Speed Solution

Rizzo

Game Master
Jun 22, 2014
2,108
1,164
138
Brooksville, Florida
#1
I think I have a potential solution to the speed standard controversy.

Acceleration in space is entirely dependent on thrust and fuel. If you have the equipment to induce motion and an infinite supply of fuel to power it, you can theoretically accelerate to an infinite speed... that is until you wish to change your direction!

Being able to turn and maneuver at high speed is vastly more difficult than doing the same at low speed. So perhaps maneuverability should be the qualifier. Rather than say your ship has a top speed of .4 before it is inexplicably unable to generate thrust we could keep the same rating while still respecting physics by saying that it cannot maneuver at speeds greater than .4. Using this concept wouldn't even significantly change spacecraft dogfighting since most of those engagements do not occur at top speed.

But this is only a concept, what does SARP think?
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,962
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#3
I think I have a potential solution to the speed standard controversy.
What controversy?

[...]

Being able to turn and maneuver at high speed is vastly more difficult than doing the same at low speed. So perhaps maneuverability should be the qualifier. Rather than say your ship has a top speed of .4 before it is inexplicably unable to generate thrust we could keep the same rating while still respecting physics by saying that it cannot maneuver at speeds greater than .4. Using this concept wouldn't even significantly change spacecraft dogfighting since most of those engagements do not occur at top speed.

But this is only a concept, what does SARP think?
Although I understand where you're coming from @Rizzo, there's one massive problem with this concept: most factions have gravity- and/or inertia-manipulating technology that (to varying extents) allows their starships/vehicle/power armors/etc. to ignore physics-based constraints on maneuverability and structural integrity - thereby defeating the purpose of the concept.
 

Rizzo

Game Master
Jun 22, 2014
2,108
1,164
138
Brooksville, Florida
#6
@FrostJaeger I do not believe the inertia altering equipment on SARP ships would hinder this concept.

Consider, even that space bending equipment requires some form of energy to operate, mostly electricity. All of that technology needs to be increased in size as the ships increase in size with far more energy being required to operate the equipment and achieve the effect needed.
This means that even SARP-level technology is not without limitation. The equipment moving a plumeria gunship is fantastic, granting this ship amazing FTL and STL performance. However, that same excellent system would be insufficient for a Sharie battleship, it simply does not have enough output to realistically meet the needs of such a large ship.

So how does that apply? The same principle applies to any technology in our setting, as more stress is applied to a system the harder it will be for that system to achieve the same performance it usually achieves without a load. We should also consider that just because a device can do something extremely difficult doesn't mean it should.

For example, just because you're fighter is capable of coming to an immediate stop instantly doesn't mean you should. Just because your airframe will not be stressed by doing so does not mean the burden of what you just did affects nothing. In fact, all of the stress of that maneuver will be put solely on one system, your CFD. I can only imagine that would be like shifting into first gear while traveling at highway speed, your engine and transmission might be okay but they are going to hate you so bad!

But of course, my main point is that no technology is unlimited. Everything has a breaking point, exemplified by the fact that war is still a possibility in our setting.
A certain output requires input, a greater output requires greater input, and so on until the device is physically incapable of accepting more input or increasing output. This is the point where this speed concept would apply, it would show the absolute highest performance of it's maneuvering thrust.
 

Zack

Site Supporter
FM of Uso's Organization
Game Master
Jan 21, 2005
7,611
1,867
138
#7
I think the solution is to compartmentalize a bit more.

Instead of saying ships go .35c, the ship should be listed as 'fast' (or 'High Technology: Fast). There should then be a second page that describes what that means (IE: .35c top speed)

We could then just change the second page, and this would automatically update every ship on the setting. Pinning a top speed and an acceleration value would be nice but really all you'd need to know is what speed tier the ship is in.
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,962
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#9
@FrostJaeger I do not believe the inertia altering equipment on SARP ships would hinder this concept.

Consider, even that space bending equipment requires some form of energy to operate, mostly electricity. All of that technology needs to be increased in size as the ships increase in size with far more energy being required to operate the equipment and achieve the effect needed.
This means that even SARP-level technology is not without limitation. The equipment moving a plumeria gunship is fantastic, granting this ship amazing FTL and STL performance. However, that same excellent system would be insufficient for a Sharie battleship, it simply does not have enough output to realistically meet the needs of such a large ship.

So how does that apply? The same principle applies to any technology in our setting, as more stress is applied to a system the harder it will be for that system to achieve the same performance it usually achieves without a load. We should also consider that just because a device can do something extremely difficult doesn't mean it should.

