[Discussion] Year 2016 Revision on FTL speeds.

[Fred]

I've been hearing mutterings that some people were still discontented with the state of FTL, especially in context to the very short transit times and incongruities those present.

I won't say those are not absent. Previous attempts to mitigate this - rescaling the starmap/adopting the star cluster map - have not really left the landing pad.

So, well, the easiest way of attending that concern kind of sounds like another cut in the speed standards could be needed.

The easiest way I figured on how to proceed would be to slash the values down by 60. Meaning that anything on the wiki which is listed as "per minute" becomes "per hour". That way, we avoid being too adjustment intensive on our wiki edits.

For example, the Plumeria may be affected so:

• Plumeria Fold, 1ly per hour: 8766c (several times above Warp 9 (~1500c), Star Trek TNG)
• Plumeria CFS speed: 365c (slightly above Warp 7, Star Trek TOS)

Considering CFS-values are hit the hardest, I also contemplated making anything already "per hour" instead "per day"; which would divide CFS values - those hit hardest - by 24 instead of 60.

The Plumeria's CFS speed would then be about 912.5c (nearly Warp 10 in Star Trek TOS).

Approval? Second-opinion? Other ideas? Disapproval? Please discuss below.

 

[Zack]

This failed last time for exactly the reasons I voiced concern about: Little though was given to how this affects RP

Another round of arbitrary speed reductions is a waste of everyone's time. A speed is set for FTL and transit speed is largely governed by the nebulously defined hill sphere rules.

If you want to do this right .Come up with a vision for how travel should work and then figure out how to make rules that encourage that.

 

[Fred]

My time is mine to waste. If others want to come along to indulge it, they can chose to do so as well. Your choice if you don't want to.

My focus is currently just trying to minimize the impact of the change on the wiki, while mostly keeping the same proportions. The CFS speeds divided by 24 would make CFS somewhat more relevant than it was in comparison to Fold. This is mostly mechanical.

I think what bothered people the most were the "ludicrous travel speeds" (takes less time to travel to another star system than to bike to a drugstore from home) and possible interception/staging of pirate attacks (I think - that's what I remember from awhile ago).

 

[Doshii Jun]

I dunno. I'd like it to be a map problem ... but we're shafted any way we do it. Big change however we try, y'know?

 

[Nashoba]

I am for making it take longer to get from one place to another. I had originally proposed something not that different from what Fred is proposing. I think changing the speeds is easier than remaking the map.

The insane speeds we have is one of the reasons I originally came up with the Submerged Space for the clan which had built in hazards, the faster a ship went, the more stress it encountered. So high speed travel was a balance of necessity vs risk. Sadly it was summarily rejected without discussion and the no new FTL method rule put in place.

 

[raz]

I'm for slowing down FTL to the point that it'd about a week or two tops to go from one end of known space to the other. Anything slower would, imo, be just as unbelievable as what we have now when the setting's history is considered.

 

[Fred]

The starmap (at the moment) ought to be something like 240 light years across horizontally.

As alluded with values stated in my opening post:
That means that for a slower ship - like a military freighter - going at half the Plumeria's hyperspace fold speed (let's just say 0.5ly per hour), it'd take 480 hours to go across. That's twenty days. A 1ly/h ship with hyperspace drive like the Plumeria would cover that in half the time, just under two weeks.

For CFS, if we take a fast ship around the Plumeria's speed and give it the kindest of the two dividers I mentioned (hour converted to day - therefore, 2ly per day), it'd take ~4 months to go across the starmap. That's for a fast ship. A shuttle with "fast" FTL capabilities might cover 0.5ly a day (208c, Warp 6 in Star Trek TOS) - 16 months going across the starmap.

A more practical example could be a shuttle going from Yamatai to Nataria which would be around 8 light years away; you'd be looking at a 16 days of travel time. The same Plumeria-like ship would cover the same distance using its CFS in 4 days, for using its fold drive: 8 hours.

Edit: I just realized the Plumeria's FTL current speed was 1ly/m, not 2. Whoops.

 

[Khasidel]

I also agree that FTL speed should probably be reduced somewhat so that travel time between most locations takes days or weeks rather than minutes or hours -- longer travel time between locations would be a convenient explanation why so few missions or RP plot events take place each IC year.

Though beyond a lower speed limit for FTL being set, I'd also like some other details about FTL to be discussed and set in stone to make things less a mish-mash and confusing mess of contradictory details and features. Some of details of FTL we already have rules for, though those rules appeared to have been introduced in a somewhat ad hoc fashion and don't make too much logical sense (at least from what I can determine). Discussing them, properly fleshing them out and setting exact limits/rules for FTL drives would be -- in my opinion -- a good idea.

1. How fast are the drives?
Fred's initial topic for discussion. Frankly, having travel time between most worlds as mere minutes makes things ridiculous under most conditions -- though I can accept it under certain limited circumstances (short distance FTL or with single-destination gates).

Currently, we mainly have hyperspace fold drives, CDD and other 'warp'-style drives, and the less frequently utilized 'wormhole'-style FTL method like the Hidden Sun clan possess.

Speed limits stand as thus:

Hyperspace Fold
Very advanced civilizations (part of the setting for 5+ years?) are capped at 0.75 light-years per minute (excepting Yamatai whose Plumeria and a few other 'scout' and 'escort' classes are listed as higher).
Advanced civilizations (part of the setting for 2-4 years?) are capped at .6 light-years per minute.
Standard civilizations (recent additions to the setting) are capped at 0.45 light-years per minute.

Continuum Distortion Drives
Very advanced civilizations are capped at ~2.14 light-years per hour (18,750c).
Advanced civilizations are capped at ~1.71 light-years per hour (15,000c).
Standard civilizations are capped at ~1.28 light-years per hour (11,250c).

Wormhole Drives
Natural wormholes; travel time = Distance^2 x Pi.
'Wild' artificial wormholes; Instantaneous travel from travellers perspective while actual travel time is 5-20 Minutes per LY
Gate wormholes; 10 light-years per second.

My recommendations for changes would be:
Hyperspace Fold; simply swap "light-years per minute" for "light-years per hour" with the current values.
CDD; reduce speeds to about a tenth what they are currently. IE, 0.25 ly/h for very advanced civs, 0.2 ly/h for advanced civs and 0.15 ly/h for standard civs.
Wormholes; the natural-type are fine in my opinion, as are the gates if they're limited to targeting other gates. The artificial 'wild' wormholes would be fine as well so long as there are fair limits to the range/recharge times for the drives so that its not too far above or below the effective speeds of the more commonly utilized hyperspace drives.

Beyond this point are other things I'd like to see discussed -- but perhaps not by hijacking this thread for the purpose It's not really necessary for the topic so feel free to tl;dr it.

2. How quickly can FTL drives be used?
Currently there are no set limits/rules for how long any form of FTL drives needs to charge up/cool down prior to reuse or how long it takes to plot their trip via computer, etc. There are some self-imposed limitations on a few versions of FTL drives (Nashoba seems fond on putting range and charging time limits for his submissions), but these appear to follow no official rules and were seemingly put together on the spot by each article creator for flavour.

For dramatic purposes it can be a useful RP element if starships aren't always ready to escape into hyperspace or flee a system at a moments notice. It also adds opportunities for things to happen en route to a destination if a ship needs to periodically drop out of FTL -- freighters can be attacked by pirates rather than coasting all the way to their destinations safely in hyperspace.

My recommendations:

Hyperspace
Very advanced civilizations; 3 ly/m charging time and a maximum jump range of 125 LY (just under a week of continuous travel time at 0.75ly/h)
Advanced civilizations; 2 ly/m charging time and a maximum jump range of 100 LY (just under a week of continuous travel time at 0.6ly/h)
Standard civilizations; 1 ly/m charging time and a maximum jump range of 75 LY (just under a week of continuous travel time at 0.45ly/h)

Wormholes
If we make it so wormhole travel is instantaneous then the following charging/range limitations would make the technology approximately equivalent my hyperspace drive recommendations:

Very advanced civilizations; 0.75 ly/h charging time and a maximum range of 125 LY.
Advanced civilizations; 0.6 ly/h charging time and a maximum range of 100 LY.
Standard civilizations; 0.45 ly/h charging time and a maximum range of 75 LY.

CDD
I'd leave it as more-or-less instantaneous or set at a small time of a minute or so for a ship to 'shift-gears' from STL travel to FTL.

