Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - DivineEvil

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
Suggestions / Re: Weapon and armour/hull/shield dynamics
« on: October 01, 2018, 04:25:02 AM »
Great post (#5).
Wondering about the post's age - is the info still relevant?  Any recent nerfs or upgrades?
In case you haven't played for a while, I'm just going to write down some of the new features and my present issues with the balance and weapon/protection interactions:

- Torpedoes has been added as a block-based super-weapon. They have a dedicated storage space similar to Fighters, and given ammunition varies in velocity, range, durability and warhead type with different preset damage values with an overall scaling on rarity tier. Main problem at the moment is that they can only be purchased in Equipment Docks and has to be manually loaded. There's no point in using them anywhere but on your flagship, because AI ship will expend them mindlessly and won't be able to rearm or manufacture them.

- Players can design their own visuals for the turret, and different weapon types have associated size brackets, that define the damage output and range in exchange for the lower tracking rate and higher turret slot requirements. Overall a positive change towards the variation between different turrets, although it lands a hit against the general weapon capacity relative to ship size and make them seem under-armed in most cases.

- We now have specialized point-defense weapons, and not one but three variants of them. It's a very good thing with little to whine about, although these weapons attack large ships too when there's no other more feasible targets around, and there's no answer why would they ever do that, considering their virtually insignificant damage output against them.

- Some substantial changes has been made to behavior of most weapons. In general, Energy weapons like Plasma, Tesla and Lightning deal extra damage to shields, while explosive weapons like Bolters, Cannons and Missiles deal splash damage past the shields. These multipliers doesn't seem to be openly displayed anymore for some unknown reason.

- Railguns are still extremely overpowered by far and throughout. Despite there's being a displayed penetration modifier for some of these, it doesn't seem to have any effect. Railguns are still instant-hit, long-range, high-accuracy, largely non-restrictive weapons, that deal multiplied damage to ship's hull despite armor and whatnot and easily decimate anything in their wake, with only Lightning cannons coming second, as they help to drain shields on similar range.

- On the other hand, Missiles still seem completely redundant. They're utterly meaningless without the Heat Seeker modifier and too weak and laggy with it. There's nothing they do well, that other weapons can't do better, and thus there's no reason to use them. Other than that, Cannons seem to remain a worse version of Railguns, without the instant-hit and multiplied damage quirks to bear, Lasers are the worse version of Tesla's, and Pulse cannons are worse version of Chainguns.

- General balance issue still lies with the convoluted system of unlimited, escalating energy drain on some weapons like lasers, instead of a more restrictive, but user-friendly flat energy consumption. That makes weapons with the associated mechanic very unfavorable for player flagship (due to unpredictable demands and superfluous manual management) and utterly useless for AI-controlled ships (which power-drain themselves to death using those weapons). I still cannot figure out how some weapons simply overheat, and others don't and instead drain infinite amounts of energy to manage heat.

- PvP combat is still effectively dead, because there are no energy-draining weapons and no prerequisites for boosting out of combat.

- I've also reconsidered some details around my ideas, but generally they remain the same. Weapons still follow the technological progression, culminating in Railguns and Lightning turrets removing the necessity for most other kind of weapons, and my idea, is that all weapons has to have their niche, and that heavier weapons with longer range also should give less DPS and require additional investments into energy supply, which unfortunately not the case atm.

Suggestions / Re: How about a spinning block?
« on: September 28, 2018, 06:39:42 PM »
Ввиду механики построения кораблей, подобный элемент строительства скорее всего введен не будет. Внешний дизайн турелей может содержать вращающиеся элементы, так как они не являются физически-интерактивными объектами и столкновения между блоками не имеют какой-либо потенциально негативного эффекта. Это нельзя сказать про корабли - мало того, что блоки корабля имеют строгую привязку к его структуре, так и нету возможности допустимым образом проверять столкновения между движушимися блоками. Новые блоки для кораблей будут добавляться по мере необходимости и целесообразности, но предложенный тип блока к таковым не относится и требует значительных изменений в корне движка игры.

Due to the principle of ship structure, this sort of constructive element will likely going to be neglected. Custom turret designs allow for rotating element because turrets themselves are not physical entities as such, and collisions between their blocks have no potential drawbacks. Same can't be said about the ships - aside from the fact, that ship blocks has a strict hierarchical dependencies, there's also no viable way to govern the collisions between the moving parts. Thus, new blocks will be added as necessary and by expediency, but the suggested block type doesn't met these terms and would require significant tweaks to the Avorion's own game engine.

