AstroOwl
-
Posts
103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AstroOwl
-
-
There is something Homeworld-ish about it.
Ah, wait, you even mention this. One can certainly see Homeworld's influence from afar. Great job. Would be nice to see stats, too.
-
TL,DR: When you want to upgrade a lot of items to the next rarity and want on average to get more higher rarity items, you should research packs of 3 items, not 4 or 5.
Now, details, explanation, and why that is so.
The question i asked myself is: suppose i have a lot of items to upgrade. I don't need guarantees that i get next-rarity item on each craft. But i want to get maximum higher-rarity items out of a lot of lower-quality ones. Which way of research (3,4, or 5) should i use?
Let's suppose for clarity that you have a lot of Uncommon items and want to upgrade them to rare.
Let's now observe profit from possible options of investing Uncommon items. I would do so in two ways, for clarity and better understanding.
Way 1, harder to understand, but more strictly done:
At any time, you can convert 5 Uncommon to 1 Rare. So let's say: 1 Rare costs 5 Uncommon.
"Profit" is how much you get from research run in value of Uncommon items.
Option 1, put 5 items: I sacrifice 5 Uncommon and get 1 Rare, profit = 5 - 5 = 0.
Option 2, put 4 items:
With the chance of 80% you get 1 Rare, and your profit is 5-4 = +1. Weighted profit is (profit*probability)=(+1*0.8 )=0.8
With the chance of 20% you get back just an Uncommon item, and your profit is negative: 1 - 4 = -3. Weighted: (-3*0.2)=-0.6
And the total profit is 0.8 - 0.6 = 0.2.
That means that on average on each research you get 0.2 equivalent of an Uncommon item back.
Option 3, put 3 items:
With the chance of 60% i get 1 Rare, and your profit is 5-3 = +2. Weighted profit is (profit*probability)=(+2*0.6)=1.2
With the chance of 40% i get back just an Uncommon item, and your profit is negative: 1 - 3 = -2. Weighted: (-2*0.4)=-0.8
And the total profit is 1.2 - 0.8 = 0.4.
That means that on average on each research you get 0.4 equivalent of an Uncommon item back.
Way 2, easier to understand:
Let's say you have 120 Uncommon items (i pick large number intentionally, to show the fact that it is thing that works on average, that is, better with large numbers).
Option 1: You put them in in packs of 5. That makes enough for 24 research runs, and you with 100% chance get 24 rare items.
Option 2: You put them in in packs of 4. That makes enough for 30 research runs.
On average, 80% of them (30*0.8=24) would yield you a Rare item each. So, you get 24 Rare items.
Another 20% of them (6) would return to you an Uncommon item.
So, after that runs, you get 24 Rare + 6 uncommon on top of that!
Option 3: You put them in in packs of 3. That makes enough for 40 research runs.
On average, 60% of them (40*0.6=24) would yield you a Rare item each. So, you get 24 Rare items.
Another 20% of them (40*0.4=16) would return to you an Uncommon item.
So, after that runs, you get 24 Rare + 16 uncommon on top of that!
As can be clearly seen, when you invest them in smaller packs, you get the same amount of Rare items, but on top of that, you get some Uncommon items, which you can invest once again!
TL,DR version of the explanation: investing some amount of, say, Uncommon items in packs of 3 would yield you on average as much Rare items as you would get by investing in packs of 5, but on top of that, you would get ~13% of your Uncommon items back, and would be able to turn them in for additional Rares.
-
As for the question, It doesn't seem to matter the material for potential output on weapons.. just makes it limited to only be placed on that type of material or better on your ship.
That's an interesting thing, by the way. So basically that means that:
- researching trinium weapons at 47-tech-level research station
and
- reseraching avorion weapons of the same quailty on the same station
would yield (on average, of course) same potential quality 47-tech-level weapons, and the only difference would be required placement material?
That would make low-material weapon turrets much more valuable! good.
-
WHOA WAIT! you mean to tell me it's possible to fly around planets!? And yet! You didn't try to fly straight at it??? I wanna see if you can ram into that planet, no collision and PUSH THAT PLANET! lmao
I tried that. It has no collision, you just pass through it. That's why i decided not to go into planet in the video.
-
Also there are people making ships that are going over 300k m/s and are laughing and having fun about it.
Funny thing is that was me.
I made that ship which moved at 300 000 m/s around the planet. But to make such a ship, you need to design around it and sacrifice something. That's the point.
You can choose to make your battleship slow all you want for immersion. But I'll enjoy mine the way I like it. Anyways I don't need to worry. Dev isn't gonna destroy the ability to make mobility impossible on big ships.