3. How accurate are the drives?
A useful RP mechanic is that FTL travel need not always be perfectly accurate in getting a ship to its destination. We generally have ships always dropping out of FTL right on the perfect edge of the FTL limit for a given planet -- but what if getting close to a planets gravity well were dangerous for ships in FTL so they usually drop out a little early? Or coming out on the edge is a difficult feat for pilots or technology to perform so generally only military ships can do it? Having the possibility that -- depending on the tech level of a ship or the skills of its helmsman -- a ship might be forced to travel by STL for a longer period may add tension in RP situations where time is a valuable commodity.

I would recommend making dropping out of FTL right on the edge of the FTL limit of a planet a dangerous affair -- possible but risky. Generally ships should come out at 150-200% the FTL limit for safety's sake unless its an emergency or some sort. Whether or not the attempt is successful would be up to the GM.

Alternatively, one could make getting up close to the planet a tech-based affair. More advanced races might be able to risk coming out close to the planet more easily thanks to better sensors or drives -- ie, very advanced civs can come to a planet right on the hyper limit, advanced civs can come out at 150% and standard civs need to drop out at 200% the base limit.

4. Hyperspace.
Hyperspace itself is poorly described on the wiki -- there is little-to-no information available on the wiki about how it appears for individuals travelling through it, limitations for ships while operating there, possible side-effects for being there? Are there exotic particles? Navigation hazards? 'Currents' and 'eddies' caused by the shadow masses of planets and nebulae, influencing a ships course as they travel through it, requiring navigators to take those into consideration as they plot courses? Putting that sort of info and perhaps adding a more fleshed out visual description of hyperspace in the hyperspace travel article might be a good thing.

5. Current FTL Limits
Having a planetary FTL limit I believe is a good thing, though the particular planetary feature chosen to be the universal limit is in my opinion somewhat bizarre -- the roche limit/hill sphere currently used is a feature determined by the gravitational balancing act between one large body and another smaller one and can vary wildly depending on size and distance between these planetary bodies. It doesn't really make logical sense for this particular value to be a planets FTL limit -- two planets of equal size and mass can have greatly different FTL limits simply due to the presence, size and proximity of one or more moons. Gas giants are particularly variable, with hill spheres potentially multiple AU in diameter.

A more simplified version would be simply to declare a planets FTL limit as 100 or 200 times the diameter of the world, or use a simple universal equation -- make the FTL limit equal in millions of kilometers 4.482 x the mass of the world in earth masses or something

6. FTL Fuel
The usage of fuel and reaction mass is largely glossed over or conveniently bypassed for STL travel as keeping track of that kind of thing can be a pain in the butt for some -- but requiring special fuel for making FTL/STL possible can also be a useful RP mechanic. It's an operating expense civilian characters would need to take into consideration for their business and a logistical problem for military vessels if they can't travel too far beyond known space without a supply line in place or else the means to periodically synthesize new fuel for themselves.

The fuel could be some form of exotic particle or catalyst that the FTL drive needs to function, or something simpler like a real-life element like hydrogen or uranium in large quantities. I'd recommend a discussion to consider adding something along those lines, but that's for someplace else I guess.

Anyway, enough wall-of-text from me I need to make some actual rp posts

 

[Fred]

Khasidel makes a number of compelling points. I myself as GM have my own prefered interpretation to the way FTL speed ought to be like at least in relation to my plot; many things about the way Wes has established it as have "aged poorly". However, the way I believe this needs to be attented is to create a test case, apply changes to a test case (a plotship) and if we can demonstrate it evidently works better, then propose applying the changes to the rest of the setting.

So, Khasidel, I'm interested, but I think covering this here would bog down the actual objective. Feel free to hit me up so we can talk about it later.

Now, for what Khasidel presented regarding the thread's topic:

My recommendations for changes would be:
Hyperspace Fold; simply swap "light-years per minute" for "light-years per hour" with the current values.
CDD; reduce speeds to about a tenth what they are currently. IE, 0.25 ly/h for very advanced civs, 0.2 ly/h for advanced civs and 0.15 ly/h for standard civs.
Wormholes; the natural-type are fine in my opinion, as are the gates if they're limited to targeting other gates. The artificial 'wild' wormholes would be fine as well so long as there are fair limits to the range/recharge times for the drives so that its not too far above or below the effective speeds of the more commonly utilized hyperspace drives.

