revamp space battle?

I was hoping we could use the "base hacking" mechanic to be used as disabling ray/ weapon, like the ion cannons in the X-Wing/Tie Fighter games. That "disabling weapon" could chew rapidly through shields then rapidly lower the target's power output all the way until it's disabled.

I'm just checking this superficially in the configs, doesn't appear obvious if the shaman weapon / EMP attack blocks can be turned into some kind of projectile, or have any visuals attached like tracers. This could help disabling a ship without destroying half of it just to kill the generators, or without blowing up all thrusters to stop it. Just like the hacking mechanic, the "disabled" status could have a simple cooldown time before player can re-start their ship/ base.

Not sure about the details either : maybe the range could be greater than "close proximity turrets defenses" to avoid disabling the shield and having turrets poking holes in the target while we're trying to just shut down engines with the "disabling weapon". Or, on the contrary, have very short range to force attacker to be in range of close proximity turrets (greater risk for greater reward) to use the disabling weapon effectively, and risking that the attacker turrets also destroy parts of the target if not configured properly before the attack.

 

It's large ?

I mean : very large. Like I mentioned in post #18, and like we can see in many sci-fi universes, "large" is slow, but also insanely sturdy compared to everything else. They can take a battering because they have plenty of armor/ mass, huge generators for shields, etc. Even when some parts blow up the rest of the ship still works fine.

It's normal to see players disagreeing that CVs could be slow if these only range from 30 up to 400 meters. But if instead they started at 200m up to 2km or more, it would feel natural that these ships can not behave like fighters, can take a serious pounding, and also serve as base during combat for fighters to refuel/ fill up ammo/ repair etc. Getting close to a 2km ship exposes a fighter to much longer fire from turrets than zipping past a 200 - 400 m actual CV. At 2km that's 5 times bigger, so 5 times longer exposure.

And then some weapons for these would be exclusive, due to power draw and size. Actual CV hangar doors don't allow very big ships to get inside, so some other means to seal inside space would be used like force fields.

 

Not to muddy the water, but large is hard to accelerate and maneuver due to Newton's 1st and 2nd law and is less likely to have its course perturbed by getting hit tangentially by another moving mass according to the third. Nothing says big is slow if you get an adequate running start. The 0 - <frameRateEnforcedSpeedLimit> and the radians/sec in the controls that would be impacted by making things realistic ... large is less responsive.

The ability to withstand damage would be a product of the design- using a six large thrusters for the six ways you can push the ship implies single points of failure, same with a large generator vs. multiple spread throughout and so on. If you design a big ship with lots of single points of failures it will accelerate slow, turn slow, and is likely to lose critical systems quickly.

 

We all agree on that part : problem is not max speed but acceleration, like stated a few times. "Large = slow" is just a shortcut for discussions purposes here. But that is how things will be perceived starting from inertia/ 0km/h.

Partly, because devices and blocks will also be adjusted consequently.

I disagree : redundancy is more viable and easier to support on a very large structure than on a small one. Scales up following size : more layers = more protection. Even if comparing sitting ducks, bigger duck will last longer.

 

Using shorthand (and assuming people are sharing your definitions as they join a conversation) leads to miscommunication, that was my point.

As far as "lose critical systems quickly" I said that with "a big ship with lots of single points of failure [...] will lose critical systems quickly." Then you follow up saying how redundancy is important. What are you disagreeing with?

 

Then I will simply point them to the beginning of the thread, and they will eventually stumble on post #14 which is my first reply to you, where I explain the "problem" and at the very start of the post :

That just because a ship is big, if it has single points of failure it will lose critical systems quickly. A small ship designed that way will lose critical system even faster, so size does matter in postponing loss of critical systems, if we agree that thrusters may not be critical systems. I would put core and generator in there, but not thrusters because big ship does not rely in mobility much.

The point where redundancy will outlive single point of failures also depend on design.

 

I guess that's where we got our wires crossed- my example was specifically about a ship with only six engines, one in each direction. It all depends on what you call big but by that definition you could still have a small (and thus more nimble) CV at the expense of armor and single points of failure- from my perspective the ability to move is critical for a ship ... losing everything and dying in two minutes instead of twenty seconds is just more painful.

