EvilMerlin posted:

Actually doing volume of gasses and room sizes is rather easy. Don't see a lot of difficultly here at all. Even with breathing rate... seriously, its rather simple maths.

Hav posted:

Go on then.

I’m playing a couple of games at the moment that use gas mixtures, and it’s not that easy, dependent on the desired outcome. What are you going to do with the gas mix?

Quavers posted:

Hav posted:

Go on then.

I’m playing a couple of games at the moment that use gas mixtures, and it’s not that easy, dependent on the desired outcome. What are you going to do with the gas mix?

Koil posted:

Daztek posted:

What about say an Aurora or whatever bigger ship fits, inside the hangar of an Idris, then

Dark Off posted:

work in progress

EvilMerlin posted:

Calculate the remaining 02 in the smaller ship. Since it is already being tracked.

But as you are landing on a larger ship (MUCH larger), as long as that area has 02, does it really matter?

tuo posted:

At tier 0, gases don't mix, buddy

EvilMerlin posted:

Calculate the remaining 02 in the smaller ship. Since it is already being tracked.

But as you are landing on a larger ship (MUCH larger), as long as that area has 02, does it really matter?

EvilMerlin posted:

No one said gas mixes. We are talking about just 02 and its consumption.

Hav posted:

I doubt they track pressure or temperature either, and gasses are really prone to both.

Ultimately, you’re looking at depressurisation mechanics, but that’s basically just evacuating a volume through an apeture of known size, and this effects pressure, and there’s a temperature change that comes with a rapid change in pressure. Perhaps the gameplay is in finding and fixing a leak?

You don’t need gas mixture for this. Perhaps the gameplay is in balancing the amount of atmosphere coming from the emitters? Why?

Oxygen not included models gasses because they’re actually part of the risk/reward cycle. Crack water to supply oxygen, but now you have a hydrogen problem. In Maia, it’s part of a really deep mechanic that might never see the light of release, but it’s closely coupled to atmosphere pressure and scrubbing increased CO2 from the number of people you have. And those scrubbers fail.

Games tend to have problems with volumes; hell, simulation has problems with volumes. Early climate simulation models started off with 1km cubes, then 100m, and now we’re down to 10m cubes of gas, simulating relationships given high resolution temperature data from the surface and space. We’ve gone from three day accuracy to five day accuracy, but the computational power required is phenomenal. It’s not a trivial thing to model an atmosphere, and it’s not a trivial thing to split an Idris into a bunch of volumes with emitters and sinks unless you heavily abstract down the calculations and wave your hands a lot.

Rememember that their current flight model was supposed to deal with actual thruster placement, but what you’re getting at the moment is something that feels off entirely. That’s core.

Even better is that they’ve gotten a guy working on it who mentions hacking gameplay that would allow you lock doors open and disable emitters. That does not feel like an explored mechanic, because there are problems with the concept.

Taken in isolation, it seems reasonable enough. Throw it into the misshapen hulk called Star Citizen, and you start to see the problems that a relatively small idea can balloon into a much bigger problem. Also it’s ‘tier zero’ how many years after it was mentioned first? It’s constant hype.

Koil posted:

tuo posted:

Sorry to break this to you, but it seems like you don't understand game development.

Golli posted:

But since the atmosphere is more than just O2, you have to measure the partial pressure of O2, and account for the production of CO2 and other gases in the environment.

The human body operates differently under different o2 partial pressures, and if you only measure O2 content, you could suffer from adverse effects of too high a partial pressure (oxygen toxicity) or too low a partial pressure (one example: carbon monoxide poisoning - since CO is preferentially absorbed over O2).

Bottom line is - if you are going to go down the 'real atmosphere' route, you have to concern yourself with gas mixture.

Agony Aunt posted:

As for raising a ticket if you get rammed by another player, lol. Their helpdesk is going to be busy.

Koil posted:

Dark Off posted:

Lord Stimperor posted:

What are you talking about? If someone Rams your ship you'll call the space police who will come in their avenger police cruisers and survey the scene of the accident. Then you can file a claim with your opponents space insurance (he better have lti!) and watch him sweat it out in space traffic court in front of community-elected judges.

tooterfish posted:

Nice to see crows pass yet another intelligence test. They're the most intelligent bird species by far.

Don't know what kind of bird that little one is, but if it backed Star Citizen it's clearly a loving dumbass.

Thoatse posted:

You're confusing crows with ravens. Both are corvids, but ravens are smarter than most other birds, including crows.

Hav posted:

I know simulations, and I know how far they are from a simulation, while trying to use simulation language.

