Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Combat'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Starting Zone (EN)
    • Rules & Announcements
    • General Discussions
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • Starting Zone (DE)
    • Regeln und Ankündigungen
    • Novark's Registratur
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • Starting Zone (FR)
    • Règles et Annonces
    • Registres du Novark
    • Discussions générales
  • Beta Discussion
    • Beta Updates & Announcements
    • Idea Box
    • Public Test Server Feedback
    • DevBlog Feedback
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Streamer's Corner
    • The Builder's Corner
    • Innovation Station
  • Organizations
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Novark's Registry
  • Fan Art, Fan-Fic & Roleplay
    • Novark Agora
    • Novark Story Time
    • Novark Art Gallery

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location:


Interests


backer_title


Alpha


community_id

  1. Yes, it's probably been mentioned many times before but I'd like to see avatar combat in the game soon. Could make for some thrilling game experiences. I know there's other games that fulfill that function but I think it would be cool in an open-space game like Dual Universe.
  2. Usually when there's territorial warfare, the act of capturing a base may start from the air or very far away. As time goes on the Area of interest may become contested by various means. However, at the end of the day, capturing anything terrestrial usually ends with ground forces... This being tanks to weaken a base and the internal dirty work being done by foot soldiers who will get into CQC situations to capture the buildings of the base. The fact that NQ brought up territorial war fare when there's been little to no conversation of AvA worries the absolute crap out of me. As in, atmospheric combat... I'm afraid... because there's no AvA... will result in yet another poorly executed patch release that will do little to bring back the community if the 0.24 and 0.25 patches actually get pulled off well enough. I'm sorry to break this to you NQ but if you instill territorial war fare without AvA the PvP crowd... the literal thousands of people who are waiting for this game to add in the true aspects that they're willing to throw their money at, will not get on board. Adding AvA AFTER launch will just add more fuel to the fire in ways NQ doesn't need especially when NQ is already in deep need to start generating some real cash-flow during beta. As far as Territorial war fare PVP goes, AvA is absolutely critical and is the final stage of capturing land. To add in Territorial war fare and NOT have AvA with at least pistols and rifles would be like building a car but leaving out the engine. You want to bring in the money from the EvE crowd when adding in territorial warfare? Don't half-ass it. Do it right and as thoroughly as you reasonably can or you'll just get more bad publicity keeping the gaming crowd (and their money) away from DU.
  3. Now you all might just think that this is an easy question. "Just do it like how it is done in EvE!" but unfortunately it isn't that easy. EvE balances out the power of large ships with the maneuverability of smaller ones, making large ships hard to shoot small ships that are orbiting them. In Dual, a few problems arrive if you tried to do this. firstly; unlike in EvE where people mostly maneuver by commands instructed by the player, in DU everything is controlled completely by keyboard input, meaning that large ships can just turn to face towards their target and have no tracking issues. (yes, I know you can do that in EvE too, but it's so niche and situational I wouldn't be surprised if 1/2 of the EvE community didn't know about it) Secondly, ships cannot reliably get in the close range that EvE ships can, since the current server limitations mean that desync happens very often unless you are very close or very far. NQ could try to fix these issues, but I doubt that it could ever be as silky smooth as EvE. Third, (imo this one should be changed) the current damage output of larger ships is so vast that it is basically pointless to try making anything small. with most non L core ships, its one shot and then you're dead, no competition. Reverting back to what it was where any core unit could use L guns is not a viable solution either. All that is really doing is pushing the problem to one side, as now any non L gun has become (even more) pointless, as well as bringing a resurgence of cube ships, which I don't think anybody wants. And although there may be some clever solutions to get over this issue, the truth is anything which isn't max core size is just not sufficient enough to stand a chance right now. any ideas on how to fix this guys?
  4. Warp: -make it so you have to warp from 5-10 SU outside of the safe zone (excluding the 3 inner planets) and leave warp at a similar distance. this adds risk to warp unlike the current system where you can just reap rewards from. -make it so your warp bring you out to a random position. this adds variation to warping and still gives players a chance of not dying instantly after leaving warp. -add the ability to warp as a group. This will solve a problem if you have all of the same size core or don't want to bring a bigger ship to be able to warp multiple ships out. Core sizes: -revert the radar changes to how they behaved before .23. this is a controversial point but one I believe is necessary as it will add variation to what cores people use for PVP. -give a ship with 10 gunners on it a place in a fight along with a ship that has 1. Reasons to fight: -xs cores should be used for fun with your friends, s cores should be a cheap entry level, m's should be the main stream core size and L's should be what you pull out for a big fight that you need to win. The game needs central point to fight over that aren't near safe zones. This could be: -Asteroids (supplies the game with ore) -stations (could have resources on the station or maybe a double talent point buff for a week for the org that controls it) -more rewards other than a fun experience to take away from combat. Armour: -nerf voxels. voxel armour is insanely good for tanking damage and not too expensive. -remove build mode when in PVP (could easily be triggered along with the warp drive cooldown at the begging of firing). This causes players to keep regenerating their armour throughout a fight further more making it harder to kill an already hard to kill enemy. -give a reason to not pile on more and more and even more armour onto your PVP ships. add reason to have the fastest ship on the field and reason to be the tankiest or reason to be a hybrid variant. -fix element obstruction, I shouldn't be able to sink an element in voxels to limit the damage it takes. weapons: -close the gap between different weapon sizes a little. smalls may hit an L core 100% of the time but their damage is so negligible your basically tickling the other ship. -the new weapon types are a good step in the right direction but I want to feel as though I'm using a different weapon not a buffed/nerfed variant of one that already exists. Overall this is just a list of changes i would like to see and believe will be best for the game.
