Any questions, comments, suggestions regarding the mod development.

Random Idea Time

User avatar
User

Kalis

Rank

Developer

Posts

1031

Joined

01 Aug 2012, 18:11

Location

The Pantry (I upgraded again)

Random Idea Time

by Kalis » 20 Jun 2015, 16:14

Gather round, time for the local crazy to start spouting nonsense

My standard disclaimers apply here, I know the dev team is undermanned, has a massive list, these are just ideas from a player that might not even be possible with the current engine.

Tractor Beam Projectors

One of the biggest Star Wars things that is currently missing from the mod are tractor beams. I remember in the demo they functioned as a cruise disruptor, and as such were really more of an annoyance than anything.

If implemented I believe they should actually act as a long term engine kill. Either an invisible 'missile' (would last 30 seconds) like previous versions were or if it isn't too taxing a beam weapon or a gun that fires near continuously or just rapidly (preferable as then you would have energy drain on the ship for using it). The engine kill, while it doesn't quite draw a ship in seems the best option as it immobilizes the target and prevents jumps since it isn't moving. This of course makes them easier targets for guns or just good old ramming but that is the point.

Would also make catching smugglers a lot more feasible (let's face it, RPing a traffic stop just results in them calculating a jump while we talk/type, right now it is shoot or let them get away).

Having read up on beams they weren't quite multi-directional, and in fact were limited on most ships to a specific arc. Assault shuttles and smaller vessels typically had theirs fixed forwards while larger ships used one around nearly every arc (Carrack is a good example) which can be simulated with a single weapon that fires 360 degrees, or 270 degrees as many ships did not have rear beams to keep the number of weapons down. Further support for setting it up like a rapid firing invisible turret if possible.

The biggest issue I see is scaling them, cruiser and battleships shouldn't be able to be caught by tractor beams and a corvette shouldn't be able to immobilize a frigate, or a shuttle a corvette. Maybe different types of beams on different ships to solve this? I know that you guys figured out a way that mag-pulses won't work on larger ships.

Carrier System Balance

Right now if activity picks up you may find carriers are too powerful and almost require suspension of disbelief. For example one could load a hundred of every single fighter type into a carrier (which shouldn't be possible) for nearly no cost whatsoever (also not technically possible without slave labor and the Imps don't have Kashyyyk so...).

The idea behind this is to make carriers more, wait for it... 'Realistic.' First off lowering the carrier's cargo capacity and/or increasing the amount of space that the respawns take up seems to be in order. Right now we benefit from unlimited respawns which allows our pilots to do stupid things like suicide bomb enemy capitals continuously. There should be a punishment for dying a lot, even with a carrier. If they carried a realistic number of fighters, even the ISD's 72, then it would be more interesting.

This would mean bigger ships carry more respawns, while the dedicated carriers still benefit from carrying among the most respawns and still being able to field around 8 players. I think the system where ships are scaled is a good one, right now I believe it is based on the number of squadrons a ship can support, with one player fighter equaling one squadron (hence an ISD carries 6 players, though it canonically supports 6 squadrons). That seems to work pretty well so I'll move on.

The other point to this is respawns shouldn't be free. True right now money isn't worth much, but I'm assuming as we advance into the meta pivot money is going to become important. With things like ship upgrades, new ships, repairs, and ordnance all figuring into the budget (and thus making trading more important). Capital ships seem to only have repairs in their main costs right now, and those repairs are technically quite cheap. I'll talk about that later.

Anyways I think that respawns should cost money, so you can't just load a carrier up with 20 of everything mindlessly even if it could hold that much. Cheaper ships like TIE Fighters will be cheap, while TIE Defenders and E-Wings will be more expensive. This will encourage more diversity as well, with everybody not just grabbing the best advanced and dedicated fighters. I'd say they should be about half the cost for a player to buy the actual ship to fly, so when you think about it a squadron of Defenders would cost around 1.5 to 2 million while a squadron's worth of TIE Fighters would be only be around half a million. When money is tight that is a noteworthy difference, but a power trader could still make that in a short period of time or a group of players running missions so it isn't off the charts expensive.

