Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#62
Why not just add a war weariness to field repairs that station repairs don't have, that are directly tied to aggression and diminished by station visits... The individuals would circulate, but the fleet would remain..
much like how the US maintains its bases around the world
Image
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#64
Gazz wrote:That is the classic approach with fleet tenders.
They just wouldn't make very good warships because they'd move like slugs if you put in the repair equipment on top of the fighting gear.

So the classic approach is to not make them warships but try to keep them out of fights instead. =P
No I mean, you don't need to deck them out like warships. I mean like you have a fleet with tons of warships, and within that fleet you have two ships specialised for repair, with modules that can fix even permanent damage. They could repair any other ship in the fleet including each other's repair modules if necessary.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#65
Katawa wrote:
Cornflakes_91 wrote:If it wouldnt work when playing as a lone wolf, it would be missing the base premisse of "freelancer 2+"
No one's suggesting one ship play won't work.
Yes, that's the way I want it Cornflakes. :thumbup: You are right to point out that I would consider Mr Parnell to have failed if I couldn't play the game my way. I will be very disappointed if Freelancer 2 "the Parnell way" is anything less than he said it would be. ;) If the game doesn't deliver for me at least I will gain satisfaction in knowing that other members here will be happy with the product. :)

I still have plenty of other game to look forward to. I am even beginning to get the hang of E:D. :lol:

Edit: Removed an observation which on reflection doesn't belong here.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#66
a thought that flew through my head for some time now:

what if the "hitpoints" of a system werent directly influencing the functionality of equipment but instead would affect the likelyhood of status effects (malfunctions) ?

damaging a piece of equipment has no direct effect on its functionality.
regardless of it being a 100%->99% hit or a 1%->0% hit.

but what changes is the likelyhood of the equipment malfunctioning and having impacts on functionality from those malfunctions.
equipment without malfunctions works like its in mint condition, regardless of its hitpoint status.

the lower the hitpoints the more likely it becomes that a malfunction happens and the more likely it becomes that a heavy/more annoying one happens.

malfunctions are everything from a short stutter/efficiency reduction over critical components blowing out (that need to be repaired with proper equipment before it continues working) to the thing blowing up and damaging other components.
some malfunctions time out after a time, for example some kinds of stutters rectify themself after a while. ("there was a bubble in the fuel line but now the thruster is working fine again")


malfunctions are triggered (created) when stresses are imparted on the eqipment.

the most obvious stress is getting damaged, when a shot impacts an object theres a chance that a malfunction occurs.
the more damaged it already is, and the bigger the stress (the damage of the impact) the higher the chance of a malfunction occuring.

other stresses could be a shield bubble stopping a shot and the projector getting damaged (this should have a low chance compared to a shot directly impacting on the generator), a weapon firing, a thruster being active and so on.

although a thruster malfunctioning shouldnt happen that often when its undamaged, and for avoiding "thruster blew out, im stranded" problem, maybe thrusters simply dont have crippling malfunctions? maybe some thrusters can have those and others not? :think:

with basic activity being able to cause malfunctions a way to set up a risk/reward sheme for overclocking equipment or leaving it running at 100% all the time.


the whole system also opens up an avenue for special weaponry causing effects on equipment.
for example cruise drive disruptors and ion stunner weapons could cause malfunctions adequate to the equipment and their intended effects. (Which may or may not wear off on their own)
with the chance of malfunctions affected by various factors again, damage, power of the effect, maybe some resistance value of the equipment...

all unified in one nice system :D



edit:
some types of equipment could be more resilient against some kinds of malfunctions (including immunity).
enabling "reinforced", "reliant" type equipment, differentiating brands further from each other.
for example one would prefer a highly reliable thruster when going out to explore, instead of a "better" one with lower reliabilty.
as the reliable one would continue to work (with higher capacity) even when damaged.

some kinds of equipment could also recover faster from "temporary" malfunctions. enabling them to be more stable when under stress.
for example a thruster with a fast-recovery ability would be stunned shorter from a cruise disruptor.
Last edited by Cornflakes_91 on Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:26 am, edited 2 times in total.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#68
Thoughts, in no particular order:

- I think separate hitboxes for each system would take an enormous toll on performance...
- I do like the idea somewhat.
- You'd have to be careful not to make it too complicated for the player. If the player has to spend too much time thinking about it, it's an annoyance.
- You'd have to be VERY careful to tell the player EXACTLY what went wrong, and how likely it is to fix itself, probably through an info ticker with more dangerous items being a more "angry" color like red.
- I think you've suggested this to me before in IRC. My response is the same now as it was then: "Yes, I like it, but you'll have to be very careful about it."
- Or, in summary, "Yes with reservations"
Have a question? Send me a PM! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#71
Oh God it's this mechanic.

Why is everyone intent on breaking my stuff? Just leave me alone! :(

I've stated it before: I really don't like the idea of fading equipment. I don't want reduced efficiency because the module has been damaged and repaired, it's a pain in the ass and a stupid money sink for no reason. That means only ships that have never seen combat will work at 100% efficiency and I think that's lame.

I don't mind the idea of malfunctions though, as long as malfunctions are impossible at 100% (Or near 100%) because then it just becomes annoying too.
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#72
- yay for realism/details (eg shortcircuits, lower firing rates, less crew efficiency bc of artificial grav failing, ...)
- Keep in mind the game isn't turn based though. Eg it might be more practical to keep firing at lower efficiency than to repair first -> smarter AI for fleets needed. (or maybe repair thresholds through automated order bills)
- Great mechanic for the player ship, specially early game. Not really adding much after acquiring a fleet.
- Self repair vs. external repair. Not all damage can be fixed with magical nanos.
- Would be nice if systems can be scrapped/recycled into components/resources when damaged over their replacement value. But this adds a lot of micromanagement after battles.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#73
Here's a brief version of how I think this should work.

Ships have a number of systems that either work or don't work. All of these systems can be damaged when shields are down. If a system is damaged its corresponding function ceases to work and a timer starts up as on-board bots attempt to repair the damage. As other systems are damaged they are added to the list and the player is able to prioritize what gets worked on next.

This does not include hull repair or repairs to destroyed components. The player would have to enter a hanger for these repairs to take place.
Image
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#74
BFett wrote:Here's a brief version of how I think this should work.

Ships have a number of systems that either work or don't work. All of these systems can be damaged when shields are down. If a system is damaged its corresponding function ceases to work and a timer starts up as on-board bots attempt to repair the damage. As other systems are damaged they are added to the list and the player is able to prioritize what gets worked on next.

This does not include hull repair or repairs to destroyed components. The player would have to enter a hanger for these repairs to take place.
Huh I like this. Sort of like an Aurora 4x idea.

It's plausible to lower the max health of the module until the ship docks at a station capable of repair (Automatic and free, repair costs shouldn't really be significant anyway imho. Makes the module more prone to failing again but I don't like the idea of any efficiency change, just making it more vulnerable.
I am literally and wholly in love with myself.
Post

Re: Some thoughts about damage and repair

#75
Black--Snow wrote: Automatic and free, repair costs shouldn't really be significant anyway imho.
so you want the logistics of repair to be nonexistent?

once you have a carrier your parasite ships come for free.

any defeat thats not complete annihilation means literally nothing because they just go back home and are at 100% again for no cost
leading to all or nothing fights which are ultimately boring because theres no strategising going on, just blob on top of the other and try to destroy as many ships as possible, because damaging ships is meaningless.

no point to repeteadedly attacking a stronger group which has a carrier, because if you dont wipe them out they are back at full strength 20 seconds later.
no point trying to run them out of repair supplies because there are none needed.


repair time and cost both make for much more interesting strategic play, with time being more important because you can take things out of the game for a while without having to destroy them.

without time and cost repairs are a no brainer, with time and cost it becomes a decision to take a ship out of your force for a while for repairs. or if its even worth it to repair that ship instead of just ripping out all of its components and scrapping the hull.

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron