Velenka
-
Posts
344 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Velenka
-
-
I would also like to see some kind of system which could allow for both simple and complex systems. I think Minecraft mods got it pretty much right (Industrial Craft, Thermal Expansion, Minefactory Reloaded, etc).
On the smallest level each component had a simple function, configurable inputs/outputs, the ability to be controlled, and upgrade-able. These components would interface with an inventory system that was capable of all kinds of logistic functions and storage.
-
What "physically based upgrades"?
There are only sliders.
Heater strength [---|-]
Propellant pumps [--|--]
Accelerator length [|----]
But theres no "thrust", "efficiency", etc sliders.
You'd have to mix and tune the design to what you want and need, and not just crank the sliders as far to the right as you can afford
The physically based upgrades that you were advocating.
You can have thrust and efficiency sliders, as much as you can have "heater strength" or "propellant pumps" on a slider. And I would propose something like the following, instead of a single stat per slider:
Ex basic railgun:
<- Higher Damage [--------------------|--------------------] Higher Rate of Fire ->
<- Higher Range [--------------------|--------------------] Higher Efficiency ->
<- Higher Clip Size [--------------------|--------------------] Faster Clip Reload ->
-
Well, i wasnt saying that you chose /stats/ directly but /design features/ which affect the stats of the device.
There is no "efficiency" slider you crank up.
for example with a thruster:
When you want to increase propellant usage efficiency (specific impulse) you give the drive a longer/stronger acceleration stage or more powerful heaters which cause the drive to use up more power but to produce more thrust with the same propellant mass flow.
It now needs less propellant for the same thrust, at the cost of needing more power.
It doesn't matter to me how it's implemented, as long as it works. The only problem I have with selecting stats in the manner you describe is that it sounds discrete. I don't want to be limited by discrete choices.
Perhaps the physically based upgrades should simply allow the slider to work, instead of being stuck at 50% as default. Certain upgrades would allow certain stats to be selected for slidering.
-
One problem I see is that for example, in a trading hub, your screen might be absolutely filled with streaks. That might be unacceptable. In the same vein, perhaps it could be a subspace streak, where you have to rely on some sensor component to get even more advance warning than normal sensors would detect the ship normally. It would have a large radius, and would ping anytime a streak penetrates the surface. It would be able to show a ray which points back to the FTL ship.
-
Of course it would be limited, maybe with some point system or similar.
Also a lot of the sliders wouldnt be a purely better/worse choice.
To reuse my gauß cannon example
Larger bore means more expensive ammo and lower rate of fire and muzzle velocity but gives you a harder punch with less armor penetration.
Longer barrel means higher maximum muzzle velocity, but more energy per shot and flat out larger gun.
More space for ammo feeder means smaller capacitor banks which translates to lower muzzle velocity and damage per shot.
Bigger support section means its simply a larger gun, which you have to fit into your ship somehow.
And so on and so forth.
A gun with all sliders to one side isnt an ubercannon, its a very special cannon with a certain usage field.
Your example is very close to what I was talking about. You increase x at the cost of decreasing y. It wouldn't matter whether all sliders were on one side or the other in this case since it would be balanced. What isn't balanced is turning muzzle velocity, efficiency, cap banks, damage, small size, etc all to their maximum or minimum individually, since everyone would just choose the best (max or min) for each parameter and leave it there.
What might also be interesting is if the player could choose the pairings. Would I want to increase damage and range at the cost of efficiency and rpm? or increase rpm and range at the cost of damage and efficiency?
-
Regardless: in terms of the OP's idea:
Maybe all elements could be generated based on rules and the parameters being tweaked by the player (with the magnitude of modification determined by player skills and used materials).
Kinda like the face/body editor from the sims, but for engines, weapons, etc.
With the model not being hardcoded but generated with parametric modeling and the stats being affected by the parameter tweaking as well.
For example a gauß cannon could have the amount of coils, the number of windings in each coil, barrel diameter, space dedicated to the loading systems (how fast it can be reloaded with projectiles), space dedicated to its capacitor systems (maximum energy stored), dimensions of its connector block (and thus volume available to caps and loading system), space for power electronics (how fast the caps can ideally recharge) and so on.
