1. This forum is obsolete and read-only. Feel free to contact us at support.keenswh.com

Combat overhaul for fun and fully viable combat gameplay.

Discussion in 'Suggestions and Feedback' started by Aetrion, Jan 10, 2016.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    Combat should be a fun part of the game, and when you have built combat ships you should be able to really get some use out of them, not have them immediately ruined when they start taking hits. The multiplayer PvP element of the game would be significantly more fun if fighting other players was more about the fighting and less about just ruining hours of work. Having full fledged combat gameplay that doesn't require constant repairing and replacing will also attract a lot of people to the game that are more interested in piloting spaceships than in building them, which would enrich the online gameplay by having more of a sense of space-civilization with different jobs being done by different people, rather than just everyone being an engineer.

    I think there are a few areas where this game could use major overhauls to allow a more fun implementation of combat gameplay that really lets you do something with your ship and makes designing complex combat vessels more rewarding, since they will be less disposable.

    There are two main areas that I think need improvement:

    1. Easier Repairing
    2. Armor and Structure
    3. Weapons


    1. Easier Repairing

    I think this is one of the biggest problems in the game currently. Building ships and repairing ships uses exactly the same resources and systems, which leads to a big problem: If your main motivation for playing the game is building ships then designing a whole new ship is a lot more fun than simply trying to re-assemble one. If your main motivation for playing the game is piloting ships the slightest bit of damage dumps you right back into the building side of the game. Ultimately that means that making people repair ships by replacing the blocks completely doesn't really serve either kind of player.

    Having repairs be incredibly time and resource consuming also means that in order for ships to be usable without worrying too much they have to be designed to be disposable, which especially in a multiplayer environment really discourages building anything particularly big or impressive, because there is simply no way of easily rebuilding something that took 30 hours to build in the first place.

    The biggest culprit in what breaks the current system is that blocks simply disappear when they hit 0 hitpoints. There is usually nothing to recover. If the ship breaks into pieces as a result you tend to lose entire sections of it and more often than not it's better to just grind the whole thing down than to try and rebuild it.


    My proposed solution:

    I think one of the most important things that should be done is to have some kind of "Vehicle Core" block that works as a vehicles internal projector. The game already has the capability of having a grid for a complete vehicle that only partially exists as physical blocks in the form of projections. You can already project a vehicle into itself, but it comes with a significant hit to game performance, because it basically doubles the number of blocks in the ship. It also causes problems on public servers that don't allow projections.

    How the vehicle core would work:

    A vehicle core is a relatively large block, 3x3 at least, and not cheap to build. It has several conveyor hookups and a small internal cargo space.​

    Vehicle cores require a substantial amount of energy, making redundancy possible, but not cheap.​

    It's first function is to scan the grid it is attached to and store it as the ships "Repaired" state.​

    It's second function is to automatically attempt to store all the materials of any block that is destroyed in that grid in the ships cargo system. (It will not give you materials if a block is detached or destroyed by a grinder)​

    It's third function is to perform a full reconstruction of the ship back to the repaired state. Activating this repair function ties up 100% of the ships energy and takes about a minute. It uses materials from the ships cargo system to perform the reconstruction, meaning if part of the ship was destroyed while the cargo system and vehicle core stayed intact it can rebuild the blocks using the materials it stored when they were destroyed. (It can't restore blocks that are obstructed)​


    The rationale behind adding this type of block would make a lot of smaller repairs basically free. When a block gets destroyed the materials are stored, and can then be used to recreate the block the moment the ship is out of combat and can power down to run the repair program.

    A ship can still be destroyed or require additional materials for repair when portions of it are severed from the main grid, if the cargo system was destroyed and the vehicle core had no place to store the materials, or if the vehicle core itself was taken out. A ship needs to take really catastrophic damage before it is a total loss though with this system.

