Jump to content

Recommended Posts

erm... no it doesnt.

Too many degrees of freedom in the designs, in the equipment and in the ships as a whole.

People will try, as they always do, but theres always something that can defeat you.

Yeah, well, when you make the system a stat-based win-some/lose-some, you get a coutner-play system in it.

 

 

 

But having modularity on Engines and Weaponry, creates a series of "perfect" combinations that outperforms anything. It's the Gearscore example from WoW, only inverted. People will see the wiki, see the bestest engine part configuratio and the game would become the same series of engines without any alternatives that arn't weaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless: in terms of the OP's idea:

 

Maybe all elements could be generated based on rules and the parameters being tweaked by the player (with the magnitude of modification determined by player skills and used materials).

 

Kinda like the face/body editor from the sims, but for engines, weapons, etc.

 

With the model not being hardcoded but generated with parametric modeling and the stats being affected by the parameter tweaking as well.

 

 

For example a gauß cannon could have the amount of coils, the number of windings in each coil, barrel diameter, space dedicated to the loading systems (how fast it can be reloaded with projectiles), space dedicated to its capacitor systems (maximum energy stored), dimensions of its connector block (and thus volume available to caps and loading system), space for power electronics (how fast the caps can ideally recharge) and so on.

 

When done with enough tweakability a fighter rapid fire cannon and a capital artillery cannon could be the same "part" but with differently tweaked numbers.

 

No dedicated modeling tool needed for individualised parts, no multipart system either but it allows players to adapt equipment to their needs/preferences and would also allow visual identification of "custom" parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless: in terms of the OP's idea:

 

Maybe all elements could be generated based on rules and the parameters being tweaked by the player (with the magnitude of modification determined by player skills and used materials).

 

Kinda like the face/body editor from the sims, but for engines, weapons, etc.

 

With the model not being hardcoded but generated with parametric modeling and the stats being affected by the parameter tweaking as well.

 

 

For example a gauß cannon could have the amount of coils, the number of windings in each coil, barrel diameter, space dedicated to the loading systems (how fast it can be reloaded with projectiles), space dedicated to its capacitor systems (maximum energy stored), dimensions of its connector block (and thus volume available to caps and loading system), space for power electronics (how fast the caps can ideally recharge) and so on.

 

When done with enough tweakability a fighter rapid fire cannon and a capital artillery cannon could be the same "part" but with differently tweaked numbers.

 

No dedicated modeling tool needed for individualised parts, no multipart system either but it allows players to adapt equipment to their needs/preferences and would also allow visual identification of "custom" parts.

 

I like this idea. But what's to prevent players from setting all parameters (damage, rpm, range, efficiency) at the maximum settings? I think that there should be pairings of these parameters, such that when you increase one, another decreases. IE, pair damage and efficiency, range and rpm. Setting the pairs at either 0 or 100% would set one parameter to its max value, and the other to its min value and vice versa. Default would be 50%. Skills/tech research/whatever could increase the max and min values of the parameters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it would be limited, maybe with some point system or similar.

Also a lot of the sliders wouldnt be a purely better/worse choice.

 

To reuse my gauß cannon example

 

Larger bore means more expensive ammo and lower rate of fire and muzzle velocity but gives you a harder punch with less armor penetration.

 

Longer barrel means higher maximum muzzle velocity, but more energy per shot and flat out larger gun.

 

More space for ammo feeder means smaller capacitor banks which translates to lower muzzle velocity and damage per shot.

 

Bigger support section means its simply a larger gun, which you have to fit into your ship somehow.

 

And so on and so forth.

A gun with all sliders to one side isnt an ubercannon, its a very special cannon with a certain usage field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it would be limited, maybe with some point system or similar.

Also a lot of the sliders wouldnt be a purely better/worse choice.

 

To reuse my gauß cannon example

 

Larger bore means more expensive ammo and lower rate of fire and muzzle velocity but gives you a harder punch with less armor penetration.

 

Longer barrel means higher maximum muzzle velocity, but more energy per shot and flat out larger gun.

 

More space for ammo feeder means smaller capacitor banks which translates to lower muzzle velocity and damage per shot.

 

Bigger support section means its simply a larger gun, which you have to fit into your ship somehow.

 

And so on and so forth.

