gblnk
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by gblnk
-
-
As far as engines go, it works as Guswut already mentioned (double the mass, and the engines, and the forward thrust stays constant). Thrusters work a bit differently and I do think its designed to make big ships feel more cumbersome.
I don't believe it's true that thrusters are different. Everything I've seen suggests thrust scales in proportion to volume and the mass of the ship is inconsequential. I've only tested this with braking thrust, but it holds true in that case. Multiply braking deceleration (game calls it braking thrust) by the mass of the ship to get the actual force of the thrusters. You can add or subtract mass from the ship, but that number should always stay the same.
In theory anyway. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
-
You can easily remove speed limit... There is module for that :-)
True. But it might as well not exist, because no one is willing to waste a slot on that.
-
I tend to do most of my steering through asteroid fields using thrusters now. It just seems to work better that way. But I also play with full collision damage, so I tend to be extra careful around them.
But when it came to engagements, on the old system I was constantly overshooting enemy ships and then struggling turn around without shooting off in the wrong direction. Now it's a lot easier to control the distance between yourself and the enemy.
But if it's not your thing, then it's not your thing.
-
The problem is that, currently, there is little incentive to build ships with superior profiles or ships that can somehow exploit speed and/or positioning in combat, because those values are rendered moot by mostly linear scaling of everything and turret accuracy.anyway one thing I don't really like about current shield implementation is that, with some rare exception, shield are just a huge pool of hp that gives no real depth to combat.
having shield leak under damage would be much more interesting in general, not just because would push armoring importance but mostly because would make combat more dramatic: currently if you have a better dps/shield ratio than the enemy you just win, even if the ship are almost matched in size and firepower the one which shield fails first get slaughtered and the other barely gets a scratch
So yeah, in that sense, moar HP and moar DPS is really all it boils down to. I just don't think the problem really stems from shield implementation.
You may be right, but I do think some changes to shield mechanics could be used to encourage the use of smaller ships.
One thought I've had is to tweak the balance so that shields are only practical on smaller ships and armor is only practical on larger ships. Somewhere in the middle you'd have a ship that would benefit from moderate amounts of both, and that would be the workhorse of the galaxy.
This could be done by changing a given shield block from having a certain hp pool to having a certain generated shield volume instead. The hp pool is determined by the difference between the volume of the ship and the volume of the shield. This way, for any given shield block, a smaller ship is going to benefit more than a larger ship. In addition, you fix the scaling problem by making the energy consumption grow exponentially in relation to shield block size, so that it's virtually impossible to shield ships beyond a certain volume.
This isn't meant to completely nerf large ships, so to compensate, you give armor significant hp buffs based on thickness, and also penalties for very thin armor. You also introduce point defense turrets and have the number scale linearly with ship size so that large ships have a fighting chance against close range attacks.
I'm sure there are plenty problems with this idea, but one major bonus I see in it is that it significantly raises the cost of running larger ships since they will require minor rapairs to their hull armor far more often. I also think there's a certain sense in the idea that a system that converts energy into protection is particularly suited to ships that need speed and agility, while using mass for protection (armor) would be the main defense of ships that can most afford to sacrifice in those areas.
-
Here's something people seem to have overlooked. Little ships unlock system slots faster than big ships. And more slots = more firepower.
Here's how many system slots ships get at what volumes.
2 - 51k m3
3 - 128k m3
4 - 320k m3
5 - 800k m3
6 - 2000k m3
7 – 5000k m3
8 - 12500k m3
9 - 19764k m3
10 - 31250k m3
11 - 43065k m3
12 - 59348k m3
13 - 78125k m3
14 - 107554k m3
15 - 148371k m3
For this example I'll compare three ship types, a 5000k m3 destroyer, a destroyer's worth of 800k m3 frigates, and a destroyer's worth of 128k m3 corvettes.
With one destroyer I get 7 slots.
5000k divided by 800k is 6.25 so I get 6 frigates. 6 frigates, 5 slots each, totals to 30 slots.
5000k divided by 128k is 39.0625 so I get 39 corvettes. 39 corvettes, 3 slots each is 117 slots.
Assuming all ships have to use at least 2 slots on something that isn't turrets I get this.
1 destroyer = 5 slots worth of turrets.
Fleet of frigates = 18 slots worth of turrets.
Fleet of corvettes = 39 slots worth of turrets.
The question is, how does that comparison fare when you add shield scaling into the mix.