    Having the game store the materials of destroyed blocks is IMO also somewhat more realistic than having them simply disappear. Matter never simply disappears, the only reason it has to mechanically disappear in the game is because the deformation system can't handle having parts of the ship crushed down and compressed far outside of the confines of their original location. Having some way of safeguarding the materials in your ship just lets the game work around having a really hard time to have meaningful conservation of mass when things go boom.

    2. Armor and Structure

    Currently there is no difference between different armor and structure blocks other than just how much HP they have. This is very limiting to actually doing anything clever with the design of your armor blocks and structure. Different blocks need to have different qualities so you can really think about how to layer and arrange them to create the most durable ships.

    My proposed solution:

    Different armor blocks should protect you from different kinds of attacks, giving you a reason to really think through effective arrangement for armor and structure of your ships. I would have four kinds of armor/structure blocks instead of just the two we currently have:

    Light Armor block (Vulnerable to light damage, armor piercing damage passes through)
    This block would be easily damaged by machine guns and explosions that rip apart the light armor, however, armor piercing munitions from heavier weapons simply pass through light armor, doing no or very little damage. A ship that has only light armor can have its internal systems shot out by armor piercing shells (Like a light skinned vehicle in real life)

    Heavy Armor block (Vulnerable to armor piercing damage, immune to light damage)
    This block would resist machine guns and explosions that simply don't have the penetrating power to inflict any kind of meaningful damage to this type of armor. Armor piercing munitions inflict full damage to heavy armor however, since they don't pass through but instead impart their full impact force to the armor.

    Ceramic Armor (Vulnerable to armor piercing and light damage, immune to thermal damage)
    This ceramic armor block would be constructed from rocks, and be extremely cheap as a result. It takes full damage from all physical impacts, since it breaks apart, however it is extremely heat resistant, making it virtually immune to things like thruster exhaust. Since it's an extremely cheap material it would also be good for building walls that don't really need to hold up particularly well.

    Structural Girder (light and armor piercing damage pass through, extremely resistant to ramming)
    This is a block that looks like a beefed up version of the scaffold block. Weapons fire from light or armor piercing weapons passes through it, inflicting no, or minimal damage. Thermal damage can melt/cut this type of block. This type of block is incredibly tough against slow impacts however. A ship that is reinforced with girders would not easily break apart when struck by another ship or rammed into an asteroid, however, the girders provide no protection from having its internals destroyed by weapons-fire.​


    With those four armor types there would be a lot more thinking about how to provide optimal protection to a ship, since it would be extremely ineffective to try and build a ship that has every type of armor all the way around.

    3. Weapons

    Along with the proposed armor changes there obviously need to be weapons changes. Something like "Armor piercing" doesn't even exist right now.

    So the weapons changes and new weapons I would propose:

    Machine gun (Light damage)
    This doesn't need any big changes, it works for what it is. It would simply be defined as "light damage", so it inflicts damage to light armor, ceramic armor and internals, but bounces off heavy armor. Basically this is a really good weapon for destroying surface equipment on enemy ships and ripping up light armor and personnel, but they can no longer slice through battleships.​

    Rockets (light damage)
    Exploding rockets are classified as "light damage", and are ineffective against heavy armor.

    Torpedos (Armor piercing damage)
    Torpedoes work a lot like rockets, but inflict "armor piercing damage". They are slower and small launchers only hold one torpedo each, however they are the only weapon that can inflict area-damage to heavy armor.

    Railgun (Armor piercing damage)
    This is a new type of weapon that only inflict "armor piercing damage". It uses steel slugs as ammunition, which makes it's ammo very cheap, however, in order to fire it needs to charge up first, which costs a lot of energy. Since railguns are armor piercing weapons their primary function is to destroy heavy armor plates and destroy the internals of ships that are only lightly armored.

