The first question that comes to my mind: what happens to a station with destroyed module(s) when combat ends? Say I engage a planetary defense force, manage to blow up part of their station, and then have to retreat. How long will it take them to get those modules back up and running? Are they still gone if I immediately re-engage? What if I run away to give my fleet a few days to recover CR?
And from the other side; if I have a station (or other multi-module ship) in my fleet, and a module is destroyed, do I lose the weapons on it?
Not sure how I feel about CR on the station, but outside of that I'm loving what I'm seeing!
All I’m asking for, then, is some brakes for the potential hype train.
The main thing that makes this otherwise smart-looking (if I do say so myself) station a placeholder is its size, barely battleship-level. That’s not to say it could never see action in a different role, but it’s not big enough to be, say, a hypothetical battlestation defending a planet.
i always envisioned the naval yards around jangala etc. taking up like one edge of the map entirely by itself. then you have to crawl through it's fire for most of the map and shoot it.Hm, something like that would make a rather epic boss fight for something like SS+'s old arcade mode. Especially if the only way to finally kill it is to fly in through a narrow hole in the superstructure and destroy the core... But that wouldn't work outside of an arcade mode; can you imagine the AI trying to pilot a fleet through a maze? So not happening.
it's a little.. small, isn't it?
The main thing that makes this otherwise smart-looking (if I do say so myself) station a placeholder is its size, barely battleship-level. That’s not to say it could never see action in a different role, but it’s not big enough to be, say, a hypothetical battlestation defending a planet.
i always envisioned the naval yards around jangala etc. taking up like one edge of the map entirely by itself. then you have to crawl through it's fire for most of the map and shoot it.
it's a little.. small, isn't it?
As a side note here, stations have unlimited peak time.
I will not stand to hear the size of Placeholder Station being mocked! It is a proud structure; noble even, blazing a trail by rotating very slowly in the dark unknown so that others, perhaps larger though this speculation is in no way made to denigrate the scale of the aforementioned station whose heroism is unchallenged, may follow!
I suppose that's configurable per station, I mean it's not like I want to make a "ship" will multiple sections ;).
Minor suggestion: make the station range boost grant at least normal capital levels of +range to ballistic PD. Flak may be okay without a range boost at all, at least when the turrets are near the edge of the ship, but vulcans and light machine guns need all the help they can get.
Also aside: And now I'm having flashbacks to Master of Orion II, where I so greatly wished I could outfit my stations. "No, don't install a death ray! We can fit twenty plasma cannons in that space!"
What if the primary station piece is the only module with weapons left, is it invincible?
Fighters are now ship weapons that can be built in, meaning unique carrier builds with special fighters are possible.
Stations are "ships" in the essential ways.
;D ;D ;D..(Oh right, hype train moderation:) :) :) :)
any chance of getting a glimpse into the file structure changes? At this point they have to be... well I'd rather not think about it. ha.
I can post something in the modding subforum if there are enough to warrant it, but even things like "removed these columns in wing_data.csv, added these 3 columns for stations in ship_data.csv" and that sort of stuff would help all us excited modders get up to speed quickly
"weaponGroups": [{
"autofire": false,
"mode": "LINKED",
"weapons": {
"WS 001": "platform1_Standard",
"WS 002": "platform1_Standard",
"WS 003": "platform1_Standard",
"WS 004": "platform1_Standard"
}
}]
*squeals happily like a damn schoolgirl*
This blog post has pulled me from the void.
I'm soooo excited for the next update. Take your time. Or share something that still needs a hotfix down the month or whatever.
I don't care. It's going to be great. You should email rock paper shotgun once this is done, because they would love this. They're huge fans of star control II anyways.
So modules—what do you have in mind? Obviously we'll see weapon platform modules and you mentioned armor modules but how about shield modules, fighter bay modules and modules that act like the capturable sats in larger battles? The possibilities!
I'd imagine that an outpost couldn't be destroyed if there was an active station in orbit?
What if the primary station piece is the only module with weapons left, is it invincible?
Do missiles benefit from the Targeting Supercomputer? (e.g. flight time increase)
But judging from the ancient sprite (can't believe its finally getting used!) that was planned from the veeery beginning.
I tiny nitpick: Seeing "ISS Götterdämmerung" spelled with "o" and "a" makes my eyes twitch :'(
I don't know if anybody mentioned, but that stations looks a bit... small? David wasn't you a bit hungry while drawing that sprite?
Wow this update is going to be huge! :D
Also, in the 1+1=2 category:
Fighters are now ship weapons that can be built in, meaning unique carrier builds with special fighters are possible.
Stations are "ships" in the essential ways.
;D ;D ;D..(Oh right, hype train moderation:) :) :) :)
Alright I have to ask,
any chance of getting a glimpse into the file structure changes? At this point they have to be... well I'd rather not think about it. ha.
I can post something in the modding subforum if there are enough to warrant it, but even things like "removed these columns in wing_data.csv, added these 3 columns for stations in ship_data.csv" and that sort of stuff would help all us excited modders get up to speed quickly
Speaking of 1+1=2....if fighters are ship weapons and bases are fancy ships with range extension, how do fighters work on bases? I love the idea of a hangar base with a bunch (10+) of wings of fighters. I'm assuming they get extreme range, do they get any other benefits?
Thus: station modules are fitted with a “targeting supercomputer” that triples weapon range, with the exception of non-beam point defense weapons – a Flak Cannon with that sort of range turned out to be a bit ridiculous. The supercomputer also improves weapon accuracy, to help with scoring hits at extreme ranges.How would this work for (small) assault weapons, like IR pulse laser or railgun, that become enabled for PD via IPDAI hullmod?
It’s got station-keeping thrusters to move it back into position in the event it’s moved away by a collision or some such, and that’s about it.
How would this work for (small) assault weapons, like IR pulse laser or railgun, that become enabled for PD via IPDAI hullmod?
The first thing i want to try is to push it out of the map with the Scarab temporal shell, just for the hell of it.
First question : Does the AI ignore the indestructible body and focus on the modules? I wouldn't want my allies to waste their torpedoes on an unkillable target.
