Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Remove nonsensical % modifiers in ship designer


Recommended Posts

One that has bugged me for a bit. 
Why all the hull weight/engine weight modifiers for equipment that has very little to do with that part of the ship.

I mean the boiler been a engine weight multiplier makes sense, the boiler has to scale with the engine, but why a hull weight modifier?
If I put the same engine in a bigger ship, why does the boiler suddenly have to weigh more?

Why does propellent choice affect hull weight? If I've got the same number of guns on 20kt ship and a 40kt ship, the weight saving should be the
same right not proportional to hull weight. Not like the larger ship is carrying loads more propellent just cost it can when it hasn't even got the shells
to use it.

Turrets... no reason for these to be linked to engine % or hull % at all... should just require extra HP on the engine per turret based on turret size.
No reason a ship with a bigger hull or bigger engine would have more expensive/heavier requirements to upgrade the turrets compared to a smaller/slower
ship with the same guns. Add a HP draw on the engine makes a lot more sense than a engine multiplier as you are effectively requiring the same turrets
to use massively more engine power to achieve the same thing.

Reloading... Again, no reason for this to modify hull weight... fitting this for 4x4 20" guns should always be more expensive than for 1x12" gun on the same
hull. 

Oxy Torp Propulsion - Again why a BS with 4 oxy Torps need a oxy generated 50x larger than a destroyer brimming with torps. Really makes no sense, weight
increase should be based solely on amount of torps, not at all on hull weight. You'd fit a generator big enough to generate the Oxy you need, not just randomly
fit one based on hull weight.

Range-Finders - Again why multiply tower weight? It does the exact same thing if I fit a lighter tower so why is it multiplying space instead of a fixed size addition?
I could kinda justify this one in saying its replacing default equipment so there is more on larger towers, but thats kinda off as then it should be a tower effectiveness 
multiplier instead really. Also kinda stinks for heavier towers with built in barbs e.t.c.

Sonar - I can kinda give this one as its harder to fit effective sonar (barring modern towed arrays) on larger, noiser ships. I'd still prefer it to be a fixed weight component
with a bonus/malus based on ship noise.



 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

It's not about building a real ship, it's about designing within a set of realistic parameters that gamers can understand. 

Only a trained ship engineer could design a real ship, a military one at that. Is the game going to train every player up to be a fully qualified engineer, no.

So the game has canvas a playing level that a 'gamer' will understand. Using a weight parameter is something everybody can follow.

Not sure how this is relevant to this discussion?
This isn't about making a true ship designer, this is about using more realistic values for these in the designed.
Which enables people to create more realistic ships and more accurately recreate real ships, which is part of the appeal of this game.

Not sure why you think -6% hull weight is easier for a player to understand than -20% ammo weight or +500 tons.....
Or why even if it was, it would be any more difficult than concepts like roll and resistance that players equally have to understand.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Let me put it another way.

Only an engineering tool needs exact values, which this is not. A game uses inflated parameters, aka nonsensical values, to make it all work, to make it playable for gamers, nobody else. 

It shows, that the game is very limited. So we need more components and models that have their own individual weight modifiers. The hull itself should just be the steel or iron its made from everything else should be separate and added up in total (like a shopping list).

There's no reason not too make this separate especially if it makes the game better as well and since its direct competitor is RTW's they might as well do a better job of it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

The plain fact is this is not going to change any time soon, if ever.

Maybe, still something for the devs to consider nonetheless. If they can't do it in the core patches, they can just include the features in dlc. Although i think in core patch 2.5, 3.5 or 4 they should at least attempt it regardless.

Guess we will wait and see it seems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drenzul said:

One that has bugged me for a bit. 
Why all the hull weight/engine weight modifiers for equipment that has very little to do with that part of the ship.

I mean the boiler been a engine weight multiplier makes sense, the boiler has to scale with the engine, but why a hull weight modifier?
If I put the same engine in a bigger ship, why does the boiler suddenly have to weigh more?

Why does propellent choice affect hull weight? If I've got the same number of guns on 20kt ship and a 40kt ship, the weight saving should be the
same right not proportional to hull weight. Not like the larger ship is carrying loads more propellent just cost it can when it hasn't even got the shells
to use it.

