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.

What should a Combat DLC look like?

Discussion in 'General' started by SirConnery, Dec 15, 2019.

  1. Kattla Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    40
    It costs 1 steel plate to place down IE a gyroscope, and when placed it have the full mass of the final product, even before welded. Fly toward a target at full speed when placing it, and it's basicly a cheap kinetic torpedo, which is not slowed by gravity fields like steel plates. Don't even need full speed for a devastating effect on the target. This was off topic anyway.
     
  2. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    400
    If with one plate it's registering the same mass as the final finished product, then that's a bug instead of an exploit.
     
  3. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    Exploits are misuse of bugs, glitches and flawed designs to gain unfair advantage.

    Hence,

    this is an exploit.

    And a bug.
     
  4. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,840
  5. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,192
    Yeah, cause following rules is a fundamental characteristic of every SE player.


    (Hear that popping noise? That's sarcasm detectors everywhere exploding.)
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. TenshouYoku Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    103
    So is shooting anybody without question. That's why SE multiplayer is such a dumpster fire for so long.


    If we follow the whole "SE is a sandbox not a game and SE is only here to give you the building blocks" thing, then having preset rules (or guidelines/conditions if you may) that people has to follow is only a natural conclusion. Or else SEMP will just remain as a massive dog eat dog newbie rape feast which is due all respect dumb.

    And unfortunately I don't see it being possible to be implemented on Keen's side……but this is something that is required to make it even remotely enjoyable.
     
  7. Aracus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,931
    Add a player option for pvp enabled flag that has a 5 min timer to change status to avoid
    abuse of rapid status changing. Perhaps make the nametag of players whose status is about about to change blink between neutral and hostile


    Optional with a server side check at say, every 30mins to see if you have x amount of PCU/blocks (or whatever unit odds measure you can imagine to count a players progress) and if it exceeds Threshold X, switch player to pvp enabled (with a timer warning)

    To give new players a chance at least to get started
     
  8. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    400
    Or just letting server owners decide whether they want pvp or not on their servers. Those that want it will have it on, those that don't won't. If they want to have it primarily pve but allow folks to flag that's fine as well, though I maintain just having a straight yes or no to pvp on the server seems like the simplest solution.
     
  9. Aracus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,931
    Which you can already do with world options, I forget the names but it's there, block/weapon damage or something, the difference is it requires a server restart.

    Quite different from a newbie/Spawn-protection system
     
  10. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,192
    I understand the logic, but the problem is that you can make all the rules you want but there's no way to enforce them. There was a much longer thread a while back about this subject, and the upshot is that it is up to the server administrator to determine the level of... freedom... their users can bear, and it is ultimately up to the community to decide what level of aggressive behavior and offline vandalism they are willing to tolerate.

    Let's face it. Bad behavior thrives on servers where the admin just turns the world on and walks away. Server admins that care put in the work required to make their world a desirable place. On the other hand, even though your friends say they don't like that stuff, deep down inside they find it kinda funny. Especially when things happen to someone else. They don't offer any assistance in finding the perpetrators and weeding them out. Until it happens to them. THEN they want action. Most likely though they will go to another server or stop playing. This is what the perpetrators want, and they usually win.

    This is not a problem Keen can solve, nor should they. Just about anything they try will backfire (**cough** safe zone **cough**). It's not a problem unique to SE. It's a prevailing mentality among gamers that stems from players being both anonymous and probably thousands of miles away. If it was your next-door neighbor, you'd just go to their house and kick their ass. As it is, even if it was your next-door neighbor you wouldn't know.

    The good news is that there are many servers out there that are well maintained and actively monitored, and the users will gladly characterize their experience there as enjoyable. I'll bet some may be linked here after this post.

    Anyways, this thread is about Combat DLC ;)
     
  11. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    927
    I suspect that a "combat overhaul update" would have literally the opposite effect the PVP aficionados are wishing for.

    The current problem is "who brung the mostest" negates every other consideration, and the biggest problem with pvp in sandbox games such as these is that two participants in a pvp encounter are never, ever at the same level of readiness. And by readiness I do not mean "ready for combat", instead I mean "ready to be able to build and arm 200 gatling turrets, after using your 40 large drill mining ship for resources"- some have build up their infrastructure for a day, some for 3 months.