Regarding Hyperspace, this fits the model I presented earlier:
Covering the horizontal span of the Starmap would take a Plumeria (1ly/h) 240 hours, which is 10 days/1.5 week. On the other hand, the same Plumeria could cover the 8 light year distance between Yamatai and Nataria in 8 hours.

This qualifies for Raz's preference that going across the current map take 1 or 2 weeks.

CDD-style FTL ends up being faster than my earlier suggestion:
The Plumeria, going at 0.25ly/h, could cover 240 light years in 960 hours, which is almost 6 weeks. The Yamatai-Nataria 8ly trip would take a day's travel.
A shuttle capable of going at 0.05 ly/h would take 5 days (5 times longer) to do the Yamatai-Nataria trip.

This is significantly faster than my previous proposal. I think this may be better as it is less extreme on the lower end for a shuttle: a 5-days'-trip feels doable

Also, this could set an handy rule of thumb: Hyperspace is four times faster than CDD as proposed by Khasidel

I can't really pronounce myself in regard to wormholes. As far as I'm concerned, they go at the speed of plot. Nashoba may have set different standards: I haven't paid attention to them.

 

[Rizzo]

I like the idea of stress on the ship. It would make sense that at least the device(whichever may apply) propelling the ship would see more stress as it is pushed harder, especially for vessels with great mass like battleships and carriers.

Space is massive, far greater than anything humanity can observe. I feel that the setting hasn't really kept that scope, space feels small(and safe, too).

 

[Khasidel]

Indeed -- that's part of the reason the 2D existing map bugs me as well. Sure, it's easy-enough to read in the current format but a conventional 2D starmap isn't even remotely realistic unless you were drawing it on a more-or-less galactic scale.

Additionally; if the density of stars was anything like space around Earth and the Sol system, there should be approximately 150-200 stars (if not more) within every 50 cubic light-years... though about 70-80% of those would probably be red or brown dwarfs. I like to pretend that only important or relevant stars are those shown on the map -- and there are more than simply aren't displayed because they'd haven't been visited or there's nothing of significance around them.

 

[raz]

Indeed -- that's part of the reason the 2D existing map bugs me as well. Sure, it's easy-enough to read in the current format but a conventional 2D starmap isn't even remotely realistic unless you were drawing it on a more-or-less galactic scale.

+1 there. Sometimes it's fun to fudge long trips in RP by adding a few hours due to the Z plane that ought to be there. Not sure how we'd make a 3D map easily editable, if there were even a simple way to create one in the first place.

Additionally; if the density of stars was anything like space around Earth and the Sol system, there should be approximately 150-200 stars (if not more) within every 50 cubic light-years... though about 70-80% of those would probably be red or brown dwarfs. I like to pretend that only important or relevant stars are those shown on the map -- and there are more than simply aren't displayed because they'd haven't been visited or there's nothing of significance around them.

Don't think you need to pretend. With a few exceptions, the Star Map has always been populated by systems that are charted. There are a few instances in RP, too, that provide an IC basis for having many more systems and different star charts with them mapped. I think that's the justification behind Zack's 188 deal.

 

[Zack]

As far as 188604 goes, I haven't decided where to place it on the map yet, though I have a rough idea of kinda where it would go.

I've been torn between putting it on the map so I can be close to things I want to interact with, and placing it way off of the map so I can get a weighty travel time and isolate it a bit.

Though my understanding is that anyone can request a system be added to the starmap anywhere they like within reason.

 

[Fred]

We're going on a tangent here, but...

Sometimes, I kind of wish the Star Map was actually an hyperspace map instead. When I was a kid, I played a game called Star Control II, where you had your ship go in hyperspace, and you were essentially flying over an effervescent "plain" of portals leading to star systems and once you'd reach your destination, you'd drop into them. I fantasized that the 'holes/portals' on the hyperspace 'plane' were the result of 'gravity shadows' - basically the gravity generated by the star systems themselves up to a point prevented hyperspace travel, which justified why when you were in normal space you had to go to the outskirts of a star system to actually jump into hyperspace (this impression was supported by bigger stars - usually with more planets - having bigger portals). And other ships trying to intercept you essentially were creating miniature gravity shadows, so if they could catch up to you, they'd force you both into normal space.