    Laser (Thermal damage)
    This is a directed energy weapon that is classified as "thermal damage", it is somewhat effective against both light and heavy armor, but extremely ineffective against ceramic armor. Lasers require immense amounts of energy to fire, making their operation not exactly free, despite the fact that they don't use ammo.​

    Warhead (All damage)
    Warheads do a huge amount of all types of damage, the defense against them is shooting them down.​


    Weapon Systems like Railguns and Lasers should be fairly large on small ships, comparable in size to a drill or grinder, and small lasers would be significantly less powerful than large lasers, since small ships produce so much less energy.





    Armor / Weapon System

    A quick breakdown of the proposed strengths and weaknesses of the armor/weapons types:

    • There are four types of damage: Light, Armor Piercing, Thermal, Impact.
    • There are five types of weapons: Machine guns, rockets, torpedoes, railguns, lasers.
    • There are four types of armor: Light Armor, Heavy Armor, Ceramic Armor, Structural Girders.
    • Machineguns do light damage.
    • Rockets do light damage with AoE.
    • Torpedoes do armor piercing damage with AoE.
    • Railguns do armor piercing damage.
    • Lasers do thermal damage.
    • Warheads do all types of damage.
    • Collisions with mass objects do impact damage.
    • Light damage inflicts damage to Systems, Light Armor and Ceramic Armor. It passes through Structural Girders. It inflicts no damage to heavy armor.
    • Armor Piercing damage inflicts damage to Systems, Heavy Armor and Ceramic Armor. It passes through Structural Girders and Light Armor.
    • Thermal damage inflicts damage to Systems, Heavy Armor, Light Armor and Structural Girders. It inflicts no damage to Ceramic Armor.
    • Impact damage inflicts damage to Systems, Heavy Armor, Light Armmor and Ceramic Armor, It inflicts no damage to Structural Girders.


    With all these changes I think the game would overall be a lot more fertile ground for space battles. With the armor and weapon types there will be a lot more of a reason to equip a ship with a variety of weapons rather than being able to simply melt enemy ships with mass machine gun fire.

    Fighting will be a lot more about unraveling the enemy ships defense systems and finding weak spots than simply about who can afford the most guns and ammo.

    Having a system that allows ship damage to be relatively benign as long as your ship didn't get cut in half or had it's internals demolished also allows fights to be won a lot more decisively. You no longer experience an almost guaranteed Phyrric victory when going up against an equally matched opponent.

    These changes would give combat oriented players a lot more room to actually enjoy the game, while at the same time giving building oriented players a lot more ways to create clever designs and spend more time building ships and less time repairing ships.

    It will also finally create a situation in multiplayer servers where selling a ship to a player becomes a worthwhile endeavor, because you no longer need to have the industrial capabilities to build the ship yourself to maintain it as long as you don't abuse it too badly. That really let's us start building real space-societies where different people do different things in multiplayer games, rather than having a system where self sufficiency is the only way to thrive, so nobody ever trades with anyone.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
    • Agree Agree x 2
  2. Dicarus

    Dicarus Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    136
    No.
    Just make a projector inside your ship, insert the blueprint of the ship, keep it on at all times, fly ship into autowelder base when damaged.
    I'd like more specialized armors and weapons, but the game SHOULDN'T be dumbed down or watered down. It's about engineering, and engineering is about making difficult things watered down and easy.

    tl;dr do it yourself
     
    • Agree Agree x 7
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Krutchen

    Krutchen Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    159
    I do believe that armour and damage types would be interesting additions to the combat side of Space Engineers, but the ships core/repairing seems to be that it would make repairing a bit too easy, on the fly repairs would be the best method of ship maintenance.

    Light & Heavy hull would still be the basic type of building block, but additional options with both their own pros and cons would open up an interesting aspect to ship defense. In my opinion, it's better for combat in an engineering game to have sidegrades than upgrades.

