• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

[Discussion] Year 2016 Revision on FTL speeds.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wes said:
Also, I would back having a single FTL system in SARP (preferably hyperspace folds).
Click to expand...

Is there any practical reason to ever use the slower speed? I know Yamatai isn't the only tech base and that others might not have access to both current methods. But still, I've never run into a ship ever using the slower method since there's absolutely IC or OOC reason not to.

Wes said:
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).
Click to expand...

Do you view the current speeds as ideal partly because we already arrived here through compromise and retcon previously? Just wondering.
 
Is there any practical reason to ever use the slower speed?
Click to expand...
Not really, no. There was back when we had anti-FTL fields (hyperspace was blocked more easily) but that's no longer a thing.
Do you view the current speeds as ideal partly because we already arrived here through compromise and retcon previously? Just wondering.
Click to expand...
Partly, but also because I find the speeds work fine for me already.
 
Zack said:
it is to do this in a way that won't fail like you have in the past again and again
Click to expand...
And that's where your argument loses any validity.

The previous retcon to FTL speeds wasn't a failure. It was a success. In fact, a resounding one. The very fact that Wes' likes the way it is right now and that people have managed with it well attest to that.
It was successful even today, as a revision is discussed, because as I see it, it is a part of a staggered change (basically, we could only go so far back then). One where it is done to the point where a sweet spot can be found where current roleplays are not greatly affected while offering values more palateable to the detractors.

Sorry, but I just feel circuitous arguments done out of endurance is a waste of time. I've heard you already. I don't agree. I've defeated your arguments. You're repeating the same things, the same obvious things to questions that have already been answered will not change that.

Wes said:
I'm just not sure I'd like something so drastic.
Click to expand...
Wes, if a retcon does happen, switching minute to hour and dividing CDD by 10 is about as gentle as it can be. Zack's already proven how IC change will probably be minimal to past roleplays considering we gloss over travel times; and we do gain on the logistics-side of things with more credibility on the elements scorned by the people that complained about this.

My point is, Wes, that when you have people not getting further involved in the community citing the reason as our intro article and character creation guides... when that happens, you respond. Now, in the Staff Forum (I can't greatly elaborate on that) there was a demonstration of how our FTL speeds were a flaw hindering our player retention. Just like it was worth making a change 10 years ago, I think it's worth staggering another change now since we are ready to deal with that impact. It's a contrast our narrative can survive, while addressing the complaints.

The bright side also is that if we go through with this one, there will be no room for the complaints. We'll have invalidated most of them, transit-wise. No more instant reinforcements, no more travel between system likened to taking as long as a car trip to the drugstore.

Having ships with only hyperspace capability is fairly easy: just allow upcoming vessels to only pack the one system and not make it look like lacking CDD is a flaw. Perhaps slate CDD to still be around as the "poor man's fold drive" while hyperspace can do anything CDD does, but better. That could be handwaved as simply advancement in hyperspace technology, without any retcon required on that front.
 
Last edited:
Just a little bit of a history lesson as to how we got the current FTL speeds.

People were complaining that it was too easy to get from one place to another just like they are now.

Fred proposed a speed revision that arbitrarily cut the speed down just like he is proposing now.

Of course, he didn't bother to do the math on it. The speed revision added only seconds of travel time between the major worlds, and a few minutes of travel time across the setting.

The problem Fred intended to address was not solved and everyone had to do a lot of work to accomplish nothing. Worse yet, Fred doesn't seem to understand why that last effort didn't work nor does he seem to understand that it didn't work as the same people are still complaining about the same problem.

--

As much as Fred complains about instant reinforcements, the FTL rules already prevent that by adding another hour worth of STL travel time going in and out of a system.
 
Worse yet, Fred doesn't seem to understand why that last effort didn't work nor does he seem to even understand that it didn't work because the same people are still complaining about the same problem.
Click to expand...
Fred said:
(basically, we could only go so far back then)
Click to expand...
Made my point already.
Raising a contradictory argument on the purpose of the thread's goal is not constructive - whether it makes the cut later on is the province of the setting admins. Trying to propose a better sweetspot that would reach acceptability would. For someone whom claims I failed, you sure are coming short on 'better ideas'.

It's too easy to point other people's effort being lesser when you do nothing but second-doubt.
Please be constructive.

