Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DoctorJR

Zero chance for collision/visible damage? What about moving parts, pistons/rotors, etc?

Recommended Posts

Just wondering what the word was on the damage/collision front.  I just started playing space engineers, having come from Empyrion, and one of the reasons I'm enjoying SE much more is because there is the constant threat of someone ramming their ship into your ship or base.  I like that level of realism, and the interesting gameplay that such potential presents.  Same goes for moving parts, like pistons and rotors.  It opens up a whole new level of potential for the gameplay.  

 

I do realize that such systems put a high degree of strain on the physics system, and having thousands of players in a single shard universe flying around and building and mining is hard enough on its own, but I would personally be willing to wait and maybe even pay extra if these two features were present in the final game.

 

So I'm wondering if anyone knows what the official word is on these two fronts.  Will there be any collision/visible damage on the stuff you build?  Also, will there be moving parts of any sort, and if so in what way?

 

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll challenge anyone to try and ram my base on the public server I run for SE and even if you find the base to begin with, there's a few 'surprises' on the way there :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every construct will be as rigid and static as a child's toy from the 70's, which seems to defeat the purpose of being in a computer game, but hey ho.

 

Yes, yes, moving parts eventually, construct vs construct eventually, explosions eventually, debris eventually.

 

Like waiting for a Mediterraenean builder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasoning behind this has been well explained and as IMO PVP is not a main pillar for the game (it would not have been a stretch goal otherwise), which is being built around community and co-op. Combat and PVP have their purpose in the game and will be seen a lot, the impact on performance by any of the 'fallout' from PVP is potentially so high I think choosing to not apply it for now is correct. 

supermega likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open combat was always going to be a thing, and what you think is a main pillar for the game has no standing.

 

"Safe Zones will protect you, and avoid Dual Universe to become a free for all PvP game. However, PvP will be possible when you step out of the Safe Zone. Players will be able to fight each other, balancing their equipment and energy between shield and armor, with dedicated weapon type with different types of damage. We will provide a “lock & fire” mechanism to combat, to facilitate very large battles that are made possible in-game by our Continuous Single-Shard Cluster. Players can further specialize into certain weapons through skills and improve their combat prowess with better equipment."

 

Combat had as much screen time in the original campaign as any other "main pillar" of the game.  And the comments by NQ stated that the plan was for CvC no matter what, even if the stretch goal wasn't met.  It just probably wouldn't make it to the initial release.  You don't need CvC for territory control, but it sure is nice.

 

The rest of your comment I agree with.  Combat will be major, and one of the largest driving forces in the game.  It needs to be done right, with deep thought.  Combat is one of the few components that literally touches every aspect of the game in some manner.  You don't have to partake in combat to be influenced drastically by combat.

Lethys and Thokan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/1/2018 at 7:56 AM, blazemonger said:

I'll challenge anyone to try and ram my base on the public server I run for SE and even if you find the base to begin with, there's a few 'surprises' on the way there :D

Sounds like a challenge. Upload the blueprint/world and I could definitely accomplish that cheaply.

---

Rotors/pistons/collosion will definitely be a non-alpha/beta goal and probably not going to be implemented ever/for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of PVP being a main driver in DU is in my opinion going against what NQ has communicated as their vision and direction for the game. 

 

The  quote plastered across the post above only implies PVP being a possibility outside safezones. It has no bearing at all on the place, purpose or direction PVP will go. Some seem to think/expect/hope/pray it will be the pivot point of the game. Others see it as a tool in the array of options to settle disputes, preferably when all others are exhausted. None of these currently have any legitimate claim to be correct since we simply do not know. As such discarding one you do not expect as having no standing is presumptuous at best.

 

But this is really besides the point of this thread. The point here is that in my opinion and from comments made by NQ I believe that their intention is to not implement any possible performance impacting mechanic unless it is crucial to the game. It's why there is no wheels, rotors, pistons and/or collision (damage) planned for now.

supermega likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you forgot the part where NQ doesn’t need to tell you the direction of PvP.  That quote literally states that PvP is outside of safezones.  No limitations.  Except for shields, armor, and weaponry.  Of course, they left out “stealth”.  But if you’re hiding, that’s a direct relation to PvP anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they don't need to tell anyone at this point.

 

We are both guessing as to how PVP will be implemented and/or evolve based on our preference. While I do not agree with your assumptions, I do not discard them and you should not discard anyone elses untill NQ delivers their implementation of PVP.

supermega likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing though. All we know is:

- ASA is a safezone with resources, only one for now in alioth

- MSA is a whole moon without resources

- UA with rare resources is FFA PvP

 

From the dev video from last years gamescom we know that there are 12 or 16 planets in alpha (?) - plus or minus moons. How many ASA/MSA will be ingame isn't decided and won't be until late beta imho - but from the pov from now, UA will be prevalent.

Maybe the whole alioth system will be a safezone - much like eve's highsec (though that's a bit different). But more planets will be discovered and NQ surely will look after all players

Hades likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Lethys said:

ASA is a safezone with resources, only one for now in alioth

Agreed.  We also know it will be low tier resources.  

 

Blaze, that’s just it... I’m not guessing.  NQ has stated a good deal on how PvP is going to work.  Not the specific lock and fire mechanic (that still needs to be developed of course).  But where PvP will occur, how it will occur, and the fact that there are no limits outside of safezones is a strong indication to me.

