Return to “General”

Post

Inquiring as to the previewed shipbuilder

#1
Seeing all the rest of the things intended or pending for the game, I'm kind of curious if the Shipbuilder is going to be isolated from the game, or if your ability to utilize all its various options will be contingent on available resources and components afforded to you by the available economic and industrial products. For obvious reasons the first thing that came to mind watching you play around with the shipbuilder preview was Spore. The downside to Spore's spaceship builder was that everything was handed to you out of the gate and that nothing you added or didn't add had any impact on what your ship could or couldn't do. Now obviously I can see that you have some control of hardpoints for weaponry, and that those hardpoints are used for the weapons your ship actually uses (which is awesome by the way and far cooler than how Spore handled weapons), but what about the rest of the components/pieces?

I'd love to see "available parts" being based on what you can find, buy, scavenge, or build as you traverse your universe. Everybody starts out with a basic subset of pieces, but as they play, explore, and/or conquer, newer pieces (hull parts, weapons, engines, etc) get added to further personalize or to completely re-purpose your ship. Different guns, bigger guns, better materials, interesting gadgets and gizmos to decorate your ship with, additional hull shapes to build with (and the associated mass they represent maybe?), and of course...bigger engines?
Post

Re: Inquiring as to the previewed shipbuilder

#4
LostSoul wrote:The downside to Spore's spaceship builder was that everything was handed to you out of the gate and that nothing you added or didn't add had any impact on what your ship could or couldn't do.
Unless you bought DLC, eh? =P

LostSoul wrote:I'd love to see "available parts" being based on what you can find, buy, scavenge, or build as you traverse your universe. Everybody starts out with a basic subset of pieces, but as they play, explore, and/or conquer, newer pieces (hull parts, weapons, engines, etc) get added to further personalize or to completely re-purpose your ship. Different guns, bigger guns, better materials, interesting gadgets and gizmos to decorate your ship with, additional hull shapes to build with (and the associated mass they represent maybe?), and of course...bigger engines?
I'd consider this critical to the whole "exploring" part of the game.


Acquiring component blueprints
  • Acquire new component blueprints by buying from NPC factions.
    This creates an incentive to get to know more of them and to improve your relation with them so they sell you the good stuff.
  • Acquire new component blueprints by salvaging derelict hulls or wrecks after combat.
    This assumes that there is a very low chance to find wrecks / abandoned ships or to get anything useful out of them but hey. Otherwise it completely devalues a large part of faction interaction.
    If you decide to dismantle such a wreck to reverse engineer it, you don't get to sell it for parts.
  • Simply scanning ships to get blueprints would mean that you pretty much get everything for free. Where's the gameplay in that?

Ship component categories:
  • Hull type.
    If ships have a "base class" it's easier to classify them in a UI and to define logical role models for how the AI should use them.

    Hull defines some basic parameters:
    • Min / max physical size of the model. (freely adjustable within these limits)
      Model will be scaled automatically to fall within these limits.
      A fighter won't end up 3 km long.
      The model can be pretty because the parts you use to build the shape have no bearing on the stats or size.
      Only the hull type has stats.

      Your creativity is not constricted by arbitrary component size limits but a fighter won't be 3 km long. =)

      If there is no min / max size limit, everyone would want a tiny ship that is impossible to hit.
      This is actually a tricky balancing issue because a spindly model would have the max diameters but very little actual surface for weapons to impact.
      If volume is a factor then building parts inside each other (like in the first video) would have to be considered.

      Maybe adjusting the size should scale armour and equipment points - within limits.
      Building a bigger battleship would allow you to cram more lazers in but would also make it a bigger target.

      External parts like turrets do not scale.
    • Judging "physical size".
      All by itself this means nothing. What is "size" in game terms, especially in light of a ship creator?

      Volume and surface are useless here. They scale in strange ways that are not useful for game balancing purposes. They also are exploitable as hell. If you make surface count, I'll create a beehive of a ship with a huge surface... but fold it into a tiny shape.