  5. Hello! Been thinking about this idea for a while now. I'm not saying this would be a quick fix and would require some serious time and energy, but it would add layers upon layers of new gameplay. LMK your thoughts. The core of this idea is to add terraformers- Items that can repopulate ores in a hex. However, the way they would be implemented would be vastly more important than just adding the Item. Terraformers would be made with the essence of a black hole that comes in varying sizes, which would correspond to a terraformer size. The lore behind them would imply that the massive gravity of the black hole from which they are made is able to manipulate time and simulate millions of years of healing on a hex. Teraformers, at their core, would work on a single hex. The sizes would vary from xs to xl. Each teraformer would completely "rewrite" a single hex. All ores would be removed, and any built structures would disappear. Each Teraformer would have a different effect and time to work. For example, an XS would take an hour or so to work and would repopulate T1 ores in small batches around the hex. An XL teraformer would take several days to complete its work and would contain mega nodes or T3s. To prevent teraforming "gardens" from popping up, each hex would have a cooldown after being terraformed that correlates to the size terraformer used on it. An Xs would be a couple days, an XL would be a couple weeks or a month. The really, really important key to all this is that teraformers, or the black hole essence used to make them, CANNOT be obtained by mining. Allowing it to be built like other objects would allow miners and industrials to sit in an infinite money loop (kinda like they are rn) and have no need to rely on other parts of the market. Instead, here are some mission ideas to obtain black hole essences. These missions should reward several items with teraformers just being the top tier reward. Run- You find a ship with a black hole essence inside. After picking it up, your warp drive is disabled and you have to survive with a giant beacon that everyone in a certain distance can see for 10 minutes before your warp drive reboots. The bigger the essence, the bigger the radius. This would be for people who like building fast, nimble ships. A strange request: For traders and explorers. Someone on the far reaches of the galaxy has a mysterious item for sale at a low price. You have to get there and buy it from them (or from a box, who cares.) (Only for lower tier terraformers.) Black hole Dive: For explorers and adrenaline junkies. You jump into a black hole that punches out on the other side of the system in a dangerous area. It may be PvP or PvE, or a particularly hard to navigate asteroid field. Convoys: For the military/mercenaries. The only way to get the best black hole essences. The lower tier convoys should be able to be taken down by a small fighter, while the biggest would require a whole org. This is fair, since only a whole org should need to use xl terraformers. Like I said, I know this would take a LOT of work, but I feel like this type of gameplay mechanic would give miners a reason to invest into the economy, to buy more terraformers. Let me know your thoughts.
