| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:22 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
 |
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'm not sure of whether I like the idea of diminishing returns on the hypertravel time extensions... |
The RAW gives you diminishing returns. The longer you go, the less of a % of your trip one hour is.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Also, I could see, for example, a long journey through well charted space with a lot of known obstacles being easy to chart, but still taking a long time. |
I'm not sure I see that. Well-charted space, means that the computer knows where most of the stuff is because it's in the BoSS data.
Here's how I imagine it works. It's the known unknowns that slow a ship down, because a nav computer slows the ship down in order not to speed ahead of the hyperspace sensors. If you're faster than the hyperspace sensors, you run a much greater chance of crashing into stuff. If you're in well-charted space, you can go a lot faster because the computer knows where the obstacles are; it doesn't have to rely on the sensors to steer around the obstacles. It's like going through the trench with the Red October.
Going around stuff that's known to be along a path does not take that much time to circumnavigate, because at the scale of things, the obstacles are really small. Minor course corrections ahead of time will get you around those things with only marginal costs to travel time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:39 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'm not sure of whether I like the idea of diminishing returns on the hypertravel time extensions... |
The RAW gives you diminishing returns. The longer you go, the less of a % of your trip one hour is.
|
That's not a diminishing return, though, because you add a lesser percentage to your journey time for a progressively greater percentage benefit in difficulty. | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: |
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Also, I could see, for example, a long journey through well charted space with a lot of known obstacles being easy to chart, but still taking a long time. |
I'm not sure I see that. Well-charted space, means that the computer knows where most of the stuff is because it's in the BoSS data.
Here's how I imagine it works. It's the known unknowns that slow a ship down, because a nav computer slows the ship down in order not to speed ahead of the hyperspace sensors. If you're faster than the hyperspace sensors, you run a much greater chance of crashing into stuff. If you're in well-charted space, you can go a lot faster because the computer knows where the obstacles are; it doesn't have to rely on the sensors to steer around the obstacles. It's like going through the trench with the Red October.
Going around stuff that's known to be along a path does not take that much time to circumnavigate, because at the scale of things, the obstacles are really small. Minor course corrections ahead of time will get you around those things with only marginal costs to travel time. |
I imagine its any obstacle that causes you to have to change the course from a straight line that slows you down. Known areas of uncharted hazards would slow you down more or divert you farther, but if you have to charge through a massively convoluted course of known obstacles, it might take longer than a short run through a known area of unknown obstacles. Distance traveled is still a factor.
To use a road travel analogy, from my house in Washington State, it's easier to find Disneyland in California than my brother's apartment. (There are two more turns to find his place) so the difficulty of the navigation to Disneyland would be lower, but the trip takes much much more time because the total distance traveled is so much longer.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:10 am Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'm not sure of whether I like the idea of diminishing returns on the hypertravel time extensions... |
The RAW gives you diminishing returns. The longer you go, the less of a % of your trip one hour is.
|
That's not a diminishing return, though, because you add a lesser percentage to your journey time for a progressively greater percentage benefit in difficulty. |
I stand corrected. The 'return' is the gain. In this case what is gained is the diminishing of the difficulty to the astrogation roll by increasing the length of the trip. Given that the cost in the RAW (an hour for every point of diminished difficulty) is absolute, the longer the trip, the lower the cost. In other words, you have a increasing return on investment the longer you want to travel. But is that what you want?
| Fallon Kell wrote: | I imagine its any obstacle that causes you to have to change the course from a straight line that slows you down. Known areas of uncharted hazards would slow you down more or divert you farther, but if you have to charge through a massively convoluted course of known obstacles, it might take longer than a short run through a known area of unknown obstacles. Distance traveled is still a factor.
To use a road travel analogy, from my house in Washington State, it's easier to find Disneyland in California than my brother's apartment. (There are two more turns to find his place) so the difficulty of the navigation to Disneyland would be lower, but the trip takes much much more time because the total distance traveled is so much longer. |
That is correct if you're operating on the assumption that distance matters. If there were absolutely no limitation on speed or acceleration, you could get to Disneyland just as fast as you could get to your brother's apartment. That is what I am reading into the SW-understanding of the hyperdrive; that in hyperspace you can go as fast as you want so long as you don't crash into things. 'Speed' is not so much determined by one's engines as the quality of one's nav computer and the routes chosen to travel.
Now, I don't want to overstate my case; sure distance matters somewhat, but mostly because in long distances there is more room for more stuff to have to avoid. That and because there are some speed limitations. Distance is just not the primary or secondary factor in determining how long it takes one to get from point A to point B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:32 am Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | The 'return' is the gain. In this case what is gained is the diminishing of the difficulty to the astrogation roll by increasing the length of the trip. Given that the cost in the RAW (an hour for every point of diminished difficulty) is absolute, the longer the trip, the lower the cost. In other words, you have a increasing return on investment the longer you want to travel. But is that what you want?
|
I'd like to see a difficulty reduction of 1 per 10% travel time added, is all. | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: |
| Fallon Kell wrote: | I imagine its any obstacle that causes you to have to change the course from a straight line that slows you down. Known areas of uncharted hazards would slow you down more or divert you farther, but if you have to charge through a massively convoluted course of known obstacles, it might take longer than a short run through a known area of unknown obstacles. Distance traveled is still a factor.