When done with enough tweakability a fighter rapid fire cannon and a capital artillery cannon could be the same "part" but with differently tweaked numbers.
No dedicated modeling tool needed for individualised parts, no multipart system either but it allows players to adapt equipment to their needs/preferences and would also allow visual identification of "custom" parts.
I like this idea. But what's to prevent players from setting all parameters (damage, rpm, range, efficiency) at the maximum settings? I think that there should be pairings of these parameters, such that when you increase one, another decreases. IE, pair damage and efficiency, range and rpm. Setting the pairs at either 0 or 100% would set one parameter to its max value, and the other to its min value and vice versa. Default would be 50%. Skills/tech research/whatever could increase the max and min values of the parameters.
-
1) Matter compression does not remove the mass from an object. You'll weigh a cubic f**kton heavier than you did before you landed if you planned to mine out acres of terrain, and taking off like that will be a nightmare for sure. Between gravity and air resistance, it's safe to say you'd be stuck on the planet for quite a while.
If ship based cargo transport works the same way the nano pack does, then it actually does negate the mass, or at least greatly decreases it. Here's an excerpt from the short story
I pass through the forest sucking up several trees, and I find a pile of rock that I siphon up also with my morpher. Its gravitational compression capacity is just astonishing. I’ve got the equivalent of four sequoias and six tons of rock in cartridges housed in my belt! The worst part is that I don’t even feel their weight thanks to anti-gravity technology!
But ship based cargo transport shouldn't work this way. It's too OP. Lifting off a planet with non-trivial amounts of payload mass should be difficult.
-
Suggestions for effects:
Reduced sensor/comms range in a rainstorm
Reduced efficiency of machines/elements in a sandstorm+reduced visibility
Severe decrease in temperature in snowstorm+reduced visibility
Very small chance of causing machines/elements to shut down for a short time in a thunder storm
-
It's pretty neat to see the server tech in action! Can't wait to see more!
-
For effective deep space interdiction you need sensors with light hours to light months or even years.
But for in system gameplay you definitely dont want sensors that can keep an eye over the whole system on its own.
Same for FTL disruptors and the like.
I personally dont see a way to reconcile one of those problems without completely breaking the other thing.
I agree that the choice you outlined exists. I suggest we do break something: deep space interdiction. There's really no need. And if you did want it, there's other solutions with a "normal" sized sensor range.
The other thing that is very much unknown at this point is sensors. What kind of information will sensors give? Will there be different sensors for different things? Will there be different ranges for sensing different things?
There's already a limit on freedom of movement. DU is supposed to be focused on emergent, cooperative gameplay. In accordance, FTL speeds are extremely slow relative to the scale of interstellar distances. There's no reason to go out into nothing, except on the rare occasion of a probe (but that's unmanned anyway) since there's literally nothing out there that is reachable in a reasonable amount of time.
There may be those who want to break from that mold, but they shouldn't be punished with artificial limits. The core idea of the game is what will limit them.
-
I would imagine that by the time the arkship safezone's materials were stripped out, the community as a whole would have created some kind of super civilization hub there too. You would be able to look for organizations to join or perhaps get some kind of paying job in the city to buy a ship later on.
Long range exploration:
It looks like we will be able to scan systems and see what is there before sending a SG probe to it, so we can send them to the systems we want to go to.
^this
After putting a stargate down, you would probably send interplanetary vessels to conduct surveys and such. But long range exploration won't be a trivial task. It will take many months of time to get the tech, then some more time to build the probes, then weeks for the probes to reach another system.
-
The ideal of there only being 2, "end all be all" types of space engines doesn't sit well with me since this game has so many advancement and progression based themes as part of its core. So some cool ideas you've got there. I like that you are adding progression to the ideas that the devs put forth so far, and I would love to see some of your ideas implemented, even if it literally takes IRL years or longer before someone can finally research the tech for it.
There should definitely be some variety in FTL and stargates. Perhaps different versions use different sources of power, ranging from electricity to fuel to magic space crystals. Some drives might be a little faster/go farther, some might be more efficient. With an upgrade skill or research mechanic, they could be improved upon by the player.
-
The devs have already stricken down the idea of a jump drive, replacing it with the stargate. And I do get the feeling that stargates will indeed take a very long time to get, months after game launch perhaps.