Capital Costs

Right now we build a capital ship (or later buy/earn them) and hurrah, we literally have no more costs involving it except the occasional bit to fix up some hull damage. Compared to the actual cost of a Star Destroyer a few million to fix up a decent chunk of its hull is not a lot at all (even though we still bitch about it).

Real world, it can often cost more than a ship is worth to keep them in shape, let alone repair battle damage. Not only that but right now on capital vessels systems are all 'worthless,' their value is one credit, so they cost nothing to repair/replace.

It might be worth it to make the Star Destroyer's main battery for example cost a decent chunk of money to replace if it gets destroyed, or a power generator or shield generator or sensors for that matter. If an Interdictor's gravity well generators are taken out you better have deep pockets is what I'm saying.

I remember there was originally an idea where these ships would cost maintenance, taking a chunk of cash out of the bank every week for their upkeep. We literally wouldn't be able to afford the massive fleet we have going right now, neither side would. And that was the idea, we would have the number of capitals our player base could support. It looks like that idea isn't going anywhere since factions are sort of being dissolved in favor of decentralization and even stockpiling is going so making it cost big bucks to repair these ships might be the way to go.

In short, if a Nebulon B costs 8,500,000 credits it should cost around that much to repair 99% of its hull, or even 50-100% more. Plus replacing systems and weapons that were knocked out. It might be interesting being forced to chose between a few turrets or a shield generator if you have little cash too...

This is even more viable now that ships do shield penetration damage, so minor repairs that are inevitable after every battle could be like upkeep while not using a ship at all is essentially free but why do you have the ship then?

I think I will just keep posting ideas in this specific thread instead of spamming the forum monthly from now on. Make things a little easier.
Lieutenant Commander Kalis; HIMS Annihilator (retired)
Flight Lieutenant Drakis; Reaper Squadron
Moff Griff; Tapani Sector
Image

Image
User avatar
User

FriendlyFire

Rank

Developer

Posts

1687

Joined

15 Feb 2010, 16:14

Re: Random Idea Time

by FriendlyFire » 21 Jun 2015, 08:04

Points two and three are extremely obvious and will be implemented with the pivot. I don't see a point in charging for respawns though since you already have to buy the ship respawns which cost the same as the ship. If you respawn on a station, the idea is that you're "another person" or that they had a bunch in hangars, which is generally true.

Tractors were planned and then scrapped due to technical difficulties, no idea if we'll implement them or when.
User avatar
User

Kalis

Rank

Developer

Posts

1031

Joined

01 Aug 2012, 18:11

Location

The Pantry (I upgraded again)

Re: Random Idea Time

by Kalis » 21 Jun 2015, 08:18

I don't see a point in charging for respawns though since you already have to buy the ship respawns which cost the same as the ship


I have to admit I don't understand this part of the reply. Never said that respawning would cost the pilot himself money, just the commodity required for the respawn in the carrier would cost something. Maybe there was a miscommunication :/
Lieutenant Commander Kalis; HIMS Annihilator (retired)
Flight Lieutenant Drakis; Reaper Squadron
Moff Griff; Tapani Sector
Image

Image
User avatar
User

FriendlyFire

Rank

Developer

Posts

1687

Joined

15 Feb 2010, 16:14

Re: Random Idea Time

by FriendlyFire » 21 Jun 2015, 19:20

The respawn commodities should already cost the same amount as buying the ship they represent. I'm pretty sure that was setup properly in the first carrier release, so if it's no longer the case, blame Sizer :P
User avatar
User

Kalis

Rank

Developer

Posts

1031

Joined

01 Aug 2012, 18:11

Location

The Pantry (I upgraded again)

Re: Random Idea Time

by Kalis » 21 Jun 2015, 19:45

I was told they are the way they are because making them cost next to nothing makes it easier to test things for now. I probably should have put that as a blurb here after being told that. Same with capital repairs.
Lieutenant Commander Kalis; HIMS Annihilator (retired)
Flight Lieutenant Drakis; Reaper Squadron
Moff Griff; Tapani Sector
Image

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign
[ Time : 0.049s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]
cron