The CORE system - a revamp ...

Discussion in 'Suggestions' started by Krucifix, Jan 15, 2020.

  1. Krucifix

    Krucifix Ensign

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2019
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    14
    Ship Specialization Idea for Empyrion


    While the Class and CPU system are helping players to more define crafts for special roles, I am proposing a system to further that. With specialized Ship Cores. These cores for each type (HV/SV/CV) will have bonuses and penalties applied to the.build.

    HV CORES
    Standard - No change in bonuses
    Tank Core - +10% Weapon Damage / +10% Shields / +5% CPU Usage / -5% Thrust
    Speeder Core - +15% Thrust / +5% Hover height / -15% Weapon Damage / -10% Shields
    Miner Core - +20% Ore-Harvest Extraction / +10% Hover height / -10% Shields / -5% Thrust


    SV CORES
    Standard - No change in bonuses
    Scout - +15% Thrust / +25% Warp Distance / -15% Weapon Damage / -10% Shields
    Fighter - +10% Weapon Damage / +10% Shields / +5% CPU Usage / -5% Thrust
    Hauler - +25% Thruster Lift / -10% CPU Usage / -15% Shields / -15% Weapon Damage

    CV CORES

    Standard - No change in bonuses
    Carrier - +10% Thruster Lift / +5% Shield / -10% Thrust and manuv / -20% Class Size
    Corvette - +15% Thruster Speed and Manuv / -10% Weapon Damage / +10 CPU Usage
    Blockade Runner - +10% Thrust and Manuv / +15% Shields / -15% Weapon Damage
    Hauler - +30% Thruster Lift / -5% CPU Usage / -20% Shields / -20% Weapon Damage
    Dreadnaught - +15% Weapon Damage / +5% Shields / -15% Thruster Manuv / +15% CPU Usage
    Miner Core - +20% Ore-Harvest Extraction / -15% Weapons Damage / -10% Shields / -5% Thrust
     
    #1
  2. krazzykid2006

    krazzykid2006 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,999
    Likes Received:
    2,568
    There was already a similar thread created and it wasn't generally well accepted then.
    https://empyriononline.com/threads/proper-flight-controls-new-cores.37118/

    It doesn't make much sense to me to have the core determine how much damage a weapon does, or how much thrust my thrusters produce, shields, etc, etc, etc. It's just not logical in my opinion. The devices themselves should determine that, not the core.
    A different core isn't going to suddenly change the caliber of my ammo or the amount of propellant in the shell/casing, therefore causing more damage.
    We already have the whole CPU mechanic anyways. Making it even more convoluted doesn't sound like the best choice.

    Personally I don't like the idea of having to wade through templates for 15 cores just to decide between the job of 3 vessels. To each their own though and I'm not trying to dismiss your idea. I know some out there will like it. It's just not for me is all.
     
    #2
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
  3. Krucifix

    Krucifix Ensign

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2019
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    14
    That thread is great and all to post, but is almost TWO years old. Before CPU was implemented. Although there are recent posts to it.

    Also, AIO bricks as CV's are not real creative, imho. That and the floating blocks/turrets I keep seeing on CV's.

    I have noticed over 50% in that thread liked the idea ... I did count it.
     
    #3
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
  4. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    199
    Here is a more recent discussion that raises some of the pros and cons. Keep in mind this discussion was before CPU turned out not to be really about specialisation.
    https://empyriononline.com/threads/cpu-and-specialization.91207/

    In my mind, regardless of your approach, you have theoretical maximums on things ships can or should do, such as speed, weapons etc, that are defined by performance, gameplay or balance considerations. For specialisation, no ship should max all of their attributes, they choose between them. Given this, you can give ship designers partial control by creating ship core classes with sets of attributes, or total control by selecting between and building on the individual attributes piece by piece, spending some sort of limited resource on one attribute (block) or another. Effectively this is like creating a core class yourself, except you build it out of your block choices and design decisions. I favour this approach, and I think many others do, though not all.

    Again, the current CPU system looks to be mainly about gameplay progression rather than specialisation. Perhaps that will change in the future, though Eleon have been hit with a lot of hostility with CPU, so it would be very understandable though quite unfortunate if they weren't in a rush to do so.
     
