Mass based Top grid speed (PLEEAAAASSSSEEEEE)

Star_Kindler ●

I agree with the idea of a dynamic speed limit, but this is actually not the best way to do it. Mass based top grid speed is actually not more realistic. A small miner should not be able to outrun a fast attack battlecruiser, but as it would be much less massive, it would have a much higher top speed based on this suggestion.

If top speed is to be dynamic, the most realistic way to do this would be to base it off of acceleration, not mass. This would satisfy all three of your examples, while also satisfying many more, such as allowing a fast attack battlecruiser to outrun a small miner, or for a torpedo destroyer to outrun an artillery frigate, despite being larger and heavier, assuming it has a better thrust-to-mass ratio, and therefore more acceleration.

Here is a suggestion I found for this idea: https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers2/pc/topic/53045-idea-dynamic-top-speed.

Reply URL

5

Pleased ●

Same thought. Ship acceleration (forward thrust, or thrust on highest axis, divided by mass) should describe top speed.

URL

3

MadACR ●

shouldn't the game just make it harder to accelerate once reaching higher speeds at that point. You know, the whole relativity thing that requires infinite energy to reach the speed of light. Current orbital velocities reach 25k KMpH. That is 25x the max speed. I understand that is limited because of game play, but a 5x increase where it takes double the thrust to go from 300 meter per second to 600 meters per second and double the amount again from 600 to 900 would make more sense in the context of the game.

URL

1

Star_Kindler ●

@MadACR one of my feedback's on the suggestion I linked has a similar idea if you want to take a look there.

URL

3

captainbladej52 ●

Hard pass as it tries to enforce one person's idea of "correct" building and punishes "wrong build". Also your second point tells me what this is really about.

"So if I were to be a pirat in my small ship wanting to steal from that freighter or enter it, I would have no chance of caching up to it when it hits max speed."

This quote tells me all I need to know about this suggestion and why they shouldn't do it. Roughly translated you're not skilled enough currently to hijack someone else's ship as they either see you coming and get out of dodge, or using poor tactics etc. So instead of simply getting better at the game, you want them to make it easier for you to grief people. Yeah no, just no.

Not only this, but an object in motion will stay in motion until another force acts on it. meaning it's perfectly reasonable for said hypothetical carrier to be able to reach the same speeds as fighters. It will simply take longer to speed up and slow down as is real life. If you're really half the pirate you want to be, then you won't have a problem of catching up to foes and you'll be able to do pirate things. If you screw up and your prey gets away, that's your own fault. So tired of suggestions like this that basically want other people punished for daring to play differently than someone else.

Reply URL

3

MadACR ●

Your argument is just as flawed as OPs, and makes multiple assumptions based on an example given. However his point is much more valid with the enforced global speed limit.

let me give you these counter points as well. Right now the equivalent of an f16 would need 10 to twelve small engines facing the rear or 1 big engine facing the rear. The big carrier with 6 big engines that is easily 300x the size out accelerates the small ship.

I want to get multiplayer to have fun with my kids building stuff. But the stuff I build has to be bigger to compete. If I build a Carrier, I have to slow down to launch effective fighter builds. That is not realistic in space. And small craft with thrust to weight ratios greater than the big craft, should be able to catch them eventually. with the speed limit, that is not possible. And the speed limit is way to easy to get to in all directions if you know what you are doing at all.

So. You may hard pass, but people who want to interact with other people need something like this to work.

URL

3

Star_Kindler ●

What the actual heck does this have to do with your "correct" and "wrong build" talking point? You can't seriously tell me that the OP is saying that building heavier ships is "wrong" and building small ships is "correct". And calling them a griefer because they're trying to improve the game? Are you serious? Did you even read the whole suggestion or just skim until you found something you can use to perform an ad hominem attack on the OP? Jesus... I don't agree with the way the OP thinks this should be implemented, I personally despite mass-based speed limit systems, but you don't see me calling them a griefer...

URL

1

Al Nurur ●

MadACR's carrier example was the best reason I could imagine, totally convinced me. The carrier has more space to pack in larger engines, but all that should add extra weight. Larger ships should accelerate slower, much slower, to speed limit. This also allows player-built missiles to function, as reducing missile weight means they can get up to their operational speed much quicker than any manned craft could, allowing a well-designed homing missile to be effective in combat.

URL

1

captainbladej52 ●

MadACR: The only "flaw" is in people demanding moronic stuff like this to force their playstyle on others. The OP exposes exactly why he wants this when he says "So if I were to be a pirate in my small ship wanting to steal from that freighter or enter it, I would have no chance of caching up to it when it hits max speed." In other words, he wants to raid other people in pvp, and is having a hard time with it because he's not good enough to do so and folks either blast him to bits or outrun him. So instead of actually improving his tactics and engineering, he's whining demanding a game feature to give himself an "I win" button where he wasn't good enough to compete before.