Heat signature has a mechanic based around breaking spaceship windows to gain entry, kill people and exit any given spacecraft. They aren't modelling volumes, they're attaching particular scripts to entities based on the window breaking, which is a viable mechanic of the game.

In Star Citizen, if someone can lock the doors open, you'll wear a suit, leading to the minor inconvenience of wearing said suit.

They're using a developer to theorycraft a theorycraft onto a theorycraft, leading to this recursive poo poo fractal of stories that don't actually fit into the wider narrative, and leading to a tree structure of dependencies on every drat server-tick.

Personally, I'd use an integer for 'breathable atmosphere' pressure and leave it at that.


Yeah, this. Those atmosphere emitters don't work all of the time, otherwise they'd overpressure, so they have a maximum rate of pressurisation, what happens if I open three compartments neighboring, etc. "That's just Boyle's law", boom, temperature.

It's needlessly complex for something that will barely add gameplay, when they should be thinking up more mission structures to stop the faithful chewing their ankles in frustration. Hardly anyone plays Arma for a reason. Call of Dutys print money for a reason.

People buy space flight games for space flight, not sitting in bars alone.

quote:

Hi Reishadowheart!

It looks like you have the highest supported comment, so I'll respond to most of the feedback here. I'm a designer on the economy team, and we're definitely thankful for your feedback as we try to balance stuff correctly.

Before I start, I know that everyone is aware of the Alpha state of our game. With that comes something to consider: the economy team does not currently have all the tools to execute the gameplay we'd like to achieve. As more and more features come in, we can remove many of these stop-gap solutions to deliver the robust economy that we're all anxious for. When we release patches we strive to make balanced gameplay and progression for the features we currently have; we rely on feedback, analytics, and internal discussion to arrive at the balance for each update to the game.

In no particular order, here's some responses to your feedback:

One of the things we wanted to do this patch was give longer-term goals to the items that you can buy for your ships, which is why the price on many items went up significantly. There's a couple reasons for this:

• Currently items don't wear out, so they are a one-time, infinite-use purchase. That makes them more valuable than they will be when item wear and tear comes into play.
  
• Ships come with weapon loadouts when you buy them, so any alternate gun is optional. Since gameplay is not prevented (as everyone has one), we opted for a higher price.
  
• Analytics informs us that the average questing player is making around 1,700 aUEC/day, and the average session of those players is 30-40 minutes. We liked the balance of working for about 3 days to upgrade a piece of gear, based on our own experiences playing MMOs and the rate we'd upgrade.
  
• There is a lot of money to be made in freighting, even for people without Caterpillars. Many of these ways aren't utilized by the majority of the playerbase, so we're hesitant to change stuff when y'all are still leaving so much money on the table....
  

It sounds like a lot of people are looking at 1-seater ships as the first step in your progression, but we fully intend for some players to choose to remain in these smaller ships even though they have the money to buy a larger ship. We look at all ships in many different ways, and one of the ways is to look at these like different job-classes you'll see in a typical MMO. That being said, we want to provide economic progression even for the players who voluntarily stay in their smaller ship because it suits them, and with that comes items that take longer to get than a single session's worth of questing. Maxing out your ship should take significant effort, no matter the size of the ship.

One thing to look out for in this update is that the relative prices between items more closely reflects the actual performance of the items. We're putting a lot of pieces in place to make these items feel correct and make the value of items be more closely represented by their price.

Missiles have a lot of discussion as to whether they should be as expensive as a real-life missile or cheap so that players can use them more frequently. While we continue to discuss this internally, we'll probably keep missiles the way they are.

The repair/refuel costs were low, but we couldn't in good conscious make refueling/repairing be more expensive than claiming the same ship with insurance. We're working on a patch for 3.2.1 to raise refueling, repairing, and insurance expediting to more reasonable levels across the board. We're still going to keep it lower than we expect it to settle on, partly for the stability issues and partly for

The inert material is a very intended part of the mining process. Removing it is what a refinery is for--and what makes ships like the Orion so appealing! We look at the inert material as a stopgap to represent the 'purity' of different elements you mine. If we removed inert materials, there'd be no way to differentiate the quality of rocks from one another.

We're taking your comments very seriously and will talk about this internally, so please don't feel like this is us dismissing community feedback. This post is to shed some light on the reasoning behind a lot of the changes that we made this patch so you can see where we're at as a design team and where we intend to go as we continue development. We appreciate your engagement!

Jake-CIG

Daztek posted:

https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/4/thread/feedback-economy/1294525

Koil posted: