The Trouble With Guns

[Zistack]

Hello everyone!  I've mostly enjoyed my time with the game so far, but I've definitely noticed where the game is made almost entirely of placeholders a little rough around the edges.  I understand the thrusters are the most broken thing right now, and they're being fixed, so I'd like to focus on another important part of the game that I think desperately needs attention: Turrets.  I have read several suggestions on improving this subsystem already, but I don't think that any of them really address all of the issues it suffers from, so I've taken the time to come up with a sketch of a solution that should cover all of the bases.

 

Now, before I go further, I'd like to note the way the turret system is currently set up is somewhat unique for a space game like this.  I have to wonder if there is a reason for this beyond `that's just what the dev came up with at the time'.  If there is, then my proposal is likely incompatible with such reasoning, as my proposal is for a system that is completely different than what is currently implemented.  I wouldn't mind an official statement on that.

 

 

What's Wrong With Turrets Now

 

More or less everything.  They do shoot, and you can destroy enemies with them, so there's that at least.

 

I don't particularly like trusting the RNG.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if I were just upgrading one weapon on one ship, but I'm not.  I, like some other players, like to have a little uniformity in my fleet.  In addition to that, some ship designs are good for some kinds of weapons and not others.  I don't really wanna go slapping a bunch of short range weapons on the quarter-scale Death Star I just built, simply because I don't have anything else.  (I haven't built this - this example is just to make a point.  Kudos if someone does this though.)  Neither do I want my support fleet of TIE fighters to have a random bag of weapons on them, like dumb little lasers on one, and a triple-chaingun on another.

 

I also don't want to have to go to turret factories to manufacture my uniform set of turrets - after all, shouldn't the turrets be part of the ship's design?  I mean, if we can build a hyperspace core, I think we can build a chaingun.  I'm still trusting an RNG to give me a decent factory, too, which isn't a safe bet. When I create a new vessel from a blueprint, it should really be armed already - that way, I don't have to go through each one and put turrets on it in all of the places.  This would become rather tedious for a fleet of any real size.

 

On top of that, it is frankly true that the disparity between turret factories and turret drops is a problem.  With that said, I don't think the answer is to somehow rebalance the stats so that they agree more.

 

In fact, I think the whole `turrets as an item that you slap on' thing is wrong to begin with.  This brings me to what I think is the most important flaw in this system.

 

I now direct your attention to exhibit A.

 

 

This is the Eye of Zorg - my primary space vessel.  Allow me to further direct your attention to the turrets on said craft.

 

 

The Eye of Zorg only reluctantly installs these ugly gray warts as the only means of conquering space defending itself.  These turrets do not at all match the desired aesthetic - and there's nothing I can do about it.  Ideally, I'd just have a mega-laser hiding behind that great big eyeball (for obvious reasons).

 

There is clearly only one solution to this problem.  We players need to be able to build our turrets block by block.

 

 

The Proposal

 

If you think about it, this approach stands to solve many of the problems that we see in the turret system right now.  For one thing, we no longer have to worry so much about using modules and module slots to limit how many turrets a ship can have.  I expect that the average turret will get quite a bit larger if players have to build them.  They'll also be heavy, and you won't want to load your ship down with expensive heavy guns that don't serve as very good armor.  With that said, we can really make them any size we want, since we get the same arbitrary scaling that we have for blocks.  It should also be easy to add projectile coloration, by basing the projectile color off of the color of some of the weapon blocks.

 

For another, I always thought it was odd that the guns could aim independently of your craft's orientation be default.  It seems to me that turrets that can turn would be a more advanced feature to be earned.  And then with this comes the turret lock block, so that you can add a little complexity to the system to take away that ability - because that makes sense.

 

This also gives players something they've always wanted - spinal mount weapons.  I mean, what's the point of being a giant battleship if you can't blast the thing you're facing with the energy of a moon crashing into a planet?  Sure, the recoil will shove you into the next sector (granted, still at sublight speeds), if not rip the gun assembly out of your vessel and shoot it out the new hole in the rear, but it'll have been worth it.  If you'd like a more down-to-earth example of this awesome technique, I point you to the Warthog.

 

Of course, what's an idea without a little discussion about implementation?

 

 

Shooting

 

So how would one build a turret?  Well, turrets shoot right?  So how do we build something that shoots?

 

 

Base Weapon Blocks

 

Basically, we've got projectile weapons (chainguns, railguns, missiles), energy weapons (lasers), and particle weapons (plasma), right?  Technically, there's also lightning weapons, but those actually aren't possible in space (no medium for the lightning arcs to form in, among other things).  Even if we included them anyways, the approach would be much the same.

 

How about we define some base blocks.  One for each kind of weapon.  We'd have firing chambers for the projectile weapons, energy emitters for the energy weapons, and particle emitters for the particle weapons.  The size of these blocks will determine the amount of mass/energy that can be fired per unit time.

 

 

Modifiers

 

I expect that these weapons will generate heat.  They'll also need to be fed energy/munitions.  We also probably want to put barrels on some of them, or some focusing lenses on others.

 

Long barrels help with accuracy and a bit with bullet speed in the case of projectile weapons (not just railguns).  Many barrels might just help with firing speed - or maybe just redundancy in case one gets shot off.  For lasers and particle weapons, you'd add a base emitter (or several), and the area of the emitters would determine how much energy could be discharged per unit time without melting something important on the firing end.  You could add a focusing lens on a laser to get some armor penetration, or a particle accelerator to a particle weapon to add some range/damage.

 

You could also add more interesting modifiers, like a block that arms the munitions with charges that explode on impact, or something that replaces the usual slug with a package of pellets (shotgun adapter).  Perhaps a block that installs seeker modules on the missiles?

 

Cooling is a fascinating issue in its own right.  Something that many of you may not realize is that it is actually really hard to cool things effectively in space.  This is because you can't dissipate heat into the atmosphere.  There is no atmosphere.  You basically have to rely on blackbody radiation.  The more heat you can dump into what you're ejecting at the enemy, the better.  With that said, you're probably still gonna have some heat to take care of.  One option is to eject gasses that run past the hot parts and into space, but the gasses need restocked periodically (I note that ammo seems to be infinite here, so this might not really matter).  Another option is to put radiator panels on your ship somewhere, and have a cooling system pump heat to them.  Depending on how detailed you wanna get, you could either have an entire heating/cooling subsystem to the ship, or just add some kind of cooling blocks as weapon modifiers.  I note that requiring that your ship has sufficient surface area to cool itself would discourage the cubeship designs, so this may be a desirable design constraint to add.

 

I am thinking that this is the way to get your weapon variety, without having to come up with a bunch of different weapons with different stat tradeoffs.  Let the players choose.  It should also be nice and extensible, due to the separation of functions into separate blocks.  It should be easy enough to add a block to either add a new base weapon type, or add a modifier to some of the existing weapons.

 

This will probably require some reworking in the way the game thinks about ship designs, as adjacency matters here.

 

 

Aiming

 

Of course, having all these blocks is great, but since we aren't dealing with magic turret entities that we slap on the outsides of our vessels, we now have to worry about making the turrets point at the enemies.  I suggest two primitives here - Rotors and Rails.

 

 

Rotors

 

These are what you expect.  You place it, and it allows you to build blocks off of it that can rotate.  I do wonder about the most reasonable implementation of this, as it seems that putting a little rotor block to one side of something that aims up and down isn't right, and I doubt that it would be easy to have the game detect when multiple rotors are aligned correctly.  My thinking is that you'll want to additonally have something like a rod/sleeve block, where the ends are one part, and the sleeve around the center is the other part.  Which you attach to the ship and which you attach to the moving part shouldn't matter too much.