    #4
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2020
    EternalHeathen likes this.
  5. IndigoWyrd

    IndigoWyrd Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    1,653
    Perhaps we're thinking about this the wrong way.
    How about, instead of separate cores for different ship types, we add an auxiliary device that applies bonuses, based on function.
    Leave the core be a core, and this special function device, which could simply be representative of the core's programming. This device could be represented by a small LCD screen mesh with an indication of its purpose - Combat, Freight, Performance.

    The device itself would be massless/weightless, have no CPU cost, no power consumption, and limited to 1 per vessel.

    Combat ships would receive a bonus to Weapon Damage, Armor HP, and Shield HP, at the cost of Thruster performance and increased fuel consumption.

    Ships without a Programming Module, let's call it, would be considered General or Multi-role, and receive no bonuses.

    Freight ships would receive a bonus to Thruster performance, Fuel Consumption (both warp and standard) and Armor HP at the cost of decreased Weapons performance and Shield HP.

    Performance ships would receive a much greater bonus to Thruster performance (top speed and torque), at the cost of Weapon performance, Shield HP, and Armor HP.

    Why this way?

    First, versatility. The same ship design and configuration could have different functions and performances based simply on the Programming Module installed. Or, a ship could be "reclassified" by simply switching one module type for another. These modules would need to be unique, per class, rather than a switched device, to prevent abuse (switching a high-performance ship to a combat ship at the flip of a button). Having to stop the ship to get out of your seat, remove the previous module and replace it with a different one would go a long way towards preventing abuse of bonuses.

    What sorts of bonuses? Hard to say without some actual testing data, but I'm thinking, as a baseline:

    Combat: 15% weapon damage, 15% Armor HP, 10% Shield HP, -10% Thruster (speed and torque), -10% fuel economy

    Freight: +20% Thruster performance (torque and force), +10% fuel economy, -15% Weapons, -10% shield HP.

    Performance: +35% Thruster (speed and torque), -15% Weapons, -15% Shield HP, -15% armor HP
     
    #5
    EternalHeathen likes this.
  6. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    199
    I see what you're trying to do, but within reason and where practical I'd prefer the properties of ships to be simulated physically rather than statistically. After all, Eleon has gone to a huge effort to create a complex building system at the very core of gameplay. Why represent or even alter properties using stats at all if you can have actual armour or weapons perform the function directly by increasing or decreasing their number? IMHO it's better to ensure the block selection and placement decisions made by designers matter to the full extent practical.

    I'd also think dynamically reconfigurable ships will detract from specialisation and design meaningfulness, because a single ship design can potentially perform many functions by adjusting bonuses. This nudges us towards ships that do everything, rather than away. It also reduces the possibility of deducing a ships purpose, strengths and weaknesses from its design, which can be a fun part of PvP, and could be a super-interesting late-game PvE mechanic if they expand it. (eg. sneak on board the Zirax Battleship and discover weaknesses by studying its layout, then go away and design a ship that can exploit those weaknesses and defeat it).

    In short, I favour maximising use of the game's glorious block system for gameplay, rather than using abstract statistics. Achieve specialisation and design meaningfulness by forcing designers to make choices between blocks and where they place them.
     
    #6
    EternalHeathen likes this.
  7. IndigoWyrd

    IndigoWyrd Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    1,653
    I see where you're trying to steer this, and I'd like to point you back towards the past...

    to the British Merchant ship, that came to be known quite (in)famously as: Queen Anne's Revenge

    Notice the capital "M", Merchant ship. This was a shape and design used for the moving of cargo, but one Edward Teach had other ideas. A little retrofitting, a new crew, and this Merchant ship became the scourge of the seas, under command of its captain, best known as Blackbeard.

    This sort of refitting of vehicles remains quite common to this day. A limousine is little more than a stretched, luxury sedan, refitted with amenities. The Grumman LLV is an S10 chassis with a different engine, and most commonly recognized as a US Mail Courier. There are slews of other conversion vehicles, which are nothing more than common vehicles converted to a special purpose, such as transports for wheel-chair bound individuals, or box trucks refit with kitchens and refrigerators, better known as "Food Trucks".

    Ford F650's are sold with no rear, so they can be easily refit for special purpose use, such as fitted with a dump bed, to serve as a dump truck, or a winch and hoist to be used as tow trucks.

    The GMC Denali is also commonly retrofitted by the United States Secret Service, with armor plating inside the door skins, and a roof hatch refit that includes ammunition hoppers and a mounted M-134 minigun, used for duties like Presidential Escort, VIP Escort and Special Protection details.