    A player having just left Earth and got to space cannot be at that level of build.. and what is the meta of "pro PVP'ers"? Yep- they leverage their preparedness to be much more dakka than anyone they will likely encounter... and "who brung the mostest" means there is nothing the victim can do about it. This doesnt even bring into consideration the "must be mighty desperation" of some pvp players, willing to commit to alt accounts just to have double the dakka over anyone else by "cheating" their way around block/pcu limits.

    So, an overhaul of the pvp combat system would have to address this... and this means something horrific to the pvpers: less effective guns. more effective armor. Fewer ways to damage/wreck things. Ships that take damage and disengage for repairs... instead of insta-confetti of the lesser built-up side. Cripple/disable/slow a ship and try to board... while they repair and try to get away. The lesser effectiveness of weapons means a repair and withdraw may be more likely than a raid and capture. It may be more worthwhile to simply cut away pieces/cargo, rather than try to go for the whole ship or base... in fact stealing contents- rather than ultimate annihilation- may be the way combat "evolves"

    This would make combat more interesting, by being less definitive. And this would sicken the stomachs of what most of the PVP-ers seem to opine around here. But as it is its like pirates of the Caribbean.. where a pirates broadside simply turns the other ship into toothpicks... and how interesting is that?

    How I think PVP overhaul should look like.

    A players freighter ship is heading for a moon station, on some Hauling mission. A raider cruiser intercepts in an ambush and opens fire on the Freighter. The many gatlings on the raider quickly strip the exposed turrets/sensors/connectors on the outer hull of the ship, but the armor is barely scratched. Rockets that hit the freighter do effective area damage to fragile exposed components, but merely deforms the armor hull. The freighters thrusters are all on fire, and working at reduced capacity. The Freighter burns max override on the forward thrusters and makes a desperate run for the station, 15km ahead. It is slowed, crumpled and a bit on fire, but more or less intact within its hull.

    The raider closes on the slowed freighter, and landing gear locks onto it. Thrusters fight each other as concentrated gatling fire starts to bore into a key armor block by the ships reactor room, but it will take 5 minutes of fire to break the armor that way. The rcaider engineer exits the raider and starts grinding on doors, seeking a way inside. The freighter engineer repair the door from the other side, stalling for time.

    The Freighters internal beacon broadcasts for help, activating the 911 code when within 10km of a station (for 5 zone chits), which spawns police drones. The raider has had enough and unlocks from the freighter and roars away in frustration, gatling guns still piter pattering on the freighter hull in spite. It rapidly accelerates away to begin evading the police drones and their warp jump inhibitor fields.

    less effective weapons... to make combat a combat, not a gank.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
    • Like Like x 5
  12. KissSh0t Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,553
    I think it would be kind of cool if there was a guided missile, but at the same time, there would need to be a counter for such a thing or it will be too powerful... like a flare.. or what are they called on military aircraft.. like chaff? chafe?

    Also, a missile or warhead that when it explodes it has a fragmentation effect starting at the explosion, the explosion itself doing less damage and it shoots 4 or 5 fragments in random direction of explosion and it can penetrate armor / damaging components inside... if that makes sense?

    It would be kind of cool if pirates had npc ai that would try to steal players components / resources... instead of just shooting at players creations, it would mean the player would have to fortify a base to stop pirates getting at the goodies haha.
     
  13. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,593
    @Calaban, you're my hero! I like what you wrote.
     
  14. .Luca Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    49
    One that doesn't ruin the game's balance but adds varieties to weaponry.
    • A cannon turret which shoots slower (less RoF) than missile turret, does less explosive damage but doesn't use uranium
    • A laser (energy) turret which shoots at the same rate as the current gatling gun, but half the damage, uses energy instead of ammo
    • More handheld guns and weapons
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,593
    "You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!" --Dr. Evil
     
  16. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,192
    I can't tell you how much I agree with this. Every time I insert myself into a PvP discussion I come up with some convoluted way of saying exactly this. If I were in charge, this is how things would be. I base my opinion on the fact that I served in the US Army for three years (1981-1984. We managed to not get in any wars during that time, so I am not a combat veteran). I was issued and trained with an M15A1 rifle with an M203 grenade launcher attached (say hello to my little friend). I bring this up because I can assure most folks out there that if I fired my rifle on an M60 Main Battle Tank I'd pretty much be wasting my time. They are specifically designed to be able to ignore small arms fire. Therefore, in MY mind, a block that is described as an "armor" block should be able to withstand small arms fire for at least half an hour. Things like turrets should be pretty much impervious to small arms. Beyond that, SE ships supposedly made primarily of armor seem remarkably flimsy. This whole outcry for including shields in the game is in response to what little it takes to defeat armor. The saving grace, in my opinion, is that SE has no kill-confirming final boom that means your ship is now merely disintegrated molecules. What happens to ships and other structures in SE is the most realistic of any game I've seen. Unfortunately, for some it's not very... gratifying.