      The only size that matters in game terms is target area.
      Display the shape / outline of the ship in the usual 3 views. Front / up / left. Add up the covered pixels. That is your ingame "size" of the ship.
      That's one value by which the physical size can be scaled to match the adjustable min / max size.
      A "small" destroyer hull would always have the same target area, no matter how spindly or bulky you design the actual shape.

      This lets you balance the game without worrying too much about the players creating "exploitive" shapes to game the system. =)
    • Max value for equipment space.
      Equipment space is used for armour, sensors, internal missile launchers, generators, external turrets, cargo modules, turrets, lasers, engines...
      Cargo modules are mounted externally on a ship - mostly so they can be shot at. This would make piracy more interesting than simply blowing up every ship you see and occasionally put the player into interesting situations like losing a cargo bay... and all missile reloads with it. =)
    • Min / max values for Armour - which costs a lot of mass... and equipment space if installing more than the min value.
      Mass counters engine power.
      A battleship hull comes with a lot more mass so you won't see them zipping around.

      That's how a thin merchant hull can be a lot more efficient as a trader because it doesn't come with all that "minimum armour" like a battleship.
  • Hulls of different factions have different base stats and can have special boni.
    This gives the ships of a faction a general theme, like all Artonkan ships getting a 20% bonus to engine power.
    An engine still costs the same equipment space but it's more efficient on this hull.

    For instance, the hull of some high tech faction could have lower armour values but more equipment space. As a result they rely on gadgets like shields and the higher maneuverability due to the lower mass of armour.
  • Equipment is only limited by the Equipment Space of a hull.
    How you balance that is up to you.
    More sensors?
    Use fixed-foward lasers or more costly turrets?
  • Equipment adds mass.
    I won't even guess at a proper balance for that at this time. =)
  • Energy is important.
    In order to keep things manageable, you should not be able (or required =) to turn every single ship component on / off.
    Micromanagement rarely creates depth.

    I suggest 4 Equipment Categories where energy is concerned.
    • Fixed.
      Like sensors or life support, these are always on and constantly require energy.
      A hull type could also have a minimum consumption. You need a certain minimum power to run life support etc.

      The other 3 categories can be balanced by the player.
    • Shields.
    • Engines.
    • Offensive. Lasers, missiles, the usual suspects.
    How you balance that is up to you.
    Go with lots of lasers and big generators? Do you still have enough to power your shields?
    Use more missiles with less energy consumption but then require more cargo space for ammunition?
    More sensors?
    Sure you can have 5 engines but you will require a huge generator to fully feed them...
  • A hull type could have a storage capacity for energy.
    This way you can model redundancy in a generic way.
    A merchant hull won't have a lot of emergency power. It's not economical. =)
    Damaging the reactor of a battleship will not instantly take it out of the fight, though.
    While the ship draws on "emergency power", it can briefly expend more energy than the reactors supply.

    Since this would be a balancing issue, it should not be possible to expend more than 105% of a ship's energy but this would be an ideal place for a "faction bonus".
    If too much battery power can be used, players would shortcut combat with an overwhelming initial strike.

    If you want to recharge these batteries, you need to lower the overall energy output balance.
  • Compatibility bonus.
    If you install bnoxi equipment in a bnoxi hull, you pay maybe 90-95% of the normal equipment points.
    This gives procedurally generated AI ships an edge because they won't be player-optimised designs using the "best" parts from 20 different factions.

There is a big danger in complete freedom to build anything.
Ships will end up a grey soup of sameness.
When different factions / hulls have different base stats, you get a lot more diversity from the get go.
It's the limits that lead to choice and balance, making ship building interesting.