    Regarding repairs though, Repairs really aren't a very time consuming or crippling experience if you maintain the proper logistics and industry to support them. Industrial stations with dry docks & repair gantries & drones really do wonders when it comes to large ship maintenance, especially when said large ship has a blueprint projector for repairs.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    1.
    I can support a self-repair nanobotish system if hampered by severe constraints. I would personally argue for instance for high energy costs and blocks which are being repaired being really weak (because they are turned into a cloud of nanoparticles). for the other functions of this vehicle core... you can already do that so do it yourselves.
    2
    several armours sound neat though it has been suggested many times before and I am unsure about this iteration.
    3.
    1. thermal does not exist
    2. I think this model is a bit too simple and gamey. I would prefer if there were no damage classes and instead the physics would determine what happens

    4. space war is about attrition. decisive fights would mean the war is ended after a single battle.
     
  5. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    So basically the only argument you guys have against easier repairs is "I don't want the game to be fun for people who want to be able to spend more time piloting than building". I really don't see the point in that argument.

    If the barrier to doing anything in the game is owning your own personal industrial base to support it you will simply never have a situation where players who are really into building and designing get the satisfaction of being able to sell ships to players who are mostly interested in the piloting. The game is stuck in a state where it's impossible to actually have a player economy because it doesn't allow a consumer class to exist.

    The only thing of value anyone can do is build things, so if you have something of value that you could trade with then you also have the capability to never actually need to trade.

    You simply can't get a server going where you have players who play as mercenaries or freighter captains or pirates or in any other profession to get ships from miners and builders, because being able to build your own stuff is the only meaningful way to maintain what you have in the game. By insisting that everything else would be "Too easy" you're actually just killing the ability to builders to really become sought out and renowned in an online world, because you drive everyone who'd buy ships rather than make them out of the game, leaving nothing but builders who all make their own stuff.

    You will never be able to get a really deep online universe going simply because of this insistence that 95% of the game needs to be building with no room for anything else, which ultimately actually deprives builders of the satisfaction of being able to create something someone else wants or needs.

    Also the idea that a war should simply be over in one battle and be purely decided by who has more stuff is death to persistent worlds. Again, whatever, run a server with those rules, but don't act like that is the only way, because it is extremely limiting to what you can do and how many players you can attract to a persistent world right now.

    This is also why people keep asking for shields. What they are really asking for is a system that lets them get away from the industry aspect of the game for a while, or even play the game without interacting with the industry aspect long enough to actually be able to get a degree of meaningful division of labor between pilots and engineers going.



    As far as projectors in a ship go: Yea, sure, you can have an internal projection, except most open servers have to turn that feature off because projectors can be abused to lag out servers by projecting huge grids.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2016
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. TheFlawlessGem

    TheFlawlessGem Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    243
    I love nearly everything you thought of here.... except the vehicle core. You're supposed to armor your ship or weaponize it, not just let some system that doesn't really make sense handle it.

    I feel bad about all the flak you'll probably receive because of the vehicle core thingy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Sad_Brother

    Sad_Brother Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    198
    @Aetrion, why you always want payment?
    If you want mercenaries to be paid, what would they spend paiment for?
    If you want pilots to pay for ships, where should they get paiment?

    There are fractions in this game. If you want people to cooperate, nothing stop you from uniting in fractions and do, what each one want. Some want to design mo effective projects, other code automated drone systems to mine, fight and repair, another more effectively pilot ships. If you in one fraction, why should you pay one another? Your aim is one for all - victory.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    How does it not make sense? Things simply disappearing doesn't make sense because that full on violates one of the principal laws of our universe, the conservation of mass.

    The ship core also doesn't do anything that makes armoring your ship any less essential, it just counteracts the ridiculous disappearing matter in the game, cuts down the time it takes to repair a ship, and eliminates the need for internal projectors which makes it more reasonable to implement this on open servers where projectors in their present form usually have to be disabled.

    In fact, the whole point of the vehicle core is to have the upsides of a shield (Being able to win a fight without taking any damage, or in this case, while being able to repair the damage for free if you fight well enough) without compromising the complexity of the game which relies on simulating the destruction of individual parts of the ship structure rather than massive HP pools.

