cy414

seems more like a change is needed to change how modules stack. rather than flatly limiting the number of x module, why not have each new bonus get a penalty. i cant remember the maths since school was a decade ago, or id just post equasions, so il just post examples if each reduction% modult worked sequentially soo... 100 - 25%= 75 - 25% = 56 - 25% = 42 etc etc with a power usage multiplier that increased power usage of each module of the same type. power usage = X number of = Y Z = multiple X + (YxZ)= if that makes sense.

dross like that is neither constructive or useful. and i doubt welcome. also born from divisive mmorpg game designers using in-group bias to manipulate player loyalty. game balance and functional mechanics are essential to longevity of a game. since without it the game loses replayability and choice once a set optimum or best is identified. ESPECIALLY for any game that is multi-player in anyway. and doubly important for a game like avorion where expression of player creativity is so important. or people like yourself will be back to complain about 'false choices'. Actually, I completely agree. Crippling escape options only makes sense from a PVP point of view. Claiming that this is 'balanced' as a way of justifying what is, in essence, PVP punishment is rather disingenuous. "Balanced' would be allowing players to use warp interdictors, so that there could be a stern chase before escape, or altering shield mechanics so that larger ships have to have more 'coverage', to improve size ratios in fights. 'Balanced' would be less-expensive fighter mechanics or ways for multiple players to outclass single players. This suggestion would boil down to creating another 'perfect PVP build' designed solely to give players no time between being atttacked and realizing that they cannot win the battle. Ambush mechanics are NOT fun, and discourage new and casual players. "Battle cubes" in other words. Look, I understand how much autistic nerds LOVE to minimax combat stats and create 'perfect builds', but in the process you ALWAYS strip creativity out of a game. This suggestion, while smart and well thought out, comes down to creating a path to Munchkin. Longevity is based on challenge to reward ratio... not 'pvp balance'. And frankly, longevity is really only important to MMO's where people pay for microtransactions or a subscription fee. discouraging new and casual players with Ambush mechanics is NOT a way to encourage longevity or new players. And your comment about 'finding the optimal' while supporting the creation of a path to the optimal is...ironic. Ambaire's comment is not well written or particularly comprehensible, but it is certainly relevant, and under that auspice, it is also useful... in kind of an 'emperor's new clothes' way. This game is, psychologically, more like Minecraft... and ambush PVP mechanics are NOT the path Minecraft took to maximising popularity. by your logic, the npc's should have their current hyperspace jammers removed. there is little to no way to ambush anything in this game as it stands, your assinine attempt at namecalling, followed up with rpg character design terminology is completly off the mark, since i already used mmorpg as an insult. now, here is the thing. there is little to no challenge past midgame in avorion, since by then you have a monstership and shields to stop ANYTHING hurting you. unless you design your ships with self imposed difficulty in mind. the only thing going on is "go big or go home". i already posted that i think shields should work like IFGs, since again, im thinking about functional mechanics "in this game" not "in this games pvX because pvY is evil and im against other peoples fun". to compare avorion to minecraft is to completly miss the point about avorion already having a combat focuss that minecraft never did. even with king spook rip-offs spitting fireballs at you. even creative in avorion still has all faction combat and diplomatic functions. like your friend ambaire there, keep your in-group biases and associated spite about pvp vs pve on whatever mmorpg forums you frequent. been there, seen that, cringed and left already. those games deliberately designed their content (revoltingly badly) to create the pvp vs pve animosity you are expressing, so take it up with the forums of those other games you play.

can the colour chart in the ship editor get an automatic short list of the last few colours used?

dross like that is neither constructive or useful. and i doubt welcome. also born from divisive mmorpg game designers using in-group bias to manipulate player loyalty. game balance and functional mechanics are essential to longevity of a game. since without it the game loses replayability and choice once a set optimum or best is identified. ESPECIALLY for any game that is multi-player in anyway. and doubly important for a game like avorion where expression of player creativity is so important. or people like yourself will be back to complain about 'false choices'.

