Ship size and class discussion

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Theurgist, Feb 8, 2018.

  1. Theurgist

    Theurgist Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    931
    I've been watching the recent chat in the 'What did you do in Empyrion today?' thread with interest and decided to make this thread as a place for us to continue that discussion.

    The core discussion is on ship size & class, and individuals expectations of the performance for each subclass. Please bear in mind that this discussion is more about mechanics than balancing. If we can agree on a reasonable set of mechanics first we can then work on how these would balance against each other without too much overlap.


    For example it seems fairly universal that people expect fighters to be SVs, highly agile, fast, and with limited warp potential, or none at all.

    Another example is that many feel that CVs should remain pure space transport/home base vessels.

    There are also many subclasses (eg: Dropships) that don't really fit within current class divisions very well.


    One of the thoughts that keeps popping back into my head is the classes themselves. CV, SV, HV
    I think I'd like to see those remain as 'Size classes' and have a new set of actual ship classes appear. This would allow us to set individual restrictions and/or bonuses for each type.

    Fighters - SV - All SV weaponry, No constructors, no fridges, 1 storage
    Scouts - SV - Minigun only, Constructor, fridge, 1 storage, Bonus to speed
    Transport - SV, CV - Minigun/minigun turret, No const, no fridge, unlimited storage
    Carrier - CV - Approx 1/2 of available turreted weaponry, Constr, fridge, unlim storage
    BattleShip - CV - Full weaponry, no Constr, fridge, 1 storage
    etc.



    A simpler alternative could be to introduce Medium Vessels. Likely using CV blocks but with a different set of available items. These would be the things that you send down to planets to drop off your ground expeditions, more atmospheric based weaponry than CVs, but less things like constructors, solars, etc.

    We could then have a docking chain as such: HV/SV -> MV/CV, and MV -> CV.

    I'm just throwing out some ideas that have been bouncing around in my head, I'd like to hear other views and ideas as well, let's get this think-tank bubbling!
     
    #1
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
    Tyrax Lightning likes this.
  2. Hicks42

    Hicks42 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    3,300
    https://empyriononline.com/threads/computational-units-resource-proposal.35756/

    All of that is addressed in this thread with feedback from Cow-of-Krieg
     
    #2
    Tyrax Lightning and Theurgist like this.
  3. Theurgist

    Theurgist Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    931
    I like that idea, it would allow more flexibility within each size class and end up giving a reasonable sensible complexity limit that actually reflects the 'strength' of that vessel.

    Hmm, that could work out nicely; Core 'classes' with associated CU cores, Battleship would then be CV blocks with a health boost, with the CU system to allow flexibility within that class. Scout would be SV with speed boost, etc.

    3-layered system:
    * Core class: Block size + bonus
    * CU to determine the maximum before it gets forced up a rank (Similar to the current size classification)
    * Complexity - The current size class. You won't bother looking at this unless you're building something with a million windows and lights. This is the pure performance limit that we have to accept since we don't have quantum computers quite yet ^^

    Anyone making a ship that isn't excessive could easily ignore the last stat entirely without issues
     
    #3
    Tyrax Lightning likes this.
  4. Hicks42

    Hicks42 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    3,300
    Read further. Size is regulated in there.
     
    #4
    Tyrax Lightning likes this.
  5. Tyrax Lightning

    Tyrax Lightning Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    6,622
    Likes Received:
    6,328
    Personally I think how many Weapons makes more difference to what kinda Vehicle ya are making then what kinda Weapons... why Ban Rail Guns & Homers from Scout Ships?

    Battleships benefit from being able to carry a useful amount of War Spoils & why ban them from having any Constructors to craft replacement parts with?

    Hell, why Ban Constructors from any type of Ship? Part of the point of Constructors is to give a Creation resistance to getting permanently disabled & taken out of the fight.

    I wonder if this is part of the reason the Devs went the way they did in the first place... figuring they'd just leave 'Limits' out of the Equation & let us decided how to make stuff like this to our own mental specifications instead of taking some of the Sandbox out of the Sandbox. One of the problems with stuff like "Classes" is that there's such a thing as people like me who think "If I wanna make my Supports Violent Supports & make Dropships with 8 Homer Turrets & 4 Minigun Turrets, who does the Ship Class thingie think it is telling me i'm not allowed to for no reason at all whatsoever except bla bla bla Arbitrary Hard Cap with no good valid reason for it bla bla bla?". :p
     
    #5
    geostar1024 and ldog like this.
  6. Hicks42

    Hicks42 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    3,300
    I'm really only Not For turrets on strike craft (sv's) Other than that load up them guns. As the maxim RoboJaws sports in his sig. There is no Overkill. Only Open Fire and Reload.
     
    #6
    Tyrax Lightning likes this.
  7. Theurgist

    Theurgist Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    931
    Not all constructors can make everything anyway. If you were using a SV Fighter vessel it's highly likely you have a drop ship or base nearby that does have a constructor. Or a box of spare parts. Plus if you've been disabled to the point of needing spares there's a chance constructor & spares box got destroyed anyway.