-
Maybe I haven't been conducting my tests at a big enough scale, since thrust does seem to be affected more by mass than maximum velocity is. I haven't calculated how the proportions differ and I should. I have a gut feeling the proportion is roughly the same though.
The way the game presents the numbers is a little confusing. Thrust appears to be affected by mass only because what the game calls thrust is actually acceleration. I'm not really sure how maximum velocity is calculated.
What if we actually made engines give less thrust, but compounded thrusters' thrust into forward thrust and not only engines'? And then buffed the engine block's effect on maximum speed? Dunno, just thinking out loud.
I think the additional thrust would be pretty miniscule if you did that. Personally, I think engine thrust was increased way too much in the latest beta. I think my ship went from 80m/s2 to 300m/s2. That's pretty crazy. A 1Mt+ ship going from zero to max speed in 5 seconds just makes no sense to me.
Max velocity sideways/backwards is actually exactly the same as max velocity forwards - so it is determined by your main engine. Easily tested with basic block cube and thrusters only
It seems counterintuitive, but it kind of has to be that way. Otherwise you rotate your ship and suddenly you're breaking the laws of physics. I'd kind of like to see ship specific speed limits removed altogether and replaced by a much higher universal speed limit. Acceleration is enough of a limiting factor. But I suppose the forum would be flooded with complaints from people not being able to steer battleships at 5000m/s.
-
Maybe a solution would be to have enemies that somewhat match the player they are spawned for... You wanna go 20 million shields? I'll send you enemies that have high dps and shield bypass... You wanna rack a million omicron on your ship? I'll send you highly armored ships with insane shields to soak it up... etc.
That's going to cause problems on multiplayer. Imagine you're minding your own business and someone warps in with an insanely powerful ship. Next thing you know you're getting smashed to pieces by equally insane pirates and aliens.
-
I can't really lighten the vessel much more than I have, I need some mass to counter the recoil of the cannons, currently an alpha volley to port or starboard with 0 elevation can rotate my vessel as much as 45 degrees before the thrusters kill all rotational speeds.
And also I need that mass so I can punt small asteroids and ships out of my glorious path.
Well, I think I found the problem. If cannons cause too much recoil, don't use them. And if you can't be bothered to steer around asteroids, then you're just going to have to live with poor handling. That's not a problem with game mechanics.
-
I, for one, am NOT a fan of the scaling turrets concept. It allows a starter ship to just invest more resources to do more damage... BUT that being said, I'm not the one that has to design balance into the game either... and I trust that the devs will make the right decisions around balance and I am looking forward to whatever they toss our way.
If bigger turrets cost more turret control points, this ceases to be a problem.
This can also be balanced if the negative aspects to weapons also scale. Someone can try to put a huge cannon on a fighter, but it won't seem so clever when the recoil sends them tumbling. The same goes for energy consumption.
-
I agree with you that the way turrets work currently is kind of absurd, and that it would be better to have them as an element of ship construction rather than these things that magically pop off ships and we get to swap out on the fly. But I worry that the system you're describing would just end up overwhelming the average player. It reminds me a little of the way weapons work in Aurora4x which sounds really cool in theory, but for most people winds up being more of a headache than anything else.
I do think a somewhat simplified take on this would work. You could have all of the basic turret types scalable and buildable with resources. Their base stats could be directly proportional to their scale. The drawbacks, such as mass, energy consumption, and recoil would also be proportional to scale. Each turret could have upgrade slots that work the same as the current ship upgrade slots.
This would also mean that instead of popping off ships, weapons would be disabled if they sustain enough damage. You could have a few basic type of turret housings, some with more armor and less arc, and others vice versa.
-
I also don't mind thrusters being weaker. I think it adds an element of strategy in ship construction that's generally lacking at this point.
But I really dislike the surface area biased thrust distribution formula in the Beta. It forces people to build them in certain shapes and sizes to achieve specific results for no particularly good reason.
Purely volume based monodirectional thrusters would be far less confusing and would give people a lot more aesthetic freedom.
-
Koonschi confirmed that a retrograde marker is coming in the next stable build.
-
That can't work, because you could put a small layer of normal hull to bypass that.
True. Though, you would get diminishing returns doing that as the layers got thinner. At some point you might even start to lose thrust. You'd be better off just leaving an empty space between each layer. Which kind of underlines the difficulty with making thruster obstruction work. The calculation would have to be based on all of the mass between the face of the thruster and the outer edge of the ship, whether actually contacting the thruster or not.
It does seem like going with purely volume based thrust is a much simpler solution.