 

Figuring out the acceptable range of motion on a rotor is probably impossible to automate.  There will need to be some way of letting players configure this.  I don't know what should happen if the players lie get it wrong and the moving piece collides with something.  Possibly explosions and death.

 

I would expect that the rotor's ability to rotate mass would be proportional to its size somehow.  This could limit the speed at which a turret may rotate into position, especially if it is large and heavy.

 

I note that rotors might not be useful for only turrets, although a way of figuring out what position they should be in and when would be necessary.  I've ideas for this, but those are suggestions for another time.

 

 

Rails

 

I know it seems like rails would be inferior to rotors, but I think for some designs, it would make a lot of sense.  Think broadside cannons.

 

The trick with rails is making them flexible enough that you can do neat things, without making them so flexible that it becomes an implementation nightmare.

 

The most obvious constraint would be to enforce that a rail can only be built such that it specifies a path within a plane.  Let's look at that another way.  Imagine a ship.  Now imagine a plane intersecting the ship.  Suppose you want turrets to move about the surface of the ship, but only so long as they're on that plane that intersects the ship.  That's what rails should let you do.

 

Now, arbitrary planes might be a little much (although, not necessarily impossible).  In all likelihood, you'll want to stick to planes aligned with the axes.  Basically, adjacent rail blocks (of possibly a variety of shapes) will form a rail, but all blocks have to intersect this common plane.  Only one thing may be on a given rail.  This rail might use slopes to wrap around the ship, totally, or maybe just partially.  The outer surface of the rail blocks must be exposed (of course).  Things may slide along the rail blocks on the outside surface.

 

 

Control Blocks

 

Even for such aimable turrets that one would want to be in direct control of, the game needs to know that there's an aimable turret.  I think the easy way is to use some kind of 'turret control block'.  This can be thought of as a block that contains targeting and firing control for the turret, but for the implementation, this really just marks which bits are turrets, and can aid in figuring out which rotors/rails are involved in aiming it.

 

It makes no sense for a turret to have more than 2 degrees of freedom.  Since the projectiles move away from the ship, that effectively allows you to target any point in space (assuming that the 2 degrees allow for arbitrary rotation).  Unfortunately, just having 2 rotors between the turret control block and the ship it is attached to does not guarantee that there are 2 degrees of freedom.  If the rotors are both aligned to the same axis, indeed, there will only be one degree of freedom.  I would expect that the control block will only take control of 2 rotors/rails if they grant independent axes of motion.  If not, then stop at one.  This should be something that can be done automatically.  I note that this scheme will prevent players from stacking many weak rotors to gain rotational speed from cheap parts (although that shouldn't be a problem anyways as long as the stats make sense - take a lesson from thrusters).

 

A note to the implementer - you would want to work from the control block in.  There may be other reasons to use rotors and rails that don't directly involve aiming guns.  If they become part of the game too, then you cannot guarantee that there will be at most 2 of these things between the ship and the control block.

 

The control block would have an orientation, which would allow the player to effectively specify which way the guns are pointing.  Alternately, one could require that the control block be touching the base blocks for the guns.  This could allow the game to automatically determine the correct orientation for the player.  It could also make it easier for the game to enumerate the weapons that a given control block is actually controlling.

 

Once a control block knows which weapons it can fire, and which motion blocks it controls, all you need is an algorithm for aiming the turret at the target.  For rotors, this is easy.  For rails, it's less easy, but still not too difficult.

 

 

What d'y'all think?

[Zistack]

I never said your idea was bad

 

Indeed.  Perhaps a poor choice of words?  How about 'unsuitable' instead.

 

Cool, then why aren't you writing mods to accomplish this?

 

FTFY.  Because that's not the point.  This isn't about improving the gameplay experience for me.  It's about improving it for all players.  By the same token, why don't you write a mod that implements your dream system?  I mean, from the way you write, you seem to know all kinds of things about development.  I'm sure you could figure it out.

 

Now, question for you... How do you plan for the evolution of weapons?

 

That's an easy one.  The better materials you have, the more interesting stuff you can do.  The dev has already implemented a notion of ability unlocked by material tier.  I think this is a cool system, and that it could be applied here.

 

I'm guessing that the material of the turret components will play a factor, but what about the bonuses that are currently added +xdamage to shields, Chance to pass shields, Overheating, Multifire... what complexity do you propose to not turn this into a Cut/paste of "Best" design..

 

Also an easy one.  Blocks take up space.  Blocks are heavy.  These blocks will probably be fragile.  Having one weapon that can do everything will be impractical, and you will likely lose to a specialized adversary.  It's more efficient to specialize, so adversaries that specialize against you will always have an advantage - unless you specialize against them too.  There will not be a single best.  What counts as a good weapon will depend on the situation.

 

Since you play RPG games, you might be familiar with the notion of a 'combat triangle'.  Well, in space sims, similar things exist.  You've got shields and armor, and then you've also got glass cannons.  Armor is good for bigger craft, shields for smaller craft, and for the smallest craft, the answer may just be thrusters, guns, and hope they don't get hit.  That's how it typically is anyways.  The interesting part comes in choosing which craft has which weapons.  You can make a battleship that is effective at taking out strike craft.  Just don't expect it to take on a dreadnought any time soon.

 

What plan do you have for the economic sub system that was created (in part) to allow players to create their own turrets?

 

Does it even have to change?  Why should blocks only require materials that we mine from asteroids?  Why not have a barrel block cost steel tubes?

 

Would this make manufacturing a fleet a PITA because guns are limited by cargo space?  Yes.  Is this already the case?  Yes.  Would having a real faction system where you can have stations and a resource distribution network that allows you to amass the required materials in one place fix this?  Yes.  Fortunately, I think the dev wants the latter anyways, so that probably won't be a big deal in the long term.

 

Actually, I'm not even sure why materials like Xanion and Avorion aren't stored in cargo bays either (aside from how awkward upgrading your ship would become, that is).  It seems to me that this is something that could be changed in the future, once ship upgrading and factions get an overhaul.  Then again, this is a suggestion for a (much) later time, if ever.

 

[Weylin]

If we could figure out how to mod this in, maybe koonschi could implement it into the vanilla game?

I'm still learning LUA and how this game uses it, so I got a lot of work ahead of me yet.

 

As you said, the intent here is to bring it to everyone, not just us, and for those who don't want it, well, it'll be like it is for those who don't want to build their ships... go to the shipyard and specify one, or download one off the forums or reddit.

[GrimJahk]

Cool, then why aren't you writing mods to accomplish this?

 

FTFY.  Because that's not the point.  This isn't about improving the gameplay experience for me.  It's about improving it for all players.  By the same token, why don't you write a mod that implements your dream system?  I mean, from the way you write, you seem to know all kinds of things about development.  I'm sure you could figure it out.

 

I'm not a coder, I can't code my way out of a wet tissue. But, I sort of manage coders. I'm a software systems architect. In that function, UX and UI are my only goal. Getting the job done in the easiest and most streamlined way. Having interfaces and systems that flow seamlessly.

 

With that in mind... I view projects like Avorion from the same approach. The DEV has a vision, when I see things that follow that vision but are "Rough" I make my suggestions. I join in conversations about others suggestions. I offer my opinions on approaches. If something adds to the project without taking away from something else... cool... if adding this new feature forces ALL users to jump through an extra hoop or three... not cool... Buy-in is the key.

