Proper Flight Controls - new cores.

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by piddlefoot, Apr 15, 2018.

?

Would you like flight controls specific to ship type or class.

  1. Yes I would like flight controls as proposed.

    14 vote(s)
    35.9%
  2. Yes I would like flight controls but not as proposed.

    8 vote(s)
    20.5%
  3. No I dont want flight controls leave it as it is for all core types.

    17 vote(s)
    43.6%
  1. piddlefoot

    piddlefoot Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    3,787
    I have a proposal that I have thought about for ages trying to balance it best as possible and hopefully save the devs some time if they so choose to add this to the game.

    The only way to really give ships uniqueness is to have the flight controls attached to the core of whatever it is your building, so this idea involves a new set of starter blocks to expand on the ones we already have to make ship building more unique so ships can be tasked with specific duties and builders can then build specialised ships.

    I dont know of any voxel builder like Empyrion that can do this or that does do this to this level of detail so Empyrion being the first or one of the first to do it helps to make the game unique also.

    So lets start with just a simple list of what new Cores I propose and see where we all go with balancing them, toss you ideas in this thread for the devs to read.

    I will start with SVs.

    SV standard core, this is the current core we all use to build any ship.
    SV Bomber core.
    SV utility core.
    SV Scout core.
    SV Fighter core planetary.
    SV Fighter core Space.

    SV Standard core - 40m/s top speed in atmo, can fly in space or atmo.This is the core we have now.


    SV Bomber core - 20% extra weight above standard core type for all steel blocks that attach to this core type, top speed of 30m/s in atmo, heads up display applied to any cockpit placed on this core type, with height from ground, horizon indicator, beeping warn detection system for locked on missiles , and target tracker that locks onto enemy ground targets, anti missile measure flares. Can be flown in space or atmo.


    SV Utility core - 10 % less weight for all steel blocks attached to this type core, top speed 40 in atmo, uses 20% less power to run. [ gives things like constructors an advantage ] Cannot be armed with anythingbut a gatt gun defensive turret. [ This would mean a new SV turret is needed also ] Can be flown in space or atmo.

    SV Scout core - 40% less power to run than standard core, plastic and wood blocks can be used on this type core, top speed in atmo of 45m/s, this core can ONLY be used on planets and is the cheapest most basic core there is.

    Fighter core Planetary - Advanced lightweight core with built in Radar for enemy air craft, heads up display applied to any cockpit placed on this core type, with height from ground, horizon indicator, beeping warn detection system for locked on missiles , and target tracker that locks onto enemy in dogfight, most expensive core, has same weight values as standard core, 20% boost in speed, top speed of 60m/s in atmo, and an afterburner with a 5m/s boost for 5 seconds, no vertical engines permitted [ forces landing on wheels traditionally and stops hovering like choppers ] new retractable landing gear block would help with this core, cannot fly in space.

    Fighter core Space - Advanced lightweight core with built in Radar for enemy space craft, heads up display applied to any cockpit placed on this core type, distance to target, beeping detection warn system for locked on missiles, top speed of 110m/s, 20% gain is speed. Can be flown in atmo but has 40% extra energy cost and to speed of 30 in atmo.


    Next is CV cores.

    Standard CV core.
    I would first rename the standard CV core to CV Carrier class core.
    Assuming that I will write the list out below.

    CV Cruiser class core - The most basic, cheapest CV core, top speed in space of 80m/s limited amount of weapons placement, not sure what that should be, maybe discuss that down the page. Top speed in atmo 30m/s , and 20% extra weight vs Carrier core for every steel block attached to this type core. First CV core to access in tech tree.

    CV Carrier class core - this is the standard core we have now, top speed in space 90m/s top speed in atmo 30m/s , weapons limited, discussion is needed to find out how many weapons should go on what class ship.
    But it should be less that ships designed for war. 20% less energy to operate this type core.