Yes, it's a rough concept but with so little known...
And yes, all numbers quoted are completely made up on the spot. Don't bother arguing them.
Last edited by Gazz on Fri Nov 30, 2012 3:20 pm, edited 8 times in total.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Inquiring as to the previewed shipbuilder

#5
Gazz that post is absolutely gorgeous, now let me butcher it to give my input.
Gazz wrote: Acquiring component blueprints
  • Acquire new component blueprints by buying from NPC factions.
    This creates an incentive to get to know more of them and to improve your relation with them so they sell you the good stuff.
  • Acquire new component blueprints by salvaging derelict hulls or wrecks after combat.
    Very low chance to get anything useful out of them but hey...
    If you decide to dismantle such a wreck to reverse engineer it, you don't get to sell it's parts.
  • Simply scanning ships to get blueprints would mean that you pretty much get everything for free. Where's the gameplay in that?
I agree with you fully if we are talking ship mods such as turrets, shields and thrusters and completely disagree if you are talking about the available shapes in the ship editor.
Gazz wrote:Ship component categories:
  • Hull type.
    If ships have a "base class" it's easier to classify them in a UI and to define logical role models for how the AI should use them.

    Hull defines some basic parameters:
    • Min / max physical size of the model. (freely adjustable within these limits)
      Model will be scaled automatically to fall within these limits.
      A fighter won't end up 3 km long.
      The model can be pretty because the parts you use to build the shape have no bearing on the stats or size.
      Only the hull type has stats.

      Your creativity is not constricted by arbitrary component size limits but a fighter won't be 3 km long. =)
      If there is no min / max size limit, everyone would want a tiny ship that is much harder to hit. Balancing issue...
This is pretty much confirmed, relevant kickstarter comment can be found here
Gazz wrote:External parts like turrets do not scale.

  • Max value for equipment space.
    Equipment space is used for armour, sensors, internal missile launchers, generators, external turrets, cargo modules, turrets, lasers, engines...
    Cargo modules are mounted externally on a ship - mostly so they can be shot at. This would make piracy more interesting than simply blowing up every ship you see and occasionally put the player into interesting situations like losing a cargo bay... and all missile reloads with it. =)
I'd like to make a cleaner destinction between types of equipment here
  • External modules such as turrets or missile bays, anything that you fit on the outside of your ship, should be restricted by the number of hardpoints you put on your ship. I do not feel that the number of hardpoints should be arbitrarily limited though, let that limit be a part of power management. If you want to fit 20 blasters on your shuttle, why not if you can manage to do it? Don't expect to be able to fire all of them at once though.
  • Thrusters already have their own hardpoints, with size restrictions and the ability to put over-sized engines on your ship, for the speed demons out there. I'd love to see the game force you to have side and front thrusters for turning and braking but that is unlikely to happen. Swiveling thrusters anyone? No? It's only me?
  • Internal hull space, mostly split between generator room and cargo hold sizes, preferably letting you customize both fully but having a range of default settings for the hull class, but also taking into account living space for the crew, just because you've got a 10 000 m^3 ship doesn't mean every single cubic millimeter of it can be used for cargo hold, need to house the crew somewhere. Crew living space should be based on ship class and size and non-modifiable.
Gazz wrote:
  • Min / max values for Armour - which costs a lot of mass... and equipment space if installing more than the min value.
    Mass counters engine power.
    A battleship hull comes with a lot more mass so you won't see them zipping around.

    That's how a thin merchant hull can be a lot more efficient as a trader because it doesn't come with all that "minimum armour" like a battleship.
I agree on all points but one, battleships should be about as fast as smaller, lighter ships but be a lot less agile, because that's how mass in space works. Slow to start, slow to stop, slow to turn, but as long as you're burning in one direction for long enough you'll reach high velocities. Croxis had a great idea on how to limit top speeds in a logical way over in one of the flight threads that was based on relativity.
Gazz wrote:
  • Hulls of different factions have different base stats and can have special boni.
    This gives the ships of a faction a general theme, like all Artonkan ships getting a 20% bonus to engine power.
    An engine still costs the same equipment space but it's more efficient on this hull.