A gun with all sliders to one side isnt an ubercannon, its a very special cannon with a certain usage field.

 

Your example is very close to what I was talking about. You increase x at the cost of decreasing y. It wouldn't matter whether all sliders were on one side or the other in this case since it would be balanced. What isn't balanced is turning muzzle velocity, efficiency, cap banks, damage, small size, etc all to their maximum or minimum individually, since everyone would just choose the best (max or min) for each parameter and leave it there.

 

What might also be interesting is if the player could choose the pairings. Would I want to increase damage and range at the cost of efficiency and rpm? or increase rpm and range at the cost of damage and efficiency?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there has been a game like this that allows players to script functioning objects in game that I know of (which is very little).  I have wondered about the balancing of this feature.  The best way to have "contained freedom" I am sure will be discussed over and over even after the Arkship wakes us up. 

 

As mentioned there has to be some sort of give and take.  There has to be the freedom to be unique but limited so there is no best in everything ship.  Roles and then specializations within those roles must be allowed.  Like Eve, mining ships ... there is a tank, there is a fast mining miner, and there is a bigger storage hold one.  There are also ones that can cloak, ones that mine certain elements better than others, etc.  Each one has a use and is better than the rest for the role and specialization  it is made for.

 

The slider idea is good but with something like this it is like multiple sliders affecting each other.  Allowing the player to choose may work but I also see that could lead to a cookie cutter setting.  The balance of this depends on the balance of the mechanics in the game though really.  If in mining a mineral you can choose for example a faster cycle time but less mined per cycle, then the mechanics of the game must not allow an advantage of speed over yield or vice versa.

 

Truely if this is done right DU could be a "game changer" but if it can not be done right then a huge attractive part of the game becomes a tedious exercise.  This is so delicate I believe to have everything in balance for each part of the game to work well in terms of allowing variety and true creativity. If it ends up being just an illusion of inventing, uniqueness, or creativity then the game would be better off without it. 

 

The Yin has to balance with the Yang :D

 

Also I have to say while reading this thread I kept hearing something in my head ....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example is very close to what I was talking about. You increase x at the cost of decreasing y. It wouldn't matter whether all sliders were on one side or the other in this case since it would be balanced. What isn't balanced is turning muzzle velocity, efficiency, cap banks, damage, small size, etc all to their maximum or minimum individually, since everyone would just choose the best (max or min) for each parameter and leave it there.

 

What might also be interesting is if the player could choose the pairings. Would I want to increase damage and range at the cost of efficiency and rpm? or increase rpm and range at the cost of damage and efficiency?

 

Well, i wasnt saying that you chose /stats/ directly but /design features/ which affect the stats of the device.

There is no "efficiency" slider you crank up.

 

for example with a thruster:

When you want to increase propellant usage efficiency (specific impulse) you give the drive a longer/stronger acceleration stage or more powerful heaters which cause the drive to use up more power but to produce more thrust with the same propellant mass flow.

It now needs less propellant for the same thrust, at the cost of needing more power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best is a matter of perspective. Some people will like space (room) in their elements. Some will want efficiency. Some might like engines that are faster to accelerate while others want higher top speed. If there are space constraints, do you choose more room for weapons and people to man the weapons or do you choose heavier armor and just try to survive the gauntlet as your top-speed engine propel you forward. And then some will just like the cosmetics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i wasnt saying that you chose /stats/ directly but /design features/ which affect the stats of the device.

There is no "efficiency" slider you crank up.

 

for example with a thruster:

When you want to increase propellant usage efficiency (specific impulse) you give the drive a longer/stronger acceleration stage or more powerful heaters which cause the drive to use up more power but to produce more thrust with the same propellant mass flow.

It now needs less propellant for the same thrust, at the cost of needing more power.

 

It doesn't matter to me how it's implemented, as long as it works. The only problem I have with selecting stats in the manner you describe is that it sounds discrete. I don't want to be limited by discrete choices.

 

Perhaps the physically based upgrades should simply allow the slider to work, instead of being stuck at 50% as default. Certain upgrades would allow certain stats to be selected for slidering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best is a matter of perspective. Some people will like space (room) in their elements. Some will want efficiency. Some might like engines that are faster to accelerate while others want higher top speed. If there are space constraints, do you choose more room for weapons and people to man the weapons or do you choose heavier armor and just try to survive the gauntlet as your top-speed engine propel you forward. And then some will just like the cosmetics.