    If there are no restrictions people will just build the one-size fits all super carrier-base-battleship, put everything they can onto it and call it a day.

    There is also a degree of challenge in working within the restrictions to get the best performance you can with the available options. It also spawns the need to make specialised vessels to suit the role.


    As long as there are enough appropriate classes there will be space for every type of vessel that full freedom might spawn, excluding the one-size fits all vessels. There would also be a bonus balancing option in giving classes appropriate % based bonuses or penalty that focus on that classes strength/weaknesses.

    Half of the point of the game is making vessels, I personally would love a full complex class system. I'd end up making at least one of every type, and then use what I learnt the first time to make another selection ^
     
    #7
    Tyrax Lightning likes this.
  8. Tyrax Lightning

    Tyrax Lightning Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Messages:
    6,622
    Likes Received:
    6,328
    Some Chance is better then No Chance. ;)

    Jack-Of-All-Trades Vessels have their place... it's called SP. Lone Wolves need to be able to self sufficient take care of themselves when themselves is the only peep in the Universe they can really trust. With that said, Specialization should totally work well too. I will not cry a river that my CV Build has no Gardening or Food Prep capabilities... that was never gonna be its job anyway. ;) (I still prefer to do my Gardening at my Home Base, & the CV does have a couple Fridges.)

    One bugger about Classes is that they tend to be built around Neurotypicals & peeps like me tend to get left behind. :(
     
    #8
    flannan and ldog like this.
  9. ldog

    ldog Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    172
    No, just no.
     
    #9
    Tyrax Lightning likes this.
  10. Brimstone

    Brimstone Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    2,760
    I'd prefer class be more dynamic, a factor of mass/devices/CU and such. If we have to be stuck with preset classes, then yeah, we probably do need a middleground between fighter builds and CV. Not sure if it should be large grid or not, but for the size range we're talking about, current SV devices are underpowered, and CV overpowered. Also not sure why you're picking on fridges; any crewed vessel is going to need food storage- especially when NPCs are fleshed out more ;)

    Umm. Bumblebee, actually ;)
     
    #10
    Spirit_OK, ldog, geostar1024 and 3 others like this.
  11. Jᴧgᴧ

    Jᴧgᴧ Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,115
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    I've long believed we shouldn't have HV/SV/CV (role) classes at all, but instead rely on ship size class for determining what equipment it has access to. We pigeon-hole creativity when we try to fit everything into 3 or 4 classifications, and then limit each artificially.
     
    #11
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  12. Hicks42

    Hicks42 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    3,300
    of Germanic origin; compare Low German hummel hornless animal.

    If you haven't guessed by now I come at Humor And Language about the same way. Obliquely.
     
    #12
  13. Brimstone

    Brimstone Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    2,760
    Yeah, me too- on both counts... but then, being from around Cincinnati, I couldn't be much but mostly German :)... Maternal grandfather was born and raised on a small farm outside Gelsenkirchen and came here in the twenties, maternal grandmother was 2nd generation. In modern German, hummel is bumblebee. Don't know which is the intended, then. Either is humorous ;)
     
    #13
    Tyrax Lightning and Hicks42 like this.
  14. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    • Developer
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    10,909
    What the....

    Hummel = bumblebee
     
    #14
    Tyrax Lightning and Brimstone like this.
  15. Hicks42

    Hicks42 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2016
    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    3,300
    If you say you are a bumblebee boss... well, buzz buzz. ;)
     
    #15
  16. Brimstone

    Brimstone Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    2,760
    I derive satisfaction not so much in being right, but that I remembered... it's been a very long time since high school German... or since talking to Grandpa...:(


    Anyway, back to topic ;)
     
    #16
    Tyrax Lightning and Hicks42 like this.
  17. Max Archer

    Max Archer Commander

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    221
    I actually suggested something similar to your MV idea a while back, though I'd called them "Large Vessels." One of the things I particularly liked about the idea is that it would allow us to effectively build modular CVs, with a CV core component and then MV/LV modules for various ancillary functions, like farm modules, habitation sections, etc, which could then be jettisoned when heading into combat or landing on a planet or whatever.
     
    #17
    Tyrax Lightning likes this.
  18. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    4,113
    Likes Received:
    5,762
    Agreed. The role of a ship is determined by its design, regardless of the size of blocks it's built from. Could we use a 1-meter block size? Possibly, but that's much less important to me than putting to rest the idea that only certain "classes" get to use certain devices.

    Also, I don't see why there should be any restrictions on docking between ships; as long as the parent ship inherits the mass of child ships, and there is a good set of rules about what can and can't be active on a docked ship and when a repair bay can activate, I don't see any problems.
     