    For instance, the hull of some high tech faction could have lower armour values but more equipment space. As a result they rely on gadgets like shields and the higher maneuverability due to the lower mass of armour.
I'm not sold on the idea of having this inherently in the hull, I'd much rather have the faction coherence in the choice of hardpoints and modules than some arbitrary hull bonus.
Gazz wrote:
  • Equipment is only limited by the Equipment Space of a hull.
    How you balance that is up to you.
    More sensors?
    Use fixed-foward lasers or more costly turrets?
  • Equipment adds mass.
    I won't even guess at a proper balance for that at this time. =)
I fully agree with both points, well, apart from that obvious hardpoint restriction I mentioned earlier.
Gazz wrote:[*] Energy is important.
In order to keep things manageable, you should not be able (or required =) to turn every single ship component on / off.
Micromanagement rarely creates depth.

I suggest 4 Equipment Categories where energy is concerned.
  • Fixed.
    Like sensors or life support, these are always on and constantly require energy.
    A hull type could also have a minimum consumption. (life support etc.)

    The other 3 categories can be balanced by the player.
  • Shields.
  • Engines.
  • Offensive. Lasers, missiles, the usual suspects.
How you balance that is up to you.
Go with lots of lasers and big generators? Do you still have enough to power your shields?
Use more missiles with less energy consumption but then require more cargo space for ammunition?
More sensors?
Sure you can have 5 engines but you will require a huge generator to fully feed them...[/list][/list][/list]
I mostly agree with you here, though I do feel you should be allowed to turn every individual component on and off, but it should in no way be required.
Gazz wrote:There is a big danger in complete freedom to build anything.
Ships will end up a grey soup of sameness.
When different factions / hulls have different base stats, you get a lot more diversity from the get go.
It's the limits that lead to choice and balance, making ship building interesting.


(Yes, it's a rough concept but with so little known...)
I'm a firm believer in freedom in games, especially sandbox games. The game should allow you to create ships that just plain will not work, if you take customizing to extremes without considering the whole.
And as I stated earlier I do not think arbitrary hull bonuses is a good way to solve anything, especially not in a game like LT.
Image
FAQ | Kickstarter | IRC | Common Suggestions
Post

Re: Inquiring as to the previewed shipbuilder

#6
Bele wrote:External modules such as turrets or missile bays, anything that you fit on the outside of your ship, should be restricted by the number of hardpoints you put on your ship. I do not feel that the number of hardpoints should be arbitrarily limited though, let that limit be a part of power management. If you want to fit 20 blasters on your shuttle, why not if you can manage to do it? Don't expect to be able to fire all of them at once though.
If external armament does not share "space" with internal equipment, missile ships would be way too powerful.
Just attach 50 missile mounts to that gunship. A small ship that can win every engagement. May not be able to fight a long battle but you can just bring many small ships...

If external mounts share the same resource, you get to make a choice between limited + low energy and infinite + high energy weapons.


I agree on all points but one, battleships should be about as fast as smaller, lighter ships but be a lot less agile, because that's how mass in space works. Slow to start, slow to stop, slow to turn, but as long as you're burning in one direction for long enough you'll reach high velocities.
The meaning of fast or agile completely depends on the implementation in the engine.
There is no point in using it in anything but the most general way.


I'm not sold on the idea of having this inherently in the hull, I'd much rather have the faction coherence in the choice of hardpoints and modules than some arbitrary hull bonus.
A hull bonus can affect the choice of hardpoints as well.
What if faction x spends only 70% of the equipment points when installing lasers in their hulls?
You'd get more hardpoints... if using lasers.


If you don't tie the boni to specific hulls then you eventually end up with super ships in the player's hands.
It's simply how the system works!
Combine the technology of 20 factions and use super miniaturised lasers, super miniaturised shields, etc, cramming 300% of fighting power into a generic hull!
That's a completely vertical power increase that destroys any attempt at balance.

If you tie that to the hulls, the power of every ship is limited and has to come from smart design and combining ships with different strengths into a fleet.
This creates diversity because there can be more than one best hull / ship type in the game.