 

What does that have to do with how detailed/complex elements are?

All you described are features of the ship you mount elements into, the ship you build from voxels and the mesh elements.

 

 

It doesn't matter to me how it's implemented, as long as it works. The only problem I have with selecting stats in the manner you describe is that it sounds discrete. I don't want to be limited by discrete choices.

 

Perhaps the physically based upgrades should simply allow the slider to work, instead of being stuck at 50% as default. Certain upgrades would allow certain stats to be selected for slidering.

 

What "physically based upgrades"?

There are only sliders.

 

Heater strength [---|-]

Propellant pumps [--|--]

Accelerator length [|----]

 

But theres no "thrust", "efficiency", etc sliders.

You'd have to mix and tune the design to what you want and need, and not just crank the sliders as far to the right as you can afford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on how they implement the crafting process. I could build power plant with a grade A (quality) coupler and it would have a particular efficiency rating. However, if I used a grade B coupler (lower quality) the power plant would have a lower efficiency rating.

 

Honda and Yugo are two cars. They both have essentially the same parts. But the Yugo is a poorer quality car and has a lower efficiency. The two, quality and efficiency do not necessarily relate. But both perform the same function: getting from point A to point B.

 

Compare the same Honda to a Delorean . There is a major price difference and some people would say the Delorean is the better vehicle. But the truth is, the Delorean is a lower quality vehicle with a higher speed efficiency but a lower fuel efficiency and a lower design quality for mechanics, replacement, and maintenance, especially for stop and go traffic. Again, they essentially have the same components and perform the same function, but the quality and efficiency of the components make a difference in the whole. The only areas the Delorean has higher efficiency is in acceleration and top speed (maybe handling, I don't know). Cosmetics are a matter of opinion. I personally think they look ridiculous. But that is just my opinion. Quality and efficiency are another matter. They usually put the efficiency on the window. Quality can be judged by the cost and frequency of maintenance and repair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What "physically based upgrades"?

There are only sliders.

 

Heater strength [---|-]

Propellant pumps [--|--]

Accelerator length [|----]

 

But theres no "thrust", "efficiency", etc sliders.

You'd have to mix and tune the design to what you want and need, and not just crank the sliders as far to the right as you can afford

The physically based upgrades that you were advocating.

 

You can have thrust and efficiency sliders, as much as you can have "heater strength" or "propellant pumps" on a slider. And I would propose something like the following, instead of a single stat per slider:

 

Ex basic railgun:

<- Higher Damage   [--------------------|--------------------] Higher Rate of Fire ->

<- Higher Range      [--------------------|--------------------] Higher Efficiency ->

<- Higher Clip Size   [--------------------|--------------------] Faster Clip Reload ->

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physically based upgrades that you were advocating.

 

not in this thread.

 

 

You can have thrust and efficiency sliders, as much as you can have "heater strength" or "propellant pumps" on a slider.

 

and direct stat manipulation completely removes the interesting part of the design system :P

the interesting part in the whole system as i advocate is that you have to think and tinker around with the sliders to get the actual gameplay relevant stats you want.

 

to reuse my gauß cannon again: 

there is no single part that affects efficiency, muzzle velocity, damage, or most of the stats that actually matter.

 

a bigger barrel isnt just "moar damage".

its heavier projectile, higher ammo needs, more size, more mass, more recoil, larger, less efficient coiling (which subsequently causes the bullet to be even slower than it would be from the increased mass), lower refire rate if you are power limited, and (if its a turret) lower tracking speed due to the increased mass and size.

 

and that was /one/ tweakable of /at least/ 5 or 6 that a gauß cannon would have.

 

there is no "one slider per stat" thing as you claim.

 

your system is the shallow and boring one because you can directly chose what you want, instead of tweaking the whole device to do what you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not in this thread.

 

 

 

and direct stat manipulation completely removes the interesting part of the design system :P

the interesting part in the whole system as i advocate is that you have to think and tinker around with the sliders to get the actual gameplay relevant stats you want.

 

to reuse my gauß cannon again: 

there is no single part that affects efficiency, muzzle velocity, damage, or most of the stats that actually matter.