    So Calaban has described SE as I would like to see it, but I don't think the majority of people that currently own the game share my opinion. Few of the purpose built online PVP games out there have matches that last more than fifteen minutes. Five minutes or less is pretty common. The trend in online PVP has been small squad battles, two to four players on a team, gameplay is fast and furious. Long drawn out battles with uneven sides and no clear way to declare victory sounds boring and they won't want to play that. We have been told that a significant portion of the current player base would prefer that SE adopt more mainstream PVP features or risk being left behind. I believe the risk is minimal and that the overall experience would be more realistic and satisfying, but I could be wrong.

    It will be interesting to see if the next major update is combat-oriented, and if so what direction they are leaning towards.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Lord Grey Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    378
    Yes, I like that. My idea: A cannon turret that has a longer range than 800m. But no zoom function >;->

    The laser should use a huge amount of energy and fire continuosely, till the battery's empty or the Uran gone. If you want pulsed fire a particle beam would be the weapon of choise. There's no more fun than weaponize a particle accelerator >;->
    And an update to the handheld weapons would be cool. As already mentioned, a reload action and animation would be cool. I would also like a varite of weapons types. Maybe a simple pistol for tire 1, sub-machinegun for tire 2 over assault rifle for tire 3 and Anti-tank-rifle for tire 4. A carryable one-shot rocket launcher would be fine to, especially in regards to the text below.

    I agree with the damage resistance. But not necessarily for turrets. They should be vulnerable. The trick is, you can make it hard to aim for them by hide them behind armor, but limiting their arc of fire in the way. So either you have protected turrets with a small fire arc or open turrets that can cover a larg area.
    About the Armor, it really doesn't earn this description. While I can life with the light armor being so flimsy, the heavy armor needs to be much more resistent to damage than it currently is. Here a damage resistance against all smaller as a gatling turret would make sense.
     
  18. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    400
    If the goal is to make combat more "combative" and not a gank, Warp Inhibitor fields can never be allowed to exist as they will be the perfect tool for exactly that, a gank. I like to think most folks who bring up inhibitor fields are well intentioned, but as the saying goes the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I've brought this up many times now, but a warp inhibitor field would do nothing but allow certain undesirables to force potentially unwanted pvp on people and would be one of the ultimate griefing tools. The only "pvp" at that point will be folks with the Inhibitors ganking folks who have a snowball's chance in hell of fighting back. Jamming communications is one thing as it doesn't effect the combat ability of the ship itself. A warp inhibitor however would greatly effect the combat ability of the opposing ship at the push of the button. All the person with the inhibitor would have to do is flip the switch, and without ever firing a shot, or the victim being able to do anything about it, their jump drives have been rendered completely useless. Sorry but no one should have that kind of power to instantly be able to harm another persons's ship in such a way, and force their playstyle on another person(s). No single person in this game is that important. Otherwise I can agree with most of what was up there.

    To be vulnerable doesn't mean the turrets have to be absurdly weak either. If the turret is going offline in only 2 shots or such, there is no point to having turrets as it will just become who can get the drop on who. Turrets need to have a healthy amount of resistance if they're to do their job at all. They wouldn't need to be as durable as heavy armor or a similar block would need to be, but they would need to be able to take more than 2 hits. Vulnerable in this sense doesn't mean they have to be absurdly weak, it simply means they're more exposed.
     
  19. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    238
    I don't really care for PvP, but instead of Jump Inhibitors how about making the Jump take 60 seconds to spool up instead of 10. That way if you've prescouted where the Jump drive is you might have a chance to take it out with a surgical strike. And for the people not wanting that to happen would place the Jump Drive in a sure and safe location.

    I would welcome the change even for PvE.
     
  20. FoolishOwl Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    522
    I like Calaban's suggestion as well.

    As far as PvE goes, I find that if you want to check out an 'encounter', step one is to bail out of your ship, because no ship is as agile as just an astronaut in a jetpack, and the only way to approach the 'encounters' is to keep dodging the guns until you find a blind spot and can close in to grind down the turrets. Ship combat just means, win or lose, your ship is badly damaged, so you just loot the other ship's wreckage to repair your own. So the new encounter content has just meant more things to make sure I stay one kilometer away from.
     