Second question : Can you use a station as a flagship? I mean, outside of devmode, when we'll possibly have our own stations and stuff... How would it works? The weapon groups and all?
Anyway, that's really some sweet news for the next update. I'm sure Piranhas bombers are going to love those huge, immobile targets.
The first thing i want to try is to push it out of the map with the Scarab temporal shell, just for the hell of it.Another one: Shield ramming with Monitor for massive damage like when Monitor first appeared and capitals quickly died to shield ramming.
Another potential use is – and I mention this only because I’m sure you’re already thinking about it – a special ship using these module mechanics. If nothing else, I’d be surprised if somebody didn’t mod that in, and if they did, there’d be UI support for refitting it.
Another one: Shield ramming with Monitor for massive damage like when Monitor first appeared and capitals quickly died to shield ramming.
This blog post has pulled me from the void.
I'm soooo excited for the next update. Take your time. Or share something that still needs a hotfix down the month or whatever.
I don't care. It's going to be great. You should email rock paper shotgun once this is done, because they would love this. They're huge fans of star control II anyways.
Thank you! Hype-support much appreciated :)
I'm, uh, going to blame that one on David. But as long as we're here, I always wondered about this: how acceptable is it to use "oe", "ae", etc in place of umlauts, in otherwise-English text, i.e. "goetterdaemerrung"? Is the degree of eye-twitching more or less than from dropping the umlaut entirely? And a related bonus question: for a native-German mindset, are o and ö "same letter but one has an umlaut" or "different letters entirely"? (There's a similar situation in Russian, and they're very much different letters to the point of both being in the alphabet, but from what I remember of highschool German, the alphabet doesn't include the umlauted letters...)
Edit: part of the reason I'm asking is it doesn't feel right to include umlauts in English text, right. Because they're not part of English!
Nope, also does nothing. (Whew.)
I'm working off of old knowledge here, since I haven't tried phase-bombing something since before the rework, but can you still exit phase inside something else? How does charging something in phase work with these? (And could we have a phase station? or modals?) I know before that if you tanked up a phase ship really good, phased, flew at something so you where overlapping it, and unphased, you'd deal a lot of damage to everyone involved, and even if your ship died, the corpse ended up nuking the thing anyways. Was really noticeable with the small phase ships vs. Capitals.
Haha, the anti Sean Murray.
Ä,Ü,Ö are for all practical purposes distinct letters and listed in most German alphabets. I'd definitely say that using the transcriptions (Ae, Ue, Oe) is much better than just dropping the umlaut altogether. It's not pretty, but somewhat respectful and technically correct. The alternative always looks to me like a non-native speaker just didn't care. Besides, in some cases the meaning is completely changed (Bär=bear, Bar=bar as in pub).
I don't follow. If you use a foreign name, why not use foreign symbols (except for technical reasons)? For example, in German the name André is always spelled with the french e-acute, and García with the Spanish i-acute.
If you'd try that the other way round and switch the English th with a sharp z (the closest German equivalent), Batman would suddenly live in Gozam city :D
How is it with EMP arcs from Tachyon Lances and so on, do they spread between modules?
I'm working off of old knowledge here, since I haven't tried phase-bombing something since before the rework, but can you still exit phase inside something else? How does charging something in phase work with these? (And could we have a phase station? or modals?) I know before that if you tanked up a phase ship really good, phased, flew at something so you where overlapping it, and unphased, you'd deal a lot of damage to everyone involved, and even if your ship died, the corpse ended up nuking the thing anyways. Was really noticeable with the small phase ships vs. Capitals.
It'd probably do some damage, yeah.
No plans for phase stations, though I suppose technically it's possible. It'd be kind of weird for modules to phase independently of the station, though, and since much of the advantage of phasing lies in mobility...
Stations seem like a big workload for David. Is there gonna be low-tech, midline and high-tech styles of stations to boot? Also, in the final screenshot I can see some Talons—they look like they've been tweaked a bit (could just be seeing things as resolution is too small, though). I'm curious as to how many sprites David has made edits to in the current dev build!
Hmm. Where does that stop, though? Say there's a russian name, should that be written in cyrillic in an otherwise english text? What about chinese or japanese? I don't think it's reasonable to expect an english speaker to know how to pronounce an e-acute, o-umlaut, etc. They're not part of english nor in the alphabet. A text that includes these might be more faithful to the original spelling of the word, but it's no longer in actual english.
Maybe it's different in german, given that "stuff above the letter" is a more common occurrence in the first place?
If it does become possible to refit stations, will you be able to add hullmods to them (with nonsensical mods, like Aug Engines, disabled)?
How do stations get spawned in a battle?
Are they *always* at the spawn point of a capital like a football field where the endzone is each side's station/stations and the no man's land battleground is in the center?
And, if not, can they be selectively placed by the player at all, through modding or even in game for tactical reasons (such as on top of capture points)?
You're going to use these mechanics for the Salvage system ain't ya? Some big, shattered hulk with a few weapon modules on it so it can actually fight back (meagerly) would make for some nice encounters for the early game.
If it does become possible to refit stations, will you be able to add hullmods to them (with nonsensical mods, like Aug Engines, disabled)? Thinking on it, you wouldn't be applying hullmods to individual weapon modules but rather to the main station and that would apply the applicable hullmods to all modules, yeah? I do hope that you'll make refitting stations a thing! I'd imagine building one would be a large investment and letting the player refit and customize it to really make it their own would be great!
Excellent progress, as usual. Looking forward to whatever the update brings. This feels like it will be the biggest addition to gameplay yet (all those pieces from before are starting to fit together).
(Not looking forward to having to draw out a gigantic Mayorate station, but there are worse fates...)
I am really curious, and dread how large the bigger stations might end up being.
For hitting home that station cores are indestructible, it might be good to make their armor static and their hull points ? or 99999. Otherwise I foresee new players hit them with concentrated fire for quite some time.
On cool application for stations would be passive environmental entities that serve as terrain, e.g. huge asteroids or solar shades in the middle of the map.
Thing is, there are official system for the Romanization of these completely separate writing systems, because they are unintelligible otherwise. On the other hand German, French, Spanish, English and so on all already use the Romanic character system, just separate sub-portions of it. In computing this is btw represented by the "Western Latin character sets".
The pronunciation would of course still be all bungled up, but then at least you know that you're doing it wrong :D
Cool that you took German in highschool, btw :) And sry for our hard grammar and arbitrary gender assignments...
Na, I believe Americans just have a thing forbutchering"Americanizing" foreign names, and a long tradition of it ;D Probably on account of being an immigrant nation. While, I guess, we Europeans are more likely to get immediate and enthusiastic feedback from our dear neighbors when trying to drop an alien letter from a foreign name ;D
1. It'll almost always be cheaper to draw a bunch of small quads than one big one, because of fillrate issues when dealing with stuff that's screen-sized.
2. No. 1 also means that most of the Stuff can get culled visually if it's all a bunch of Components.
Generally put, it's going to be necessary to recalculate collision / avoidance volumes and treat the Station as a large combined entity; that will probably be a bit challenging. Perhaps a good approach would be to run some code that combines all of the hit geometry by cutting line segments where they cross each other, calculates an ellipse with an offset that more than covers that... and then recalculates whenever a component separates. Expensive as a one-time event goes but probably not too bad. That'll largely keep the AI OK with big sizes, in terms of avoidance; they can largely aim at staying outside the ellipse.
3. The biggest problem that can arise is absurdities involving rotational speeds and AI in general with Really Big Things.
...
I wouldn't worry about this, much, though; if you need a Climactic Battle where the player fleet has to engage a Really Big Station, that's a new battle type, where the player fleet could deploy either in the traditional fashion and face the problems of command use to correct the issues that will arise, or deploy all the way around, with fewer AI messups but a lack of supporting elements. But AI messups are going to happen with Really Big Things regardless, so I wouldn't consider it the end of the world.
Ah the raw possibility tempered by hype brakes and realism. Still a sweet sweet ride.
Did that peice of disabled module break in half? Thats a thing now?
If they fit visually, sure. You could mount up 4 Onslaughts on the ISS Placeholder, and it'd work just fine.Great, now I want to create a mod that uses battle riders (in Sword of the Stars, you could have ships that carried a few one class lower ships into battle)
(I might, or might not, have tried this.)
If they fit visually, sure. You could mount up 4 Onslaughts on the ISS Placeholder, and it'd work just fine.
(I might, or might not, have tried this.)
wing_data.csv is... well, it's definitely different, but it's a small file and the stuff is straightforward. I wouldn't worry too much about that one.
For station modules, there's a "STATION_MODULE" weapon slot type, and in the .variant files, you can slot other variants into it, like so:SpoilerCode: json"weaponGroups": [{
"autofire": false,
"mode": "LINKED",
"weapons": {
"WS 001": "platform1_Standard",
"WS 002": "platform1_Standard",
"WS 003": "platform1_Standard",
"WS 004": "platform1_Standard"
}
}][close]
No nesting, iirc, so the plaforms can't themselves have more modules.
How do stations get spawned in a battle?
In the middle, a bit towards the side that owns it. Station vs station battles aren't a thing for the simple reason that stations can't move. A mod could naturally move these around.
So my next question is this: Is it possible to have modules BE actual ships that would fight on their own?
Dat hullmod that grants triple range, tho! 3600 range Gauss Cannons, 1350 range Heavy Machine Guns and Assault Chainguns...WOWZA!
Sweet! That's really efficient! :)
It also means that not much will change under the hood from whats already there either, as an additional weapon slot type wont break pre-existing .variant OR .ship files. You have no idea how happy that makes me lol. Adding the relevant features will be straightforward too.
To designate a hull a "station", is there a new STATION hulltype that gets exclusively used in battle deployments? Or is that something flagged in ship_data.csv?
You saw in that screenshot them 8 Dual Flaks with +50% range, ya? Good luck with that...haha!
Great, now I want to create a mod that uses battle riders (in Sword of the Stars, you could have ships that carried a few one class lower ships into battle)
So my next question is this: Is it possible to have modules BE actual ships that would fight on their own?
Ahh, that's right, HMG's are indeed tagged as PD. Less terrifying now but only somewhat!Assault Chaingun is not, though.
They'd only get +50% with IPDAI.why do beam PD weapons get the full range, btw? 3k range Tac Lasers with IPDAI seems kinda nuts..
Yeah, you're probably right. Hopefully "no damage floaties" will sell it, but the armor being static doesn't feel right.did you try just showing all floating damage text as "0" instead? i think that could be more obvious than having no text at all. although it might also give the impression that there is a way to damage it, if specific conditions are met.
i don't think you comprehend the size of the bomberwallalso: the new PD-distracting flares that some fighters will have. a single Astral could use 2 wings for distraction and still send never-ending swarms of 12 Hammers or 8 Atropos every 30sec or so.
kinda blog-related question: did the Pilums (Pila?) in that 2nd screenshot go through/over the husk of the broken-off module floating in the upper right, or did the husk just float into their engine trail? because guided missiles avoiding husks (much like they avoid allied ships) is something i actually wanted to see for a while. wasting a swarm of Harpoons because they decide to slam right into a mostly static object on the way to their target can be quite frustrating. same with asteroids to a lesser degree, but those are usually not large, durable and numerous enough to be a real issue.
why do beam PD weapons get the full range, btw? 3k range Tac Lasers with IPDAI seems kinda nuts..
did you try just showing all floating damage text as "0" instead? i think that could be more obvious than having no text at all. although it might also give the impression that there is a way to damage it, if specific conditions are met.
It might be time for a new category of bomber, too :D. I wouldn't mind a 'strategic' bomber wing, something that wasn't much good against ships but could really maul a station.
What I mean is, is it possible for a "station" to come into battle and launch these battle rider modules, which are ships that are mobile and independent?So my next question is this: Is it possible to have modules BE actual ships that would fight on their own?
