Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Combat is Boring, Ships are Boring

Discussion in 'General' started by ChoMar, Feb 18, 2015.

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

    Messages:
    93
    Title may be a bit too much, but...
    The way combat is right now its kinda... dull with large Ships is PvP.
    Not really anything worth targeting. I mean, sure, your turrets and the other ships turrets. But after that? The Engines? The Cockpit? The Reactors?
    The Reactors are not a good Target. Weapons hardly use Energy and there are no shields or anything, if you get lucky and kill ALL enemy reactors the ship is dead, of course. But if the enemy Ship uses mostly small reactors, good luck.
    The Engines may be worth targeting, but then again theyre also whats worth salvaging.
    The Cockpit, of course, hitting that is good, but also kinda hard, because its usually heavy armored. 2 or 3 layers of heavy armor and in the middle of the ship and having two cockpits is rather normal on a playerbuild warship.
    So, where am i giong?
    There is too much on a Ship thats not worth hitting. Ive seen a Ship getting hit by a ballistic Weapon (a big Rock that is). Made a big hole. Ship was still more or less capable of maneuvering and fighting. Sure it might have lost a few thrusters, gyros and reactors, but other than that pretty ok. I think that having damaged something between 30 to 50% of a ship should cause it to be pretty much "out".

    This game could profit from Shields and Beam Weapons. Both needs energy, so hitting a reactor might have an Impact. And maybe targeting sensors and/or stuff. More systems that are critical, that need redundancy.
     
  2. Oselotti Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    837
    I undestand what you mean. End of the big warship should be more like big ball of fire or nice chain reactions than pile of junk. But ships are too simple so than can't happen.
     
  3. tankmayvin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,863
    IMO you're doing PVP wrong if you using exclusively conventional block weapons like rocket launchers and turrets and then complaining that you can't hit vital stuff because it's too heavily armored.

    Not that the combat system doesn't need major work and fleshing out, because it does.

    But there are plenty of player created weapons that can crack the hull of pretty much any reasonable ship armor.
     
  4. Oselotti Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    837
    I don't think he's asking stronger weapons but ships itself should have something more vulnerable parts that can cause something really bad. Not necessary big explosion every time but when the vital parts gets hit it should affect the most of the ship badly. Fuel, cooling etc are that kind of items and also big ships combat should be more chaotic and lucky shots should have meaning. I still love the game :)
     
  5. Cindermoo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    45
    What do you suggest to be added?
     
  6. Bobylein Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    201
    I don't think that large ship combat should be more chaotic or depending on lucky shots, you spent hours to build a proper warship just to lose it after some volleys?

    But yea the combat system is really not that great, the problem is also that most player built weapons won't work that good in multiplayer, often parts crash together and no damage is done or they just clip through each other.
     
  7. andykarta Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    163
    Nuclear power plants should explode with a huge radius, like say the size of an asteroid, when destroyed. Guns should take A LOT of power to operated. Missiles should combine their blasts when destroyed. Oh and gravity generators should produce wild loopy effects when they get destroyed because all those boz higgies that get released.
     
  8. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    personally I'd like

    - real weapons
    - targetting
    - more systems (optional)
     
  9. DDP-158 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,748
    He already stated it at the bottom of his post with the standard shields and lasers. Though he pointed out a flaw in his own request by noting the difficulty in already hitting a reactor, let alone hitting all reactors on a ship. All the shields will do is add a HP buffer to his current dilemma, which is the second issue that many of us share with shields in that we feel they are a lazy way to strengthen a ship.
     
  10. Hatchie Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    194
    This is the way to make combat more interesting!
     
  11. Danzarlo Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    182
    Im not sure about that blast radius...
     
  12. Oselotti Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    837
    I don't mean that result should be based on luck but really badly made ship should be destroyed with lucky shot.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2015
  13. SenorZorros Master Engineer

    Messages:
    7,063
    I guess there is a difference between a lucky shot hitting a badly protected area or cutting the power to the right wing and a random "critical hit chance".
     
  14. Syncaidius Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    824
    IMO, what Mark originally suggested would happen with damaged modules sounded like the best way to make it more interesting.

    He mentioned that a damage thruster would thrust in a random direction (within reason) when damaged/distorted.

    We also have reactor leak effects now, if they added a damage zone to those for players, it'd add +1 hazard when boarding or moving around on said ship.

    Gyros could randomly cut out for intervals of time based on their damage. Doors could get jammed or randomly shut/open when you try to open/close them.

    Weapons could have a chance of not firing (jamming) when damaged. More damage = more chance of jamming each time it tries to fire. At the worst state, missile launchers could have a chance of exploding instead of actually firing.

