Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'balance'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum Rules & Announcements
    • Forum Rules & Guidelines
    • Announcements
    • Patch Notes
  • New Player Landing Zone
    • New Player Help
    • FAQ & Information Desk
    • Gameplay Tutorials
    • Player Introductions
  • General (EN)
    • General Discussions
    • Lua Forum
    • Builder Forum
    • Industry Forum
    • PvP Forum
    • Public Test Server Feedback
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • Idea Box
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • General (DE)
    • Allgemeine Diskussionen
  • General (FR)
    • Discussions générales
  • Social Corner
    • Org Updates & Announcements
    • Roleplay & Lore
    • Fan Art

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL









Found 12 results

  1. Currently, stasis weapons work by reducing the top speed of the target by a set amount per hit, which decays over time. Since ships rarely fight at or near their top speed, this means that stasis weapons find no use whatsoever in the meta. The goal of stasis weapons is to allow you to slow down a target and make it easier to hit and harder for them to escape. Stasis weapons should apply an artificial mass to the target per hit, which decays over time. This will have the joint effects of reducing acceleration and reducing top speed, without requiring any additional formulas. This makes balancing simpler, and would allow for variants to the stasis weapons like we see for the other weapon types. It also makes them useful when not at the speed limit, allows them to be made more powerful so that they can actually be a viable weapon fit.
  2. As seen during the beta, since the introduction of the Alien Cores in Athena, the group with the largest PvP force in the game can hold all 10 cores without much trouble. My personal opinion would be to make defending all 10 cores in the game virtually impossible for a single group/alliance to do (assuming there is an opposing side). However, this is somewhat of a balancing nightmare and would get complicated very quickly. My initial proposal would be to make Plasma a non-warpable item (similar to Aphelia Mission packages). This would allow smaller groups to attempt to "pirate" plasma off of the main group holding the cores while they fly it back to safe zone. This still gives the core owners the ability to decide when and where they want to put the plasma at risk and require the "pirates" to do planning reconnaissance, etc in order to pull off a heist. But it at least gives non-core owners a chance at getting a hold of some plasma, even if they aren't a big enough group to hold a core, but still requires them to PvP for it. From an outside perspective, implementation of this should be relatively easy (all mechanics are already in-place for the mission packages). I feel like it gives some balance to the alien cores in regards to smaller PvP factions, while not really making it harder for the larger factions to still control plasma. Thanks, Dead
  3. TL/DR: Top speed should be based on the size of a ship's shield generator instead of its mass. The long version: NQ currently planning to limit a ship's top speed based on that ship's mass in an attempt to keep engine-heavy pvp ships from easily out-running things they attack (preventing people they attack from finishing them off if they start to lose). I suspect this idea results from all the people that see M and L cores on radar when they get pirated, and fixes based on such limited information will only annoy everyone by slowing them down without actually solving the real problem. Most pvp ships I've seen were built on an M or L core to get access to the size-capped weapons, but were little more than thruster-packs with guns and an L shield and would have fit in to an S core's build volume. As such, they already weigh (relatively) next to nothing when compared to the stuff they are attacking, and will still be significantly faster than most anything they attack after NQ implements the mass-related speed cap. Because the goal at its most basic is to have the most fragile ships be the fastest, I would instead propose that a ship's top speed be capped by the size of shield generator it has equipped, thus preventing the fastest ships in the game from also fitting what is supposed to be a battleship's defensive hardware. Everyone would still be able to hit 30kkph in a ship with no shields (or possibly with only an xs shield), so people hauling stuff wont be annoyed by having to spend twice as long making their trips if they choose, it wouldn't break immersion quite as hard as capping speed just by weight, and it would help improve the overall balance of pvp by making combat ships choose between speed or defense. On a side note: If a shield-based speed cap is implemented, the act of placing a shield on a moving construct in build mode needs to be disabled to prevent potential exploits. It may also be necessary to cap the speed of ships serving as carriers for a ship with shields to likewise prevent exploits. Any topic-relevant thoughts or criticisms?
