Make CVs feel more epic... by nerfing power and moving mining lasers to SVs!

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Average, Jun 22, 2019.

  1. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    239
    A little counter-intuitive perhaps, but allow me to explain my logic...

    Most of us want our CVs to feel like the huge juggernauts from science fiction (eg. like a Star Destroyer). But certain things can subtract from the epic feel of CVs.
    *As mentioned frequently by others, they often handle like stunt fighters, turning 360o within a second or two if they are stacked with plenty of T2 RSCs, and can accelerate so fast they feel like lightweight toys rather than they immense weighty behemoths. Speed is ok, agility is not, it makes CVs feel cheap and tacky. Turning a Star Destroyer should be a big deal. That sluggishness is necessary to signal the brain - this feels like a massive ship!
    *Most PvP CVs follow one basic optimal design, that is a 'battleship' with a full rack of turrets near the back facing forward, components under a bunch of armour, and a mid-front section with decoys essentially designed to be a big metal shield to hide your actual ship behind. It's always the same turret variety, always all facing front. The resulting combat is sometimes equally limited - point at enemy, shoot until you're hitting the vital stuff. It would be nice to see the mechanics structured so there are multiple optimal ship designs and sizes (like brawlers, siege ships, SV-screening cruisers, missile boats). This would go well with mechanics that made it easier to flank a CV, and for there to be some forward planning in movement like a ocean ship battle.
    *They aren't a hub of activity, like a mothership. Late game, there's little gameplay reason to host a group of people. Usually each person has a CV and does things separately. It doesn't make sense for buddies to use my CV hangar for mining or combat, especially mid-late game.
    *Some of the design limits aimed at addressing various issues (eg. turret limits) feel very arbitrary and clunky. A more elegent system would be create balanced flexibility in design.

    --Ideas for CV improvements/enhancements--

    I want to suggest a central mechanical change that is only helpful in what it later allows, and then, if you'll bear with me, I'll list the more obvious change flowing from this that provide more direct benefits.

    The first part of my suggestion is to use power/generators as an elegant way of balancing ships and forcing ship designers to choose a more focused ship's role, creating a more diverse ecosystem of optimal ship designs. To do this, generators, especially T2 ones, get heavily nerfed, and would require a MUCH greater percentage of the ships interior. Because space is limited, a ship designer must make a careful choice of where the power, which is now scarce, is going to be directed. For each ship design they must select a trade-off between weapons, shields, turning speed (RCS), thrust, endurance (fuel tanks which are also nerfed, displacing precious generator space), and cargo space. These things are all now configured so that they would draw roughly equal power on a typical multipurpose ship (yes I'm including cargo space and RCS drawing large amounts when they're in use). You can add more guns, shield systems, cargo space or RCS as you please, but only if you have enough power, and at the expense of other things you might use power for. Now if you want a ship to be better at something, it needs to get worse at something else. Specialised ships are now useful. There is slight diminishing power efficiency for each extra system (extra generators, and the modules they direct to), so that bigger ships aren't always better, and they require a bigger and bigger percentage of generators per M^3.

    Any hard upper limits on things are for sanity rather than setting the standard. Class sizes remain in place to allow hosts to manage CPU/GPU performance.

    To make CVs handle like epic ships, consider the following changes:
    * T2 RCS are now a SV module, and nerfed a bit. Now mid-large SVs handle a little better, CVs don't act like fighters. Each additional RCS has slightly reduced efficiency.
    * Increase CV thruster fuel-efficiency, greatly reduce thrust per M^3, so it's about 10-20% of current. Each additional thruster has slightly reduced efficiency. Turning now takes time, accelerating to full speed feels like a weighty decision.
    * There is now a special 'dropship' CV thruster or thruster mode available that only works in atmosphere, is very powerful per M^3, and is very fuel inefficient. This allows CVs to continue to operate as pickup/setdown for HVs in high gravity, while avoiding the thrust creating tacky-feeling agility in space battles.
    * The new mouse pilot mode is now the default for CVs - feels more like how you would steer a huge ship.