 

Lets look at the MODDING community as a great example. There are MAYBE a handful of MODs that every player that knows how to install mods has probably put in place... that nearly universal implementation means that the DEVs may take notice and implement that code into the project as part of the base.

 

However, 85% or more of those mods are not universal. While they may be very popular with some, they are not so universally appealing, OR actively contradict the DEVs vision, so are not likely to be included in the Game Proper.

 

You will notice that every idea/suggestion I make includes assessment of: the problem, what type of problem, what I see as the value, and the impact to the game in general. Then I see if it gets traction. If I get resistance, I drop it and move on... I have made a BUNCH of suggestions, most of them minor, some not so much... I commented about cargo looted in savage yards not being flagged as stolen since you paid for the right to salvage... in the very next update I was amazed to start collecting cargo in a salvage yard!!! I can't claim credit, as no conversation about my comment ever occurred, and I can't know if it was coincidence, so I just choose to believe that I made a contribution and keep looking for the next opportunity.

 

Now, question for you... How do you plan for the evolution of weapons?

 

That's an easy one.  The better materials you have, the more interesting stuff you can do.  The dev has already implemented a notion of ability unlocked by material tier.  I think this is a cool system, and that it could be applied here.

 

 

But how do you address Rarity? (Common, Uncommon, Rare, Exceptional, Exotic, and Legendary) is this based on the pattern of assembly? Is this based on quantities of material? How do you prevent every weapon from being Legendary? How do you even get to Legendary?

 

The big problem I see with this vision (player built turrets) is that there are so many variables(details) that are dependent on what weapon you have...

 

How about what have you considered for detail traits? What will determine the rate of fire? The Range of the weapon?

 

I was actually after more specifics... and lets hash this out because I am genuinely curious.  Currently, as a new player, in a starting ship I get a chaingun and mount it on my ship. In the first 20 minutes I fight a pirate and win and loot a new gun that is raring has interesting stats, in 40 seconds I have that new gun in place and am ready to fight with effectively doubled attack strength.

 

Please walk me through your vision. How would/could it be for the first few hours of play

 

I'm guessing that the material of the turret components will play a factor, but what about the bonuses that are currently added +xdamage to shields, Chance to pass shields, Overheating, Multifire... what complexity do you propose to not turn this into a Cut/paste of "Best" design..

 

Also an easy one.  Blocks take up space.  Blocks are heavy.  These blocks will probably be fragile.  Having one weapon that can do everything will be impractical, and you will likely lose to a specialized adversary.  It's more efficient to specialize, so adversaries that specialize against you will always have an advantage - unless you specialize against them too.  There will not be a single best.  What counts as a good weapon will depend on the situation.

 

This is where I think I really get confused... if every weapon in the game is player made, based on a formulae/build pattern/material combination... It will be maybe a week before ALL of the best possible combinations are posted on the web and they become the default weapon for 95% of the player base... even in "Balanced" sets.

 

Every MMORPG player took the time to research what boss they needed to kill to get their epic loots. This system bypasses all randomness and just hands every player a win button. (Collect these 12 bits and place them like this for 12k Omicron)

 

This seems disconnected from the point of design to your aesthetic...

 

What plan do you have for the economic sub system that was created (in part) to allow players to create their own turrets?

 

Does it even have to change?  Why should blocks only require materials that we mine from asteroids?  Why not have a barrel block cost steel tubes?

 

Would this make manufacturing a fleet a PITA because guns are limited by cargo space?  Yes.  Is this already the case?  Yes.  Would having a real faction system where you can have stations and a resource distribution network that allows you to amass the required materials in one place fix this?  Yes.  Fortunately, I think the dev wants the latter anyways, so that probably won't be a big deal in the long term.

 

Actually, I'm not even sure why materials like Xanion and Avorion aren't stored in cargo bays either (aside from how awkward upgrading your ship would become, that is).  It seems to me that this is something that could be changed in the future, once ship upgrading and factions get an overhaul.  Then again, this is a suggestion for a (much) later time, if ever.

 

Actually I like that part about using existing ECON material, but HOW would you implement it into the the assembly of turrets on the superstructure of the ship?

 

I hope that some sort of virtual bank/storage system is implemented, and with it having mass to materials.

[SageThe13th]

I like the current system.  I'm against anything that replaces it.

 

Does it need to be modified?  Yes.  Are there things that could be added to it to make it better?  Sure!

 

I can see adding a turret designer to the game.  This wouldn't replace the system we have now.  Think of this as different way to handle the current turret factories.  DivineEvil put forward the idea of turret blueprints that are used in factories before.  If we had a turret blueprints and a turret designer we could do all sorts of things.

 

Turret blueprints would be comprised of two elements, turret stats (including weapon type) and turret design (based on weapon type).  Players could use the turret designer to make there own turrets.  This would be an added function of the turret factories letting you mass produces turrets not just of a specific type, but also a uniform look.  You can also reverse engineer looted turrets into a blueprint.  Load the blueprint into the designer where you can change it's look, but not it's stats.  Then use the modified blueprint to create copies of your favorite weapon that also now looks exactly the way you want it to.

[Weylin]

Can any of these ideas be added through a mod, and then later added officially?

[Maverick5768]

Hi Guys and Gals, this is going to be my first post on the forums here because this is by far the biggest issue in my opinion.

 

Right now you can build mega cargo haulers, Mega carriers (even if they suck) and general specialized non-Combat ships.

However you simply Cannot Design a ship that is a Mega cannon or Mega Weapon of any sort. You cant build a "primary weapon' and that's just kinda lame. The only way currently to increase your firepower is to spam tiny turrets that look Dinky on most designs.

 

Now allot of people seem to be saying that the game relies on an rng loot system because they game is an RPG. but if you check the store page it doesn't mention anything about an RPG. by the creators definition its a sci-fi space sandbox. focused around combat, exploration, fleet building, and trade.

 

If this game is focused on these things then an rng loot system should not be the only way to arm your ships. it makes the idea of a combat fleet almost impossible simply because you cant build an armed ship.  every time you build a new ship in your fleet you have to personally arm it with random turrets.

 

Now with that fact understood. if an new player wanted to build a fleet it takes hours just to get enough turrets to arm a fleet, and days to get the turrets they actually want. and yes there is the turret factories, but honestly they are a logistical nightmare to use.

 

If we used a way to design weapons, either in build mode or a separate weapon designer you could have your ships pre armed before you build them in game or at least make it much faster to install weapons that you actually want to use. meaning the learning curve will be a bit higher yes, but the game will feel less grindy and more strategic.

 

I believe this game isn't designed around an rpg, its designed around space exploration, and in some cases, space conquering. therefor ship design should tie directly into the weapons of a ship, which should allow for ships that specialize in a combat role. which will allow for actual space fleets once AI improves a bit, And that is what this game really needs.

 

This is all just the opinion of one random gamer that loves the game as is, but wants the game to be better.

[GrimJahk]

Hi Guys and Gals, this is going to be my first post on the forums here because this is by far the biggest issue in my opinion.

 

Right now you can build mega cargo haulers, Mega carriers (even if they suck) and general specialized non-Combat ships.

However you simply Cannot Design a ship that is a Mega cannon or Mega Weapon of any sort. You cant build a "primary weapon' and that's just kinda lame. The only way currently to increase your firepower is to spam tiny turrets that look Dinky on most designs.