As much as Fred complains
Click to expand...
I don't complain. I raise a fact. Other people have validly raised it as a problem. There are ways to fix it.
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
Zack's already proven how IC change will probably be minimal to past roleplays considering we gloss over travel times...
Click to expand...

I'd like to see some kind of easily explained scientific event that marginally decreases FTL speed if a marginal OOC decrease does happen. It could be as simple as a SANDRA post. Calculated travel times have been stated in RP—the values are there for GMs to do the math for inclusion in the narrative—and it'd save the need to retcon anything. It's more accurate to say travel events are glossed over than time, on a general site-wide scale.

Honestly, kind of sympathetic to the "we already did this and have the result" argument, though. Not that I'm opposed to a change, as I think I've shown, but the situation almost feels like it's happening simply because enough years have passed OOC to try again when there's really no huge problem. Like a legislator calling another vote on an issue they're passionate about because they know there's a window for their interest's success. Not really a hangup for me, though, and I guess it's rambling at this point.

EDIT: increase>decrease rofl
 
Last edited:
As I have stated before, you are not proposing a sweet spot, you are proposing an arbitrary reduction in speed. This will change things sure, but will it solve the problem? Do we even know what we want thematically for travel between worlds?

The major problem here is that you're doing the exact same thing you did last time and expecting a different result.

We're in the area of needing to decide on the thematic elements of the site. Is SARP a collection of worlds that are kinda like Europe? Everything is a short drive away?

Is traveling between worlds a long and daunting task like sending a naval fleet halfway across the world?

How do ships even go between worlds in the first place? I think the general consensus is that you can FTL from place to place fairly quickly, but then you have to approach the planet at STL speeds, though this is nebulously defined.

--

Fixing the problem requires first having an understanding of what we're trying to do. In this case I think the easiest solution is to formalize the rules regarding FTL travel. No FTL within X distance of a star would seem to be a good start, we would just need to determine how large that distance would need to be in order to get the results we want.
 
IC justification seems cool to me too, @raz

I'll defend 'staggered change' by saying that going from 20 light years per minute (Sakura-class original speed) to 1 light year per hour (as proposed currently) would have been unthinkable. It's not a change that could have been done back then as it would have greatly impacted our ongoing roleplays.

Now that the bar is lower, though, going 1-light-year-per-minute to 1-light-year-per-hour enters the realm of 'doable-ness'. Zack raises the idea that the choice is haphazard, but it makes for the easiest wiki edits, and the changes happen to be relateable to travel speeds in other sci-fi genre that deal with space travel well enough (the ones I quoted so far are Star Trek warp factors). Examples/concept-put-into-practice in the form of crossing the whole starmap and going from one nearby system to another have also been made from upper extremes and lower extremes.
 
Reactions: raz
During the last big FTL revision, we could have set any speed we wanted. You pushed for an arbitrarily lower speed and it didn't have the results anyone wanted.

Now you're saying this will be better because the change is easier to make.

However, if the change isn't going to have the intended results in the first place does it matter how easy the change is to make?

I see lots of numbers that you quoted, yes, but I don't see any understanding of how it will impact the setting. What elements are we trying to change exactly? How are these 'had to create dramatic events' going to be any easier to create with this new speed? You're still going to have people complaining that planets are too close together. You have even agreed with my assessment that this change probably won't do anything. I also think 'Well Star Trek is doing it' is a terrible excuse for making changes to the setting.
 
Part of Fred's motivation seems to be from wanting it for his plot. On the flip side, Zack, do you oppose it because of any negative consequences on your plot? Do any current GMs foresee slightly slower FTL transit causing RP problems? Everyone posting here is essentially a Yamatai GM/FM or player. We've got Nashoba speaking for the Poku but what about the Nepleslian opinion? Or the foxboys? Do they even care or is this just a SAoY player discussion that would impact everything?

I think these are important questions. There's no real reason to be conservative here unless it harms RP because, as has been discussed, the change is quite minor and would hopefully come with in-character justification. Unless, like, Wes just flat out says "no."
 
I don't need it for my plot. Though I'd see the changes as positive, I don't need any of this. I'm just taking the initiative with problems I've seen on Staff level.