  6. Hello there. I've just noticed that Naunet has rebooted the forums, so I feel that posting feedback and suggestions would be worth it, since I couldn't go into deeper detail on the round table. The theme of this topic will be Constructs being too difficult to destroy. As it stands now, the main thing that governs how long a ship can survive being shot at is voxel mass and surface area. The current cube meta plays off of this. Consider this, everyone is currently using L weapons, weapons that are supposed to be fitting for battleships, yet people still struggle to destroy a cube, even worse a medium warship, and ultimately completely unable to destroy a large ship within reasonable means. Once the new updates fix weapon sizes to core sizes, people using smaller ships will struggle even more. Furthermore, large core ships will become more desirable, being reasonably indestructible and more potent in terms of damage output. If now we can predict that a large core vs large core battle will take several hours, a silly amount of resources and effort, to simply reach a stalemate, imagine what will happen when everyone has a large core battleship. It will simply become a waste of time, and completely only a war of attrition. Whoever can be bothered the most, whoever has the most time, whoever has the most voxel armour, scrap ammo and fuel. Paired with the already uninteresting gameplay, endless fights with large cores will be IMO the death of pvp, because at the moment people only pvp for fun, hell even if there were currently objectives I probably wouldn't bother spending hours for frustration. I do have a suggestion however, of which I believe many people are of the same mind. PENETRATION! Instead of nerfing and buffing things left and right, creating a confusion of balance, a different fundamental approach to combat should be used. Currently whatever weapon you may use, when hitting, creates a sphere of damage on whatever exterior location the RNG decides. With the currently used system, it is necessary to go through as much armour as the builder has implemented to cause any real damage to a ship. How does penetration work? Simple, when one shell loves another ship it'll do anything to get inside. instead of a sphere of damage, the damage model can be changed to a thin rod/cylinder. The goal of penetration is to deal damage to critical internal systems, throwing rocks at armour is a cavemans tactic. This will shift the balance of building a ship. Plating a ship with silly amounts of armour will no longer dictate how long a ship survives. Ship design will finally become important (ship design is not important ATM, slap on those voxels jimmy). Placement of elements will finally matter, internal design of the ship for easy access repairs will finally matter. However, this system can completely nullify the use of armour, balancing penetration will also be a struggle no doubt, but more depth and quicker more effective combat in DU is sorely needed. Use of armour can still be viable in such a way that the lack of it will be very disadvantageous for things such as missiles. A small bonus of armour penetration instead of mass exterior explosions is that, penetrations will leave less of a mark on the ships voxels. When you core a ship, you wont get something that has 0 voxels because you've had to literally destroy every block, and ships can keep retain their looks for longer which I'm sure some builders can appreciate. Indeed, much more is needed to introduce substance to combat. Like other things in DU, we lack tools to pvp. Fuel tanks, ammo tanks creating a hell of an explosion when destroyed, leading to more thoughtful placement of elements, more substance in combat. Emptying their contents when destroyed. Your ammo went off m8, GG. While penetration leaves less of a mark on voxels, it also leaves the surface area mostly intact in which RNG will have to pick from. Fights can still take a long time waiting for a luck shot on a core. The introduction of special ordinance, ship killing tools, will bring more tactics, less time however more involvement into combat. On that topic, lets suggest a basic ship to ship torpedo. Expensive, large, dangerous to carry (if exploded in your ship you get it's juicy effects), dangerous for the enemy, yet easy to counter. Torpedo's would only be viable when an enemy ship is down on its energy generators, that can no longer supply to its counter measures which prevent torpedo's from locking on. Torpedo's would have their own ammo racks, and own dispenser elements, perhaps one that looks like a turret, or one that looks like an inbuilt tube, to provide options for both aesthetics. I apologise for the bad organisation of information. I'm sure we can all agree that combat needs more substance, needs be more effective. We need more tools! And I hope that NQ can decide on a better fundamental approach to the mechanics. Sure their physics based damaged model is cool, but no one wants to be stuck in a 10 hour fight resulting in nothing. We need to use tools to pvp, not all of our time and resources.
  7. Hello, This post is being put up and polled to get NovaQuark's attention regarding certain mechanics of the game that may or may not be intentional. After a fair number of PvP engagements in DU I've noticed that people are beginning to dive deeper into the cube meta of DU. As in construct XS/Small Core ships that are just a big brick of ridiculousness and large weapons. By maximizing the entire build space of a construct people will fill it with voxel and other essential elements to just power punch an enemy off the field. An effective strategy I must say. While it is not the only strategy in the game I'm trying to view this topic from a longer term or generalized view of the game (from my perspective... which could be totally wrong). NQ and even JC has envisioned people building amazing and powerful ships to traversing the stars and battling each other for one reason or another. However, people will tend to follow the meta until NQ makes a change that forces the crowd to take a different path. With the current stance of PvP, NQ will begin to see more and more ships produced that are just shoe boxes or cubes with no thought, effort, or design prowess behind the build. Without going into too much detail or some long drawn out diatribe, I've created a poll with: Is a simple yes or no Is an option selection based on some ideas I and others have had regarding how to kill the cube and force people to build actual ships instead of boxes. I'm asking for NQ to prevent this from becoming a thing by nerfing the cube meta and forcing people to have to build legitimate ships.