(Sword of the Stars 2 was great but royally botched its launch. Hivers 4 life!)That's a cute little gate ship you got there... Would be a shame if something were to "happen" to it...
Will the admiral AI prefer to keep their mobile ships "camping" the station, at least if they're at a strength disadvantage? Even with triple range I expect stations won't typically have enough reach to keep the attacker from staying out of range and defeating the mobile defenses, then dealing with the station once it's alone.
Also, does the AI of individual ships know not to obstruct the station's field of fire? (This is something that would be nice in general, actually)
Could you give us any insight into what sort of power level you're envisioning for a high-end battlestation? Will max power battlestations be able to defeat multiple capital ships or are you foreseeing some weaker?
I know there are all sorts of variables that can come into play but just a general idea?
Right now, I'm thinking it should be something that a player with multiple maxed out capitals can take on but with heavy losses, and it should be impossible to solo, although I'm sure that someone will find some way to do it no matter what. But this is talking about currently-hypothetical well-maintained stations that are defending populous planets; there could well be stuff considerably below that in power.
Of note, a station can have an officer and their skills will apply to all the modules, so that could influence its power level quite drastically.
It might be time for a new category of bomber, too :D. I wouldn't mind a 'strategic' bomber wing, something that wasn't much good against ships but could really maul a station.
I'm not sure this one has been asked, but do emp weapons hitting a module arc only withing said module of do they hit the core too? Do they also hit other modules?
Potential: Spaceborn creatures with detachable limbs. Release the Void-Kraken!
Potential: Spaceborn creatures with detachable limbs. Release the Void-Kraken!Can't wait to get back working on Seeker ;)
Potential: Spaceborn creatures with detachable limbs. Release the Void-Kraken!
This does align slightly with some ideas I've had...
Can't wait to get back working on Seeker ;)
"Now, witness the firepower of this halfway decent but not entirely operational battlestation..? Hell, I don't know, just roll with it, okay?"
What about a mechanic where troop transport ships carrying marines could dock with and board a disabled station?
All that's needed to accompany the ISS Placeholder is the ISS Slightly Lopsided Isosceles Triangle and we'll have a complete defensive line!
;)
and especially mine fields.
I'm super excited for the new stuff, enough so to pull me out from lurking! :P
What do you think of player commissioned orbital stations protecting a player outpost? It would have to be a massive investment, and it wouldn't be in the player's direct control but it could stand guard if you had a super valuable outpost you'd like to protect. Could these be a possibility or are player outposts generally so small they don't warrant such investments?
One last thing that comes to mind, is that with all this new stuff coming it could take a while to polish it up for public consumption. Now I know dates and times can be iffy with games and it's not my place to demand them, but do you feel you could share something in general about what you plan on doing before you even consider releasing the next public build? Are there still some secret features you are experimenting on, or are you going to focus mainly on polish for a while? No time frames, just something in general. (Feel free to skip this bit if I'm too prying :-X)
The big one is: Can modules be moved around? I know you loved Scy's Nemean Lion opening armor, so will it be possible to do that with the API? I see modules are spawned on top of "module" mounts, but those aren't movable (yet?). So if I manually move them via everyframe scripting will the game force-replace them on top of their mount?
How are collision handled with the modules? Are they on an intermediary layer between ships and fighters or do they need bounds that do not touch their core? Do ships and asteroids collide directly with the modules or only with the core? If they do, are collision forces and weapon impacts automatically transmitted to the core? Can weapons on the core fire through a module? (that was one of the biggest issues with twigLib, most of the issues it currently has stems from this)
I suppose the module's AI is a fair bit simpler than a ship AI, but can they still use ship systems?
You said the modules take time to repair, that is nice but will the refit UI indicate that? With Debido we had a nice system in place (it is not working in 0.72 because I'm nowhere near his coding skills and messed up his stuff but it was a thing previously)And how does the game handle repair cost? Are destroyed modules visible in campaign view?Spoiler(https://imgur.com/rq1oQcG.jpg)[close]
How are modules stats handled in the ship codex info card? Are they added to the core stats? Or not displayed at all?
I'm not sure this one has been asked, but do emp weapons hitting a module arc only withing said module of do they hit the core too? Do they also hit other modules?
This probably falls under the category of "a lot of work for virtually no reward", but what do you think of tugs moving these things around in battle?
Now while I'm aware that you have perfectly good reasons not to be specific about the potential size of stations, would you be willing to comment on how much the engine can actually handle?
I mean if we are fighting a station that can dock the largest capital ships then they would have to be at least 10x the size of anything in the game at the moment. It could potentially cover 25-35% of an entire big combat map. Are units that large even possible?
HYPE TRAIN !!
getting sniped from 3 screen lengths away by the citadel ship is already a little annoying.....
please allow more zoom since things are getting bigger
(even if it is only situational - when ur in range of a station - or conditional - cruisers and capital ships can zoom out farther than frigates and destroyers)
Very exciting! Interesting to hear that officers can be on stations - raises a whole host of hype questions from which I will refrain...
I can't imagine the strength of the stations guarding core worlds, though, I must speculate: if you do take out the station(s) guarding major hubs, do those markets/planets become "vulnerable" in some way?
Yeah, I wonder about the whole dynamic of orbital stations. Are they active in any battle close to the planet, or just if you engage them directly? Will they be the first level of protection when attacking a planet, or are they all the defense there is? What happens to the market of a station when it is defeated? Can you blockade a station and lower its CR before battle? Is the faction controlling a planet always the faction controlling its orbital station?
I'm not sure if I even want answers to all these question at this point, or just find out for myself :)
and especially mine fields.
I can neither confirm nor deny that these were or were not a topic of discussion internally.
(There's a todo item somewhere, but it's such a gratuitous and potentially not workable feature that I'm not sure its priority is ever going to be high enough to do.)
BTW, for everyone who, like me, has a sudden desire to pilot a small ship in combat against screen-filling, overwhelmingly powerful stations which have armed modules that you can shoot off, let me present you with "Warning Forever (http://www.theisozone.com/downloads/pc/windows-games/warning-forever-final-version-107/)" :)Ahhhh yes, Warning Forever! IIRC that was the basis for Battleships Forever
Ahhhh yes, Warning Forever! IIRC that was the basis for Battleships Forever
Will modules more towards the center be able to fire over the ones in front of them?
Weapons on both the body and the modules can not hit either the body or the modules.
That feature is not outposts, btw - as much as I'd like to get them into this next release, and as much as it makes sense given the rest of the feature set, it would just end up taking too long with everything else. But, going to take stock along the way.interesting... so i'm guessing the skill revamp will also (probably) not make it into the coming update? since you mentioned a while back you'd like to wait until it becomes clearer what the industry part of a new skill system would need to include.
That feature is not outposts, btw - as much as I'd like to get them into this next release, and as much as it makes sense given the rest of the feature set, it would just end up taking too long with everything else. But, going to take stock along the way.I can't imagine the strength of the stations guarding core worlds, though, I must speculate: if you do take out the station(s) guarding major hubs, do those markets/planets become "vulnerable" in some way?Yeah, I wonder about the whole dynamic of orbital stations. Are they active in any battle close to the planet, or just if you engage them directly? Will they be the first level of protection when attacking a planet, or are they all the defense there is? What happens to the market of a station when it is defeated? Can you blockade a station and lower its CR before battle? Is the faction controlling a planet always the faction controlling its orbital station?
I'm not sure if I even want answers to all these question at this point, or just find out for myself :)
Yeah, this is all stuff that's purely speculation at this point. I mean, the mechanics point towards these types of things, right? But they're currently not in the game, and I wouldn't be surprised if these specific kinds of things were not in the next release. All important design questions to be answered in due time.
Okay, maybe not Targeting Supercomputer on ships, since that would make most ballistics even better that they currently are. Maybe Supreme Optics instead for the beam-only version of Targeting Supercomputer, since shields usually hard-counter beams.would that really get rid of the problem, though? it'd certainly be useful for a Paragon to have, but it wouldn't change the fact that it'd lose the flux war against large ships that can use ~1k range hard-flux weapons.
It stands to reason that stations would be able to to store and load a great deal more missiles and such. Will there be a special hullmod for stations that boosts missile weapon ammo?
Humm, seems like that the main campaign functions of stations won't be in the game until 0.9 if it needs that much refinement, but I suppose it makes sense to include them now because exploration or some other feature requires them, right?
If that's the case then I suggest implementing only basic campaign functions for fighting stations so we can test their combat. Something like simply reducing a market stability if you win. I can be wrong here but it seems to be a bit of a waste to try to implement a system that will have to be replaced once outposts are in and require severe campaign adjustments.
Hmm, how about a 'modility' module(for modded in capitals)? I can see a workaround with speed/maneuverability boosting hullmod built into a module, but can you place engine flame on a module and will it work correctly?
[edit] By the way, there are a few hooks in Twiglib that proved really super useful for a lot scripts, so in case you didn't already thought about them: getCore(), getModules() in combat are the big ones. If they are accessible from the campaign layer too that is a nice bonus. I could see some use to the ability to detach the modules while alive (for those carrier ships suggested before) but that might be a little too much to ask.
How cool would it be if all hullmods were to become ship modules in the future? Distinct looks for all the different variants and no more need for paintjobs. Take out a ship's sensor array, range bonuses, armour plating, shield generator. Degraded variants could have fused module slots that need to be repaired to remove negative stats and make the slot usable again. And of course you'd get combat damage that actually penalizes you for the remainder of a battle. I know it's likely not going to happen because it comes with a hefty workload, but a captain can dream..
Paragon as sort of a mini-station.yeah, i think it would fit very well thematically. it already looks more like a kinda-somewhat-mobile station than a ship, imo.
Hmm, how about a 'modility' module(for modded in capitals)? I can see a workaround with speed/maneuverability boosting hullmod built into a module, but can you place engine flame on a module and will it work correctly?
Engine flames are purely cosmetic and a ship can move fine without any engine flames configured for the hull, so I'm not sure the implementation meshes with how you're thinking about it. Plus, moving stations are basically just ships with modules.
<bunch of stuff>
Actually, Alex do you read all out our (my) interesting (stupid) idea threads on the suggestions folder?
Paragon with 2x range would make it so silly in everything that isn't a station siege, though.
Hmm, yeah. It's definitely strong; just thinking of it more in terms of being appealing for the player to use. If it gets slower than it is now, the Onslaught could become just more *fun* due to "burn drive in and blast everything"; some extra range could help bridge the gap and add a fun-feeling, powerful thing about the ship that isn't extra mobility.It seems like a slow ship with huge range is probably just going to be put into AI hands though. The Tachyon Lance, whilst not a great weapon, encouraged you to fly it manually due to the long cooldown- you wanted to fire it yourself to avoid wasting a shot and you got a solid feedback for landing one. You're probably not going to put an Autopulse on a Paragon because it can't back off to recharge, which basically leaves you with Plasma Cannon or HILs. Maybe the Plasma Cannon will be enough to carry it? But they're so flux-hungry if you go fire -> fortress to dissipate -> fire they leave large gaps for enemies to close, and the +range stops mattering. I think I'd probably just slot beams everywhere.
While this is indeed getting off-topic, I really hope that we'll see the return of some unique built-in weapons. Onslaughts TPC are awesome and hull-defining so I hope we can get some more of that in the future.i'd say Paragon's already hull-defining feature is its Fortress Shield, which is (almost) unique and has a bigger impact on gameplay and balance than most other ship systems.
I always thought that big empty space in the middle of the Paragon was just begging for a unique built-in energy weapon—some massive AoE Wave Cannon or something!...that still sounds kinda awesome, though. >.>
While this is indeed getting off-topic, I really hope that we'll see the return of some unique built-in weapons. Onslaughts TPC are awesome and hull-defining so I hope we can get some more of that in the future.
I always thought that big empty space in the middle of the Paragon was just begging for a unique built-in energy weapon—some massive AoE Wave Cannon or something!
It seems like a slow ship with huge range is probably just going to be put into AI hands though.... I think I'd probably just slot beams everywhere.