The thing is: yes, obviously, i can just choose to limit my maneuverability if i want.
Or, if i think the shields are overpowered, i can just don't use shields.
If i think railguns making all other weapons obsolete, i can ignore railguns.
But:
What's the point of not having huge maneuverability if you can? IF you can pick any stats, there is no challenge in creating a good ship.
This game is not Spore, where what you build have no effects on stats of the ship.
Process of creating a ship involves both creating good looks and achieving desired stats, and this things are interwoven to some point (but not to the point where your ship can't look in a certain way, otherwise it would limit the people's imagination).
If you don't need to sacrifice anything (size, for example) to achieve desired result, then this result costs absolutely nothing. There is no point in saying "this is a maneuverable ship" if any ship can be as maneuverable as you want.
There is no point in saying "this ship is very durable" if any ship can be as durable as you want (without sacrificing anything).
Reason i'm against allowing achieving high rad/s without sacrifices is not realism, and not the will to reduce fun. It is because i want the maneuverability to actually mean something, to be a desired advantage, not a thing default to any ship.
The fun of creating a good ship is to balance between different advantages (slot number, durability, maneuverability, etc) to achieve what you want. If you don't need to think about it, then the concept of "ship stats" makes no sense at all: make all ships have same base stats, which can be modified by modules, and customizable appearance.
But that would be another game.
-
The thing is they can have massive manoeuvrability but it look damn ugly what they seem to want is super creative blocks with super stats, ask the dev if he'll add creative blocks for single player :P
The thing is, thrusters don't make your ship any more ugly, they can be placed inside the ship, just like any other block. It would be like
1. saying "i want double the shields"
2. placing additional shields outside the ship instead of dedicating internal volume for this
3. whining on the forum how shields destroy creativity and make ugly ships.
As for the blocks with super stats - i hope that this would eventually be moddable, or have an alternative branch, so that people who want to have arbitrary stats, non-dependent on their ship size, would have the possibility to play their own game.
-
No just stop.. last I checked this is a sandbox game and is about having fun. Not focused on realism! So if I want to build a megaton ship and make it a fighter I should be able to! Your idea of making it even harder is against the fun aspect rules. Making people MORE fusturated that their freedom and creativity is being even more destroyed for realism ruins the purpose of this game. This is not a sim for the 100th time..
I am NOT promoting realism for the sake of realism in this game. Yes, it is not a sim, and never will be. This is a sandbox game about having fun. Absolutely correct.
And "battleships" turning like fighters is not fun. It is immersion-breaking.
Main thing is: in this game, ship's stats do depend on design of your ship. You are trying to pick one stat (maneuverability) and say that is should be possible to have any desired maneuverability, no matter what ship you build.
"Sandbox" don't yet mean "i should be able to build anything and then assign to it any desired stats no matter what".
If we continue your idea, next logical thing to say would be:
"hey, i want to have a miniature ship, 10 meters long, and i want it to have 10 million shields! Why that is not possible? This is the game about having fun or what? That limits my creativity, i want to be able to create small but indestructible ship!"
That would be exactly as valid as your statements.
-
I also made a massive ship today. It's pretty impossibru to make amazing design because of the massive amount of directional thrusters to get decent mobility. I need my mobility! I'll have to keep trying but it's extremely hard lol
It is not "impossibiru to make amazing design". It's just some people for some reason expect that is should be easy to make over-a-megaton ship rotate like a fighter. What are you trying to achieve is not "decent" maneuverability. It is "ridiculously high" maneuverability for ship of that size.
Big ships ARE supposed to be handled differently. It's not ruining your possibility to make ships of desired shape and looks, and recreate some SSD from SW or whatever. But when you do, remember that SSD do not rotate that fast at all. That would just ruin all the feeling of "big ship".
I would personally vote for making big ships rotate even harder. Maybe people would eventually realize what mouse aiming is for, and stop trying to handle every ship like a corvette.
However, if that would happen, loot collecting should be easier, imo. Heavy sluggish battleship flying around and trying to "catch" floating upgrades with its face is very stupid, immersion-breaking, and unnecessarily annoying.
-
It needs some cargo bays to store its production. Use Build mode to add them (also, don't forget to add some docking ports).
Other than that, nothing is necessary. It can mine even with zero crew (it will slowly destroy itself without mechanics like any other ship, however).
-
Ultimately this did turn out to be true, but only barely.
Respectfully disagree.