Next, this is a video game and it operates on video game logic. Larger grids already take longer to accelerate to max speed and slow down/stop from max speed as well. So his goal of "realistic" flights already exists. He's trying to say a big ship being able to get to the speed limit of 300 m/s and outrun or match speeds with a fighter isn't realistic, but it actually is. In space there is no friction to slow either of them down. An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. In addition, an object that continues to apply force to accelerate will keep building speed in space until something acts on it. In this instance our larger ship with sufficient time can easily outdo a fighter in speed. See some of NASA's satellites, rockets and such they've fired off into space. it takes a long time to get them up to speed with ion thrusters and a long time to slow down, and they can achieve incredible speeds without having to redline the engines the entire time.

Unlike real life however, video games have limits to what they can do, and like it or not with SE2 there has to be a defined upper limit to how fast something can go, how fast it can accelerate/stop, and so forth. Let's suppose you put little Johnny and little Timmy both on the same server. Let's also assume Johnny likes to build big stuff and Timmy likes smaller stuff. If Johnny has done the engineering to make his giant dreadnought move like a modern day fighter that's even faster than Timmy's ship, what's the issue so long as there were no cheats used to do it? OP is just complaining that he can't grief people and wants special treatment instead of having to improve himself.

@Star_Kindler: I said he wants to grief because he admits one of the reasons he wants it is because he can't catch up to certain ships he wants to raid.

"So if I were to be a pirate in my small ship wanting to steal from that freighter or enter it, I would have no chance of caching up to it when it hits max speed."

In other words, he knows he has no chance of raiding certain ships using his current build and tactics, yet instead of improving, wants everyone else's builds made worse by default so he can win. The guy plainly tells us in black and white he wants it in part to help him be a better pirate. So why do you seriously expect me or anyone else to pretend he didn't say that when we have it in plain black and white? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, do I now have to suddenly pretend it's a dog even though we both know it's actually a duck? What the OP needs as much as you don't want to hear it and as much I hate to say it, is a good old fashioned helping of "git good". If he wants to be a pirate then he needs to learn when to strike, when to hold his fire, when to commit and when to retreat. If he's constantly being outran because other people saw him coming and outflew him, that's a him problem and not an issue with the game. Yet instead of improving his builds and tactics he wants everyone else's made worse through no fault of their own. Like nah dude, use your engineering and quit whining.

I have nothing against people requesting features in good faith, or people wanting something done for pvp reasons by default. My issue is him admitting he wants it for pvp reasons, then trying to turn around and hide behind "but realism". Nah dude, have spinal fortitude to say you want it for pvp reasons and quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes then get offended when someone calls you on it. Sad thing here is it's not even the OP getting offended, but you trying to be offended on his behalf and trying to white knight for him. If OP disagrees with what I've said, he's a big boy and can elaborate on it himself. He doesn't need you or anyone else to hold his hand.

MadACR: The only "flaw" is in people demanding moronic stuff like this to force their playstyle on others. The OP exposes exactly why he wants this when he says "So if I were to be a pirate in my small ship wanting to steal from that freighter or enter it, I would have no chance of caching up to it when it hits max speed." In other words, he wants to raid other people in pvp, and is having a hard time with it because he's not good enough to do so and folks either blast him to bits or outrun him. So instead of actually improving his tactics and engineering, he's whining demanding a game feature to give himself an "I win" button where he wasn't good enough to compete before.

Next, this is a video game and it operates on video game logic. Larger grids already take longer to accelerate to max speed and slow down/stop from max speed as well. So his goal of "realistic" flights already exists. He's trying to say a big ship being able to get to the speed limit of 300 m/s and outrun or match speeds with a fighter isn't realistic, but it actually is. In space there is no friction to slow either of them down. An object in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. In addition, an object that continues to apply force to accelerate will keep building speed in space until something acts on it. In this instance our larger ship with sufficient time can easily outdo a fighter in speed. See some of NASA's satellites, rockets and such they've fired off into space. it takes a long time to get them up to speed with ion thrusters and a long time to slow down, and they can achieve incredible speeds without having to redline the engines the entire time.

Unlike real life however, video games have limits to what they can do, and like it or not with SE2 there has to be a defined upper limit to how fast something can go, how fast it can accelerate/stop, and so forth. Let's suppose you put little Johnny and little Timmy both on the same server. Let's also assume Johnny likes to build big stuff and Timmy likes smaller stuff. If Johnny has done the engineering to make his giant dreadnought move like a modern day fighter that's even faster than Timmy's ship, what's the issue so long as there were no cheats used to do it? OP is just complaining that he can't grief people and wants special treatment instead of having to improve himself.

@Star_Kindler: I said he wants to grief because he admits one of the reasons he wants it is because he can't catch up to certain ships he wants to raid.

"So if I were to be a pirate in my small ship wanting to steal from that freighter or enter it, I would have no chance of caching up to it when it hits max speed."