<bunch of stuff>
Honestly, this sounds overcomplex. The whole idea behind stations is it's a stationary target to attack, nice and straightforward, and substantially different from what's in place already. Making them mobile seems counterproductive, we've already got ships for that.
but if you're always sniping at range, what's the point?the point, as i see it, is that currently Paragon -- with its combination of probably the best defense in the game but short range with anything other than beams -- is best simply ignored until all its allies are dealt with. it is 'powerful' in the sense that it can take a lot of punishment and has respectable firepower, but neither of these really matter all that much in large battles if it has no way of forcing engagements in the first place.
I'd go the opposite of what Megas is suggesting and say that beams *don't* get the extra range enhancement but everything else does. Encourage active engagements and flux management rather than the slow but inevitable death by beams.Paragon does not need much help with that. It slaughters things with ease with multiple blasters and autopulse lasers. AI will swarm your Paragon, and Paragon will eat them like popcorn. My current simulator Paragon build uses mostly autopulse lasers (because I cannot find enough plasma cannons to use), heavy blasters, and salamanders for offense, and dual flak and burst PD for defense. Strategy is straightforward. Alpha strike as much as it can, turtle up with fortress shield, vent when safe, repeat. Paragon makes ships die quickly, but not as quickly as Onslaught can.
...and when it finally does get surrounded, with no allies remaining that could distract any of its enemies, its powerful defense doesn't actually matter much anymore, because using it simultanenously also prevents it from doing any damage itself. so it's just sloooowly getting whittled down, only prolonging the inevitable.I have been on the receiving end of this, and Paragon has more trouble escaping than Onslaught. Twelve frigates with constant reinforcements can and will win the flux war, and Paragon can take a bunch of damage once hard flux is high and it must vent. It is not unbeatable, but it is a significant danger.
but if you're always sniping at range, what's the point?the point, as i see it, is that currently Paragon -- with its combination of probably the best defense in the game but short range with anything other than beams -- is best simply ignored until all its allies are dealt with. it is 'powerful' in the sense that it can take a lot of punishment and has respectable firepower, but neither of these really matter all that much in large battles if it has no way of forcing engagements in the first place.
and when it finally does get surrounded, with no allies remaining that could distract any of its enemies, its powerful defense doesn't actually matter much anymore, because using it simultanenously also prevents it from doing any damage itself. so it's just sloooowly getting whittled down, only prolonging the inevitable.
a range increase wouldn't magically solve that entirely (nor should it, there needs to be some way of beating it, after all), but it would allow a Paragon to take a more active role in fleet actions, despite its lack of mobility and focus on energy weapons, and make it more difficult to just ignore a Paragon until the battle is already decided.
The reason effective long-range sniping is fun in Starsector is because it is rare.
it has no way of forcing engagements in the first place.
P.S. Paragon with a built-in weapon that is effectively classic Tachyon Lance (or something outrageous like Templars' Joyese Fractal Cannon or Neutrino's Phased Array Cannon) instead of two large energy weapons on the hardpoints may be fun too. Admittedly, the long range beams would probably be more useful on the large turrets instead of hardpoints.
Conquest and Odyssey are nowhere near the same level.
Also have half a mind to give the Odyssey the new plasma jets system, but not entirely decided on that.
As they shouldn't be since they're battlecruisers not battleships (although they need something to make them worth using over other capitals).
Also have half a mind to give the Odyssey the new plasma jets system, but not entirely decided on that.
But they can't stay slow AND weak AND expensive as they are now either...
Another problem with Odyssey is that it's extremely awkward. It has a very narrow angle that allows to fire all 3 large guns at same target. Keeping enemy at exactly that angle takes a lot of attention, leaving less for defensive maneuvering. And Plasma jets are not going going to solve that. They might even exacerbate the problem, since they make mobility relatively more important.
So sniping will constitute a valid, counter-able tactics, instead of god beams from nowhere that arrive the second you drop shields.Tachyon Lance since 0.53 was hardly a god-beam. It was really bad at 0.53 with no chain EMP, and sometime later after removal of flux supercharge (with no increased damage compensation) and shield-pierce bug (at the time). It was weak for the player unless he could stack four or more, which Paragon could do. Enemy AI could get away with only two.
Tachyon Lance since 0.53 was hardly a god-beam. It was really bad at 0.53 with no chain EMP, and sometime later after removal of flux supercharge (with no increased damage compensation) and shield-pierce bug (at the time). It was weak for the player unless he could stack four or more, which Paragon could do. Enemy AI could get away with only two.
I was mostly referring to really old 5k range tach lance, not sure which game version it was. I think it was only 0.5 efficiency and not too damaging, but the fact that you were pretty much always threatened without notice made it quite OP.I really wanted to try that out just to see how overpowered it really was. I read that it had double range and DPS (but no chain EMP) compared to 0.53 version. Since it is a beam that probably hit for soft flux, I still have doubts that it was overpowered that others claim. I cannot find any working links here for versions before 0.53.
Are we talking fighting against a Paragon or fighting as one? I totally agree with you but I've not experienced the AI ignoring the Paragon as much as you suggest. As a player, of course it makes sense to take everything else out first, assuming the Paragon's fleet gets pulled away from it.yeah, i was mainly talking about fighting against Paragon. it's not as big an issue when using one yourself, but even there Onslaught currently has longer range and is much better at forcing engagements.
With officers and ITU, I would hardly call its range "short," though it is less than other ballistic capitals. If anything, its the heavy weapons, not the beams, that need a bump in range to keep other capitals from endlessly kiting it.i think the +25% from officer/player skill will likely be reduced or even entirely removed with the skill revamp. we don't know many details yet (not does Alex, i believe) but it has been said several times in the past that balancing is mostly done without taking current skills into account, due to the inevitable revamp.
Paragon doesn't need anymore perks over, say, Odyssey or Conquest. Personally, I wouldn't touch it at all.Paragon does need more power/utility over Onslaught, though, and arguably even over cruisers like Dominator or Eagle. Odyssey and Conquest having their own balance problems doesn't change that, and i don't think it would be better in to instead nerf most large ships that can use long-range ballistics.
