Forums » Suggestions
i just think it would make the game a little more interesting to instead (or as well as) buying whole ships, it could be a nice idea to actually buy different parts of the ships, colour or decal them indiviually then stick them together on the manage screen,
so you would have the back engien & boosters where the power core would go, verying types of wing sets, and the cockpit,
one thing i have notised about people is that they love to customise stuff, so this could be a nice way to go!
so you would have the back engien & boosters where the power core would go, verying types of wing sets, and the cockpit,
one thing i have notised about people is that they love to customise stuff, so this could be a nice way to go!
Duh.
Moving onto a less blindingly obvious matter within the same basic scope: port spacing.
(1) It would be fantastic if there were some degrees of freedom along x and y axes for the ports.
(2) Not so much play in the joints as to allow the basic pattern to alter (i.e. Valk always fires in a triangle, but the size could be altered), but enough to customize to better suit a weapon setup.
Mortals: discuss.
Devs: is this doable or does the modeling not allow for this sort of adjustability?
Moving onto a less blindingly obvious matter within the same basic scope: port spacing.
(1) It would be fantastic if there were some degrees of freedom along x and y axes for the ports.
(2) Not so much play in the joints as to allow the basic pattern to alter (i.e. Valk always fires in a triangle, but the size could be altered), but enough to customize to better suit a weapon setup.
Mortals: discuss.
Devs: is this doable or does the modeling not allow for this sort of adjustability?
this sounds like a fresh/new idea... not lecter's, cause his idea is boring.
we should have a long discussion about this first one.
we should have a long discussion about this first one.
Done before. Repealed by some random Alpha update. Reappeared as a bug coders and the cronies thereof exploited. Closed loophole.
In the end, the Devs favor balance. otherwise, I want my Wand of Aasskicking +5. Andy makes it look so cool! :(
In the end, the Devs favor balance. otherwise, I want my Wand of Aasskicking +5. Andy makes it look so cool! :(
Sweet stuck-pig-bleeding Christ, Doak is a godsdamned moron.
This is at least the 10th thread to mention the OP's basic concepts... and is by far the least articulate.
Moldy, are you talking about the adjustable ports spacing having been done before? Because I know you don't have first hand knowledge of it if that's what yer talking about. As far as balance, I see this as making ships more balanced for a given load-out: narrow the diamond for a quad rail hornet; space it out some for the quad flare hornet. Likewise other ships. Currently, the EC-107 has a nice spacing for flares; less so for any form of energy and cripplingly bad for rails. Degrees of freedom on one axis would alleviate that to a great deal (again, I don't think severe alterations would help at all).
[Edit]Ah, yeah, btdt... problems.[/Edit]
This is at least the 10th thread to mention the OP's basic concepts... and is by far the least articulate.
Moldy, are you talking about the adjustable ports spacing having been done before? Because I know you don't have first hand knowledge of it if that's what yer talking about. As far as balance, I see this as making ships more balanced for a given load-out: narrow the diamond for a quad rail hornet; space it out some for the quad flare hornet. Likewise other ships. Currently, the EC-107 has a nice spacing for flares; less so for any form of energy and cripplingly bad for rails. Degrees of freedom on one axis would alleviate that to a great deal (again, I don't think severe alterations would help at all).
[Edit]Ah, yeah, btdt... problems.[/Edit]
He was speaking about the powercells and engines.
I think the ability to alter one's 'spread' would be awesome :D
It would take quite some time to make a working interface for it though.
It would take quite some time to make a working interface for it though.
Maybe just a few preset subgroups in the menu? I.e. Valk Vengance: close, far, midrange port spacing flavors.
Sweet stuck-pig-bleeding Christ, Doak is a godsdamned moron.
nah-ughn. you are.
nah-ughn. you are.
why have presets? Then you're stuck with a range spread. Would be awesome to be able to adjust the degree of fire on the fly, then you can quick switch for different targets. So, for example, I can on-the-fly tighten the pattern so the shots converge closer to my ship, but sacrificing range of autoaim for tighter patterns, but then I kill target 1 and face a different ship that requires a greater distance.