General Discussion / Re: Devs pleas fix this.
« on: September 21, 2018, 06:57:03 PM »
Ouch, modifying rescaled ships and especially pasted block groups sure is a bad idea.
When rescaling a block group, the group's size will be rounded by the Scale Size: so if you have seven 1x1x1 blocks in a X-row, and scale the group to 10x1x1, the seven blocks will have individual sizes of 10/7 x1x1, so 1,428571...x1x1.
Multiply that issue with three dimensions and you'll soon get "stranded" on "Match Block" dependency and forced to make imprecise fixes and endure misalignments.

There's also the floating point errors, and I also hate them with a passion...
I don't understand how floating point errors even happen with numbers with no decimals, and even powers of two at that !
It seems the contents of the "block info" dialog are loaded into the block size pointer, then reloaded back to the block info, causing the floating point error to appear.
Of course using numbers who aren't made of additions of powers of two (or fractions thereof) will cause bigger rounding errors due to how floating point variables are stocked (so, for the computer which counts in binary, 0.2 = 0.125 (1/8) + 0.0625 (1/16) + 0.0078125 (1/128) + 0.00390625 (1/256) + 0.00048828125 (1/2048), so happens to be a "real" number with infinite decimals in binary).

There should be a 3-decimal rounding rule to avoid the floating point errors, as 0.999999x1x1 blocks cannot house size-1 turrets and aaagh >:(

Right now, with hardpoints, I try rounding to the desired value when putting the block when there's only one erroneous value, and when both hardpoint sizes are erroneous values, I add .01 to those values to overcompensate from the error.
Well as you can see, OP is building a new station, so I still don't see how one can arrive from integers to decimals. Unless he's copy-pastes fragments of the curve, as if its going to increase the building rate...

General Discussion / Re: Torp blueprints.
« on: September 17, 2018, 03:46:44 AM »
Definitely. Its pretty much the only drawback of torpedoes - the fact, that you have to buy them all the time. The way they're launched, the flight, explosion, sounds, variable models - I like all of it. Manually resupplying them is a pain tho.

General Discussion / Re: Devs pleas fix this.
« on: September 15, 2018, 04:48:52 PM »
I'm not sure what the developers can even do about this "problem".  Using the 'match block' function can only adapt the dimensions of a new block to the block that it is placed upon - there's no mechanism to make it adapt the dimensions from any other blocks.

I mean no offense, but in my opinion you simply should keep to integer numbers from the beginning of building process to the end, and there's absolutely no point to go into decimals for building anything, including the circular and curved shapes. I have no clue how one can step away from integer values into 5+ decimals apart from simple negligence in the process.

Gameplay Discussion / Re: The Mobile Energy Lab has 3.00011e6 firepower.
« on: September 12, 2018, 12:12:51 PM »
I've found my Wakaba (ship armoured only in reflectors) does not resist lasers particularily well, so it made me wonder if there is a bug in damage resistant materials. I almost feel that only the full blocks resist but not the edges/corners, which would explain how the second ship died almost as easily as the first. Can someone test it before me ?
I've never seen or heard anyone or anything stating, that Reflectors can resist beam weapons. As far as I can tell its just a decorative material with normal mapping only and black-body reflection ratio.

Creations / Re: Battleship request
« on: September 03, 2018, 05:58:31 PM »
First, you'll need to check if your OS has "hidden" files displayed.
The directory goes (your documents folder)/AppData/Roaming/Avorion/ships. That's where your saved ships are saved. Put the contents of the archive there and you should be able to load them up in-game.

Creations / Re: Battleship request
« on: September 02, 2018, 11:25:40 PM »
Here you go, a quick build. Should have probably neglected the Hyperspace Cores in favor of more thrusters, but overall a pretty balanced layout.

Feedback / Re: Fighter feedback
« on: September 01, 2018, 05:34:22 PM »
That's ironic. Pretty much the same as with Turret Factories - storing turret components in their storage seems to be the perfect idea... until they start to sell them in every direction, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Creations / Re: Battleship request
« on: September 01, 2018, 03:21:53 AM »
- What number of slots are you looking for? Everyone basically use their own classification if any, and for me the Battleship is at least 12 modules, and that's about 1,5 million of materials, all the way to 2,5 million.
- Is there any parametric specifics you're looking for? Balanced build? Mobility over armor? Strafing over turning?
- Do you have any preferences to the shape and style of the ship? Do you play beta state and would prefer turret base blocks or not?

Suggestions / Re: Freedom for Illegal Slaves
« on: August 30, 2018, 02:12:48 AM »
I did suggest to simply remove them. Apart from the fact, that there's no "legal" slaves hence its just as redundant to call them illegal, just like the illegal drugs, slaves are illogical commodity for the space-faring factions, that can deal much better with regular robotic servitors. At the very limit of the common sense, one can imagine taking slaves from particular hostile factions for the sake of humiliation, and yet it still doesn't make sense to buy them from somebody. All things considered, slaves should be removed together with several dozens of redundant and silly commodities.

Most illegal goods should sell cheap at some factions where they are legal (and free to transport) and bought high at factions where they're not at specific stations depending on the commodity in question, and few should be illegal everywhere but on the Smugglers Stations and pirate Shipyards. However, most of all they should make sense in the given environment, and there are plenty of options to choose from:  hacking devices, stimulants, forged IDs, security overrides, exotic species, refugees, stealth suits, etc. You also do not need to call Drug as such - call it something like Spices, Sand, Powder, Bliss etc. I think majority of people can figure out that its a drug on their own or read description as last resort.

Other than that, Smuggler's Stations should not only buy stolen goods, but also sell [counterfeit] goods, which work just like regular commodities, but sold much cheaper while being controlled for. Isn't that what's smuggling were supposed to be in the first place?

Suggestions / Re: error or not
« on: August 28, 2018, 01:02:19 PM »
When you press to choose the pre-built part from the palette and it appears in editor window like you have shown, you can hold ALT and click on the block in the part to choose which block you want to use as mounting point. place that block where it fits, and the rest of the part will be attached to it. You cannot edit it because its a complete hierarchy of blocks, and until you place it, its blocks has no location coordinates, but only the relative positions in that hierarchy. When blocks are highlighted as red means they cannot be placed due to the lack of hierarchy supporting them.
После того как ты выбрал сохранненую деталь в панели префабов, ты можешь зажать ALT и выбрать блок в проекции, который будет использоваться для монтажа. Поставь этот блок куда тебе нужно, и остальные блоки уже присоединятся к нему сверху. Редактировать префабы нельзя, так как они представляют собой иерархию без реальных координат (только относительное положение в иерархии). Когда префаб подсвечен красным, это значит что некоторые блоки не могут быть установлены, и это нарушает всю нижестоящую иерархию.

General Discussion / Re: First crafted turret
« on: August 28, 2018, 03:53:46 AM »
Oh man, those lasers sound gnarly. 

I don't know how I would feel about the original turrets being taken out of the turret factories.  I always felt outclassed just outside of the center barrier until I built these railguns.  They're opening the door to more materials/cashflow which (I'm hoping) will make the transition to the center more doable.
Hm, from my experience the reason you might feel outclassed is because you just can't make an effective loadout with dozens of different weapons. Other than that, I think that it became fairly difficult to provide your ship with a reasonable amount of weapons after the changes to turret slot requirements - at least, when you riding something around a 12-slot ship and larger, the weapons you can mount on it look pathetic compared to the ship size, unless you're playing on a modded server like Rusty's CorePvP (as I do), where people literally farm abusive Xsotan artifacts that grant up to 11 slots.

It not that I find it hard to match the power of enemies around the barrier without factory-made turrets - its that these weapons completely demolish anything the region throws at you. You can practically wipe out the entire faction assault fleet with a single ship. Weapons that you loot never really give you that kind of edge all the way prior, and once you've found a factory with a decent tech level Xanion weapons, all of it becomes completely redundant. All the natural transitions happen in a way, where you have to survive with inferior weapons until you obtain enough weapons matching the area.

P.S. I also do not use Railguns for the sole reason of how outrageously overpowered all of them are. You can use any weapons you like to break down the shield, but once that is done, Railguns easily blow all other weapons out of the water, no contest possible.

General Discussion / Re: Calling for the death of the RNG god
« on: August 22, 2018, 01:37:34 AM »
Thanks, I'll give it a try. Or perhaps I'll kill my inner min-maxer and willfully go for something weaker just for variety's sake ;)
I sell all Lasers and PDLs, just because they lack their own charisma. Wish they would fire in pulses and overheat.

If every forum exchange is an argument for you, then this indeed explains the attitude you are bringing here.
Every one that is about suggestions and issues. People make claims and I evaluate them. I make claims and people are free to evaluate them. Same with this thread. There's arguments given, and I respond to them when I care. And here, we don't even have a suggestion - its a discussion on the topic. If there's a place to expect the arguing in, its here.

