Jump to content

Gravity-Inverted containers need rebalancing


Peabody

Recommended Posts

 

Bonuses for the Gravity-Inverted containers should be calculated to the players advantage, like the  Optimized containers. The problem is that mass-reduction bonuses are compounding; making each bonus worth less and less. Compounding calculations are an advantage with increasing numbers (like volume) but not with decreasing numbers (like mass.)

 

Uncommon Gravity-Inverted Large: mass * 9% * players 25% mass reduction = 31.7%

 

Uncommon Optimized Large: volume * 30% * players 50% volume increase = 195%

 

Just adding the 9% and 25% reductions would get 34% of mass, vs the 31.7%. And of course it gets worse as the bonuses go up: a rare container should have 27% mass reduction plus a players 25% for 52% (at least.) This if the bonuses merely stack rather than compound to the players advantage. Current calculations yield only a 45% mass reduction.

 

I think the mass reduction should be 15% per tier. So 15% uncommon, 30% advanced, 45% rare and 60% exotic. Players aren't using Gravity-Inverted containers but I think we would with these changes.

 

 Also, you cannot currently use hubs with the Gravity-Inverted containers, but I assume that's a bug. You should be able to connect the same tier of containers to a hub.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they're fine as is. They seem optimal for freighting stuff via warp drive, since the mass reduction is quite valuable there. 85% mass reduction on the top end seems a little much.

 

IIRC the hub thing is intended, unless you want to explain what having an XS exotic GI container connected to a hub with optimized containers would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The volume reduction and mass increase of the container itself, with the low mass reduction is a bad combination. 85% reduction is for a level 5 talent and an **exotic** container. Even then a large exotic would have 84KL volume (33% reduction) and a mass of 75 tons; as much as a warp drive!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a warp ship with 8 Medium Rare Gravity Inverted containers. Weighs 380t empty. can haul 560,000L of cargo.  I have found the the cut off for this ship is 4kg/l  IE if it weighs more then 4kg/l I use this ship. if it weighs less then 4kg/l I use a ship with optimised containers. (and this is assuming a deadhead warp empty, if I am warping cargo both ways I will use it on stuff that weighs more then 4kg/l)  And thats assuming I have atleast 560,000L of cargo. Warping with a less then full cargo and you loose out on to much. 

 

Basically warping Silver off of jago, warping gold off of talimi. I use this ship. saves allot of warp cells. Warping pure Lithium off Teoma. and I use a ship with optimised containers.  

 

And to put that into perspective. Warping 560,000L Iron from Aegis to Talimi would cost 160 warp cells to full and back empty in a gravity ship. With an Optimised container ship it would cost 206 warp cells round trip. Your nearing 20% warp cell cost reduction at 5kg/L.  You start warping around Silver at 7.2 and gold at 19.2 and the savings really start mounting up with gravity inverted containers. 

 

But here is the thing with them. They have to be full one way to get the maximum value out of them. If your flying around with them empty most of the time. they are just dead weight. 

 

I am also interested in the Expanded Rare Gravity inverted containers XXL. With max skills they will get to 400kl which is just at the capacity for the special cargo missions.  They will add 300 tons to your ship.  However it should reduce that 1,700t mission by 800t. saving you 500t per mission. 

 

So Gravity inverted containers are not for your every day driver. they are for specific objectives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard it mentioned in game at some point that the gravity inverted containers don't work with hubs by design.  Does anyone have a link to the ethereal Discord post that might have started that rumor?

 

I've never seen any info on this anywhere.  The only way i knew they didn't work with hubs was because i overheard a conversation about it in general chat.

 

As a ship builder this doesn't make any sense.  We've always had the convenience of Hubs, and it seems as though the mission system was designed with the assumption that we would never need to split up a mission package into multiple containers, because every ship has a hub.

 

If for some odd reason they don't want us to be able to use the gravity inverted containers with a Hub, then we should be able to split up a mission package.

 

I don't want to have to design a ship around an Extended XXL container.

 

If this is really an intentional design feature, then it totally changes ship design.  Hubs are something we've always had.   Why take them away now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/4/2023 at 10:15 PM, Peabody said:

 

Bonuses for the Gravity-Inverted containers should be calculated to the players advantage, like the  Optimized containers. The problem is that mass-reduction bonuses are compounding; making each bonus worth less and less. Compounding calculations are an advantage with increasing numbers (like volume) but not with decreasing numbers (like mass.)

 

Uncommon Gravity-Inverted Large: mass * 9% * players 25% mass reduction = 31.7%

 

Uncommon Optimized Large: volume * 30% * players 50% volume increase = 195%

 

Just adding the 9% and 25% reductions would get 34% of mass, vs the 31.7%. And of course it gets worse as the bonuses go up: a rare container should have 27% mass reduction plus a players 25% for 52% (at least.) This if the bonuses merely stack rather than compound to the players advantage. Current calculations yield only a 45% mass reduction.

 

I think the mass reduction should be 15% per tier. So 15% uncommon, 30% advanced, 45% rare and 60% exotic. Players aren't using Gravity-Inverted containers but I think we would with these changes.

