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 ... 19
General Discussion / Re: Do you think turret factories need a change?
« on: March 16, 2019, 01:28:59 AM »
I don‘t know know if I would like a blueprint system as it would add another layer of complexity to the game, but it definitely is a nice idea and will give the game even more depth. The key is to slowly introduce this as you proceed towards the center, so it won‘t be overwhelming for newer players in my oppinion and the devs have not disappointed me in the past when it comes to creative solutions.
One of the reasons I created this poll was to find out how the community thinks about turret factories in general and so far the current mechanic seems not to be wanted... we will se how this develops (hopefully), if more people participate here.
Well, I think that the problem lies with the general picture of the current state of mechanics. It's not that mechanic of turret factories is undesirable - its more that the different mechanics became unreasonably disjointed as they were introduced one after the other. Turrets are looted, bought, researched and produced. Systems are looted, bought and researched. Fighters are bought and assembled. Torpedoes are only bought. These discrepancies create more complexity for newer players, than any solutions targeted at unifying the interactions with these tools could ever produce. What has to be made is a cardinal decision about the universal and balanced model of acquirement and production for all spaceship design and armament.

In the frame of my previous description that means, that instead of having a assembly functions tied to Fighters, there should be a separate Assembly tab that handles the production of all spacecraft elements - Turrets, Fighters, Systems and Torpedoes. Turret Factory provide Turret blueprints, Fighter Factories provide Fighter Blueprints, Equipment Docks provide Torpedo Blueprints, and Research Stations provide System blueprints. Players can purchase generic blueprints from associated stations or make a blueprint from an item they've acquired otherwise. All manufacturing costs are tied only to variable Resources and Credits. Type of resources needed depends on the type of the turret, fighter, torpedo or module, which will sustain the value of all resources and trading between players of different progression states. Rarity, relative power and tech level multiplies the needed amount of resource, credit value and production power required. Since the Blueprint framework already exist for Fighters, adapting it for other purposes produces no additional complexity - it only requires careful math implementation and testing.

This approach would allow to unify the mechanics under the shared framework, that is much more intuitive for any player. It also further amplifies the value of high-grade Assembly blocks, because they not only allow multiple fighters to be assembled simultaneously - they would allow multiple types of variable equipment produced at the same time. After that or any other unification is implemented, then the prospect of balancing turrets, fighters and torpedoes would become a lot easier as well.

General Discussion / Re: Do you think turret factories need a change?
« on: March 15, 2019, 02:05:09 PM »
I think, that Turret Factories should be able to consume player turrets to produce Turret Blueprints. When doing so, they associate the parameters of these turrets and assign the production cost in Resources and Credits. Resource demands can vary by the type of the turret in question, i.e. Chainguns would require Iron and Laser turrets would require Naonite due to their technological grade, even if they was originally found far beyond associated regions. That would sustain the value of lower-tier resources throughout the progression. A player then can use Assemblers, preferably on his own Stations, to replicate those Turrets over time similar to Fighters, and as such develop his own tech-base of weapons that can be equipped to his ships or traded with other players in a scaleable fashion.

Using commodities for producing turrets makes absolutely no sense, since they're oddly the only part of the spacecraft construction attached to them - neither Fighters using these same weapons, System Modules, Torpedoes or ships themselves has any relation to Commodities, and large portion of trading goods exist for the sole purpose of making turrets, which makes their variety superfluous and convoluted. Commodities should exist as an independent source of credit income and as a method of improving relations with NPC factions and increasing their capability to defend claimed sectors, wage faction wars, replenishing casualties, offering better services and greater credits rewards to players, etc.

The only other option here is tying Commodities to all space-faring elements and purging them from any unused goods and production chains, which in turn can complicate progression beyond reason. Thus, it is far better to remove all dependency of Turrets from trading, and to eliminate all Commodities, which has no value outside of these dependencies. This coincides with the general Commodity purge, that I've been advocating for over a year now.

Suggestions / Re: Fuel for generator
« on: March 09, 2019, 03:53:24 PM »

Suggestions / Re: Fuel for generator
« on: March 09, 2019, 03:53:00 PM »
The effect of Solar Panels is specifically defined by the area of a reflective surfaces. That's the point. Solar Panels are perfect for stations, that are not expected to be attacked in the first place, so you can use any disposable material you want. Using standard generator blocks for large stations with high power demand is prohibitive at very least. It's in general a bad idea to build stations and ships from the same materials.

