25695 Posts in 4313 Topics - by 9405 Members - Latest Member: SineWav3

Author Topic: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I  (Read 6616 times)

timethatswasted

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2018, 02:14:34 PM »
Very confused by what is meant here by coaxial weapons.... by definition those are weapons that are mounted to, and fired independent of a main fixed gun.  Such as a machine gun mounted on a tank.

There are no fixed weapons in the game right now..... (Fixed turret mount doesn’t count)

So what are we actually talking about here?

Romual

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2018, 07:01:42 PM »
Coaxial is easy to understand. They are fixed to an axis, on a tank - that is axis of a TURRET, but on a ship that is basically on the hull, or inside it. Imagine ship-long railgun or huge laser on the ship front. Or battery of cannons on the side. That's coax.

On a tank you mentioned they are "coax" to main gun, in this game they will be "coax" to a whole ship.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 07:04:58 PM by Romual »

timethatswasted

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2018, 02:56:38 PM »
Coaxial is easy to understand. They are fixed to an axis, on a tank - that is axis of a TURRET, but on a ship that is basically on the hull, or inside it. Imagine ship-long railgun or huge laser on the ship front. Or battery of cannons on the side. That's coax.

On a tank you mentioned they are "coax" to main gun, in this game they will be "coax" to a whole ship.



Well I hope that’s what they are talking about....  maybe it’s a translation issue, by English definition that is not what a coaxial weapon is, to say the axial is the ship itself is stretching the definiation a bit. You use terms like fixed mount, static mount or spine mount to describe what I think they are talking about.

Whatever it is I am excited to have more weapon options =D

Charless

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2018, 06:05:41 PM »
But, considering you CAN kill them with main guns and are FAR less powerfull then bombers in WW2 - they need HUGE buff to be viable, if every ship gets dedicated AA turrets. What I saw somewhere here was the best option - make turret slots a huge number and make turrets take SEVERAL slots, depending on their power and scale. Maybe allow to SCALE ANY TURRET, increasing it's stats, but make it occupy more slots. I REALLY want some capital cannon expirience, with some COAX railguns as well.

I agree, that way you could have say 300 max slots, with AA weapons only taking up half a slot. However you also have a new modification call it FCS (fire control system) this would increase the reaction time, accuracy and range of AA weapons, but at the higher end be very energy intensive. Fighters would also get a buff, say different sizes, bombers would be larger fighters that are slower and less menuverable by nature. But they also have shields and more health/fire power. Fighters would be fast and nimble but also fragile. You could give orders to your fighters to say attack AA weaponry so your bombers can move in. All weapons that are not Anti fighter would have a massive decrease in accuracy, hit probability when fighting fighters. The closer the enemy fighter is the stronger the effect. Or these turrets could ignore fighters and focus on enemy ships.

There would be different types of anti fighter weaponry under each weapon type.

1. CIWS: targets incoming missiles and torpeadoes. Can target fighters but they nearly do any damage.
Pros: Insane fire rate, accuracy and reaction time, good against torpeodoes, and missiles and light fighters.
Cons: Short range, and low damage. Bad against bombers. Can over heat

2. Flack cannons: good at taking down bombers and fighters at a medium range.
pros: decent fire rate, AEO, medium range, good against bombers and fighters
Cons: slower reaction time and bad accuracy, can damage allied fighters with flack AOE

3. missile battery: placed in line with hull in vls configuration: Amazing at long range ant bomber and slow moving missiles
pros: Long range, tracking, fires in salvoes of 2-6, good reaction time. Good against bombers
Cons: bad at close range, can be rendered useless by jamming. Terrible reload.

4: Lazers: Perfict accuracy, however does poor damage

Now for coaxile weapons:
Here's several Ideas I have:

Missiles: go in vls into the hull of your ship larger the block is bigger the missile meaning larger range.
Pros and cons: amazing damage and range (almost all the way acros the sector) at larger end but slow and easy to shoot down At smaller end short range but awsom speed.

Railgun: Long charge up to shoot but once fired near infinite range and massive kinetic damage capable of tearing a hole clean through a ship in one shot. But massive energy range from shooting may temporarily take down the shields and leave a ship drifting. Projectile  is very fast but at longer range it can be dodged.