Zack also remembers incorrectly. 10ish years ago, a thread like this was made and people negociated for a sweet spot back then. Was I a driving force? Yes. But the 1ly/m speed was a compromise, nothing more. His statement that I am basing off this change after Star Trek is also incorrect. Saying "oh, turning 2.5ly/h to 0.25ly/h is 2191c, about the same being slightly above Warp 9 in Star Trek" is just an handy scifi genre comparison.

I agree that input from other FMs might be desirable. That's @Kyle, @DocTomoe and @Luca if I am not mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: raz
What Zack remembers is that last time we tried this everyone wanted speeds to be reduced (Myself included).

The disagreement was who was going to edit their speeds first. No one trusted Yamatai GMs to edit their speeds last because everyone was certain they would edit in higher speeds than everyone else.

Assurances were given, and the Yamatai GMs went ahead and edited their speeds as higher anyways.

--

Would this affect 188604? Yes but I haven't placed the star system yet so I have some wiggle room. This will mostly impact cross-plot stuff and does throw a bit of a wrench into the I'ee and skelliton ensemble cross overs.

---

But, I oppose this because it is another poorly thought out change. I would prefer speed retcons to the setting be done right, that thought be put into how we want FTL to work thematically, and that lay out solid FTL rules first before we try and retcon speed.

There are already tools in place to solve this problem that we can try using and even Fred seems to agree this change won't solve the problem.
 
Zack said:
even Fred seems to agree this change won't solve the problem
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

Fred said:
Though I'd see the changes as positive
Click to expand...
I just said the very opposite.

I'd appreciate if you could stop wasting our time. You made your opinion clear and yet to rag and rag and rag on about it, you're being insufferable.
You're the only person whom has raised a fuss about this so far. All other contributions have been either positive or tentatively positive. You don't have to approve of it, but neither do you have to disapprove in a way like you're trying to fill in the shoes of several people while doing so.

Now, we're trying to ask other FMs their input.
 
Last edited:
I'd appreciate if you could stop wasting our time. You made your opinion clear and yet to rag and rag and rag on about it, you're being insufferable.
Click to expand...
I have to agree here. We should step back and cool off, and let other people a chance to have their say. Let's not make this into a personal argument.
 
I've been reading and now I'm thinking(typically done in said order) the question of how we want the setting to feel is very important, probably more so than set numbers.
How do we want SARP to feel?
What do we want to think when we close our eyes and see a technical wonder take to the stars or a powerful starship set out into the infinite abyss of stars?
What is every sailor's spouse shouting as they watch the vessel carrying their significant other sail away into the desolate void of deep space?
"Farwell my sweet love, and come home safe!"
...maybe something along those lines? I'd imagine space as being one of those places we think of as very dangerous. Walk outside without a helmet and tell me I'm wrong.
Right now I can see those spouses saying "Don't forget milk!" as if it's no big deal that one incorrectly placed zero or minor miscalculation will cost the lives of everyone on that ship.

There's no feeling of risk, or distance, or goddamned romance in relation to space. It's literally the most boring part of the setting for me. That's partially my fault, I made a character that only feels at home in space. My bad. But honestly, are we able to argue that space should feel small? Just a minor part of the setting?
I think everyone can agree that space travel should feel adventurous and intimidating.

Perhaps a speed revision isn't the answer. Maybe it is. I'm no authority on transit times but I do know about machinery, both industrial, automotive and residential. The harder you push anything the easier it is to break it. Maybe you can travel at 1 Ly/m. Just because you can doesn't mean you should! It's my opinion(experience) that reaching a vehicle's absolute top speed is never a good idea. Eventually the tachometer needle passes the red line and if your RPMs stay there-BOOM! And now your out 2 grand or more for repairs.

Regardless of whether we all agree on a speed revision or not I'll support the decision. I strongly believe that we should consider making stress a major factor in Aerospace performance.
 
Honestly, as somebody actually still new here, reducing it by the amounts she suggests seems more than reasonable, and more importantly, gives borders MEANING in the setting.

Right now borders really serve no purpose. FTL can't be interdicted, it can't be stopped, and at the speeds they go, there's no reason why the map wouldn't basically be a 'grab what you can get' function rather than steadily spreading out to encompass the nearest star systems first.
 
@Wes
At least two of the aforementioned FMs have had the opportunity to show up and post in this thread, and haven't. They should have gotten the alerts, but didn't bother to quip in.
So, I guess we'll move on.