To use a road travel analogy, from my house in Washington State, it's easier to find Disneyland in California than my brother's apartment. (There are two more turns to find his place) so the difficulty of the navigation to Disneyland would be lower, but the trip takes much much more time because the total distance traveled is so much longer. |
That is correct if you're operating on the assumption that distance matters. If there were absolutely no limitation on speed or acceleration, you could get to Disneyland just as fast as you could get to your brother's apartment. That is what I am reading into the SW-understanding of the hyperdrive; that in hyperspace you can go as fast as you want so long as you don't crash into things. 'Speed' is not so much determined by one's engines as the quality of one's nav computer and the routes chosen to travel.
Now, I don't want to overstate my case; sure distance matters somewhat, but mostly because in long distances there is more room for more stuff to have to avoid. That and because there are some speed limitations. Distance is just not the primary or secondary factor in determining how long it takes one to get from point A to point B. |
I see where you're going with this, but how does that stand up against different hyperdrive classes, especially with backup hyperdrives being so slow? If speed isn't a limiting factor, then why can't you go as fast with a slow hyperdrive? And why can't you cover the vast emptiness between galaxies faster than the convoluted hyperlanes of known space?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:43 am Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'd like to see a difficulty reduction of 1 per 10% travel time added, is all. |
I think that's what we've been in agreement on.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I see where you're going with this, but how does that stand up against different hyperdrive classes, especially with backup hyperdrives being so slow? If speed isn't a limiting factor, then why can't you go as fast with a slow hyperdrive? And why can't you cover the vast emptiness between galaxies faster than the convoluted hyperlanes of known space? |
Good points. Another would be why bother with hyperlanes at all; why not fly around the galaxy rather than through it? Why be a cruise missile when you can be a ballistic missile?
Like I said, I'm not ignoring distance completely. When I plotted the hyperroutes for my nav computer I assigned distances based on the hyperroute, and how much I imagined it would be traveled, but also on the distance that the two systems looked on the map. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'd like to see a difficulty reduction of 1 per 10% travel time added, is all. |
I think that's what we've been in agreement on.
|
I thought garhkal had proposed diminishing returns.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:17 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'd like to see a difficulty reduction of 1 per 10% travel time added, is all. |
I think that's what we've been in agreement on.
|
I thought garhkal had proposed diminishing returns. |
I must have missed that one. I like your 10% suggestion.
Now, I'm not sure about the strictness of the subforums here. If we're going to discuss house-ruling astrogation, should I start up a new thread or just continue here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:48 pm Post subject: Re: Astrogation rules |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'd like to see a difficulty reduction of 1 per 10% travel time added, is all. |
I think that's what we've been in agreement on.
|
I thought garhkal had proposed diminishing returns. |
I must have missed that one. I like your 10% suggestion.
Now, I'm not sure about the strictness of the subforums here. If we're going to discuss house-ruling astrogation, should I start up a new thread or just continue here? |
Some people would probably appreciate a new thread for it... People like me wouldn't notice it was in the wrong spot unless it was pointed out to them!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A simple compromise between the RAW, and a % time reduction would be a 4.166% recution per point(!). It might look clmsy, but this works out to 1 hour per point per day of the trip. So it would be 1 hour for a 1 day trip, 2 hours for a 2 day trip, 5 hours for a 5 day trip and so on. This would give ups the best of both worlds while giving up numbers that we can easily do in our heads.
For short trips of under 1 day (24 hurs) we could just change the bonus to the number of points required for 1 hour reduction, based on 24/hours..
12h = 2 points/hour
8h= 3 points/hour
6h= 4 points/hour
5h=5 points/hour
4hr= 6 points/hour
3hr=8 points/hour
2hr=12 points/hour
1hr= 24 points per hour |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | A simple compromise between the RAW, and a % time reduction would be a 4.166% recution per point(!). It might look clmsy, but this works out to 1 hour per point per day of the trip. So it would be 1 hour for a 1 day trip, 2 hours for a 2 day trip, 5 hours for a 5 day trip and so on. This would give ups the best of both worlds while giving up numbers that we can easily do in our heads.
For short trips of under 1 day (24 hurs) we could just change the bonus to the number of points required for 1 hour reduction, based on 24/hours..
12h = 2 points/hour
8h= 3 points/hour
6h= 4 points/hour
5h=5 points/hour
4hr= 6 points/hour
3hr=8 points/hour
2hr=12 points/hour
1hr= 24 points per hour |
That's good thinking, but maybe it should just be 5% for the benefit of math haters...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: |
That's good thinking, but maybe it should just be 5% for the benefit of math haters... |
I thought that 1 hour per day is easier for "math haters" than 5%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: |
That's good thinking, but maybe it should just be 5% for the benefit of math haters... |
I thought that 1 hour per day is easier for "math haters" than 5%. |
...I guess it depends on whether you're getting your original info in hours or days and hours mixed...
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | [ guess it depends on whether you're getting your original info in hours or days and hours mixed... |
Yes, it certainly does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
