Spedemix

Improve the climbing speed of slow vehicles by making the uphill speed dependent on cabin power

Recommended Posts

Now some videos which showcase the problem. In each videoclip I climb the same hill up with whatever speed I accumulated when driving from spawn

 

Exhibit A: Bare Growl cabin with 8 Bigfoot ST and no engine:

 

Spoiler

 

This guy has just a cabin, 8 Bigfoot ST (a total overkill for craft like this) and necessary frames to mount the wheels. No engine to help it. Weighs about 3400kg. The end cabin power (cabin minus wheels) is 461.5, which is nothing. It doesn't even reach its top speed of 100km/h before ascending. Yet it climbs this hill like a champ with very slow speed reduction.

 

Exhibit B: same growl but loaded to the absolute max mass. It's a Hauler+MJ lvl15 giving us a max mass of 7150kg. The cabin power is the same: 461.5.

 

Spoiler

 

The higher mass limit (and the fact it practically never accelerates to max speed) results in a quicker deceleration on the hill. Nevertheless this craft which is completely deprived from any reasonable acceleration due its max load, no engine and the overkill wheel setup makes the climb respecfully.

 

In both of these cases the crafts use their high top speed to sling their craft up. The Exhibit B already shows signs of slowing down but the high initial top speed makes sure the craft never has a chance to fully slow down.

 

Exhibit C: Bare Humpie with Colossus on same wheel setup:

Spoiler

 

This craft weighs about 7400kg, slightly more than the Growl Hauler fully loaded. It also has a lower top speed of 64km/h which it reaches easily on flat terrain due to insane aceleration. Cabin power is impressive 1904.7. Yet you can see how this craft already slows bit down towards the end of the climb. That is due to the fact the craft has lower top speed so it reaches the end climbing speed sooner since the deceleration is linear at any given mass.

 

Which brings us to exhibit D: The same humpie but loaded to 18500kg, which is the tonnage limit of this wheel configuration:

 

Spoiler

 

The cabin power is the same: 1907.4. So is the top speed 64km/h since we're not overtonnaged. You can see how it feels this guy barely makes the climb.

 

It only gets worse from here. If you'd make this craft heavier with more wheels, it'll climb this hill slower and slower. If you'd equip ML 200 legs to easily max out the tonnage, you'd limit your speed to 40km/h resulting you reaching the final crawl speed even sooner. Whenever i run ML 200 build, I pretty much never climb this hill up because it simply takes too long to make it.

 

This is all backwards. Why the hell does this giant monster with loads of cabin power slow down to such a crawl while the light cabin that's completely deprived of cabin power due to overspec'd wheel setup can comfortably make the same climb?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally let's do some math showing how making the final climb speed dependent on cabin power could make this scenario more fair for the heavy craft on a theoretical level. Let's compare the Growl loaded to max mass and the max tonnage'd Humpie with the Colossus

 

The Growl had a mass of 7150kg and cabin power of 461.6.

The Humpie had a mass of 18500kg and cabin power of 1907.4.

 

We get a comparison value if we divide the cabin power with mass:

 

Growl: 461.6 / 7150 = 0.0645

Humpback: 1907.4 / 18500 = 0.1031

 

This comparison value is actually used in determining the acceleration curve of your car. The higher this is, the faster your car will accelerate to your max speed. You can see the Humpie has much higher comparison value due to fact Humpie's initial cabin power is high and the Colossus engine makes it even higher. As a matter of fact it's almost twice as high as the comparison value of Growl.

 

In my opinion this comparison value (or something similar) should also be used in determining the final climb speed at any given slope.

 

In a nutshell: The faster your car accelerates, the faster it should drive up the hills.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggestion opened up to gather more feedback. :salute:

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you!