Turrets... no reason for these to be linked to engine % or hull % at all... should just require extra HP on the engine per turret based on turret size.
No reason a ship with a bigger hull or bigger engine would have more expensive/heavier requirements to upgrade the turrets compared to a smaller/slower
ship with the same guns. Add a HP draw on the engine makes a lot more sense than a engine multiplier as you are effectively requiring the same turrets
to use massively more engine power to achieve the same thing.

Reloading... Again, no reason for this to modify hull weight... fitting this for 4x4 20" guns should always be more expensive than for 1x12" gun on the same
hull. 

Oxy Torp Propulsion - Again why a BS with 4 oxy Torps need a oxy generated 50x larger than a destroyer brimming with torps. Really makes no sense, weight
increase should be based solely on amount of torps, not at all on hull weight. You'd fit a generator big enough to generate the Oxy you need, not just randomly
fit one based on hull weight.

Range-Finders - Again why multiply tower weight? It does the exact same thing if I fit a lighter tower so why is it multiplying space instead of a fixed size addition?
I could kinda justify this one in saying its replacing default equipment so there is more on larger towers, but thats kinda off as then it should be a tower effectiveness 
multiplier instead really. Also kinda stinks for heavier towers with built in barbs e.t.c.

Sonar - I can kinda give this one as its harder to fit effective sonar (barring modern towed arrays) on larger, noiser ships. I'd still prefer it to be a fixed weight component
with a bonus/malus based on ship noise.



 

Agree with all you points, the game would be much improved if any/all of these changes were implemented.

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

The plain fact is this is not going to change any time soon, if ever.

Why do you so consistently advocate for a less immersive game Skek?

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Weight modifiers is how this game controls designs. It's not "nonsensical", it's a game.

I don't think anyone knows what the purpose of some of these are. Example, the propellant one. Anyone actually know if you put a single gun on a large hull does it have more rounds than a smaller hull? Too many assumptions to say these "are working as designed". 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Let me put it another way.

Only an engineering tool needs exact values, which this is not. A game uses inflated parameters, aka nonsensical values, to make it all work, to make it playable for gamers, nobody else. 

A good game should use realistic and intuitive values. Using unrealistic and unintuitive values increases the cognitive load of using the designer on the players making it a less pleasant experience, also means real designs can't be built cos the values the designer outputs are basically miles away from reality.

The idea for a GOOD game should make an easy to use designer that produces ships with realistic stats. Doing this makes it easier for the players to understand what a component does without even NEEDING to real the tooltip if you are vaguely aware of the real life technology.

I'm not asking for everything to be calculated exactly to the nearest gram, I'm asking that stuff modifies the stuff it should modify.

 

9 hours ago, Skeksis said:

The plain fact is this is not going to change any time soon, if ever.

Why not? Its at most a few days work for a half decent developer....
Assuming it was built in a vaguely sensible manner in the first place its really just a matter of altering the calculations for the objects.
I think the only vaguely 'NEW' bit in the whole thing I posted was the turret taking HP from the engine instead of fixed % engine increase.
Everything else on the list was based on stats that already exist in the editor.... it's literally just a matter of reworking a few calculations.
 

 

2 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

I'd really rather not have the game become so complex to the point where I'd need to go get an engineers degree to understand anything. 

If anything this would make the game less complex for players. After all as a player, what would you expect modified how much weight the reload upgrade used, the hull size of your ship or the number of guns on it? If the consequences of the upgrade are more intuitive it can only make it easier for players surely?

 

 

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Not at all, usually for more. But sometimes you have to accept the game for what it is. Weight modifiers is how this game controls designs. It's not "nonsensical", it's a game.

Have to ask now if you actually read the OP?????

No-one is suggesting we remove them! There are things that SHOULD increase via hull weight, like reinforced bulkheads, flood prevention e.t.c.
All I'm suggesting is that the CORRECT multiplier is used instead of loads of stuff using the hull modifier when its not correct. For example if you
modify the propellent then it should modify ammo weight (which the designer already knows internally) instead of hull weight.

 

1 hour ago, madham82 said:

I don't think anyone knows what the purpose of some of these are. Example, the propellant one. Anyone actually know if you put a single gun on a large hull does it have more rounds than a smaller hull? Too many assumptions to say these "are working as designed". 

