Forums » Suggestions
«"You also don't specify any carriers."
No, I didn't. I don't have to, nor for that matter is there some obvious engineering reason why space ships would need to have specially modified hulls in order to be carriers. Clearly in a vacuum, in zero g, there is no need for 'flat tops'. If you want a carrier all you have to do is mount additional fighter bays in your heavy weapons slots. Then you could have escort carriers with 10 bays, or fast carriers based off a Battle Cruiser hull with 24 bays, or big fleet carriers based off a heavy Battle Cruiser hull with 30 bays.»
then you suggest that every capital ship has one or two visible and accessible bays by default and can sort of pile the ships inside, the number of which depending on how many "virtual" bays the skipper bought?
just asking, because
a) i don't really see how you see the problem and
b) i think carrier ships would need to be specified, more or less as a giant tube with moorings and landing pads inside as well as some sort of propelling system:
if anyone of you played the first installment of the marathon series, one terminal text speaks of the CRIST supertransporters (sort of like a giant, hollowed-out ball with an engine), and in the wing commander series (III) the victory isn't much more than that.
this would make sense, actually, because it could serve as a mobile FARP (forward ammo and refueling point), unlike stations that are bound to a fixed place (which is scientifically wrong, too, as it mosves in space...)
No, I didn't. I don't have to, nor for that matter is there some obvious engineering reason why space ships would need to have specially modified hulls in order to be carriers. Clearly in a vacuum, in zero g, there is no need for 'flat tops'. If you want a carrier all you have to do is mount additional fighter bays in your heavy weapons slots. Then you could have escort carriers with 10 bays, or fast carriers based off a Battle Cruiser hull with 24 bays, or big fleet carriers based off a heavy Battle Cruiser hull with 30 bays.»
then you suggest that every capital ship has one or two visible and accessible bays by default and can sort of pile the ships inside, the number of which depending on how many "virtual" bays the skipper bought?
just asking, because
a) i don't really see how you see the problem and
b) i think carrier ships would need to be specified, more or less as a giant tube with moorings and landing pads inside as well as some sort of propelling system:
if anyone of you played the first installment of the marathon series, one terminal text speaks of the CRIST supertransporters (sort of like a giant, hollowed-out ball with an engine), and in the wing commander series (III) the victory isn't much more than that.
this would make sense, actually, because it could serve as a mobile FARP (forward ammo and refueling point), unlike stations that are bound to a fixed place (which is scientifically wrong, too, as it mosves in space...)
"""Can anyone remember if any game in all time has had multi-player-controlled cap ships battling it out? 'Cause I can't... Imagine having that battle? *drool*"""
Actually Rogue, I can think of one. it is close to Vendetta in play style, ((tho not neccesarrily in genre)) Battlefield 1942. particularly the Midway Scenario, if both teams try for the ocean placed Victory Locales. On the Battleships you can have up to 4 players in the big guns(bow, stern, left and right) and several standing at anti-aircraft machine gun mounts. of course this doesn't stop the silly players from sailing the ships up onto the beach and getting them stuck.. but that's a different story.
Actually Rogue, I can think of one. it is close to Vendetta in play style, ((tho not neccesarrily in genre)) Battlefield 1942. particularly the Midway Scenario, if both teams try for the ocean placed Victory Locales. On the Battleships you can have up to 4 players in the big guns(bow, stern, left and right) and several standing at anti-aircraft machine gun mounts. of course this doesn't stop the silly players from sailing the ships up onto the beach and getting them stuck.. but that's a different story.
I seem to think your capital ships are too small.
