DevBlog: Element Destruction - DUscussion thread

[NQ-Naerais]

Naunet running by with a quick edit for clarity: Element Destruction will be applied to all damages sustained, both in and outside of PvP battles.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

If you haven't seen the news, you can do so here:  

Discuss below!

[CDEEKS]

Great thanks

[Virtual]

We will need a renewable source of ore if elements are destroyed. We need to fix bugs before adding more features / annoyances to the game. The number 1 reason I crash is because of bugs. Have fun guys!

Damage should only be perma if it is via weapon fire.

[CDEEKS]

Just sounds to me like now we need to mine and grind ten times harder now. this wouldnt be an issue if ore was not bugged on almost all planets except alioth.

[Samlow]

Ore is already relatively cheap, with only market bots being a sync atm. It hink well be fine on ore for a while.

[Frigidman]

With a tool being added to "replace an element" (replace broken with brand new), does this open up the possibility to have that "replace" tool work to replace/upgrade elements for current talents?

 

 

[Kyerion]

I wouldn't mind at all if these changes only apply to elements destroyed by PVP damage. Otherwise, i imagine many elements will be wasted due to crashes caused by lag spins or other server-side issues currently present in game.

I am however 100% on board for the proposed PVP balance changes.

[blazemonger]

Combat changes as expected, good first step.

 

Replacing destroyed element instead of repair is not really new, just back

Allowing buffs to remain when replacing an element seems unbalanced and reduces the impact of the change.

 

The T2-T5 industry idea is something which I expect will not catch on as long as replacing a T1 element boosted with L5 talents is not showing a very significant increase in performance on it's own. I expect this will not be the case and we will see NQ nerf T1 elements/talents to push towards higher tier elements but then again, that will hardly, if at all, affect the players in the safe zones.

 

 

How will container destruction work in relation to hubs?

What if the hub is intact but all containers destroyed?

Frankly, if a destroyed container is replaced in a hub configuration, should that not lead to loss of inventory?

If a hub is intact but containers destroyed, should that not mean all inventory is lost?

[Kittiez]

How will container hubs be factored in this?
If 1 container is destroyed but the hub is intact, will the contents of that container still be destroyed? If so does that include everything inside the hub?

[U114145]

Interesting changes. I think this will indeed help to keep demand healthy. It may also create emergent play around trading worn-out high level elements. Space-scrapyards!

[Samlow]

1 minute ago, Kyerion said:

I wouldn't mind at all if these changes only apply to elements destroyed by PVP damage. Otherwise, i imagine many elements will be wasted due to crashes caused by lag spins or other server-side issues currently present in game.

I am however 100% on board for the proposed PVP balance changes.

I have yet to crash due to server problems tho since week 1.

All my crashes were me misjudging my trajectory. Any server disconnects suspend your ship for now anyways.

[Rhapsody]

What is stopping me from building a smaller L core ship and still using L core weapons in a smaller package, thus abusing the standardized lock range (which would previously punish me for using a L core) to circumnavigate the weapon size restriction?

 

I don't know what the restriction is for the weapon sizes but personally I would like to see weapons within one size category usable on a core (i.e you can use S, M, or L weapons on a M core. Or XS, S, M on a S core. This could defeat the purpose (to an extent) of going through the workaround I constructed above.

[MCwrath]

Really eager to see this in action. Just to make sure I understand correctly: element destruction also occurs when crashing, or is it only when taking damage in PvP? 

If so, I love it even more, since this will make you think twice in regards to flying and manouvering etc. Also love the idea of Tiers of elements. Great addition! 

 

To all the people who say: 'Focus on bugs first'. They probably have seperate teams that dedicate themselves to bugs and performance issues, and other teams for features etc. 

[JohnnyTazer]

Just now, Samlow said:

I have yet to crash due to server problems tho since week 1.

All my crashes were me misjudging my trajectory. Any server disconnects suspend your ship for now anyways.

Same, I skipped the first week of beta only logging in to get the quanta and skill queue. But I've never crashed to a "bug" ever. Its always been my fault, usually watching my other monitor. 

[Otixa]

Perhaps make sure that 99% of all cases of an element breaking is not caused by bugs in the game first, before implementing mechanics which will further aggrivate the community?

[AtroKahn]

Awesome Job! I look forward to participating in PVP now.

 

[Busterguy]

Radar lock range unification. Can you confirm the new ranges for each radar size please?

[Daphne Jones]

Generally this looks like good game design to me.