Honestly, if possible, it would feel better if gyros scaled in various dimensions added slightly more or less rotational torque depending on their shape. For example, perhaps a long gyro block would fit better for a long ship, as more of the rotational toque is spread out along the mass of the ship, or allow gyros to have markers similar to directional thrusters to show how the rotational toque is applied, and have them behave in a way similar to the directional thrusters, so you could place a few different gyros to help pick up the slack if your thrusters can't do the job very well.
There is already a way to boost specific axis: directional thrusters.
Markers on gyros make no sense, since gyros apply exactly the same torque to each axis (yaw, pitch, roll). If some rotation is boosted more than others, that means that your moment of inertia along that axis is smaller than along others. And that moment of inertia is dependant on your mass distribution, for example:
Long, thin ship would roll more easily
Wide, short ship would have high Pitch
and "vertically" oriented ship would naturally be easier to yaw.
As it stands now, I feel like gyros need to feel a little love in that department, particularly for larger vessels, else it'll only push the designs of ships to be more cube-shaped, or something like that. Either that, or have them scale a little more effectively in their stats as they get larger to compensate for some of the larger ship designs, where it's hard to have large portions of your ship not be other internal types of blocks.
That's the point, no? When you start making really big ships, you can't just slap some volume of gyros and be okay - bigger creation means using more interesting decisions to maintain maneuverability, like directional thrusters placed strategically.
As for me, gyros being weaker for larger ships is wonderful, because making large ships to turn should be hard. Not impossible, no, but you need to think about it and dedicate some of your voulme for this cause.
-
I love the freighter design, seeing as I've just started making a freighter I may have to borrow some of the ideas ;)
Question, are you using inertia dampers to get that breaking?
Thanks!
Yes, they are used: two of containers (so, 2X 5*5*5 vloume) are Avorion inertia dampeners.
Even without them, braking thrust is around 56 m/s^2 thanks to the directional thrusters, though =)
-
I present to you a new ship: Albatross - class heavy cargo hauler
When you want to trade, supply your bases and don't want to think about cargo storage (unless you go completely insane), the Albatross is the answer for you.
Over 35 000 cargo storage and reasonable price allows it to be used before you get to that "insane endgame" point and get into high-volume trading.
Production cost:
5'450'921 credits
375'153 Trinium
173'913 Avorion
2'150 Ogonite
xml: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1itgp32eonwwy44/Albatross.xml?dl=0
Further details under spoiler:
Non-technical blocks are made of trinium for mass reducing, technical blocks: Avorion. All avorion blocks can be easily replaced: ship consists of a lot of 5x5x5 "cargo containers": boxes of hull with actual useful modules placed inside. This allows to re-purpose them for any reason. Currently all bottom ones are filled with cargo, and top ones - with technical blocks, thrusters, etc.
-
Well, i decided i should go for a specialized ship for a speed record.
I made this. Engines, some thrusters, engines, energy modules, and.. ah yes, engines.
raw (no modules) ship stats behind spoiler:
Then i added some modules, more Engineers, and... here is the result. Over 300 000 m/s. [skip to 2:00 for start of acceleration]
-
Nah, don't bother with that at least until you get to Xanion (strongest pre-Barrier) material.
Also, when you do bother with stationbuilding, don't forget the Out Of Sector Production mod, or else that factories would cost you more in crew salary than they give you in trade goods.
-
I'm going to stop playing (aka rage quit) until the developers make it so that if you hit a small asteroid your mega ship doesn't get destroyed.
Seriously, if my mega ship gets destroyed via asteroids so easily and all my good components get destroy. Why would I choose to repeat my many hours of game play just to happen again?
Calm down and just change the collision setting to 0.1 (10%, my choice) or 0.0 (remove completely). You can do it in an already started game.
That is not a cheating, you want to play a game where asteroids are not the major threat => you play it.
-
The trading in its core is the same. But there are 2 benefits to setting up a production chain close to the core:
1) as you get closer to the center, NPC stations tend to get bigger, which means more maximum stock => bigger deals.
2) Best turret factories are ones close to the core. If you are going to produce anything that can be consumed via turret factories, it would be better to do so at the core.
TLDR: Yes, there are indirect, but serious advantages.
-
Yes, it is possible.
Once cleared the approach to my own station by "pushing" asteroids with ship hull.
You can also use Force Turrets.
-
@AstroOwl
Yea, I'm trying to build a set of ships that you can tell came from one faction/company. as for the Production Costs how do i bring them up?
(Still fairly new to the game)
I now can remember 2 options:
1) copy your ship to clipboard, and then ctrl+v and mouseover some block. Game will show the cost of ship you are trying to add (don't forget to turn symmetry off!)