Here is a list of ships scaled up as much as the Frigatewould be to meet its current length:
Corvette - 500m
Monitor - 666 2/3m
Frigate – 800m
Destroyer – 1166 2/3m
Light Cruiser – 1333 1/3m
Protected Cruiser – 1333 1/3m
Cruiser – 1583 1/3m
Armored Cruiser – 1750m
Heavy Cruiser – 2000m
Battle Cruiser – 1500m
Heavy Battle Cruiser – 2166 2/3m
Dreadnought – 2500m
___________________________
Although I believe these ships are the perfect size for their class:
Courier - 80m
Light Freighter - 180m
Bulk Freighter - 360m
Heavy Freighter - 400m
Here is a list of ships scaled up as much as the Frigatewould be to meet its current length:
Corvette - 500m
Monitor - 666 2/3m
Frigate – 800m
Destroyer – 1166 2/3m
Light Cruiser – 1333 1/3m
Protected Cruiser – 1333 1/3m
Cruiser – 1583 1/3m
Armored Cruiser – 1750m
Heavy Cruiser – 2000m
Battle Cruiser – 1500m
Heavy Battle Cruiser – 2166 2/3m
Dreadnought – 2500m
___________________________
Although I believe these ships are the perfect size for their class:
Courier - 80m
Light Freighter - 180m
Bulk Freighter - 360m
Heavy Freighter - 400m
Freighter class ships!
Courier - 80m
---------
Hull: 50,000
Armor Slots: 3
Equipment Slots: 6
Shields: Class III
Engines: 1
Weapon Slots: 1L + 2T
Fighter Bays: 0
Cargo: 50
Maneuverability: Poor
The courier's design is sleek and small, the most maneuverable of the freighter class ships. Couriers are most popular among small buisiness owners as their small size and good durability make them capable of servicing most stations among the backwater trading routes. Couriers are also often chartered by wealthy private individuals to move large quantities of personal goods from sector to sector, and smugglers have been known to use them to slip illegal goods past government checkpoints.
Light Freighter - 180m
---------
Hull: 140,000
Armor Slots: 4
Equipment Slots: 7
Shields: Class IV
Engines: 2
Weapon Slots: 1VL + 2T
Fighter Bays: 0
Cargo: 120
Maneuverability: Bad
Special: 10% Penalty to turbo
Light frieghters are the most common class of freighters in the galaxy, and are the backbone of most mainstream shipping companies. Light frieghters are much longer than they are wide, carrying the bulk of their cargo in small detachable modules along their hull. Less defensable than the courier, light frieghters are almost always accompianied by a small fighter escort.
Bulk Freighter - 360m
---------
Hull: 280,000
Armor Slots: 5
Equipment Slots: 8
Shields: Class V
Engines: 2
Weapon Slots: 4T
Fighter Bays: 0
Cargo: 300
Maneuverability: Horrible
Special: No turbo, 10% penalty to speed
Bulk freighters are huge, bulbous, virtually defenseless behemoths capable of transporting copious amounts of cargo. Because of their large size and abysmal defense, bulk freighters are only used among the safer core trade routes. Every pirate dreams of catching an underguarded bulk freighter and reaping the benefits of its cavernous cargo holds.
Heavy Freighter - 400m
---------
Hull: 340,000
Armor Slots: 6
Equipment Slots: 10
Shields: Class VI
Engines: 3
Weapon Slots: 4T + 2LT
Fighter Bays: 2
Cargo: 250
Maneuverability: Terrible
Special: No turbo, 10% penalty to speed
Heavy freighters are the kings of the shipping lanes, their stocky, powerful shapes positively awe-inspiring. While they cannot carry as much cargo as a bulk freighter, heavy freighters are more than capable of defending themselves, with firepower rivaling that of some smaller military capital ships and two built-in fighter bays.
Courier - 80m
---------
Hull: 50,000
Armor Slots: 3
Equipment Slots: 6
Shields: Class III
Engines: 1
Weapon Slots: 1L + 2T
Fighter Bays: 0
Cargo: 50
Maneuverability: Poor
The courier's design is sleek and small, the most maneuverable of the freighter class ships. Couriers are most popular among small buisiness owners as their small size and good durability make them capable of servicing most stations among the backwater trading routes. Couriers are also often chartered by wealthy private individuals to move large quantities of personal goods from sector to sector, and smugglers have been known to use them to slip illegal goods past government checkpoints.