If you split thrusters into very small layers, they would provide almost no thrust in other directions, unlike the old system. So there is a reason not to make ultra-thin slices.I do get that. But the average ship's need for lateral thrust is so much lower than the need for braking power that it really isn't much of a sacrifice.
-
Stacking very thin layers of thrusters doesn't make sense. In any way. I think we can all agree on that. Same goes for solar panels. Although I still want to allow thrusters to be obstructed by other blocks and still work, for the sake of simplicity.
I agree with your position on stacking, but unfortunately allowing thrusters to work while obstructed means it will still be a thing.
I've been playing around with thrusters on the beta and the new formula doesn't seem to achieve the intended results. A cube of thrusters split into two layers now receives a 50% bonus in thrust. A cube split into 4 layers gets a 100% bonus, 10 layers 150% and so on.
The new formula would work fine if thrusters could not function while obstructed, but as long as they can, awarding bonuses based on shape guarantees that layering will continue to be an exploit. The only ways I can see of making this work is to either make thrusters purely volume based, or to change your position on obstructing them. Or perhaps as a compromise make it so that obstructed thrusters continue to function unless they are obstructed by another thruster.
-
There seems to be a disconnect here. The point OP is trying to make about super powerful shields is they discourage dynamic combat. The responses are mostly criticizing him for not fully embracing the current meta, which is all reward and no risk.
I just restarted the game on insane thinking it would add some challenge, but sadly it hasn't. Shields aren't the only reason, but they're a big part of it. In a very short time I was able to go from a tiny mining craft to a fast agile ship with 50k shields. And every time you start to struggle you just make it bigger, add more shields and weapons, and you're good to go. Being insanely overpowered is fun for a little while but it usually isn't good for game longevity.
Shields and scaling aren't the only problem though. NPC ships are slow and awkward and the ai is severely lacking. Even if you do get in over your head it's almost impossible to die because nothing can chase you down.
-
I don't really agree with this. For one it makes ship building more complicated having to keep track of some hull to other block ratio. And why? Just so that hull blocks are more useful? This wouldn't really even make them anymore more useful than they are now. Just required. Also, why care about that and not say glass blocks or mirror blocks not really being practical?
Well, to clarify I was suggesting it was a way of putting a premium on the space used for specialty blocks so they serve more as modules , with the secondary effect of making the hull block actually have the purpose of providing the structure of a ship. And also to make it a little more of a necessity to focus on a specialization rather than be able to build these amazing all-rounder ships made of nothing but armor, engines, shields and generators.
As for the vanity blocks, I guess I just see them as variations on hull blocks.
Anyway it was just an idea about how to make ship design require a little more thought and compromise. There are a million different ways to do it. This was just one. I enjoy the challenge of trying to figure out how to design a ship that performs a certain task well, and right now it just doesn't require much thought at all. But maybe I'm in the minority. Either way I'll still continue to enjoy the game for what it is.
-
First I want to say I'm absolutely loving the game and I'm looking forward to seeing how it grows and develops in the future.
One thing that bothers me a little about ship design is I feel like I'm not being forced to make any difficult decisions. They're basically 100% specialty blocks encased in armor and it's never a question of whether they're going to be good or bad, but rather what level of awesomeness they'll achieve.
I think it would be interesting to make hull blocks an integral part of ship design. What I'm suggesting is every ship design meet a standard of hull integrity. One possible way of doing this is require that a certain portion of a ship's mass, say 50% for example, be comprised of "hull" mass. Hull blocks could contribute 100% of their mass to this stat, maybe 50% for cargo and crew quarters blocks, 20% or so for armor, and zero for specialty blocks like engines and generators. An alternative to making this an absolute requirement would be that ships with less than 50% hull mass would suffer severe performance penalties to all ship systems.
This could also be used to incentivize some of the less popular upgrade paths. For example, naonite hull blocks could contribute 110% of their mass to hull integrity.
Just a thought.
Big vs Small ship balance
in Gameplay Discussion
Posted
I'd never played around with scaling ship designs so I decided to test this. I see what you're talking about. Braking scales with the ship size (doesn't change noticeably) but yaw, pitch, and roll do change pretty significantly. I assume lateral and vertical movement scale the same as braking, but I didn't test it. So basically turning and rolling ability decreases but thrusting along x,y,z stays mostly the same.
I also noticed that "w" scaling has some pretty weird effects. I tested with a roughly spherical ship and it scaled fine. But then I added two big cargo bays to the sides and the more I scaled it down the more it started to look like a football.