For example, just because you're fighter is capable of coming to an immediate stop instantly doesn't mean you should. Just because your airframe will not be stressed by doing so does not mean the burden of what you just did affects nothing. In fact, all of the stress of that maneuver will be put solely on one system, your CFD. I can only imagine that would be like shifting into first gear while traveling at highway speed, your engine and transmission might be okay but they are going to hate you so bad!
That's why military systems are specifically designed to handle such stresses without failing, @Rizzo - because in combat being able to utilize your equipment to the fullest extent possible is the often the difference between life and death. It doesn't matter if your "engine and transmission...hate you" - they just have to last until the mission's over.

But of course, my main point is that no technology is unlimited. Everything has a breaking point, exemplified by the fact that war is still a possibility in our setting.
A certain output requires input, a greater output requires greater input, and so on until the device is physically incapable of accepting more input or increasing output. This is the point where this speed concept would apply, it would show the absolute highest performance of it's maneuvering thrust.
If all this "solution" measures is maneuvering thrust, then what separates it from the Starship Speed Standard? Why is something that isn't broken being "fixed"? I also a couple of similar threads that might be interesting.

I think the solution is to compartmentalize a bit more.

Instead of saying ships go .35c, the ship should be listed as 'fast' (or 'High Technology: Fast). There should then be a second page that describes what that means (IE: .35c top speed)

We could then just change the second page, and this would automatically update every ship on the setting. Pinning a top speed and an acceleration value would be nice but really all you'd need to know is what speed tier the ship is in.
We already do this with the Starship Speed Standard, @Zack

@Zack, that might work to a degree, I just think it'll be a real boon trying to find someone willing to put in all of that work just to throw physics to the wind again by declaring a top speed.
That's the crux of the matter, @Rizzo - it's vastly easier for a content creator to list a top speed then it is for them to spnd several hours doing physics equations.
 

Rizzo

Game Master
Jun 22, 2014
2,108
1,164
138
Brooksville, Florida
#10
Yeah, you're over complicating this frost. Even military tech has its limits. Don't believe me? Ask a veteran. Just because you can push limits once or twice doesn't mean it'll work the third time.
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,962
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#11
Yeah, you're over complicating this frost. Even military tech has its limits. Don't believe me? Ask a veteran. Just because you can push limits once or twice doesn't mean it'll work the third time.
How is wanting to do less mathematics "over complicating this", @Rizzo?
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,962
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#13
https://i.redd.it/72e7u8gphjzz.jpg

This happens when you fire a tank cannon some number of times more than it’s raited for. Some equipment you can push over the limit but there is no telling exactly when a failure will happen.
This is a sci-fi roleplay, @Zack, not reality; the "limits" and "failures" are set by and occur at the whims of GMs. For instance, who has any non-arbitrary way of saying when an inertial compensator will fail?
 

FrostJaeger

On Hiatus
Site Supporter
Setting Submissions Mod
FM of Elysia
Game Master
May 1, 2015
1,962
998
158
the East Coast, USA
goo.gl
#17
Are we assuming that an OOC GM should affect how IC characters talk about vehicle performance? That sounds like blending IC and OOC information to me.
Please don't put words in my mouth, @Rizzo, as what I'm saying is that when writing plots, GMs - as part of advancing their plots - get to decide when things like equipment failures occur.

Consider, for instance, these two clips from the Empire Strikes Back. In the first, the "GM" of the movie, George Lucas, has the Millenium Falcon suffer a temporary equipment failure in order to provide comic effect, demonstrate the ship's temperamental nature, and foreshadow later technical issues; in the second, the "GM" has the Falcon suffer a much more serious equipment failure - that of the hyperdrive - in order to advance the "plot" forward.
 

Rizzo

Game Master
Jun 22, 2014
2,108
1,164
138
Brooksville, Florida
#18
I didn't put any words in your mouth, it's a fair question. Why would a character with no knowledge of the OOC system we use brag about his ship's top speed in space? It's senseless, really, since this character would know that in space there is no such thing!

A GM influencing IC breakdowns for sake of story is fine, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. A salesman bragging about something that is a physical impossibility is not okay, since it creates a disconnect in the story where our OOC bleeds into the IC setting.
 

Doshii Jun

Perpetual player
Game Master
Aug 14, 2005
12,501
1,832
143
36
Pasco, Wash. (UTC -8)
#19
Why would a character with no knowledge of the OOC system we use brag about his ship's top speed in space? It's senseless, really, since this character would know that in space there is no such thing!
Did this occur somewhere? I've never heard of such bragging before, ICly anyway.

I'm wondering what the problem is, @Rizzo. That's not to be flip; it just seems like the concern has developed some, but I'm not clear what it is.
 
Likes: FrostJaeger

Rizzo

Game Master
Jun 22, 2014
2,108
1,164
138
Brooksville, Florida
#20
It's been touched on a couple of times OOCly since I've been on the site and has always bothered me, and I've never seen it mentioned ICly but I have a feeling that's a byproduct of having a system that only works OOCly.

Most of the disagreement between Frost and I is regarding his notion that vehicle stress should only have an effect when a GM says so.