  4. Hey everyone, Recent news of Athena got me thinking: Why would the average player want to use voxels on their ships? You see, the more voxels you have - the heavier your ship. So clearly, using voxels costs more in fuel costs, lifting capacity and warp cell cost. Additionally, for PvP, more voxels means more mass which currently means slower acceleration and maneuverability. With Athena, it will also mean that voxels will lower your ships' top speed - a terrible thing for missions runners who spend hours being afk and PvPers who are trying to catch them. Lastly, more voxels also adds to the cost of ship deployment. This leaves us with two, just two reasons to use voxels as it stands: - Your ship will look cool - CCS value for PvP ships The first one is pretty self explanatory, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of missions runners nowadays don't bother putting voxels on their 'ships' and just fly element only piles of garbage because its cheaper. Its entirely an optional bonus. The second is a little more complex. You have PvPers who use CCS in order to out-tank their opponent, however, with the current meta and ways of PvP, more voxels means more mass which means higher warp costs - terrible thing for pirates warp chasing haulers from whose packages they can't even profit. I'd say that it is also an optional trade-off because with shields, you can fly faster glass-cannon ships that don't have any voxels on them. Note that with Athena, high CCS ships may become useful for control of the Alien cores and strategic territory holding around them. They will be able to, in theory, out-tank the smaller nimbler ships, but that remains to be seen to be believed. I propose a crude solution to this problem: mandatory usage of voxels in order to be able to carry mass. The addition of a "Structural Stress" mechanic, where ships need a certain number of voxels or CCS in order to carry loads. For example, you would need 10,000,000 CCS in order to fill your containers on your ship with 10kt of cargo (just as an example, numbers can change ofc). If your ship doesn't meet the CCS requirements to carry that cargo + docked ships, it will either take damage to its elements over time or not work. This solution is crude, however, hopefully it will force people to use voxels in their builds. Sure, you will still have cubes that are optimized for that value, however, once a player uses voxels it is a much easier mental hop for them to at least try make it look like a ship. Compare this to now, where the usage of voxels is strictly suboptimal for most cases. This should remove voxel-less ships from the game, because lets face it, they are not only ugly but also against one of the main pillars of the game - player creativity. Why put all that work into a voxel system if nobody uses it? Thank will be all. Feel free to discuss below or yell at me for "Proposing to ruin my super optimal warp shuttle that is just elements floating in space!". Up to you.
  5. [This post is wrong, I thought that the damage multipliers were 8x and not 2x. feels like 8x though and I still think it needs nerfing, just maybe to 1.5x instead?] The problem If an M core wanted to fight against an L core , there would have to be a fleet of at least eight of them to match the damage of an L core. However, if you wanted to use XS cores to fight against an L core, you would need 512 of them, which would be so impractical that it is basically impossible. You would need to coordinate, train, and set RDMS for a fleet half the size of the empire, all of which would have to be active at the exact same time, to close in and fire on the enemy without crashing into each other to even get a chance of killing them, not to mention the server issues or lag you would get from trying. My proposal is this: Instead of the 8x damage multipliers that weapons have currently, each weapon size up is replaced with a 2x damage multiplier. This would make it so that an M core can be beaten by an L core, but an L core can be beaten by 2 M cores, and so on. L cores would still have the same damage output as before, M cores 2 times less, S cores 4 times less and XS 8 times less. So instead of the 512 XS ships needed to kill an L core, you would only need 8. That may not seem by a lot, but since most L core ships usually have a much smaller crew size of about 4 people, and XS cores are usually destroyed in one hit, I think it balances the core sizes out more evenly. Range would be similar, but perhaps to a lesser extent, otherwise L cores would blow up smaller sizes before they get in range. You could even affect it negatively, meaning that XS cores would have a much longer range than L cores if you wanted to spice things up a little. Adding this could make PvP way more fun really easily, and would add more strategy into the game. If you ever happen to read this NQ, I would love to hear your thoughts
  6. 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.
