Revoke wrote:If you shift from the specific notion of fuel to a more general idea of supplies, you could do this. Supplies are consumed slowly over time; running out inflicts significant penalties (enough that you'll want to stay supplied), but doesn't leave you dead in the water.

Agreed. Fuel mechanics as proposed midway through the H-Extractor thread + the mechanical supplies that we both proposed should mean limited penalties for newer / smaller-ship players that scale up as the player progresses on to larger ships, allows for the extra level of planning and challenge in exploratory play that you talk about and avoid ever reaching a deadlocked state.

i want fuel to be optional because some people love it and some hate it, some games i would want to just fly around and explore but other games i would love to have a detailed fuel system for many different types of ships and stations.

optional system advantages:
Many types of fuel

(chemical (level 1-10), solar(radiation) (1-10), geothermal, fission (1-10), fusion (1-10), anti-matter, dark-matter, & sci-fi hand-waving,)

would all be beneficial because so many types and qualities would make mining more interesting and branching technology progression would make for more types of game-play.

i could stay with low tech and have a huge fleet of cheap drones and small craft that work in short range high density asteroid fields,

or i could have one huge ship that has all the high tech power for long range missions,

or i would love to have a mining carrier has high tech engines for jumping to new systems and holds a bunch of different types of drones for different types of asteroid fields (ice, gas, rock, metal)

or i could start in a ice based system so only certain types of fuel and power plants are useful

fuel types also make for stealth and combat advantages, lets say my enemy overspecializes on detecting fusion drives and laser defenses then i will swarm him with low cost solar( or chemical or fission) drones that shoot guns or rocks they that they were mining.

for space stations i would want to build multiple power systems so if it gets attacked or is trading it can work with many types of fuel and power plants

optional system disadvantage:
as a player i want lots of options. as coder i understand that at launch the no fuel option will probably be present and the detailed fuel options will be add later after launch because a detailed fuel system requires so much extra code and bug testing

Well - like I said, I don't envisage supplies would be much of a concern to small-scale operations. You (possibly automatically) top up supplies whenever you hit a station. Cheap, no hassle, no problem.

The explorer has to worry about his supply store for long trips. A large scale operation has to worry about supplying its fleet(s). In friendly space this would pretty much amount just to running costs; you're still just topping up at stations, and the AI in your assets does that by itself. You just worry about the cost. Fleets in hostile space would have serious logistical concerns, but that seems fine to me.

As I voted the other slot, I believe that a fuel source would boost your energy output, almost like a futuristic nitro. Different levels, and different complexities should have to be met for each weapon and thruster to be able to use more complex bonus fuels.

Spenc12 wrote:As I voted the other slot, I believe that a fuel source would boost your energy output, almost like a futuristic nitro. Different levels, and different complexities should have to be met for each weapon and thruster to be able to use more complex bonus fuels.

I rather like this idea... A base speed that requires no fuel, and boosters which do. I suppose you could have short and long term boosters for tactical play vs strategic/courier play. Any random joe can go from one end of the universe to the other without fuel, but someone with it can do it 2, 3, 4, 10 times faster.

Sounds like it gives the best of both worlds, as explorer types will use it often enough to explore more areas quickly while freighters can just chug along with regular boosters.


As for the more specific mechanics, I would suspect booster thrusters are significantly cheaper than normal thrusters, but you have to deal with fluctuating fuel prices and the possibility of running out. I also suspect if you opted for only booster thrusters you could in fact get stranded and have to call for help or even a fuel delivery. And this method can simply ignore size differences, fleets can use it for the ships that use it and stick with conventionals for those that don't, gameplay doesn't hinge on it (unless you're stupid enough to go without any conventional thrusters) and there is no need for H-extractors or other "lore to explain gameplay" stuff, and it offers a nice tradeoff decision. Do you go 2 Boosters and 8 conventionals for a little extra speed at some extra fuel costs, 4 and 6 for even greater speed but greater risk of running out, 8 and 2 for high speeds but a significant risk of having to crawl back to a station? or even a dead run of 10 and 0

Or just make the fuel overclock the normal thrusters, as I have proposed many times. I think you should be able to choose exactly how much you are overclocking them, for essentially super-cruise when using low amount of fuel or afterburners when using high.

Thrusters could also have a stat for fuel efficiency, to make maximum power not always the best choice.

Hyperion wrote:H-extractors or other "lore to explain gameplay" stuff

H extractor wasn't lore to explain gameplay though - what gameplay did it need to explain? It was gameplay with lore attached. You're thinking of H Drive, which was lore with gameplay attached.

Hyperion wrote:

Spenc12 wrote:As I voted the other slot, I believe that a fuel source would boost your energy output, almost like a futuristic nitro. Different levels, and different complexities should have to be met for each weapon and thruster to be able to use more complex bonus fuels.

I rather like this idea... A base speed that requires no fuel, and boosters which do. I suppose you could have short and long term boosters for tactical play vs strategic/courier play. Any random joe can go from one end of the universe to the other without fuel, but someone with it can do it 2, 3, 4, 10 times faster.

Sounds like it gives the best of both worlds, as explorer types will use it often enough to explore more areas quickly while freighters can just chug along with regular boosters.


As for the more specific mechanics, I would suspect booster thrusters are significantly cheaper than normal thrusters, but you have to deal with fluctuating fuel prices and the possibility of running out. I also suspect if you opted for only booster thrusters you could in fact get stranded and have to call for help or even a fuel delivery. And this method can simply ignore size differences, fleets can use it for the ships that use it and stick with conventionals for those that don't, gameplay doesn't hinge on it (unless you're stupid enough to go without any conventional thrusters) and there is no need for H-extractors or other "lore to explain gameplay" stuff, and it offers a nice tradeoff decision. Do you go 2 Boosters and 8 conventionals for a little extra speed at some extra fuel costs, 4 and 6 for even greater speed but greater risk of running out, 8 and 2 for high speeds but a significant risk of having to crawl back to a station? or even a dead run of 10 and 0

Could the fueled thrusters not take energy so there is also a battle advantage there too?

I don't think having fuel for just regular flying around a system will add anything other than annoyance.

Perhaps for the wormholes or for "afterburners" of sorts, regular flying? no.