General Discussion / Re: STATION BLOCKS?
« on: March 09, 2019, 03:47:58 PM »
You also can found your own Shipyard by the same method and use it to produce additional Station Founder ships. This is why its wise to do so foremost when you've found a sector you want to develop around.

General Discussion / Re: Research legendary item...
« on: March 09, 2019, 03:44:48 PM »
No. Other than the rarity and type, there's no connection between the properties of original systems and the outcome item. Number of input items simply determines the probability of gaining an item of improved rarity.

General Discussion / Re: Poll: How many hours have you played?
« on: March 09, 2019, 02:54:13 PM »
1129 hours as of now. Also probably around 1/3 in ship-building and meticulous spreadsheet manipulations.

Suggestions / Re: More balancing weapons
« on: March 04, 2019, 08:24:12 AM »
Everyone can of course have their own opinion, I find the different ideas on pulse cannons especially interesting. But at one point I need to contradict:

Railgun: [...] Penetration mechanic MUST NOT multiply DPS.

Railguns are designed as an anti-capital weapon. The multiplication of damage makes them specifically great against big targets. If the mechanic is OP, their overall damage should be nerfed, instead of the removal of something that makes them unique.
You have to quote a developer in order to make this claim validated, otherwise its a subjective assumption. Aside from that, they're not working as anti-capital weapon, because they do not possess any mechanics, that specifically target large ships, as an objective fact.

If we assume that they're working as intended by design, their purpose is to destroy internal blocks, which can be countered by Armor. That's it. However, regardless of Armor standing in the way, their damage against Ship's collective Hull rating is multiplied by the number of blocks the projectile passes trough, regardless of ship size or speed.

My statement DOES NOT mean, that penetration has to be abolished altogether - it simply means, that damage has to be divided between the blocks as they're being penetrated, i.e:
- Railgun has penetration rating, that defines the max amount of blocks its projectile can bypass in step-by-step basis, inversely proportional to its base damage.
- IF any non-Armor block is being hit, half of the projectile damage applied to it, and half passes deeper to hit the next block.
- IF Armor block is being hit, all the damage is applied to that block and no further penetration occurs, even if the damage results in the block's destruction.
- IF the projectile reaches the last penetration step (based on penetration score), the remaining damage is applied to the last block hit.
- IF the projectile leaves the target's structure before reaching maximum penetration step, remaining damage is discarded (full bypass).
This way you actually get the weapon, that can destroy fragile internal components if not protected by Armor, but which deals the total of its base damage or less, but not more.

As of now, Railgun is balanced to be roughly in par with other weapons by stats (although also mechanically superior to anything), but in practice its damage multiplication places it far beyond of what any other weapon can achieve, including Lightning turrets, which cannot compete with their DPS even with the bonus damage against shields and Railgun's own overheat mechanics taken into account.

Suggestions / Re: More balancing weapons
« on: March 01, 2019, 08:22:41 PM »
Chaingun: Should have less maximum range. Should ignore shields altogether.

Bolter: Should have greater overall DPS, that is countered by Armor (reduced damage against Armor blocks).

Cannon: Should have lower range, but greater DPS. Already have AoE effect.

Railgun: Power Drain per shot must be extreme, requiring batteries to use effectively. Should be a high-velocity projectile weapon. Magnetic acceleration doesn't make it an energy weapon. Penetration mechanic MUST NOT multiply DPS.

Laser: Power Drain should be constant, but higher. Lasers should range from Red to Blue frequency. Higher frequency lasers get greater range, shorter firing phases with longer cooldown and massive increase in burst damage, but with greater power demands.

Plasma: Power Drain should be constant, but higher. Damage should diminish over range.

Pulse: Power Drain should be constant, but higher. Should be mechanically similar to Cannons, but with the same penetration mechanic. Each shot that penetrates shield should cause stacking debuff, that increases the damage of all weapons against target's shields. This together with the Cannon behavior mechanics will make each penetrating shot matter.