    To me it seems like this community is absurdly hostile to any idea that isn't "More hardcore, raw raw raw!", and that's really dragging this game down.

    I didn't lay out any systems that would allow for an actual economy to exist in this game, but the bottom line is, if the only way to generate value is to mine and build there is simply no way to have a meaningful economy in the game. Creating factions doesn't create an interesting division of labor or trading element in the game, no faction hires on an expert fighter pilot because they need someone to do a lot of fighting, and no fighter pilot joins a faction because they make fantastic ships. That simply never happens in this game because of this myopic tendency of the community to oppose all features that would give you anything worthwhile to do that doesn't boil down to harvesting and building.

    It just seems like everyone here doesn't even realize that they represent maybe 1% of the total community of the game. More people post on the Steam Boards than here, and more people than that never post in the boards at all, and more people than that simply uninstalled the game when they realized that when they were done building a ship they couldn't actually do anything with it.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 6
  9. Gentry

    Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    What a stupid premise

    literally the whole 'vehicle core' idea is terrible
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2016
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    I guess hitting "disagree" and calling something "stupid" and "terrible" constitute a valid argument in this community.

    It's pretty disappointing when you try to make your voice herd in a community that is so hostile to all oppinions outside of what a tiny, narrow ingroup wants that people can't even be bothered to address any of the points I'm making and instead just dismiss and insult me.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  11. Krougal

    Krougal Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,012
    Yes, it is. At least hitting disagree, and I'll tell you why.

    I think this is such a bad idea that I wouldn't even spend any of my time (or yours) getting into a pissing match over it unless Keen was actually giving it serious consideration.
    In theory if devs looked at a suggestion, even if there were no responses other than 1000s of agree/disagree to OPs post, it would be a good yardstick of community interest and support in said feature. Like I said, in theory, because not enough people ever participate, because really unless you are seriously interested in a suggestion (for or against), "Ain't nobody got time for that!".

    Even Starmade (which might be more to your liking...I am not saying it is a better or worse game either, just a different take on the same genre) has been making their shipcore less relevant with every update, and I can see them phasing it out completely eventually.
     
  12. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    You do realize that what I proposed has absolutely nothing to do with the Starmade style ship core? Oh wait, no you don't, because you probably didn't actually read my post.

    This community honestly just comes off like a complete joke. I mean I don't expect everyone to fall over themselves to agree with everything I say, but literally the first reply to my post is someone making a fake quote of me that is intentionally misspelled and misrepresents what I said in an effort to mock me, and that got a bunch of likes. This forum seems like it's basically just been taken over by a small group of bullies who instantly jump on anyone with a different point of view to make sure no opposition to what they want is ever heard at all.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  13. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    also,please remember you can easily repair a ship by draining it's cargo, pushing it into a grinder and autowelding a new one.
     
  14. FromCzech

    FromCzech Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    11
    @Aetrion ... How do you imagine "space battle"???

    * Like Star Trek - close combat fight, a lot of explosions everywhere, receiving hits, giving hits... and in next episode ship fully operative?

    * Todays or history naval battle - nothing like close combat. Fight on long distance 5-30km. Main weapons are big guided missiles/or torpedoes with a kinetic or explosive warhead. When they are fired, take some time to reach the target. When missiles are close to another ship, the point-defense muss saves the ship. Depends on your own construction of missiles and construction of point-defense -> how many missiles did you fire, if there was decoys to confuse the enemys point-defense... -> Maybe you get hits or you miss all. Now construciton of yours missiles, how good they are in armor penetration. Than the construction of enemy ship: What did you hit? Some strong parts of citatel, spaced armor or a lucky hit in a weak part of the ship -> Was it something important? reactor or cockpit. Was there backup reactor or backup cocpit...

    You don´t need nothing like "ship core block"... ship core is a lot of things working together + crew. Player with better construction win battle -> because Space ENGINEERS

    About repairs: For now, minor damage takes only while if you have some kind of repair drones on board (and you need resources for repair). Some heavy damage inside? Of course it takes some time to repair -> You need to hide yourself somewhere, call for help or go back to your base.