  7. Hello Noveans! I'm quite new to the game itself and MMOs too, but something that definitely caught my attention was how the Industry is pretty much blocked for new players. Even when getting smaller/starter machinery, you just can't go on and start progressing, or even refining/crafting things that are possible using the Nanocrafter. But yeah, there's the question of balancing stuff, as it would be ideal to people having specialized factories for goods, plus not getting to endgame too early, so I was thinking of creating some sort of mechanic like a Research menu, where one can select an item from their inventory and start researching it. The original item would be consumed and maybe some extra thing could be required for this too (maybe research points, just like talent points), and after some time the research would end and we get an schematic of that item. That schematic then could be sold on the market or used on industry, whatever fits the player better. Doing so would reduce the need of bots selling schematics and would allow players to have an alternative way of getting schematics. One looking for a quick way could go on and buy the schematics from bots or other players, while other could chose to buy the item itself and spend some time researching it (if they don't have enough talent points). This also keeps the balancing that Schematics brought to the game, as they will still be something hard to obtain, but not so hard that the only way to get them is paying a very high price. Other possible thing on this is having a Tech Tree that works just like Talents, where one can queue up items to be researched, but with all the required parts and steps being required to be researched first. This would have no cost to the player itself in terms of having to buy the item first, but would require an extended period of time to have things researched, so we're exchanging time for money pretty much. That way one could also get basic industry Schematics while just investing time to queue them up... What do you guys think?
  8. Hey guys! I think you all know the Roadmap and that NQ wants to implement interstellar traveling in the game by using fixed, player built Stargates. I was wondering how they would look like and honestly, i think it would be awful to have like giant rings or something like a Portal with strange colorful effects in it. SO now that i explain my concerns iwant to Show you my idea: Stargates: - make them like a very big attachment to a starbase that consumes a hell amount of Energy BUT, that creates some sort of force field in which you can jump with very low fuel/Energy cost for your own ship (so its more economical to use a Stargate than to jump on your own) to another Station, that has such a device too. - space stations having such a device are important anchor Points in insterstellar space like beacons on the Ocean today Jumping on your OWN: - i think it would be very smart to implement hyperdrives in the game so that anybody that has installed one on their ship can jump to a certain range anywhere he wants (i know it sounds broken as hell because giant organizations could simply jump to any base of smaller organizations with armadas of hundrets of ships and destroy anthing in their way )BUT (and thats an ENORNOUS but): - with hyper drives it would be very balanced to implement them under the following conditions: - when not using a fixed Stargate at a starbase, you're going to have very high fuel/Energy Costs for each jump so the Energy/fuel for the hyperdrive will only last like 2-3 free jumps - in Addition without a Stargate you would have to predict your Dropout Location to end your hyperjump by yourself by Setting Course with a interstellar map to the star System you want to jump to and then charge your hyperdrive with the exact amount of Energy needed to end your jump perfectly (i personally would recommend to make the predictions as complicated as flying a plane in real life so traveling with star bases is even more necessary for new and Players that are not that hard into astro Physics and working at nasa ) - if your predictions for your Destination Course were wrong you can crash into objects like asteroids, planets or stars with a Velocity thats over 5000 times the Speed of light (for those woh dont believe that this Velocity actually is measurable thats About the Speed you Need to get over 1 light year in About 2 Hours) which will make you and your ship quikly disappear aswell as the functionality of your GPU (if your pc has the Minimum System requiremnts) so Jumping freely around is not just expensive but also incredibly risky I think by making free jumps to other star Systems possible without being completely Bound to fixed star gates, under the conditions labeled above, the game would have more for Senior Players and giving the posibillity to create new branches of skills for Players and for example even Opening new Job branches for organizations(because now they Need learned hyperdrive Navigators to make insterstellar travel without an existing starbase, which would be a very good Option for smaller organizations that cant afford an expensive, giant, shiny new starbase with a brandnew Stargate. That would also push Overall economy by improving the Need for People doing well in Maths and Physics. I hope that you can follow my thaughts well, especially NQ! :):):)