2) Use /price command from Aki: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,830.0.html
As for releasing system - void XML separately - yeah, seems like a good idea. But not everyone wants to fill in the shell, so ready-for-use version is very important, too =)
UPD. i should warn you, only one thread is allowed (per creator). So it's better to select which of the threads would be your only one and plan accordingly. Most likely your threads would soon be merged by moderator. Probably a wise decision would be to contact him first to specify on how to do that better, i dunno.
-
I like the style, and moreover, the... some uniformity of style
Like, the corvette and destroyer look like they could appear in the same fleet of some new sci-fi race/faction. Destroyer looks bigger, more complex, but at the same time shares the style with Corvette. Good.
Couple of suggestions for better understanding the gameplay implication of the ships:
- Show the stats with minimal crew and no modules, please. To see the "intrinsic" stats of the ship, without buffs/nerfs from modules.
- List the production cost
Thanks =)
-
Large battleships will never be as nimble as frigates or corvettes. That's why you can build turrets at every place on your ship, why turrets can turn around, why you can move the camera around your ship, and why you have fighters. Controlling a large battleship should be a small challenge, but it's relatively easy once you know how.
Really wish more people would understand that.
Broken thruster mechanics and buffed rotation was around for some time and people fell under the wrong impression that battleships rotating at huge speed is how it should be :c
-
Update removed the artificial 6x multiplier for rotational speed.
So, the question after reading all the positive opinions about the current thruster system, is: What am I doing wrong? Obviously it doesn't speed up the ship's rotation, but vastly lowered it.
Basically, what you want to do is to use directional thrusters, and place them where the lever arm for the corresponding direction would be the highest. For example, left/right oriented thrusters would give you more yaw when placed far to the front/back of the ship.
Just making a some thrusters and placing them somewhere won't get you much.
Best option is to dedicate furthest from CoM places to some reasonable volume of dir. thrusters in a way which benefits the most from lever arm.
As for the gyros, they are mostly for lighter, smaller ships. They don't get the benefit of an increased lever arm.
P.S. and yes, there is no need to ruin appearence of the ship: dedicate the internal space for necessary amount of thrusters, and thrusters on the outside can be as small as appearence requires.
-
Gyro
- Still trying to figure them out, you need enormous amounts of gyros to ad even .01 rads to the vessel I was testing it on (which massed 0.43Mt) so it could be they are meant for smaller or even larger vessels.
Gyros, form what i understand, work better for small ships and worse for large ones.
Thing is, the torque generated by gyros is proportional only to their volume, while in case of thrusters it is volume*lever arm.
When we are upscaling ship and all the dimensions are, say, doubled, then:
the torque generated by gyros is increased by 2*2*2 = 8 times (since volume is 8*(old volume))
the torque generated by thrusters is increased by 2*2*2*2 = 16 times (additional "*2" is because lever arm is also doubled).
This naturally makes gyros a good option for small ships, but for large ones, you need to start using thrusters to gain advantage of big lever arms.
I personally like this situation, since it buffs rotation of small ships, but don't give too much rotation to large ones, which helps immersion, imo.
-
I think the (not player owned) turret factory should charge a BIG extra for using its components, that way it still should be balanced and searching for components we will be still a thing.
I might add then:
C1,C2,C3 >> 1
Otherwise it would be too easy =)
-
I think this suggestion can be redone/improved in a following way, if this is possible:
A: Turret factories buy turret components and stockpile them. They pay usual market price (depending on if stock is full, like Equipment Docks would do, for example).
B: When you order a turret from a turret factory, it uses its stock of turret components to produce them. However, it charges you more (in credits) than it does now.
C: Cost of producing a certain turret does not depend just on quality of it, but also on number of components, in a way like this:
Price = Traitscoeff*(C0*Typecoeff*Qcoeff + C1*N1*Comp1price + C2*N2*Comp2price + C3*N3*Comp3price ...... )
where
C0, C1, C2 - constant coefficients, C1,C2,C3, ... >1
Typecoeff - dependency on turret type
Qcoeff - dependent on turret quality
N1,N2,N3 ... - number of corresponding components used in a process
Comp(1/2/3)price - average price of corresponding component
Traitscoeff - dependent on turret traits, like "+X% damage".
TL,DR: you can sell components to turret factory now, and use them later on. Turret factory charges you for using its components.
Research on Research, or why putting 3 items instead of 5 is better long-term
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
Really? I was completely unaware of that (sarcasm)
Seriously, i did accounted for that. You don't even need to understand any math to see that i did.
If you want a version without any math whatsoever: When you put less than 5 in, you spend less items on each research run => you get more runs => even with reduced chances of success, more runs are enough to get the same amount of next rarity items as with 5-runs + some spare no-upgrade items return from unsuccessful runs.