    In future, maybe there will be online servers focused on Big space battles = modded welding speed, speed of assembler and refinery... blocks will be cheaper to construct... Modded weapons and others... Modded ships structurete, maybe ship HP (btw. I don´t like idea ship HP when ship is consisted from blocks, no sense for me)
    ... but for now, if you want a massive online space battle, watch for different game...
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Dax23333

    Dax23333 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    657
    They turn into scrap metal when broken, not totally sure if mass of scrap is the same as mass of components destroyed (probably not) but it is something at least. Although scrap metal seems to be some kind of super dense substance that converts elements into iron. Wierd stuff.

    I do like the ideas about the weapons/armor but I don't think a vehicle core is needed. At the moment you can arrange a number of welders inside your ship to repair important systems on the go, and it is even possible to create a ship that reforms into two copies of itself when cut in half. Or you can make the ship assemble itself, only requireing the seed section to be made and connected to a scource of components. Such ships can take huge punishment and come out working perfectly, although the components and welding systems they must carry makes them large, bulky and heavy.
     
  16. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    I don't like having to run 10x worlds in order to get repair and resupply costs down far enough to actually be able to do anything even mildly risky because it also brings down the initial cost of construction of a ship to basically nothing. Building a ship should be hard, maintaining one shouldn't.

    With unmodded welders anything like that is not even remotely practical. Maybe on a small ship where every block can be contained within the radius of a single welder, but on large ships? I've built a few prototypes of self repairing ships, but the raw amount of welders in a thing like that can lag the game to death.

    On top of that it really doesn't do anything to free you up from having to spend most of your time mining and refining if every bit of damage costs as many resources to repair as it cost to build those systems in the first place, and will still never allow any kind of sensible economy in the game where starship operation can generate any kind of meaningful value.

    Any kind of sensible online economy requires that if you pilot a spaceship to perform tasks with it you need to be able to generate value at roughly the same rate as if you were building it, but currently the only way to even get any operational time out of your spaceship is to constantly mine and build for all the consumables and replacement parts.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2016
  17. Gentry

    Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. Maegil

    Maegil Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,633
    My auto-repairing ship had a double hull. On the outer hull I had a conveyor network feeding weapons, several layers of armour, and the thrusters, weapons and turrets on the outside; between the two hulls there was a rail-mounted (mod: gears and things) rack of modded welders going to and fro on the four sides of the ship, and inside there were a few more gatling turrets to finish off invaders who managed to get in, a final layer of heavy armour, and all the ship's soft parts. It was ugly, blocky and heavy, but not due to having too many welders...
    Only too true.
     
  19. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    That isn't the problem at all.

    The problem is that there is no way to generate value by flying ships, and because ships lose value at such an insane pace when they take damage the game can't include any systems to generate value by piloting ships that wouldn't be infinitely more profitable than mining and building for the time you spend.

    Basically: If there was a bounty system like you see in Space sandbox games in this game then there would be no way to make it take just as long to earn a new ship by shooting down pirates as it does by harvesting ore, because the amount of resources a single space battle costs you is so extreme that the payoff would have to be disproportionately large. You would have to have a system that allows the bounty hunter to do more battles over a longer period of time without needing huge amounts of resources for repairs and rearms in order to be able to adjust the earnings curve down to make sense.

    So you did need mods to pull it off, and even then I'd reckon that welding system would have been prone to breaking down and needing manual repairs quite often. On top of that, self repair still doesn't solve the problem that repairing costs just as many resources as building and makes existing resources disappear from the world completely.
     