    And things like andykarta said.

    Basically, the "malfunctioning" state of any module could be amplified by its damage.

    To me, that'd make combat much, much more interesting. As well as the repair side of things too.

    I'm basing this all on the fact that when they added all the new damage particle effects (despite having no physical effect on anything), that alone made repairing our ship MUCH more interesting after fighting a military transport. :D


    Anything but exploding nuclear reactors though. They don't really explode in "real life" because the uranium they use is not weapon grade, so much less refined. They meltdown and bleed radiation everywhere instead. We have warheads to do the exploding part for us. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2015
  15. WDMeaun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    142
    Not so much into the nuclear explosions myself, but the other suggestions sound nice.

    Having damaged (functional) blocks function less.
    I don't care about combat specific (it's not Space Combateers), but it should also improve that a lot.

    For example having a miner drone.. maybe there was a little mistake and 1 drill got damaged.
    Instead of drilling constantly, it should fail once in a while. (in combination with an automated mining drone, could be fatal)

    If you got hit by someone and some gyro's were hit (or just 1 of many), that 1 gyro could periodically mess up your pitch/roll.
    You would have to either turn it off, or repair it.

    Reactors could have a radiation, when damaged (and output less power).. maybe just have power shortcircuits, when damaged.

    Cargo containers could leak some of its cargo; Batteries would be less effective; Conveyors would also leak some cargo; Connectors might leak, or not be able to lock anymore; Weapons would malfunction (maybe with smaller explosions or something); etcetera
     
  16. RTM Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    285
    Why?

    A nuclear-powered starships don't really have anything on it to blow up. Even ammo magazines, if properly made, don't really explode but rather burn. Modern armored vehicles have hatches which blow out in case of magazine fire and re-direct the fire outwards, so pressure doesn't build up.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2015
  17. Ruges Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    The solution is simple for what the OP is asking for. We need a couple new blocks. I would make them 2x2x1 (like the medbays).

    1. Weapons control. Its a block that controls all weapons on a ship. They wont automatically shoot without one. Although players can still manually control them threw the control panel.
    2. Engine control. Engines cannot function without one. However manual override can still be set. (if destroyed a ship comes to a complete stop before shutting off the engines).
    3. Gyro control. Without one none of the gyro's would function.
    4. Power Management. Controls power going from reactors, panels, batteries to subcomponents. Without one weapons, engines, gyro's..... will not work.
    5. Manufacturing control. allows the operation of refineries and assemblers.
    6. Logistics control. allows items to automatically move threw conveyors. IE without it ammo would not go from container to a turret automatically. However a player could still manually drag the item over.

    So you would need to add each one of these blocks to your ship in order for all the sub systems to function. A player could even add multiple of these blocks for back up systems.


    However you still need to add the all important enable disable option in the server settings panel. This way players who prefer there scifi looking ships don't have to add this blocks. Much like they can enable/disable thruster damage.
     
  18. WDMeaun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    142
    I would rather suggest using a 'power line' method or something similar.
    1 block is quite large. 2x2x1 controls blocks (I do like your idea) would be relatively huuuge. (as it's basically only computing and the software might fit inside the astronaut's watch)

    Currently all kind of wiring is integrated into all blocks, but maybe it would be nice, when you have to 'draw' the connections yourself.
    Shoot out the correct block and you lose the wiring to certain other objects.
    Design a ship well and wire several fallbacks.

    I do not really like the current implementation of power, where everything is powered, as long it's on the same grid.

    Could also more easily implement logical contructors and such, when you can do the wiring yourself.
    (It does need a seperate HUD/UI part, where wiring could be shown in highlighted colors)
     
  19. DaveUnder Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    220
    How will it make anything different?
    Instead of 10 weapons you will have 10 weapons and 10 weapon control units etc ;)
    Dave
     
  20. Paintbox Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    11
    What I am thinking of, is that you could have different types of armour (depending on their chemical properties) Some armour is good at protecting against Asteroids / Meteors, Others against missiles (explosives), Other type against gattling (directed energy/guns) . This would factor in while building. You have to make choices, this is what I figure happens in real life engineering: You want a fast ship? Cool, but forget any kind of armour. You want that SUPER turbo laser.. awesome! But be prepared to have 5 reactors on board, taking tremendous amount of Uranium.

    All in all, I think everything should cost a lot more energy in the upper echelons, I am thinking logaritmic in terms of mass vs energy. So small ship equals infinite energy with a little uranium (like it is now) and then it scales up rapidly. So that dreadnought you are building? Nice, but be prepared to haul the uranium for it.

