maybe good idea overall,but some things would be useless imho ,ie warning sounds when locked and countermeasures against HM,ranges of weapons in this game are too short for something like that,you will b ehit just after u will hear alarm nissile on max range fly to target maybe o.5-1 second ,i think its too little to effective evade/counter it until it would be automatic ,like point defence guns or so specialised to aiming at missiles.
Well I recon those ranges could be improved with some optimisations. Especially the space playfields. Ranges of missiles I agree should be different. I believe they should never trunicate, ever. You fire a missile on one side of a playfield, it should reach the other side, eventually. The game should look at long range missiles like Tomahawks. These would be so much fun. We could be flying WW2 spitfires right now, if new cores with new flight controls were added. We could be flying attack helicopters. We could be flying jets. We could be flying jump jet Harriers. We could be building vertical rockets like Saturn. Our workshop could be so much more diverse with some new flight control sets. We only have two flight control sets, SV, CV of which both are basic space flight control sets. Add new flight control sets and some new specialized blocks and devices to go with them. Make Empyrion truly specialized.
I feel like you can already do 99% of this simply with properly configured generator, cpu, and thrust outputs... like in reforged.
Well no you cant actually do ANY of that. There is no x4 boost to thrusters that point down equiv in CPU. Or any other specialty for that matter. There are a limited 3 sets of flight controls under CPU, CV, SV, HV. Rather than the two dozen in said proposal. You can right now, build on just ONE set of flight controls when building a CV, for all types of class of ship, yea thats backwards. So people wonder why a CV frigate and a destroyer and a super carrier can all turn on a dime and all fly the same is because the starting point for those flight controls are all teh same, the CV block, CPU only changes those via penalty, build to these rules or, penalty, the other system is one that promotes imaginations and does not slap you with any penalties for building with shapes, CPU on inert blocks for example, the other system is giving you a dozen different CV flight control sets, designed for each class specifically and letting you run wild with new designs and with new workshop categories for each class, as they would be actual real classes with new starter cores defined by flight controls, then players are being encouraged to build more new awesome things and the have awesome choice, a much broader range of flight controls to start with. Now here is the real kicker. If we had done it that way, right now, we could be adding specialised blocks for specific classes, with much more effective effects. For example, SVSR - SVStealth Recon starter core for example, a ship with a default stealth mode, that with an upgrades stealth device can be made to stay in stealth for double the time..........Damn we really missed the mark with flight controls in Empyrion, its heartbreaking. For example a fighter could be made to handle like a fighter. A frigate could be made to handle like a frigate is expected too. A destroyer could be made to handle like it should. A super carrier could be made to handle like it should. With no penalties. With no damage to any previous workshop builds. Radiation booster device for recon SV. Cloak device for frigates. Echo pulse for Destroyers. Passive and discrete sensor device upgrades. Much better personalisation of specialisation of each class of ship. Many more actual choices to build, more flight controls sets, flight control sets that actually are relatable and have distinct seeable differences between class of vessel. I dont think your really seeing its value for what it can really bring to the game. You could add this with CPU also, it would still work fine, balance the game to suit, would be much faster than balancing CPU.
I think the idea of have distinct classes with fundamentally different flight mechanics is a good idea. So we currently have a SVs and HVs working in fundamentally different ways, one hovers, one flies. You could certainly add cores that move in fundamentally different ways, like something that was like a helicopter, or a submarine, or lighter than air vehicle, or just an atmospheric plane with lift as opposed to just rocket propulsion like we have now. It would make sense that each might have a fundamentally different flight interface, and until there is some way for players/content creators to customise the HUD, that makes sense to correspond with each different movement class core. However, I strongly oppose the idea of there being cores that define ships roles, like bomber vs fighter. Vehicle roles should be defined by the creativity and goals of the players via the blocks they choose. Abstract bonuses, like a core making things weigh more or less, or making the entire ship get a speed bonus, are not desirable because they take away from the meaningfulness of your block choices. Empyrion's biggest feature is the block system and the incredible creativity that unleashes. Ships have a certain range of behaviours that the engine and gameplay can reasonably support. Those behaviours can come mostly from pre-defined classes and abstract statistical bonuses, or they can come mostly from player-defined ship designs, meaningful/creative block choices and visible physical dynamics. I believe the latter is much better, because it makes block choice meaningful and rewards creativity, because ships behave in a way that corresponds with their appearance, because it adds the possibility of ship behaviour changing from damage, because it encourages ships with distinct roles rather than one do-everything ship that you swap cores out of when you want to change what it does. So in this sense I like your idea of different flight dynamics, but not any implied statistical or role-based cores. Differing ship roles/performance/statistics should come from block layout not the core.
"There is no x4 boost to thrusters that point down equiv in CPU." I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I have booster jets that face down and are usable on my ship right now. I guess I am not understanding what you consider flight controls to be. To me flight controls are key bindings that map directions to the flight computer which in return control the thrusters. The only thing a core has to do with any ship right now is how much CPU you have and what size class it is. It really has nothing much to do with any flight controls, other than maybe the HV which hovers, but its just a class not a different flight control. The flight model is just the way the game handels flight, and is going to be the same for any structure or entity in the game regardless of cores. You can already change the "handling" of you ships based on what you put on them and where you place them... Why would you need new "cores" for ANY of this rather than just some new tech blocks to place down? Also, for instance, I have plenty of specialty ships built to purpose thanks to CPU limits that Vermillion reworked in his scenarios. CPU works fine to force choices rather than have a 1 size fits all solution. I have fighters that are fighters, I have hovers that are tanks, miners, scouts, etc. and I have CV's which are industrial, combat, or jack of all master of none. The current system works just fine. I really don't see the big deal here. It just needs to be configured properly. "So people wonder why a CV frigate and a destroyer and a super carrier can all turn on a dime and all fly the same is because the starting point for those flight controls are all the same, the CV block," This is not true either, the reason for this is because, again, it has to do with proper configurations of the thrusters and how much force they output compared to the mass of the ship. Once again, Vermillion has addressed this in Reforged and Frigates feel like they should, Smaller CV's are more agile, larger ones are clunkier. It has nothing to do with flight controls and everything to do with "Balance".