  8. Veteran owned and operated, politically incorrect and pro free speech, memelords extraordinaire, The Dark Star Imperium is a meritocratic empire. Meritocratic means is that if you put in the effort, you WILL advance in the ranks as we are a community built on teamwork. Strength that is defined by each member’s ability to work for the common goal as a group whilst also maintaining independence, autonomy, resourcefulness and honing their individual skill. Those who would take the time and effort to help others no matter the cause, that is what it is to be a part of a community / a family and not just some "Org". We specialize in faction PvP, engineering, and tech with all sections having countless veteran players across many similar games and Sci-Fi themed clans. However, we employ players of all playstyles such as Industrialists, Designers, Engineers, Merchants, Economists and even those who are more casual or love meta gaming. Our philosophy on all aspects is going above and beyond the competition by overwhelming levels. Strength not just in numbers, but in skill. Engineering feats not just in usefulness but with complexity. Since our arrival in Dual Universe we've strived to set the bar high in many aspects of the community. In doing so we've gained friends, made enemies and even achieved the emulation of those mimicking practices we've begun. We've faced skepticism, drama and even attacks on our community yet here we are despite it all proving our endurance and resolve. We always put our members and community first, we expect the best, and we give the best. Service guarantees citizenship! Please feel free to contact myself "Firestorm#2981" on Discord or check out any of the following links. Keep in mind if you do intend on joining our community we do require every new member to go through a one on one voice interview with one of our recruiters or community heads. Anyways have a good day and best of luck! Opportunity Awaits Discord Dual Universe: Org Page Recruitment Questionnaire Achievements & Awards DU - Imperium Lore Wiki
  9. Ive thought about how players can identify ships in a vast dark space and i was browsing some forums and saw this idea engines will release trails of smoke(could be some chemical cloud) in space or non-atmo planet/moons this would make cargo trucking more safer as you can see if there are trails of smoke/chemical-gas around the area ps. if you want you can even make it cosmetic as in players buy different colors for their trails of smoke and their could be a stealth part which you can make/buy to add to your engine so it releases no trails
  10. What is the combat going to be like ( if any) when one is not in a ship? Will we have rifles/pistols to use? or even swords/spears? I can imagine a huge war of to factions fights on the ground and in the sky to space. Thanks
  11. Let's start this one by reiterating the first part of the title. This is all wild speculation on my part. Though some of it is, I feel, extrapolation and inference. A combination of what's been said about the combat in DU, (very little.) with my sense of game design and the probable best ways to make this work. Let's start with what we know and why. It's been well established that DU will have "Lock on combat." So what does this mean? There's no saying with any precision. But what it most certainly isn't is combat with active player involvement in aiming, physically modeled projectiles, or any of the other trappings of most high-end combat centric games. The why should be obvious: The difficulty of tracking all of these disparate elements is likely to overwhelm client and server both. While it might work with very large player counts, it isn't as scalable as the alternative. That alternative of course, is to remove the player's aimpoint and projectile modeling from the equation entirely. Instead we simply determine have the player choose something tos hoot, initiate the attack, and after some fairly simple math, the outcome takes effect. In most other games, the input scheme for this is rather banal. The player clicks on, or selects from a list, their intended target. The player selects the attack to initiate, usually by clicking it from a hotbar. The attack is calculated. This is a tried and true interface method. But it lacks engagement with the player, isn't terribly immersive, and would be awkward in DU's seemingly always-first-person gameplay. So. Provided we have to remain within this framework of "The player selects a target and attack, and everlasting else the system handles," what are some possibilities? Let's start with a potential case of on-foot combat between player avatars. (At this point, as an aside, I ask you to excuse my crude example visuals.) (Screen gratuitously ripped from one of the tutorial vids.) So in this example, we have a single potential target, and we have a black circle that represents the player's 'targeting area.' (It was translucent blue, but I am a smart man who collapsed the layers wrong.) Since the player has, we assume, his combat mode/weapon tool selected, the target zone appears. There's a potential target in that zone, so it's bracketed in red. We can assume, in the image above, that if the player clicks his LMB and fires the weapon, that this is the target he's going to be attacking. So what if there are more than a single target? Here another key. (Tab perhaps?) Could be used to cycle the brackets to another. Or the RMB used to 'aim' at the target closest to the center of the cursor. It's possible we can also determine if there are voxels or terrain in the way, to what extent, and flub the hit percentage (or disengage the lock entirely) if line of sight is lost, without any extreme levels of computational overhead. So, in this way, it's possible to essentially 'sneak' the lock on system the scope of the game requires it to use into something that has the surface appearance, and many of the gameplay loops and conventions, of a more typical shooter. The attacks hit chances could be modified by aiming down sights. Targets could take cover and benefit from it. Pretty much the whole nine yards. Since precision aiming isn't required as well, this also has the added effect of giving us the tactical elements of more conventional games. (Placement, cover, movement.) without requiring any snap reflexes from the participants. Let's move to a space combat example using some similar assumptions! (Also ripped shamelessly from the youtube channel) So here we have a very similar setup. There's a target out there. He's got brackets. And we have an aimpoint of some sort. But in space, we don't need that guy to be *in* our targeting zone. We've got sensors! So we resort to a target selection system more like a traditional space sim. T for nearest target. hold it to select the guy nearest the center of your aim point. All that good stuff. Once the target is within your aimpoint, and you pull the trigger, your attack is calculated just like above. This gets us, once again, all that positioning, flying skill, and maneuvering. Just sans the need for aiming skill, or the need to calculate all the business involved with manually aimed weapons. So ultimately I think the main point here is that I feel like, when NQ says that DU has a 'lock on combat system," there's still a wide amount of room to work within that frame. They could quite possibly make the system feel more action-oriented regardless with the right approach. A couple closing thoughts: A weapons stats coupled with a players stats could govern the size of their aim zone in AvA combat. There's a bit of an edge case when the target is obstructed by another valid target, or a friendly actor. We could possibly just assume that line of sight is broken in this case, or just choose to hit the obstruction. Gunners in larger ships would probably use basically the same system to operate their turrets as the pilot uses in the above example. Last thing, I'd like to keep this discussion as largely as possible about the possible implementations of combat, and their repercussions for the game and gamestate. So I'm politely asking we try to avoid the topics of the nature of weapons systems, (Although mechanics is of course fine.) appeals to realism, potential stats outside of mechanical necessity, and all those sundry topics. Unless you've got a Really Good Reason, of course.
