Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'combat'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Starting Zone
    • Rules & Announcements
    • The Arkship Pub
    • Novark's Organization Registry
    • General Discussions
    • Off Topic Discussions
  • Ideas & Gameplay discussions
    • Idea Box
    • The Builder's Corner
    • The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly
    • DevBlog Feedback
  • Fan Art, Fan Fictions & Roleplay
    • Novark Agora
    • Novark Archives
    • 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 1

Found 22 results

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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...
  6. 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 ?
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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?
  15. 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!
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. I just wanted to touch on the combat mechanics of larger ships. I've played ALL of the space sim/building games available and I dislike how they all work. I have been playing a game called Dreadnought recently and this is the ship combat style I'd like to see in games like this. Unfortunately it's not an open world voxel building game. Currently in other ship building games you can really only place turrets that automatically track (and suck at it; empyrion). Yes you can also man the turret, but then you can't fly the ship. I'd rather have a free looking reticle and where you aim while you are flying is where your turrets will aim and shoot, flying would be wasd like if walking. Of course you would have to intelligently place turrets because the starboard side wouldn't be able to fire to the port side, and top/bottom etc. Then there would have to be two different flight models for fighter style and capital ship style...It's what I hope for, though.
  19. So I want sure if this was the best place, maybe it should be moved to the General Discussion thread, or possibly game mechanics. I decided to post a short story of a scenario I envision happening in game. I don't fully know all the mechanics that will be available but my story highlights some mechanics that I hope are available. It also sheds some light into how we operate and things we tend to implement when possible in games. Sorry that my writing sucks, I usually just focus on the story. It’s a barren world, covered in vast deserts and lakes. In a large lake on the North continent the water begins to stir. Slowly a rectangular chain wall begins to break the surface. It is a half a kilometer long and 200m wide. As the wall breaks the surface the water inside begins to rapidly drain away. As it does a large metal door is exposed and begins to slide away exposing a massive chamber. Slowly a Daedalus class BC, the Asteria, begins to rise from the chamber. It is over 400m long and covered in turrets, a bit unfinished but it was combat ready. As it emerges it slowly begins to ascend, thrusting lightly as to not damage anything below. As it clears the hangar the doors closing behind it and the walls recede allowing the water to rush back over. Once it is several hundred feet above and the water is covering the doors again I increase the thrusters to full. Angling upwards I quickly gain altitude and enter orbit. Once in orbit I set the nav point and activate FTL. It is just a short jump to a nearby asteroid belt in system. Once in FTL I activate the defensive AI and head to the hangar. The Asteria is a bit more than needed for a mining trip, but I like to take it out for whatever reason I can, besides it makes for a good guard while mining. The right hangar contains a smaller miner. Equipped with multiple laser miners and plenty of storage for the ore I mine. Once the Asteria drops out of FTL I look at the nav feed to see it is all clear, not many people are in the region so I never expect anyone. Occasionally our sensor drones pick up an explorer that comes through, and so far the neighbors that are nearby have not located our base. I send a command to open the bay door and start up Little Bite’s engines. Slowly I emerge from the hangar and begin thrusting to the Trillium asteroid 1km starboard. Slowing down on approach, I line up near a cavity in the surface. I had been here already and cleared away most of the rock around the Trillium core. I activated the miners and watch the surface of the asteroid as the matter dissolves away funneled into nanocells for storage. The power is a bit insufficient so I have to pulse the lasers, allowing the power cells to recharge. One of these days I will quit being lazy and fix that, but for now I watch as the Trillium begins to fill up my storage with a few traces of rare elements. I wonder how many more trips will be needed to finish our capital ship. Suddenly an alert pops up, one of our sensor arrays in orbit around the planet picked up something. A small vessel entering an FTL jump. It must have been a stealth ship observing the planet, shit. I quickly cut the lasers and thrust away from the asteroid. I align and burn towards the Asteria, coming in for a hard landing. As soon as I am in the hangar I send a command to close the hangar doors and begin charging the FTL as I dock Little Bite. Sprinting down the corridor I arrive at the bridge, there’s still a minute left to charge the FTL drive. I sit down and pull up the sensor logs as I wait, aligning the Asteria towards the planet. No sign of the stealth ship entering orbit, it must have traveled in and been there a while. Just as I am about to jump the sensors pick up 3 FTL signatures dropping in orbit around the planet. All quick moving destroyer class ships. I adjust my coordinates to their location and enter FTL. Just under a minute until I exit warp, all I can do is wait, all guns active. As I drop out of warp I am just 10km from the nearest destroyer. One of them is clearly a planetary bombardment design and is lining up to fire below, centered over our base. The stealth ship must have been there to determine our location. The planetary bombardment destroyer was already unloading its kinetic kill projectiles down onto the planet and the other two were firing missiles down as well. As soon as my targeting sensors had a lock I unleashed everything onto the PB destroyer, catching it by