    CV Frigate class core - slightly dearer to build, 10% less weight to any steel blocks attached to this core type vs standard carrier core type, limited amount of weapons, maybe limits on type of weapon also, top speed of 90 in space and 40 on planets. Energy use is standard on this type core, as it is now.

    CV Destroyer class core - Slightly dear to build over frigate class, 20% less weight to any steel block attached to this core type vs Carrier class core type. More weapons count placement than Frigate class.
    10% extra cost in energy over standard. 10% boost in speed.

    CV Battlecruiser class core - Dearest of all cores to build, can carry the most weapons of all classes, 30% weight increase for any steel block attached to type core over standard, 20% extra cost in energy to run.


    Ok lucky last HVs.

    HV Scout core - This is the standard core we have now. Limited to only carrying gatt guns of both turret or gun type.

    HV BattleTank core - 20% armour boost for all steel blocks on this type core, 10% extra energy cost, flares for defence.


    With specialised cores comes specialised flight controls, bringing to the game more specialisation and more things to do and build for, proper reasons to built specialised machines already exist, as the games story gets developed in the next year or two, this sort of feature would be pretty cool indeed.
     
    #1
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
    Israel, gerald2, xelthor and 4 others like this.
  2. Space Beagle

    Space Beagle Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2016
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    1,737
    Ok @piddlefoot you are a EGS veteran, like a hard-core veteran from day zero - how did you miss massive vocal group of active players that will rather sell a kidney then to have 'moar coars' ??? They are willing to kill people on streets just to have ONE CORE for eeeeveeerything, one core to rule them all :D

    I'm in the boat of more specialised vessels, that will make game better & more versatile, but your wish for more cores will never 'lift off' :(

    I had 2 suggestions, but never made them officially as separate topics - I just slipped them in some general discussions... Older one was to have 2 versions of all vessels, offensive one and defensive one with appropriate weapons & devices...

    Recently I made another suggestions that is more in a line with your general idea, but it's more appropriate to current gameplay and 'one core per vessel type' thing. 3 basic cores with slots for 'ship boosters', just like with player armor!
    Basically cores are CPU & AI of everything in one single unit, but if you use some kind of game-logic with a bit of 'realism' you cannot use same unit for every type or size of vessel so... - Cores should be upgradable in couple of tiers that "improve core capabilities" & open up few additional booster slots - so player can make more specialized and/or unique ship designs - like scout ships with additional speed and more sensors (when we get them) but minimal weapons or shields, or battleship type with no sensors or speed but more turrets (couple over official limit) and shields, etc... Some of your ideas could be implemented with this 'ship boosters' system :cool:

    Of course, nothing like this will ever be in this game... Maybe in "Empyrion Too: Galactic Imperion"!
     
    #2
    Track Driver, Kieve, Arrclyde and 2 others like this.
  3. Tryst

    Tryst Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    506
    Scout SV and planetary fighter SV top speeds should be swapped. A scout is usually a very fast and very agile, lightly armed (if at all) and lightly armoured vehicle. If fighters are much faster and yet, more heavily armed and armoured, what's the point of building a scout at all? It would also mean that ALL scouts would become redundant because fighters can easily take them out, being able to catch up to them very quickly.

    To avoid using a scout core for utility vehicles, a limitation should prevent scouts from carrying cargo boxes, although a fridge would help for long missions to avoid food spoiling.

    SV standard core should be removed or used for the utility SV.

    What you neglect to add in all this is agility which, at the moment is dictated by the RCS. A RCS is required for all vehicles but really need only be limited to 2 max. In order of agility, SV vehicles are listed as:

    Scout: THE most agile, (practically twitchy), vehicles. You seriously wouldn't want 2 RCS on this one.
    Space Fighter: Probably the most agile of all the spacefaring SV's.
    Planetary fighter: High agility but unable to fly backwards or hover.
    Utility: Not so agile but speed and ability to carry cargo makes up for this.
    Bomber: The least agile of all the SV's and requires fighters to run interference against the target. Heavy weapons make up for this.
     