I'll go along with whatever pseudoscience you want to explain FTL. From a gameplay perspective, if it goes faster, the question is: How much faster? If it can reach another star system in 10 minutes (vs, say, 4 weeks), it renders stargates almost useless. I have no idea what kind of costs could be incurred to make up for such a huge benefit. Even complete and utter destruction of the entire ship might not be enough.
I could see FTL taking a few weeks or months after launch to get up and running. After that another few months or more for stargates to start appearing.
-
The real tricky business is if you can link one stargate to many stargates on the adjacent systems around it and if a "Star-Net" can be built that way for massive relocation of flotillas on the borders of a faction. I mean, it should be a thing, since it gives power to those who can build such complex networks.
So something like this? Where two stargates can be connected by other/s? Also reminds me of the way antennas work in SE. As long as you have a proper network laid down, you can access a ship 1000km away.
I do like the idea.
As far as rights to access stargates go, obviously you need a "can use" tag to use it. But you should need to have a "can use" tag on the dialing and receiving gate, as well as any gate on the network in between. If you do not have access to an intermediate gate, perhaps an alternate route in the network could be found instead. If no alternate routes exist, you cannot dial out.
-
So the devs have said there will be no jump drives
We don't have plans for jump drives inside ships (vs Stargates that are independant structures made to help other ships to jump). FTL will be possible via warp drives but they will basically be about travelling at very high speed, a few multipliers above the speed of light (no offence, physicists, this is SciFi!). The reason is that we have this mechanism of probes that must be launched to be able to deploy stargates. If we were to allow jump drives, or insanely high speed, they would be used to bypass this constraint and deploy stargates much more rapidly. We believe it will give a better overall gameplay if new parts of the universe are discovered with relative efforts, creating a feeling of achievement and conquest that would simply not be there if it's too easy to just "jump there". It will allow to see the known world grow as the community is expanding, constantly opening new territories to explore and conquer.
As far as hyperdrive, I agree that there should be some capacity to increase the speed of FTL. I would prefer to see some kind of tech upgrade/research mechanic applied to the normal FTL rather than a different kind of FTL, if it were a choice. I would love to see both research/upgrade mechanic and newer FTL implemented. It would be interesting to see choices involving a new experimental hyperdrive, or the super upgraded FTL.
Another important thing is to keep in mind the devs' statement above: "If we were to allow jump drives, or insanely high speed, they would be used to bypass this constraint and deploy stargates much more rapidly. We believe it will give a better overall gameplay if new parts of the universe are discovered with relative efforts..."
So it also depends on the balancing of an increased FTL speed too. Is 2x enough? Too much? How much higher should the fastest FTL be able to travel, relative to the earliest FTL available?
IMO I think 2x is in the ballpark, while 5-10x is too much. IE a normal interstellar journey of one month would be reduced to 3 days (obviously, but just giving perspective here). I would think that is too fast given that the devs have stated they intend weeks-long journeys (interstellar), not a handful of minutes, hours, or even days.
-
This seems interesting. Though I would prefer to see no terrestrial plant based narcotics at all. (Cocaine or marijuana or mushrooms) Those probably wouldn't have made in on the arkship. Would like to see new space cocaine instead. Synthetic drugs old or new could work too.
As far as buffs go, while there could be some positive effects, there should be more harmful ones also.
-
For balance of game mechanics, indefinite charge of shields is quite impractical, but, if you meant indefinite as not "hard-capped" by the devs butactually capped by the wattage of the whole ship, then that's an entirely different notion and one that seems to balance itself out.
As for the custom shapes of screens, I find it quite difficult, given how many people don't get things like ... geometry. In my opinion, make the arrangemento f the emitters themselves to dctate the shield screen as a whole to emulate the ship's shape. It would be the easiest route for the devs, with how they implement modules.
1. Yes that is what I meant
2. Well, we will be expected to build ships with thrusters placed to counter both forces and torques in order to get it to fly in a straight line. Not to mention what kind of cargo or inventory mass there will be to deal with dynamically. If we can do that, then "geometry" isn't so difficult.
I've also realized that making shield emitters modular with custom geometry would allow for emergency bulkhead seals in the case of a breach.