Light Freighter - 180m
---------
Hull: 140,000
Armor Slots: 4
Equipment Slots: 7
Shields: Class IV
Engines: 2
Weapon Slots: 1VL + 2T
Fighter Bays: 0
Cargo: 120
Maneuverability: Bad
Special: 10% Penalty to turbo
Light frieghters are the most common class of freighters in the galaxy, and are the backbone of most mainstream shipping companies. Light frieghters are much longer than they are wide, carrying the bulk of their cargo in small detachable modules along their hull. Less defensable than the courier, light frieghters are almost always accompianied by a small fighter escort.
Bulk Freighter - 360m
---------
Hull: 280,000
Armor Slots: 5
Equipment Slots: 8
Shields: Class V
Engines: 2
Weapon Slots: 4T
Fighter Bays: 0
Cargo: 300
Maneuverability: Horrible
Special: No turbo, 10% penalty to speed
Bulk freighters are huge, bulbous, virtually defenseless behemoths capable of transporting copious amounts of cargo. Because of their large size and abysmal defense, bulk freighters are only used among the safer core trade routes. Every pirate dreams of catching an underguarded bulk freighter and reaping the benefits of its cavernous cargo holds.
Heavy Freighter - 400m
---------
Hull: 340,000
Armor Slots: 6
Equipment Slots: 10
Shields: Class VI
Engines: 3
Weapon Slots: 4T + 2LT
Fighter Bays: 2
Cargo: 250
Maneuverability: Terrible
Special: No turbo, 10% penalty to speed
Heavy freighters are the kings of the shipping lanes, their stocky, powerful shapes positively awe-inspiring. While they cannot carry as much cargo as a bulk freighter, heavy freighters are more than capable of defending themselves, with firepower rivaling that of some smaller military capital ships and two built-in fighter bays.
HtP: In brief, I think your ships are much too big. I've already written a detailed explanation of why ships much bigger than 700m are bad for the gameplay, and I'll give you think link as soon as I find it in the archives.
How's this for a blast from the past:
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=424
A word of warning - most readers of the thread that didn't agree with me tended to focus on my point about the historical role of frigates and thier comparitive size to larger craft. That's not the focus of the argument, and the entire point of that is to point out that whatever size you pick for 'frigates' is near the bottom end of the capital ship scale, not the top. Therefore, any problems a frigate would have in gameplay (the following points, and the heart of the arguement) would be magnified for any larger vessels. Please don't respond to that post by telling me that because there is a difference between spaceships and ocean going vessels that I can't use the sizes of historic vessels as an example, because you'll be missing the whole point and I'll likely go off on you.
How's this for a blast from the past:
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=424
A word of warning - most readers of the thread that didn't agree with me tended to focus on my point about the historical role of frigates and thier comparitive size to larger craft. That's not the focus of the argument, and the entire point of that is to point out that whatever size you pick for 'frigates' is near the bottom end of the capital ship scale, not the top. Therefore, any problems a frigate would have in gameplay (the following points, and the heart of the arguement) would be magnified for any larger vessels. Please don't respond to that post by telling me that because there is a difference between spaceships and ocean going vessels that I can't use the sizes of historic vessels as an example, because you'll be missing the whole point and I'll likely go off on you.
Frigate is a name holder for the current well known 700 (or was it 800?) meter ship. We have been told this will be the biggest ships get but they never said there won't be other ships of this size though.