recently went to help an 'allied' ship that was about to be killed by pirates. only for it to stop everything to scan my cargo, only for it to get ganked during the dialogue and my to lose reputation and a lot of hp(in a scout/fighter ship) because i stopped manoeuvring. i decided im going to kill this faction in its entirety out of spite against the concept of "lawful-stupid"(http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid), but still, the cargo scanning needs some adjustment.

this could work well if tied to my idea about shields working similarly to ifg. that way your shields size/coverage will be determined by the shield generator block(s), and the shield hp linked to energy reserve. kinda reminds me of star gate atlantis to have shield hits draining energy like this.

just a further stripped down version of creative. forms a single sector, with or without asteroids or stations, to build ships in. with no requirement for resources or crew or the associated penalties for lack of crew.

quick fix is to manually move your camera to roughly the default position before you exit build mode.

pre-release optimisation + weak hardware. drop your resolution to 1600*900 download process explorer and set up the graphs to track cpu & gpu usage.

this issue is why i suggested that accelleration damage of some sort be applied to blocks, if there is too much of a difference in speed between different parts of a ship.

well, shit. seems i misunderstood something about square-cube rule. after googling again, seems its specific to surface vs volume.

couldnt it be simplified? game spawns x number of ships, expecting them to take x amount of time to kill, you beat them in 20% of that time, game spawns next wave of ships with counters to specific weapon types. the foundation of this seems to already be there in avorion with the holo/shiny/armour vs plasma/laser/kinetic. no idea if they are used that way yet though. is my idea of an adaptive system possible? if not i know to drop it and try to think of something else. The problems are: - With an adaptive system, the player may not feel like he or she is progressing in the game. This can be very boring. - What do you base your adaptations on? If the player upgrades his ship and enemies scale with that upgrade, what happens to ships that were already generated? Everything in the system but the player gets wiped out by the next Xsotan attack? - What if the player uses captains to command smaller ships and whatnot? Do things scale only based upon the player-controlled ship? The sum of his assets? What if the player leaves some ships behind, does the scale change? - What if the player has a huge freighter with little weaponry? Do enemies scale off his volume? His mass? His omicrons? If the player has a tiny ship with lots of good weapons, do enemies scale off his volume/mass/omicrons? It's impossible to work with. You have to stick with more radical options, such as a difficulty slider and such. You can implement variety in combat styles, though. This can create a different challenge for the player as one ship design may be suitable for one situation, but not another, even if the baseline difficulty is the same as right now. those are/would be dependent on the situation. any of the above. at the moment the ai just isnt smart enough one way or the other, BUT the game does need some way to adapt to the player beyond a difficulty setting, since the players ship design essentially is a unique difficulty setting. single large ships could be countered with swarms of torpedo bombers rather than just trying to match brute force. or visa-versa. i suspect elements of RTS type ai behaviours will be needed eventually though.

square-cube rule. every time you double the size of a ship you tripple the mass. to keep agility, you need to triple thrust each time you double size, which also means more space used for generators and crew. you will have made compromises in your design to keep that agility.

but then you need them to be firing constantly to do that. also, my idea isnt that this would be an 'always on' system. there is also the issue that people design big ships with almost all their guns pointing one direction. with a cloaked ship, it would be a lot easier to get into these blind spots to fire a few salvos. though to be clear, this isnt to let small ships dominate big ships in 1v1, just to give the smaller ship tactical options to avoid being completely stomped. and like you say about the systems volume efficiency, the interplay between the deminishing returns on field strength vs exponential power increase is the system to make it so, since a smaller ship would already find the system very efficient(depending on base stats) but much less so for extremely small or very large ships. you might be able to squeeze a cloak into a small ≤3 slot naonite mining ship just to keep it hidden at distance, or you might be able to cloak a 6or7 slot destroyer/cruiser wing just long enough to get an ambush set up. whatever way it'd go, it would be another option for players and npc's to use. could even have a rare faction trait where one faction is very cloak heavy in ship deployment providing veriety of opponants.