 

Nope, same number. As far as I can tell its purely dependent on type of gun and your gun ammo setting.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

You guys are too literal. The purpose is to apply consequence. Pretty much a standard gaming theme.

Yes but not all consequences are equal. Some are good, some are bad.
The point is to have GOOD consequences that are intuitive for a player to realise the consequences.



 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drenzul said:

Nope, same number. As far as I can tell its purely dependent on type of gun and your gun ammo setting.

So that would prove it is an arbitrary penalty which shouldn't be there. Hull size would have nothing to do with the weight of one propellant over the other. The actual weight of propellant is what matters. 

It could certainly be a case of name of the attribute not actually conveying what was intended, but then again why does the hull size matter.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

I'd really rather not have the game become so complex to the point where I'd need to go get an engineers degree to understand anything. 

May I ask how, having switching from standard loaders for your main guns to semi-autoloaders adding x% to hull weight is less complex than having it add 100* tons per barrel to the displacement of the ship?

In fact, wouldn't it be much, MUCH easier to go: Ok, I have 3000 tons of displacement left, if I add semi-autoloaders to my ship, which has 10 x 16" guns, I'll use up 1000 of those, instead of having to switch to autoloaders, oh, that uses up (pulls out calculator) 1850 tons - that's a whole lot, let's try semi-autoloaders, hm, about 1000 tons, ok, I could do this, but I'm not sure it's worth it, what about... 

You know, being able to plan out your ship beforehand instead of doing the old try-and-error approach?

 

*All numbers pulled out of my backside

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Not at all, usually for more. But sometimes you have to accept the game for what it is. Weight modifiers is how this game controls designs. It's not "nonsensical", it's a game.

Fair enough, and I agree to some extend. Every time we demand more hyper realism it does after all delay the final release.

For my part i think the balance between realism and functionality is pretty much acceptable as of 0.5 v88, considering that the arbitrary weights are the price we pay for avoiding meme-ships on the AI's part.

But yeah I still agree that if the time and resources became available, finding a way to implement above mentioned suggestions without incurring too many ridiculous designs would be welcome 🙂

Edited by Draco
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2021 at 7:15 AM, Drenzul said:

One that has bugged me for a bit. 
Why all the hull weight/engine weight modifiers for equipment that has very little to do with that part of the ship.

I mean the boiler been a engine weight multiplier makes sense, the boiler has to scale with the engine, but why a hull weight modifier?
If I put the same engine in a bigger ship, why does the boiler suddenly have to weigh more?

Why does propellent choice affect hull weight? If I've got the same number of guns on 20kt ship and a 40kt ship, the weight saving should be the
same right not proportional to hull weight. Not like the larger ship is carrying loads more propellent just cost it can when it hasn't even got the shells
to use it.

Turrets... no reason for these to be linked to engine % or hull % at all... should just require extra HP on the engine per turret based on turret size.
No reason a ship with a bigger hull or bigger engine would have more expensive/heavier requirements to upgrade the turrets compared to a smaller/slower
ship with the same guns. Add a HP draw on the engine makes a lot more sense than a engine multiplier as you are effectively requiring the same turrets
to use massively more engine power to achieve the same thing.

Reloading... Again, no reason for this to modify hull weight... fitting this for 4x4 20" guns should always be more expensive than for 1x12" gun on the same
hull. 

Oxy Torp Propulsion - Again why a BS with 4 oxy Torps need a oxy generated 50x larger than a destroyer brimming with torps. Really makes no sense, weight
increase should be based solely on amount of torps, not at all on hull weight. You'd fit a generator big enough to generate the Oxy you need, not just randomly
fit one based on hull weight.

Range-Finders - Again why multiply tower weight? It does the exact same thing if I fit a lighter tower so why is it multiplying space instead of a fixed size addition?
I could kinda justify this one in saying its replacing default equipment so there is more on larger towers, but thats kinda off as then it should be a tower effectiveness 
multiplier instead really. Also kinda stinks for heavier towers with built in barbs e.t.c.

Sonar - I can kinda give this one as its harder to fit effective sonar (barring modern towed arrays) on larger, noiser ships. I'd still prefer it to be a fixed weight component
with a bonus/malus based on ship noise.