Crest/Banner of the Stars also presented planespace, and from the name I actually figured that the 'method of travel' was actually sending ships through special sweetspots ('sords') to reach a place that was actually 2-dimensional and that to survive in that realm, ships needed their planespace generators active to have a bubble of normal '3d' space. Indeed, if the planespace generator failed, ships were destroyed via being crushed.

I'm of the opinion that Wes' representation of hyperspace 'fold' as being teleporting from one point to another but actually also including an element of linear travel (cannot go through hazards/nebula) is something in my eyes which has not aged well (even Macross now goes for creating portals that lead to being in some 'tunnel'). Given the chance to run it as I'd like in my own plot I'd probably give my plotship a 'new execution on hyperspace travel', test it out, and if proven adequately functional, see if it can be applied beyond a plot if the idea is received well.

...that, though, is a different topic altogether. It's not that I'm not interested, but Wes was plain about not wanting other hyperspace methods, and I don't want a brainstorm going in that direction to bog down the purpose of this thread.

The topic is slowing down hyperspace travel speed in this setting to a point which would hopefully be an ideal sweetspot / not values which would have people eyeroll due to being too fast.
Right now, the proposal is:

• Convert hyperspace speed from lightyear per minute to lightyear per hour
• Convert CDD-based FTL travel by dividing it by ten.
• Based on the Plumeria, this may result on the standard of ship hyperspace travel speeds being 4 times higher than their CDD FTL speed. It could be an useful reference if we want to adopt it.

As alluded in the above examples, this results in:

• Using hyperspace travel, a 1ly/h fast Plumeria-class vessel traveling across the entire starmap horizontally would cross 240 light years in 960 hours (10 days).
• Using CDD faster-than-light travel, a 0.25ly/h fast Plumeria-class would cross the entire starmap horizontally in 40 days.
• Using hyperspace travel, a 1ly/h fast Plumeria-class vessel traveling from Yamatai to Nataria would cross the 8 light years in 8 hours.
• Using CDD faster-than-light travel, a 0.25ly/h fast Plumeria-class would cross the distance between Yamatai to Nataria in 32 hours.
• Using CDD faster-than-light travel, a 0.05ly/h fast Raccoon shuttle would cross that same distance in 160 hours (6.5 days).

From higher extremes to lower extremes, does this seem good?

 

[Nashoba]

Sounds promising.

As for the wormholes, there is a double standard that came about after I had to switch to that method of FTL.

Natural: a rate of one second per LY
Wild: Realtime = 5-20 Minutes per LY
Wormhole Gates: 10 LY/S

 

[Fred]

Well, one setting admin seems onboard, and no one really seems to have aired a negative opinion of the proposed changes.

@Wes can I ask you to weight in?

These would be the revisions:

• Convert hyperspace speed from lightyear per minute to lightyear per hour
• Convert CDD-based FTL travel by dividing it by ten.

Examples in application can also be seen in the second post above.

 

[Zack]

Can I reiterate my negative opinion?

This exact same thing has been tried before and it didn't work because no thought was given to how this would work in RP. An arbitrary change in speed was made, and it ended up having no impact on the setting as evidenced by the same people still complaining about the same problem.


But down to the specifics:

This change is drastic enough to change travel times to the far flung areas of the map, but doesn't really do anything for short term trips. With the nebulous hill-sphere rules in place travel times between Nepleslia and Yamatai (for example) jump from 3ish (1ish hours to leave the hill sphere, a few minutes to FTL over, and 1ish hours to STL through the next hill sphere) to maybe 4ish hours. That isn't something anyone is going to notice.

Then when you take a look at long term travel, plotships tend to gloss over that already, travel being some unspecified amount of time that allows for various social activities to take place. The travel time moving from 4ish hours to a day or two isn't going to have much of a result there either. You're basically going from a long RV trip to a cross country RP trip.

Worse yet, what does this do to the theme of the site? Generally its hyperspace for scooting around between planets, and CDD for slow precision work. With Hyperspace speed being brought in line with the CDD The two start to become kinda samey. It also looks like we may be duplicating the same speed for Wormholes and Hyperspace drives.

