51 replies to this topic

[SDS/Spencer]

Yeah, ships accelerate and move faster relative to the map in v1.2, but the ratios are the same. So that's a little perplexing. Fortunately, there are a couple of land tags I can borrow: Stopped_Rate_Of_Turn and Min_Speed_Fraction_For_Turn.

random question, how many hours weekly do you spend on perfecting this game? cuz what you and others have done is amazing

[Phoenix Rising]

I try not to count...

[Hostile]

I've been thinking hard on this topic because I'm creating a tabletop space battle game. I believe the top speed can be viewed as relative to the other ships. A max speed of 7 vs 3 for example can be viewed as relative acceleration when compered to each other. So it's not so much a top speed as much as a relative comparison. But for game purposes it's about as accurate as can be done without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Phoenix Rising]

It's fine for short engagements or if you need players to do the math in their heads. Our MGLT stats are derived from space flight simulators, which likewise need to keep speeds towards the low end. They make no correlation between max speed and acceleration though.

There's an alternative set of acceleration ratings in terms of G which are meant to be "actual". The relative contrast between MGLT/s and G is about the same. The main difference is that G would not put an arbitrary cap on speed per unit.

I probably didn't take time to word the question precisely enough, since this is sort of an old debate. Even if we used G, there would still be a velocity limit - it would just be set the same for everything.

[P.O._210877]

I still say whip-up some in-game demos and we'll see what's what.

[Phoenix Rising]

If I went with Newton, it'd have to be done in conjunction with changes to inaccuracy...

[SpardaSon21]

You really should stick with MGLT. Sure, G's are realistic, but this is a game, so realism doesn't need to apply. If arbitrary limits make for a more fun game, they need to be there. You can always say they're doing tight maneuvering at combat speeds for the justification for speed limits. Space maps in PR do have stuff like nebulae and asteroid belts in the way, after all.

[anakinskysolo]

If I went with Newton, it'd have to be done in conjunction with changes to inaccuracy...

Don't try to think in those terms. It will just make you have endless headaches, believe me. The assumption that in GFFA they have a much deeper knowledge of physics than us really does not solve the physical inconsistencies in SW.

[Phoenix Rising]

Oh, no... I just think speed could work nicely as a supplementary factor in determining how often a unit it hit. Inaccuracy has to change anyway because it's designed wrong (see land news).

[anakinskysolo]

What are you thinking to do? Increase inaccuracy, decrease inaccuracy...

[P.O._210877]

The assumption that in GFFA they have a much deeper knowledge of physics than us really does not solve the physical inconsistencies in SW.

That depends, if you assume they have means to bend or even break the laws of physics as we know them, then anything goes. So, from a certain point of view, they CAN do what they do, we just have to accept that we don't have a clue as to how it's done. Assigning some real life values to Star Wars is great, it brings the GFFA closer to us; however, doing to Star Wars what was done to Star Trek is, imo, disruptive, destructive and ultimately pointless. Let Starfleet have all it's techno-speculation, it's techno-babble and it's horde of pseudo astro-scientists. Don't get me wrong I love to speculate on the nature of things in GFFA; it's just that I don't see a point in needing scientifically correct answers to explain the FICTION part of Star Wars.

Oh, no... I just think speed could work nicely as a supplementary factor in determining how often a unit it hit.

Are you trying to find some sort of "sweet spot" between, seed, acceleration and maneuverability by any chance? Something akin to an evasion value distributed asymmetrically across classes and/or types?

[Phoenix Rising]

I had thought inaccuracy an angle, but it's actually the size of the bullseye, so to speak, at the given range. It's not a matter of increasing or decreasing it, so much as correcting it.

That'd be the idea, P.O. Speaking to your first point, where would we be without accurate scaling? Perfecting accuracy becomes a meaningless exercise if you have 50-meter X-wings and 4-meter Humans. For the sake of this topic, though, I don't want people to think of this as a choice between MGLT and G - it's all about whether or not a speed stat is applicable to space.

[P.O._210877]

Speaking to your first point, where would we be without accurate scaling? Perfecting accuracy becomes a meaningless exercise if you have 50-meter X-wings and 4-meter Humans

Well Sir, in one word : Touché

Yeah I did get carried away there for a moment,it IS Star Wars after all...

I was more thinking along the lines of : sound in space is impossible, or according to what we understand of quantum theory this or that can't be possible, ect., etc.

I believe I know what got mixed-up, "by physical inconsistencies " and "where would we be without accurate scaling?" you guys are referring to physical in the sense of objects, ships, stations, etc. who are not in the right proportions from one another; according to visual discrepancies or conflicting stats, weren't you? ahem, ahem. Well, I don't like when this happens but let's put it on the count of transcultural mismatch, OK?

As for your question PR where would we be without accurate scaling? : In a world where a Wookiee and an Ewok could stand in front of one-another and have a conversation at eye level.

Oh! and yes, speed should be taken into account.

Edited by P.O._210877, 25 April 2012 - 05:45 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

I don't really know what they did with ST, but I'm assuming it's more than just providing measurements for everything. Not really disagreeing with you; more of an opportunity for comment.

[Kitkun]

On one hand, it's good to set some limits so that things don't get out of hand. IIRC, ESB showed that even Rogue pilots were incredulous at the idea of a few fighters distracting an ISD for a transport to get past.
On the other hand, you don't want to lose the spirit of the work either. Great quote here. BSG certainly feels more believable than most even when well into fantastical things if for no other reason than that it's handled seriously and you don't have everybody explaining basic ideas that should be common knowledge.
Then, of course, there's just bad writing.

Edited by Kitkun, 25 April 2012 - 12:15 PM.

[P.O._210877]

Exactly. To me, technically minded plot devices are to science-fiction what spices are to cooking, you both incorporate them lightly and sparingly.

[Henry X]

Personally, I don't like the idea of giving the game realistic acceleration and removing the speed limits. I mean, yes, speed limits are unrealistic, but there are some things that just, while arbitrary, seem "right".

[Madurai]

The attempt to shoehorn in Newtonian physics into Star Wars is folly. I can appreciate that folks want their favorite setting to be taken more seriously as science fiction, but it's to the detriment of the art. SW should all about 1930s aero-naval combat in space: biplanes and battleships.

(Come to think of it, the X-Wings are biplanes. I guess the stock TIE looks the part too, if you turn it sideways...)

[Phoenix Rising]

Hmm. A lot of the space scenes, especially in ANH, seem to show realistic ship physics (sound aside).

[P.O._210877]

True, but this is a game and so the gameplay must be considered first. Maybe it would be fun to have "real" physics, I don't know; I must play it if I want to know if I like it...