    #3
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  4. piddlefoot

    piddlefoot Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    3,787
    Yea Space Beagle I know, and I also have started threads about this before, but lefts face it, flight controls are something alot of people love, theres thousands of people in games like war thunder because it has proper flight controls specific to each plane.

    There are a few that dont want it changed at all, just want to keep it over simplistic, and thats there right, but I think those that want it outweighs those that dont in the real world and having proper flight controls in Empyrion may bring people from that flight sim genre to this one, this genre has the unique ability to attract players from multiple other genres, this genre has elements of many genres in it.

    @ Tryst, thanks for you input , your probably right about the SV scout and I should have put agility down on each as another measure also.
     
    #4
    xelthor likes this.
  5. Exacute

    Exacute Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    777
    Your suggestion rewards *specialized builds*, but doesn't *require the player to use them*
    I feel like this is a good way of going about it. Keep it simple, but allow for nerdyness.

    I don't really have any feelings to the specifics of your suggested cores, but I like the overall concept!
     
    #5
    Track Driver and Siege Inc. like this.
  6. stubert812

    stubert812 Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    80
    Hi I think your idea of specialized ships sounds great. It would be good for the PVP part of the game. I'm not to sure different cores is the answer but it's going in the right direction. Most new and PvE players or should I say SP would not use this as they just want something to take out the POI turrets and protect them in space or ground. Limiting the amount of rcs in ship designs would help or having a tier 2 for HV and SV might help this. At the moment movement from the rcs needs work a CV should not turn as quick as a SV and if you think this way a bomber SV should be slow in turning as well. Maybe the extra weight % could solve this. This is a great idea and a good start. I look forward to watching this discussion .
     
    #6
  7. piddlefoot

    piddlefoot Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2015
    Messages:
    4,763
    Likes Received:
    3,787
    Yes RCS limitation are a good idea also. We would need to test that right out though after the new cores were created to know for sure how to balance them, but its a good idea.
     
    #7
  8. SilvRav

    SilvRav Moderator

    • Moderator
    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2017
    Messages:
    1,584
    Likes Received:
    2,096
    My opinion is to rather leave as is but get weight vs thrust vs weapons vs turning vs additional inventory weight working.. A proper flight dynamic system
     
    #8
  9. TheRealRonin

    TheRealRonin Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2018
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    52
    I will agree to this. First get the basics running before you start any special stuff.

    Also I don't like the idea of special cores with any limits. Every device limit is a creativity limit. When building it's not always clear what "type" it ends up at the end. For the "boosters" or boost abilities, I don't see any use in it.
    Sure, more speed for any vessel is something i'm looking for. Could be faster. But for this, it's depending on the basic flight physics. You want more speed to your sv, add more thrusters and burn more fuel. Max speed is based on gravity etc.
     
    #9
  10. Neal

    Neal Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2016
    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    3,145
    I really like that idea!

    But there's one or two things i'd like to add.
    First, i would classify CVs like this:
    • Corvette: Lightest ship. Very cheap to build, 30% less weight to any steel blocks attached to this core type vs standard Cruiser core type, very limited amount of weapons, maybe limits on type of weapon also, top speed of 90 in space and 40 on planets. Very light defences, which are still superior to any SV. First CV core to access in tech tree.
    • Frigate: Light ship. Little more expensive than corvette class, 20% less weight to any steel block attached to this core type vs Cruiser class core type. More weapons count placement than Corvette class, but same weapons type limits.
      10% extra cost in energy over standard. 10% boost in speed. Light defences (enegy shields).
    • Destroyer: Moderate ship.top speed in space of 80m/s limited amount of weapons placements. Top speed in atmo 30m/s , and 10% less weight vs Cruiser core for every steel block attached to this type core. Same defences than Frigate, slightly more capacity
    • Cruiser: Standard ship. This is the standard core we have now, top speed in space 90m/s top speed in atmo 30m/s , First ship that can carry heavy (energy) weapons, but only in very limited numbers. Moderate defences. Not able to enter planetary atmospheres.
    • Carrier: Variation of Cruiser, less guns and defenses, but more room for hangar and crew, maybe faster than cruiser (not sure about that tbh.) Not to be confused with a Battlestar, which would be a mix of Carrier and Battleship (idk how OP that would be imo). Not able to enter planetary atmospheres.
    • Battleship: Heavy Ship, very expensive. Able to install all weapons types and a limited number of heavy energy shields. Needs lots of crew. Not able to enter planetary atmospheres.
    • Battlecruiser: Same as Battleship, but less defenses (shields or armor) but a little bit faster.
    • Dreadnought: the biggest and meanest thing around, heaviest weapons and shields. No further explaination nedded imo. Extremely Exensive. Not able to enter planetary atmospheres.
    That would feel much more ein line with the general understanding of Sci fi Fleets as it is reckognized in most media and understoof by players and Sci fi fans imo.
    Most CVs should be made with a very simple philosophy in mind: if it can't defeat an enemy, the ship should be able to outrun it.