surprise and ripping through its rear shields, and penetrating deep into the hull. A lucky shot destabilized a reactor, causing an explosion that ripped the back end of the ship off crippling it. As the kinetic kill projectiles entered the atmosphere turrets on the surface were already coming to life. Pedestals were rising above the surface of the water with SAM and Flak turrets. The Kinetic kill weapons were hard to track and shoot down, but a few were broken up before impacting. The remainder were stopped mostly by the water, with no energy left by the time they hit the hangar door below. With over 2 dozen flak turrets almost all of the missiles from the first wave were taken out. But it was clear they knew the base location and were here to destroy it. On the Asteria I launched the 2 dozen fighters I had onboard and routed shield power forward. The remaining 2 destroyers quickly began turning their fire onto me. I began launching missile volleys but my laser capacitors were completely drained from the opening attack. Even without it my missiles are overpowering the shields slowly. As the fighters reached the ships they began circling it in tight orbits, not doing much damage with the shields up, but distracting the automated turrets and reducing fire on the Asteria. My shields were at 85% but slowly dropping as their missiles start leaking through my flak cannons. As my laser cannon reaches full charge I fire it just as a volley from my rail gun hits, collapsing the destroyers shields, but it remained largely intact. However the next volley began to destroy chunks out of the hull. It was quickly gutted by missiles and left crippled. About then, large explosions begin erupting on the surface below. Starting from the center and stretching out in a line nearly 3km long they begin spreading outwards to nearly a kilometer wide. The false bottom of the lake is being blown to pieces, allowing all the water above to rush in below as it does. The emergency evacuation protocol has been initiated, meaning help is on its way. As the dust and fog begin to settle there is a massive swarm of small drones released. Just small battle space drones, they allow sensor feeds of the area and also act as an overload for enemy sensors. Shortly after another loud eruption as the Radials booster engines fire, slowly lifting it clear of the opening. Upon discovery of the stealth ship, Drakyn Ral quickly began activating its systems and moving what he could from the base into the Radeal. Its hull not more than half finished, very little systems were in place and functional. It had minimal power, thrusters, shields, and FTL with very few turret placements mounted already. I wasn’t even sure if Kloydeb had gotten around to uploading the AI to them so they would function at all. And none of us were sure that it could even break orbit. It had a booster system attached as an emergency launch system, but it functioning was all theoretical. Before the Radeal could reach orbit 10 smaller 50m long frigates exited FTL in the battle space above it. They quickly targeted the remaining destroyer, and with their DPS added to mine, its shields vanished. It was quickly engulfed in missile explosions, shredding the hull. The drones were part of the emergency protocol, and when active they activated their FTL and jumped in from deep space above the solar system. The hangar below was gutted and scorched as the engines fired, but we never intended to use it again anyway. As it reached orbit the booster system was released and fell back to the ground. The ships frame stretched 2.5km long and 500m wide, at the widest constructed points thus far. With only the basic frame in place for most of it, it looked almost like a rectangular box with some buildings stacked on top towards the rear. The front end was one giant hangar, large enough to swallow the Asteria. The side hangars were only beginning to be built, with small juts sticking out from the main hull. As the Radeal broke orbit it released more battle space drones followed by another 4 dozen fighters that quickly began to disperse in the battle space. Hartomo and Kloydeb each emerge from the Radeals hangar in Raptor class cruisers. But it didn’t stick around, with its FTL charged it initiated a quick jump out of the battle space where it would charge its drives for its travel to the beta base. We stick around and ensure that the Radeal enters FTL before charging our own. The Raptors quickly charge theirs and follow as escorts, but with my capacitor banks tapped from the battle it takes even longer than usual for me to charge my drive. Just as I am about to jump into FTL, my sensors light up red. With all the battle space drones feeding sensor data I quickly get locks and accurate tracking data on over a dozen ships. There are 2 capital class ships, a carrier and dreadnaught, both more than twice my mass. 2 BS, 4 BC and an assortment of cruiser and frigate class ships. The battle space lights up with explosions as their AI begins targeting and taking out the fighters and drones in the battle space. Immediately 3 of the AI frigates vanish in explosions. Not intending to stick around, I rapidly hit the FTL as it charges to completion. Just then a massive shell strikes my nearly depleted shield, punching through and ripping a massive chunk out of my right hangar bay. What is left of Little Bite floats free into space. Thanks to redundant and dispersed systems most of my ship is functional, including the FTL drive. Before any interdiction nets could be activated I slip into FTL, clearing the battle space. Within a few minutes I exit FTL near the Radeal. It got away with minimal damage, mostly from the debris falling from above when the lakebed was blown. One of the shield emitters wasn’t fully functioning and let some debris through, impacting the hull. The Asteria’s damage was a bit more extensive, but no major systems were hit. Most of the hangar will have to be rebuilt, but there weren’t many components and systems that were destroyed. We waited around until everyone recharged their FTL drive for the first of several long jumps to the beta base. For the rest of the crew who weren’t able to respond quickly enough, they will get there a bit quicker, as out in the void here there aren’t many RNs that they can spawn at. With Alpha base destroyed, Beta base will likely be the closest.
  20. Hylios