  12. There's something that I feel alot of space-survival/construction games miss out on, weapon customization. Being able to design/tweak weapons and ammunition adds a layer of depth to combat. Instead of everyone using the same turrets people could design their weapons to work well in certain situations. Plus it creates an occupation for more engineering-minded players. Look at From The Depths as an example of weapon customization done right. A similar (But simpler) system would definitely add variety to combat between ships. Having in-depth weapon customization would create more opportunities for advanced players to use their knowledge. This also adds another level of constuction because now players could create weapon companies to sell their weapons or blueprints. Of course, there should be some simple to use 'plug and play' general weapons; These weapons could be balanced weapons, with non of the benefits or trades-offs of custom weapons. Some ways that such a system could work: 1) Multi-component structures: (This is the method that From The Depths uses) While multi-component objects offer more creativity and involvement from the player, it is also complicated to implement and may effect performance. It would also need to be simple enough to understand the basics, yet allow for complex creations by advanced users. There would need to be a controller component which would keep track of the attached modules. Such a system could work and would be really neat but I'm not sure if multi-component objects is something that the engine supports (and it isn't worth adding for one feature). Another effect of a multi-component system is making weapons take up space, which would have a positive effect of preventing 'death cubes' (A cube construct covered in turrets). 2) Production-based customization: Using a 'Turret Factory' a player could modify a turret's characteristics and/or model. This turret factory could be used to manufacture turrets (which players can place). Each turret could have a different physical appearance: A high ROF modified turret could have multiple barrels vs a sniper modified turret with a single extended barrel. The players should have the ability to customize each part of the turret from barrel length, gauge, count, etc. Since the turrets would be one component there wouldn't be a need for multi-component support and the performance hit would be the same as a regular 'non-modified' turret. The addition of a 'turret factory' would mean that a player could perfect a design then mass-manufacture and sell their design. Both systems allow players to build weapons with different characteristics, and both would require trade-offs. For example: A high rate of fire turret would have a trade-off on accuracy, while a sniper turret might have higher damage/accuracy but a much lower rate of fire (suited more towards Alpha-strikes than DPS). Personally, I prefer the first method of multi-component constructions since it offers more creative freedom. The system From The Depths uses for it's custom cannons (advanced and CRAM cannons) is probably the best I've ever seen done. However, From the Depths is not a good example on the usability front, since it has a cliff of a learning curve and no real tutorial. I think a system similar to From The Depths would be a good addition although it may be to complicated to implement; The second method is a compromise in terms of performance/usability and creative possibility and may be a better fit.
  13. AvA (avatar vs avatar) combat is a basic feature of DU. CvC (construct vs construct) was added when the KS stretch goal was reached. But once ships became "shooty", it automatically opened up the possibility of AvC (avatar vs construct) combat, which is inherently imbalanced. A handheld weapon cannot match the power of a ship-mounted weapon. Infantry will need man-portable anti-construct weapons to defend themselves, otherwise they will be "farmed" by construct pilots. In PS2 that's covered by shoulder-launched missiles and by mounting AAA guns on mech suits, because that calibre of weapon is not practical for a human unless they're wearing an exosuit. Alternatively, infantry will have to operate under the cover of assault hovercraft that have anti-ship weapons. Target-locking further complicates things, because it devalues evasive maneuvers. The effectiveness of running in a zig-zag pattern to throw-off a fighter's aim in a strafe attack is difficult to model in a target-lock environment. Same with "dodge" moves or jetpack bursts. Bombardment from space has been ruled-out, but it's presumably possible to make your dreadnought atmosphere-capable. That would imply that a base will have to have defenses (both passive and active) that can cope with capital ship-sized targets and associated weapons damage. But what are the implications of that for infantry small arms ? Will they be utterly useless against base fortifications ? EVE uses target-lock timers and traverse speed limits to make large guns ineffective against small, fast-moving targets. Works fine for ship combat, but infantry are really slow in comparison to a fighter-class ship...