Heh, I'm sacrificing some cool features for the prospect of ever actually seeing it in VO.
well, if they want the ships to be balenced fine, lets say that you can buy a ship with set specs and stuff, and all the changes done to the ships are merely cosmetical,
you could say, take a Warthog, make it look completly different with different wings and such, but at the end of the day it would still be a warthog
i think that building your own ships, even if it is insanly expensive is somthing everyone would enjoy
you could say, take a Warthog, make it look completly different with different wings and such, but at the end of the day it would still be a warthog
i think that building your own ships, even if it is insanly expensive is somthing everyone would enjoy
darkjenso,
while it may not be obvious the apperence of a ship does have an effect on it's effectivness as a warship. For one the physics engin ties the ship's manyvering capacity to it's shape somehow (the devs have mentioned this but i don't fully understand the details of how this works, additionally the silouet size and shape affect how easy it is to hit. All and all, there would tend to be an optimum arangment of all available parts unless the differences are so cosmetic as to be comprable to changing the color of a ship (which also arguably has an effect on it's effectivness).
while it may not be obvious the apperence of a ship does have an effect on it's effectivness as a warship. For one the physics engin ties the ship's manyvering capacity to it's shape somehow (the devs have mentioned this but i don't fully understand the details of how this works, additionally the silouet size and shape affect how easy it is to hit. All and all, there would tend to be an optimum arangment of all available parts unless the differences are so cosmetic as to be comprable to changing the color of a ship (which also arguably has an effect on it's effectivness).
It probably depends on how the ports are implemented. Odds are, they are defined as specific points on the ship model, so adjusting the grouping distance between the ports (like spreading the ports on a Valkyrie out a bit wider) would probably require a separate model. Same issue, but on a larger scale, for ship customization (you would need new collision meshes etc for every change to the ship's appearance). And Q is right about the physics bit too (though I think that part is automatic, it's basically just an even mass distribution through the volume of the ship if I remember right. That's why the Revenant handles like it's got 10 bags of concrete in the trunk).
Changing the convergence of the weapons would be possible, as it's simply an adjustment to the autoaim. Rather than keeping the weapons firing in parallel as they do now, the autoaim could adjust in such a way as to have the shots meet a single point at a certain distance from the ship. (I think the autoaim actually attempts to do this sometimes, but with the convergence always being at the exact distance to the target when the shots were fired.)
Tumble's got it on the nose, in that the overall autoaim radius would then be reduced (assuming that converged mode does not allow the weapons to fire in a way that breaks the convergence distance). The closer you want the convergence to your ship, the smaller the autoaim cone would be. For rockets, you could have the convergence become an outward facing cone, again sacrificing autoaim and concentrated damage for a nice spread effect.
Ships with in-line ports (Warthog, Centaur, Hornet and Ragnarok) already have converged fire, so they would only get the ability to spread out their shots, but maybe allow for a vertical/horizontal orientation toggle?
Changing the convergence of the weapons would be possible, as it's simply an adjustment to the autoaim. Rather than keeping the weapons firing in parallel as they do now, the autoaim could adjust in such a way as to have the shots meet a single point at a certain distance from the ship. (I think the autoaim actually attempts to do this sometimes, but with the convergence always being at the exact distance to the target when the shots were fired.)
Tumble's got it on the nose, in that the overall autoaim radius would then be reduced (assuming that converged mode does not allow the weapons to fire in a way that breaks the convergence distance). The closer you want the convergence to your ship, the smaller the autoaim cone would be. For rockets, you could have the convergence become an outward facing cone, again sacrificing autoaim and concentrated damage for a nice spread effect.
Ships with in-line ports (Warthog, Centaur, Hornet and Ragnarok) already have converged fire, so they would only get the ability to spread out their shots, but maybe allow for a vertical/horizontal orientation toggle?
well it would be cool if you could have some sort of "strafe mode" for your weapons that would angle your shots down slightly so you could boost past some turrets and be able to shoot at them without smashing into the hull.
i do know this i'm not stupid, its just that, it may be that the game designers want there to be set ships so that they are ballenced, and so why no make all the customisations merely cosmetical, as yes in real life it would make a difference to the ship but this is a game i.e. the only phisics the game has are the ones the designers put in it
I think having different "parts" would mean having different collision meshes for each part, and having the game treat 4 or 5 "segments" as a particular ship would be I think taxing for the server. The 4 or 5 pieces would need to act as if they were the same ship, which might be a pain in the ass for the server, increasing the load for everything 4 or 5-fold.
But, I have no idea how this actually works, so I could very easy be absolutely, totally wrong.