 

I may be seeing this in a broader sense than what you describe, as I do most of the time when talking about features, with very few exceptions where my personal playstyle is more involved. Because I know players always chime in with a very personal point of view based on their preferences, but at the other end of the discussion there is Eleon which will try to cut (usually) things in the middle. So "fighting for my country" regarding features is just a waste of time and a recipe for frustration.

Here when I say "big and slow (accel.)" I'm thinking of a real mothership that can serve as combat base for a small fleet, with many fighters coming in and out of it. So it's not the typical 200 meters CV which can be blasted out in a few shots. I'm also thinking about phase 2 of combat when big CV has been disabled and players may want to board it and capture it via combat on foot. So even if the CV is disabled, it's not game over yet, and will surely last more than one or two minutes.

Current meta is pretty much 1 player manning a mothership all by himself, so obviously this pulls things towards agile "jack-of-all-trades" CV or "cubes of death" moving like house flies. With bigger CVs acting as combat bases, it would make sense to have teammates manning some strategic turrets around the mothership to help defend it better than the hesitating auto-turrets AI, and also to help defend in an eventual boarding scenario.

Max allowed size of ships and structures can make a big difference in what kind of combat scenarios will/ would be possible.

 

When it comes to cv combat in space I quite like the thought of having the opv's use admin cores, that way there's much more to it than simply targetting the generators and we can start to produce some proper boarding action much like a poi.

 

I think there's better options than that. Using admin cores on special patrol vessels could work but ship combat is so different from poi combat that it could just be frustrating if it was used on most ships.

Having a poi generator that is not targeted by turrets and the ability to use multiple cores would be really nice.

 

Pre-damaging blocks & saving damaged state can still work with admin cores, right ? Main problem I see for a boarding party would be the absence of gravity in a disabled OPV.

Why multiple cores ? To make connected builds ?

 

Are you looking at PvE AI controlled vessels (which could be considered "special patrol vessels" here) or a more general use of admin cores in PvP games with players able to use them? I wouldn't expect an honor system to work, and the spirit of thruster exposed checks can be spoofed pretty easily. Personally, I know my ADHD would loath having a dozen systems with a couple points of damage I couldn't repair. 8^)

I've asked for multiple and dummy cores in the past- elimination of single point of failure in bases and CVs would be a way to address the "once you figure it out it's easy" speed run/puzzle solver approach to killing a POI in single player and add new complexity to multi player attacks on POIs.

If fail over had a few seconds delay (i.e. switch to aux processor takes five seconds) then that time could be used to make a door temporarily accessible ... in a CV in combat that would feel like an "overheated" shutdown on a mech in mech warrior which is quite a heart thumper. If multiple cores allowed extending CPU in an additive fashion (instead of warm/hot stand-by a vessel or base has a multiprocessor setup) then losing one could impact the efficiency of the structure in a game consistent way- crippled but not out of the fight.

@ravien_ff has tons more experience on the POI design front so I'm always interested in his perspective on "would be really nice" features on his Christmas wish list. Likewise, I thought your idea of creating assembly/composite block features that can be creative meshed into a single block for the purposes of damage and rendering sounds really keen. Something like that could potentially go a long way to making the game behave better in MP ... it would also be fun to have "best of" composite feature blocks from the structure gods of the workshop on the palette.

 

PvE AI --- I was just adding on to what @Escarli wrote. He talked about "we can start to produce some proper boarding action much like a poi" and ravien's reply -- "ship combat is so different from poi combat" -- did not reflect the "boarding action" aspect, which evidently can only happen if the OPV can be stopped but not destroyed. So with an admin core, it can be done with pre-damaged blocks.

That was just an idea stemming from that thread, among other things :

https://empyriononline.com/threads/...and-si-for-ships-but-not-like-you-think.9938/

.

 

wow this thread got derailed alot. kassonnade im sorry you felt the need to waste your time replying to that guy. His initial post was worthy of a read but then dissolved into gibberish.

I think that when we look at the survey eleon did, and the results, they have indeed focused on the major primary features people required. and looking at that list, I see alot have been done. While some might need further depth or iteration, they certainly did a lot and came a long way. I jumped back in and I love reforged eden, couldn't stop playing.