  14. DU has more varied possible combat scenario's than any other MMO I'm aware of. In DU we have the possibility of combat involving: Avatar vs Avatar Avatar vs Construct Construct vs Construct All of these battles can potentially take place: on the planet surface (on land) on the planet surface (in or under water) *not planned for launch* in the planetary atmosphere in space NQ is not a large dev team, and I expect that the combat mechanics for launch will be fairly basic, with things being expanded and refined "after release". Some aspects of combat may simply be disallowed at launch, for the simple reason that there's not enough time to develop it into a satisfactory state in the limited time available. Otherwise NQ will probably have to postpone launch by 2 years so that they can fully develop all aspects of combat... What are the minimum combat features you'd expect to see at launch ?
  15. I've seen a lot of discussion around clothing and character customization, but nothing really about armor. The only thing what i've seen was like: Community: "will there be armor?" NQ: "yes it will, but not now" I was disappointed, because we have her a lot of great discussions about different things reaching from core-mechanics to only cosmetic propertys of stuff and with the planned mechanics of boarding ships and even possibilities of ground combat is bodyarmor a essential gamplay feature that deserves our attention. So then will i share my ideas about this topic with you. I would like to see 4 main categorys of armor, light, medium, heavy and super-heavy. The first three categorys should be split in to two subcategorys, armor worn above clothing, for environment where no lifesupport systems are needed and armored spacesuits, for all the places they kill you just because you're there. Now to the categorys: Light Armor: Fast movement speed, high agility, less protection Medium Armor: Average movement speed, average agility, good protection Heavy Armor: Slow movement, low agility, smaller FOV, better protection Super-Heavy Armor: 20mm Titanium-Steel-Alloy armor plates mounted to a heavy-duty exo-skeleton. (yes inspiration came from power armors) The armor can be entered with or without a standard spacesuit. Slow movement, as good as none agility, even smaller FOV, best protection, integrated shield generator, mountpoints for weapons (example: fix mounted gun on forearm), can handle heavy weapons, maximum runtime before recharge: 15 minutes Armors are upgradeable. Exampleupgrades: Aim stabilisers, thermal sight, jetpack, target marking AI Let me hear thoughts and suggestions. Edit 1: changed Title
  16. Any chance you can make a video on how combat actualy works and looks like? I mean sure you vaguly described it BUT Id like to see some actualy fight action of fighter vs fighter and at least small cruiser vs a cruiser are there hitpoints on the ship? or is it like space engeneers where bits and pieces fall apart? How does it go with loot after ship explodes.... repairs? Do you repair your ship manualy or is there a shipyard.
  17. Here are all the things I'd like to see on the battlefields of Dual Universe, whether in space or at your base. -Weapons- Cannons Lasers Missiles Mines Flak Electromagnetic Pulses (including ion cannons) Railguns Plasma Rockets Corrosive Cryo Bombs Tesla -Defenses- Solid Armor Reactive Armor Magnetic Shielding Energized Armor Deflector Shields Absorbing Shields Stealth Self Mending Armor -Mechanics- Cannons require ammo and are versatile yet slightly less powerful than more specialized weapons, coming in all shapes and sizes from automatic rifle caliber guns to large mortars Lasers require a constant input of energy and deal scaled damage over time with energy consumption, distance from the target lessens the effectiveness of the laser and absorbing shields will almost completely nullify it, however any light craft will be devastated by lasers Missiles require more materials to produce and can be intercepted, however they are able to home in on enemies, deal a lot of damage, and be filled with different lethal ingredients Mines are multipurpose bombs left in space or on a surface that can be used for ambush of an enemy, defense against projectiles, drones, fighters, or even restricting the movement of an enemy, the only downside to mines being that they sacrifice other factors for utility such as cost or movement Flak are a subclass of cannon that is more costly for the ability to explode and still deal damage to nearby targets EMP's effectively take the form of any weapon that is capable of disabling a ship's systems if they are unprotected, however, they take a lot of power to fire when emitted directly from the ship (in the form of an ion cannon), the advantage there being that they cannot be intercepted Railguns take a lot of energy and a solid slug to punch through multiple layers of armor and do critical damage in a thin straight line Plasma cannons accelerate a magnetically contained packet of super heated gas that bursts on contact, melting everything it touches, but coming at the cost of a significant amount of energy Rockets are unguided missiles that are cheaper and capable of packing a larger punch than missiles Corrosive elements can be added to any container of explosives for a less powerful explosion but a constant stream of damage over time Cryo weapons work by filling a container with an extremely cold gas and dispersing it into small fissures in hard metals, causing them to become brittle and freeze up mechanical systems, allowing a followup shot of sufficient force to shatter the material, the trade off being that cryo weapons on their own do next to no damage Bombs are powerful explosives that are cheap to produce and only work with the presence of gravity Solid armor is extremely effective against smaller caliber weapons and lasers while not being that effective against piercing, explosive, corrosive, cryo, or melting