  20. Maegil

    Maegil Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,633
    "...the sinews of war, infinite money" - Cicero
    So yes, it's well known that war is a money sink of colossal proportions, and that material wastefulness is one of the pacifist movements' main gripes. That's why Cicero (him again) said that war should never be waged except in defence of honour or safety (and modern international law doesn't even recognize honour as a proper casus belli).
    Then again, Machiavelli says quite clearly that it's not only useless but also dangerous to have wealth if you can't defend it in the first place, a balance should be met in which the damage you can cause an enemy is greater than what he might expect to gain by attacking you. It's called dissuasion, and if that also fails you should be willing to sacrifice something to avoid losing all.

    Edited for typos and grammar.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  21. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” - Plato

    Oh wait, you can't actually die in this game, because, I guess, huh, it's a game and that means some aspects of reality are overlooked for the sake of actually being able to play it and have fun.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  22. Leon Leo Leonhardt III

    Leon Leo Leonhardt III Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    70
    Ok, so glossing over the "Vehicle Core" idea

    Damage Types and Resistances should be broken down into 3 categories based on the type of energy they impart upon the target

    Kinetic Energy (Bullets, Meteors, Ships, general impacts etc.)
    Chemical Energy (Rockets, Warheads, general explosions)
    Thermal Energy (Plasma(if/when), Thruster Exhaust, Air friction during atmospheric entry)


    Armor Types would follow the same pattern

    Kinetic Energy, the Standard Armor, would be the same armor we currently have. Heavy KE armor is resistant to small arms and requires armor piercing weapons to severely damage. made up of a solid block of metal.
    Chemical Energy or Reactive armor would react with explosives to mitigate damage done. Offers decent kinetic protection as well. Made up of a bunch of small bricks of reacting agent.
    Thermal Energy, or Reflective armor would reflect a percentage of heat based damage, lowering the damage taken. Offers the same kinetic protection as Light Armor. Made up of a reflective ceramic surface.

    Creative mode exists for people like you.
    This isn't an MMO. If people want a prebuilt ship they'll download it from the workshop.


    Also lol
    >Make suggestion
    >No one likes it
    >"OMG THIS COMMUNITY IS A JOKE"
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  23. Gentry

    Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    Armour and turrets are generally pretty cheap. And they're normally the only thing I need repairing after most fights.

    As long as you don't build completely stupid ships that get cored making you lose important modules in every fight I really don't see what the great cost is.

    So I guess lets just not have a dumb arbitrary bounty hunting system then lol

    (none existant)problem solved
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  24. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    Creative mode is not at all what I'm asking for. I'm asking for a decent in between of having absolutely everything for free and having everything be so completely tied down to constant resource flow that no gameplay outside of industry has any kind of validity.

    More like

    > Write a long post with a lot of arguments
    > Get mocked and insulted by a bunch of people who come at me with this "There is like 10 of us here who think you're dumb so therefore the whole world agrees!" arrogance.
    > Call them out on being a clique that is only in the majority because they bully everyone with different viewpoints off the board.



    The raw arrogance of people here is just staggering, like "If I personally don't want it not only can you not have it, I feel entitled to deride you for asking for it!"
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. SenorZorros

    SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    step 1: eat a asteroid
    step 2: print a ship
    step 3: profit!

    also, thermal weapons do not exist in space in real life.
     
  26. Maegil

    Maegil Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,633
    ...And who's talking about dying? You were whining about the cost of repairs, I answered to that, and now you go into a completely different tack trying to be right at all cost?
    Right... I'm done wasting my time with you.
     
  27. Gentry

    Gentry Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,167
    The only arrogance here is how defensive you're getting over a obviously bad, unlikable idea.

    Have a little humility and realize the vehicle core thing was a missfire and continue with something else - and stop blaming other people.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  28. Grit Breather

    Grit Breather Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    874
    Well, this thread went hostile very fast.
    I'll add my 2p into this.

    First, @Aetrion, you need to calm down. People on the Internet don't tend to have finesse or be polite. Hell, most of the people who responded to you probably don't have English as their first language. Take a step back and breathe.
    As for everyone else, a bit less hostility would be nice too. You may not like an idea, but that's no reason to call someone an idiot. Would you like to be spoken to in the same manner?

    Now, to the idea itself.
    I fully understand where @Aetrion is coming from. You must admit that SE sometimes feels a bit grindy and repetitive. When you start a new world, all you rally have to do is land your ship, grind it down, make a simple base, and go mining. There are no other options, you can't pick a different route. You either go mining or die.
    This works for some people. Hell, it's what Minecraft is completely designed around. You mine because mining is all there is to life.

    But not all players want to just mine. Some players want more choice about their path in the game.
    I will start by saying that SE is not an MMO. Perhaps in the future it will be, perhaps not. But for now it's not.
    Is SE something more than Minecraft in space? Possibly. The answer to that really depends on what kind of gamer you are and what you want out of SE. Everyone plays differently.
    So we are now left with the question of which options should be viable in SE. Well, the mining/industrial route already exists. Why not enable other types of players too?

    It could work for me but I think it's still far off. If SE were to also cater to pilots, traders, etc. it would need more than just a damage handling system. It would need a revamped UI, actual working cockpits, viability for multi-crew ships, and many other missing components.

    I don't like the 'ship core' idea in this thread but the others could have some substance to them. I think the 'ship core' as proposed here does not fit in SE as I think Keen intend it to be. The other ideas should probably be looked at further but have been proposed many times in the past with mixed reactions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  29. Aetrion

    Aetrion Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    202
    Of course the game would need more than just a system for handling damage, but that would be the first step to let many any other playstyles than just mining to happen. Ship cores don't have to be the way to do it, but nobody here is arguing with the mechanics, they are arguing against changing anything at all, even when someone explains to them how adding some new features could expand the audience and think that they are justified purely by the fact that there is hardly even anyone here, and the few people who are like the game the way it is.

    There are no good arguments being made why adding features that support more varied playstyles is a bad thing. Even any notion that people don't want the game the way they like it to change can be slapped down by simply pointing to the server options screen and saying "there is room for one more". The game is never going to be first choice for pure fighter pilots, sure, but in it's current incarnation it's a disappointment for pretty much anyone who wants any meaningful gameplay with their creations. Acting like nobody wants more uptime and more to do with their spaceships just because you've managed to gather up a dozen people who don't care and turn the forum into a hostile place for people who do is just silly.

    As far as it not being an MMO goes, yea, in its present form it doesn't work at all as an MMO, but you can take one look at the server list and realize that people are making all kinds of persistent open servers, so obviously there is a demand for features that support that. Why are people attacking ideas that would allow these kinds of servers to be a reality for the people who obviously want to run them?
     
  30. FromCzech

    FromCzech Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    11
    @Aetrion maybe yours ideas aren´t bad for PC game... but I am not sure, if you can use that ideas in THIS PC game...

    There is years of development aiming to difficult, or simple ship (or stations) constructions when you can easily lose a whole ship. Hundreds of thousands COPIES SOLD and people like it. All your ideas are aimed to combat gameplay... It would be a different game... meaning of the game would be: build a combat ship and attack others player / or build a combat ship to defense yourself. In this case you needed combat ship for defense, even if you don´t want combat play.

    What will be reason to attack other players? Only fun? ... Stole resources from mining/cargo ship? If you have some kind of "warship" you can easily attack cargo ship. Attack other smaller warship? He will probably run away... because you´re bigger. Attack other warship big as is yours... that other player did some hard work to build his ship as you, it means he can lose whole ship in battle and you will easily repair yours :/ Because you said: "Building a ship should be hard, maintaining one shouldn't."

    I am fan of space battles and space combat (Fighters, Cruisers, Broadside battle, boarding to enemy ship...)
    I like the idea of space battles in SE, and I thing "Big Ass space battles" are possible in SE... but you need to accept existing rules of this sandbox game.

    ... and I appreciate work that you did writing that ideas, maybe someone will make modification aimed this way... but it will be game mod
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.