    I would also like to suggest to give each core type a individual (not exclusive, or you soon run out of keys ;) )set of keybinds, at least differentiate between SVs, HVs, and CVs.
     
    #10
    xelthor likes this.
  11. Sofianinho

    Sofianinho Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    813
    How do you prevent players from swapping cores whenever they need ?
     
    #11
  12. Exacute

    Exacute Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    777
    Well. Would it really be so bad if the player *did* change core?

    The core can be situational, but the downside is, that your ship becomes a big piece of metal, untill the core is up again.
    Also, it's a manual task, so odds are, it won't be done in combat anway.
    (And if you do, you are defenseless while you do it)

    Outside combat, what would the harm of changing it be?
     
    #12
  13. Sofianinho

    Sofianinho Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    813
    Well it would defeat the whole purpose of specialized cores, if you can change them depending on the situation they are basically boosters, so it's better to use boosters.
     
    #13
    Arrclyde and geostar1024 like this.
  14. Exacute

    Exacute Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    777
    Boosters would be easily replaceable, while cores is.. less so.

    But I do see your point..
    For the most part, these cores would be aimed towards 'guiding your design-style towards a type', yes?
    So that if you design it right, you reap the benefits (like you suffer penalties for non-utility stuff on an utility vessel effectively).

    I think that's the main discouraging factor from changing cores.. you would also have to change most of your vehicle design, no?
    Or have I gotten something wrong with the concept?
     
    #14
  15. Sofianinho

    Sofianinho Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    813
    Not really, they can make it so you'd have to walk to the core to put boosters in it, so it would be basically the same thing.
    You'd have to remove the forbidden devices yes, but I don't think it means changing your ship design.
     
    #15
  16. Exacute

    Exacute Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    777
    To use the suggested implementation as baseline, here's two of them:

    These bits of the suggestion is focused around the steel blocks.
    Here you are rewarded by one, and punished by another, if it have steel blocks.

    Doesn't that encourage (in this example) to design with/without steel blocks? (Or use fewer/more)
     
    #16
  17. Sofianinho

    Sofianinho Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    813
    It does, but it can still be profitable to switch to another core for a specific task and then come back to the original.
     
    #17
  18. Exacute

    Exacute Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    777
    While you might be quite right, can you come with an example, where you could easily swap between, without also suffering the downsides?
     
    #18
  19. Sofianinho

    Sofianinho Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2016
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    813
    If you have a Scout SV for example, you could switch to the fighter core (space or planetary) to attack a POI, and back to Scout SV again to get the 40% fuel consumption discount.
     
    #19
    Exacute likes this.
  20. Exacute

    Exacute Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2017
    Messages:
    1,050
    Likes Received:
    777
    Alright, let's examine that.

    So you would have a SV that is only build of plastic and wood, take on a POI?
    That doesn't seem very viable :p
    .. And if you really can do that, well. That's fair. That kind of skill would earn it imo (Atleast when POIs are a bit harder to attack from the sky :p)
     
    #20

Share This Page