  21. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,192
    Here's the thing: small arms are anti-personnel weapons. They are meant to kill human beings, preferably unarmored. Turrets should only be vulnerable to other turrets. If someone takes out your turret with a rifle in under 30 minutes, you should get a refund.

    The laser should go back to the comics from whence it came. I keep saying this because it's true: there will be no energy weapons in 2077. For the amount of effort it would take to get an effective laser working, you can have more effective and destructive mass driver weapons. You don't get a nice cartoony beam with those, but the punch is quicker and bigger. Lasers as weapons are a joke. People that want energy weapons want comic book pew-pew make splosions more more. That is every other space game a million times over. SE is not even a PVP game. It takes place this century, not a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Let's just give all the astronauts in the game lightsabers and just give up on realism entirely.

    You cannot have energy weapons without shields, and shields can't be balanced in a sandbox game. Especially THIS sandbox game. At least, not without sacrificing most of what makes SE unique. We can't even get combat right with conventional weapons. They will never finish the game if they're going to try to balance energy weapons.

    Space Engineers does not need energy weapons or energy shields in order to be a good game. It doesn't need them to be a better game. Those things will just make SE another cookie-cutter space game with fantasy elements. You cannot have a discussion about realistic combat (circa 2077) that includes energy weapons. Just because it's a space game that takes place in the future it does not have to have lasers. If combat is not interesting unless the skies are filled with colored beams of light (which makes aiming easier, I know ;), and by the way if there were laser weapons we wouldn't be able to see the beams) then I submit that combat is not the goal of this discussion, but rather what sorts of guns would be the most fun to shoot in Space Engineers.

    It is also worth mentioning that players around here seem to want stuff until they get it. People screamed for ladders and yet you don't see them that much. People clamored for clean, shiny armor yet you don't see it so much as the "old and battered" skin. Lasers in SE are only desirable because we don't have them. If they get in the standard game they will be "balanced" into near-uselessness, and therefore hardly used, and Keen's staff will have wasted valuable time. If lasers were popular, the laser mods would be popular, and they're not.

    We could have rail guns, which are REAL right now today and are much more deadly than any energy weapon. We could even have HAND rail guns. We could have MAC cannons as in Halo. Realistic based on current technology extrapolated 60 years. That's the standard. Rail guns fit. Lasers don't. Please let's just hold the line on realism at "gravity generators", "artificial mass", and jump drives, and please let's not have those things be the excuse to allow just about anything else imaginable.

    Plus, Keen already said they're not doing lasers.
     
  22. Malware Master Engineer

    Messages:
    9,663
    Because Keen made them too slow. They're not speed-balanced to the general speed of the engineer so they feel like moving in molasses in comparison. The latest invention of not allowing you to look side to side on them also does not help. Other than that - ladders were yelled about because they became a meme, something to represent the lack of variant blocks in the game. Which has been alleviated somewhat after that.

    I use them all the time though. Clean armor too. :p
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  23. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,192
    I use them too (the ladders, not the clean armor :)). Digi's ladders perform better and let you do neat stuff like look around and press buttons. Unfortunately he didn't have access to the climbing animation. It's like you can have one but not the other.

    Pardon my rant. It just seems like people tend to insist on the... less relevant. It creates so much noise you can't pay any attention to actual good ideas that might work. Keen spent way too much time (IMHO) on the shield safe zone, and had to spend more time dealing with the consequences.

    If we're going to appropriate ideas from TV shows, let's all agree to binge The Expanse. It's space, it's the future, and there's no artificial gravity. How the heck do they deal with that? Did they make up a solution as in every other sci-fi show, or did they use science? Do they use lasers or kinetic weapons? It's so refreshing when producers don't take the easy path. I like watching science fiction that I can believe. I like playing science fiction that I can believe, too ;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Lord Grey Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    378
    Sorry, but you disqualifyed yourselfe with this comment. Use Google. And the best defense against Lasers is a mirrow.



    Ok, in my opinion Lasers are expensive toys that will not last in the arsenals, but since Ronald Reagan's Star Wars Programm, Lasers are waponized. The military industrie woudn't waste money on a technology they don't believe would bring benefits.

    Rail guns, Gauss canons, coil guns or mass drivers, however you want to name an electric driven ballistic weapon, have their own problems. they're not handy in an atmospher with an oxidizer in it.

    I stay with caseless, recoil-less gun with lots of cooling fins.
     