  9. My first thought when I heard about the way they intend the single shard system to work with ship building and player density was "Well what happens if one person builds like 500 tiny ships and puts them in the same valley, free to tumble around and take up valuable server resources?" Another thing I realized once I had heard more about the way they intended the PvP system to work was that people could probably dock other "ships" to them that would function as extra fuel tanks, more armor, or even a shield if done correctly with dozens of tiny "ships" being flung towards an enemy to block line of sight. For these reasons, and more, I believe that there should be a limit to how many dynamic constructs a person can have operational at any time, based on a skill system. Not doing this would allow people to easily lag the server with hundreds of small ships bumping into things, and could also create some interesting but likely laggy pvp strategies. Perhaps a person could simply "deactivate" a ship they weren't using by turning it into a static construct, which is not subject to physics on the same level. But this also brings up something else, which is how far NQ will go with implementing carriers. Obviously if that is something feasible (it could already be in the game, I have no idea) they would want to do it, but what exactly would be able to be shared across 2 connected ships? I think that should be limited to fuel, storage, and whatever power system is added/is in the game. Allowing for a script on the mothership to control features on a docked ship would definitely be too far imo, but what do you guys think?
  10. I'm not sure how the current system works, but in my opinion there should be a way to shift a dynamic construct into a static construct, and back again. To avoid glitches it should only allow you to change if you are not touching any construct (with the exception of docking/being docked, something else I know very little about as far as mechanics). If turning a dynamic construct into a static construct, a period of "anchoring" where the ship goes offline and must be defended for a certain amount of time will occur to avoid people instantly changing their ships to static or dynamic during combat. Assuming this isn't already in the game, adding this would allow for mobile asteroid mining facilities or forward operating bases during the siege of a planet or system. Please comment your thoughts or suggestions, as i'm interested to see what you all think.
  11. I've made this suggestion in another thread, but decided to break this specific suggestion into its own topic as per the Idea Box rules. Computing Power - How to balance Auto-Turrets on constructs EDIT: Before I define what I mean by Computing Power here, let me define what I mean by an Auto-Turret. Auto-Turret is a gun that can be manned by a player, but instead has an Auto-Fire module installed. When the Auto-Fire module is active, the turret with target and fire at attackers using its own gunnery and accuracy stats (no buff from a player) and will function even if there is no player online on the ship. It is a player weapon turned Automated Defense System. The purpose of this post is to describe a way where such a system could exist in a balanced way, in-line with the design intent of NQ. Let me define what I mean by Computing Power here. Computing Power would be a resource provided by core units of constructs. Each system that relies on computing power will occupy a static amount of your ship's total computing power, and only while it is "on" and in use. Flight systems, certain scripted elements, weapons, and auto turrets are examples of systems that would use Computing Power. This resource would be more or less a non-issue for most constructs and would mainly exist as a balance mechanic for PVP constructs. Here is a proposed example of the Computing Power resource at work. Medium ship core has a computing power of 80 Cells. Below is a breakdown of how my 1-2 player ship uses those cells. Flight control scripts require 40 cells. Flight controls might be a flat value, but with Lua scripting the door could be opened to have a more complex flight script that requires more cells. The ship's primary weapon (forward cannon) requires 25 Cells to aim and fire manually. The ship's secondary weapon (side-mounted gatling gun) requires 10 Cells to aim and fire manually. The ship's shield generator requires 5 cells to maintain, but requires 15 cells to re-boot if completely depleted. This means to re-boot the shields, the secondary weapon must be taken offline automatically, or manually. There is an auto-fire module attached to the primary weapon that requires another 45 cells to operate. I cannot turn this module on while the ship is flying, it must be parked. There is an auto-fire module attached to the primary weapon that requires another 25 cells to operate. I cannot turn this module on while the ship is flying and while the primary weapon is in use. This can be turned on if I'm flying solo and want