weapons, with stronger armor materials allowing for higher defense against larger projectiles Reactive armor is extremely effective against explosive and kinetic weapons but is partially used up in the process, allowing a few hits to be absorbed fully before becoming ineffective, meaning that lasers and high fire rate weapons can quickly use it up Magnetic shielding protects against EMP's so long as it completely surrounds the system it is protecting, meaning that any large enough gaps will make that shielding ineffective Energized armor is armor that is strengthened by a stored electrical charge, meaning that it will sustain all damage thrown at it by drawing on the charge of energized armor connected to it (the more damaging the projectile, the larger the area drawn from), weakening itself and the armor from which the charge was drawn from until becoming a very weak solid armor Deflector shields are dome shaped shields that block all types of incoming damage at the cost of a lot of energy for every impact, meaning that large kinetic weapons do additional damage, whereas smaller weapons deal less Absorbing shields nullify energy based damage (lasers and plasma) and conform to the shape of the object they are protecting, effectively reducing the overall damage of energy based weapons at the cost of a constant stream of energy scaled with the percentage of damage nullified Self mending armor draws on a ship's power to mend itself (up to a fixed rate of health regained per second) and is otherwise a slightly less powerful solid armor Tesla weapons fire arks of electricity that, while not so useful against enclosed ships, will devastate unprotected electronics and personnel Feel free to point out any flaws with this and share your own ideas on what features space combat should have.
  18. Papa

    VR Capabilities

    Dual Universe seems to be coming to an Alpha release just as the Oculus, HTC Vive and similar Virtual Reality headsets are becoming more and more popular, so I'd like to discuss what that capability could mean for organizations and the individual in DU as far as exploration, building, combat, etc. and how one might gain advantages or come to a disadvantage over the course of the Alpha, Beta and obviously through the final release. For example, I think building, using the two handheld units that go along with the HTC Vive (given you're able to afford the 700$ price tag) could mean incredible things not only for the overall experience of building but the efficiency as well. Please leave a comment with what you look forward to doing in DU with whichever VR headset you choose to utilize in-game.
  19. Few questions about combat system: - will avatars take same amount of dammages on every points of the body? - will there be one shot kills? (head shots) - what are missing chances on moving targets? - will there be some dodge moves for avatar controls? - what does lock means on moving targets? first person cursor will keep following moving target? or lock just means locking at a fix position and moving target could easily move out? - what are chances in AvA to escape from an unknow hidden positionned fire assault? - in CvC what are chances to dodge while beeing chassed? - in CvC will we need to aproximatly apreciate the distance and movement speed of a target before locking and firing? - in one seat combat hoovercraft, will there also be the lock and fire system?
  20. So NQ has stated that Construct vs Construct combat will be released in a future expansion, and that means in the meantime ship vs ship combat will be limited to boarding parties. I'm perfectly fine with this, and understand why they need to wait to release CvC combat due to development costs. However, this concept seems incomplete. How exactly does one catch an enemy ship in order to board it, without even basic CvC combat? Space is a big place, with a lot of place to run/hide, which is great, but a problem if you are trying to board a ship. It's not like someone is just going to pull over and agree to be boarded, unless they think they can win. Otherwise, the second another ship tries to get close, people are just going to leave. And with no way for ships to shoot at each other or otherwise disable another ship, there will be nothing anyone can do prevent people from just running away. It's not like you can lean out the window and try to shoot out their engines with a pistol. This would eliminate many forms of emergent gameplay: Smugglers Pirates Navies Police Blockade Runners Blockades Ships would essentially be nothing more than flying buses, perfectly safe from any sort of threat. Space would be reduced to nothing more than a means to get from planet to planet, rather than an interesting environment of its own. As such, I feel that, even if advanced CvC combat doesn't come out until a future expansion, there should be a basic system in place to allow ships to disable/immobilize other ships, so as to allow boarding parties to do their job.
  21. Forgive me if I don't really explain this concept properly, I'm usually a quiet lurker (especially this one where a lot of people seem to be very experienced with these types games and I'm more of a starry eyed dreamer, haha). Anyways, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but what are people thinking about for ship-to-ship space combat, specifically how damage to ships will be visualized when made out of voxels. So, I was wondering how different weapons would affect a ship's hull especially exteriors constructed of voxels. So, for example, would plasma weapons "melt" voxels away and expose hallways to open space? Would ballistic weapons leave dents in the hull or chip away pieces as it impacts the hull? I guess I'm wondering what other people have seen (maybe in other games or even design concepts) or consider as something interesting to incorporate in terms of weapons damage and resulting impact on hull condition. Edit: Some typos.