    Even police departments use common vehicles, including "unmarked" vehicles, that have high-performance (Interceptor) engines, impact resistant push-bumpers, and dash, grille or roof-mounted light bars.

    So no, I don't think dynamic refitting of established vessel hulls will detract from anything. The only thing it might do is make someone really think "Do I want to engage that ship? It looks like a freighter, but it could be laden with turrets...."

    Or, to relate this to another game - Elite: Dangerous - I happen to be quite fond of a particular series of ships, marketed as "Luxury Liners". It just so happens that these liners have just enough armament, armor, speed and maneuverability to make them formidable combat ships. I've had more than a few people comment, when I've shown up for a combat event, in a giant luxury liner, thing like "What are you going to do, serve them tea to death?", only to feast on their own words, when I unleash a potent combat fighter craft, and deploy three plasma accelerator and a pair of beam lasers - and repair their damaged combat ships all at the same time, while taking no combat damage myself.

    A bit of deception is not a bad thing at all.
     
    #7
  8. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    199
    You certainly look at things in a different way, although sometimes I find your examples a little off topic and lengthy. I think if I understand your post, you're basically pointing out some real life vehicles are reconfigurable. I do think though that in most of those cases they are still generally reconfigurable via physical rather than statistical changes. They also take large amounts of work and time to reconfigure. They also exist in an environment not designed for fun, and not designed for diversity of form. So I'd have to say I feel the original point is unchanged by the examples - it's generally better in a game when ship attributes (including reconfiguration and deception) arise physically rather than statistically, and there's less motive to develop a diverse range of ships if you can just quickly reconfigure one ship to do anything.

    Edit-> wording
     
    #8
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  9. IndigoWyrd

    IndigoWyrd Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2018
    Messages:
    1,371
    Likes Received:
    1,653
    I won't deny I do tend to present rather lengthy statements. I probably learned this from my Sifu, who would also answer questions with rather lengthy explanations, to answer as many other questions that might arise in the same context, at the same time, so less speaking need be done in the end.

    Not all changes need be lengthy refits though - strapping a few cannons to the deck of a schooner makes it a caravel rather quickly and easily.
    I do get what you're getting at here though, and I counter and contend that, because we are allowed, able and even encouraged to come up with our own ship designs, which include the shape of the outer hull, it would be entirely pointless to try to learn and discern a ship's function based on its appearance.

    Is my large, "T" shaped ship a freighter or a frigate? What about my Hammersmark shaped ship? What about the "H" shaped on, or the "I" shaped one? What are those? You can't know until you get close enough to find out. Turns out all of them are freighters, and the one that looks like a fleet of small ships in a random formation, yeah, that one is a war ship, with weapons everywhere, even though it looks like it should be a medical convoy. They're even painted red and white, and decorated in medical-looking symbols.

    I just don't see this as a problem. I see it as a good thing.
     
    #9
  10. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    199
    The purpose of plenty of things (most things?) in the real world can be identified by their appearance, and are difficult to change (tanks, artillery, fighters). On top of that, it's all fairly incidental to what I'm saying:
    You can still use deception in your designs. But there's no need to nerf the meaningfulness of ship-design choices by adding invisible abstract statistical bonuses, when you have the block system.
     
    #10
  11. Khazul

    Khazul Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2020
    Messages:
    953
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    TBH - I want to see a reduction in forced specialization, not more of it - ugh!

    Most of the compromises suggested are already an aspect of vehicle design until you hit hard game imposed arbitrary limits for which these is no trade off - probably for perf reasons.
     
    #11
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2020
  12. Average

    Average Commander

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2019
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    199
    Specialization adds a LOT more game content. Otherwise, build one top level ship, there's nothing else to build, and in multiplayer, functionally speaking everyone is flying around the same ship most of the time.

    I agree there's a definitely a problem with some of the imposed limits though. Instead of a max on each turret type, it would be far better to allow a max on all turrets, and let you choose which. So, you can choose missile boat or a laser cruiser! A more elegant solution for a more civilized... uh... game...

    Personally I don't mind class size limiting things explicitly for performance reasons, as it can be adjusted very easily for each game world. It just needs to be renamed lag size or something similar.
     
    #12
    Nerd01 likes this.

Share This Page