But, I have no idea how this actually works, so I could very easy be absolutely, totally wrong.
1) Constructing ships from different type-specific "elements" was one of the original goals. Hence why in this picture the valkyrie concept art shows different engine modules that were intended to be equipped to the body. Or the Marauder was supposed to have all sorts of different bits and pieces, and only the front "round" section was really central to owning the ship.. and N number of cargo crates could be towed behind it. Anyway, this was scrapped in a fit of "oh christ, we don't have enough developers, or money, or time". Someday.. it'd be great.
2) Responding to Lecter's suggestion, equipment ports currently are fixed points which are defined via 3DS Max "dummy objects" with certain names that are positioned on the model. That said, it is not impossible to do some sort of "port scaling" effect.. kind of giving an X/Y/Z offset to a port location. But, this is not going to be an immediate priority because..
3) A Hardpoint system is the next (moving) target for ship configurability. I've mentioned that in a couple of other threads, the general idea that powercells are imbued with both absolute "energy storage" as well as an overall "energy capability" value (analogous to voltage or some such), where different addons have different equip-time energy requirements, in addition to their port size. This lets me shake up the whole addon/ship situation.. so I don't have to nerf light small-port addons because they can be quad-configured on the Hornet, for instance, simply because the hornet doesn't have an available powercell with enough energy points to allow a fuctional quad configuration (and hey, maybe then I can make the hornet not suck!). But.. they could be quad-configured (or something) on a bigger ship with greater power generation abilities. More importantly (and relevant to this thread), this allows ships with more interesting port configs. Every single ship in the game has at least 10 ports on the model, just only a few are enabled. However, enabling ports at present has all sorts of nasty repurcussions. With a hardpoint system I could allow more ship and addon variability, without as much potential imbalance, and without having to make every decent weapon have a large mass.
Down the line maybe we can look at dynamic port positioning, or port (offset) position scaling. Neither are impossible, but either would be some.. work.
2) Responding to Lecter's suggestion, equipment ports currently are fixed points which are defined via 3DS Max "dummy objects" with certain names that are positioned on the model. That said, it is not impossible to do some sort of "port scaling" effect.. kind of giving an X/Y/Z offset to a port location. But, this is not going to be an immediate priority because..
3) A Hardpoint system is the next (moving) target for ship configurability. I've mentioned that in a couple of other threads, the general idea that powercells are imbued with both absolute "energy storage" as well as an overall "energy capability" value (analogous to voltage or some such), where different addons have different equip-time energy requirements, in addition to their port size. This lets me shake up the whole addon/ship situation.. so I don't have to nerf light small-port addons because they can be quad-configured on the Hornet, for instance, simply because the hornet doesn't have an available powercell with enough energy points to allow a fuctional quad configuration (and hey, maybe then I can make the hornet not suck!). But.. they could be quad-configured (or something) on a bigger ship with greater power generation abilities. More importantly (and relevant to this thread), this allows ships with more interesting port configs. Every single ship in the game has at least 10 ports on the model, just only a few are enabled. However, enabling ports at present has all sorts of nasty repurcussions. With a hardpoint system I could allow more ship and addon variability, without as much potential imbalance, and without having to make every decent weapon have a large mass.
Down the line maybe we can look at dynamic port positioning, or port (offset) position scaling. Neither are impossible, but either would be some.. work.
ah ok, thanks for that :)
i can imagine that it was one of the origional concepts, just the other day i was tring to get a friend into having a go at the game, when i showed him a snapshot from the game, he imediatly throught that you could build your own ship, when i told him that this was not the case, he decided not to have a go after all.
which brings me to why i posted this suggestion lol
so as you can see, if that is implemented somehow, even on a basic scale, i think that it could attract a good few more players.
i can imagine that it was one of the origional concepts, just the other day i was tring to get a friend into having a go at the game, when i showed him a snapshot from the game, he imediatly throught that you could build your own ship, when i told him that this was not the case, he decided not to have a go after all.
which brings me to why i posted this suggestion lol
so as you can see, if that is implemented somehow, even on a basic scale, i think that it could attract a good few more players.
Yeah, it would probably attract more players, and it would be really cool. But it would require a massive redux of our art assets (the ships themselves), to break things out into attachable "modules" and so on, and we don't even have a full-time graphics guy right now. So, one uses the resources one has to achieve the most compelling game changes in the shortest period of time.. and this isn't one of them :(.