Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Home of discussions about Ultra Starfire (5th edition) and its predecessor Galactic Starfire (4th edition).

Moderators: SDS Owner, SDS Members

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby Cralis on Tue 11 Aug 2009 02:14

Another regular ULTRA STARFIRE topic is "Multiple Warp Point Configurations". I like to call this "Warp Points Anywhere"

The general idea is that WP's can occur at any star, whether in a single star system, a binary star system, or a trinary star system. Quaternary star systems can have WP around each of their close pairs. And, there is a chance that any given star (in a system with more than one star) will not have WP at all (by definition all stars in single star systems MUST have WP).

Another rule in this idea is that all WP around stars in the same system are treated as part of "the same system" for the purposes of linking systems together. This makes it so that WP at different stars in the same system will not link to each other... hmmm maybe an oddity though...

Anyway, to the specifics.

In ULTRA there are only three systems we need to concern ourselves with: binaries, trinaries, and quaternaries.

Binary Systems roll on the WP Quantity chart, once for each star, with a -10 to the roll. This can produce up to 10 WP (max of 5 each). Any result < 0 means there are 0 WP. And if none of the stars has any WP, then re-roll for the primary star until you get a result of 1 or more WP. Binaries need to take W8.02.1 into consideration when placing WP.

Trinary systems are treated the same way, except that there is a -25 to the roll. This can produce up to 9 WP (max of 3 each). Like binaries, < 0 on roll means none and if no stars rolled for WP, re-roll for primary until you get a result of 1 or more WP.

Quarternary stars are a little different in that each pair is treated as a single star for the purpose of placing WP. Treat as a binary except the roll is -35 due to the higher turbulence. Again, < 0 is zero WP and re-roll primary if neither set of stars has WP.

This is pretty rough, but I want to get some discussion on this. There are several ways to do this (this method being only one of them). Thoughts? Comments?
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby PracticalM on Tue 11 Aug 2009 10:05

This is one of those things that if everything was set up for you by computer and you were able to keep accurate track of where WPs were in relationship to planets without too much work this is cool.

There's a good chance you can just refer to the location of the WP from the primary though. Its not like WPs orbit. It just seems like an extra step that I'm not sure what it accomplishes except to make generation a bit more interesting. But the practical result is you need all the WPs distances from each other which means you need for them all to have a common frame of reference.

Also since Stars technically orbit each other having them around multiple stars may imply the WPs move with the star. (We know WPs move with the primary as it travels around the galactic center.)

I like the idea of rolling separately for each star but for reference and direction purposes I like having a common frame of reference for all the WPs in one system.
--
Jeffrey Kessler
PracticalM
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed 15 Jul 2009 10:27
Location: Long Beach, CA

Re: Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby Cralis on Tue 11 Aug 2009 10:24

Since almost everyone doesn't use orbits (almost), it could easily be done in StMP. However, I definitely have to agree - especially if your using both LH/LM movement AND using orbits.

For binaries this isn't such a big deal. Where this really makes a difference is in trinary star systems because you will have a good chance that the 1-4 StMP distant star will have WP of its own.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby Crucis on Tue 11 Aug 2009 10:34

I'm not sure that it's a great idea to have separate WP's for each component of binaries, due to the relative closeness of two components. You can end up with the WP's of each component overlapping into the same region of space, unless you place limits on WP distances in poly star systems, similar to maximum planetary orbits. (I think that this concern would also hold true for quaternaries, which are really just a binary system of close binary pairs.)


Having said that, I think that separate WP's for comp C's of trinaries can work very well, largely because comp C's are far enough away from the general region of comp's A and B that you don't have to worry about overlapping issues.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby Cralis on Tue 11 Aug 2009 18:20

Crucis wrote:I'm not sure that it's a great idea to have separate WP's for each component of binaries, due to the relative closeness of two components. You can end up with the WP's of each component overlapping into the same region of space, unless you place limits on WP distances in poly star systems, similar to maximum planetary orbits. (I think that this concern would also hold true for quaternaries, which are really just a binary system of close binary pairs.)


I specifically mention W8.02.1 which covers exactly that. If I remember correctly, no WP can be within 2 radians of the direction to the binary companion. That rules was designed exactly to prevent what your talking about.

I didn't specify doing so for each pair in the quaternary system, so I have to say "good call" because I should have.

Crucis wrote:Having said that, I think that separate WP's for comp C's of trinaries can work very well, largely because comp C's are far enough away from the general region of comp's A and B that you don't have to worry about overlapping issues.