Missile: Should be revamped as a heavy short-range weapon. Missiles would accelerate over time and produce unmatched AoE effect. Shorter range would reduce the amount of lag that is produced by tracking and particle effects. Can feature multiple warhead types, that cause temporary debuffs against different stats of the target such as power generation, maneuverability, thrust or cause crew casualties.
Either way, can be redesigned in dozens of different ways, but as it is now they're unusable and too performance-intensive.

Lightning: Power Drain should be constant, but ridiculously massive relative to other weapons, unbearable for small ships. Should be renamed into Ion Beam and inherit current Railgun projectile. When used against unshielded targets, also diminishes their power generation down to maximum 50% (debuff itself is flat and applied relative to weapon's damage).

Tesla: Power Drain should be constant, but higher. Should be much less accurate with more sporadic arc that resembles the accuracy rating. When used against unshielded targets, drains their energy directly from batteries.

Force: Should be charged via holding the fire, filling the overheat bar. When released, sends a force in a large pulse (the longer you hold, the greater the pulse). Should be more powerful overall, but require more power. Can deal damage to target's Hull with no effect on the separate blocks.

Salvage: Should work more like a Flak turret, by firing a special cartridge projectile, that explodes on target's range with AoE effect and releases materials as fraction of all blocks destroyed by the given AoE, instead of individual blocks. That will make it easier to salvage extremely small blocks, allow to collect resources even from them, and visually differentiate Salvage from Mining, that can be mis-identified to the player's detriment. Also more sensible as situational anti-ship weapon.

Suggestions / Re: Fuel for generator
« on: March 01, 2019, 07:16:14 PM »
Everyone know that solar panel is unuseful.  The logic would be that a generator need fuel to run. 0.005 fuel per second for 1 Gw of use. Wich is 1 hour of fuel with a 1000 cargo of fuel at 50Gw of use constantly. This would only make sence and also add even more complex to have ship formation, mining buddies... Solar panel would become useful for many aplication specialy stations. Batteries could also be a fuel and be able to charge them.
Solar Panels are useful in that they are way cheaper than generators and already best suited for stations, which doesn't have to care about the overall volume efficiency that solar panels undermine. Introducing fuel will simply add an extra problem for people - it won't change the frequency of use for Solar Panels at all.

Not only that, but like I've already said in another thread, that argued for the same mechanic not so long ago, it can cause players to run out of fuel in the middle of nowhere and stuck permanently, because a ship without power cannot move, turn or jump, and player's Drone cannot carry anything. As long as you cannot circumvent this problem in a reasonable and simple way, any such suggestion has no merit to be considered.

Suggestions / Re: Ship/Weapon Balance Suggestion
« on: February 20, 2019, 10:17:56 AM »
Well said, DivineEvil.
I like what you have to say about smaller ships. With their acceleration and small profile alone, they have the ability to perfectly dodge AI fire. Although, sadly, the AI is unable to effectively maneuver during battles. A smarter AI is probably what tokmak333 needs but doesn't realize. It can bring fun and challenge without removing our freedom in ship designs and abilities.
That isn't even about dodging - if you're in a Battleship against the fleet of Corvettes of roughly equivalent resource value, they:
- Require less upkeep due to lower-ranking officers operating them.
- Has more total firepower due to base turret slots given to all ships.
- Harder to hit on range regardless of maneuvers.
- Will easily hit your large ship from any direction in return.
- Require manual re-targeting for each ship you managed to destroy, which reduces your effective DPS.
- Intrinsically more mobile due to lower jump-drive penalties from mass.
- Have easier time maneuvering trough asteroids and other obstacles.

Real problems with small ships are:
- Hostile player can abuse engine boost to hit-and-run them individually without being threatened.
- Hostile player can jump away at any point, and abuse of engine boost renders the hyperspace block completely meaningless.
- They cannot be operated effectively as a combat group.
- They cannot repair themselves in case they take severe damage in combat.
- Large ships do not have enough diminishing returns to further promote use of small ships.