    #18
  19. ldog

    ldog Commander

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    130
    Likes Received:
    172
    It amazes me that the more some ideas get discussed instead of improving, they just get worse. So the other threads chock full of over-complicated ideas. This one is just plain awful. Freedom too much burden for everyone? Or is it just like politics where you are asking for more laws because "the other guy" needs them? I guess I shouldn't be surprised since the consistently most popular workshop items: Star Wars replicas, Star Trek replicas, and knock-offs of fucking Halo ships.

    Designs should be restricted by only 2 things
    1. In-game Engineering constraints, and a robust enough system where that means actual meaningful choices to be made.
    2. Real world compute & network limits, if you want to build ships big enough to blowup your potato then feel free. For multi-player though, that isn't going to be fun for anyone. That is for most part, the only time I support arbitrary limits.

    Weapons are an exception, because otherwise you've got people who will just build walls of guns and stick turrets on every available surface (my inner munchkin always wants to add moar dakka to everything too). If that system in point 1 were robust enough, that would happen naturally. Currently weapons are very high HP/armor, while expensive, but there's no real drawback to covering your ship with them right now. If weapons HP got nerfed then there'd be a whole lot of outcry (from me as well) so some kind of compromise seems necessary.

    While I'm all for weapon limits, the ones we have now are terrible, because as we're seeing 1 size fits all fits noone. So asking Eleon to add more restrictions is like asking the government to do something; you know they gonfukitup.

    What do I think would work? Hardpoints on total mass/blockcount/sizeclass (programmers can figure the specifics out). Definitly KISS principle needs to be applied.

    Everything else needs to be left alone, if not made less restrictive even. Those of you with visions of grand fleets of supporting ships in your heads, that's great. Go and build whatever is in your own headcanon. Nobody stopping you. There's no remote control, no fleet AI, and so having a lot of ships in SP becomes a hassle, in MP it usually becomes a liability. Much as I hate the all-in-wonder too, it's usually necessary for good gameplay.
     
    #19
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018
  20. MidasGunhazard

    MidasGunhazard Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    651
    Likes Received:
    709
    I guess if we want to expand ship roles, I think the best way to do it is to allow all device types on all ships, but make device options based on ship size, rather than ship type. This would open up tremendous room for roles and balance opportunities. For example, they might make all turrets available to SVs, but a size-1 SV can't use them, a size-2 SV can only use miniguns and cannons, etc, etc. So if you build a gargantuan SV, the advantage it gains is being able to mount more powerful armaments (at the expected cost that it guzzles more fuel, isn't as nimble, and is a larger more obvious target). This could also mean things like warp drive maybe not being available to size-1 ships, etc. This separates SVs into light fighters, heavier bombers, larger corvettes, etc, and their loadout options will scale to that.

    If they allow CVs to dock to CVs, and HVs to dock to SVs, they could use that same size system to dictate what can carry what. It could be as simple as an SV can't carry anything that is its size class or higher. So you'd need a size-2 SV to carry a size-1 HV, etc. This could also allow docking CVs to CVs, where the 'parent' CV must be a larger class than the CV that will ride it.

    This might also justify (if not necessitate) more granularity in the class system as well. Currently you can make some pretty disparaging builds within the same class.

    edit: Also, ship size classification should probably be based on weight, not dimensions. Dimensions are a practical limitation that doesn't need to be accounted for, but weight factors all the important variables like armor, device saturation, weapons, etc. Basing it on weight also ensures variety in build design, without everyone just trying to cram everything into the smallest possible footprint.

    edit2: Practical examples of the above in case it's not clear.
    So SVs, HVs and CVs would all have the same device and block options potentially. The restrictions, instead of being based on the type of vessel and that alone, is instead based a type-plus-size combination. So a size-1 CV has specific options available to it, a size-2 CV has different options available to it. Maybe a size-1 CV would actually GAIN some options that larger CVs don't have, like wings and jet engines. So basically as the vessel type increases or decreases in its overall size, its options change with it, and thus roles are created based on every size class of vessel.

    So, for example, a size-1 SV maybe only gets to have miniguns and pulse lasers, and up to 2 rocket pods maximum because it's fundamentally a light fighter. A size-2 SV gets full rocket options, homing rocket options and maybe plasma cannons because it's a bomber. Size-3 SVs get all the current SV weapon options, and can also mount minigun turrets and cannon turrets. Size-4 SVs can additionally mount rocket turrets and homing rocket turrets, and can mount some CV equipment like the medical station.

    Or, for a CV example, a class-1 CV is closer to a dropship than a true CV. It can't mount the full range of CV weapons and utilities CVs currently can, but it gains access to SV jet engines and CV-scaled wings (assuming wings do something some day). Maybe it also gains access to SV fixed weapon options like homing rockets and miniguns. Size-2 would lose those options, but gain all the usual utilities expected of a CV. Size-3 gains the ability to carry docked size-1 CVs.

    Potentially, once you get to a certain maximum SV size, perhaps it's almost the exact same options as the smallest CV size, with the only real difference being the block classes used.
     
    #20
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2018

Share This Page