to focus on maneuvering only. There are several ways the ship could be spending those 80 Cells of computing power, but I can't have it all. If I'm flying the ship solo, I can't use the Main and Secondary weapon simultaneously (since I'm just one player). I can alternate between the two, but I can't fire them simultaneously. I also don't have enough Computing Power to have my secondary weapon auto-fire while using the Cannons. If I had a 2nd player on-board, we could be using the cannons and gatling gun simultaneously, however if our shields drop completely, we would have to cease the use of one of our weapons to get our shields back. This creates some compelling pvp decisions as to when to turn off a system, when is the right opportunity to disable a weapon to re-boot the shields. If I park the ship, I can set the cannon to auto-mode, but if I do then the ship can't re-boot its own shields without taking the cannon offline. This gives the ship some means of defending itself while I'm AFK or logged off in a non safe zone, while also making it way less effective than if I were there to use the weapons. If I decided to put the Machine gun on auto mode instead of the cannon while parked, the shields could re-boot or re-charge without losing the gun's functionality, but it would be unable to drive-away a tough ship. Some other features of the Computing Power mechanic... Setting a hierarchy for use using scripting. Lets take the 2-player piloting example from above. If we are both using weapons and the shields drop, there is no longer enough Computing Power to re-boot the shields. With a scripted power-hierarchy, the ship could automatically disable certain systems to free up resources for essential ones (like shields or thrust). Sample or Default hierarchy... Shield - Passive maintenance Flight systems Shields - Reboot Primary Weapon Secondary Weapon Primary Weapon auto-system Secondary Weapon auto-system The hierarchy would disregard any system that is manually disabled. For example a Parked Ship would not consider flight systems when managing its hierarchy. That way the 2-player piloting example would immediately disable the Gatling gun when the shields drop and promptly re-boot the shields to recharge them. Similarly, when the ship is Parked, it could auto-fire the cannon and switch to the Gatling as soon as it needs the computing power to re-boot the shields. This same systems management would work for Static Construct defense systems as well, managing computing power for AFK shielding, managing which turrets should fire, etc. I envision that a large base might have an array of 12 auto-turrets defending the exterior and 6 anti-personal turrets defending the Interior. The interior turrets would be higher on the power hierarchy than the exterior turrets, since fighting off intruders would be more important than supplying Computing Power to the west side of the base (that isn't under attack). The base might only have enough Computing power to fire 3 of those exterior turrets at a time, but could power all 6 of the interior turrets (since antipersonell weapons are smaller, the targets are closer and not moving as fast). A Base might be unable to destroy a heavily armored troop transport ship, but the troops might not be able to overcome the anti-personel defenses and the Base would still be in fine shape. What happens when a player just sets up several constructs in a small area, each with automated defenses? is this haxx? Captaintwerkmotor brought up this issue. There are two environmental limiting factors on automated systems, mainly automated defensive weapons. Each Sector of Space, and each Territory on a Planet has a maximum number of entities (using a max of 3 for examples) that can have automated defenses "turned on" same time across all players (including logged-off, this removes the incentive to multibox or have alts set up stations next to yours). The server decides which entities' turrets get turned on based solely on the entity's type and size. -Mobile and Immobile entities are counted separately, but a parked ship could be counted as an immobile construct for this count. -The constructs with the largest core are counted first, ties in core size are then determined by which entity has the most cores, followed by who entered the sector/territory first. -Once an area has "counted" all of the entities that will be able to use their auto-turrets, anyone else that attempts to turn their auto turrets on will get a "too much interferance" error and they will not activate (nor will they use up computing power). -If a player owns a TU, they can unilaterally give out permissions as to which immobile constructs can turn on turrets. Even if they give out permission, the "max entities per territory" cap will kick in as it normally would. Again, parked ships could count as immobile constructs for this count (to prevent players from designing "ships" meant only to park and supplement a base's defenses). This system should help with server load, to prevent a hundred automated weapons all firing at once in a fleet engagement. It also perfectly prevents a player from setting up a ton of tiny structures with auto-turrets to protect an area.
  12. Similar scifi sandbox games suffer from a ship-building flaw where players have an inventive to include no interior spaces in their ships. (edited for spelling) Space Engineers, Starmade, Emperion all have a problem where even with big spaceships, players are rewarded by densely packing the ship with systems and armor and creating no interior spaces for players and decorations. Starmade is working on an overhaul for their power systems to solve this issue and I have a different idea for how to encourage players to build large ships that feel large, but have interior space. Heatsinks. Now I'm not saying that the power units for ships should create dangerous heat-areas that hurt players, however a system in which Reactors require space to dissipate heat creates opportunities for balance and build decisions. I will define some terms here so that it makes sense. Reactor: I'm referring to power units here. Different sizes of reactors would have different Heat-Outputs and different Heat-Dissipation threshholds. If you can get your heat dissipation above the threshhold for the reactor, it will operate at its highest efficiency. If the heat dissipation is below the threshhold, it would output way less power per fuel consumption. A steep decrease in heat dissipation (from the heatsink being severed or destroyed) could overload the power block, creating an outage or explosion. Bigger Reactors would have a higher Heat-Output and a much higher Heat-dissipation threshhold. Smaller reactors would have small heat-output and a much smaller heat-dissipation threshhold, and the smallest would require no heat dissipation whatsoever. Heatsink: I'm referring to the physical element or voxels that need to be placed adjacent to the Reactor to dissipate heat. This could be elements that can be inter-connected and chained together, or a conductive polymer that are palced and formed just like voxels (as an element would probably be the simplest to implement). When you connect a Heatsink to a Reactor, it projects a heat-dissipation field around it (1 meter on all sides when connected to a small reactor). This heat dissipation field's volume is what you need to reach the heat dissipation threshhold of your reactor, big threshhold means more of your ship's volume must be built to dissipate heat. This field wouldn't hurt the player, but any other elements placed within this field (thrusters, weapons, shield generators) would receive a massive performance drop. This allows you to turn space built for heat dissipation into interior spaces, since you don't want to place functional elements there. Larger reactors need much more heat dissipation, which will encourage players designing large ships even for combat to create interior spaces that could be decorated to look like living quarters, an engineering bay, or any other interior space. In addition, Large reactors would have a much higher Heat-Output. Heat-Output: is a property of reactors that determines how large of a heat dissipation field a heat sink will project. If you attack a 5 meter long heatsink rod to a small reactor, it would project a 1 meter wide heat dissipation field around it. Connecting the same heat sink rod to a much larger reactor would project a 5 or even 10 meter wide heat dissipation field around it, which will allow you to create a large heat dissipation area without packing the interior of your ship with "more" heatsinks. "cant you just have your heatsinks protruding out of your ship so that the ship denser and more efficient?" Good question, and the answer to that should be absolutely yes. This is why I feel the system would create some neat balance decisions. A builder could absolutely design their heatsinks so that they all protrude from the ship, projecting their heat-dissipation area into empty space so that it doesn't interfere with their functional ship elements. That choice would also create a vulnerability, as they could easily be damaged or destroyed during combat leading to a reactor outage or explosion (that's where that steep drop in heat dissipation would come from). A clever ship builder could even have their heatsinks recessed in their ship (where they might interfere with systems at full power), but use a track or roter to push the heatsinks outside of their ship when they need the most power, or if they need to turn on a 2nd bigger reactor (which would increase their heat-output, and make the heat dissipation area around the heatsinks much much bigger). Thoughts?
  • Create New...