 

 Also, you cannot currently use hubs with the Gravity-Inverted containers, but I assume that's a bug. You should be able to connect the same tier of containers to a hub.
 

 

 

 

 

So, which containers are the best ones to be using?  I actually have 4 Uncommon Gravity-Inverted Large linked with a HUB on my ship.  I transport 300,000kl of Malachite back and forth from Thades.   Do I need to change them to the Optimized version and ditch the hub.??   Warping to Thades empty is like ~36, warping back full is ~80 WC.

Edited by MrTenneal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MrTenneal said:

 

 

 

 

So, which containers are the best ones to be using?  I actually have 4 Uncommon Gravity-Inverted Large linked with a HUB on my ship.  I transport 300,000kl of Malachite back and forth from Thades.   Do I need to change them to the Optimized version and ditch the hub.??   Warping to Thades empty is like ~36, warping back full is ~80 WC.

 

 

The rumor is that connecting the Inverted containers to a Hub removes the benefits but retains all the negative aspects.  So you don't get the mass reduction, but you still get the increased weight and the decreased storage capacity.  I haven't tested it myself but that's what i've heard.  

 

Assuming that's true.  You wouldn't want to connect the Inverted containers to a Hub, you would want to use them individually.

 

All of the benefits of the Optimized containers do work with a Hub, so if you switch to Optimized containers then you wouldn't need to ditch the Hub.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

 

The rumor is that connecting the Inverted containers to a Hub removes the benefits but retains all the negative aspects.  So you don't get the mass reduction, but you still get the increased weight and the decreased storage capacity.  I haven't tested it myself but that's what i've heard.  

 

Assuming that's true.  You wouldn't want to connect the Inverted containers to a Hub, you would want to use them individually.

 

All of the benefits of the Optimized containers do work with a Hub, so if you switch to Optimized containers then you wouldn't need to ditch the Hub.

 

 

Thanks Atmosph3rik,  I guess im going to be making new containers!!..  Still I'm going to load them up and test them with out the hub. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a hub, the mass reduction should be proportional to the volume in Liters. Each liter has a mass reduction from its container, so add all the reductions and divide by the total number of liters.

 

Quote

explain what having an XS exotic GI container connected to a hub with optimized containers would do.

 

The mass reduction for the XS is 0.66 on 656 Liters. The other liters have 1.0 because the containers are not GI. If there are 200k of optimized liters, then:

 

(656 x 0.66) + (200000 x 1.0) = 200433 / 200656 = 0.9988 ...so almost no change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the amount of mass reduction across the tiers is fine.  I just want to be able to use them with a hub.

 

What i really don't like is the way the negative aspects scale through the tiers.  An Exotic GI container L weighs 75 tons while the uncommon version weighs 22 tons.  

 

I understand that they're trying to create a balance, but it just takes all the fun out of upgrading to a higher tier item.

 

It makes sense for a military engine to have more hps then a freight engine, and a freight engine to have a lower warmup time then a maneuver.  But it doesn't make sense to me for the warmup time on an exotic freight engine to be so much worse than the uncommon version.

 

The idea that if i upgrade the four large containers on my ship to exotic GI then i'm carrying around an extra 200 tons when the ship is completely empty.  It just kind of saps all the fun out of it.

 

I would rather they scale back the bonuses and not scale the negative aspects at all across the tiers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

I think the amount of mass reduction across the tiers is fine.  I just want to be able to use them with a hub.

 

What i really don't like is the way the negative aspects scale through the tiers.  An Exotic GI container L weighs 75 tons while the uncommon version weighs 22 tons.  

 

I understand that they're trying to create a balance, but it just takes all the fun out of upgrading to a higher tier item.

 

It makes sense for a military engine to have more hps then a freight engine, and a freight engine to have a lower warmup time then a maneuver.  But it doesn't make sense to me for the warmup time on an exotic freight engine to be so much worse than the uncommon version.

 

The idea that if i upgrade the four large containers on my ship to exotic GI then i'm carrying around an extra 200 tons when the ship is completely empty.  It just kind of saps all the fun out of it.

 

I would rather they scale back the bonuses and not scale the negative aspects at all across the tiers.

 

The intent is so that exotic isn't strictly better than another tier. The benefits and drawbacks both become more exaggerated at higher tiers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/10/2023 at 10:12 AM, Talocan said:

The intent is so that exotic isn't strictly better than another tier. The benefits and drawbacks both become more exaggerated at higher tiers.

but the costs to build such flawed items are exponentially more expensive...

That's why stuff like freight engines and manoeuvre engines having actual benefits make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/9/2023 at 5:12 PM, Talocan said:

The intent is so that exotic isn't strictly better than another tier. The benefits and drawbacks both become more exaggerated at higher tiers.

Exotic should be better then another tier.  Why would spend so much effort getting exotic stuff when its not better then another tier? Same goes for rare, advanced, uncommon. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, RugesV said:

Exotic should be better then another tier.  Why would spend so much effort getting exotic stuff when its not better then another tier? Same goes for rare, advanced, uncommon. 

 

 

 

Yes, absolutely!  Why waste time and ore making/buying.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...