FreeOrion

Forums for the FreeOrion project
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:45 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:21 am 
Offline
Space Squid

Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Posts: 58
Geoff the Medio wrote:
Jaumito wrote:
Of course there are exceptions to this rule (e.g., evolved stars like super/hypergiants or stellar remnants), but for main-sequence stars at least (i.e., the "normal" ones), there's a pretty direct relation between mass and "color", as seen in the chart below.
Considering the entire Hertzsprung–Russell diagram shows less clear correlation, however...

Guess there's a reason why I wrote "for main-sequence stars". White dwarfs (below) are stellar remnants, giants (above) are evolved, soon-to-be stellar remnants, and both fit in my "exceptions" clause. So no real disagreement here.

Besides, the HR diagram plots surface temperature against luminosity with no mention of stellar mass, so one might conclude that it's not really relevant to the point at hand. That would be wrong: as I alluded to earlier, there's indeed a relation between mass and luminosity, ...BUT it includes a variable exponent and an empirically determined factor, which may make deducing the mass of a non-main-sequence star from the HR diagram only (especially in the upper-right corner, due to the rarity of samples in that area) a bit tricky...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:04 pm 
Offline
Dyson Forest
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm
Posts: 246
Well, then, I wouldn't mind changing red to blue start requirement for the artificial blackhole :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:32 pm 
Offline
Space Squid

Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Posts: 58
Oberlus wrote:
Well, then, I wouldn't mind changing red to blue start requirement for the artificial blackhole :)

Ah, but as MatGB pointed out, that would make blue stars far too valuable. OTOH, if the process was cataclysmic enough (like, wiping the system planets clean of pop, infrastructure and specials, or even removing them entirely - or a random mix of both), then I wouldn't mind a change.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:36 pm 
Offline
Programmer

Joined: Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:37 pm
Posts: 204
I imagined the rational was, a red star was the largest star that could be safely (non-cataclysmically) transformed into a black hole. It is just coincidence that it has convenient game balancing properties.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:21 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Posts: 1396
LGM-Doyle wrote:
I imagined the rational was, a red star was the largest star that could be safely (non-cataclysmically) transformed into a black hole. It is just coincidence that it has convenient game balancing properties.



That makes sense as a 'realism/technobabble' description... large stars are best for making a natural black hole....but small red dwarf stars are the best for making an artificial one (without blowing up everything in the system)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:58 am
Posts: 20
Jaumito wrote:
Oberlus wrote:
Well, then, I wouldn't mind changing red to blue start requirement for the artificial blackhole :)

Ah, but as MatGB pointed out, that would make blue stars far too valuable.


But all the value of a blue star is lost by turning it into a black hole. It stops benefiting phototropes, can no longer run your stellar generator (which I'm pretty sure would have stacked with the black hole generator), and while they retain the ability to build energy hulls the value added there is smaller than the value added to a red star.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:35 pm 
Offline
Creative Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm
Posts: 3291
Atarlost wrote:
But all the value of a blue star is lost by turning it into a black hole. It stops benefiting phototropes, can no longer run your stellar generator (which I'm pretty sure would have stacked with the black hole generator), and while they retain the ability to build energy hulls the value added there is smaller than the value added to a red star.

Well, you obviously don't collapse a sun where phototrophes live, and you can have solar generators elsewhere, bright stars aren't that rare, habitable black holes deliberately are. Currently Solar generator and Black Hole generator stack, that might change, we're working up to a balance pass on production modifiers soon.

Currently, the Solar Hull is nerfed with a lot of slots commented out, that will be changing, it remains the single most powerful hull in the game. Making the energy line (which is the most powerful brute force line) even easier to use would make the solar hull more powerful, given that it's overpowered that's not going to happen.

Seriously, I'd be up for red, orange and yellow stars being collapsible if there's a strong argument, but I won't currently consider blue or white being collapsible, the ship hull balance is fragile enough as it is and putting in lots of extra work there isn't something I want right now.

Personally I'm happy with it just being red, it works for me in game and I'm not seeing a game balance/strategy reason for it to change, it's not meant to be an easy option.

And we don't do realism, we justify our decisions with plausible nonsense as necessary for the game.

_________________
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:07 am 
Offline
Space Squid

Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 3:42 am
Posts: 58
MatGB wrote:
Personally I'm happy with it just being red, it works for me in game and I'm not seeing a game balance/strategy reason for it to change

More, I definitely see a reason for it to NOT change: would you play a phototrophic species in a multiplayer game where most (or all) stars could be collapsed?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 12:33 am 
Offline
Space Floater

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2015 1:58 am
Posts: 20
MatGB wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
But all the value of a blue star is lost by turning it into a black hole. It stops benefiting phototropes, can no longer run your stellar generator (which I'm pretty sure would have stacked with the black hole generator), and while they retain the ability to build energy hulls the value added there is smaller than the value added to a red star.

Well, you obviously don't collapse a sun where phototrophes live, and you can have solar generators elsewhere, bright stars aren't that rare, habitable black holes deliberately are. Currently Solar generator and Black Hole generator stack, that might change, we're working up to a balance pass on production modifiers soon.


It's not obvious. If you had to sacrifice a blue star for a black hole rather than being able to use a worthless red star and you were playing Chato or Laenfa you would either collapse a star where phototropes lived or deliberately go out of your way to colonize a blue star with non-phototropes in expectation that you would later collapse it.

Quote:
Currently, the Solar Hull is nerfed with a lot of slots commented out, that will be changing, it remains the single most powerful hull in the game. Making the energy line (which is the most powerful brute force line) even easier to use would make the solar hull more powerful, given that it's overpowered that's not going to happen.


But changing which star is used doesn't change how easy it is to get Solar Hulls unless the stars have different rarities because the Energy Compressor and Solar Containment Unit can be built at the same time. I'm pretty sure blue stars are not more common than red stars, and I think they might be rarer.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group