And the solutions are:
- Engine Boost has to be suppressed by hostile fire. You should be free to boost outside of combat, you should be free to boost into combat and even ram enemy ships if you've built enough momentum, but you should NOT be able to boost around during combat, let alone boosting away from it. If you're in, you're in. Otherwise, the PvP is dead and will remain to be so. Ships with the same engine/mass ratio should have the same max velocity.
- Jump drive should not be recharging after the jump, but prior to it, and you have to face the destination all the way trough, otherwise the procedure is failed. This will prevent people from jumping out of danger that they've put themselves in and facilitate making responsible decisions and facing the consequences for poor judgement.
- Fleet menu should allow creating Fleet Groups out of individual ships. Fleet Group would share the AI settings and could be double-clicked in Strategy mode to select the entire group to issue orders. AI settings would include formations, combat behavior (passive, standard, evasive, aggressive), combat facing, retreat rules (how much hull/shield have to be left for individual ships to disengage away from combat) and Home Sector (where the group will look for Shipyard/Repair Docks to restore the damaged and destroyed blocks).
- Massive ships should have diminishing returns from Thrusters, Power Generators and Shield blocks. Having a singular armed unit with large health pool over many separate ones is an advantage enough.

It's quite simple, actually.  We need a "hide specific block" option.  When you use the hide specific block option, all blocks you presently have selected get hidden.  This way, you can bore down to the center of your ship and edit exactly what you need to.
Well, I usually just hide all blocks aside from one I'm interested in and replace it, or I remove it and highlight another block nearby to use it to place new blocks on.

Also, the problem with the hide block options right now is that when you hide a blocks, you can't place blocks on the other side of the blocks you have hidden.  Hidden blocks should not block your ability to place of new blocks!!! I'm NOT talking about removing the restriction that two blocks cannot occupy the same space.
That is incorrect. You can place the blocks trough the hidden ones easily. You just cannot clearly see where you're placing them, because the placement ghost is overridden by the hidden blocks still, but it uses the same placement logic as usual. Its a matter of figuring out what blocks are adjacent to the ones needed to be replaced and using their faces to place new blocks.

Suggestions / Re: Ship/Weapon Balance Suggestion
« on: February 18, 2019, 05:13:04 AM »
I don't think you get what i meant DivineEvil.

You know you can always create a ship in creative mode and use them later on server. I think your statement is pointless you know that already.
And where is the justification to force players to do so? Like, I've read your initial suggestion, and I struggle to see why the balance is negatively affected by the lack of limitations, and why limitations you offer helps the case in any way. You just assert both points.

Basically, Small Turret is similar to 0.5 size weapon. Large Turret means 1.5 size. Why i suggest this idea? It will make things easier for players
Instead of an info about "you can mount 0.5 size and 1.0 size weapon only to this ship class",  -> it will be "you can mount small and medium weapons on your ship"
I'm not asking you to clarify. I say that it will technically not going to work. It also won't make it easier for anyone, because it will just conceal relevant information from players for seemingly no reason.

Yeah that is why there is an issue between small and large ships.  If ships get their own weapon layout everything will be same anyway. A corvette will able to mount long range weapons on to its medium slots and close range/defence turrets or more long range weapons to small slots.
There's no issue.

Like i said thats a big issue, imagine you have Frigate  and have weapons that fits to Battleships or Dreadnought.
So a frigate not going to have same range as a battleship or same/more Damage than a battleship. Frigate will be more accurate, a lot more faster but a Battleship will have more DPS and Range than a Frigate however its guns not going to be accurate like Frigate so some shots will miss the Frigate.
Again, there's no point to establish any of these arbitrary distiction. A size 1.5 Railgun turret is just that, a turret on a 15 meter-wide mount. If a Plasma requires smaller turret than a Railgun, then it will be so. If a ship can handle the upkeep, then it can use it. If there's issues with the balance, it is between different weapons, not between different ships.

and? You know Fighter and Bombers are completely different, Fighters are designed to fight other fighters and  destroy bombers. While Bombers are designed to kill Capital ships.
They are fictionally different, but are of the same size class - small craft with a single pilot. What weapons they're armed with and what their stats are is again up to the player, who buys or constructs them, not for anyone else. Gap between fighters and bombers is irrelevant in scale, where ships can reach up to several kilometers in highest dimension.

Also tell me why should i waste my time with writing Numbers etc? This is a suggestion after all, its up to game devs i think they know ship classes already you can see that if you play the game little bit anyway.
You shouldn't waste your time with suggestions to begin with if they are based solely on your personal preferences from other games, where everything is governed by arbitrary limitations. The reason developers of such games do so is to facilitate the pre-designed game world. Avorion is a sandbox, so it doesn't need to incorporate some specific vision of what everyone considers to be a Destroyer.