    To make CVs into motherships, encouraging frequent use of a hangar, and rewarding teamwork, friendship and coordination:
    * Mining lasers get moved from CVs to SVs. Mid-large SVs are now the main space miners.
    * SVs, which should be given much less fuel-efficient thrusters and cargo space than CVs, are therefore encouraged to mine a load and return to mothership.
    * HVs receive the same. They also also move slightly better in space so they can be transferred between hangars.
    * Give SVs a special weapon or ability, like for example a slowing beam, to give a reason for hangars to be used in combat. "Launch fighters" should be an actual effective strategy I can use in PvE/PvP.

    To make CV combat more interesting:
    * Change weapon stats to reflect greater differentiation/tradeoff between range, accuracy, DPS and power usage. For example, plasma might have double the DPS of cannons, but draw double the power. By accuracy I essentially mean in some way its DPS should be reduced in some form against a target based on its size and agility. It might miss, or a missile explosion or flak shell might do less damage if the target is moving fast. Artillery might be much be much longer range than other weapons. Energy weapon DPS might falloff with range. Where possible the weakness should be gradual rather than sudden.
    *Remove weapon type limits, just limit overall weapons through power. Now you can make a specialised artillery cruiser, but it would be very vulnerable against SVs or agile CVs, because of the greater differentiation between weapons.
    *Make turrets ignore non surface weapons (decoys). Increase turret HP to compensate.
    *Because CVs are now slower, it is now sometimes optimal to put weapons at back or side, as you are far more likely to get flanked especially by smaller ships.
    *Multiple shield modules are now possible, naturally limited by power and ship size. It makes perfect sense that a huge ship has a huge shield, but it is paying in power for it.

    Naturally these changes would require tweaking and balancing, but the simplicity of placing different strategies along the power curve allows the balance to be easily calculated, buffed and nerfed. For example, if you want a ship to have an option to get either 10% more DPS vs 15% more shields, you simply need to set the power costs of those modules at that ratio.

    Thanks for reading!


    PS As a footnote, I want to suggest as a rule of thumb that in general T2 modules only be around 10% more efficient than T1, but 10 times more expensive. This allows meaningful choices, giving the more established players something to build towards, while not giving them insane advantages over newcomers (their skills should be the big advantage).
     
    #1
  2. megs

    megs Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2019
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    6
    my reason to make CV less power eater:
    God, when using it , it is so power hunger that match an older wholed cylinder gasoline engine, and container. A simple fridge and some decos (800w) clean power container in 2 hours(rt) with a low generator 2.5k... But i think it is to respect gameplay of this type of vehicle made to jump from planet to another and staying in orbit. ( and rarely landed ). So may be adjusting again a few more..maybe...was a good thing.

    My reasons to have recolt engines on SV:
    - Actualy you need to spawn asteroids out of belt to be accessed by big CVs... Take CV-Damocles-Delux( and it was not the biggest one). it is very hard to fly into this with cvs...
    -You cannot dock cv, on cvs ( one big, one little for harvest)how can we move two of these ship when alone... ( make cv docking on cv possible, or make sv harvesting capable)
    - Harvesting turret are usefull for CVs... But useless for SVs but
    -Harvesting straigth canon is useless for CVs, but will be usefull for SVs
     
    #2
  3. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    239
    IMHO, power is a great way to elegantly limit and diversify the functionality of ships (rather than hard limits on guns) because it can scale with the size of the ship. For more guns, you can either make a bigger ship with more power but less agility, or you can trade off to have less shields or thrusters. So you are forced to say "what do I want this ship design to do" rather than "do I have the maximum of everything". Then you have balanced but diverse ships, and from that different strategies and even fleet tactics.

    Like you say, yes the CV can seem like a gas guzzler, but that means you are forced to be very thoughtful and deliberate about when you thrust. But your opponent does too! And so a PVP meeting and even just PVE CV activities now has a much more epic and strategic feel to it.

