Make blocks improve by material and scale cargo linearly

[Thundercraft]

It is disappointing that many types of blocks do not benefit from higher-tier materials, other than by a slight increase in HP:

 

...Cargo, Crew, Solar panels, and integrity field generators gain no benefit from higher tier materials, except for the increased durability.

 

This is confirmed by the More block/size infos! discussion on Reddit:

 

...Cargo Bays' date=' Crew Quarters, Hangars, Computer Cores, and Solar Panels do not scale at all based on material except for HP. I did not test IFGs to see if area scales based on material yet.[/quote']

 

That does not give players much incentive to seek out higher-tier materials, except for finding better material for armor and a few special cases like power Generators, and Shield Generators.

 

What I find even worse, though, is how Cargo Bays are calculated. Most block types scale linearly with size. But Cargo Bays seem to be calculated by some bizarre logarithmic formula. As mentioned in the  Figuring out block stats topic:

...Currently, Cargo container capacity doesn't seem to follow any expected equation that I can think of. I expected it to just use an adjusted volume, with each side being some amount shorter, simulating walls. However, Tests show that it is not that simple. 1x1x1 gives .4375 (estimated from 64 blocks averaged) while a 10x10x10 holds 3000.8

 

To put this in perspective: A 10x10x10 Cargo Bay is 1000 cubic meters. If the player created cargo in the form of 1000 individual 1x1x1 blocks (also 1000 cubic meters), they would only end up with 437.5 cargo space. But by building it as a single 10x10x10 Cargo Bay, instead, a player would increase their cargo capacity by a whopping 685%!

 

This gives players enormous incentive to create their cargo space as a single large block instead of a multitude of smaller blocks. But all that does is encourage players to make their ships (or at least their cargo bays) look simple and boring.

 

See MrVorgra's awesome "Universal Container Freighter" in the Vorgra's Ships topic for an excellent example of how realistic and cool-looking a freighter can be with lots of small 'cargo container'-style Cargo Bays. Redesigning that ship with a single, huge Cargo Bay would probably increase it's cargo capacity by a factor of 6 or so, but that would look pretty simple and ugly in comparison.

 

Also, this is unrealistic - absurd even. Logically, cargo space should increase linearly, not logarithmically, as it is purely a function of volume.

[SageThe13th]

Realistically, if you took a container and then replaced it with ten smaller containers you would lose some cargo space because of the extra walls.  That being said, losing more than half your cargo space is too much.  And I can agree with you from a building freedom perspective that it shouldn't matter at all.

 

Crew quarters, hangars, and solar panels wouldn't magically get better just because you make them out of something else.  Their function is based purely on physical space.  This even factors into advanced building techniques where you can save on weight by using Trinium or Xanion crew quarters and solar panels.  Hangars need the HP because they are accessible from the outside of your ship and are literally glowing targets.

 

Computer cores are odd.  I don't understand them very well.  So, I wouldn't be sure how changing them would potential unbalance things.

 

I've brought up the problem with the IFGs before here: http://www.avorion.net/forum/index.php/topic,1066.msg5437.html#msg5437

[Subquake]

I think, that using higher tier materials should give some benefits for things like thrusters etc, because better materials mean more durable and robust components and thus pushing the limits further of the functional blocks and in result giving higher performance. If Avorion shield generator gives more shields, then why Avorion thruster isn't outperforming Trinium thrusters?

 

Regarding cargo space, It's nice, that the game takes into account walls if you are building separate cargo containers on one big cargo container, however the change in size shouldn't be that drastic, I agree with that.

[Thundercraft]

Realistically, if you took a container and then replaced it with ten smaller containers you would lose some cargo space because of the extra walls.

 

Agreed. Though, as you suggest, it shouldn't add up to make that much difference.

 

Computer cores are odd.  I don't understand them very well.  So, I wouldn't be sure how changing them would potential unbalance things.