You are way too focused on specific yet irrelevant details of 'how', and haven't paid nearly enough time to think about 'why' part.

Moreover, its not about numbers, but about the idea of asking developers to establish named ship classes across 15 slot brackets, where you cannot manage even half of that. Ship classes used on NPC ships were and still are arbitrary, and literally nobody uses them as reference for their own nomenclature. They're given to ease the identification of threat level, nothing more.

Yes? and? I don't know what you mean there.
What I mean is that there's already all the relevant systems for the same idea in place, and any ship can carry Torpedoes to an appropriate extent.

Why? Because Torpedo will make these ships a THREAT especially against bigger ships like Battleship/Dreadnought/Carrier etc
Why i listed new missile launchers? Missiles are faster/smaller less lethal than Torpedo. It is for Fighters/Capital Ships.
What makes them a threat is the same weapons (which you apparently are against), greater total turret slot count, lower target profile and reduced upkeep for the same amount of resources.

I've played Avorion for over 1000 hours, and I can clearly see, that smaller ships are overlooked for a half-a-dozen different reasons, (easy casualty, abuse of engine boost and jump-drives in combat, lack of effective management and control, very poor combat AI, etc) none of which has anything to do with weapons they can or can't use. This is not about small ships in the first place - its about fleets as a whole. There's no point in using smaller ships if you cannot use them effectively.

Torpedo Launchers are overpowered currently, it is pretty easy to instakill most ships.  So Torpedo needs to be balanced. They are too fast for a torpedo
Make missiles faster but deal less damage and easier to destroy. Make Torpedo slower,more durable.
This looks more like a proper suggestion. If you have more specialized torpedoes, then you don't need to invent a whole new weapon system, that is essentially analogous to the present one.

Suggestions / Re: Ship/Weapon Balance Suggestion
« on: February 16, 2019, 12:35:39 AM »
There is no certain ship class when it comes to build something mostly because there is no limit, you can create a ship that is larger than any station etc.
So how about we put some limitation to build mode?
There's simply no point. You already can see the number of systems your ship can support. There's no visible reasons to force the player to stick to specific brackets. So what will happen if your building the ship and being attacked? You wont be able to leave the editor because your ship isn't big enough to satisfy stated size class? And if you can, then the limitation is arbitrary and pointless. Your Corvette is not my Corvette.

Now let's talk about weapons and weapon sizes
Instead of having size 0.5-1.0-1.5-2.0 weapons how about we give ships small-medium-large-xlarge weapon classes? Maybe Titan weapon classes to make them special? This idea is similar to Stellaris-Eve online but mostly Stellaris. Instead of mounting full chainguns or railguns on to ships how about mounting variety of weapons on each ship?
This won't work simply because different weapons have different size variations, so displaying a text definition will not clearly inform a player how large the turret is and how large a Turret Base Block you need to have to mount it.

Let's say there is no size 0.5-1.0 etc weapons but only small-medium-large-xlarge and Titan weapon classes. Of course this will be up to ship class you choice
A corvette should get;
A Corvette should get whatever Corvette wants. That's why turrets are slot-based - this way you can arm your ship however you want, depending on its role. You can have an Assault Cruiser almost entirely loaded with long-range cannons, or a Brawler one with lots of small weapons, or a Defense Cruiser that uses less weapons, but dedicate more slots for stronger shields, etc. If you want to define your ships by system slots in a particular way, do that. If you want to predefine weapon layouts for your ships, do that also. Just don't assume your nomenclature is best in the world, and the game has to be changed to suit it. Aside from the fact, that you've managed to name only 8 definitions, two of which are small craft, and yet another one is a role, not a size class.

How about seperating them from guns? I am talking about Seeker Launcher Missiles.
We already have Torpedoes.

Suggestions / Re: Another idea to enhance independent targeting
« on: February 13, 2019, 02:27:36 PM »
Mostly agree.

Rather than having weaker Independent Targeting turrets, I would like there to be "Manual" turrets, that are 50% stronger and have 30% reduced power and crew demands. All other turrets should have Independent Targeting as a core feature, in order to accentuate autonomous broadside and maneuvering combat over face-to-face, "fire everything!" standoffs of today.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19