 

I have two concerns about it:

1. With bots no longer selling basic elements, it's already difficult to put together parts for a ship. It requires flying to 10-20 markets on 2 planets to get everything needed for a M core ship... and some things, elevators, T2+ elements, T2+ honeycomb are often not available at all. Except for honeycomb, element destruction will exacerbate this problem.
2. I am definitely seeing T3+ ore drying up on several planets. It's taking 5 times as many scans to find it now compared to about a month ago. We will need renewable ore sources.

[JohnnyTazer]

Asteroids that are always respawning is pretty sure already planned to help with new ores needed to keep up with now element losses.

[Frigidman]

2 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:

We will need renewable ore sources.

Yes.

 

The whole notion of 'finite ore' was ill conceived from the start. They really need to work on that, if they are going to begin adding resource sinks like element destruction.

[Samlow]

4 minutes ago, Rhapsody said:

What is stopping me from building a smaller L core ship and still using L core weapons in a smaller package, thus abusing the standardized lock range (which would previously punish me for using a L core) to circumnavigate the weapon size restriction? I dont know what the restriction is for the weapon sizes but personally I would like to see weapons within one size category usable on a core (i.e you can use S, M, or L weapons on a M core. Or XS, S, M on a S core. This could defeat the purpose (to an extent) of going through the workaround I constructed above.

Well, you can already workaround the current locking if youre smart.

The main issue that is being removed is XS cores having all the advantages. Even with these few changes (and theres more thatll probably come after) you remove several key meta things:

- XS cores can lock onto a L core at almost double the range that a L core can lock XS. This dissapears.
- XS cores built to max out build zone get to double dip on maxing voxel armor into this. Maxing build area will now not always be the best answer, cross section will matter.

Basically, core size will with these changes only determine your starting cost (bigger cores more expensive) and your weapon size lockouts. I see us choosing the smallest core that fits the job for a specific ship. Core size isnt as important anymore.

Looking beyond this, I am personally not too happy with arbitrary lockouts for weapons to cores, but for me the only alternative is the later to come power management as the balancing factor. So till thats there Im ok with it, but I really hope that Tradeoffs with power management will be the limiting factor in the future rather then this.

On radars I would rather have radar size unlinked from gunner seat size, and instead have radars be unique per size. eg: Small radar - short range but fast lock, Large - long range but slow lock. Then you as builder have to decide what radar fits your seat and gun loadout.

 

[TheFlyingCat]

Will the size restriction remain indefinetly? Dont get me wrong i think its a good change for now, but as soon as we have energy management restricting weapons by core size become obsolete as your energy output dictates how many weapons you can add to a craft. So if every size of ship can only use its own size there is no real variation in ship spezialisation. As you cant for instance build small glasscannons or smth like that-

[Daphne Jones]

10 minutes ago, Kittiez said:

How will container hubs be factored in this?
If 1 container is destroyed but the hub is intact, will the contents of that container still be destroyed? If so does that include everything inside the hub?

Objects in a set of containers on a hub are not in any particular container. Destroying a container in the set would presumably be just like removing one from the set - it reduces the total volume capacity of the set, but doesn't delete any items contained in the set. I suspect that if the new capacity is less than what's stored in it, you would be able to remove items, but not put them back in until you were below the new capacity. 

[Samlow]

1 minute ago, TheFlyingCat said:

Will the size restriction remain indefinetly? Dont get me wrong i think its a good change for now, but as soon as we have energy management restricting weapons by core size become obsolete as your energy output dictates how many weapons you can add to a craft. So if every size of ship can only use its own size there is no real variation in ship spezialisation. As you cant for instance build small glasscannons or smth like that-

Exactly my thought. So Im hoping its a stopgap.

[DarkHorizon]

Wow, first NQ ends indiscriminate teleportation, now we're getting element destruction 'soon'?

 

My org is becoming relevant again! 

 

I am naturally for all these changes as it relates to element destruction. When I read about container destruction loosing all of its goods though (in the final instance), I was initially skeptical but I can see that this would add a benefit to PVP gameplay overall. Now instead of indiscriminate shooting on sight, haulers might be given somewhat of a chance and be ordered to surrender their cargo before the killing begins.

 

Lootless PVP is exciting to a degree, now all we need are some big ass explosions when fuel tanks are punctured. Do you really want to shoot my fuel haulers? Maybe they got scrap and elements for some big lad stuck in the middle of no where, or maybe the job is already done and we're returning home?

 

Cargo scanners when, container obfuscation when, rotating engines when?