 

...and sorry I can't find any simpler way to explain a suggestion like this. :blush:

Edited by Spedemix
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please! Powerful vehicles should go uphill faster, especially if they are not fully loaded. Or to be quite honest they should accelerate faster on even ground as well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I would like to see this with a physics update specifically regarding collisions. Some time the collisions in game are awful likely do to hitboxes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loved this one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an additional sugestion regarding the acceleration of slower crafts that is somewhat related to this issue.

 

My suggestion: Make acceleration time and curve scale to a fixed number of 100km/h instead of scaling it to the current top speed of the cabin.

 

Allow me to explain.

 

Remember the "comparison value" used to determine how fast a vehicle will accelerate? This one:

 

Spoiler
On 7/1/2019 at 8:41 PM, Spedemix said:

We get a comparison value if we divide the cabin power with mass:

 

Growl: 461.6 / 7150 = 0.0645

Humpback: 1907.4 / 18500 = 0.1031

 

This comparison value is actually used in determining the acceleration curve of your car. The higher this is, the faster your car will accelerate to your max speed.

Notice I use the word "accelerate to your max speed". The max speed meaning the speed limit of your cabin. Two crafts with identical comparison value will take the same time to accelerate to their respective max speeds of their crafts. Even when the top speed is completely different.

 

Maybe you already realized what the problem with this is but let me make up an example.

 

Say you have two cars with different cabins, yet identical comparison value. Car A has a top speed of 100km/h while Car B has 50km/h. If it takes Car A 10sec to accelerate to 100km/h it will take 10sec for Car B to accelerate to 50km/h. Now you see the problem? My suggestion will keep the Car A's acceleration what it was while making the Car B's acceleration faster. It's probably not twice as fast (because I have no idea what the actual acceleration curve is, all I know it's not linear).

 

This is yet another reason why heavy cabins objectively underperform in this game. Epic medium cabins have the same cabin power to mass limit ratio as heavy cabins do (1 cabin power for each 5kg) while boasting higher top speeds than heavy cabins. It's a bit of an oversimplification but it means a medium cabin loaded to max mass will always have a better acceleration than a heavy cabin loaded to max mass.

 

I used this Guide thread as my source:

 

Most importantly this quotation within the thread:

 

Spoiler
11 hours ago, XR57 said:

Here's the correct acceleration equation, provided you haven't exceeded your limits on mass:

88520065_trueaccelerationwhileundertonna

So not only is power more complicated than that, but Crossout's so-called "acceleration" stat actually measures your time-to-top-speed, whatever that top speed may be, instead of a fixed 0-to-60. Ergo, to find your true acceleration, you multiply the fake stat by your top speed.

 

Now if my suggestion were to be implemented, it'd mean the acceleration for light cabins with Cheetah would be nerfed since the top speed is 120km/h. Now if you think this'd be unreasonable then use a fixed value of 120km/h instead of 100km/h and you're done. Personally I'd argue light cabin+cheetah is OP due to the scaling into top speed.

Edited by Spedemix
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spedemix said:

My suggestion: Make acceleration time and curve scale to a fixed number of 100km/h

"Scale to a fixed number" is a bit oxymoronic, but, yes, please change acceleration to just measure something like time-to-100kmph (were there no speed limit), instead of time-to-top-speed. If only because it's more intuitive. If the effect is overkill then just nerf heavy power afterward.

6 hours ago, Spedemix said:

Now if my suggestion were to be implemented, it'd mean the acceleration for light cabins with Cheetah would be nerfed since the top speed is 120km/h. Now if you think this'd be unreasonable then use a fixed value of 120km/h instead of 100km/h and you're done. Personally I'd argue light cabin+cheetah is OP due to the scaling into top speed.

Agree, 100 is fine.

Just for the sake of comparison, if we look at perkless rare engines, the dun horse actually has more acceleration than a razorback once you've equipped four bigfoot wheels. Any higher net penalty and its acceleration is better. On the speed-focused engine. Colossus can really pump up the jam on hovers though, due to their low penalty, plus it has a good perk etc; you need like eight bigfoot wheels for cheetah/oppressor to match colossus. Hot red never will.