    Also different armours makes you think in terms of use your ship is going to have. Engineering is making choices, and I would love to see the game reflect that even more. Now it is still pretty much a one size fits all.
     
  21. WDMeaun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    142
    No.. you would have atleast 1 control unit.
    You could have a front and back control unit.. when 1 gets damaged, you lose weapons of 1 side.

    Rather than disabling the weapon itself, you could target the control unit instead.
     
  22. Ruges Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    Sure if the player decides he needs 9 backup control units you would have 10. But at 2x2x1, That's 40 more block spaces he is adding to his ship. And these blocks would be as week as a conveyor. So you would have to put armor around them adding even more to the ship. They would also consume allot of power meaning you might need to add another reactor. So that adds another vulnerable spot to the ship.

    But basically how its different is it adds different places a player can attack. He can go after the turrets directly, Or he can go after the control directly, Or he can go after the power source, Or the power control, Or the conveyor control. he could disable the engine control to make the ship stop to make it easier to attack.
     
  23. DaveUnder Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    220
    I will add one control unit for every weapon for example.
    weapon -> exposed outside - easy target
    control unit -> inside behind armor blocks - not so easy target.

    In big picture control units will not add much value for making battles more interesting.
    They will just make building ships more complicated and will force players to build thicker brick layer around important parts ;)

    I understand that idea is nice and fancy, but quite zero practical benefits to make battles more interesting with this game concept. ( I will rest my case to prevent endless trolling over it)

    Dave
     
  24. WDMeaun Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    142
    I still like my 'wiring' idea.. which kind of replaces the need of control units and might be easier integrating into the game. (and allows certain logical operations)
     
  25. a2457 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,366
    thing is, stuff that would be worth to shoot at (engines, reactors yadada) worth far too more as salvage.
    armor blocks for example aer expendible in this regard, but blasting a big hole on armor does not cripple a bigger ship at all.
    if wires would be implemented as blocks like interior lights (so small footprint stuff) and be needed for rotors and pistons, gyros, engines to work, and drills and welders,projektors,grinders then blasting a huge hole may shut down essential systems on a big ship.
     
  26. Ruges Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    16
    Then there is no way to make space combat interesting in your mind. Since anything that can be suggested can be countered.

    @WDMeaun yea I have thought about wiring. But with being limited to block sized objects it would make wiring rather difficult in ship design. I would also think that such a system would be taxing on the processing side of things. Since instead of a check just seeing if it has power or not for the entire ship, each block would then need a check to see if it has power or not. You can see the performance hit in minecraft when doing allot of redstone work. Where the control units would be a single check for the entire ship.
     
  27. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    I for one think remote scripts would make combat interesting, as well as an SE version of Structural integrity, shields and beam weapons would add nothing, neither would weapons and thruster control blocks, wiring would not add to the game, you could just have the ship filled with them and you would still have to sever it to make part of it loose power, stuff you make that is more than just prefab, are what will make combat interesting, also if you think a ship, her weapons and armor are the only things that effect combat, than no wonder you don't find it interesting, and the ships boring, how you use the ships, and how you maneuver your entire fleet, as well as special player made weapons are what will make combat interesting, rather than trying to destroy your targets completely, try leaving a bit to capture and salvage.
     
  28. Stiletto Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    381
    Sorry to break it to you mate, but nuclear reactors simply do not explode due to damage inflicted upon them. They're reactors not bombs. They can however have a full meltdown and rendered permanently inoperable.

    This ain't Hollywood. :D
     
  29. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    I disagree - I enjoy salvaging from dead, twisted floating space hulks.

    Furthermore, too many people play creative mode PvP (instead of survival) and then don't realize:
    1. Ammunition is limited
    2. How much time and material it takes to build thrusters
    3. How much time (especially welding) it takes to build multiple layers of heavy armor on a ship
     
  30. mhalpern Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,119
    True to all your points, I think structural integrity would make it interesting, but wouldn't disable a ship completely per-say just cause things to bend and break when you try to accelerate too much in the wrong way, leading to larger, potentially active chunks in debris fields, while the iron you would het from salvage would be plentiful, and needed for repairs, I imagine certain things would be target salvage, and anything with magnesium (required for all prefab munitions) would be rare, but thruster components, gravity gen components, bulletproof glass, motors, and the like would be gone after as soon as a scrapee is cut open, but anything that remains, could be used to make an outpost, more ships or even a smaller shipyard, eventually using up the resource rich debris field to keep your fleet well supplied, and the iron in the armor is in a more usable and concentrated form than ore, as are all the other resources (save for perhaps magnesium depending on how quickly you disabled the enemy turrets), making ship production much faster, and allowing for planned losses (bait) to be more viable.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.