So what does that all mean?

In terms of travel time ICly, I don't think anyone will notice this change. From a technical standpoint it is hard to say exactly how it will change travel times between locations because FTL rules are already nebulously defined and need solid definitions. From a thematic standpoint, making all the FTL systems 'kinda samey' pushes the setting more towards comicbook/dr.who territory where anything goes.



Of course, instead of having to retcon existing history we could use the tools we already have to solve this problem

1) Upset about short travel times? Don't put your new planet right next to everything on the star map! The Kyoto sector has consistently been defined as a pretty dense area of space, full of life and habitable worlds. There is even plenty of backstory to imply that this might have been why Nepleslia and Yamatai were setup here in the first place.

2) Fix the FTL rules already: Just say no FTL within X distance of a star. You don't even have to give a technobable reason, just say that FTL drives don't work without giving a reason. At that point I could actually tell you what the travel time is between planets.

 

[Fred]

Obviously in-character the impact should be minimized. Obviously they'll use timeskips and get to their destinations mostly the same way as before.
It's in fact to our advantage to make sure that any retcon have a minimal impact. This means that it works. Little that we did before will be impacted in relevancy, while opportunities people thought our super-high speeds made us miss will have their concerns addressed.

You know just as well as I that people have often derided the FTL speeds in this setting. Some even think that the uber high speeds limit the potential for certain events to happen, make redeployments of forces too easy to reallocate. Considering it - this ridicule raised by well-read people - happens often, it's hard to discount that there might not be a benefit if some nice sweetspot can be found. If we can attain values that would be in general found to be more reasonable to any newcomer trying to delve into our speed standards, then we gain from it.

FTL being samey? That's never been the case: CDD is slower than fold and still would be. CDD can manage stealthy entries in-system and maneuvering through more hazardous terrain better.
As we've observed above, the best CDD achieves is a quarter of the speed hyperspace can manage.

Basically, Zack, your 'negative opinion' wasn't one. You made my point for me.
The only real argument you raise is about being conservative. Considering the purpose of the topic and the evidence supporting the change for the amount of time it was observed, that's not really much of one. I've already seen conservatism dashed to the side for lesser reasons in SARP; like how Wes changed neko hands to default back on five fingers so that artists would have an easier time drawing them right. Similar deal.

 

[Zack]

I don't think you understood my reasoning for why you were wrong the first time, and I don't you understand my reasoning for why you are still wrong now.

Is reducing speed by 60x better or worse than reducing it by x65? or x55? Just like before it doesn't seem like you've spent any time trying to figure that you, you've just thrown darts at the board and hoped for the best.

FTL being samey? We're within 4x the speed of one another now and it sounds like we're bringing wormholes in line with Hyperspace, which means everything is within an order of magnitude of one another. Players and GMs probably aren't going to care too much about which one they use going forward. The issue here is a thematic one, like yelling 'maximum warp' on the bridge of the galactica. (Preferably I'd see it knocked down to just everyone using Hyperspace and nothing else, but I think that's too big a change for most people)



The argument that things are too close together is certainly brought up by people, but I would hold off on calling them well read. Remember we already have the nebulously defined hill sphere group which makes reinforcements already at least 2 hours away from any point not even counting FTL travel time. This argument feels like people are complaining that France is too close to Germany so tense events can't happen. Just about every Sci-Fi series has had this problem at some point so instead of finagling their FTL rules they just move everything further out. Star Trek had Voyager and DS9, Stargate had Universe, Battlestar Galactica had time travel (ok, so they went into the past and had to hide on earth or whatever... but same deal: the fleet is far away and they are on their own). There is clearly no shortage of tense events on SARP and if you want a specific tense event to happen it makes more sense to just do it in your plot rather than start making arbitrary changes to things and hope for the best.


The argument here isn't conservatism, it is to do this in a way that won't fail like you have in the past again and again.

 

[Wes]

Well, my point of view is I kind of like the way things are right now, and I would rather avoid retcons and the work that they'd take to implement (wiki edits, etc). Unless we're talking power armor. I'm all for making power armor less starfighter like and more actual armor-like. That said, I would much rather reduce speed than increase distances between systems. I'm just not sure I'd like something so drastic. Also, I would back having a single FTL system in SARP (preferably hyperspace folds).