6 hours ago, Spedemix said:

Epic medium cabins have the same cabin power to mass limit ratio as heavy cabins do (1 cabin power for each 5kg) while boasting higher top speeds than heavy cabins.

All of them except the humpie have values that're slightly off, at least judging by the graphic. Though, same goes for plenty mediums.

Edited by XR57

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, XR57 said:

All of them except the humpie have values that're slightly off, at least judging by the graphic. Though, same goes for plenty mediums.

The graphic doesn't matter, it's a crude graph for a hidden numerical stat. General rule of thumb is for every 5kg in mass limit you get 1 cabin power. Humpie has 20.000kg mass limit and 4000 cabin power. Quantum and Torero has 10.000kg and 2000 respectively. These numbers were pulled from within the game files when that was doable: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15ASdvLE_T3t7_biF0ocaCxZMPSA8LkSXyDx4UitZ9EE/edit#gid=1951245419

 

Nevertheless nobody still knows what this number means :dntknw: :DD

 

It also shows how both Quantum and Tusk have 2000 cabin power despite Quantum having mass limit of 10.000kg and Tusk 8000kg. Cerberus was later buffed to match the "extra available cabin power" other light cabins have. Everytime the devs change mass limit of a cabin, they also tweak the cabin power to match it (although the recent Ghost tweak had 9% increase in mass but 7% increase in cabin power. Odd choice of numbers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spedemix said:

when that was doable

Possibly outdated then. The Docker and Pilgrim have the same mass limit for example, but the docker has a whole extra half bar of power, on par with the Jawbreaker. I don't think that's just a crude rounding error in the pixels. Plus there're new cabins that are even more clearly nonstandard.

I doubt this is exactly right, but it should at least be wrong in equal proportion across the board:

Spoiler

 

Finding the common-cab power/ML ratio:

  • Docker seems to match the Jawbreaker's power, granting it 13/12ths a bar per 2k ML; lines up with other greys.
  • To double check, the Sprinter's final vessel is 1/4th full by this metric; visually matches the Bat's final quarter-vessel.

Finding nonstandard epic power values:

  • Bastion's final vessel is between the Huntsman and WWT1's (19/24ths and 7/8ths, or 21/24ths). That's likely 20/24ths, or 5/6ths.
  • Echo's final vessel is between the Duster and Sprinter's (a sixth and a fourth). That's likely around a fifth. In terms of 24ths, it could only be 5/24ths.
  • Icebox's final vessel is less full than Docker/Jawbreaker's. Likely 11/24ths.
  • Favorite's final vessel is more full than a Sprinter/Bat. Likely 7/24ths.
  • Howl's final vessel less full than the Icebox. Likely 10/24ths.
  • The Call's final vessel is the same as a Bear's, 3/4ths, or 18/24ths.

 

 It's possible the tooltips themselves too are outdated if devs didn't wire things right, but they at least seem less outdated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2019 at 8:54 AM, XR57 said:

Possibly outdated then. The Docker and Pilgrim have the same mass limit for example, but the docker has a whole extra half bar of power, on par with the Jawbreaker. I don't think that's just a crude rounding error in the pixels. Plus there're new cabins that are even more clearly nonstandard.

Fair enough. I haven't paid any attention to the bars. I used to refer to this sheet and then keep mental notes whenever cabins have changes. Since i don't play white cabins I can't remember if the devs buffed it.

 

.....That's strange. I went a had a little dig and saw no changes either to Docker or Pilgrim between 0.9.135 and 0.10.70. Also russian XO wiki shows both cabins have the same cabin power value: 2400

 

https://crossout.fandom.com/ru/wiki/Категория:Основа

 

(it shows six block but you can hover over it and it gives you the number 2400.

 

But once again, it's possible the wiki is outdated (FWIW for Echo it shows a cabin power of 3680 when you hover over it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about making another thread but I I'll just write it here since it deals with the topic of cabin power and such. It's about changing engines.