    I don't understand what you mean by recolt, but thanks for the reply!
     
    #3
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  4. [REB]TheBeerGod

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    I second these suggestions, I was just about to start a thread suggesting some of them. In particular, moving mining lasers from CVs to SVs seems like it would be the smart move, and enhance gameplay. CV mining, even with specialized ships, is clunky and cumbersome because regardless of how small you try to make it, it's still a CV. You've got visibility issues, and issues with getting into the interior of asteroids. SV mining would be a lot less clunky, and would make a lot more sense in the context of what Average is saying above. Like him, I want my CVs to be carriers, destroyers, dreadnoughts....not big fighters.

    Power limitations are a good way to do that, and if possible within the limitations of the game engine, using the mass of the ship and momentum against the rotational force provided by the RCS on a higher scale than is currently implemented. Combat steel should be HEAVY, and using it throughout the ship should cost maneuverability accordingly. With the implementation of shields (which, thanks very much for that Eleon, it's the feature I've wanted most up until this point!) you'd have the option to build lighter and maintain maneuverability at the cost of unshielded survivability, or build heavy and move slow; which would work very well to promote specialized builds.

    In short though, the main change I'm interested here is moving space mining from CVs to SVs. It just makes more sense, and would play better.
     
    #4
    Sephrajin likes this.
  5. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    239
    Cheers TheBeerGod, couldn't agree more. Deploying a couple of your buddies in SV mining ships in PvP space, keeping watch, picking up a battleship approaching on scanners, scrambling to get everyone back on board with the ore, then trying to get out of there before you get too many holes blown in your ship, maybe losing your warp and redeploying those buddies in fighters instead, and having the battleship lose because it is too big-gun focused. That's the kind of intense and unpredictable gameplay requiring teamwork I'd really like to experience. And we need the changes like SV mining and power limitations for CVs to do that. From what I've read CPU looks like its intended to eventually play a limitation role that forces similar differentiation, but I personally favour power as its going to be easier to balance and you set it up to scale really nicely with ship size, that is bigger ships get more stuff, but at cost of agility and efficiency through diminishing returns. It would be a more elegant solution imho.
     
    #5
  6. Sephrajin

    Sephrajin Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2017
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    3,188
    Start Building CVs that are CAPITAL, stop Building mini CVs.
    * They are heavy, unless you build of Carbon or plain steel (granted, the A10 shields 'help' on this Topic)
    * If a CV is hughe (CAPITAL/sci-fi), even several hundreds of RCS T2 may give only like 1-3° yaw -> withOUT MV active!!
    * A CAPITAL vessel will require alot more than just 4 T2 Generators to stay below 80% 'power use' (redline).
    * Reducing the power of T2 Generators, while increasing their cost will only end up in ppl using more T1 Generators
    * CAPITAL CVs in use DO and should EAT power (without changes on Default SP Gameplay, it is well balanced there IMO)
    * When I speak of CAPITAL CVs, I do speak of (probably in most cases) About 'Single Player' vessels of classes 11+ (allthough I Play on a Server where I could spawn my size class 31 CV - 280m Long, ~70m wide and high.

    I do understand from where and why your suggestions come from, but some are too early (eg: reduce power) for such suggestions, as we REALLY need to have the CPU-Thing implemented first - to make any further assumptions/suggestions on this matter.

    Because, even for the drill-laser on SV instead of CV (which I totaly agree), the CPU Thing must be adjusted (boxes, drills, thrusters, rcs) before this changes becomes plausible/usable (MV:active) at all!

    Things that will come 'soon':
    * HVSV Thruster Update
    * CPU Adjustment

    With these incoming updates in the (relativly speaking) near future, I think ALOT will change (hopefully) for the better! :)
     
    #6
  7. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    239
    Thanks for reply Sephrajin. I think what you say about RCS and power consumption is true about capital cvs for single player. I'm mostly talking about multiplay servers, where I think my cv handling suggestions still remain 100% valid (sub class 15 say). And even on single player, sub class 10 still feels all wrong.