I thought the cap ship weapon list could use a few more missile weapons so here are a few:
Excalibur Torpedo Launcher (VL) – 54,000cr
Energy/Shot: 0
Speed: 75 m/s
Damage: 20,000
Splash Radius: 350m
Proximity: 15m
Range: 40 seconds
Repeat: 5 seconds
Ammo: 6 (4000 per shot)
The Excalibur is the next step up from the Avalon torpedo. While a full rack of Avalons is capable of inflicting the same damage as a full rack of Excaliburs, the Excalibur far outstrips the Avalon in terms of range and hitting power. It's increased speed makes it a more effective capital ship weapon, although it is also very popular on smaller, more maneuverable Corvettes and Frigates.
Raptor Ship-Ship Missile Launcher (VL) - 60,000cr
Energy/Shot: 0
Speed: 145 m/s
Agility: Low
Damage: 7,000
Splash Radius: 100m
Proximity: 30m
Range: 35 seconds
Repeat: 2 seconds
Ammo: 12 (3100 per shot)
Unbelievably fast and packing a decent punch, the Raptor is one of the most effective ship to ship missiles ever designed. The only drawback to the Raptor is its low agility, and consequent innacuracy when deployed against smaller ships such as the Corvette and the Monitor. The Raptor is most effective against middling captial ships such as the Destroyer, the Light Cruiser, and the Protected Cruiser. Missile Frigates will often mount Raptor Launchers on their centerline weapon ports as a first strike weapon.
Nuclear Mine Rack (VL)* - 62,000
Energy/Shot: 0
Damage: 32,000 + Special*
Explosive Radius: 240m + Special*
Proximity: 70m
Duration: 15 minutes
Repeat: 4s
Ammunition: 5 (8,000 cr each)
*Special: The nuclear blast created by the Nuclear Mine sends an EMP wave out to 350m (along with the regular destructive blast of 240m), draining 2,000 units of power from unprotected ships. The Nuclear Mine Rack cannot be equipped as a turret (centerline only).
While proximity mines and lightning mines are very effective deterrents against pirates and other smaller threats, the Nuclear Mine is designed to give pause to capital ships. A smaller version of the nuclear warhead aboard the hunter-killer drone is attached to a proximity sensor to provide a powerful deterrent against even the largest capital ships. The Nuclear Mine's prohibitive cost of ammunition prevents it from being widely used, but when the time and place are right a nuclear minefield can reduce an impressive armada to shambles.
Excalibur Torpedo Launcher (VL) – 54,000cr
Energy/Shot: 0
Speed: 75 m/s
Damage: 20,000
Splash Radius: 350m
Proximity: 15m
Range: 40 seconds
Repeat: 5 seconds
Ammo: 6 (4000 per shot)
The Excalibur is the next step up from the Avalon torpedo. While a full rack of Avalons is capable of inflicting the same damage as a full rack of Excaliburs, the Excalibur far outstrips the Avalon in terms of range and hitting power. It's increased speed makes it a more effective capital ship weapon, although it is also very popular on smaller, more maneuverable Corvettes and Frigates.
Raptor Ship-Ship Missile Launcher (VL) - 60,000cr
Energy/Shot: 0
Speed: 145 m/s
Agility: Low
Damage: 7,000
Splash Radius: 100m
Proximity: 30m
Range: 35 seconds
Repeat: 2 seconds
Ammo: 12 (3100 per shot)
Unbelievably fast and packing a decent punch, the Raptor is one of the most effective ship to ship missiles ever designed. The only drawback to the Raptor is its low agility, and consequent innacuracy when deployed against smaller ships such as the Corvette and the Monitor. The Raptor is most effective against middling captial ships such as the Destroyer, the Light Cruiser, and the Protected Cruiser. Missile Frigates will often mount Raptor Launchers on their centerline weapon ports as a first strike weapon.
Nuclear Mine Rack (VL)* - 62,000
Energy/Shot: 0
Damage: 32,000 + Special*
Explosive Radius: 240m + Special*
Proximity: 70m
Duration: 15 minutes
Repeat: 4s
Ammunition: 5 (8,000 cr each)
*Special: The nuclear blast created by the Nuclear Mine sends an EMP wave out to 350m (along with the regular destructive blast of 240m), draining 2,000 units of power from unprotected ships. The Nuclear Mine Rack cannot be equipped as a turret (centerline only).
