Return to “General”

Which Area Are You Looking Forward To The Most?

Poll ended at Sun Mar 30, 2014 6:28 pm You may select 1 option

Large-Scale AI Activity
Total votes: 84 (55%)
The Economy (In general)
Total votes: 23 (15%)
The Rise and Fall of Factions
Total votes: 30 (20%)
Simulation of Planetary Activity
Total votes: 11 (7%)
Other (Please Post Your Option)
Total votes: 5 (3%)
Total votes: 153
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#211
Will certain types of ships be required for certain units and such? I'm guessing a research lab can't be put in a small fighter, etc. Or is it some other type of prerequisite? Like a minimum amount of volume must be available for certain units? And as far as the problem with volume vs. mass, perhaps simply certain materials or cargo have different densities or something like that? (Oh look a new post said the same basic idea as that :p)
Rabiator wrote: This said, research & production units (as well as torpedo launchers) could still come in fixed sizes.
Didn't I see something about hardpoints still being used for weapons and the space/volume concept used for units like production, transfer, etc.?

Edit:
Rabiator wrote: It seems reasonable to me that hardpoints use a bit of internal space as well, for stuff like power conduits and hull reinforcement to handle recoil.
Maybe different amounts of space for different hardpoints, a turret more than a fixed direction hardpoint (the mechanics to turn the turret have a cost in space and weight)
Okay yeah that seems reasonable definitely. Would the hardpoint itself take up space then? Or only when you insert something into it?
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#212
Schank wrote:Will certain types of ships be required for certain units and such? I'm guessing a research lab can't be put in a small fighter, etc. Or is it some other type of prerequisite? Like a minimum amount of volume must be available for certain units? And as far as the problem with volume vs. mass, perhaps simply certain materials or cargo have different densities or something like that? (Oh look a new post said the same basic idea as that :p)
Rabiator wrote: This said, research & production units (as well as torpedo launchers) could still come in fixed sizes.
Didn't I see something about hardpoints still being used for weapons and the space/volume concept used for units like production, transfer, etc.?

Edit:
Rabiator wrote: It seems reasonable to me that hardpoints use a bit of internal space as well, for stuff like power conduits and hull reinforcement to handle recoil.
Maybe different amounts of space for different hardpoints, a turret more than a fixed direction hardpoint (the mechanics to turn the turret have a cost in space and weight)
Okay yeah that seems reasonable definitely. Would the hardpoint itself take up space then? Or only when you insert something into it?

its most likely that everything wil have a set hardpoint size, and every hardpoint needs so much volume/mass capacity that you wont have a research module in a fighter.

about mass/volume/density: josh said in his latest video that cargo is limited by mass and ships use some handwavium space compression to make volume a non-concern
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#213
Schank wrote:
Rabiator wrote: It seems reasonable to me that hardpoints use a bit of internal space as well, for stuff like power conduits and hull reinforcement to handle recoil.
Maybe different amounts of space for different hardpoints, a turret more than a fixed direction hardpoint (the mechanics to turn the turret have a cost in space and weight)
Okay yeah that seems reasonable definitely. Would the hardpoint itself take up space then? Or only when you insert something into it?
I think the hardpoint itself would take up space, and you'd have to decide on the type and size of the hardpoint when designing the hull. Big hardpoint = big volume assigned to it.

The type of hardpoint would also limit the maximum size of gun that can be mounted. That would guarantee that a small fighter cannot mount the Gargantuan Plasma Cannon Of Doom, because a matching hardpoint alone takes up more free space than the fighter has.
Our small fighter might be able to carry a handful of small weapons hardpoints though and have a bit of cargo space left.

Actually mounting a gun would add mass to the ship, but have no further impact to the available space on the ship. Here I agree with Josh and BTAxis, that the gun counts as "external".
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#214
Rabiator wrote: Actually mounting a gun would add mass to the ship, but have no further impact to the available space on the ship. Here I agree with Josh and BTAxis, that the gun counts as "external".
Okay that makes sense, all of the internal components needed to operate the gun are the internal part and are "installed" as part of the hardpoint, but the gun itself only adds mass to the ship. This also opens up opportunities, as you touched on, of certain hardpoint prerequisites, perhaps a powerful enough power coupling for example, being needed for certain guns.
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#215
"Here's the truth: capability is created by allocating some portion of an object's total mass & value towards it! Yes. This makes so much sense. What does it mean? Well, a ship has some total volume. You can choose to devote that volume to cargo storage, or to a tech lab, or to a production facility, etc. Do not think of capability as just coming from an object, but think of it as coming from space itself."

