CalenLoki

Attacking (or being attacked) doesn't remove stealth. Just greatly increase your heat signature, which means pretty much the same. And if we have two separate devices: Detector (wide detection angle - to get the first contact) Tracker (very narrow detection angle - can be locked on already detected enemy, or used manually at anticipated enemy position) Then once someone fire once, he get tracked and an't really go back to stealth again (unless he breaks LOS, which may be tricky in open space) I agree - no randomness, no magic.

Then we'll have BOO1, BOO2, BOO3, ..., BOO69, ect. A lot of hassle for everyone (players, devs), and doesn't really help much.

The case is: can you think of any game mechanics that are not super artificial that would make zerg orgs less desirable to join? Anything that encourage small groups over large ones? Because I can't. Not in game with such amount of freedom and no "score" of any kind.

Ech, this forum is weird. I prefer the old school, where you can see all the html code in edit window. I hope that miss just mean that ray points certain distance away from the point you've aimed at. And hit whatever is there - other part of the ship, other ship, terrain, player character, empty space, ect. My hope for repair is that you need to be close (2-5m max maybe?). So ships need to have internal corridors if you want to be able to repair them. Otherwise no combat ship will ever need to have maintenance tunnels. Being stuck would be cool. Sending emergency calls into void, hoping that pirates won't be the first to come to "aid" you. Or just switching characters and sending rescue ship. Or calling specific service org.

The difference is that the only thing you can dock into socket is cargo container. So single dynamic element, not a whole construct. So it's more like a shelf, where you can put pallets with forklift. For user friendliness I thought about mechanical arm. So player (or lua script) just need to be within range and select which container he want to pick up or into which socket it want to place it. Or if it's small container (i.e. 2x2x4) then you can do it by hand. But your idea of some assist for temporarily aligning sockets on two constructs could be nice too. Docking ring would be cool too, but IMO they shouldn't automatically transport any resources (except liquids maybe). Just create rigid connection for modular ships.

Hazards sounds really good. Anything that increase difficulty means that mining can be faster in general. And less boring. Regarding scripting and auto mining - once I get access, I'll make nanoformer-based auto miner that require avatar presence, but not player input. But let's not get into off-topic

I liked your initial idea, but those examples are against the principle "matter can't be destroyed, only displaced". More discussion about the idea here: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/13100-delete-item-is-a-good-thing/ So I'd change your 2. and 3. to: "can't compress matter as efficiently as nanoformer (i.e. everything takes up 5x more storage space), thus need the matter to be dumped somewhere frequently". And instead of destroying ore, it could just slip past detectors and end up in waste container. I.e. if you mine high-grade ore, only 20% of it goes to "ore container", and rest goes into "stone container". When you dump that stone somewhere, you go through it again (either with strip miner, so another 20%, or by hand). Containers with half-compressed mass would have no way to check what's inside, just how much they're filled. So the difference between them would be: Displacer: digs faster, but have no way to filter valuable ore from dirt. Stripminer: digs slightly slower, but can filter ores. The higher quality ores, the more % of it ends up in dirt container. Nanoformer: digs slowest, filters everything, compress everything, even dirt. 4. Is not really needed IMO. You can do the same with other tools and simple Lua code to keep your ship moving in straight line. Less tools with, but with more applications -> win

2500 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxawXXUqZkw 0:20

Just for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efu_129hI9o&t=600s Start around 10:00. At 10:20 he's saying "you'll be allowed to select place where you want to shoot". Current damage model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vrf50dZrv4&t=180s Starts around 3:00. I'm still searching for the one that mentioned "if you're too far, you aim at random point in the ship"

What a wonderful place, that Antarctica. Do you accept immigrants there?

Sometimes less is more.

I'd go for no surprise in base attacks. I mean attacks that can directly cause massive losses (whole base, a lot of resources, ect.) Hacking and sneaking could be made just for stealing single/few very valuable objects, causing some small but important malfunctions, scouting the base, ect. Thus they'd need to be severally limited in tools: -No vehicles (maybe except the smallest ones) -Only few explosions (if you blow too much stuff, FFU goes into total invincibility mode. Or limited to explosives that are way more expensive than their target) -No heavy weapons (so anti-personal AI-turrets need to be avoided, not blown up) -Hacking can only temporary disable devices (to let you get deeper into base, not to cause damage) So base capture or mass looting -> Direct PvP battle, no surprise (FFU and warning period) Stealing few items, scouting, sabotaging -> small infantry squad against base engineering, puzzles and AI-guns. PvE (or more like asynchronous PvP). Only works with surprise. Ship vs ship outside bases -> attack whenever you want, however you want.

I'm saying that localised damage is a lot better than health pool. And shields are the later.