While proximity mines and lightning mines are very effective deterrents against pirates and other smaller threats, the Nuclear Mine is designed to give pause to capital ships. A smaller version of the nuclear warhead aboard the hunter-killer drone is attached to a proximity sensor to provide a powerful deterrent against even the largest capital ships. The Nuclear Mine's prohibitive cost of ammunition prevents it from being widely used, but when the time and place are right a nuclear minefield can reduce an impressive armada to shambles.
Both of those sound fair.
The Excalibur would be absolutely insane on a fighter level craft, but isn't unbalancing aboard a capital ship. It's also fast enough to reasonably mount them in a turret fire somewhere other than forward. I don't think you could do with the Avalon because the Avalons speed pretty much requires you be charging at something when you release it.
Continuing that trend, the Raptor makes an even better turret mount weapon than the Excalibur and its interesting to envision a missile thats just barely agile enough to track a capital ship - much less a fighter. I like the 'ballet' feel envisioning the weapon interact with a somewhat ponderous (but agile for its class) Corvette. The fact that its of almost no use against a fighter beyond a few dozen meters is good. My only real worry with them is the range, since they can outrange most of the direct fire weapons and wouldn't be as easy to avoid or as hard to aim as an unguided weapon fired from that distance. However, I think maybe the relatively low blast radius and damage will keep them balanced and limit them to proper harassment role.
The Excalibur would be absolutely insane on a fighter level craft, but isn't unbalancing aboard a capital ship. It's also fast enough to reasonably mount them in a turret fire somewhere other than forward. I don't think you could do with the Avalon because the Avalons speed pretty much requires you be charging at something when you release it.
Continuing that trend, the Raptor makes an even better turret mount weapon than the Excalibur and its interesting to envision a missile thats just barely agile enough to track a capital ship - much less a fighter. I like the 'ballet' feel envisioning the weapon interact with a somewhat ponderous (but agile for its class) Corvette. The fact that its of almost no use against a fighter beyond a few dozen meters is good. My only real worry with them is the range, since they can outrange most of the direct fire weapons and wouldn't be as easy to avoid or as hard to aim as an unguided weapon fired from that distance. However, I think maybe the relatively low blast radius and damage will keep them balanced and limit them to proper harassment role.
Celebrim:
I scaled up ALL the ships you see, the ships have the same size ratio in relation to each other, the Frigate is still a low-end *small* capital ship. I believ that making things big as I scaled them up to be is part of the wow factor and innovative design that Vendetta will have to reley heavily on *at first* to sell, before the good gameplay spreads by word of mouth.
I scaled up ALL the ships you see, the ships have the same size ratio in relation to each other, the Frigate is still a low-end *small* capital ship. I believ that making things big as I scaled them up to be is part of the wow factor and innovative design that Vendetta will have to reley heavily on *at first* to sell, before the good gameplay spreads by word of mouth.
HtP: Well at least you admit that it is only 'wow factor' motivating your design.
There is nothing innovative about having large capital ships. Ever since George Lucas put the Star Destroyers in Star Wars, you really can't talk about having a really big space ship as being innovative.
You clearly didn't read my post at all. Try again:
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=424
There is nothing innovative about having large capital ships. Ever since George Lucas put the Star Destroyers in Star Wars, you really can't talk about having a really big space ship as being innovative.
