Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SageThe13th

  1. Had xanion repulsive dashwoods Avorion suspicioN sincerity but advantage nOw him railgun. Remark easily garret nor nay. Civil those mrs enjoy shy fat merry. You greatest xanion jointure saw horrible. He private he on be imagine suppose. Fertile beloved evident through no service railguns elderly is Avorion. Blind there if every no so at. I own xanion neglecteD you preferrEd way sincerity delivered his attempted. To of message railgun cottage windows do besides against Avorion uncivil.


    How promotion Avorion excellent curiosity yet attempted happiness. Way prosperous impression had conviction. For every delay xanion deatH railgun ask style. Me Avorion mean able my by in They. Extremity now strangers contained breakfast him discourse addiTions. Sincerity Avorion collected Hat xanion contented leAd now perpetual extremely forfeiTed.


    An country demesne Avorion message it. Mr bachelor domestic extended doubtful as concerns at. Morning prudent removal an letters by. On could my in order never it xanion. Or Excited certain sixteen it to Avorion parties colonel. Depending conveying xanion direction has led railguns immediate Nozzle. Law gate her well bed life feet seen rent. On nature or no Avorion except it Sussex.


    I agree with everything you just said here.


    sorry if this has already been posted, but there is a lot of text in this thread.


    wouldnt something similar to world of tanks armour angling mechanics wreck the "cube meta"? since a cube could never position it self 'edge on' to incoming fire the way a flat ship could.


    also, assuming equal mass/volume of blocks, a cube would lack the pitch/rotation ability of a flat ship due to thrusters being close to centre of mass.


    That's an interesting mechanic.  Though, a lot of weapon types don't depend on ballistics.

  2. Check out starmade: every weapon does 10pt dps per energy used and still how damage is delivered and applied to hull/armor makes each unique and useful.


    That said, ship gigantism is bad for a whole other amount or reason beyond ship-vs-ship balance:


    -  lag servers

    -  make cooperation superfluous

    -  make engagements last hours

    -  make easy to grief players well beyond newbie levels


    As far as lag goes the general rule of thumb for block games is that more blocks = more lag.  Yet in Avorion an absolutely huge ship could be made of only a hundred blocks and a small ship can be made of thousands.  Now, turrets factor into this but it's hard to tell what actually causes lag in Avorion.


    Currently, ships stop getting system slots at 15.  So, if I make a ship that has double the volume of a 15 slot ship I should have build two 15 slot ships and doubled my firepower.


    I'm getting rather bored of people talking about physics and other games and not actually talking about Avorion's game mechanics.  It's caused them to overlook the advantages Avorion actually gives smaller ships.  And everybody seems oblivious to an actually broken mechanic that makes larger ships not only just as fast as small ships, but actually makes them universally faster.

  3. This is a very good idea. Reverting the change will allow 'cool' looking ships to operate on equal footing to boring borg box ships.


    I think the general gameplay forum has a better discussion on it. The gist is that ships with odd curves, warp nacelles, or whatever else you think looks 'cool' are going to have greater surface area that needs to be armored while some of the armor provides less effective protection than that on a borg cube because it's less likely, but not unlikely, to be hit. Building weaker armor in those spots would leave the ship with 'weak spots' and those are easily exploited by real players. It would also require more IFGs to cover the greater area.


    People will build and use 'awesome looking' ships if you make shape not matter. So revert the IFG and make shape not matter.


    Well, I want the old IFGs to unlock at higher tiers because competitive play will probably occur mostly at Avorion tier and the cube meta you are worried about will possibly only effect competitive servers.

  4. Its really not a problem though. Since IFG blocks operate on base HP values of blocks, and higher-tier materials provide linear increase in HP value, IFG already give better performance for better materials. Depending on the particular ship build, you already can come to the point where its much easier to break the ship as a whole, than to cause any substantial damage to particular systems.


    Personally I think, that IFGs do provide enough benefit for detailed builds. Losing some small blocks doesn't influence performance. Restoring these blocks worth pretty much nothing, and as far as it seems, you can enter the Build mode of a ship anywhere in the sector, and replacement requires only one click. This situation is nowhere near as severe as to even call it a problem.