Lazer: A massive super lazer that can deal massive amounts of damage against a hull in a short period of time. However bad against shields and has a massive energy drain, limiting the fire time. Medium range

Ion: Much like plasma this is amazing against shield but does nothing to the hull. when hitting a target it drains their energy for a short period of time, completly disabling the ship. Rendering its weapons useless. Has a short effective range, is increadibly energy consumptive and requires a very long charge up.


eduty

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2018, 06:27:29 PM »
Since we're update speculating, here are some ideas on how new weapons and combat may be balanced/implemented:
  • Overheat and cool down times on defensive weaponry and large coax guns
  • Crew, energy, and/or slot scarcity
  • AA cannons may chew through fighters, but assemblies have improved fighter construction time, reduced resource costs, pilots are more readily available, and hangars can hold/launch more craft
  • Crew losses. Hard to operate all those weapons when the gunners keep dying.
  • Ammunition. When fired, turrets utilize a small amount of resources (probably corresponding to their material). You could put a couple Avorion chain guns on your ship to battle fighters, but that's going to be an expensive encounter.
  • Turrets get dedicated block mounts and can no longer be placed willy-nilly all over a ship. Turret blocks have moderate HP compared to hull and armor, and weapons are easier to blow off during prolonged battles.
  • Directional or limited shield areas. Your ship is no longer a big flying chunk of shield HP. Each shield generator only projects a force field in a certain direction or a certain area, making ship facing and maneuverability more critical to long fights.
  • Weapon status effects. In addition to increased hull, range, shield damage, etc. Guns can also slow enemy ships, deplete power, deal damage over time, add time to hyperspace recharge, and disable auto-turrets for a brief period of time.
  • Electronic warfare. Decreases the accuracy of auto-fire turrets and fighters.
  • Cloaking technology. Get the drop on your enemies and disappear after a hit and run.

Charless

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2018, 05:12:21 PM »
Since we're update speculating, here are some ideas on how new weapons and combat may be balanced/implemented:
  • Overheat and cool down times on defensive weaponry and large coax guns
  • Crew, energy, and/or slot scarcity
  • AA cannons may chew through fighters, but assemblies have improved fighter construction time, reduced resource costs, pilots are more readily available, and hangars can hold/launch more craft
  • Crew losses. Hard to operate all those weapons when the gunners keep dying.
  • Ammunition. When fired, turrets utilize a small amount of resources (probably corresponding to their material). You could put a couple Avorion chain guns on your ship to battle fighters, but that's going to be an expensive encounter.
  • Turrets get dedicated block mounts and can no longer be placed willy-nilly all over a ship. Turret blocks have moderate HP compared to hull and armor, and weapons are easier to blow off during prolonged battles.
  • Directional or limited shield areas. Your ship is no longer a big flying chunk of shield HP. Each shield generator only projects a force field in a certain direction or a certain area, making ship facing and maneuverability more critical to long fights.
  • Weapon status effects. In addition to increased hull, range, shield damage, etc. Guns can also slow enemy ships, deplete power, deal damage over time, add time to hyperspace recharge, and disable auto-turrets for a brief period of time.
  • Electronic warfare. Decreases the accuracy of auto-fire turrets and fighters.
  • Cloaking technology. Get the drop on your enemies and disappear after a hit and run.
I'm not for the ammunition one, I'm all for more fighters, I believe if we are going to have more weapons the overheat and weapons desplay needs to be fixed, it takes up some of the screen and is ugly AF

Wanderer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2018, 12:47:53 AM »
Since we're update speculating, here are some ideas on how new weapons and combat may be balanced/implemented:
  • Overheat and cool down times on defensive weaponry and large coax guns
  • Crew, energy, and/or slot scarcity
  • AA cannons may chew through fighters, but assemblies have improved fighter construction time, reduced resource costs, pilots are more readily available, and hangars can hold/launch more craft
  • Crew losses. Hard to operate all those weapons when the gunners keep dying.
  • Ammunition. When fired, turrets utilize a small amount of resources (probably corresponding to their material). You could put a couple Avorion chain guns on your ship to battle fighters, but that's going to be an expensive encounter.
  • Turrets get dedicated block mounts and can no longer be placed willy-nilly all over a ship. Turret blocks have moderate HP compared to hull and armor, and weapons are easier to blow off during prolonged battles.
  • Directional or limited shield areas. Your ship is no longer a big flying chunk of shield HP. Each shield generator only projects a force field in a certain direction or a certain area, making ship facing and maneuverability more critical to long fights.
  • Weapon status effects. In addition to increased hull, range, shield damage, etc. Guns can also slow enemy ships, deplete power, deal damage over time, add time to hyperspace recharge, and disable auto-turrets for a brief period of time.
  • Electronic warfare. Decreases the accuracy of auto-fire turrets and fighters.
  • Cloaking technology. Get the drop on your enemies and disappear after a hit and run.
I'm not for the ammunition one, I'm all for more fighters, I believe if we are going to have more weapons the overheat and weapons desplay needs to be fixed, it takes up some of the screen and is ugly AF

Honestly, more fighters? Be honest, they are already overpowerd and will stay that, because you have 120 fighters and they will all have 3 dodges. The point is, how much health does a ship have? I got 120 tesla fighters that, together, do 300000 dps on 3,9 km (one does 2600 dps) More would be fun for me, but then its gonna be insane against other enemys, antifighter or not... They would fire on a fighter, then another one, and maybe they will hit the same fighter 4 times and have a chance of destroying it. If it is still alive after 3 seconds... And then the next 119 fighters!

The ammo part? Well, it might work, but then like this: a turret gets 2 new stats: ammo usage/second and ammo production/second, with ammo not transferable between turrets or something like that. This would mean that your turret might be really powerfull, but if you got a really high ammo usage and a low production, its not gonna be OP, but more of a burst fire weapon. But after all with the overheating, i think that it's fine like it is now.

Capital weapons: i dont see them being coaxial weaponry, those i think coax weapons would be more for cruisers/ destroyers. I think that a whole new weapon would be nice for this. I would like weapons that are for real long distances, for battleship against battleship, and easy to counter with manouverable and lots of ships, so indep. Tar. Turrets would be needed for that. I would like some huge cannons, shooting long range shells, and (ok, it makes no sense because no gravity etc, but ey, its a game :-)) fly towards the enemy in an ark (a parabolic ark). It would be nice to see huge shells flying in an ark over the battlefield, before raining down hell on the enemy. Because of this trajectory, a min. Range of 4/5 km would be nice, and also hindering it being OP as hell (wich i think is the problem of creating capital guns, because they should have insane damage, high range and low rate of fire, but also easy to dodge and hard hit other ships with and thus being really affective against big, slow moving targets (if trying to dodge, just make sure your'e not in the ark of the shots by going left, right and wait for the shells to pass by), but a cruiser that can come into the minimum range is gonna have a good time.

If wanting to compare it to something visual, compare it to some shots being fired during the encounter between the uss enterprise and the bigger, darkgrey warship (wich looks almost the same) and you'll notice there are some (or one, i dont really know) shots that hit it with an ark. It would be nice, because now its just always a line, and capital guns should be really good, but also have the danger of finding an ally ship within the ark of the shell.

If balancing enemy's and weapons, there are some points i would like to point on:
-make the shipp live up to its class name: im a bit sad if i can kill dreadnoughts in just 2 more seconds than a destroyer or freighter, where are the big ass ships with somewhat like 5 milion shield/hull hp and huge omicron numbers?
-make the classes do something else: now they're all coming towards you and sit in front of you whilst fighting, but why not make destroyers long range ships, trying to stay at 10 km or something, cruisers trying to support a dreadnought wich is raining down hell on you with capital cannons and battleships trying to get close to you (so basicly what every ship does right now)
-where are the medics? Why are there no ai ships that can heal their allies? If i can do it, why wont they?
-if calling in reinforcements, try to match the reinforcements with your ship: if im in my flying behemoth and raiding a station, im not impressed by those 3 ships that attack me, its more annoying to get my ship turned to fight them than a challenge. However, don't spawn in a huge fleet with lots of battleships and destroyers supporting 2 dreadnoughts (wich would be giant ships with an incredible shield/hull hp amount and a huge omicron number for their area) if im in a small ship. Lets say my ship is worth 3 powerpoints(PP, i know, butifull name;-)) (calculate it, maybe something like firepower x 1/10 shield + hull hp) try to spawn a fleet wich has 4 PP, and if im in a ship that has 100 PP, try spawning a fleet of 125 PP, like multiplying the points you have with a ranom number between 1 and 1,25 maybe? Im missing strategy, i wanna fight for evert sector! Not sit there and shoot my guns 4 times and be done. Ofcourse, the point where you are is also important: in my starting sector they wont have ships that match my PP, so they would spawn hundreds of ships... So maybe the max amount of PP should be depending on your position in the galaxy, to prevent giant fleets from a faction in iron belt.
-railguns: im sad because they have no travel time, and (relatively)low range... I would like railguns shooting shells 5/7 times faster than cannon rounds, but not instant. And with high damage, low rate of fire and quick overheating, i think they deserve more range.
-can the turret have the amount of shots being equal to the amount of barrels? A normal 1 barrel railgun that shoots 2 projectiles and a four barrel railgun shooting 1 projectile is weird.
-where are those "infinite xsotan reinforcements? It would be amazing if the xsotan would OR attack in a small scouting group OR have a huge fleet either in one wave or multiple. But maybe this is more for the late game, so only inside of the xanion and higher belts?

Maybe a nice thing for after the guardian: after killing him, you get a mission to attack a sector with an enemy fleet, after that, continue to the next sector, wich is harder etc. etc

For bigger guns (wich quite a lot of people want :-)), why not change the turret system a bit, by making a turret blueprint wich you need 1/turret (so if you want 5 you still need to make 5) and give them stats that are multiplied by The size of the turret (except for range, that needs to have a less big increase, maybe for every 1 size extra multiplying the range by 1,5 instead of dubbeling and maybe remove 0,1 fire rate for every turret size point?) and the max turret size depending on the turret material (trinium max 4 and avorion max 7), but also increasing the energy drainage, recoil etc. by the same factor and maybe giving you 0,2 accuracy increase for every size point (with maybe a slightly bigger increase for turrets that were really inacurate in the first place) So then you spam those on your ship? Well, to counter that, i would say the guns take the same amount of turret slots as they have size points with a min. of 1 and a max. of 7.

Sorry for grammar mistakes :-) and for the really long post, maybe not entirely relevant, but everything after the artillery/arkcannons just popped in my mind, but anyways, i hope you didn't fall asleep reading it :-)

« Last Edit: January 10, 2018, 07:11:28 AM by Wanderer »
You can learn without knowing, but never know without learning

eduty

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2018, 09:36:26 PM »
The ammo part? Well, it might work, but then like this: a turret gets 2 new stats: ammo usage/second and ammo production/second, with ammo not transferable between turrets or something like that. This would mean that your turret might be really powerfull, but if you got a really high ammo usage and a low production, its not gonna be OP, but more of a burst fire weapon. But after all with the overheating, i think that it's fine like it is now.

My thought would be to just abstract ammunition production and have a weapon decrease your ore reserves as it fires.

Example: Firing an iron chain gun uses 1 iron ore / second.

This incentivizes weapon diversification and leads to more tactical choices.
  • What resources can you devote to this encounter?
  • Do you have enough resources to see the fight to completion?
  • Should you keep one or two common material turrets mounted to deal with lesser threats?
  • What combination of mining/salvage is necessary to keep your fleet fight ready?

eduty

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2018, 09:39:30 PM »
On another note, I'd like to see the gradual repair of a ship require materials.

As it stands, if my ship doesn't lose any blocks, it can go from next to no HP to full HP without any material input. If the repair crew is patching holes in titanium armor, I'd think they'd use up some titanium in doing so.

Hellatze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #24 on: January 12, 2018, 08:01:05 AM »
I dont like that.

My ship are really big

Wanderer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #25 on: January 12, 2018, 10:01:56 AM »
The ammo part? Well, it might work, but then like this: a turret gets 2 new stats: ammo usage/second and ammo production/second, with ammo not transferable between turrets or something like that. This would mean that your turret might be really powerfull, but if you got a really high ammo usage and a low production, its not gonna be OP, but more of a burst fire weapon. But after all with the overheating, i think that it's fine like it is now.

My thought would be to just abstract ammunition production and have a weapon decrease your ore reserves as it fires.

Example: Firing an iron chain gun uses 1 iron ore / second.

This incentivizes weapon diversification and leads to more tactical choices.
  • What resources can you devote to this encounter?
  • Do you have enough resources to see the fight to completion?
  • Should you keep one or two common material turrets mounted to deal with lesser threats?
  • What combination of mining/salvage is necessary to keep your fleet fight ready?

I dont like the idea of using material, because weapons already overheat or are not that powerfull, with the exception of lasers and tesla's, for that, it would be nice to have something like that, because they become so OP so fast. (I got 60 teslaturrets that do 8900 dps on 3,9 range, thats way to good)
You can learn without knowing, but never know without learning

Hellatze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #26 on: January 12, 2018, 01:33:27 PM »
The ammo part? Well, it might work, but then like this: a turret gets 2 new stats: ammo usage/second and ammo production/second, with ammo not transferable between turrets or something like that. This would mean that your turret might be really powerfull, but if you got a really high ammo usage and a low production, its not gonna be OP, but more of a burst fire weapon. But after all with the overheating, i think that it's fine like it is now.

My thought would be to just abstract ammunition production and have a weapon decrease your ore reserves as it fires.

Example: Firing an iron chain gun uses 1 iron ore / second.

This incentivizes weapon diversification and leads to more tactical choices.
  • What resources can you devote to this encounter?
  • Do you have enough resources to see the fight to completion?
  • Should you keep one or two common material turrets mounted to deal with lesser threats?
  • What combination of mining/salvage is necessary to keep your fleet fight ready?

I dont like the idea of using material, because weapons already overheat or are not that powerfull, with the exception of lasers and tesla's, for that, it would be nice to have something like that, because they become so OP so fast. (I got 60 teslaturrets that do 8900 dps on 3,9 range, thats way to good)

I have laser gives 22.000 dps.

Building station near gal center are OP.

Tearing any ship to shreds.

Shrooblord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 470
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #27 on: January 13, 2018, 01:33:17 AM »
Cool update from the looks of things. I wonder if we'll be able to custom-design torpedoes like in From the Depths? Always loved that part of custom weapon design in that game.

----

I also had an idea for an interesting "new mechanic" when I read that your reaction speed is important when shooting down torpedoes: turret rotational speed. You know how all turrets take equally long to aim from one spot to another spot when looking at equidistant scenarios? What if there were some turrets that are a lot faster at spinning around, acquiring new targets and the like? What if such turrets had Independent Targeting, and if you could somehow categorise turret groups into Attack or Defence stance, with Defence prioritising targets at close range, while Attack prioritises attacks from a distance. Might be an interesting counter to coming across torpedo-wielding enemies.

And while we're spouting ideas here, I've always loved the notion of crazy Battleship Tachyon Beams. You know, the type of "Imma firing mah laz0r" nonsense you see in Sci-Fi a lot. Long, long charge time. Crazy range. Decimating damage. Big light show. Many fun.

Quote
The last big features with this update will be more specialized weapons, giving weapons more specific roles, as well as improved control over your ships that are far away. You'll be able to travel into sectors where you have stationed ships, so that you can give orders more effectively and don't have to warp all the way back to just tell your miner to change sectors.
Oh amazing. This is one of my most sorely missed features. Thank you so so much!!

EDIT:
I'm not familiar with the Avorion update cycle. Is there a fixed date when updates roll out? Is there a place on my calendar I can already look forward to and hype myself up for? Or is it an "it'll come when it's ready" type of deal? I'm cool with both by the way, but I'd like to know.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 01:51:45 AM by Shrooblord »
Shrooblord

Hellatze

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 190
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #28 on: January 13, 2018, 05:18:20 AM »
Avorion rarely updates.

Even when they do update, they are not so significant and incomplete.

Just like that economy update.

And range between update are more than a monsth usualy or probably more.

And avorion dev rarely talk to its people.

Romual

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Dev Progress: Combat Update Part I
« Reply #29 on: January 13, 2018, 08:18:39 AM »
That is normal rate, not slow. Look at FTD, where updates come once/twice a year. Game is playable as it is, so not "every month" update cycle is fine. And looking how fast they fixed they salvaging mistake - they do at least READ what we write. I call the fact that there are two (?) devs, and they have their lives AND game developement. I say they are better of resting or developing instead of chatting their life off with users. Community Manager does that, and he writes update news and that's that.