It's jabs like this that make discussion's participant come out as confrontational to others. Keep doing it and you become toxic to the community overall.
I usually don't do these. You can check on your own if you want. I'm just highlighting the point, that forums can in fact involve arguing for and against the points in question. A forum, where nobody is arguing, and agrees with everything and never points out the problems, is as good as dead to me.  If that makes others consider me as toxic, fine.
Frankly, I'm old enough to not give a damn. My arguments stand on their own merits.

People come to gaming communities to drop observations, ideas and experiences. Its extension of the fun they've had at game. If you make things dead serious, you will end everybody who's not alike quit. Basically, you will end with Infinity Battlescape's forums where same 5 people are hounding everybody else off for years because they will beat every point going against their vision of the game to the ground.
I don't think your description applies to the thread we're in. I think its a pretty broad criticism of the game, that should be discussed seriously, trying to find the best potential solutions possible.
My points aren't special. You can prove me wrong. You also can ignore me, that's fine. Anyone is welcome to introduce their input. I hope you are not criticizing me for being active on a forum, which otherwise sees very little action.

People will sometimes propose things simply because they find them cool. Like me, because I loke cool weapon names in space games. Or like that guy next thread who proposed Stellaris galaxy map, because he found it cool looking.
Yes, and that is the type of an proposition that I hate the most. Any change or the addition to the game or software has to be justified, especially when talking about very small indie developer teams like Avorion have. It has to be possible, functional and beneficial for the players and thus for the game as a whole, proportional to the efforts required. If it also happens to be cool, there's nothing better than that. However, just being "cool" doesn't  cut it, especially if its one of a "seen it in other game, it was cool, lets copy it" kind.

Sure, you can look at it in a "yeah it looks cool, thumbs-up, good idea" manner - what are the developers supposed to do with it? Like, seriously, what kind of changes are expected by the author of the idea? And then people start to wonder why majority of suggestions are ignored - most likely because those suggestions aren't provided in a form, that describes the actual objectives and explains why reaching them would make the game better.

So yeah, we have got different named variants for Torpedoes. Why did we got them? Because torpedoes are variable types of ammunition for a single weapon, and their stats are not random. This is hard to apply to the weapon turrets with RNG stats, unless you sacrifice RNG for the sake of cool, but ultimately meaningless distinctions.

People claim that Avorion has RPG features, not that it is. This is also why I've called it your original stance on the matter a false dichotomy. According to your argument so far a game can be either 100% RPG, or 0% RPG, with nothing inbetween. You are completely blind to concept of mixing genres and games having influences form other genres.

And I've called your previous points red herring, because thats what they were. I've said "this looks similiar to elephant, it has long thunk, big ears and seems very large!" and you said "it's not elephant! Tapir also has large thunk, fennec also has large ears and whales are also large!". This way of deconstructing opponents argument into individual points, then arguing those points in isolation is not logically sound - and may be intepreted as sign of dishonest intent between other side's participation in discussion.
OP called it a hybrid between an RPG and a Building Game. My point just about that there's nothing RPG about Avorion, period. There's many features and mechanics, some of them come from many different genres, but none of them originate from RPG. This is why Avorion is not tagged as RPG, even though people are capable of defining those tags themselves.

I've never deconstructed your arguments - I addressed them using the same counter-argument. Talking analogies, you're basically arguing that the plane is a car, and when I say its not, you reply with "oh, but it has wheels and doors and a windshield and combustion engines and stuff". Well that true, but that's not the primary features that define a car - all of these features exist in completely different objects. Its a good starting point to know the difference between the plane and a car, because otherwise you might suggest additions, that a plane doesn't need at best, or even can make it worse at what it supposed to do.

The "objectively not" and "by definition" are just a rhetorical manouvers to give your opinion more credibility in the eyes of bystanders - they don't hold up to popular scrutiny.
Definitions, that do not hold to public scrutiny are useless. You either agree to definitions, or you don't. If you don't then you can just as well throw them all out of the window and just call it all "features". If you do, then you have to understand what the RPG genre implies and what features defines it as such.

In Avorion your ship is a player defined character. In fact, I would argue that Avorion is also a game featuring player created character classes, and (in if player chooses so), a party RPG! Ships/characters manifest player's presence within the game world, they are heavily player-defined, they fight, loot, obtain magic trinkets improving their stats.
Using this methodology, I can define the vast majority of games as RPGs, which makes the underlying principle useless. I can hardly understand, how can you not see a difference between a character and a unit. I don't think there's an RPG that makes you spend harvested resources to construct character, nor the one, that allows you to just build as many of them as you want.