Nice to see some of the ideas of a ship editor / ship building system that allows for maximum freedom based on logical constraints taking shape, an "old" thread about this topic:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1981&p=701#p701

JoshParnell wrote:I did not mention dedicating ship's volume to guns specifically because it doesn't make sense, as you say. This does not remove hardpoints, it only impacts things that are considered to be 'internal' (tech labs, production facilities, cargo storage, crew quarters, etc.) :thumbup:
I don't agree that counting weapons make no sense, I think it does. In a maximum freedom system why not let the player build a ship with 90% weapons if they want to?

It's underpowered engine will ensure it can neither go anywhere fast, catch anything nor hardly turn fast enough to hit something ( if direct fire weapons ).
It's underpowered reactor will ensure it has a reloading time making battleship mainguns seem like quickfire chainguns.
It's overpowered weapons will ensure it quickly runs out of ammo.

And so on...

Weapons add mass which will slow the ship down, and they will also add volume too even if it's on the outside. Actually mass/volume on the outside is normally worse then internal due to how it makes the ship much slower to turn and more vulnerable!

Logically speaking you could envision two kinds of weapons:
Internal weapons, can't track at all just fire straight forward, but are protected by armor.
External weapons, mounted in turrets for tracking or auto tracking, but are vulnerable and not protected by armor.

The same thing with engines and sensors really. Internal which means less flexible but better protected. Or external for that maximum performance but fragile systems outside the armor.

Bigger capital ships could also have slower armored turrets.

Loads of nice trade-offs to be had!
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#216
I think after a ship's creation you can attach any weapon without affecting the volume, as long as the hardpoint itself can support it.

During ship creation/designing, I think you should be able to trade off interior volume for more hardpoints to create a ship with only crew quarters, an engine, reactor, and hardpoints, or do the opposite and create a peace loving freighter.

EDIT: Maybe allowing this freely isn't the best idea since the ship tech tree couldn't be as intricate otherwise. Maybe allow changing the size of hardpoint and have larger hardpoints require some volume for wiring or what not.
An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all. - Oscar Wilde

We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#217
New discussion topic: utility maximization, aka "Why do people/corporations/governments do the things they do?" Josh was treating this in Monday's dev log as an optimization problem. For abstract theoretical purposes, that's fine. But in reality, I don't think it's always an optimization problem at all.

People and organizations chart a course from limited options that they generate. They don't always choose the best one for maximization - nor do they always realize the full details of implementation. They choose their course and correct it from time to time to avoid paralysis by analysis.

Now, some organizations do perform careful maximization routines, especially those with rigorous finance departments. So in my mind, if you want to simulate real-world-type variance between the "blondes" of the world (the doers) and the "brunettes" (the analyzers), you can do things like affect how many options they generate before running optimization. Maybe the blonde AIs generate 100 options while the brunettes generate 1000. The blondes would also take the more headstrong, risky options more often than the brunettes.
Spacecredentials: looks at stars sometimes, cheated at X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, killed a titan once.
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#220
ThymineC wrote:I couldn't find a good thread for it and I don't want to make a new one, so excuse the off-topicness but I would love to see something like this for the HUD, and perhaps the whole cockput in future LT sequels.
Future is not anymore future, it is present.
"My biggest mistake is probably weighing too much on someone's talent and not someone's personality." - Elon Musk
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#222
So... Crew... Love it!
Won't robots be a bit overpowered though? Sure, they have a higher initial cost and don't evolve, but I'm sure at some point you can manufacture them yourself.
At that point you would probably use robots for any task that's considered menial (transportation, mining, fixed patrols). Perhaps even use them as cannon fodder? Because, would you really want to risk that 5 star fighter pilot?
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

Re: THE March, 2014 Devlog Discussion

#225
Katorone wrote:
Rabiator wrote: For cannon fodder, use cheapo humans :twisted: .
If you have robots doing the mining, and robots working in your robot factory, then robots are essentially free. ;-)
It just takes a while to get to that point. :D
From what I understood of Josh's devlog, Robots would be an expensive early option. Maybe you need to get more than just ore as well. I'm just guessing here but...

Parts Required (guess)

Refined metal used to make the robot body
Computer parts (or circuits) to make the robot brain
A power core or battery to run it.

So, you could have robots mining, robots refining the metal, robots making computer parts (idk from what at the moment), robots making batteries, and then robots making robots. Would probably take a good deal of time to get to that point, but you also have to remember that Robots =/= Humans and unless you research the hell out of them (Like I plan to) they won't be better than NPCs. I planned on using robots like the Seperatists in the Clone Wars from Star Wars (except having living people leading as squad leaders).
Image "Everyone needs to have their avatar's edited to have afros." -Charley Deallus

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

cron