Of course, that doesn't mean that components must all be identical. Game balance doesn't work like that at all! It just means that the overall power of components must have limits but you can find and combine different components whose strengths support the purpose of the ship.


I mostly agree with you here, though I do feel you should be allowed to turn every individual component on and off, but it should in no way be required.
There is a limit to the amount of reasonable complexity in a game.
Battlecruiser 3000 let you track every single crew member as they walked around the ship and assign them to different stations, which they then started walking to.
Did that add any useful gameplay? Not really. It only added time fiddling with the interface and waiting until you could continue playing.
What if you control a fleet of 20 ships in a battle? Will you constantly turn individual systems on and off in each and every ship?

The scope of the UI must match the scope of the game.
Something like an energy triangle can quickly be adjusted for entire formations of ships.

A ship design should also make you commit to your design. Without that, the design is pointless because you end up with can-do-everything ships that are ideal in every situation and have no weakness.


Bele wrote:I'm a firm believer in freedom in games, especially sandbox games. ...
And as I stated earlier I do not think arbitrary hull bonuses is a good way to solve anything, especially not in a game like LT.
If you don't use them as a balancing factor then every ship will end up the same - especially ones designed by the player.
Fleets end up standardised and monolithic, which is simply boring.

Balance requires limits. Limits create choice because without limits, you don't have to make a choice. You just take all.
Or even worse - you acquire the singularly best hull in the entire game and never need another again.

It's also much easier to come up with rules for AI and PG of ships when the purpose of the ship can generally be connected to a hull type.
Regardless of size, a destroyer might not perceive a huge merchant hull as an immediate threat.
Things like that help making an AI act somewhat reasonable without having to consider a huge amount of variables in every smallest decision. =)
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Inquiring as to the previewed shipbuilder

#7
Gazz wrote: If external armament does not share "space" with internal equipment, missile ships would be way too powerful.
Just attach 50 missile mounts to that gunship. A small ship that can win every engagement. May not be able to fight a long battle but you can just bring many small ships...

If external mounts share the same resource, you get to make a choice between limited + low energy and infinite + high energy weapons.
Make the missile bays heavy, you could still have your 50 bays, if you manage to fit them on your ship within the size restriction, but you wont be changing direction in a hurry, having superior firepower wont do you any good if you don't survive the engagement.

Gazz wrote: A hull bonus can affect the choice of hardpoints as well.
What if faction x spends only 70% of the equipment points when installing lasers in their hulls?
You'd get more hardpoints... if using lasers.


If you don't tie the boni to specific hulls then you eventually end up with super ships in the player's hands.
It's simply how the system works!
Combine the technology of 20 factions and use super miniaturised lasers, super miniaturised shields, etc, cramming 300% of fighting power into a generic hull!
That's a completely vertical power increase that destroys any attempt at balance.

If you tie that to the hulls, the power of every ship is limited and has to come from smart design and combining ships with different strengths into a fleet.
This creates diversity because there can be more than one best hull / ship type in the game.

Of course, that doesn't mean that components must all be identical. Game balance doesn't work like that at all! It just means that the overall power of components must have limits but you can find and combine different components whose strengths support the purpose of the ship.
And I am saying that you can have balance and variety without arbitrary hull bonuses , yes you can make a jack of all trades but it will be master of none, you will always have to sacrifice performance in one area to excel in others. Neither of us will change our mind on the matter though so we might as well drop the discussion for now.
Gazz wrote:There is a limit to the amount of reasonable complexity in a game.
Battlecruiser 3000 let you track every single crew member as they walked around the ship and assign them to different stations, which they then started walking to.
Did that add any useful gameplay? Not really. It only added time fiddling with the interface and waiting until you could continue playing.
What if you control a fleet of 20 ships in a battle? Will you constantly turn individual systems on and off in each and every ship?
I did not even think of controlling the sub systems of NPC ships in your fleet, I just assumed that would be under the AI, and I do not think you should get to have any control of the sub systems in ships you are not directly controlling.