I would also like to add that for many players sandbox games focused on player generated content are intrusively RPG'ish in their nature. Because so little is defined in world-burding sense, the players themselves start making up stories and playing out the roles within those.
They're RPG'ish because a player has a character they control. Once they have units and building and harvest resources to build more units and upgrading them and replacing the lost ones, this is not an RPG.

In Avorion, I have made up a whole race with background and lore and "enforced" approach to difference NPC factions, etc. and I actively working to design a catalog of ship/turret designs and station templates with shared stylistic decisions and all that jazz, but that still doesn't magically change the genre of the game I'm playing.

Let me answer to this with single quote from makers of one of failed software products of recent times:
"Unfortunately you’re not in the market you think you’re in – you’re in the market your users think you’re in."

Its same for all computer software. It's why some games stay niche forever while other grow. Creators assuming "A" is sell-point, while players come for "B". Creators adapt and the core fanbase cries "treason!", or they stay faithful to the vision and core goes "you just don't understand what the game is about".

I'll leave it up to you to think where you are on that spectrum.
It's a little simpler than that. Creators make a product, that offers something to players. Players who want this product play the game, and player who want something else will play something else.

This is how any market works. First, you have pioneers, that kick-start the market by offering something completely new, mostly placing an emphasis on the ideas over execution. Then the entrepreneurs flood the market and exploit it based on what most people want for profits - these are the games, which are most popular, largely the most conceptually primitive and the clones of the same idea with focus on the execution. And then you have indie's, which still offer something new, even though it will never be as popular, holding to the principles of pioneers - ideas over profits.

Avorion is not a game made for profits - games like PUBG are. Avorion is a niche game, because like few others of such sort, it is based on the idea, that your creative skills is what make you succeed in it. Nobody is taking Shipyard-generated ships seriously. Nobody is relying on their twitch-shooter or deep-strategy abilities here. People who are unwilling to spend time harvesting variable resources and building ships will not be able to receive what Avorion has to offer, so it has nothing to do with selling points. Same is true for Starmade. Same is true for Empyrion. Same is true for From The Depths. Same is true for Space Engineers. Same is true for Kerbal Space Program. Niche games usually grow by becoming better, not by becoming different. If you really want for Avorion to grow, then you'd need to get rid of building principles and instead add surface-level bells and whistles, but that will not longer be Avorion.

There's a similar difference between Artists and Designers. An Artist mostly does what he wants, and some people like it. A Designer does what people will like, and what he wants is irrelevant.

General Discussion / Re: Calling for the death of the RNG god
« on: August 21, 2018, 02:18:26 AM »
I've didn't find a laser. I've found factory. All my ships so far are mounting 10-20 lasers because nothing else tops that DMG per slot.
Tesla probably can do that, since it deals like 5x the damage against shields.

Oh, but you acting to the contrary, taking 180 degree stance to everything that doesn't align with your points.
It's called arguing for my points. I'm sorry you do not realize you can actually do that. If I don't have a stance, then I don't participate.

Unless somebody agrees with you, you will make it your point to contest all parts of message you are replying to. You'll go as low as to argue semantics, and then argue for red herring just to make sure you've got last word or "right" . I've observed it there, and I've observed it other feedback threads you are participating in.
Not all parts, only the ones I somewhat disagree with. The point is mostly to make people defend and reinforce the necessity and importance of suggestions they're making. There's no red herrings here.

If you finding something misleading, then you have a freedom to not drive it further and respond to the relevant cases, for example why do you consider it important to have arbitrary distinctions between weapon variants. You were the one who ignored that argument and went for this path instead. Don't blame me for your decisions.

The way you are arguing Avorion having RPG mechanics is meaningless to larger debate - a red herring. Bulk of people are describing this game the Space Diablo/Eve Offline. Even if you prove that characteristics of RPG are also present in other genres, that doesn't make logically sound counterpoint to Avorion mechanics overlapping with RPG genre.
I'm not proving RPG features in other games - I'm proving that Avorion has none of those. Actually, evaluating Avorion as an RPG is the greatest red herring there is to find. It's just objectively not, which is why making suggestions that rely on that definition is counter-productive. Whatever someone describes it is irrelevant - if there's no defined player character present, then it cannot be an RPG by definition.

When you see a greater picture and understand what Avorion was designed to be and where it's being led across time, then you realize which suggestions drive it further along the concept.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16