  25. Stardriver907 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    3,192
    Maybe your military wouldn't. In actuality, the US Military does not really decide what to spend money on. Congress does. I live right next to the largest Army Base on the planet. The Pentagon has been trying to close it down for decades. It's not cheap to keep a couple Brigades warm and comfortable in the middle of nowhere. Thirty miles from that is an Air Force Base the pentagon also wants to close. However, Alaska had a very powerful Senator on the Armed Services Committee for thirty years and one word from him (NO) and that was that. He finally lost his seat, then he died. His replacement, although a Freshman, wound up on the Committee. That Senator is trying to get F-35's stationed up here. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is embarrassingly expensive and the Pentagon says they don't want it. However, the Senators from the states where they are manufactured beg to differ.

    We spend money on stuff whether it works or not.

    In a vacuum, tho...

    Fun fact: The M16 was designed to use caseless rounds, but the Vendor that we buy black powder from lobbied Congress to stick with their old-assed product. When the weapon was deployed in Viet Nam the powder, thanks to jungle humidity, caused the weapon to jam constantly, to the point where Colt had to build in a "forward assist" mechanism and soldiers had to take extra training for how to clear jams. Cause the weapon wasn't designed for black power.

    That laser video is almost as old as I am, and it's the go-to video for laser fans. All the branches continue to research lasers because Congress makes them. However, when it comes to what gets deployed, the Army (the branch I'm most familiar with) likes bullets. Kinetic weapons work, they're cheap to make, and any knucklehead soldier can be taught to maintain them. The Air Force and the Navy like to fight over which is technologically superior, but neither one has fielded a laser weapon that will reliably perform under combat conditions, and they've been trying since 1970. The lasers are cool, but they do not outperform what we already have, and what we already have is cheaper and easier to deploy.

    But, hey. According to Star Trek, we'll have phasers and photon torpedos (whatever those are) by the 23rd Century.
     
  26. Lord Grey Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    378
    The first fire arms where fires with a fuse. Which didn't work if the weather was too humid. They were muzzle loader, had no cartridge and from the prezision we don't even have to talk of.
    I don't say the laser is the end of energy weapons evolution, but they are faster than rail gun projectiles, which in space, where coincidaly laser are also more effective than in an atmosphere, means you can hit your target with higer assurance on a longer distance. Even if you can't make that much damage, you're still on an advantage. My tactic would be to outrun the target and wear it down from a distance it can't hit me from.
    Lasers may be the first step, who knows what follows out of this?

    Rheinmetall is working for their skyshield high energy lasers, Israel, russia are also on laser technology. It's not only the US forces that are researching in this topic. SO it may be on congress wishes, but you have to advance or you're soon outdated.

    And I doubt that the M16 would have ever worked with caseless ammunition. I hear for the first time that this should have been considered. I heard of problems due availability of the first considered propellant, but not about the caseless ammunition. Famous is the G11 project from H&K, but the Germans already experimented with caseless ammunition during WW2, but only the Japanese managed to get it actually in service. Possible that the US stole knowledge from Germany after the war.

    Oh, and about Star Trek, just remember the communicators they used. Well, our smartphones may not reach to the orbit, but we're still able to communicate with a lot of peoples.
     
  27. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    238
    Same. The ladders do need that speed up though.
     
  28. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,840
    Maybe it would look similar to this? : :p

    [​IMG]
     
  29. Calaban Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    927

    oh, in my personal vision of what combat upgrade would be, Warp inhibitor fields would never be useable by players.... strictly NPC police/military ability
     
  30. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    400
    Jump drives are fine the way they are and mean folks must actually use strategy if they wish to take a jump capable ship or destroy it. As is right now it's virtually impossible to force unwanted pvp on someone and it needs to stay that way for the health of the game. If folks want to increase the jump drive windup, that's something that should be left to individual servers and not made into a game wide vanilla change. In fact it's as easy as changing the number in the file for the jump drive itself.

    If that's the case and it stayed as purely an NPC only block, then I would consider throwing my name behind it and support the implementation of the block. However without some huge guarantees from Keen and major safeguards, I prefer not to open that door at all because it wouldn't be long before you have certain elements within the community demanding it be made available to players. Then the trolls would have one of the ultimate griefing tools. If/when such a tool were to ever be implemented player side, they would need to introduce a counter to said block as well as the ability to turn off the inhibitor outright. Point being I don't trust our hypothetical inhibitor to remain a NPC only block without some huge major safeguards and guarantees.