Now this is not knocking empyrion or eleon, they created the game and reforged heavily modified it in ways which increased the enjoyment for me and many others who play it, because of the difficulty. one of the many reasons i stopped playing empyrion was because it was too easy to become inunddated with infinite resources and hence what is the point.

We all know it isn't a simulation and it isn't meant to be. But if we just look at the first line of marketing on steam, a space survival game, the fact that it references space means it will tailor gameplay to that environment, or have that gameplay environment within the game.

So when it comes to realism, gameplay, simulation, decisions still have to be made based on the space playfield. For example, you can't or shouldn't have gameplay in space, where a human or oxygen dependent being could breathe or survive. So rightly, you need a suit, and you need oxygen. Space is a vacuum. And to do otherwise would be....silly at best and a joke.

Now when it comes to space combat, we all know or can understand that space combat just isn't going to play out in real life the way it has in most movies or books or tv series.

Therefore a balance is struck between what is expected and what is fun. And what is fun will vary in opinion.

So my earlier point that eleon has worked on delivered on many requested features brings me to the fact that they've devoted their time and development resources to make each aspect of the game better. Whether fps combat, survival aspects like oxygen sealed rooms, radiation exposure and other elements which affect a player's health depending on the environment they find themselves in.

Now it seems to me while all those features and gameplay systems have benefited from the time given to design, balance, implenting features, it is now the space combat system itself which need a pass or an overhaul. I think with the community's input they could take some months, probably 1.8 or 1.9 and make space combat a main feature of the patch. Take some time to flesh it out as best as possible instead of being hasty, and really make it meaningful beyond the whirly bird.

As with anything else, they make it moddable to the point that the server admins or scenario creators can tweak it to their liking.

I think the fundamentals are ok, but the aspects I spoke to before, makes it resolve around, shields, whirly bird and thats it. It can be way better with some effort and thought. The systems are already in place.

Oh lastly, I would consider changes based around realism, but not absolute. Just like the example I gave that its space so you can't breathe. Some elements of physics suit. I mean if we just made all the ships able to handle like indy cars, would anyone like that? Maybe formula 1 game enthusiasts I donlt know. So referring to some questions in Humme's post, like a big ship that is slow what is the counter.

So I wouldn't reinvent the wheel. A big ship has more room for systems, bigger components. E.g. a space where a small 1.2liter car engine fits might not fit a 3.0 24 valve v8 engine. So the bigger engine is more powerful but requires more space. This is already in empyrion. Bigger thrusters, more MN, but larger space required.

But what about other components? All shield generators are the same size in terms of block space. So a big ship gets the same shield hit points because there is only same size shield generator with the same stats. So when it comes to the design and the question of pro/con or advantage/disadvantage, if we attack each gameplay system in stages and work it out it might go something like this:

beginning with the question hummel posed. A big ship has more room, internally and on external surfaces. Therefore it has more weight. Therefore, it should accelerate to stop speed wayy slower, so deceleration/acceleration becomes more balanced along those lines. (sorry if i don't rememebr if thats a thing, because i know all ships have the same top speeds, having trouble remembering acceleration). Roll, pitch, yaw should have more penalties, or the ratio adjusted. For example let's suppose I have a 50k-ton ship (just throwing out figures) and 2 back thrusters make it accelerate to stop speed in 10 seconds. Perhaps tweak that to be harsher. 2 back thrusters on a 50k-ton ship might make it take 15 seconds to get to top speed, so adjust the weight to thrust ratio that thrusters give.

Perhaps increase the power requirement of those large drive thrusters in terms of KW power required. Perhaps increase the size in terms of block size that generators are. These are main ship components... i mean that provide power to the entire thing. So therefore a bigger ship should accomodate more because of its space.

Sort turrets in tiers. Small, large, capital class? With again the capital class turret being bigger in block surface size than turrets are now. So instead of turrets being all one size. For example I might now have a corvette which could equip and power one capital class gun, but the small size of my ship means less room for generators etc, so the rest of guns are large sized only, because of the space real estate I have left.

Shield generators could come in tiers, (making the larger sized ones in terms of block space required), require FAR more generator power to power the shield but provide more HP as well.