  22. Hey all! I'm curious as to the functionality of larger ships and the ships systems. I've seen in the videos put out by the devs so far that large stations will have control rooms and each display will show certain ship systems readouts on them. My question is this... will large "Capital" ships be able to be controlled by one person, or will the larger ships and stations need to be manned and controlled by multiple players. For example, can a single player control piloting the ship, shields, weapons, engines, etc. or do you need a gunner, helmsman, engineering, etc.? tldr: will ships have AI to run ships systems or are players required for each system? In my opinion, you should have to have a player assigned to each major ship system, if not each turret, on the ship. This requirement will keep "mega organizations" (like Goonswarm used to be in Eve) from bringing hundreds of large ships into a fight and being able to do whatever they want whenever they want. Instead, they'd be able to bring a smaller number of ships with greater functionality to the battle, thus giving smaller organizations a chance. (think rebel alliance vs. the empire) Your thoughts?
  23. Bit of a trivial topic, but seeing as projectile weapons are a thing, there are a couple ways one could go about supplying ammo for such a weapon. You could use: A) a Mass Effect style system, where your ammo comes from a wedge of steel inside the weapon; the top layer is shaved off and used as a projectile. This means you'll only have to replace the item once in a blue moon, though you're still limited by thermal energy produced within the weapon. B ) a normal ballistic weapon system, with the ammo being stored within clips and magazines, and loaded into the weapon separately. This means you'll have to produce bullets and the like, and magazines for them. Could become another market within the game. A bit less limited by thermal energy, but it could potentially prove a problem. C) a conveyor system, like in Space Engineers, where if they're in your inventory, or a ship's cargo hold, they feed directly into the weapon. Simpler than the other two, but less realistic, and thus less immersive. Commence deliberation!
  24. Hi guys and gals, Pardon me, if I made mistake, but is anywhere on forum some topic/recap on combat based on avatar? I mean infantry stuff, not piloting; I read few topics about fights mechanic and all of them describe ship vs. ship situation. If topic is in wrong place, pleas feel free to remove it
  25. I'm posting this in this subforum because it felt like a more appropriate place than the Mechanics subforum, if only because Hyperspace isn't something I've seen mentioned by the devs. We know from NQ that (borrowing an old quote Saffi's thread here https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/304-scrub-stargate-and-transportation-questions/): - FTL Travel will be the hard and slow way to explore other solar systems. It will be difficult because complex logistics will be needed to make the travel worth it. In fact, we expect FTL Travel to be most likely used to go to an adjacent unexplored solar system, and build a Stargate. Based on that summary of what we know so far, I'd like to discuss idea of Hyperspace travel between Stargates. One can presume, based on that summary, that the expected outcome of using a Stargate would be instantaneous travel between two locations in space. However instead of an instant warp between two locations, I think it would be more intriguing if Stargates operated more as interstellar highways where travel between two points was faster than simply using FTL but still not instantaneous. Similar to how it took several minutes for the crew to travel through the wormhole in Interstellar: The ingame reasoning for this could be that there is simply not a way to completely bend space to have two points touch each other, that space could only be bent so far. Or that there is just not way to produce that much negative energy. I think this can be best illustrated with this diagram of a wormhole: Wherein point A and B do not explicitly touch each other, but there is a "throat" distance between the two points. This "throat" could be described as "hyperspace". I'm imagining the hyperspace gates from Cowboy Bebop, specifically from the "Gateway Shuffle" episode. Where entering a gate would put you on a narrow fast lane through space, but leaving that fast lane safely and accurately (explained below) requires the existence of an exit gate. Flying through hyperspace wouldn't make you immune to attack, and you would have to navigate carefully through the path, as leaving it could cause massive damage to your ship and leave you stranded in unexplored space, millions of lightyears from the nearest inhabited solar system. A journey through hyperspace between two gates would only be a few minutes, as opposed to the hours/days of travel with FTL. This clip from Star Trek Into Darkness visually illustrates what I think leaving hyperspace would look like, although I know they're not travelling in hyperspace in Star Trek but I don't want to get into the semantics of the Star Trek universe: That clip also brings up another detail that I'd like to see if this were implemented, combat while in hyperspace. I think that ships should still be able to fire on one another while in hyperspace. Although perhaps the mechanics of combat while in hyperspace should be modified to account for the different type of combat environment vs real space. ie, laser shots being bent because of the immense pull of gravity? Stargates would probably be incredibly difficult to destroy, so there wouldn't be a very big chance of getting stuck in hyperspace because of a group of pirates shooting at your exit gate. But they shouldn't be impossible destroy, so that a sufficiently large fleet could take one on. There could also be a mechanic that allows for different sized stargates, or stargates that prohibit specific ship types or sizes from passing through. The diameter of a stargate could also determine the size of its hyperspace lane. I have more to say about the topic of stargates, but I'd like to see what others think about this first.
×
×
  • Create New...