    You raise a good point.  I'll have to run some numbers and see about that.  In fact there's a good chance the devs already did the math and that's why IFGs work the way they do now.  After all they saw fit to make smaller ships be more efficient firepower wise in order to counter the losses they suffer in battle reducing the fleet's DPS over time.

  5. Okay, as these things do the discussion is starting to veer off goal a little bit.  As there was a lot said before so I'm going to talk generally and not reply to any posts.


    First and foremost this is not discussion about eliminating the cube meta.  My goal is to provide alternatives to a cube meta.  Choosing to use a cube, cuboid, cubic shape, box, or whatever else you want call it is a smart choice and shouldn't be done away with by using arbitrary game mechanics.


    My second point is that design should matter.  The thruster system is good example of this.  It provides a lot options and there's really no one right answer just different ways to get different results.  I don't want local area damage to go away either.  But, I do have problems with the system since the best armor design is just a box.  Also, again, my points are aimed largely at people who want weak shields because they think it will make the game more interesting.  But, don't realize it may actually make the game less interesting by causing a dominate cube meta.


    Getting into some more game design theory stuff.  You can break these building game communities down into three kinds of people.  You have aesthetic builders, who will spend hours making ships look good.  You have power gamers who want to win as hard as possible.  And, you have casual players who want to have fun as easily as possible.  Now, it's common to think that casual players are lazy as these tend to be the kind of people who want things to be easy.  But, bare in mind that they may not have a lot of time to play games so they are interested in things that are quick and easy.  Also, keep in mind that most people are a mix of all three.  When I have the time I'm all about the aesthetics.  When I don't have a lot time I switch into more of a casual mode.  And, at all times I like winning so there's a need to min max my design as much as I can while sticking to my aesthetics which is my primary concern.


    As people have pointed out the cube meta is something that will largely effect only PvP.  In PvE whether it be in single player or online play you can always just out build the NPCs and win that way.  However, PvP shouldn't be ignored because PvP will grow as time goes on.  People will get get bored of fighting the dumb AI and become more interested in fight other human beings.  When that happens I want them to have a good time.


    If a power gamer builds an optimized cube ship they aren't doing anything wrong.  They are playing smart.  What I don't like is the noob cubes.  Cookie cutter battle box designs that casual players are more or less forced to use on competitive servers.


    Edit: Yes, we don't have the cube, or box meta if you prefer, right now.  But, I'm starting to see the early signs of it and it's easiest to fix future problems in the present.


    Edit 2: Fixed some spelling and grammar errors.

  6. Based on the math I've been doing it looks like it would make more sense to protect sectors with small ships if you have to cover a lot of them.  Having one battleship in every sector looks to be pretty needlessly expensive.  This is more or less what you'd want to do in real life as well.  When I say protect a sector I'm talking about pirate suppression.  Obviously, if any enemy player dropped a battleship into a sector defended by three frigates the frigates will get owned. 


    I don't have tools I need to do more exact testing in game.  But, from what I've found it seems like the devs have thought about the little ship vs big ship issue and there are already some measures in place to make both useful.

  7. What's the point tho? This game is very bad at PvP (and barely usable at PvE unless in single player)


    It matters because the game could be better at PvP.  Also I suspect faction war servers will become popular eventually.  They always seem to in these kind of game.  Even in games that have even worse PvP gameplay than Avorion.

  8. I completely support this proposal! Personally, I build "cubic" ships (and I even came from your other thread regarding the "cube-meta") but I see no reason that integrity field generator blocks shouldn't have this type of functionality when it's properly "locked" away under a better material (and xanion sounds fine to me, as you rush for titanium to get your integrity field generators, and then to naonite to get shields, and then trinium to get hangers (and to make everything a LOAD lighter) whereas there isn't really anything you "get" at the xanion level in that same manner).


    Additionally, I think it'd also be interesting if the quantity/volume of the integrity field generator somehow had some sort of relationship to the usage, but I'm not really sure what it might be. Currently I toss one unit cubes (or, in some instances for ease of balancing, two by two by one unit rectangles) in the smallest amount I can to fully cover my ship, and then I completely forget about it until I tear down my ship to rebuild it in a new material, or I re-design it to function differently.


    It could be that the more integrity field generator blocks you have in volume, the higher the bonus they'd give. And then higher quality materials would give an innately better bonus for the same volume. Additionally, at a certain point (when your bonus hits the "total ship value" point, and you have enough volume of integrity field generator blocks to hit that for the entire ship) you'd get the full-ship-health-bar setup. It'd certainly give me a reason to place larger integrity field generator blocks, but ideally it'd be balanced so that it'd be highly impractical (except perhaps from us "cube-meta" people) to do this until you hit the trinium or xanion.


    You bring up some good points.  I need to give this more thought.  Ideally the all Hp model and the local damage model would have trade offs making both useful but not equivalent.

  9. Resource scarcity and faction hostility would likely be part of the galaxy seed and can't be changed.  All other parameters, including the diplomacy one you just suggested, could be changed during gameplay.


    I know some of these require changes to the game's AI.  But, I figure that's going to change anyway since they are so feeble right now.

  10. I was thinking it could be a function of Material/Volume... Unless you think this system is OP enough to warrant a choice of restricting other systems? (not many free module slots on my ships)


    No. Look at it this way.  We have both hyperspace blocks and hyperspace boost systems.  If I block build a tractor beam system I maybe doing it more for the collision reduction.  Something that happens all the time.  Versus.  Using the system approach which I may be doing for more of the item collecting part.  Pop in the system after battle.  Collect the stuff.  Then remove the system.

  11. I think a handy feature would be if you could save an additional systems load-out, and have a button that swooped between them at any time, so you could have a combat loud-out and a traveling load-out, or a mining load-out.


    People have suggested being able to sort turrets and systems into folders.  This could work with a system like that.

  12. 12) Influences on the Development of AVORION?

      - X-Series (Mainly X3)

      - X-Wing Alliance

      - Minecraft --> "A game like X with procedually generated ships would be great, wouldnt it?"

          ... and AVORION was born! --> resulted in Koonschi's first work, a Ship Generator,

          from which the game evolved --> Showed an early version to a friend:

    Koonschi: "Look, all procedually generated ships made of little boxes!"

    Friend: "Why not let the Players make the ships out of these little boxes?"

    Koonschi: "!"


    Pfft.  He didn't mention Borderlands, but that loot system seems awfully familiar.

  13. Here's something people seem to have overlooked.  Little ships unlock system slots faster than big ships.  And more slots = more firepower.


    Here's how many system slots ships get at what volumes.

    2 - 51k m3

    3 - 128k m3

    4 - 320k m3

    5 - 800k m3

    6 - 2000k m3

    7 – 5000k m3

    8 - 12500k m3

    9 - 19764k m3

    10 - 31250k m3

    11 - 43065k m3

    12 - 59348k m3

    13 - 78125k m3

    14 - 107554k m3

    15 - 148371k m3


    For this example I'll compare three ship types, a 5000k m3 destroyer, a destroyer's worth of 800k m3 frigates, and a destroyer's worth of 128k m3 corvettes.


    With one destroyer I get 7 slots.


    5000k divided by 800k is 6.25 so I get 6 frigates.  6 frigates, 5 slots each, totals to 30 slots.


    5000k divided by 128k is 39.0625 so I get 39 corvettes.  39 corvettes, 3 slots each is 117 slots.


    Assuming all ships have to use at least 2 slots on something that isn't turrets I get this.

    1 destroyer = 5 slots worth of turrets.

    Fleet of frigates = 18 slots worth of turrets.

    Fleet of corvettes = 39 slots worth of turrets.


    The question is, how does that comparison fare when you add shield scaling into the mix.


    I'm going to model a simple battle scenario.


    I'll have my example destroyer fight my example frigate fleet.  To keep things simple all the ships have for defense is Hp and each turret has 1 DPS.  First we need to know the exact turret count of each ship.  Assuming all ships' TCSes are legendary +6 armed slots we get a destroyer with 32 DPS, 2 base + 30 (5 slots times 6 turrets) and each frigate has 20 DPS, 2 base + 18 (3 slots times 6 turrets).


    Hp and shields scale linearly with volume so if the frigates are just smaller copies of the destroyer they all have 1/6th the Hp.  To keep things simple let's say the destroyer has 600 Hp.