 

Granted. But one would think that computers made of more advanced materials would have the potential to be faster or miniaturized to be more powerful in a given amount of space. (Intel and others have been able to make some important advances in microelectronics by using different materials and different manufacturing techniques.) Also, we don't get access to Computer Cores until rather late in material progression.

 

Crew quarters, hangars, and solar panels wouldn't magically get better just because you make them out of something else.  Their function is based purely on physical space.  This even factors into advanced building techniques where you can save on weight by using Trinium or Xanion crew quarters and solar panels.

 

Crew quarters is understandable.

 

But solar panels should probably improve with better materials. In real life, the efficiency of the latest generation solar panels are markedly improved and they are gradually getting cheaper. Again, due to new manufacturing techniques and new materials. Last I heard, the "Perovskite solar cell" shattered the efficiency record. And it uses a hybrid organic-inorganic lead material.

 

Hangars need the HP because they are accessible from the outside of your ship and are literally glowing targets.

 

True enough. Higher HP is what they need.

[GrimJahk]

I'd like to see thrusters get boosts as well at higher materials.

 

 

[DivineEvil]

That does not give players much incentive to seek out higher-tier materials, except for finding better material for armor and a few special cases like power Generators, and Shield Generators.

Which is what different materials are made for. You choose better materials for better combat performance, either by lower weight (which makes buffing thrusters and engines unnecessary), higher durability or ratio between the two. On the other hand, if you make higher-tier materials better in general, then they instantaneously make all previous materials redundant.

 

What I find even worse, though, is how Cargo Bays are calculated. Most block types scale linearly with size. But Cargo Bays seem to be calculated by some bizarre logarithmic formula.

That is because cargo volume and raw volume are not the same thing. If Koonschi would implement cargo volume in linear way, all commodities would have exactly the same 1 volume-per-unit scale. This is not how he designed it. Cargo volume is calculated with respect to how much volume is needed to hold the cargo, including stacking racks, containers and support structures, and larger cargo, such as complex electronics, robots and vehicles require larger effective volume of cargo hold. Therefore, if you have one large cargo bay in comparison to many small ones, that cargo bay provides more efficient space, that can contain higher quantity of spacious cargo and even more of small, easily stacked, compressible goods. Cargo provides the effective volume, not a raw volume.

 

See MrVorgra's awesome "Universal Container Freighter" in the Vorgra's Ships topic for an excellent example of how realistic and cool-looking a freighter can be with lots of small 'cargo container'-style Cargo Bays. Redesigning that ship with a single, huge Cargo Bay would probably increase it's cargo capacity by a factor of 6 or so, but that would look pretty simple and ugly in comparison.

You're not forced to have Cargo Bays to represent individual containers. You can use Hull to do so, and have a large Cargo Bay deep withing the structure.

 

I think, that using higher tier materials should give some benefits for things like thrusters etc, because better materials mean more durable and robust components and thus pushing the limits further of the functional blocks and in result giving higher performance.

As it seems at this point, ship parts are not made entirely out of these materials. Materials you mine are used for structure and for power components, as the Adventurer you meet early in the game suggest. He says, that Avorion is the perfect material to build ships with - its light, durable and its energy parameters are great. There's never a note about any other parameters. The engines and thrusters are structurally the same, so when you bothered about their performance, use density.

 

To properly understand the material progression, you need to think in increments and ratios, rather than in raw stats.

- All materials has the same HP increment of 1,5 compared to the previous one. Amount of materials for same block size is static.

- Iron is startup material. All parameters are low, restricted the most, but dirt-cheap, easy to mine and found everywhere.

- Titanium is low-tier light material. Overall better than Iron.

- Naonite is low-tier energy material. Overall better than Titanium, but can't be used for armor.

- Trinium is the lightest, has high energy/mass ratio, but low hp/mass ratio.

- Xanion is structurual material, has high hp/mass ratio and high hp/cost ratio, but can't be used for armor.