Given that, I'd like to know - if a reduction of our FTL speeds is something you want done.
I know you posted this before, given the above discussion - who supported it (including Nashoba, a setting admin), the objections of who didn't - has your position changed? You also did say you found the changes proposed drastic, but did not elaborate on what hyperspace/CDD reductions of might have been more reasonable to you.

Either way, there was an obvious desire to re-explore the thematics. I avoided getting into it because I wanted for this thread to remain focused to its topic, but if you're open to it, we can explore it further. Perhaps thematics do need to be explored first, and the matter of FTL speeds ought to be put on ice until then. Just let me know what you want regarding this.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Wes, and with Fred, in that a speed reduction would assist the site thematically.

Zack mentioned that previously, this suffered because of a lack of trust between GMs and FMs of different factions - everybody was waiting to see who would have the fastest ships. However, that fact (fact?) seems to be only for the bragging rights, and that's not really what we're here for. Ultimately we're trying to tell a good story and I've sometimes run into problems with storytelling about the speeds of ships, and I've had to creatively slow them down somehow before, so I think I can feel (at least a little bit) where this proposal is coming from.

Although I've only been back and nosing around for a little bit, I don't see any more open hostility between the current FMs. I think the site, having cut some of the chaff, is ready to move on and tackle bigger and better things. We're far beyond the idea of player factions being hostile to one another, and on the few occasions that a plot has international hostility within it, I've seen GMs work with FMs in a reasonably fluid and believable manner and I think that concern about people maliciously editing wiki articles like they matter can no longer be a valid one.

There, now that I've said that.


An alternative to reducing the speeds might actually be bringing back Anti-FTL fields. As a GM, I'm fond of the idea that you can pin ships, and I've always had to tongue and cheek bend the rules a bit when I think about, or write, ship to ship combat to come up with a reason that ships can't just poof away halfway across a star map. I've always been particularly fond of the idea of 'Warp Scrambling' - some sort of interdiction that can stop a ship from just turning its prow around and leaving the battlefield. It makes piracy, and generally, all sorts of things possible.

I've also for obvious reasons been looking at the sensor lengths - and they're staggering. 20 LY, for Aether Doppler. We can hear flies sneeze, halfway across the galaxy.

So the problem is a storytelling problem. Reducing the speeds would make sense from a storytelling perspective by adding a little bit more travel time. This is already organically done by the GMs, regardless of what's written on the wiki. This isn't some giant game of Warhammer 40k where we're stat-crunching and moving our little game board pieces here and there to try to beat each other, it's all just setting material that we're using to create a better story.

So I'd actually like to see the Wiki brought more in-line with the way people are writing and RPing because it seems, de-facto, that we prefer writing slower speeds thematically, and the suggestion that we across the board switch the way we gauge those speeds - like Fred's suggesting, expand minutes to hours - would probably bring it closer in line with how we actually RP already.
 
Last edited:
View attachment 5885

There really is an XKCD for everything!

View attachment 5886

I was actually looking for that picture there^. Sensors also bother me but not because of their range (20ly? big deal, the Hubble has a range of 13 billion light years and then some!). A conversation about how we want things in the setting to be thematically would also do wonders for figuring out how to tweak the rest of the setting but ultimately I think sensors need so much discussion that it is better saved for another thread.


There is no stealth in space, at least against your conventional sensors that use regular physics. But with stealth or just jamming FTL sensors, you wouldn't be able to detect something 20LY out until light/heat/gravity finally gets to you 20 years later (see second picture). Of course you could get around this by placing physical probes all over the place, which in turn gives your sensor officer a lot to do.
 
To be honest, I'm all for reducing the FTL speeds - it's been a complaint of many new players once they start asking questions. The moment they find out the typical trip from one system to another is less than a day, they kinda recoil or jump back since it's simply that unappealing. Our setting is great, but the FTL speeds are just another little sour taste in the mouth that we can really do without. If we have the opportunity to get rid of it favor of something better, we should take it.


Looking at the examples here alone, what Fred is proposing looks very reasonable. It's not some arbitrary whim; the results can be crunched and looked at before we even apply it. The thematics of the setting would improve quite a bit, and without affecting plots I believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…