Another way to change that would be a reversed mobility feature that forces enemies into the Paragon's range. That could for example be a in-built tractor beam, or a weapon that teleports the enemy towards you when you hit.that would be interesting, but i feel a range increase would better fit Paragon's mini-station feel. if there is ever another fancy capital in vanilla, i'm all for a more creative way of forcing engagements.
one simple way to make battlecruisers at least situationally worth using over battleships, without just reducing cost or making them battleships in anything but name, would be an increase in burn speed to cruiser level. so for fleets that value high campaign-layer mobility (like faction patrols that need to be able to both catch and wipe out pirates or hostile-factions raiders), paying the full cost of a capital ship despite not getting battleship-grade combat power could still be a good deal.Cruiser speed would mean fleet does not need a fuel-slurping tug (5 per light-year) to haul a battlecruiser and take a slot out of your fleet limit. That is good. I do not use battlecruisers now because they pay full battleship costs but do not give battleship performance.
having +100% instead of ITU's +50% wouldn't be a huge difference; a third more, to be exact. and i completely agree that it's mainly assault weapons like Heavy Blasters and Autopulse Lasers that need the range buff, to be more in line with ballistic weapons, which is partly why i'm against giving beams a larger bonus.I would like that range boost to be universal to all ships, or at least for all high-tech ships that cannot use ballistics, especially Aurora. Such short range is why I almost always mount ballistics in hybrids/universals when I need an assault weapon. Of course, such short range seems intended generally. As for Paragon, I would love 3000+ range beams because sniping is fun.
The original Tachyon Lance was an awesome game-changing weapon - but a large part of its (relative) power was due to the different combat environment.I was mostly referring to really old 5k range tach lance, not sure which game version it was. I think it was only 0.5 efficiency and not too damaging, but the fact that you were pretty much always threatened without notice made it quite OP.I really wanted to try that out just to see how overpowered it really was. I read that it had double range and DPS (but no chain EMP) compared to 0.53 version. Since it is a beam that probably hit for soft flux, I still have doubts that it was overpowered that others claim. I cannot find any working links here for versions before 0.53.
Now here's a question, will there be a station variant to fight against in the simulator?
Spoiler* independent space train, obviously.
(+++++++++++)
(++++)
(+++)
(+++)
(++)
[~]
| | (~) (~) (~) /~~~~~~~~~~~~
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [~_~_] | * * * /~~~~~~~~~~~|
[| %___________________ | |~~~~ |
\[___] ___ ___ ___\ IST | | HYPE |
/// [___ + /-+-\-/-+-\-/-+ \\_________|=|___________________|
//// @-=-@ \___/ \___/ \___/ @-==-@ @-==-@ @-==-@[close]
(Boy, did I ever derail this thread. Uh, sorry?)
(Current state of plasma cannon, though, needs some help. Flux cost is too high; might be okay if it wasn't doing that three shot burst thing? Maybe we can get back the old charge-up plasma cannon; that would be fun...)(Forced) Burst fire never makes sense to me, especially with a high flux using weapon like the Plasma Cannon. Also another thing that doesn't help it: it has no weapon hints, which allows the AI to fire at ANYTHING, meaning wasting (massive) flux firing at fighters, drones and some times frigs...
Now here's a question, will there be a station variant to fight against in the simulator?
Probably not. Some types of content are spoiled by being available like that, and stations (and REDACTED) fall into that category imo.
For Conquest, an obvious change would be to give it a decent shield. it currently has one of the worst shields in the entire game, despite supposedly being a midline ship, and without heavy armor or other powerful defensive features that could make up for it.
For Conquest, an obvious change would be to give it a decent shield. it currently has one of the worst shields in the entire game, despite supposedly being a midline ship, and without heavy armor or other powerful defensive features that could make up for it.
I'll freely admit I don't know terribly much about the theorycraft, but I honestly don't understand why everyone thinks the Conquest is so bad. I suppose if the AI is piloting it using one of the crappy assault-to-port-PD-to-starboard (or the other way around, I can never keep straight which is which) loadouts it's probably going to be pretty underwhelming, but as a player ship it's easily my favorite in the game. It's fragile, sure, but it's also fast enough to outflank the other big ships and, when properly equipped, capable of pumping out more than enough firepower to take care of everything else.
I agree it could use a bit more defense, though, preferably in the form of a larger/better shield, just to give it a bit more margin for error when things look to be going south.
I honestly don't understand why everyone thinks the Conquest is so bad.i don't think it's terrible, but i also don't think it's worth costing as much as an Onslaught.
it's burn 6(standard military capital burn speed is 7, actually. 6 for civilian capitals like Atlas, 8 for most cruisers.)
Onslaught is appealing because it is the most powerful playership in the game, beating even Paragon (slightly). It is able to solo everything in the game worth fighting, and do it more efficiently than Paragon, the only other ship with comparable power.There are multiple types of appeal a ship can have. Not everyone chooses ships based solely on how optimal they are in combat; as long as their effectiveness is within a reasonable margin, many people will decide based on other factors. The Onslaught feels like a distinct centrepiece that adds something unique, whilst the Paragon doesn't really (it's just very good at doing what a lot of other ships also do). It's why people like the Conquest even though it's mechanically sub-par; it has a distinct, interesting character to it and you fly it in a unique way because of the weapon distribution.
If Paragon replaces hardpoints with builtin lances, they had better be overpowered to make up the loss of stronger heavy weapons.
Both Onslaught and Paragon can solo the simulator without hull damage. Onslaught does it mainly with a flak screen and outranging nearly anything that threatens it and outgunning those it cannot kite, and the occasional burn drive to escape. Paragon is easier to use, but Onslaught is the better ship because it kills faster and is more efficient. Onslaught's primary weakness - getting flanked - is removed by turtling in the corner (and it has the power and defenses to kill anything that tries to attack it), but Onslaught (with max skills) is so powerful it may not need to resort to such cheese.