In other words, he knows he has no chance of raiding certain ships using his current build and tactics, yet instead of improving, wants everyone else's builds made worse by default so he can win. The guy plainly tells us in black and white he wants it in part to help him be a better pirate. So why do you seriously expect me or anyone else to pretend he didn't say that when we have it in plain black and white? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck, do I now have to suddenly pretend it's a dog even though we both know it's actually a duck? What the OP needs as much as you don't want to hear it and as much I hate to say it, is a good old fashioned helping of "git good". If he wants to be a pirate then he needs to learn when to strike, when to hold his fire, when to commit and when to retreat. If he's constantly being outran because other people saw him coming and outflew him, that's a him problem and not an issue with the game. Yet instead of improving his builds and tactics he wants everyone else's made worse through no fault of their own. Like nah dude, use your engineering and quit whining.

I have nothing against people requesting features in good faith, or people wanting something done for pvp reasons by default. My issue is him admitting he wants it for pvp reasons, then trying to turn around and hide behind "but realism". Nah dude, have spinal fortitude to say you want it for pvp reasons and quit trying to pull the wool over people's eyes then get offended when someone calls you on it. Sad thing here is it's not even the OP getting offended, but you trying to be offended on his behalf and trying to white knight for him. If OP disagrees with what I've said, he's a big boy and can elaborate on it himself. He doesn't need you or anyone else to hold his hand.

URL

3

Tael ●

Personally I am hesitant to have a scaling speed-cap, particularly one tied to mass. Such caps typically feel exceptionally arbitrary to most players and often result in absurd scenarios where something tiny with barely enough thrust to make the speed cap in 3-5 business days has a higher top speed than a ship that is just effectively just an enormous thruster with a chair duct-taped to the front because said thruster weighs more.

I would instead suggest (as many others have) that if there is to be a scaling speed-cap in space, that it should be based on a ship's thrust-to-weight ratio. Because I know someone is already typing about it: the cap should be based on the total thrust accelerating you in the direction you are moving, but should not apply a breaking-force if said total thrust decreases. As for how such a speed-cap interacts with an atmosphere... there is a significant possibility that we'll be getting at least a crude aerodynamics-feature, so if it caps speed in atmo then aerodynamics should probably take over there.

Mr.Impatiens(OP), MadACR, and Al Nurur do provide compelling examples of how such a system would improve parts of the gameplay, and Star_Kindler's idea (in a different part of the thread) is the same as my own.

As for captainbladej52... We all know how it's blasphemy to you that anything should even have the potential to impede your beloved gunbricks or give even slight advantage to anything else, but it occurred to me that I should ask: If one of your default arguments for when someone doesn't want something you want is "they shouldn't play with it/shouldn't join a server that allows it/only play with friends and admins that will enforce the rules they want", and if you are so afraid of pirates not first obtaining your permission to pirate you, then why do you not simply follow your own advice and stick to servers that allow pvp only with mutual consent?

URL

5

Peter ●

As others (including myself in the past) have said, it needs to be relative to thrust, basically kN of forward thrust to mass of the ship, so it further rewards building ships well, if you want to add the extra armour, it doesn't necessarily mean you lose speed, you just need to add extra thrust. Ideally it's not even a hard cap, meaning when you hit what would otherwise be the hard speed limit for your ship based on it's forward thrust & mass, instead of it limiting you to that speed, it simply reduces your acceleration significantly past that speed, so you can still do long journeys and take advantage of the higher 300m/s speed cap, but will rarely achieve it while being chased or when you're not on a long journey. Could probably at that point increase the speed cap further, maybe to 450m/s or 600m/s since ships will rarely be hitting the cap, and when they do it will be mostly small ships (which will obviously have less issues with the physics calculation when crashing into something at higher speeds).

Reply URL

3

Semtex ●

The idea is nonsensical; it doesn't reflect reality.

The only correct solution is acceleration depending on engine thrust and the total weight of the ship.

a = F . m ; v = a . t

Reply URL

1

Semtex ●

xxx

URL

2

Keks ●

100% agree

URL

2

Kim Hansson ●

a=F*m ❌

➡a=F/m or F=m*a

v=a*t✅

URL

2

Keks ●

100% agree

URL

2

Semtex ●

upss...

URL

2

Semtex ●

upss... you are right, my mistake...

URL

2

Semtex ●

This would require devising a consistent set of "nonsensical physics"...

A functional solution ("same rules for everyone") to the problem is to limit the achievable maximum speed by the ratio of thrust to mass and to introduce cosmic drag (as negative acceleration = braking) when moving at speeds exceeding the limit.

In other words, to create something similar to aerodynamic drag...

"The resistance of spacetime to the motion of a material object"...

Spacetime drag would manifest as negative acceleration, in its most primitive form, for example, as follows:

a = ((v - 200) /200 )^3

(or an even higher power)

This would allow the object to move continuously at a speed of 200 m/s without running engines. The thrust-to-mass ratio of a spacecraft determines the maximum achievable acceleration—and through the introduction of such "spacetime drag," the thrust-to-mass ratio would also define the maximum speed with the engine running.

I chose a value of 200 m/s instead of 300 m/s so that even the extreme achievable speeds and accelerations would remain within a range that the game engine is likely still capable of handling (2000–2500 m/s).

Reply URL

Mass based Top grid speed (PLEEAAAASSSSEEEEE)

Replies (5)