    Joints

    I'd like to see joints in the game that allow us to build things like AT-AT from Star Wars, mobile suits from Gundam, and mining rigs from Lost Planet to assist in all areas of the game, combat, mining, building, and anything else that people could find an application for.
  21. I think this is a very important game design issue that needs to be addressed and re-addressed. How to avoid the single strategy that more numbers = win. Now, there is nothing wrong with the zergling strategy - it should be as viable as the next and I don't think the game should prevent organisations from adopting it. The problem occurs when it becomes the onlycounter to itself. A game that has only one viable strategy is either broken or boring. The key is in providing variability and making combat complex enough that the difficulty in leading players into a battle becomes exponentially higher with larger and larger groups. Here are some specific features that I think would ensure that wars and battles remain dynamic. Each topic could probably have an entire thread to itself so I'll try to be brief. Friendly Fire If you accidentally shoot your guildmate, he is shot and takes no less damage than an enemy would have. Ideally, this would be implemented by making projectiles, missiles, lasers, etc actually have to travel to their target, and if they hit something else on the way, then so be it. Manual Targetting If weapons have some kind of auto-targetting feature, it should be sub-optimal and unreliable. If there is some way for weapon designers to increase auto-targetting effectiveness it should come at a large cost of compromising with damage, range, mass, etc. Bigger Means More Complex There should be nothing from stopping players building a massive mothership with thousands of players and dozens of capabilities, but piloting and maintaining such a ship should be extremely difficult, and the ship itself should have weaknesses and be very far from invulnerable. Terrain This is less of an issue on planets as there will always be hills, forests, mountains, rivers, etc, etc that make natural choke points and affect what kind of tactics will be most effective. In space it is less obvious, but equally doable. Have vast regions of space encompassing multiple star systems that are saturated by nebulae. Include dense asteroid clusters, regions of space that are more rocky, planets with immense rings. There could also be regions affected by strong gravitational fields caused by black holes or neutron stars, and many other possibilities, and they could all be intertwined and overlapping. Each of these features would have some effect on travel and/or weaponry and defences just like "normal" geographical features do. Terrain on the battlefield and on the meta-scale creates opportunities for inventive leaders to shine and take a larger force by surprise. Resource Distribution My thought on this is to avoid static, infinite, and clustered sets of resources, particularly high-end resources. If there is a portion of the map that contains a lot of one particular type of resource then this will encourage "turtling" and make the acquisition of more players unto a single organisation easier. At the same time, a perfectly even distribution means trade between regions is less profitable, perhaps even not required, so this is a tough topic. One option is to have resources be finite at their given sources, but to have sources re-spawn elsewhere in the universe keeping the meta-game dynamic and ever changing. Arms Diversity and Rock/Paper/Scissors/Lizard/Spock Something that DU already has going for it is that all ships will be designed by individual players/organisations so we should expect a lot of diversity. However, there are bound to be certain a types of weapon and defences that can be mounted. I like GalCiv's system of having weapon types lasers/missiles/projectiles and their corresponding defences shields/point defence/armour. In addition to that, adding in mines, mine sweepers, cloaking devices, stealth detection, more and less effective propulsion systems, hangars for carrier capability, and Death Star type weaponry are all elements which can be included, each with their own advantages and drawbacks not just on the battlefield but in including them in a given ship design. And that's before mentioning ground weaponry (although I'm sure there will be a lot of overlapping) and the possibility of space-ground/ground-space interaction in battles. This kind of diversity provides more opportunities for inventive leaders to do something special against a superior force. Now, with these elements I believe it becomes much more difficult to adopt a zerg strategy. A massive army/fleet necessarily requires a practical chain of command, training drills, and disciplined soldiers who have been briefed by competent commanders who have a plan and can think on their feet. The more players in the fleet, the more difficult management of it becomes and large numbers of inexperienced and undisciplined soldiers will be a liability. Knowing and understanding the terrain gives a kind of "home advantage" for smart generals, and appropriate use of a variety of different kinds of ships/weapons, or having intelligence on the enemy's new ship designs could be put to devastating use. A quick note: we tend to think of a blob as lots of little ships, but in DU a blob could be a single super-massive ship with hundreds or thousands of players on board. In this thread when I say "zerglings" I mean massive numbers of players, but not necessarily massive numbers of ships.
  22. Astrophil

    Hacking

    Hacking the system of a ship or building could be another component in combat. Say during space combat that you hijack the opponent ship's shield system, rendering them completely vulnerable, but that the same could also happen to you. It could either become a powerful asset or pitfall and add to the realistic aspects of the game, as cybersecurity and cybercrime are a very real problem in our world today. The question would be the format in which the hacking would take place. Would it be in an actual programming language (possibly LUA?), or in a fictional, simplified code, or perhaps it would be unique to that particular system.
×
×
  • Create New...