    DD = 30 DPS

    FR = 120 DPS (6 times 20)


    Turn 0

    DD: 600 – FR1: 100, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 1

    DD: 480 – FR1: 70, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 2

    DD: 360 – FR1: 40, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 3

    DD: 240 – FR1: 10, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 4

    DD: 120 – FR1: X, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 30 DPS

    FR = 100 DPS (5 times 20)


    Turn 5

    DD: 20 – FR1: X, FR2: 70, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 6

    DD: X – FR1: X, FR2: 40, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Frigates win with the loss of one frigate.


    Now this is unrealistic since it's quite likely the frigates are going to have worse equipment.  So let's say that the destroyer's turrets each do 1.5 DPS and the frigates only have +4 armed turrets.  The frigates now each have 14 DPS, 2 base + 12 (3 slots times 4 turrets).


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR = 84 DPS (6 times 14)


    Turn 0

    DD: 600 – FR1: 100, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 1

    DD: 516 – FR1: 55, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 2

    DD: 432 – FR1: 10, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 3

    DD: 348 – FR1: X, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR = 70 DPS (5 times 14)


    Turn 4

    DD: 362 – FR1: X, FR2: 55, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 5

    DD: 292 – FR1: X, FR2: 10, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 6

    DD: 222 – Fr1: X, FR2: X, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR = 56 DPS (4 times 14)


    Turn 7

    DD: 166 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: 55, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 8

    DD: 110 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR =  42 DPS (3 times 14)


    Turn 9

    DD: 68 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: 55, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 10

    DD: 26 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: 10, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 11

    DD: X – Fr1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: X, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Frigates win with the loss of four frigates.


    Now you may have noticed the destroyer so far has wasted some DPS killing frigates with 10 Hp with it's full firepower.  Let give the destroyer and even 50 DPS so it can two shot firgates.


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR = 84 DPS (6 times 14)


    Turn 0

    DD: 600 – FR1: 100, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 1

    DD: 516 – FR1: 50, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 2

    DD: 432 – FR1: X, FR2: 100, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR = 70 DPS (5 times 14)


    Turn 3

    DD: 362 – FR1: X, FR2: 50, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 4

    DD: 292 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: 100, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR = 56 DPS (4 times 14)


    Turn 5

    DD: 236 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: 50, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 6

    DD: 180 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: 100, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR =  42 DPS (3 times 14)


    Turn 7

    DD: 138 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: 50, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    Turn 8

    DD: 96 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: X, FR5: 100, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR =  28 DPS (2 times 14)


    Turn 9

    DD: 68 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: X, FR5: 50, FR6: 100


    Turn 10

    DD: 68 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: X, FR5: X, FR6: 100


    DD = 45 DPS

    FR =  14 DPS


    Turn 10

    DD: 40 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: X, FR5: X, FR6: 50


    Turn 11

    DD: 26 – FR1: X, FR2: X, FR3: X, FR4: X, FR5: X, FR6: X


    Destroyer victory.

  14. There was a post about this already.  But, I can't seem to find it so I'm just making a new one.  Sorry mods!


    So rather than one difficulty slider I think it would great to have few different ones so we can adjust the game to challenge us in ways we find appealing.


    The one's I've come up with so far are:


    NPC Damage

    This is used to change the NPC ships' weapon damage.  The range is from 5% to 200%.


    NPC Tactics

    Makes the enemy fight smarter.  NPCs will try and fight at effective ranges, they will dodge more, and employ fleet tactics to try and beat you.  They will still be lazy about chasing you though.


    NPC Aggression

    Makes hostile AI ships more or less active.  Aggressive AI will do more to try and chase you down.  Hyperspace blockers will be more frequent.  You won't notice a different in the rim sectors but as you get closer to the core aggression will ramp up.


    Faction Hostility

    Changing this makes the default average relation between the player and NPC factions better or worse.


    Resource Scarcity

    Used to control how abundant resources are.  This could hurt NPC factions as well.  Less active NPCs means less resources for the player as well.  This has no effect on the Xoatan.


    Unknown hostility.

    Controls how frequently the Xoatan attack.  The highest level may even make them automatically hostile attacking the player as soon as they arrive rather than waiting for the player to make the first move.

  • Create New...