    I'm ok with T1 gens being a valid choice in some scenarios. Having multiple strategies for good ship design is actually what I'm aiming at with my suggestions, and getting away from a linear progression to a single best ship layout to a more rock-paper-scissors ecosystem of ships.

    Fair point that CPU is a big unknown! I think my suggestions would require less changes than introducing the CPU system, and be an elegant and easily balanced solution, but I certainly admit I don't know if Eleon has some other mechanics or factors in mind with CPU.
     
    #7
  8. Pear78

    Pear78 Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    299
    anything that makes for a better flying system.. size defo needs to be punished more..
    I think small, disposable, fighters should get a bigger role! we can respawn at the mother ship and pick up a new fighter..
     
    #8
  9. Zaflis

    Zaflis Commander

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2017
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    200
    I can easily agree with asteroid mining laser moving from CV to SV. Right now we don't even have CV-CV docking possible, so you can't fly a mining CV with your capital ship.

    About the power consumption, i know much of it is from engines and shields, but big part at least used to be from having mining laser active in control panel. Make a control panel toggle to quickly turn them off to save power. Even all the weapons when pulled out will drain power, but propably not as much.
     
    #9
  10. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    9,095
    One thing missing from this list is exposed thrusters. Properly, thrust should scale with the surface area of a ship while the mass grows with the volume of the ship (the square-cube law), and thus larger ships automatically end up with lower acceleration. It's worth noting that a similar thing actually already happens with RCS, as the moment of inertia grows as L^5 while the torque output of RCS grows as L^3; thus larger ships should also automatically end up with lower angular acceleration (the problem with RCS of course being that there is no difference in input power when idle versus when in use).
     
    #10
  11. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    239
    That's very true geostar1024! You've got the maths down better than I have. Although I'm thinking there is an aesthetic factor to be considered in that we probably don't want to encourage large amounts of a ship's surface area to be entirely thrusters, as it would look a bit unusual for my tastes, especially for non-back facing thrusters.
     
    #11
  12. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    9,095
    It's difficult to create a rule like that which isn't also very arbitrary. The CPU system could help with this by serving as a softcap on the total devices on a ship. With the right set of values, a wall of thrusters on every side of a ship probably could be discouraged (but obviously not eliminated completely).
     
    #12
  13. Germanicus

    Germanicus Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    10,270
    It is already within the program - just not activated yet;)
     
    #13
  14. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    6,291
    Likes Received:
    9,095
    True, because the obstruction calculation needs a lot of work still.
     
    #14
  15. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    239
    I think the power suggestion does it elegantly because it scales with ships size, limits thrust to reasonable levels, doesn't influence what's on the surface much, and isn't a hard cap that makes no sense when it's the same for a 50m vs 300m vessel. CPU might end up being a proxy for power by offering CPU extenders that require lots of power, but then I'm thinking then it might be an idea just to make power the thing rather than adding CPU which is additional complexity. Again, I guess it depends on whether they have some other mechanic in mind with CPU, but I think the power idea scales well and is elegant, aesthetic and intuitive.
     
    #15
  16. J'ee

    J'ee Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2018
    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    21
    I suppose you also want the be able to hyperwarp in atmosphere with Halo 2-esque WMD effect? Yes, whole games and sci-fi stories have revolved around some huge capital ship or other, because cap ships are awesomesauce. Eleon is holding back, though, for some reason, because with a little tweaking in the game configs, a total novice modder like me can make them be made to fire anything in atmosphere. Ready all guns! Maybe they're doing this because they fear CV griefers. But I saw Spanj get into a 30-count Reforged Eden death loop and guess what bailed him out? That's right, someone in a CV, because CVs are where it's at in Empyrion. They fix problems with poetry :D
     
    #16
    stanley bourdon likes this.

Share This Page