Capital class guns could have their tracking reduced, large sized guns would track better but hit reliably more. Perhaps the projectile "speed" of capital class guns could be increased by a large margin, which would enable a bigger distance in terms of capital class engagement instead of being all point blank, HOWEVER, the tracking having been reduced means it can't effectively hit a smaller fast moving target.

So in this scenario, two dreadnoughts could engage at range, or two "capital" class vessels, and because their prjectiles are fast they won't miss so much. But still leading the target or a good "shot" is required and it's not a case of being impossible to dodge.

Then now a capital class ship being designed would need to take into consideration do I go with all capital turrets which won't be able to track a corvette in close, or do I put on some medium and large turrets to take care of those?

These options may be mild and easy to design but probably require testing and balance, these options eliminate "get to point blank, whirly bird and auto - fire".

I would advise also changing the main guns that the pilot controls. I would increase them in power but also in size and space and power required. And make turrets weaker. So a pilot or ship like a corvette size could be maneuvering and doing hit and run attacks with powerful main guns. Instead of turrets acting like the main guns with arcs to fire in every direction.

also a setting value which can be modded by servers or single players could definte what weight a ship class is like between x tons and y tons it is a corvette class or corvette sized.

 

Only because targetting generators has pretty much become the standard way to take out opv's....and space poi's for that matter. By having an admin core on opv's (with all appropriate parts (including the core) pre -damaged) you've already changed how combat works. Sure the mechanics are pretty much the same but you'd have to be more strategic about it and not simply attacking the generators or sniping the core because you happen to know where to target.

 

The problem with using admin cores on patrol vessels is that also makes the entire hull indestructible (unless you pre-damage that as well). Unlike bases, patrol vessels move and turn around, so you can't just sit there and snipe off all the turrets like you can a base. You'll constantly be hitting invulnerable blocks which would just be frustrating. It also completely changes the balance of aoe versus direct damage weapons, since aoe weapons will no longer have any benefit since the hull is, again, indestructible.

Whereas adding a new POI generator that isn't targeted by turrets would be an easy 2 minute change in the configs. Or just space the generators out in the ship so a player would have to destroy many of them.

The core sniping could be at least partially solved by just allowing multiple cores per patrol vessel, but that would require programming from the devs.
OR add a new core that is only removable from hand weapons, so you can't just shoot it out with your ship. This could be done with a 5 minute config job again.

No matter what solution is used, it would require significant time to redesign all OPV blueprints for. I'm just not a big fan of using admin cores for all patrol vessels as I do think it would cause a lot of player frustration and inconsistency and make cannon turrets the only viable weapon type.

 

Cores on OPV can also be made indestructible by enclosing them in 6 square decals, 1 per cube face, and even a bigger enclosed space to compensate for AOE range. So no need to damage all blocks with this. And the decals can also be trigger-removed with the control block to allow for the core destruction, if it is desired. But these all depend on the precise function of a specific OPV. If it is to have the OPV to be disabled then raided like a POI then obviously solutions applied to that particular vessel do not have to be applied across the board to all OPVs.

When I said long ago that the decals were a real game-changer feature, I really meant it. I think they are not used to their full potential, and that is surely due to the apparent complexity of using them. But for POI and story-related ships, they can allow for real crazy stuff.

So they can be used to protect anything from destruction, in any part of a POI or even on a terrain, in any dimension required. They could also be used to spare a great deal of redundant geometry in - for example - a huge CV (AI-driven), by replacing long walls/ floor spans, slopes, etc.

 

Cheese alert ... so if I designed a ship with a forward mounted (or way off on the forward left out on a carbon fiber boom) target turret wrapped in a decal box it would act like a mosquito trap for AI targeting?

 

Decals are meant for POI and AI ships because they compromise structural integrity, so they can't be put on player-owned ships or bases, *technically* speaking.

So if we put decals on our ship, the slightest hit will blow it to pieces because all blocks will be shown red ( 'N' menu ). *Technically* speaking...

But if *technically* speaking some random player happened to try this on a server, then surely server owners have ways to prevent player-made ships with decals to be spawned on their server. If not, then I just can't imagin what random players could put on huge decals while parading around in space...