I think the idea works really well for those components because otherwise a trinary blue giant or red dwarf would likely never get visited. It adds a little bit of "slow boating" between areas as well, making things more interesting tactically as well as strategically.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby Crucis on Tue 11 Aug 2009 18:53

Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:I'm not sure that it's a great idea to have separate WP's for each component of binaries, due to the relative closeness of two components. You can end up with the WP's of each component overlapping into the same region of space, unless you place limits on WP distances in poly star systems, similar to maximum planetary orbits. (I think that this concern would also hold true for quaternaries, which are really just a binary system of close binary pairs.)


I specifically mention W8.02.1 which covers exactly that. If I remember correctly, no WP can be within 2 radians of the direction to the binary companion. That rules was designed exactly to prevent what your talking about.


The 2 radians thing doesn't properly cover this situation. It works nice enough when you only have WP's around comp A. However, the problem here is that I'm thinking that most binaries are simply not far enough apart to make the 2 radians thing work because WP's do not have their maximum distances limited in the same way that planetary orbits are limited in a binary system. Even with the 2 radians thing, you could have longer distance WP ...

Wait ... I think that I've found my confusion here... It's in the exact wording of the language "no WP can be within 2 radians ...". I was reading it as 2 radians OK, 1 radian not OK ... when it should be 3 radians OK, 2 radians not OK.

My bad...



I didn't specify doing so for each pair in the quaternary system, so I have to say "good call" because I should have.


No prob.


Crucis wrote:Having said that, I think that separate WP's for comp C's of trinaries can work very well, largely because comp C's are far enough away from the general region of comp's A and B that you don't have to worry about overlapping issues.


I think the idea works really well for those components because otherwise a trinary blue giant or red dwarf would likely never get visited. It adds a little bit of "slow boating" between areas as well, making things more interesting tactically as well as strategically.



If comp C's can have WP's, then otherwise "useless" comp C's become worth visiting to look for WP's.

One thing that I might suggest is that perhaps the number of WP's a comp B or C is allowed might be somewhat less than normal comp A's. (Of course, I should state that I think that a flaw in the Ultra sysgen process is that the system is not sorted by stellar mass, and should be.)

Another thing to consider on this topic is that whether looking at comp A, B, or C, it's still system ID "X" when you determine what system you find... so I'm thinking that the WP's around comps B or C need to simply be (sort of) appended to the entire star system's list of WP's. That is, if comp A has 4 WP's, comp B has 2 WP's, and comp C had 1 WP, WP #'s 1-4 belong to comp A, 5-6 to B, and #7 to comp C. Of course, you don't need to tell this to the player.

And come to think of it, there may be other issues that come up in this regard.



Another issue would be WP surveying. It seems to me that normal binaries (and quat's) are close enough that a single survey might be enough to cover both comps A and B. (Oh perhaps, you might increase the # of SP by something like 50% or some other number that might need to be calc'd...) OTOH, it also seems to me that when you're talking about comp C's (or just plain LDC's), you should have to treat comp C as a distinct system for surveying purposes, due to the great distance of that component from the comps A and B.

Admittedly a bit of a pain, but it's the flip side of having WP's around a comp C...
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby Cralis on Tue 11 Aug 2009 19:19

Crucis wrote:If comp C's can have WP's, then otherwise "useless" comp C's become worth visiting to look for WP's.


Exactly.

One thing that I might suggest is that perhaps the number of WP's a comp B or C is allowed might be somewhat less than normal comp A's. (Of course, I should state that I think that a flaw in the Ultra sysgen process is that the system is not sorted by stellar mass, and should be.)


That is already built into the proposal, as a -X modifier with the rule that a roll < 0 means "no WP at all." Under this proposed rule, binaries would max at 10 WP and trinaries would max at 9 WP (between ALL of the stars in the system).

Another thing to consider on this topic is that whether looking at comp A, B, or C, it's still system ID "X" when you determine what system you find... so I'm thinking that the WP's around comps B or C need to simply be (sort of) appended to the entire star system's list of WP's. That is, if comp A has 4 WP's, comp B has 2 WP's, and comp C had 1 WP, WP #'s 1-4 belong to comp A, 5-6 to B, and #7 to comp C. Of course, you don't need to tell this to the player.


That was the intention of the sentence "Another rule in this idea is that all WP around stars in the same system are treated as part of "the same system" for the purposes of linking systems together." As mentioned, it would also prevent stars in the same system from linking to each other as well.

And come to think of it, there may be other issues that come up in this regard.


Undoubtedly, which is why I'm trolling for input :D

Another issue would be WP surveying. It seems to me that normal binaries (and quat's) are close enough that a single survey might be enough to cover both comps A and B. (Oh perhaps, you might increase the # of SP by something like 50% or some other number that might need to be calc'd...) OTOH, it also seems to me that when you're talking about comp C's (or just plain LDC's), you should have to treat comp C as a distinct system for surveying purposes, due to the great distance of that component from the comps A and B.