 

Now allot of people seem to be saying that the game relies on an rng loot system because they game is an RPG. but if you check the store page it doesn't mention anything about an RPG. by the creators definition its a sci-fi space sandbox. focused around combat, exploration, fleet building, and trade.

 

If this game is focused on these things then an rng loot system should not be the only way to arm your ships. it makes the idea of a combat fleet almost impossible simply because you cant build an armed ship.  every time you build a new ship in your fleet you have to personally arm it with random turrets.

 

Now with that fact understood. if an new player wanted to build a fleet it takes hours just to get enough turrets to arm a fleet, and days to get the turrets they actually want. and yes there is the turret factories, but honestly they are a logistical nightmare to use.

 

If we used a way to design weapons, either in build mode or a separate weapon designer you could have your ships pre armed before you build them in game or at least make it much faster to install weapons that you actually want to use. meaning the learning curve will be a bit higher yes, but the game will feel less grindy and more strategic.

 

I believe this game isn't designed around an rpg, its designed around space exploration, and in some cases, space conquering. therefor ship design should tie directly into the weapons of a ship, which should allow for ships that specialize in a combat role. which will allow for actual space fleets once AI improves a bit, And that is what this game really needs.

 

This is all just the opinion of one random gamer that loves the game as is, but wants the game to be better.

 

It was recently posted officially that "Blueprints" (commented around weapons) were being designed/implemented/added... I think this may address your concern around fleets and also the dreaded Haulfest that is the current turret Factory implementation.

 

Around fleets and new players... the bigger issue (not weapons) would be gathering the required materials to build said ships... Or collecting the credits to pay for the crews and construction of ships... Most new players just jumping in, unless they are in creative, have bigger obstacles than quantity of available weapons as a hurdle to leading a fleet.

 

 

[DivineEvil]

I've already stated my position on Turret Factory production, as was noted before by SageThe13th. If blueprint reproduction is properly realized and price for mass-producing found turrets is properly balanced with the returns, the system might work as it would be. Introducing weighted scaling mechanics, as it was stated to be in the works, will improve the situation even further.

 

If assuming, that it would not be enough in some way, and custom turret/weapon design was something worthwhile, I would only consider a parametric approach. Actually you should not bother with manual block-building turrets - it will most likely not going to happen. It would take too much development time and too much effort to balance, while introducing benefits for a narrow fraction of player base with the remaining players gaining nothing but the additional headache.

 

Parametric turret design would look like that:

 

1.) You choose a type of weapon. This determines the base values, properties, costs and components required.

 

2.) You choose the base material. Material chosen directly translates into Turret's rarity/quality tier, i.e. Naonite to Uncommon, Trinium to Rare, Xanion to Exceptional, etc. Influences durability and/or weight if either are implemented and escalates Credits cost of manufacturing.

 

3.) You choose the angular profile. Lower profiles make the mount more restricted (down to fixed-mount), but is more accurate and/or more durable.

 

4.) You choose a mount size. Larger mounts gain multipliers to most parameters and demands while losing 40% of their tracking speed per step and require additional crew to function.

 

 

6.) You choose weapon caliber (5 grades). Higher caliber produces higher damage and range, but demand more power and produce more heat. Modifies the visual design of the barrel depending on the weapon type.

 

5.) You choose the number of barrels. For projectile weapons, number of barrels increase fire-rate by 50%, but reduces accuracy by 10% for each barrel - this naturally leads to higher heat and power demands as well. For hit-scan weapons it simply increases damage and power demand by 100%, but also cause the weapon to overheat faster. Higher-tier weapons has physical limitations on the barrel count, which balances them against more primitive ones.

 

 

7.) You choose the heat-sink type (5 variants). Heat-sink system can be swayed either into heat capacity, which provide longer barrages and longer cooldown phase, or into heat dissipation, which provides the opposite. Heat-dissipation focus can manage the sustained fire, but if weapon generates too much heat per shot, low heat-cap can prevent it to fire at all.

 

 

8.) You choose the mod type. All weapons has their own mods available (2-3), while Independent Targeting is a universal option, meaning that you'll have to abandon any mods if you want the turret to be autonomous. Applied weapon modifiers are multiplied by the mount size.

 

 

9.) [Optional] You choose the casing setup. Casing increases turrets durability in exchange for tracking speed, from bare-bone up to full-jacket. Higher-tier weapons, such as Railguns and Launchers are physically impossible to be encased.

 

 

- Parameters are displayed openly.

- All options, that add up to stats, would also add up to material, component and credit costs. More complex builds are more expensive no matter if they're actually better or not.

- Would require some changes to commodities to introduce valid components for varying weapon types. Ammunition should be completely eliminated from the equation, whether the blueprint, custom or both design systems are introduced.

[War Viper]

What the OP is proposing sounds too complex for the average player. Avorion isn't really trying to be a hardcore engineering simulator like some of the other games out there. The current system with some tweaks works quite well. They need to make turrets not fall off the player ship when they are destroyed. Turrets can be repaired and they will reappear on the ship. Turrets need sizing options added. We need a system in place so we can replicate existing turrets more easily.

[LordMaddog]

Far far to complex for this game I would suggest some thing more like this

 

New blocks added one just one for each weapon type.

 

Plus a new weapon type called torpedo, which will move very slowly but pack a heavy punch. (Bombers anyone?)

These blocks would work off of this principle.

 

The width and height of the block will determine its energy efficiency and max aim angle.

IE: a block of 0.05 scale can only shoot a 25° arc in front of it. While a block of 0.1 might be able to shoot at a 75° arc.

However the larger the block the slower the aiming speed. So a block of 0.5 might be able to shoot at an almost 360° angle and have excellent energy efficiency but it will take forever for it to turn and track its target. For missiles on the other hand the larger the slower they move.

The length of the block will determine its range and accuracy. In case of missiles their lock on maneuverability. There is no drawbacks to this stat, however the larger the weapon the more gunners and mechanics it’s going to require.

Once placed in the build mode a new UI option becomes available. In this option you can adjust its fire rate and damage. The higher the DPS the more power draw.

Yes with this method one could theoretically make a weapon that uses all their energy in one shot but this would be quite foolhardy. The players will undoubtedly find a good balance between power usage and damage according to their own preferences.

These new weapon blocks would not all be available when the player first starts they would have to search throughout the world to buy their blueprints. One for each type of resource and each resource would have a different effect for each type of weapon.

Turrets:

All turrets would now be independent firing. The player can also scale them increase or decreasing there DPS and power draw. Turrets as a whole should also never cost more than one gunner especially as they get more advanced.

As they scale in size though just like the weapon blocks there turning speed and aiming speed significantly decreases thus making them effective against larger slower targets and quite ineffective against fast agile ones.

There should also be no arbitrary limit placed on them other than the need of gunners and energy. I would like to see the plus more turrets module completely removed from the game along with the plus energy generated modules or they will be all the player will ever use.

[animark]

This Idea would be not completely bad if Avorion was a AAA Title with dozens of programmers behind it to realize such a complex system besides solving the "usual" THOUSANDS of problems, bugs, gameplay optimisations etc.......

 

The thing is the system in place is already very addicting as a matter of fact that getting weapon drops and the hunt for better(random) weapon stats is  one of the main driving factors of the game! (Its like Diablo 2 or 3 ;D )

It is much more fun than material hunt! (salvage/mine ::))

 

And larger more complex weapons would also affect fps performance.

Building weapons you want is already in game and thankfully not too powerful as you need to trade for components.

 

So a really bad Idea in this case!

 

What we need is a good weapon balancing !

This is what matters in the long run for SP and especially for Multiplayer!

 

[Weylin]

Any chance that people could stop saying that it would be too hard to develop, or that nobody wants it, or that it will affect performance, or that dev resources need to go to other things first?

 

From what I'm seeing here, people who play this game like everything between random drops to designing their ships in all aspects the very smallest details. Satisfying both would be a challenge, but surely it would be a worthwhile one if it can be managed.

 

All we can do is make suggestions, and hope that one of them "clicks", or at least makes something click in the mind of the developer. Sometimes they come up with a solution that's a bit of everything, or something straight out of nowhere that works surprisingly well.

 

I've been thinking on this issue constantly every time I slip into a daydream, it's a tough problem, but I know there's gotta be an elegant way to manage it.

[SageThe13th]

I played games that use block built weapon system mechanics before.  Starmade and From the Depths.  And it ends up with people making ridiculously sized guns.  Now it's really cool to be able to construct a ship around a central weapon system.  But, you also get people making absolutely huge turrets as well.  We really need a system that isn't more blocks = more power.

[GrimJahk]

(1)Any chance that people could stop saying that it would be too hard to develop, or that nobody wants it, or that it will affect performance, or that dev resources need to go to other things first?

 

From what I'm seeing here, people who play this game like everything between random drops to designing their ships in all aspects the very smallest details. Satisfying both would be a challenge, but surely it would be a worthwhile one if it can be managed. (2)

 

All we can do is make suggestions, and hope that one of them "clicks", or at least makes something click in the mind of the developer. Sometimes they come up with a solution that's a bit of everything, or something straight out of nowhere that works surprisingly well.

 

I've been thinking on this issue constantly every time I slip into a daydream, it's a tough problem, but I know there's gotta be an elegant way to manage it.

 

1) Those are called reality checks... Each one of those four items is a critical decision making factor for any business.

• "too hard to develop"

- if a project is 80% done, and if a new "feature" will require more than XX% of that time (Additionally) to develop and implement... Is it worth it?

• "Nobody wants it"

- Very valid question. Will the added feature be used by more than XX% of the player base?

• "It will affect Performance"

- If a game is so resource hungry that a dedicated SOLO gaming rig suffers, how would a server handle it? If a feature cripples the game for some of your player base, what is an acceptable percentage?

• "Dev resources are needed elsewhere"

- When do you draw the line? There is a difference between polish/tweaking and adding/altering core functions. Every project must ship at some point. We are back to the; How much additional time will be needed to "add new" AND finish the project.

 

2) This is where you answer your own question.  A small start up that has limited resources spends a crazy amount of time managing them...

 

ROI (Return On Investment) is a powerful decision making tool. Time, cost, impact, value to consumer.

 

- How long it takes is a huge issue, time is the only thing you cannot recover from. Once spent it's gone.

- Cost is a factor of resource management, finances, labor, schedule... "What is the COST man!?!?!?"

- Impact describes the positive or negative effect. Bugs have huge impact, server performance (good or bad) have impact. Percentage of player base affected has Impact.

- Playability, storyline, ease or complexity, is it fun, is it a grind, is this a game that you restart every other day with a 35 minute forced tutorial that drives you crazy? Basically all QoL (Quality of Life) factors that make a player likely to recommend the game to a friend...

 

If it takes one day of coding to polish a feature that everyone uses... The ROI is huge, so It happens.  If there is a Bug that affects 90% of the player base, (thus potentially affecting sales) it will get fixed even if it takes a month. Again, ROI driven.

 

Those are easy examples. Then it starts getting murky... A new feature, that has appeal (additive) to 50% of the (current) player base, and will take 3 days to code and implement... Maybe. Three weeks? ... Probably not.

 

After all of the above... the one thing to remember... any project is the product of a person's/team's vision.

 

They read the forums, they read the discussions, then they implement what they think will truly improve the game... When people (like myself) express concern over suggestions, it is a form of feedback as well. I didn't count noses on this topic, the fact that it's 3+ pages of debate makes that unnecessary. There is a significant divide in the player base on this. Having that piece of information helps the Devs. It's up to them to decide the value of this concept and how it fits into their puzzle.

 

 

 

 

[Weylin]

Since there is such a divide, then perhaps the answer is making it possible to mod this into the game, if it isn't already.

 

If there's a foundation that allows it, and people who want it, then the modding community will make it

[LordMaddog]

Since there is such a divide, then perhaps the answer is making it possible to mod this into the game, if it isn't already.

 

If there's a foundation that allows it, and people who want it, then the modding community will make it

 

From what I have seen it is not possible because much of the key aspects changes like this require are hard coded.

For example I believe the way engines work is way OP because the player can just hold space and boost away from any npc. And using this I have never died NOT ONCE! even on the hardest difficulty.

so I wanted to make a mod that makes engines have a max boost time according to their combined total mass.So the boost would work like afterburners work in most games. Sadly almost every thing about engines is hard coded.

 

[GrimJahk]

Since there is such a divide, then perhaps the answer is making it possible to mod this into the game, if it isn't already.

 

If there's a foundation that allows it, and people who want it, then the modding community will make it

 

Actually, that's a great thought... however... lets go back to ROI assessment... Is it a smart use of resources to invest time and funds into creating and integrating code, on the off chance that someone else will build a MOD to utilize it? 

 

(if the code was already in place for this to happen easily, we would have seen it by now... if only for testing reasons...)

 

That all depends on how much time and what value is returned... If the code is an interface adaptation to allow overwriting of core coded systems... Like the booster mentioned, It may only be a day or three of coding that the Modding Community would go crazy over... so maybe... If that same code requires two to four weeks of time and has to be retrofitted into the core of the game... probably not happening ... soon.

 

There is great benefit to working with and helping the modding community thrive, and I'm reasonably sure the DEVs see that...

 

Again... I don't hate on this idea... but as others have said... it's too complex... whether or not I'd actually use it, it has no value NOW but later? Who knows?

 

With a shiny future in the hands of the modding community, I fully expect to see all kinds of things down the road... including themed mod-packs and the like...

[SageThe13th]

Since there is such a divide, then perhaps the answer is making it possible to mod this into the game, if it isn't already.

 

If there's a foundation that allows it, and people who want it, then the modding community will make it

 

Actually, that's a great thought... however... lets go back to ROI assessment... Is it a smart use of resources to invest time and funds into creating and integrating code, on the off chance that someone else will build a MOD to utilize it? 

 

(if the code was already in place for this to happen easily, we would have seen it by now... if only for testing reasons...)

 

That all depends on how much time and what value is returned... If the code is an interface adaptation to allow overwriting of core coded systems... Like the booster mentioned, It may only be a day or three of coding that the Modding Community would go crazy over... so maybe... If that same code requires two to four weeks of time and has to be retrofitted into the core of the game... probably not happening ... soon.

 

There is great benefit to working with and helping the modding community thrive, and I'm reasonably sure the DEVs see that...

 

Again... I don't hate on this idea... but as others have said... it's too complex... whether or not I'd actually use it, it has no value NOW but later? Who knows?

 

With a shiny future in the hands of the modding community, I fully expect to see all kinds of things down the road... including themed mod-packs and the like...

Yeah, it not like this idea wouldn't work.  It does work for From the Depths.  It's just that this change would require the dev to remove the old system that the game is built around.  Design and install the new system.  This would take a lot longer than just trying to fix current system.

 

[Zistack]

The "Scalable Turrets" idea is not simpler.  Not for you, and not for the dev.

 

At this point, several of you seem to believe that this suggestion is too complicated for the dev, and believe that making turrets scalable would be an easier solution.  As a programmer who knows how both would be constructed, allow me clear the air of these misconceptions.

 

Appearance

 

If koonschi really wants to allow us to customize the appearance of turrets, ...

 

Turrets then will have customizable looks.

 

... then you can't do much better than to use the existing editor code to allow people to build the appearance block by block - even if the appearances have nothing to do with the stats.  While it might be 'simpler' to have a set of pre-configured appearances, this won't satisfy the creative-types much more than what we have now, and it would require the development of yet a new menu, and a new set of options.

 

Stats

 

Let's assume we go that easy route.  Alright, so the other proposal has us using a menu to configure the stats of the turret, at the cost of materials, and possibly physical size.  This also requires the development of a new menu.

 

My suggestion would replace sliders with block scaling, which is already implemented in the game.  It's also nice and visual, and causes the turret's stats to have an impact on its size and complexity.  It does not require that you open a new menu to figure out what is going on or tweak something.

 

With that said, some of you might be skeptical about using adjacency to determine which modifiers are applied to which gun.  Well, this is a simple instance of the same problem the the physics engine solves every frame.  It ultimately breaks down into using a space partitioning data structure to find the nearest neighbors, up until we find one that isn't adjacent, or there are no more blocks.  The funny thing is that this is already in the ship editor.  Have you noticed that an integrity field generator won't cover but the nearest blocks if it isn't large enough to cover the whole ship?  That's the k-nearest-neighbors algorithm at work.  Plus, the ship editor also seems to be aware of connectivity, as trying to remove blocks that would break the ship into pieces will emit a warning if safe mode is on.

 

This is almost already in the game.

 

Motion

 

In fairness, this would require new things that aren't in the game.  Still, people have been complaining about tracking speed and accuracy being an issue, so that would require an overhaul to how motion works anyways.

 

You see, with the scalable turrets, it's kinda hard to say how much mass one has or what the moment of inertia is unless you can decompose the turrets into blocks and analyze the mass distribution.

 

The only hard part about making moving parts on a ship that are arbitrarily constructable is figuring out how to separate them from the body, without making them completely disjoint.  Fortunately, this is a problem that has been solved several times in other games.  The answer is to use a hierarchy of coordinate spaces, where one coordinate space is attached to another at some point, and can move freely subject to certain constraints.  This sounds like it's a lot of work, but actually, it's just a single transform matrix and up to 6 additional bits of information.

 

Honestly, if the dev totally ignored rails, everything would be fine, so I'm going to ignore them too for the purposes of this discussion.

 

Basically, you just need to add a block that adds a child coordinate space (let's call it an 'assembly' instead of 'coordinate space' from now on), and a block on both sides.  The assembly grants a degree of freedom, and, based on size, maybe also grants stats like a torque/speed curve (This is how motors actually work, by the way - it's not torque and speed separately; it's a dynamic tradeoff, which means that you can tune this while the device is in operation).

 

The real trick is configuring the range of motion.  This could be done automatically, in theory, but that really is hard.  It also isn't right, as the designer might have a reason for constraining it further.  You could do it visually in the editor, by exposing handles for configuration when you select the block (a la Spore style).  This isn't the worst option, but I think this might actually be the right place to put a slider/text box combo (by the way, all sliders should be accompanied by a text box, for precision value setting).  I don't think you need a whole new menu though.  You know how in 3d modelling programs where you get a panel full of geometry-specific parameters when you select something?  This should be like that.  You don't have to click through to get at a little window that way, and nothing obstructs your view of the model.

 

As far as controlling the turrets... well, the algorithm that controls them now would work fine - point at the target.  It's just that now the exact points of motion are determined by the designer, rather than being a fixed-point 2-axis gimbal.

 

As a counterpoint to this added complexity, I point out that most small vessels (fighters, bombers) probably don't need turrets that aim at all - they just need guns.  Turrets are for larger vessels.  This will reduce complexity in these vessels, as the game no longer has to worry about a turret that can move, but has been told it shouldn't.  The turret lock block can disappear from the game.

 

Acquisition

 

As turrets would be part of ship designs, turret factories can disappear completely.  So can the research system for turrets.  These are both known to be buggy and broken, and that's a pile of bugs that can basically just disappear for free.  Indeed, not only does the dev win in the short term, but this ends up being fewer systems overall that the dev has to maintain. 

To keep crafting guns from being too easy (assuming that this is at all a problem - I've never had this problem in other games like this with simpler requirements for guns), we can add costs for blocks other than the basic materials.  Why should every block cost only Material + credits?  Why not have computer blocks cost processors?  Why not have railgun barrels cost electromagnetic coils?  If we can construct a hyperspace core, I think we can construct a chaingun.  This isn't Captain Forever.  Indeed, turret drops would disappear as well, which is an additional subsystem that the developer no longer has to maintain.  You no longer have to worry about 'dropping' turrets when they get blown off your craft, as they're part of the design.  Another concern that the dev no longer has to specifically write code to fix.  And you, the players, no longer have to worry about finding turret factories to build uniform fleets.

 

Learning Curve

 

The learning curve for this system might be higher for players used to the current system, but for players who are new to the game, this learning curve will be smaller than a scalable turrets system.  This is because the interface for designing those and designing the ship (to which you are introduced early) is unified, rather than disjoint.  The stats themselves can be identical across the systems, so there is no disadvantage either way here.  It's ultimately a minor difference in terms of cognitive load, as neither interface is/would be terribly complicated, but at the very least, this suggestion isn't _more_ complicated.  Keep in mind that the current player base is probably very small.  I don't expect it to stay that way, based on what I've seen.

 

I've also already pointed out the solution to 'I don't wanna build the turrets myself', and then Weylin inadvertantly pointed out that it is already viable even without developer effort.  I get that some people just want to play the space simulator aspect, and don't really want to muck with the creative part.  This game is a good enough space simulator as it is to make it competitive with other space simulators out there - while totally ignoring the fact that there's this other bit where you customize your ships.  Grab some preexisting designs and play.

 

Also keep in mind that for any game to be challenging, it's got to make you think.  I've noticed that several people are complaining that the game isn't hard enough.  I think that's because you can basically just slap a ton of guns on a brick and be more powerful than anything else in the game in short order.  There's no real way for the AI to have an advantage against you, and there's no real way for the game to force you to change up your approach to a problem.  The solution involves playing up the importance of armor, shields, size, and maneuverability.  Both major suggestions as for improving turrets would afford for this - and so would require you to think more in either case.  You see, no matter what route the dev chooses, the game will get more complex for the player.

 

Performance Concerns

 

If you weren't able to pick up on this by reading the above, then let me make this clear.  The runtime costs of these suggestions are basically the same as the costs for the system that we have now.  You won't notice a difference.  I also note that, aside from the fact that one of the shaders won't compile, this game runs flawlessly on Intel graphics (I somehow managed to start it up and play on my Intel part once).  There's a lot of room for growth in terms of the number of objects that can be dealt with there, and if the physics engine is properly parallelized (it ought to be for a space sim), then servers won't have any real issues.  As it is, there seems to be a lot of room for growth there too (I help administrate a private server for my friends).

 

Balancing and Integration

 

I played games that use block built weapon system mechanics before.  Starmade and From the Depths.  And it ends up with people making ridiculously sized guns.  Now it's really cool to be able to construct a ship around a central weapon system.  But, you also get people making absolutely huge turrets as well.  We really need a system that isn't more blocks = more power.