 

 

While I agree that these could be somewhat more logical, I think we are still missing some parts of the game to see the full picture. I can see them adding special tech that targets these debuffs specifically, making otherwise impossible designs a reality. This could be somewhat realistic as it's representing what over/under developing stuff does, it creates waste of space most of the time alongside some downsides.

 

On 9/17/2021 at 9:50 AM, Skeksis said:

It's not about building a real ship, it's about designing within a set of realistic parameters that gamers can understand. 

Only a trained ship engineer could design a real ship, a military one at that. Is the game going to train every player up to be a fully qualified engineer, no.

So the game has canvas a playing level that a 'gamer' will understand. Using a weight parameter is something everybody can follow.

 

This sums it up, a simplification of more complex calculations. An example would be for turrets, imagine that they add a slider for barrel length, they would have to create a matrix with all the turret traverse and elevation power draw for each combination possible if it were to follow Drenzul's suggestion. That could get confusing really fast as some turrets would be faster than others just because of their shape, and thus lower/higher weight. Imagine you're in that transition era where turrets change shape, and a 17in triple is faster than a 16in dual because of a different turret shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Draco said:

Fair enough, and I agree to some extend. Every time we demand more hyper realism it does after all delay the final release.

For my part i think the balance between realism and functionality is pretty much acceptable as of 0.5 v88, considering that the arbitrary weights are the price we pay for avoiding meme-ships on the AI's part.

But yeah I still agree that if the time and resources became available, finding a way to implement above mentioned suggestions without incurring too many ridiculous designs would be welcome 🙂

There are times when I like complete realism, and there are times when I'd like a more arcadey experience. I think I'd like a balance of the both for this game. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2021 at 3:06 PM, Jaime619 said:

 

While I agree that these could be somewhat more logical, I think we are still missing some parts of the game to see the full picture. I can see them adding special tech that targets these debuffs specifically, making otherwise impossible designs a reality. This could be somewhat realistic as it's representing what over/under developing stuff does, it creates waste of space most of the time alongside some downsides.

 

 

This sums it up, a simplification of more complex calculations. An example would be for turrets, imagine that they add a slider for barrel length, they would have to create a matrix with all the turret traverse and elevation power draw for each combination possible if it were to follow Drenzul's suggestion. That could get confusing really fast as some turrets would be faster than others just because of their shape, and thus lower/higher weight. Imagine you're in that transition era where turrets change shape, and a 17in triple is faster than a 16in dual because of a different turret shape.

Yeah, there is a difference between fixing illogical bits and adding a whole new level of customisation/complexity ;)
I'd like some more complexity in the designer in parts (like adding a 3rd battery type so primary, secondary, tertiary) for multiple calibur builds but that wasn't the point of this thread.

Don't see the point in having techs to reduce/remove something that shouldn't exist anyway. Not saying the parts shouldn't weigh as much but if it weighs X on one ship the identical part should weigh the same on another ship unless it has to be scaled up for some reason and I deliberately didn't comment on the ones that make sense to scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't personally whip out a calculator when building ships, I've done enough missions to notice that most of the components that increase hull weight in percentage terms are not worth the added displacement and/or cost and don't implement them. I've had enough of my ships explode after giving them max barbette and citadel levels to know that it's often better to use that displacement to give your ships absurdly thick armor instead. 

If the game were to have a more complicated formula for weight calculations it wouldn't affect me as long as I understood in qualitative terms the impacts of going from one thing to another, trial and error would do the rest. 

I don't know to what extent the need for an AI designer affects how these modules formulas are handled. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Drenzul said:

Yeah, there is a difference between fixing illogical bits and adding a whole new level of customisation/complexity ;)
I'd like some more complexity in the designer in parts (like adding a 3rd battery type so primary, secondary, tertiary) for multiple calibur builds but that wasn't the point of this thread.

Don't see the point in having techs to reduce/remove something that shouldn't exist anyway. Not saying the parts shouldn't weigh as much but if it weighs X on one ship the identical part should weigh the same on another ship unless it has to be scaled up for some reason and I deliberately didn't comment on the ones that make sense to scale.

Fair enough, though I would wait until there's more campaign content before passing further judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...