You clearly didn't read my post at all. Try again:
http://vendetta.guildsoftware.com/?action=msgboard&thread=424
after reading through this thread and the old one (havent even been on vendetta at that time), i second celebrim's votes.
or rather, i'd put them to extremes. the ships are too large, at least for an universe like the one vendetta is sporting. i'd reduce the ship's lengths by 20 to 40%, or else we have to start thinking of how navigation is going to work in-game. take sector 9 for example. a capital ship can't go through it without hitting a roid, not even the corvette (with the present measurements).
and most stations are *inside* an asteroid field (actually a crazy place to put them, which is proven by the number of players even today issuing on asteroids), so where are the really big boys going to dock? or are they autarctic, moving space cities, capable of supplying life support endlessly?
also, think of a ship exiting a wormhole, only to face an asteroid half as big as the ship, and with no time or space to take evasive maneuvers. *poof* and our dreadnought is gone. what, we were having a decisive, intersectorial battle coming up? too bad, we'll just have to make do without our main argument. in space, no one can hear you scream.
furthermore, we have to stop thinking of capital ships in terrestrial terms.
i am sure that most of you have seen Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey.
There, 2 men run a ship of about 50-100m iirc, helped by an AI (the going rampant -- excuse the marathon term-- of the AI has nothing to do with it being plausible or not). This trend is not far-fetched; a crew of 5 might be sufficient to operate a corvette (maybe even the maximum).
This suggests that we should almost neglect the human component of the equation and balance it so that engines, electronics, computers and weaponry take the major part (about 70-80% of the ship's mass and volume).
errr... yes. just my USD 0.02
or rather, i'd put them to extremes. the ships are too large, at least for an universe like the one vendetta is sporting. i'd reduce the ship's lengths by 20 to 40%, or else we have to start thinking of how navigation is going to work in-game. take sector 9 for example. a capital ship can't go through it without hitting a roid, not even the corvette (with the present measurements).
and most stations are *inside* an asteroid field (actually a crazy place to put them, which is proven by the number of players even today issuing on asteroids), so where are the really big boys going to dock? or are they autarctic, moving space cities, capable of supplying life support endlessly?
also, think of a ship exiting a wormhole, only to face an asteroid half as big as the ship, and with no time or space to take evasive maneuvers. *poof* and our dreadnought is gone. what, we were having a decisive, intersectorial battle coming up? too bad, we'll just have to make do without our main argument. in space, no one can hear you scream.
furthermore, we have to stop thinking of capital ships in terrestrial terms.
i am sure that most of you have seen Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey.
There, 2 men run a ship of about 50-100m iirc, helped by an AI (the going rampant -- excuse the marathon term-- of the AI has nothing to do with it being plausible or not). This trend is not far-fetched; a crew of 5 might be sufficient to operate a corvette (maybe even the maximum).
This suggests that we should almost neglect the human component of the equation and balance it so that engines, electronics, computers and weaponry take the major part (about 70-80% of the ship's mass and volume).
errr... yes. just my USD 0.02
Yes, I too have wondered about what Capital ships would do in sectors with lots of asteroids. Or those EVIL roids that sometimes greet you as you exit a wormhole.
I'm with you on this, Pavan....
However, about the sectors: I'm sure the sector layout is going to change drastically once we have larger classes of ships. The devs have said that in 3.3 they are trying to drastically improve and "stretch" (literally? heh heh) the sector system.
Also the stations we have now are representative "tiny, far flung outposts" so larger ships wouldn't be docking with them anyway, even if they weren't nestled in roid clusters.
However, about the sectors: I'm sure the sector layout is going to change drastically once we have larger classes of ships. The devs have said that in 3.3 they are trying to drastically improve and "stretch" (literally? heh heh) the sector system.