 

Indeed.  And in both cases, I believe turret physics are sufficiently unrealistic as to allow them to rotate without applying force back on the ship.  In the real world, if you make a ship with a turret on it that is truly too big, then the ship will rotate instead of the gun when it aims.  These physics aren't too hard to add in, but those games didn't do it, and so this is an issue.

 

Since there is such a divide, then perhaps the answer is making it possible to mod this into the game, if it isn't already.

 

If there's a foundation that allows it, and people who want it, then the modding community will make it

 

From what I have seen it is not possible because much of the key aspects changes like this require are hard coded.

 

Unfortunately, I believe that this is the case.  Not much would need to be changed in the core really, but the changes are absolutely necessary to make it work.  You need to be able to create and reason about assembly hierarchies in ship designs, and you need to be able to ask about adjacency (in principle this is there already, just not exposed).  Lastly, you need to be able to move child assemblies at flight-time programmatically.  None of these things are hard.  They just aren't available to modders.

 

RPGs and RNGs

 

As far as I'm concerned, the RNG for drops can disappear.  RNGs are not a crucial elements to RPGs.  The crucial element is the notion of a 'self', rather than just acting as an unnamed entity that abstractly decides the strategies and designs for an enigmatic fleet - which the game is pretty close to being right now (for better or worse).  Quests help with this some, and more opportunities for one to exert an identity would help some more.

 

With that said, this game could just turn into a creative space simulator.  It could easily become the best one available.  Starmade is a garbage space simulator (Its really just garbage in general: poorly implemented, buggy as hell, totally unbalanced...), and I don't know of any others that give you anywhere near the level of customization that Avorion does.  My brother refers to Space Engineers as "Space Builders: Big Stuff is Big", because there's no engineering in it at all really - just slow, painstaking construction.  Avorion is already better than that game, just in the construction aspect alone (and let's face it, that's pretty much all Space Engineers is good for).

 

Unless you are the dev, stop speaking for him.

 

Any chance that people could stop saying that it would be too hard to develop, or that nobody wants it, or that it will affect performance, or that dev resources need to go to other things first?

 

Thank you for this.

 

As a programmer, it has become eminently clear to me that noone else in this thread that has commented about dev time and expense is a programmer.  This is actually not that hard to build.

 

Unless you can quote him (or one of his compadres), I don't really care what you think about the developer's vision.  You are not the dev.  Your vision is not the dev's.  It is up to the dev to determine what they are willing to devote effort to, and why.  ROI, playerbase, personal vision, tractibility, feasibility, code complexity, etc...  This is all constantly in the back of their mind.  Trust me, I know.  As I am currently designing a new programming language for my PhD, I have to think about these things too, and it's very challenging, because I am going up against established giants like C++ and Python and Ruby.

[koonschi]

So I've been watching this thread for a while now and I'm starting to feel that a statement from my side on this whole thing would be beneficial.

 

Right now, I do not have plans to make fully customizable weapons, in terms of stats.

 

There are very simple reasons for this, and it's not because of doability or performance:

1. It would make the entire current looting system obsolete. This loot system is a very important aspect of Avorion that makes it fun, you can always find a better weapon.

2. It would be hell to balance, we're already running into issues where players say the game is too easy because the AI ships can't beat them, even on the highest difficulty. Players build their own ships, meaning that the difficulty is basically set by yourself and your ship. But that's a completely different point and I won't get into this any more here now.

 

So when I say I don't want you to be able to completely, freely choose your weapons stats, I'm not doing this because I want to annoy you, but because I think that it leaves more balancing control in my hands and it will be healthier for the game in the long term.

 

That being said, there are plans to make weapons (and fighters) more customizable. I'm planning:

- Custom models for weapons (and fighters on that matter)

- Custom models for turrets

- Better scaling for turret sizes (the current turrets-not-scaling-issue is actually a bug, but I want to address it at the right time so I don't have to change it twice)

- Turret templates so you can copy turrets you've built or looted

 

I hope this clears some things up.

[Ohm is Futile]

I hope this clears some things up.

Yes, it does. Thank you for that!

 

Thank you for this.

 

As a programmer, it has become eminently clear to me that noone else in this thread that has commented about dev time and expense is a programmer.  This is actually not that hard to build.

 

Unless you can quote him (or one of his compadres), I don't really care what you think about the developer's vision.  You are not the dev.  Your vision is not the dev's.  It is up to the dev to determine what they are willing to devote effort to, and why.  ROI, playerbase, personal vision, tractibility, feasibility, code complexity, etc...  This is all constantly in the back of their mind.  Trust me, I know.  As I am currently designing a new programming language for my PhD, I have to think about these things too, and it's very challenging, because I am going up against established giants like C++ and Python and Ruby.

I'm going to have to mostly agree with you. I can understand the average joe raising the issue of development resources when people are suggesting major overhauls, but it shouldn't be anyone's main argument, especially if they are not well informed on the matter.

 

Learning Curve

 

The learning curve for this system might be higher for players used to the current system, but for players who are new to the game, this learning curve will be smaller than a scalable turrets system.  This is because the interface for designing those and designing the ship (to which you are introduced early) is unified, rather than disjoint.  The stats themselves can be identical across the systems, so there is no disadvantage either way here.  It's ultimately a minor difference in terms of cognitive load, as neither interface is/would be terribly complicated, but at the very least, this suggestion isn't _more_ complicated.  Keep in mind that the current player base is probably very small.  I don't expect it to stay that way, based on what I've seen.

 

I've also already pointed out the solution to 'I don't wanna build the turrets myself', and then Weylin inadvertantly pointed out that it is already viable even without developer effort.  I get that some people just want to play the space simulator aspect, and don't really want to muck with the creative part.  This game is a good enough space simulator as it is to make it competitive with other space simulators out there - while totally ignoring the fact that there's this other bit where you customize your ships.  Grab some preexisting designs and play.

 

Also keep in mind that for any game to be challenging, it's got to make you think.  I've noticed that several people are complaining that the game isn't hard enough.  I think that's because you can basically just slap a ton of guns on a brick and be more powerful than anything else in the game in short order.  There's no real way for the AI to have an advantage against you, and there's no real way for the game to force you to change up your approach to a problem.  The solution involves playing up the importance of armor, shields, size, and maneuverability.  Both major suggestions as for improving turrets would afford for this - and so would require you to think more in either case.  You see, no matter what route the dev chooses, the game will get more complex for the player.

Here, I have to somewhat disagree. I think you are confusing "depth" with "complexity". Depth means there are lots of possibilities from a given pool of tools. Depth is fun. A good game with depth is easy to pick up, hard to master and that's great.

 

Complexity is more difficult to appraise. Make a game too simple, and it becomes boring. I don't think that will ever be an issue for Avorion, though. Make a game too complex and then your player retention goes down as well as new play influx. Complexity is also a bit hard to define, but the way I see it, the more options, screens, etc. you have, the more complex a game gets. I also feel that it doesn't matter if a game allows you to ignore certain aspects and still manage to play. Putting in features that are complicated, hard to understand and even harder to fully exploit will turn off players even if said features can be ignored in my opinion.

[Zippy]

Right now, I do not have plans to make fully customizable weapons, in terms of stats.

 

There are very simple reasons for this, and it's not because of doability or performance:

1. It would make the entire current looting system obsolete. This loot system is a very important aspect of Avorion that makes it fun, you can always find a better weapon.

2. It would be hell to balance, we're already running into issues where players say the game is too easy because the AI ships can't beat them, even on the highest difficulty. Players build their own ships, meaning that the difficulty is basically set by yourself and your ship. But that's a completely different point and I won't get into this any more here now.

 

So when I say I don't want you to be able to completely, freely choose your weapons stats, I'm not doing this because I want to annoy you, but because I think that it leaves more balancing control in my hands and it will be healthier for the game in the long term.

 

I hope you don't mind if I toss in my two cents here, based on my own experience playing Avorion.

 

I don't find the loot system enjoyable.  Not quite.  Also, given the stackable nature of turret drops, fighting a tough AI only gets easier every time you beat it because now you have the last X attempts' worth of turret drops.  I've killed The Four about six times today, it took me maybe half an hour to do, and now I have about 10 railguns that pack 1-2k damage in each.  I'd like to have missile turrets primarily, but they just don't match in nearly any manner.  I like the trading, salvaging, and/or pirating aspects more than the turret drops.  In the end, I don't want to have to go out and fight for hours (should I not get exceedingly lucky and get one quickly) grinding pirates, Xsotan, or anything else that I can make explode into loot, even if I only have to find just that first one, to make a weapon suited for my preferred playstyle.

 

My second cent; the AI will never be a real challenge in a fair fight.  Not for me, at least.  I've played pvp games and killed off dozens of players even while intentionally heinously handicapped (read: Robocraft).  In another RPG game, I'd spend more time preparing for a combat run than actually running it, and that I could do that was what made the game fun.  That game has since oversimplified the combat system into booger-eating levels of fun, unfortunately.  All it was was playing with a bunch of predefined items with +/- stats and finding the right balance for what I wanted to do.  The turret system now lacks that kind of specificity, and while I still find the game fun, this limitation does significantly reduce how fulfilling my time playing it seems.

 

As goes the saying, “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”  ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

Also, that aforementioned Death Star superlaser really is infeasible with the current turret system, no matter how scalable they are.  A point about balance there, though, is that while the Death Star was powerful, it certainly had its limits.  I recall reading somewhere that the first was only capable of firing all of once per day.

 

Regardless, I'll keep playing for now, and give anything you do a fair chance, but I don't foresee my continued enjoyment or recommendation in the future if the game's turret system remains too similar to what it is currently.

[AnioNovus]

I too have been monitoring/watching/speculating about this thread for some time.

 

I feel like Zistack has hit the nail on the head and if I were to say too much more that I would be killing the topic. However, there are reasons that I would like to explain as to why I agree with what referred to player has said. If you have never seen a lego piece in your life, you can probably ignore the rest of post.

 

I grew up playing with legos. When you build something out of legos, you could be following a blueprint / assembly guide. When you build something out of legos, you could be just letting your imagination run wild and satisfy every whim that comes to mind. It is like being in the ultimate sandbox, only better, it is a lego box.

 

You see, when I first built something, I would follow my assembly guide and be happy with end result. I may do a few things with it, but by the end of the day, I would have the thing torn apart and added to the conglomerate that was my lego box. Now these fancy shiny legos were nice and fun to use, especially when detailing; however, I found myself falling back to more of the basic bricks for the backbones of my creations. So with the many blueprints (of which there was only one design), I was able to build boundless creations as limited by only my imagination and amount of blocks available. If I was inspired by something, I would built it (or as close as I could get, or something better as I let my mind run unhindered).

 

While chasing the blueprints (a weapon drop, and ignoring the possibility of making copies of turrets for unanimity) is fun for a while, at some point I will/have run out of further expansion. Now it is just a weapon, I can build my ship of choice. However, much like what was said earlier about the warthog (a-10) and the death star's weapon system, efficient and elegant weapon systems (weapon system = platform and weapon) are designed around each other. They compliment each others designs and work well with the integrated parts. You don't just take any old weapon and attach it to any old weapons platform. Nor a specific weapon to any old weapons platform or vice-versa without dire consequences! Things happen that may not normally happen.

 

I have always been a fan of space based games and have spent many hours watching and playing various shows. From PS1's Colony Wars, to Star Trek Online, to Battlestar Galactica Online. My heart lept when I heard about this game. But without being able to forgo the blueprint, without being able to follow my imagination (as the weapon and ship are one heart and soul), and without being able to continue to let my mind go on endless possibilities, I am limited by something that is the heart and soul, the bread and butter, the core of what it is to build an effective, elegant ship. This game has so much potential, that I would hate to see it not live up to what it could be.

 

I feel like I haven't completed my thought; however, the gist of what I am getting at is there.

 

EDIT: nostalgic: "So Say We All" - Bill Adama

[Ohm is Futile]

[...]

If anything, you've managed to make me feel nostalgic. I did grow up with most of the things you mention. Good times.

[Pob]

I can see a couple of major issues with the original idea, let's start with that it's basically a copy of "From the Depths" weapon design, however FtD uses fixed block sizes, which makes single function multi block objects much easier to structure.

 

The other major bug bare I can see is NPC's, in FtD all NPC craft are actually hand made, where as here in Avorion we've got random seed generated ships.

This is a major issue, trying to combine single function multi block objects with random seed generation is a real pain, esp. to generate balanced and effective weapons.

granted you could make hand assembled multi block weapons and randomly stick them on, in the same way turrets are, however size is a major issue here, in FoD the most powerful craft often have around 50% of their volume dedicated to weapons and up to 90% of each weapon's volume inside the hull of the craft.

 

Being able to blue print or copy and existing turret would be very helpful, esp in terms of ship design ascetics, being able to do so easily is an issue for game balance.

 

Personally I like the current turret system and loot structure, my only real issue with it is that they are the wrong shape, esp for the cone of fire, I'd like more of an enclosed turret or ball mount eg http://3huit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/yamato_89_01.jpg

Something where the default position of the gun is looking straight up from the surface it's put on.

 

One thing you could do is have weapon mounting blocks, this is a block with a mounting point on only one face, each block can only mount one weapon, the dimensions of the face and the volume of the block determines the maximum weapon size you can put on it, you could have the block size have an effect on the weapon, so a giant block will give you a giant gun, could be stats as well or could just be for looks.

So a cube 2x2x2 could have a maximum weapon size of 2 on it, by making the smallest dimension the largest turret size we don't get a repeat of thruster panelling. 

If stats get effected by the total volume of the block, then you give a reason to make a non-cube mounting block, but careful limits need to be put in for balance.

 

Make 2 variants, turret mounting and spinal, you stick a weapon on a turret block and it becomes a turreted version, stick the same weapon on a spinal mounting/limited arc (I'd give it +/- 10 to15 degrees from facing direction, so 20-30 degree cone)

Also limit the number of mounting blocks you can put on a ship for balance.

 

For random seed generation of ships, you add in the mount blocks and you need to make some form of check to make sure the point is not covered by a block. Or take x number of random standard hull blocks with external faces and turn them into mounting blocks after generating the ship.

 

Down side is the loss of mounting guns on slopped blocks.

 

One other advantage of this for the player would be to separate putting on weapons from the building/placing blocks interface.

It could still be in the ship building section but it would be a separate menu & tool, not lumped in with the block selection tools.

So clicking on the + will just bring up the expanded block selection, clicking on the weapon placement, will bring up a window with just weapons in it and restrick building to just weapon placement and removal, placement points could also be highlighted to make weapon selection, placement and removal easier.