Currently engines work in such way that they increase the horse power of your cabin by a percentage. Hardcore Engine improves your cabin power by 10% and Colossus by an impressive 50%. Movement parts then lower this cabin power by a percentage per added wheel/hover/track etc. Icarus VII drain 5% of your power while ML 200 Leg drain 20% of your power.

 

The above means Engines simply affect cabins and their value but don't affect movement parts and their power drain in any way whatsoever. Because of this Engines which provide high power will always synergize well with movement parts which drain very little power.

 

That is the reason why Hovercrafts on heavy cabins using Colossus are so effective. And why most tracked builds move so sluggishly even when they use Colossus.

 

My solution to fix this: When installing an engine, instead of letting it improving the cabin power, let it reduce the amount each installed movement part drains power.

 

Too hard to understand? Fair enough, I'll explain in math.

 

Here's how the power of your vehicle is calculated currently:

Spoiler
Cabin power (100) * 100
100 + the total value of the penalty from movement parts - power bonus from the engine

 

Here's how it would be calculated using my suggestion:

Spoiler
Cabin power (100) * 100
100 + the total value of the penalty from movement parts - (total value of the penalty from movement parts * engine multiplier)

 

Just in case someone doesn't understand what I mean with engine multiplier: Hot Red provides 20% boost so its multiplier is 0.2. Colossus has 50% bonus so its multiplier is 0.5.

 

The engines would now synergize better with movenent parts because they will now reduce how much your installed movement parts reduce your horse power. The more your movement parts drain cabin power the more beneficial would an engine like Colossus be.

 

This tweak would nerf Hovers but greatly buff Tracks when using them in conjunction with Colossus. Ten Icarus VII hovers drain 50% cabin power while two Goliath Tracks drain 140%. Colossus engine would cut that drain half for each scenario. Ten Icarus VII with Colossus would drain 25% while two Goliath Tracks with Colossus would drain 70%.

 

Here are some power values I calculated for popular designs in this game for both the current and my suggested scheme. Higher number equals better acceleration when building for high mass:

 

Spoiler

Old Blight + 5 Bigfoot + Cheetah: 1142.86
New Blight + 5 Bigfoot + Cheetah: 1142.86 (no change)

Old Steppe Spider + 6 ML + Colossus: 1882.35
New Steppe Spider + 6 ML + Colossus: 2000 (slight buff)

Old Humpback + 2 Armored Tracks + 2 Goliath + Colossus: 1379.31
New Humpback + 2 Armored Tracks + 2 Goliath + Colossus: 1818.18 (major buff)

Old Torero + 6 Icarus VII + Hot Red: 3636.36
New Torero + 6 Icarus VII + Hot Red: 3225.81 (slight nerf)

Old Icebox + 10 Icarus VII + Colossus: 3800
New Icebox + 10 Icarus VII + Colossus: 3040 (major nerf)

Builds with lower mass are affected less. Build which do not use an engine are not affected in any way. Blight, Torero, Werewolf, Cerberus, Harpy and Quantum all have the same cabin power value so you'd get the same value for my above calculation for the 5-Bigfoot and 6-hover builds using those cabins. I can calculate the horsepower of your vehicle upon request and how it would change were my suggestion to be applied.

 

This tweak would also open up a door for buffing the bonus for Colossus and Razorback since now it will buff Tracks more than Hovers.

Edited by Spedemix
typos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that a light cabin with goliaths and built to 99% max mass is faster to accelerate and going uphill, against a heavy cabin with lots more power in the same vehicle with the same weight. And also the mass of the vehicle isnt nowhere near the limit with the heavy cabin but still the low power light cabin wins...

Not sure if this is working as intended, but that is why i always use light cabins with goliaths and dual mammoths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not completely agree. Hill climbing is not 100% horsepower dependant. 

Irl, inertia, terrain, torque, gear ratio, are huge factors.

Its not as simple as  my cabin plus engine have more power when its twice as heavy as the argument and theyre climbing sand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.