Admittedly a bit of a pain, but it's the flip side of having WP's around a comp C...


Hmmm that is something I hadn't thought of addressing yet. There are two considerations: the distance between the binaries, and the "pie slice" of space between them where no WP can exist. Do you have to survey that space too?

Also related, do we treat quaternary's as any harder to survey? Even though the space will be relatively the same as a binary, what about the "turbulence" and such?

And yeah, trinaries should be treated as individual stars for survey. In fact, if you use the long-distance companions proposal then any star that is 1 StMP or more away should be considered separate for surveys.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Sysgen Topics: WP Everywhere

Postby Crucis on Tue 11 Aug 2009 19:37

Cralis wrote:
Crucis wrote:If comp C's can have WP's, then otherwise "useless" comp C's become worth visiting to look for WP's.


Exactly.

One thing that I might suggest is that perhaps the number of WP's a comp B or C is allowed might be somewhat less than normal comp A's. (Of course, I should state that I think that a flaw in the Ultra sysgen process is that the system is not sorted by stellar mass, and should be.)


That is already built into the proposal, as a -X modifier with the rule that a roll < 0 means "no WP at all." Under this proposed rule, binaries would max at 10 WP and trinaries would max at 9 WP (between ALL of the stars in the system).


Cool.


Another thing to consider on this topic is that whether looking at comp A, B, or C, it's still system ID "X" when you determine what system you find... so I'm thinking that the WP's around comps B or C need to simply be (sort of) appended to the entire star system's list of WP's. That is, if comp A has 4 WP's, comp B has 2 WP's, and comp C had 1 WP, WP #'s 1-4 belong to comp A, 5-6 to B, and #7 to comp C. Of course, you don't need to tell this to the player.


That was the intention of the sentence "Another rule in this idea is that all WP around stars in the same system are treated as part of "the same system" for the purposes of linking systems together." As mentioned, it would also prevent stars in the same system from linking to each other as well.



Missed that sentence.... and didn't even think of WP's between components potentially linking together...


And come to think of it, there may be other issues that come up in this regard.


Undoubtedly, which is why I'm trolling for input :D


What's that troll smily when I need it! :twisted:


Another issue would be WP surveying. It seems to me that normal binaries (and quat's) are close enough that a single survey might be enough to cover both comps A and B. (Oh perhaps, you might increase the # of SP by something like 50% or some other number that might need to be calc'd...) OTOH, it also seems to me that when you're talking about comp C's (or just plain LDC's), you should have to treat comp C as a distinct system for surveying purposes, due to the great distance of that component from the comps A and B.

Admittedly a bit of a pain, but it's the flip side of having WP's around a comp C...


Hmmm that is something I hadn't thought of addressing yet. There are two considerations: the distance between the binaries, and the "pie slice" of space between them where no WP can exist. Do you have to survey that space too?


Actually the "within 2 rad's" thing effectively means that in a binary situation, WP's can only exist in the 180* half-circle facing away from the other star. And of course, it's true in reverse for comp B. So, in essense, you end up with a binary having 2 half-systems of space containing the WP's for comps A and B.

IIRC, in the Ultra rules, even though in a "normal" binary with WP's only in half of a system, you still have to survey 100% of the system to find those WP's. However, consider this... the portion of space between comp's A and B really shouldn't have to be surveyed twice. I can see having to survey A's "WP zone" and B's WP Zone. And I can see needing to survey the "dead zone" between the two stars... HOWEVER, I don't think that you should have to survey that "dead zone" twice, i.e. once for the comp A survey and once for the comp B survey.

What I would suggest is that you should only have to survey the "dead zone" ONCE with the collect data being useful for comps A and B in single combined survey.... The net effect here should be that a single survey for a "normal" binary (or quat) should require 50% more SP (i.e. 300 SP) than normal... i.e. Comp A's WP zone, Comp B's WP zone, and the dead zone.







Also related, do we treat quaternary's as any harder to survey? Even though the space will be relatively the same as a binary, what about the "turbulence" and such?


Actually, if you read the quat rules, they already do effectively make them slower to survey... see rule W5.05.2, para 2. Assuming that you're using Ic driven ships, your max speed is going to be halved... which is going to halve your SP collection rate... I'd tend to think...




And yeah, trinaries should be treated as individual stars for survey. In fact, if you use the long-distance companions proposal then any star that is 1 StMP or more away should be considered separate for surveys.


Sounds good to me...
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27


Return to Ultra Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron