Jump to content

PLANNED HONEYCOMB CHANGES - Discussion thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Cobqlt said:

Next change:
delete the cross section
re-add the old system of lock per core size (XS lockable at 40km, S at 80, M 150 or more, I don't remember the old values)
hp of weapons/elements or weapon dmg

And we will got a cool PVP system

I disagree.

 

We have a nice pvp system now. Far from ideal, but it's getting better and better. The cross section idea is great. It needs some balance so the tiny ships wouldn't be the ultimate weapon, but the variety of approaches it gives us is awsome. We have carriers, armed transporters, fighters and with new honeycomb we will get panzer L cores.

 

Crossection thing also introduce great building chellenge that makes building combat ships a good fun.

 

Also remember about the old "borg cube problem" that is now reduced to much less annoying "long bar" problem.

Edited by Zychov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It only remains to remove the cross section system which destroys the game.
Put back the lock distances of the biggest ships on the small ships.
And you will save PvP.
Well done NQ this kind of change on voxels is going in the right direction.

 

With this 3 modifier We will finally have ships with elegant designs, the big ships will have to have smaller weapons to hit the XS and the S rather than stupidly shoot them down with their L weapon or be escorted by XS / S ships which will fight against vessels of equivalent size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Zychov said:

Crossection thing also introduce great building chellenge that makes building combat ships a good fun.

 

Also remember about the old "borg cube problem" that is now reduced to much less annoying "long bar" problem.

I totally disagree

cross section kill all design - only challenge is to pack the more in the less space
instead of big borg we only have tiny little borg

ccs is already the solution for big borg and massive tanky ships
but cross section + mass nerf never allow to build big pvp ships
a little s-core with low cross section and mass would just turn around you and no match you
i try last week with my L core vs tobiwan S core and i only have 16% hit chance
no way i can win 1L vs 1S

it's not logic

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the numbers. Your numbers and examples are contradictory. What is your unit mass for the calculation? Liter or m3 ? At one point you wrote: "our proposed values go as low as 2-3kg/m3 for the lightest building honeycomb and up to 100kg/m3" and in the next paragraph : " For the aforementioned very heavy materials of 100kg/L, that will give you 4500 raw HP." Both units have a large inpact on the gameplay.

unit mass = m3
Niobium has 4500 hp/m3 * average resistance 65 (1.65) = 7425 effective hp/m3

an average 150k hit of a large weapon (talents, heavy ammo) means you lose round 20 m3 of the heaviest voxel in the game

 

unit mass = l

same material and numbers for liter = 7425 effective hp/l
Liter implies it's the base material for the crafting of voxels. Formula 1:10 (" the unit mass for a liter of Pure aluminum is 2.7kg, making its honeycomb mass 27kg for 1m3 (1000L)") So a m3 will have 74250 effective hp/m3. This means you lose only 2 m3 of voxel by the same 150k hit. Divided in the sphere of the hit, it has a realy low impact on the voxel.

Also what is a unit mass? What are the hp of one m3 ( 4x4x4 voxel) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Modgud said:

Niobium has 4500 hp/m3 * average resistance 65 (1.65) = 7425 effective hp/m3

You're doing the math here wrong, my dude.
Proper way of calculating the ehp would be:
4500 divided by 0.35(the fraction of damage the voxel is actually receiving after resistances) = 12857ehp
 

 

58 minutes ago, Modgud said:

Also what is a unit mass? What are the hp of one m3 ( 4x4x4 voxel) ?

The unit mass is the kg per m3. The hp:m3 is the column labeled 'hitpoints'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TobiwanKenobi said:

You're doing the math here wrong, my dude.
Proper way of calculating the ehp would be:
4500 divided by 0.35(the fraction of damage the voxel is actually receiving after resistances) = 12857ehp
 

 

The unit mass is the kg per m3. The hp:m3 is the column labeled 'hitpoints'.

I already have used quots. NQ used 100kg/m3 and 100kg/l in the same context. Only one can correct, maybe a typo. You are right by the calculation. But the numbers get not better, if we expect kg/m3.

Let's take the 150k hit of an ordinary L weapon.
150.000 * 0.35 (average resi) = 52.500 dmg
52.500 / 4500 hp/m3 = 11.6 broken m3 of voxel

That seems a lot. 11.6 * 64 voxel (4x4x4 for a m3) = 742 destroyed voxel. That's nearly a cube of 9x9x9 voxel. A single hit. Yes smaller weapons couldn't do very low dmg vs. a L "bulkhead", but L vs. L it  seems you didn't find the time to vent your shield one time. The numbers must on the live or pts, so we can test them. There are to many scenarios to predict. For example your S cannon ship vs. niobium or a lower tier ultra heavy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here come the Titanium ships. Finally a reason to use different materials. My only problem so far is you have carbon fiber weaker than base carbon and even plastic. Carbon fiber should be a light voxel stronger than it's base raw and certainly stronger than plastic. Carbon fiber being a construction product material should be focused as a material for ship building as a lightweight strong material with mid range resists. Since carbon fiber has a streangth to weight greater than steel, it should fall in line as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zychov said:

I disagree.

 

We have a nice pvp system now. Far from ideal, but it's getting better and better. The cross section idea is great. It needs some balance so the tiny ships wouldn't be the ultimate weapon, but the variety of approaches it gives us is awsome. We have carriers, armed transporters, fighters and with new honeycomb we will get panzer L cores.

 

Crossection thing also introduce great building chellenge that makes building combat ships a good fun.

 

Also remember about the old "borg cube problem" that is now reduced to much less annoying "long bar" problem.


Better and better yeah, can't wait to fly in XS.

Dual Universe is not a game for small ship with element only, sorry, it's clearly the opposite. I'm totally demotivated to fly in opti' ship like that. It's a game, the best game for build ship and co... Why nerf the only strengh of this game damn it.

I have so more fun to build our old L core ship, I prefer fight the gold fleet than the Empire fleet with only ugly S core ship (except for Tobi who work on a design but still it's too far from what every real builder want)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cross section should not be removed. It does it's job perfectly. It encourages you to engineer ships correctly, and to fly them correctly, with one mechanic. Removing it would remove a lot of depth from both building and piloting. It is possible to make good looking ships that are optimized for cross section, they just need to be original designs suitable for the game mechanics, and not an .obj file you grabbed off Sketchfab.

 

I think the voxel changes will help with giving some more leeway for design, but it needs to be accompanied by increases to exterior element HP, and perhaps a more gradual decrease to top speed from mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm not an expert in this part of the game, nor with PvP, but I'd suggest still having some sort of relation with the original (pure) mass. At least in real life, a honeycomb material isn't made 100% "filled" with that material, but in a certain structure so that not a lot of material is used but yet it has some structural integrity. Considering how realistic this game has been, I think it's something we could follow too. Here's my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, interesting changes.

I also propose that ONE of these two things should be done at the same time:
- 1. Allow on core blueprints to exchange honeycombs and elements of the same function/shape.
- 2. These new attributes should impact only new ships. Ships existing already should keep their existing specs.

I personally favorize option 1.

This should cut out any frustration from any players that see any negative impact on their ships. Example: imagine a non-PVP ship suddenly getting much heavier. The builder of such a ship may want to re-create it from a blueprint in which /s) can exchange one honeycomb type with another, lighter one. Or if that ship was built before those new honeycomb attributes come in, that ship should keep all its honeycomb attributes.

On a side note, it was wished by many players already, and since a long time already, that core blueprints would allow exchanges of materials and elements of the same shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2022 at 12:37 PM, fridaywitch said:

The honeycomb change that we actually want and have wanted for a very long time is PURPLE PLASTIC.



Shades of purple, yes. and also shades of turquoise.

But rather than to create even more pre-colored honeycomb varieties, I do suggest to consider creating far less varieties of prec-colored or patterned honeycombs, and allow the player to colorize. There is a very interesting thread (Idea Box forum) abut that:

 

Edited by Hirnsausen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2022 at 2:10 PM, Shiromar said:

So it looks like Lithium, which is currently the lightest material  (5.3kg/m3) and ship builders use it for speed centered crafts is increasing the weight by almost 5x (25kg/m3) which puts it on even grounds with Carbon. Historically Lithium has been almost 1/5 the weight of Carbon, so it does not make sense to now make them equal. Even the new lightest materials will be increasing by almost twice this current value (10kg/m3). Plastic is also increasing by 42%, which is very commonly used in PvE ships for voxel.  This of course combined with the recent adjustor and max speed calculations means that ships that have no foot in PvP at all are going to be negatively effected by this change. This will be most noticeable on XS and S ships.

 

My suggestion would be to keep Lithium where it is as the lightest material, and also move plastic to "building material" category and make their resistances and HP to match. This will preserve its use in PvE ship design without causing it to be overpowered comparatively in PvP use. Otherwise ships looking to save weight will be reduced to being made out of wood, which I'm sure we can all agree isn't how a spacecraft should look.

 

 


For my part, I am a ship builder, and most of my ships are built from lithium (matte but with glossy detail areas). I like their look.  And I am not a PVP player, all my ships are strictly for transport and trading. Peaceful ships.

If lithium would become 5x heavier, I can call all my existing ships lame ducks, a few might even crash when fully loaded.

Maybe there should be some newly introduced varieties of FORTIFIED and also of ARMOR Honeycomb materials, and regular honeycomb materials.

The new honeycomb changes should still happen as I am seeing a wide support for that, but the existing honeycomb materials would keep their mass (even if negative changes to their hitpoints are made). Peaceful non-PVP ships would remain flyable and not get 5xor more heavier on their honeycomb part.

Decorative honeycombs, like wood, etc. would be much lighter, have 0 hitpoints or just very low ones. On a side note, add more decorative honeycomb varieties: leather types, animal fur types, textile types (carpets, curtains), etc.
Soil honeycombs and luminescent glass honeycombs would be heavier but still have next to 0 hitpoints as the are still decorative only. Luminescent honeycomb areas need to be adjustable by light color (RGB) and translucence.

And on the warmonger side, PVP players would use any of the Fortified Honeycomb varieties to build the inner of their ship, and any of the Armor Honeycomb materials for the outer shell of their ships - honeycomb varieties that make PVP players very happy. All existing honeycomb types would be almost unchanged in regards to their WEIGHT (whatever hitpoint changes you may apply to them to make them unfavorable for PVP ships), but those newly introducable Armored and Fortified Honeycomb materials would then be the real stuff for PVP battleships, star fortresses, carriers and lighter and speedier combat vessels.

I have spoken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2022 at 5:14 PM, Cobqlt said:


Better and better yeah, can't wait to fly in XS.

Dual Universe is not a game for small ship with element only, sorry, it's clearly the opposite. I'm totally demotivated to fly in opti' ship like that. It's a game, the best game for build ship and co... Why nerf the only strengh of this game damn it.

I have so more fun to build our old L core ship, I prefer fight the gold fleet than the Empire fleet with only ugly S core ship (except for Tobi who work on a design but still it's too far from what every real builder want)

I see your point. And I hope that our game will manage to achieve that sweet spot that makes everyone content. I think this discussion went pretty off topic as we are in honeycomb thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2022 at 8:36 PM, Pleione said:

Horrible idea.  The old system allowed XS ships to lock on large ships (presumably because the large ship was, well, larger) at say 40km, but the large ship could not lock onto the XS ship to fire back until it was much closer.  And since ANY hit use to disable the warp drive, even a paltry laser at max range, it was really broken.  Mix in that XS ships were not limited on weapon size, and larger ships were just sitting ducks.  Shields of course help now, but the old system was REALLY REALLY stupid.


Read my message, I don't talk about keep the no limited weapons on XS+, old system was stupid BECAUSE he got all those thing allowed in the same time.

It's just my idea after plenty of PVP fight and trying all those meta myself, you can have yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So plastic has better resistances across the board than all of tier 1?  How many noobs will plasti-dip their tier 1 ships?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A date for the implementation of these changes?
 

Otherwise, the blocking of shields on their core size (or lower) is missing as a quick balancing addition:
XS: shield XS
S: Shield S
M: Shield M
L: Shield L
 

We already have it to balance weapons based on core size and it works well.
 

Also with these modifications, reset the lock range according to the type of core as it was at the beginning of the game.
 

The big cores won't be able to shoot at the small cores that are far away, but the latter won't be able to shoot at the big core anyway if it doesn't get closer.
 

This will bring much more diversity to the different types of ships needed in a fight.
You will need small ships to kill other small ships (or large ships with small weapons).
 

More diversity = better PvP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see aluminum and carbon switch.  

 

aluminum 25

carbon 50

 

Right now aluminum is 27. A lot of builds and builders use aluminum as a primary.  It is a much more attractive pallet than carbon. And has a better range. Being a metal, it also makes more sense as a material for ships or anything to be made out of. It doubling in weight really takes it out of the primary use for builders. Carbon also already has it's place in ship building under this new system, with carbon fiber. For more variety and usability switching these two is best. Keep builders in mind when making these PVP balance changes. There are other pillars of this game that should be considered. Builders.

 

I don't think builders experience needs to suffer or change due to PVP voxel changes. Voxels are for the builders primarily.  

 

Also, Isn't it needless atm to even have voxels on your PVP ships? Are changes going to be made to the PVP system we should know about?

 

( Carbon does not have polished or matte options in any tones other than carbon. No white, gray, black, dark gray. You just get Carbon. No range at all. And it isn't even a better tone or texture than aluminum. )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ, thanks for completely ignoring the input regarding tier 1 pures, specifically regarding aluminium doubling in mass.

 

Could have been such a simple fix, just swapping two materials of the same tier, and it would make a lot of builders happy.

 

You even adjusted some of the decorative materials, you could have easily made this entire change a 'meh' thing, but instead you stuck to your guns about doubling aluminium. It's so stupid.

Edited by Mncdk1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, De Overheid said:

The year is 12477 and humanity is about to make the greatest discovery since the advent of fire; Paint.

The year is 247,202 and humanity is about to make the greatest discovery since the advent of paint:  food that walks around and eats vegetation.  Quick, form a hunting party!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NQ, why do you ask for our input (and why do we waste our time on it) when there is zero response and you go ahead with every change regardless?

 

You are trying to address one area of the game (PvP) and are using a very broad brush. Please allow for at least one metal HC type (aluminum being the current popular choice) to be light weight. Ship builders for PvE ships have no metal textures at their disposal, except those starting at weight 50 now.

 

Building is one of the most popular aspects of this game. Please don't just casually impact the great parts of the game while you are trying to fix something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...