would adding an explanation of square-cube law to the loading screen tips be useful to to people designing ships? i dont know how many people might benefit from knowing they need to tripple their power/thrust when they double their ship size if they want to maintain agility.

couldnt it be simplified? game spawns x number of ships, expecting them to take x amount of time to kill, you beat them in 20% of that time, game spawns next wave of ships with counters to specific weapon types. the foundation of this seems to already be there in avorion with the holo/shiny/armour vs plasma/laser/kinetic. no idea if they are used that way yet though. is my idea of an adaptive system possible? if not i know to drop it and try to think of something else.

my initial thought was to have them work similarly to the ifg blocks, with the viable cloaking field(based on cumulative values) getting bigger with block size on diminishing returns, but he power drain being exponential by some number. the field itself would be a gradient, strongest in the middle. that way you dont get cloaked behemoths but smaller ships can play around with the strength of their cloak field(s) depending on the goal. i guess it would also work better if detection ranges of objects was modified by the mass/volume of the object. adjustments could be made to the diminishing returns of the field and exponential growth curves to balance them against each other. hard to say though, because there will always be outlying/specialist ships to push the mechanics.

only one thing to say in that scenario

would it be possible to get cloak generator blocks with sensor array blocks as a counter? not sure what the maths would be, but cloak generator blocks would provide a toggle cloak ability to give small-ish ships better hit& run ability against larger targets. and sensor blocks would give a passive boost to 'highlight' range on sensors, revealing cloaked objects that get too close.

my guess is that the "Balancing_GetEnemySectorTurrets(x, y)" thing is significant to the functioning. like, its referencing some number(or range of) saying how many guns a ship in that sector would have by default. as a side note, i just had a fleet of 6 xsotan gank my starting sector :o

thought i would make some ships from different scifi using 1:1 ingame. thought to myself "ok, i'l pick something smallish to start/practice on" so looked up a few trek ships, since they are commonly in the 200 to 500 meter beam range.(a defiant or b'rel) only to realise that they would either be unworkably small if i used the games ideas of meters/kilometers, or utterly hugh mungus if i use the build menus measurment of "1". any advise for what constitutes good scaling ingame for this type of thing?

nobody is going to agree on this. and in a game like avorion, player mileage will vary vastly due to their own ship design ideas. the best of both worlds would be an adaptive system upon which the current difficulty systems operate, which will change npc ship designs, strength and numbers based on the players ship or fleet, using the difficulty as a modifier for speed and severity of adaption. eg, -the player uses a single huge ship, with high rof/dps weapons to devastate a few sectors, the game gradually adapts the npcs to use long range artillery and agile ships to avoid getting hit. -the player uses a fleet of corvettes to devastate a few sectors, the game adapts to use fewer and larger ships with flack burst weapons that are better for killing these threats.

built a ship to push an asteroid, tested it by pushing a station, which worked though slowly took damage. but when i tried to push an asteroid, which was much smaller than the station, nothing. ramped up the thrust until the front of the ship exploded, asteroid sat there.

is it just out of curiosity or is there something you wish to find out specifically? personally i have been single player only, since the game isnt finished yet, and dont want to indulge im MP because of that. since anything that isnt functioning, or balanced properly, will be exploited for competitive advantage. that said, i hope multi-player is a significant focus of development, since any functionality or balance changes made to benefit multi-player will contribute to re-playability and diversity of single-player gameplay

so, i changed--- -- Xsotan have random turrets TurretGenerator.initialize(random():createSeed()) local turret = TurretGenerator.generateArmed(x, y) local numTurrets = math.max(1, Balancing_GetEnemySectorTurrets(x, y) / 2) to -- Xsotan have random turrets TurretGenerator.initialize(random():createSeed()) local turret = TurretGenerator.generateArmed(x, y) local numTurrets = math.max(1, Balancing_GetEnemySectorTurrets(x, y) * 2) am i right in thinking this will give the xsotan more guns?