- Ogonite is armor material, the heaviest, has high hp/cost ratio and low energy/mass ratio, but surrounded by Xanion and Avorion, neither of which can be used for armor.

- Avorion is the top-tier material because it gives best hp/mass ratio and best hp/cost ratio, almost as good as Trinium for energy/mass ratio, but can't be used for armor.

 

Therefore you have two tier groups + Avorion.

Tier I: Dirt cheap, easy to repair and replace Iron armor, lightweight Titanium hull, engines, quarters and cargo, and high-performance Naonite energy and shield components.

Tier II: Super-strong Ogonite Armor, lightweight Trinium hull, engines, quarters and cargo, high-performance and durable Xanion energy and shield components.

Tier III: Everything made out of Avorion, with base durability and shield power making armor obsolete.

 

But solar panels should probably improve with better materials. In real life, the efficiency of the latest generation solar panels are markedly improved and they are gradually getting cheaper. Again, due to new manufacturing techniques and new materials. Last I heard, the "Perovskite solar cell" shattered the efficiency record. And it uses a hybrid organic-inorganic lead material.

Yes, but in Avorion while you're using different materials for the casing, the solar panels are always the same. Generators, batteries and shields is a whole different story - its not even clear what is the concept behind their function. Either way, a material that is lighter, stronger or more rare/expensive does not guarantee that it will be better for every purpose.

[Thundercraft]

...You choose better materials for better combat performance, either by lower weight (which makes buffing thrusters and engines unnecessary), higher durability or ratio between the two.

 

I understand this. But even taking such things into consideration, some of believe that a slight increase in HP (emphasis on slight) and/or a slight reduction in weight isn't always enough.

 

On the other hand, if you make higher-tier materials better in general, then they instantaneously make all previous materials redundant.

 

Not necessarily.

 

The crux of your statement depends on one's definition of "better". But the word is subjective. I doubt a slight increase in Solar Panel performance is going to break the game. Nor would, say, a slight decrease in the number of required engineers to keep huge banks of thrusters going if made from higher-tier materials.

 

Cargo volume is calculated with respect to how much volume is needed to hold the cargo, including stacking racks, containers and support structures...

 

I understand. Indeed, I'd already conceded SageThe13th's point about larger Cargo Bays not wasting as much space with walls. It's also true that larger containers would be more efficient. But as SageThe13th and myself have argued, such differences would not amount to the absolutely enormous differences we're seeing in-game. The difference between several small Cargo Bays and one big one is like night and day and can easily mean the difference between being able to hold 10 and 1000 cargo units.

 

All we're asking is for the game to be more reasonable. The way it is now is almost absurd.

 

You're not forced to have Cargo Bays to represent individual containers.

 

Did you actually look at Vorgra's Universal Container Freighter? Wouldn't it be nice to see more freighters like that? Currently, the game greatly discourages us from building freighters that way. Is a game mechanic really okay if it very obviously encourages more simple cube-shaped ships?

 

You can use Hull to do so, and have a large Cargo Bay deep withing the structure.

 

But for good efficiency it has to be a single cube-shaped block. And to hold a decent amount (100 or more), it has to be enormous. (On my ships with 3 or 4 modules, I needed a Cargo Bay bigger than my whole ship just to hold a couple hundred units of cargo.) And you're suggesting we just hide such a thing inside the ship?  :o ::)

 

Also, the player would have to add a huge amount of fake "cargo containers" on the exterior of the ship, merely for decorative purposes. That would add a huge amount to weight and make the ship far less efficient. It's such that it may not even balance the space saved from trying to hind a single cargo container in the interior.

 

...To properly understand the material progression, you need to think in increments and ratios, rather than in raw stats.

- All materials has the same HP increment of 1,5 compared to the previous one. Amount of materials for same block size is static...

 

The HP increment of 1.5 times more than the previous tier sounds nice and reasonable... in theory. But that is made largely irrelevant by the huge differences in material weight.