Gazz wrote:If you don't use them as a balancing factor then every ship will end up the same - especially ones designed by the player.
Fleets end up standardised and monolithic, which is simply boring.

Balance requires limits. Limits create choice because without limits, you don't have to make a choice. You just take all.
cookie cutter builds will exist regardless of hull bonuses and I am sure that coding the AI in a way that keeps it varied and interesting is pretty high up on the list of Josh's priorities.
Trying to force players into variety will not work, the ones that want cookie cutter builds will make them regardless and the ones that want varied and interesting fleets will design varied and interesting fleets. Let the player decide how to play the game, that's the point of the sandbox.
Image
FAQ | Kickstarter | IRC | Common Suggestions
Post

Re: Inquiring as to the previewed shipbuilder

#8
Bele wrote:Trying to force players into variety will not work
Other way around. I'm trying to offer variety.

Without hull variety there will no doubt be "the one best ship".
All that changes is the size of it as you acquire more resources. That's as dreadfully boring as Darkstar One where the entire customisation was pointless.
Or like MOO2 where once you had good missile tech you would build missile scouts, missile frigates, missile destroyers, missile battleships, missile dreadnaughts...
Or take the more recent Elemental: War of Magic. The power increase of units was completely vertical. You slapped on more "parts" and the units were more powerful. Zero decision-making required and you ended up with a Stack of Doom that steamrolled everything. Vertical unit balance is the worst idea ever.

Emphasise the interplay of different units and you create diversity because a single ship design will not be best at everything.
If the gonmokken destroyer hull lets you install lasers at 75% point cost, there is an actual incentive to build a laser heavy ship.
When different hulls are suited for different tasks and you can always find new and different hull designs, there is far more incentive to use a mixed fleet and to experiment with new designs.
Everything being made from a generic grey goo doesn't promote adaption or specialisation.


Mind you, I can understand the desire for complete freedom of design.
Then it would be much easier to exploit the system and create "winning ships" without having to develop a strategy with limited options.
Your "power rating" could be expressed with only the number / tonnage of ships.
There is no "I" in Tea. That would be gross.
Post

Re: Inquiring as to the previewed shipbuilder

#11
Gazz wrote:
Bele wrote:Trying to force players into variety will not work
Other way around. I'm trying to offer variety.

Without hull variety there will no doubt be "the one best ship".
All that changes is the size of it as you acquire more resources. That's as dreadfully boring as Darkstar One where the entire customisation was pointless.
Or like MOO2 where once you had good missile tech you would build missile scouts, missile frigates, missile destroyers, missile battleships, missile dreadnaughts...
Or take the more recent Elemental: War of Magic. The power increase of units was completely vertical. You slapped on more "parts" and the units were more powerful. Zero decision-making required and you ended up with a Stack of Doom that steamrolled everything. Vertical unit balance is the worst idea ever.

Emphasise the interplay of different units and you create diversity because a single ship design will not be best at everything.
If the gonmokken destroyer hull lets you install lasers at 75% point cost, there is an actual incentive to build a laser heavy ship.
When different hulls are suited for different tasks and you can always find new and different hull designs, there is far more incentive to use a mixed fleet and to experiment with new designs.
Everything being made from a generic grey goo doesn't promote adaption or specialisation.


Mind you, I can understand the desire for complete freedom of design.
Then it would be much easier to exploit the system and create "winning ships" without having to develop a strategy with limited options.
Your "power rating" could be expressed with only the number / tonnage of ships.
Yes there'd be an incentive to build a laser ship, but if missiles were better than lasers people who wanted the best ships would get hulls with missile bonuses, not laser bonuses, and you'd be back to having one build that beats every other build. As I said, hull bonuses don't magically create variety if what you want is the best build, and if you want is variety it doesn't matter.
Image
FAQ | Kickstarter | IRC | Common Suggestions

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests

cron