 

a bigger barrel isnt just "moar damage".

its heavier projectile, higher ammo needs, more size, more mass, more recoil, larger, less efficient coiling (which subsequently causes the bullet to be even slower than it would be from the increased mass), lower refire rate if you are power limited, and (if its a turret) lower tracking speed due to the increased mass and size.

 

and that was /one/ tweakable of /at least/ 5 or 6 that a gauß cannon would have.

 

there is no "one slider per stat" thing as you claim.

 

your system is the shallow and boring one because you can directly chose what you want, instead of tweaking the whole device to do what you want.

 

I have spent quite a few hours in From the Depth as well as using procedurally generated parts mod for KSP. Yeah, that's what I would really love to see. You can never win, because it's not possible but You are always looking for working compromise and that is what makes tinkering so much fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physically based upgrades that you were advocating.

 

You can have thrust and efficiency sliders, as much as you can have "heater strength" or "propellant pumps" on a slider. And I would propose something like the following, instead of a single stat per slider:

 

Ex basic railgun:

<- Higher Damage   [--------------------|--------------------] Higher Rate of Fire ->

<- Higher Range      [--------------------|--------------------] Higher Efficiency ->

<- Higher Clip Size   [--------------------|--------------------] Faster Clip Reload ->

Matey, you can have Corn's idea of more "sciency" tuning of stats and have on the right-side of the screen a triangle readout/.

 

 

The triangle can have an inverse limit inverse one, with a secondary intter triangle to denote the point you start losing one stat and gain another, as you provided on the example above.

 

The point is, you can't have both 

 

Corn's idea can be implemented in a more intrigueing way, by changing the component parts of an Element, that give the item different starting boundaries to its fine tuning.

 

 

Let's say a laser cannon has copper-wirings and another has golden wirings. This switch from copper to golden wirings, make the cannon start with different stats, THEN you fine tune upon those stats.

 

 

Let's say the copper-wirring one has like "50 - 150" dmg model, where you can set the damage to 100 an have a rapid fire weapon, and to 150 and have a slow, heavy hitter weapon. A golden wiring one, would have "150 - 300" BUT, its recharge speed and rate of fire will also be affected, so, it comes to down to both material cost-rarity, then it comes down to each material being utilised on the correct manner.

 

 

 

It's a game and it shouldn't require a PhD to play, but it's also a way for teaching people basic science. :)

 

 

And yes, the color of the materials used would only provide a texture rework of the 3D mesh in-game. It's a .tga witchcraft, multilayered object :D

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example a gauß cannon could have the amount of coils, the number of windings in each coil, barrel diameter, space dedicated to the loading systems (how fast it can be reloaded with projectiles), space dedicated to its capacitor systems (maximum energy stored), dimensions of its connector block (and thus volume available to caps and loading system), space for power electronics (how fast the caps can ideally recharge) and so on.

 

These sound like physical characteristics to me.

 

But regardless, it seems you meant all of that in a parameter-only sense. I just didn't see the explanation of that until now.

 

I do agree that simple manipulation of the exact parameters is a bit boring, but I was only trying to say that can't be done is different from won't be done.

 

But it seems this is all moot since the devs say this:

 

Q&A 32: Friday 12th August 2016

 

Quote

Will there be Elements with flexible stats? Will it be possible to boost a specific stat at the expense of the other stats (example: boosting damage at the expense of range or accuracy for a weapon turret unit)?"

 

Elements have fixed stats, defined by the schematics you've have used to build them. There will be a way to improve slightly schematics you use to give small bonuses to Elements you create, but this will require highest level of skills and time to improve such schematics.

 

 
While this doesn't rule out specific parameter style of upgrade, it doesn't seem likely. Rather just a small boost to all stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These sound like physical characteristics to me.

 

But regardless, it seems you meant all of that in a parameter-only sense. I just didn't see the explanation of that until now.

 

I do agree that simple manipulation of the exact parameters is a bit boring, but I was only trying to say that can't be done is different from won't be done.

 

ah, there comes the confusion from.

 

well, the player only interacts directly with the parameter inputs.

and a bit of PCG then generates a mesh element that fits the parameters.

 

the player doesnt touch any blocks like in from the depths, only the parametrisation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×