Also the stations we have now are representative "tiny, far flung outposts" so larger ships wouldn't be docking with them anyway, even if they weren't nestled in roid clusters.
hmm...
the stations should have to be resupplied to, by cargo ships or whatever. this would add to the dynamic commerce system, and thus cargo ships would have to be able to dock at stations. and weaponry resupply ships, too. a station having an endless supply of these things just seems irrational.
as for the roid problem: in the movie Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back, a star destroyer is seen flaying through a roid belt, zapping the roids with its weapons.
why not add a special port to cap ships with a roid laser (courtesy from EV: Nova, and it seems roid mining has been the topic of a few threads) so they could clear a path?
of course that would leave it vulnerable, because it could only move at a very low speed, but it'd add spice to the game by that.
you could force a cap ship into a roid belt to finish it off, much like you can get an enemy ship into the roid complex in 7 and hopefully you can use the roids to your advantage.
hm. i am very tired and apologize for not making much sense if any at all.
the stations should have to be resupplied to, by cargo ships or whatever. this would add to the dynamic commerce system, and thus cargo ships would have to be able to dock at stations. and weaponry resupply ships, too. a station having an endless supply of these things just seems irrational.
as for the roid problem: in the movie Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back, a star destroyer is seen flaying through a roid belt, zapping the roids with its weapons.
why not add a special port to cap ships with a roid laser (courtesy from EV: Nova, and it seems roid mining has been the topic of a few threads) so they could clear a path?
of course that would leave it vulnerable, because it could only move at a very low speed, but it'd add spice to the game by that.
you could force a cap ship into a roid belt to finish it off, much like you can get an enemy ship into the roid complex in 7 and hopefully you can use the roids to your advantage.
hm. i am very tired and apologize for not making much sense if any at all.
Pavan, you got me thinking about warpholes. After all, it'd look kind of silly to have a 750m long vessel going through a 1000m wide warpgate. So I think capital ships should be able to make their own warpholes, maybe something that laste 10-20 seconds and is very large. To do so, the nearest map article (roid/station/warpgate) would have to be, say, 10km away. If they reached that "jump point" they could make a warpgate to any sector within a certain radius of them. The cap ship and its escorts can go through, but the gate lasts long enough that any enemies could race through the gate and spy. This also leads to such fun techniques as making a gate into your homesector, letting some enemies in, then having an ambush waiting for them. Mmmmm. What do you guys think?
"So I think capital ships should be able to make their own warpholes,"
-It sounds cool, but it could be a bit too uber. The distance requirement might fix that problem, but we won't know until we try. It would be an interesting thing to try to see how it works out. If it does not work they could always take it away. Worth a shot.
Instead of opening a wormhole though, how about making the ship have a giant expanding bubble that swallows it and any nearby units. Something like the "Recall" ability in Starcraft only in reverse.
"so they could clear a path?"
-Celebrim brought up a point that I am inclined to agree with. Making terrain dynamic and deformable in an MMORPG brings up its own set of problems. The server is going to have to constantly keep track of all these changes and people destroying asteroids whenever they wanted would eventually leave a lot of sectors completely empty. I'm guessing Capital Ships will pretty much need to stay out of the central parts of some densely packed sectors (like 10) where the Asteroids are. Dealing with the station could probably be done by resupply drones. Which brings up the strategy of pirating said drones near the station to cut off the mother-ship.
But if the Capital Ships are forced to stay so far out, the chance of a slow moving battle-ship being able to attack another capital ship would be severely hampered due to the fact that it would have to go all the way around the asteroid clusters. The ship sizes opens up some tough problems gameplay-wise. If the asteroid distances were all stretched like Phaserlight said, the universe would seem boringly sparse for smaller craft. If they are densley packed, they will be unnavigable for larger ones.
-It sounds cool, but it could be a bit too uber. The distance requirement might fix that problem, but we won't know until we try. It would be an interesting thing to try to see how it works out. If it does not work they could always take it away. Worth a shot.
Instead of opening a wormhole though, how about making the ship have a giant expanding bubble that swallows it and any nearby units. Something like the "Recall" ability in Starcraft only in reverse.
"so they could clear a path?"
-Celebrim brought up a point that I am inclined to agree with. Making terrain dynamic and deformable in an MMORPG brings up its own set of problems. The server is going to have to constantly keep track of all these changes and people destroying asteroids whenever they wanted would eventually leave a lot of sectors completely empty. I'm guessing Capital Ships will pretty much need to stay out of the central parts of some densely packed sectors (like 10) where the Asteroids are. Dealing with the station could probably be done by resupply drones. Which brings up the strategy of pirating said drones near the station to cut off the mother-ship.