 

Even if you never step outside of a safezone, you will be impacted by PvP.  Organizations and power struggles directly relate to the in game economy 

 

Edit:

Could NQs plan change?  Sure, but they have been pretty clear about their plan.  That’s like saying Safezones aren’t a guarantee because they aren’t developed yet.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@blazemonger

I agree with you're sentiments. I could elaborate more, but I don't want to go off topic. lol :D

 

 

@DoctorJR

So basically Collision damage and destruction will not be implemented in the game. Because it would be to much load on the server, and JC as suggested that he doesn't want the game to become a ham fest where players are just going around ramming each other just because. Regarding Moving parts, that will not be in the game. Novaquark has basically said that the hit to performance out ways any limited gameplay benefits. So, both features will not be in the game.

 

I've including the most recent info I could find, links below. Hope that helps.

 

 

https://massivelyop.com/2018/05/02/massively-op-interview-dual-universe-demo-shows-off-advances-in-city-building-space-travel/

EnHa2ep.jpg

 

 

 

https://trello.com/c/Y3wrKWJL/40-mechanism-scriptable-elements-physical-slider-element-physical-piston-element-physical-hinge-bearing-element

7NUXaRi.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you agree with that I don’t see how PvP is anything but a pivotal driving force in DU.

 

If you are referencing that it has nothing to do with the OPs original question... I can’t deny that.  But the discussion evolved when certain claims were made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hades

Sure, I get that. The point I am making is not that there should not be PVP, that NQ has not laid out their idea of where PVP can occur or how it will work (to an extent). 

 

The point is that I believe NQ has a different vision as to what place PVP has in the game. The game does not revolve around conflict, combat is a means available to resolve disputes which can't be resolved otherwise much like I see and hope wars in RL are. I get there are those who wish to see DU turn into a battlefield asap and intent to do what they  can to make that happen. I feel those will basically destroy the vision NQ has for the game and frankly take away from it what may well be the differentiation DU can bring.

 

From my perspective it is this what makes NQ decide where a mechanic can or should not be allowed to impact performance of the game overall. I could obviously be mistaken about this but I believe NQ has a more positive vision for NQ than 'I shoot you because I have a weapon and so because I can'

 

There's already too many warmongering and too many organisations with only one purpose and one thought on how to grab and control as much territory they can get their hands on. And arranging mutual beneficial agreements and alliances are not part of that for them.

 

 

And before anyone goes and rips the above out of context.. all of it is IMO and not anything I claim or know will happen. It's a shame I have to make sure this is clear but I guess it is what it is.

CptLoRes and supermega like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you jump to conclusions about people warmongering.  The game doesn’t revolve around PvP just like it doesn’t revolve around mining.  But all of those pillars create a game.  My main issue was you saying you believe NQ doesn’t consider it a main pillar... which seems rather strange since NQ has never indicated that.

 

Anyway, circles and circles.  ;)

Lethys likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you seen the average org recruiting texts? Claiming land by force if needed, enforcing the will of the org leadership and 'those not with us are against us and will be subdued' There is very little intent to work together and build an actual society and civilisation for most of these.

 

You also obviously either do not or choose to not understand what I am trying to get across.. It's fine and yes, I see no point in trying to make it more clear than I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn’t claiming land and enforcing your order the whole point of many organizations?  That order can include taking in other organizations in an alliance.  Creating an enemy/war with every single player will not be profitable.

 

No, it’s crystal clear.  And as many times as you deflect by saying I don’t understand is just that... a deflection.

 

PvP is a pillar.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PvP will be like an Oklahoma Sooners land grab at the start. People claiming land, others not happy about it. Then after a bit we’ll realize that there’s plenty of room for all an then all we need to do is defend ourselves from the trolls. 

Hades likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following info can be found in the Sep 24, 2016 Kickstarter AMA Event Video: (Without getting into the whole biased PVP/PVE off topic debate I'll just give you the answers that came straight from JC)

 

 

Quote

Zero chance for collision/visible damage?


Answer at 9:56 into the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efu_129hI9o&t=596s

Question: Damage: "What will the damage model be like? Will collisions damage ships? Will weapons blast holes in the voxel structure or will ships just have a health percentage?

Answer: That way damage is gonna be implemented most likely in construct vs construct, is that we'll use the fact that every voxel is editable, so you could actually "edit" a hole in it. "an area of destruction." So we will implement a way to select the place where you want to shoot, then you shoot. Based on stats and other skills and the type of weapon damage that you use and the types of protections and the type of materials and all sort of things, there we'll be an amount of damage that happens to the ship. We may try to aggregate the overall level of destruction to give you a visual feedback so that you have an idea of a percentage of destruction, but it would be purely informative. 

Things will actually be destroyed, or things will be deactivated if you loose an engine or if you loose a certain weapon. It will just cease to be operational in your construct. So this is aiming to being very realistic. 

What we want to have is that collisions between constructs will actually create damage, we could do it technically, but the idea that in terms of gameplay, we don't want people to build some kind of torpedo ship and just slam ships over each other and I don't think this is going to be a great addition to the gameplay but it will certainly be a great addition to the load on the servers, so we favor, rather than that, we favor missiles that will formally be implemented and that will not actually involve physical objects flying. But again the usual "lock and fire" mechanism with the stats behind the scenes."

 

Quote

What about moving parts, pistons/rotors, etc?


See @supermega's answer above. 

supermega and Ben Fargo like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread got hella off topic.  Thank you to those who actually answered my question.  Disappointing, but definitely understandable.  The single server means there must be sacrifices, and this is one of them I guess.

supermega likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DoctorJR said:

This thread got hella off topic.  Thank you to those who actually answered my question.  Disappointing, but definitely understandable.  The single server means there must be sacrifices, and this is one of them I guess.

Yeah haha, PvP is a touchy subject around here.  Sorry about that ;)

DoctorJR likes this

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
Sign in to follow this  

×