 

Please, take a close look at the Material Flavor and Analysis topic. In particular, notice Selenog's "Analysis on material efficiency" chart? There are huge differences in the jump of HP/Mass efficiency from one tier to the next. In particular, Titainium and Trinium both have huge boosts in performance for their weight. But Xanion barely has any improvement over Trinum. And Ogonite is actually worse than Xanion.

 

But solar panels should probably improve with better materials..

Yes, but in Avorion while you're using different materials for the casing, the solar panels are always the same.

 

Do you have more of an explanation why fictional materials like Trinium, Xanion, and Avorion can only be used for the "casing" or framework and why they would never, ever work for the n-type or p-type layers that create a depletion zone to generate electricity?

 

Arguing from a gameplay perspective: Consider that Solar Panels are basically a much weaker version of Generator blocks. But using a superior material will have Generator blocks produce more energy. Why shouldn't the same be true for Solar Panels? That's just giving players more incentive to using Generators and less incentive to use Solar Panels.

 

It's not like Solar Panels will ever replace Generators, no matter how (marginally) we improve them. Mostly, Solar Panels are for flavor. But that's no reason to keep them mostly non-functional and relegated to being only decorative.

[amimai]

Actually the difference between a small cargo bay, a medium cargo bay, and a large cargo bay would be staggering...

 

A small cargo bay still needs a

1. Cargo handling system(to you know, put cargo in and out)

2. Storage systems (to hold it in place)

3. Climate control

4. Walls (for reference, shipping container has 20cm wall thickness, 15% of its diameter)

 

So for small bays most of your volume is not spent actual storing cargo...

[SageThe13th]

Thundercraft keeps claiming that an Hp increase of 50% per tier is slight.  Lol.  That's a huge increase.  It ends up making Avorion 11 times, that's 1100%, healthier than Iron.  Which is number that sits quite well with me.  The weight differences are also drastic.  I agree with some of what he's saying, but he needs to stop making these fallacious claims as the core of his argument.

 

Logically, a stronger material could increase thrust.  But, I feel like the different weights are doing enough to speed ships up or slow them down.

 

Solar panels should generate more power at higher tiers if only because power generators do and they should work somewhat the same to avoid confusion and keep things balanced.

 

Ogonite is not worse than Xanion.  It's pretty clear it's meant to fill a specific niche.  One that Xanoin and even Avorion don't fill.

[Thundercraft]

Thundercraft keeps claiming that an Hp increase of 50% per tier is slight.  Lol.  That's a huge increase.  It ends up making Avorion 11 times, that's 1100%, healthier than Iron.  Which is number that sits quite well with me.  The weight differences are also drastic.

 

You're right, that is a significant increase in HP. Though, I was thinking more in terms of the HP/weight ratio, which makes certain jumps in material tier less appealing. (How many players stick with Trinium for a good long while?) Also, in my designs, I often try to cover the outside in large sheets or blocks of armor. In such, the armor material may be different and that is what's important.

 

Anyway, the HP increase is not nearly as useful in later tiers where many ship designs rely mostly on shields. More hull HP isn't going to make much difference if the design has more shields than hull. In such designs, more efficiency in parts would be more appealing that more hull HP.

[GrimJahk]

 

You're right. That is a huge increase in HP. Though, I was thinking more in terms of the HP/weight ratio, which makes certain jumps in material tier less appealing. (How many players stick with Trinium for a good long while?) Anyway, the HP increase is not nearly as useful in later tiers where many ship designs rely mostly on shields. More hull HP isn't going to make much difference if the design has more shields than hull. In such designs, more efficiency in parts would be more appealing that more hull HP.

 

In my mind, once you reach a certain evolution in the game, maneuverability is more important than HP. You will have (massive) shields in place and the only real value to HP is survivability while you are escaping... and escaping is easier if you can run away fast if jammed.

 

Now, If shields get nerfed, and/or there becomes a much faster Armor repair method... then you will see more focus on HP and around armor block placement... but with the build (version) we have now...