But if the Capital Ships are forced to stay so far out, the chance of a slow moving battle-ship being able to attack another capital ship would be severely hampered due to the fact that it would have to go all the way around the asteroid clusters. The ship sizes opens up some tough problems gameplay-wise. If the asteroid distances were all stretched like Phaserlight said, the universe would seem boringly sparse for smaller craft. If they are densley packed, they will be unnavigable for larger ones.
I'm less worried about making sectors that capital ships can 'fit' into as I am about what is going to happen when a huge capital ship strikes and 'unmovable' object like a 'roid.
There are only two basic posibilities: either the ship stops moving or else the 'roid starts moving. Both bring thier own problems.
First, if a 500m capital ship moving at 60m/s strikes a 50m diameter roid (or a 20m diameter roid), and just bounces like our little fighters then its going to look pretty silly. Nevertheless, this has the advantage of being simple. Collision damage is handled based on the capital ship's mass and we ignore all the unrealism obvious in the fact that all that momentum just evaporated. Of course, the collision damage brings up a third possibility - we just blow Capital Ships up when they strike a 'roid no matter the size of the 'roid. Of course, that's not any better.
On the other hand, if we decide to let 'roids move, then we have all the problems of morphable terrain like bandwidth consumption and eventual disorderliness of a persistant universe. We might could mitigate the problem by having roids only drift a short distance and very unrealistically slowly drift back, or if we only let ships push asteroids that are a certain percentage of thier size, but we still are going to have some of the problems. For example, what do we do with a ship pushing around a roid much smaller than itself like it was a soccer ball? Should we continue to generate full damage collisions dispite the fact that the roid is awfully small and collisions with an object having nearly the same vector as yourself should be pretty gentle?
I really don't know, and this is one of the times that I'm glad that I'm not actually writing the specs for this game.
There are only two basic posibilities: either the ship stops moving or else the 'roid starts moving. Both bring thier own problems.
First, if a 500m capital ship moving at 60m/s strikes a 50m diameter roid (or a 20m diameter roid), and just bounces like our little fighters then its going to look pretty silly. Nevertheless, this has the advantage of being simple. Collision damage is handled based on the capital ship's mass and we ignore all the unrealism obvious in the fact that all that momentum just evaporated. Of course, the collision damage brings up a third possibility - we just blow Capital Ships up when they strike a 'roid no matter the size of the 'roid. Of course, that's not any better.
On the other hand, if we decide to let 'roids move, then we have all the problems of morphable terrain like bandwidth consumption and eventual disorderliness of a persistant universe. We might could mitigate the problem by having roids only drift a short distance and very unrealistically slowly drift back, or if we only let ships push asteroids that are a certain percentage of thier size, but we still are going to have some of the problems. For example, what do we do with a ship pushing around a roid much smaller than itself like it was a soccer ball? Should we continue to generate full damage collisions dispite the fact that the roid is awfully small and collisions with an object having nearly the same vector as yourself should be pretty gentle?
I really don't know, and this is one of the times that I'm glad that I'm not actually writing the specs for this game.
Maybe the devs have invented a way to have a dynamic terrain persistant universe. Think about it, none of them have ever responded to one of your posts about why it can't be done. That leads me to think that maybe they aren't responding because the answer will be self-evident sooner or later.
Celebrim, how do you *know* the speed of a capital ship? they might come without turbo and go 120m/s, or 200. at even 120m/s it will take a Frigate a bit over 6 seconds to vacate its position going the long way, less than 4 going the short way., yes I know this doesnt take into account maneuverability issues, but the point is, we have no idea how fast capitol ships will go in the final game.
Bump for newcomers