I've seen quite opposite NQ statements. In one of video AMA JC said that "you can aim at specific part of a ship, unless it's too far for such precision - then damage will be dealt at random points". There is also something in one of video devblogs "ATM only elements can be damaged, and damage propagate as shockwave, but we plan on per-voxel damage at release". Some other words, but the meaning was the same.

AFAIK Ownership of goods that are not in your inventory depends on RDMS set to specific container. And you don't loose any tags or rights when you die. Only if someone takes over the construct (blow up the core) the RDMS get's removed, and everyone can access container. So ship owner can probably just steal your items, as he has full rights to access all containers and edit RDMS. Thus only thing that protects your goods is the agreement between you and him. Either by in-game contract system, or some player-created mechanics. In case of small constructs - probably to steal them someone need to blow up the core, then replace it with his own. And it doesn't matter if they are docked or not - only if they are physically protected from being attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrage_balloon Nothing new

I got impression that those "24-48" is available range, and defenders can set the time between those. So they can choose when they wan't the battle. Unlike attackers, they can't just retreat without looses if the time doesn't fit their schedule. And attackers should be informed when it'll start at least 12 hours before battle. Just so they can get online in time too.

Thanks. But most of those are not sources - those are community guesses/ideas/suggestions. Only the last quote contain any source. And Devblog about FFU. Both are only about "offline protection" kind of shield. That's quite far from "already been decided", which sounds as if something is set in stone. Maybe you meant "already been discussed"?

@Lethys It all depends on effort required to run those sensors. Hypothetical question: Does the fact that they have full detection running means my fleet (of the same cost, player numbers, tech level, character level, player skill, ect) without that much detection will have significant advantage if we meet? Is it something like 1% of their total investment, thus cheap no-brainer that everyone need to check out to be stealth-proof? Or closer to 20%, which gives them advantage over stealth fleet (which spent even more on being stealthy, maybe 50%), but put at severe disadvantage against one dedicated to raw firepower? Is that ratio constant, thus viable for both small and large fleets? Or maybe stealth is totally OP in small and totally useless in large encounters? The problem I see is that stealth, which gives quite constant advantage, scale with size (proportionally or even exponentially harder to make large stuff hidden). While countermeasures have quite constant cost, thus are large investment at low level, and pretty much no cost at high. Thus at low level you have quite random chance to sneak past enemy (because you're stealthy against half of detection systems, and enemy can't afford to have them all. Dice roll if they see you), but at high level you have absolutely no chance (they always have all the detection equipment, because it's dirty cheap).

Why?! Why have you so lightly wasted many hours of my life?! Good stuff.

Thanks @Lethys, for saving me all the typing. I agree that stealth should be function of all ship elements, not just "who has bigger stealth generator". My only concern with so many detection, is that large ship/base/fleet can easily mount all the detectors. It'll be pretty small cost compared to other parts. That would break the stealth completely, as you couldn't be stealthy in all the fields, but you could detect everything. Making detection equipment expensive (big/heavy/power hungry) just makes small fleets/ships blind, and large would see everything. Quite against intuitive "scouts are better small" rule. Making one detector hinder function of another can be worked around by spreading them between fleet members. So I'd rather have general "stealth" (blocks, elements, layout, ect.) compete with firepower, speed, agility, cargo capacity, range and durability. Not against other stealth mechanics. Regarding visual invisibility - I'm against. It's OP in most games that have it.

Pool have quite vague questions. What kind of shield? IMO: Base offline defence in form of shield is a must have, for everyone. Of course the area they protect should be proportional to their building and fuel cost, to avoid spamming them all around the place. And only for static structures - travelling ships should be the target for ambushes, surprise attacks and pirates. Shields that soak damage before ship builder engineering skill kicks in? No, please no. That's attempt to smuggle HP pool into game with (promissed) localised damage. So just dumbing it down. There is EVE if you want simple numerical combat. Source? Such statements without them serve no purpose. We know about FFU - that they'll be in game for static constructs. Nothing about their exact cost. And nothing about HP shields either.

As @NanoDot said - putting down shield costs your resources. Be it ammo or special device meant only for putting down shields (up to NQ). So spamming is possible, but you need to calculate if it's really worth it. With bigger shields costing more to put down of course. Also IMO if shield goes down, and nobody attacks, It should go back up quite quickly. Half hour without any gunfire? Then battle is over.

If hacking is allowed only when FFU is down, then it's the same as taking over with gun in hand. It's just another type of tool (weapon) that you can use.

Errr..... what? No offence Unown, but your comments seem a bit... random recently. Shields have nothing to do with movement waypoints, nor with cargo. Only relation may be to "weak spots in armour", and that's the reason why I'd rather not have shields in game (except offline-protection). Weak-spots make engineering way more fun and engaging. Or do you mean using shields to transport cargo somehow....?