-
We're going to have to have multiple types of sensors. There's been discussion mainly on ship detecting sensors.
What about stargate probes? We're not going to be blindly sending those out. We'll have to know in advance where to send them with some kind of long range sensor.
There's also other things we'd like to scan for. What about different types of ore for mining? Or perhaps an anomalous EM scan to search for alien relics? Scan for lifeforms?
I could see the ship detecting and the last paragraph being scannable with a single type of sensor which can use most of the EM spectrum to use. Perhaps the long range sensor could be lumped in too, at the cost of reduced angular range for such long distances.
-
More possible shield mechanics:
As Cornflakes has stated, capacitors are an obvious base for shield tech. IRL it takes longer to charge when closer to full than when closer to empty. The emitters would charge slower and slower as they fill up.
And suppose that a power source provides a variable voltage to the shield emitters. In effect, this would enable shield to store energy indefinitely, acting as an energy sink. This might sound OP to be able to just pour energy in like this, but I would respond by saying that absorbing hits should consume charge instead of energy. This way, hits drain shields faster at a higher charge.
As a result, shields would be most effective only when they are fuller. A shield with twice the voltage has four times the energy stored. If you have a smaller shield emitter, a hit would reduce the charge, which would reduce the voltage by some amount. With larger shield emitter, a hit would reduce by the same amount of charge, but lose less charge relatively, and would reduce the voltage by some lesser amount. However, larger shield emitters would take longer to charge with a constant power source than a smaller shield emitter.
Shields should have user defined field geometry. You could have simple shapes, like a flat plane or a half cylinder or half sphere. The size and relative position and orientation would be user defined too. In order to balance this, charge loss would increase proportional to the amount of area projected.
-
Yeah I can see two paths for mining logistics: ground and space based. It's certainly more efficient for ground based vehicles to either be small, or use ground based movement (hover engines?). As for space based, yes, that ought to be more efficient outright.
I do like the idea of a nanoformer turret, and to add to this, there should be a larger, fixed, forward mounted type too.
-
-
so you dont want alloys to be a thing?
you dont want components to need multiple input resources to be produced?
you dont want equipment to need multiple components, materials and alloys to be produced?
because that is what you say you want with "single unit requires many elements to function"
and also: how does the complexity of the above diagram prevent it from being a grown construct?
most of the sub elements produce something you could use in many different locations as well, its not that the whole thing has exactly one input and exactly one output.
the whole refinery can start out as an inefficient plant to produce /one/ of the outputs or do one of the paths to the gasoline mixing pool (which, to my knowledge, should already give viable fuel) and expand from there to utilise more of its previous waste products to produce more gasoline/diesel/asphalt/sulphur etc.
Now, now now, don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about alloys or multiple inputs or outputs. I am saying that we should have something more like IC2 from minecraft: Each machine is a single unit, capable of working to change X into Y. A factory is made by piping up those machines together. A single machine isn't comprised of multiple blocks.
Simple processes should require only a single element, like turning raw iron ore into steel, or oil into gas. To turn raw ores into fancy components for space ships, that ought to require multiple processes and therefore multiple machines.
Perhaps this is exactly what you and others want, but I don't want to see something complex like OP's diagram for something that should have no more than 3 elements to produce fuel from oil, or whatever energy source we'll see.
-
There is some concept art for a hover engine
We probably need to make our own hover craft. It's probably more fun anyway.
-
you dont need a phd to play factorio either and that is more confusing when you look at an already established factory
factorio is also a good example of how building complex production chains should feel.
perfectly fine and logical when you do it yourself.
gigantic, confusing and a messy when you look at it as an outsider because of its complexity and size
Never heard of factorio till now. But I agree with you. It should be very easy and simple and organic on a small scale but can grow and develop to appear complex. Not something like that diagram in OP where a single unit requires many elements to function.
! Better elements !
in Builder Forum
Posted
These sound like physical characteristics to me.
But regardless, it seems you meant all of that in a parameter-only sense. I just didn't see the explanation of that until now.
I do agree that simple manipulation of the exact parameters is a bit boring, but I was only trying to say that can't be done is different from won't be done.
But it seems this is all moot since the devs say this: