that I couldn't have larger missile engines be more fuel efficient than smaller ones because they would be more fuel efficient than larger ship engines. Of course, I can make smaller engines less efficient rather than making larger ones more fuel efficient. I know it sounds like semantics but it is a key difference. That would also solve another issue I have been considering, which is why you wouldn't have a lot of small engines on a missile rather than one larger one.

I agree now that fuel efficiency is the solution to the size-1 ASM issue. I just needed to look at it differently. I'll do some work on it over the next few days when I get chance.

Steve

[Steve Walmsley]

I understand that missile engines and ship engines are about to be merged in one system that makes them the same thing really. I also understand that you want to keep internal consistency. But it is possible to use a consistent approach and make the size of missile engines have an effect on fuel efficiency.

You announced that (ship) engines get increased fuel efficiency with size, such that increasing the engine by 1 Hullsize reduces fuel consumption by 1 percentage point. (i.e. a 25 HS engines uses 75% of the fuel per generated power-point). Obviously, missile engines are not that different in absolute size, maybe between 0.01 and 0.1 HS so the resulting difference would be really small in this regime.

An alternative method would be to use a different formula for the entire range of possible engines. Instead of the announced formula FU = 1 – ES/100 (FU= Fuel Usage, ES = Engine Space), one could also use FU=ES^(-0.1)[EDIT: fixed mistake]. The effect on ship-engines would be similar, a size 1 engine would use 100% fuel, while a size 25 engine would use 72% (instead of the 75% you suggest). However, now this would also become relevant for missile engines- a size 0.01 missile engine would use 158% fuel, while a size 0.1 would use 126% fuel. Of course the difference is not tremendous, but missiles can be expected to be “boosted” (more power, less fuel efficient), and this is a multiplier, so the difference could stack up. At any rate, it would be an incentive to use larger missiles. Another alternative would be to use FU=1-ln(ES)/10: A size-1 engine would use 100% fuel, a size-25 engine would use 68%, a size-0.1 would use 139% and a size-0.01 would use 146%.

The point is it is possible to create a system that:

• Is consistent and applies the same rules to all engines
• Replicates the fuel-efficiency values you envisioned for ship-engines
• Extends this consideration to become meaningful for missile-engine designs, which provides an inventive for larger missiles
• does not materially effect AMMs, since those require minimal fuel at their short ranges

That being said, the other options are of course also appealing, as mentioned before.

Thanks for persevering with trying to persuade me on this. I'll do something along the lines you have suggested.

Steve

[jseah]

And now we have yet another "must have" item preventing 5.70 release. 

=P

Nah, it's good.  It is a "must have" after all!  XD

[Arwyn]

This is looking like a real sea change in terms of the current game play. Im pretty pumped to see this release!

[symon]

Just a reminder to remember to include my Organic theme in 5.7. Then I can actually restart my Organism campaign with proper names and post it here!

[Havear]

Any changes to hyperdrives or how you add them to a design? Can we make hyper missiles yet?

[sloanjh (OP)]

Just a reminder to remember to include my Organic theme in 5.7. Then I can actually restart my Organism campaign with proper names and post it here!

I would recommend putting this reminder in the official suggestions thread (and not the unofficial one that someone started).  That's the place with the best chance of Steve finding it when he looks for enhancements he might have forgotten.

John