Onslaught's primary weakness - getting flanked - is removed by turtling in the corner
Onslaught's primary weakness - getting flanked - is removed by turtling in the corner
Out of curiosity, when is the last time you've done this successfully? IIRC the current release has some AI changes that are meant to prevent that from being effective. I could be mistaken and it could have been added after the release, but I'm fairly sure it's actually in the current release.
Onslaught's primary weakness - getting flanked - is removed by turtling in the corner
Out of curiosity, when is the last time you've done this successfully? IIRC the current release has some AI changes that are meant to prevent that from being effective. I could be mistaken and it could have been added after the release, but I'm fairly sure it's actually in the current release.
Tried it a bit, the AI seems to keep away from me whem I'm im a corner. Burn-drive ships tend to rush forward and die when provoked, though.
What's funny is that neither me (in an Onslaught) nor the enemy fleet ( three cruiser, hand full of destroyers and frigates) seem to lose any CR time, leading potentially to an ifinite standoff.
If your question was more about successfully flanking an enemy Onslaught, i'll say yes, i do it every single times unless it's a brawling contest. Yes, the Onslaught will be careful about it, yes its allies will cover its rear, but it's still the best tactic against a front shielded ship and exploiting it always works.
Onslaught's primary weakness - getting flanked - is removed by turtling in the corner
Out of curiosity, when is the last time you've done this successfully? IIRC the current release has some AI changes that are meant to prevent that from being effective. I could be mistaken and it could have been added after the release, but I'm fairly sure it's actually in the current release.
I mean, the AI is staying away from you, which naturally keeps you safer, but it also means you (theoretically) can't win the fight. VS if it kept trying to swarm you while you're in a corner, but only has a 90 degree arc from which to attack, leading to it losing.
Yeah, makes sense. Seems alright to me, though, since it's in the player's hands to end at any time.
Like exploration, orbital stations are a bit awkward to talk about because I’d like to avoid spoiling things, and this rules out talking about all of the content currently using these mechanics.
Is there a way to mark a module as unmodifiable? Especially for armor modules, it seems that being able to select these when refitting a ship would be more frustrating to a player than useful.
Is there a way to control module render order, and if so, is it possible to make a module render under the main ship instead of over?
What happens if a module type slot doesn't have a specific module built in? Would it be possible for the player to choose from appropriately-sized modules in their cargo hold, or is this not supported?
The case where modules overlap with each other (rather than just the ship) isn't exactly built for.Huh. Given the suggestion of armor modules as a thing, and the description in the blog post of shooting through one module to get at another one, I would've expected this to be a thing. ...Then again, given that, I would've expected recursive modules to be a thing, too, and you've already said that isn't supported, so what do I know?
Huh. Given the suggestion of armor modules as a thing, and the description in the blog post of shooting through one module to get at another one, I would've expected this to be a thing.
(Answer: I know this next update will be awesome, that's what.)
Edit: also, thanks for the answers! Much appreciated.
(I, at least, would be quite happy with a way to prevent certain hulls from showing up in the Codex...)
(I, at least, would be quite happy with a way to prevent certain hulls from showing up in the Codex...)
Seconded, this would be extremely useful.
How do stations / modules show up in the Codex? ...Or do they? (I, at least, would be quite happy with a way to prevent certain hulls from showing up in the Codex...)
Seconded, this would be extremely useful.
For now, these show up in the codex, but I'll need to add a flag to take the modules/exploration content out at some point before the release.
For now, these show up in the codex, but I'll need to add a flag to take the modules/exploration content out at some point before the release.That is a GREAT news! Thanks!
As stimulating and hype building as this blog was, it takes so long to get ideas into released content that I forget about this game for months at a time. I'll come back, as I did just now, and see 1-2 really enticing blogs.
But no content. So I disappear again.
Good luck with the game as always!
Thirteenth day of fasting, my body is weak, but my mind never felt so strong. I'm now deeply attuned to the world around me, feeling it flowing, alive, beautiful... The meditation trance engulf me again, I see blurred visions of the future, a feeling of ecstasy submerge my soul as I can see... I see it! The divine goal of this endeavor. Immaculate and bathed in light... But yet again I'm denied the honor of laying my eyes upon its content. The trance recess and I'm now deaf to the world again. Day thirteen of fasting, and the Holy Changelog still eludes me.
Maybe I should ask my friend to try and read it in tea leaves again.
Alex has indeed entered silent running mode for nearly two weeks now. Granted, there isn't much to talk about what with the last patch being many months ago and no new blog post in awhile.The update? I doubt it. Changelog? Maybe, depending on how generous Alex is feeling. :)
I surely do hope we can get the patch before 2017...
Thirteenth day of fasting, my body is weakbeautiful.
Mainly just working on stuff that's awkward to talk about without spoiling - exploration related content, procedural generation, etc. I mean, "here's some of the things you might find", I don't really want to do that. (Side note: the new game dialog now has more options pertaining to Sector creation!)
Very much aware that I need to write new blog post soon, though. There's a good candidate for it but it's not done, though it's next on the list after I finish up the current thing - so will probably write about that if it works out, or about procgen in more general terms if it doesn't.
You should generate Hyperspace in a way that creates sort of "Hyperspace Highways"—channels and lanes through the deep clouds that the AI often uses to get from one cluster of systems to another. Would be neat to see and help players hunt.Especially with the new hyperspace stuff. Otherwise it is gonna take forever to get from one start cluster to another and cost an arm and a leg as well
Alex did mentioned that it was one of the more extreme tests with the procedural generation. The "normal" size will probably be much closer to the current hyper. Additionally, maybe ships travel faster now?I honestly wouldn't mind such a massive world, even if I never get to visit most of them, having such a large world with that many opportunities just feels good.
I honestly wouldn't mind such a massive worldYour CPU might have a different opinion...
Your CPU might have a different opinion...Not really, I've got an i7-6700K with an overclockable motherboard, so I'm set for it. :D
Doesn't really help with SS as the game isn't really set up for multi cores. Raw core per core speed is better. Or so I've heardYour CPU might have a different opinion...Not really, I've got an i7-6700K with an overclockable motherboard, so I'm set for it. :D