v2.0.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[skoormit]

"ranging in mass from 2.5 solar masses to 10,000 solar masses"

Will the survey location distance scale with black hole mass at the same rate as with solar mass?

Because I find that a system with a very massive star (say, >15) is tantamount to an exploration dead end.
Not because of the survey points required, but because of the distances between survey points.

For a star with mass 17.5, the distance between the inner ring survey locations is ~8.5bkm.
For a star with mass 30, the distance between the inner ring survey locations is ~11bkm.

What kind of distances are we to expect from black holes that can be hundreds of times more massive than these?
And will that be fun? Or will it just be a virtual dead-end system?

[amschnei]

Just going by wikipedia, there appears to be a black hole in a multiple star system within 1000 ly of us. Would this be added to the known stars list?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_Puppis

Although apparently here the black hole is not the primary and IDK if that’s possible to handle

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

"ranging in mass from 2.5 solar masses to 10,000 solar masses"

Will the survey location distance scale with black hole mass at the same rate as with solar mass?

Because I find that a system with a very massive star (say, >15) is tantamount to an exploration dead end.
Not because of the survey points required, but because of the distances between survey points.

For a star with mass 17.5, the distance between the inner ring survey locations is ~8.5bkm.
For a star with mass 30, the distance between the inner ring survey locations is ~11bkm.

What kind of distances are we to expect from black holes that can be hundreds of times more massive than these?
And will that be fun? Or will it just be a virtual dead-end system?

It is a valid concern. At the moment, the distance of jump points (and survey locations) is modified by the square root of the primary mass. So a 5 mass star is 2.24x and a 30 mass is 5.48x.

Under the current rules, a 100 mass BH would be 10x and a 1000 mass would be 31x (or about 180 billion kilometres to the outer ring)

This works the other way too, so a 0.5 mass star is 0.71x and a 0.1 mass star is 0.32x.

It would probably be a good idea to reduce this modifier to the cube root, either for all stars or probably just those above one solar mass

Mass / Square Root / Cube Root

5: 2.24 vs 1.71
30: 5.48x vs 3.1x
100: 10 vs 4.64
1000: 31 vs 10
10000: 100 vs 21

I don't have a fundamental objection to some BH being so large they are extremely difficult to survey, because they can still be partially surveyed and still be a source of alien attack. However, I am happy to reduce the impact of the mid-size holes and maybe weight the chances against the really large ones.

[skoormit]

It would probably be a good idea to reduce this modifier to the cube root, either for all stars or probably just those above one solar mass

Mass / Square Root / Cube Root

5: 2.24 vs 1.71
30: 5.48x vs 3.1x
100: 10 vs 4.64
1000: 31 vs 10
10000: 100 vs 21

If a BH mass is selected from an even distribution from 2.5 to 10000, then changing to cube root still means that ~90% of blackholes will have survey distances greater than what a mass 30 star has now--which is enough to not want to bother with surveying.

It's not really the effort to survey that's the problem, it's that when you find something, it's probably going to be much too far away for any further interaction/exploitation to be desirable. You'll have hundreds of closer systems to explore first.

What if you decouple the survey points multiplier from the distance multiplier, and have the distance multiplier asymptotically approach some maximum?
That way the points required can still get enormous, but the distances to cover aren't so large that the whole enterprise is moot.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

It would probably be a good idea to reduce this modifier to the cube root, either for all stars or probably just those above one solar mass

Mass / Square Root / Cube Root

5: 2.24 vs 1.71
30: 5.48x vs 3.1x
100: 10 vs 4.64
1000: 31 vs 10
10000: 100 vs 21

If a BH mass is selected from an even distribution from 2.5 to 10000, then changing to cube root still means that ~90% of blackholes will have survey distances greater than what a mass 30 star has now--which is enough to not want to bother with surveying.

It's not really the effort to survey that's the problem, it's that when you find something, it's probably going to be much too far away for any further interaction/exploitation to be desirable. You'll have hundreds of closer systems to explore first.

What if you decouple the survey points multiplier from the distance multiplier, and have the distance multiplier asymptotically approach some maximum?
That way the points required can still get enormous, but the distances to cover aren't so large that the whole enterprise is moot.

Its not an even distribution. Currently the progression is 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 5000, 10000, so about half would be greater than a current 30 mass star.

I've been thinking about having the root factor increase with size, so that it still gets larger but at a decreasing rate. However, maybe the simpler solution is to change to the cube root, but reduce the progression so that only two or three exceed the current 30 mass size.

[Garfunkel]

I kind of like the idea that such places are "soft" dead ends - places you turn to only when other avenues of expansion are exhausted, and then you have to pay the price of those distances. Because that makes them truly special circumstances for storytelling purposes. I understand that it's extremely rare for anyone's campaign to go that way but it is still a possibility.

I wouldn't want a BH system to be just a "+5% more difficult to handle but otherwise business as usual" system.

[Droll]

"ranging in mass from 2.5 solar masses to 10,000 solar masses"

Will the survey location distance scale with black hole mass at the same rate as with solar mass?

Because I find that a system with a very massive star (say, >15) is tantamount to an exploration dead end.
Not because of the survey points required, but because of the distances between survey points.

For a star with mass 17.5, the distance between the inner ring survey locations is ~8.5bkm.
For a star with mass 30, the distance between the inner ring survey locations is ~11bkm.

What kind of distances are we to expect from black holes that can be hundreds of times more massive than these?
And will that be fun? Or will it just be a virtual dead-end system?

It is a valid concern. At the moment, the distance of jump points (and survey locations) is modified by the square root of the primary mass. So a 5 mass star is 2.24x and a 30 mass is 5.48x.

Under the current rules, a 100 mass BH would be 10x and a 1000 mass would be 31x (or about 180 billion kilometres to the outer ring)

This works the other way too, so a 0.5 mass star is 0.71x and a 0.1 mass star is 0.32x.

It would probably be a good idea to reduce this modifier to the cube root, either for all stars or probably just those above one solar mass

Mass / Square Root / Cube Root

5: 2.24 vs 1.71
30: 5.48x vs 3.1x
100: 10 vs 4.64
1000: 31 vs 10
10000: 100 vs 21

I don't have a fundamental objection to some BH being so large they are extremely difficult to survey, because they can still be partially surveyed and still be a source of alien attack. However, I am happy to reduce the impact of the mid-size holes and maybe weight the chances against the really large ones.

How does this interact with grav survey automation? Will survey ships attempt to survey and run out of fuel or do they have a maximum range like the geo-surveyor order has?

[skoormit]

I kind of like the idea that such places are "soft" dead ends - places you turn to only when other avenues of expansion are exhausted, and then you have to pay the price of those distances. Because that makes them truly special circumstances for storytelling purposes. I understand that it's extremely rare for anyone's campaign to go that way but it is still a possibility.

I wouldn't want a BH system to be just a "+5% more difficult to handle but otherwise business as usual" system.

I like the idea as well. Love it, actually. But when the distance to cover between survey locations is 10bkm+, it's hardly ever going to be worth exploring the whole system.
It might be worth surveying the nearest three or four to the jump point, but if each location further out adds another 10bkm+, then anything you find is going to be that distant as well.
And at that distance, any new system you connect to is just not going to be worth developing until you've exhausted the possibilities from the hundreds of closer systems you'll find from your routine exploration of normal-mass systems.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I kind of like the idea that such places are "soft" dead ends - places you turn to only when other avenues of expansion are exhausted, and then you have to pay the price of those distances. Because that makes them truly special circumstances for storytelling purposes. I understand that it's extremely rare for anyone's campaign to go that way but it is still a possibility.

I wouldn't want a BH system to be just a "+5% more difficult to handle but otherwise business as usual" system.

I've gone for the cube root option (I just posted the update) and I also reduced the range of black hole masses from 1 to 120. That is still going to need a huge effort though, especially in a real stars game where massive stars are rare. The median black hole is 25 solar masses (seven smaller and seven larger), which will have the outer ring of survey locations at 117 AU vs 40 AU for Sol.

[nuclearslurpee]

I don't have a fundamental objection to some BH being so large they are extremely difficult to survey, because they can still be partially surveyed and still be a source of alien attack. However, I am happy to reduce the impact of the mid-size holes and maybe weight the chances against the really large ones.

At least for Real Stars games, I'm not sure that black holes are as likely to be avenues of alien attack as one might imagine. Loops on the system map are already pretty rare for Real Stars, you might explore 100+ systems and only find 2-3 loops, most of which tend to be smaller loops close to Sol. In practice this means that the probability of NPRs stumbling into a rear areas player-controlled system is pretty low, likely even negligible given how much NPRs struggle with fleet logistics to cover such large distances.

Maybe some way to increase the "loopiness" in Real Stars games might make black holes a bit more threatening to players?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I don't have a fundamental objection to some BH being so large they are extremely difficult to survey, because they can still be partially surveyed and still be a source of alien attack. However, I am happy to reduce the impact of the mid-size holes and maybe weight the chances against the really large ones.

At least for Real Stars games, I'm not sure that black holes are as likely to be avenues of alien attack as one might imagine. Loops on the system map are already pretty rare for Real Stars, you might explore 100+ systems and only find 2-3 loops, most of which tend to be smaller loops close to Sol. In practice this means that the probability of NPRs stumbling into a rear areas player-controlled system is pretty low, likely even negligible given how much NPRs struggle with fleet logistics to cover such large distances.

Maybe some way to increase the "loopiness" in Real Stars games might make black holes a bit more threatening to players?

Check out the latest posted map from my current campaign for loops. Its actually got worse since this point   Remember to scroll sideways.

[nuclearslurpee]

Its actually got worse since this point

"Worse"?! 

[TMaekler]

Can the new hostility modifier be a negative number if we want to roleplay as peaceniks?

Yes.

According to your change log it doesn't. Default will be zero, and we can input values from 1 to 100. Nothing mentioned about negative numbers possible. Or is the default not zero but 50?!?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Can the new hostility modifier be a negative number if we want to roleplay as peaceniks?

Yes.

According to your change log it doesn't. Default will be zero, and we can input values from 1 to 100. Nothing mentioned about negative numbers possible. Or is the default not zero but 50?!?

The default is zero because that means no change when added or subtracted from various attributes. The 1-100 range referred to the attributes post-change, not the number you can enter.

[lumporr]

Can the new hostility modifier be a negative number if we want to roleplay as peaceniks?

Yes.

According to your change log it doesn't.  Default will be zero, and we can input values from 1 to 100.  Nothing mentioned about negative numbers possible.  Or is the default not zero but 50?!?

The default is zero because that means no change when added or subtracted from various attributes.  The 1-100 range referred to the attributes post-change, not the number you can enter.

Ahh, attributes (meaning Xenophobia and Militancy) ranging from 1-100, not the hostility modifier ranging from 1-100.  Thank you for clarifying!