Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#286
mcsven wrote:
Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:44 pm
I'm happy to concede that it's easier to see the benefit of obsolescence if there is no research system available to the player. Items simply become less powerful over time, and new items are added as power 10 (or thereabouts) from corporations that the player will never interact with. I see this as being a straight forward incremental update to the system that virtually every other space combat game uses.
how would it change the obsolescence mechanics if theres N or N+1 entities putting out research?
(besides the actual rate at which it happens)
how does it matter if i get the update from somewhere else or from my own labs?
mcsven wrote:
Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:44 pm
I don't think it would be too hard to implement in a player-involved research world however. For example, you could implement a system whereby the initial power of an item is governed by the relative amount of research any given entity is doing compared to the other researching entities. If you are a relatively small entity, your new items won't be the most powerful, ranking at 5/6, and quickly becoming obsolete. On the other hand, if you are in charge of the entity putting out the most research, then your new stuff is rated 10, and its obsolescence rate is slowed because your research is that much greater than everyone else's.
how does having the most research change the rate at which the mounted equipment decays?
i'd have the newest equipment to build and mount, yes. but how would that change the decay rate of the equipment thats already installed in my ships? they still decay at the same rate
mcsven wrote: I'm also happy to concede that you don't like what I'm saying. Fair enough. That's hardly a slam dunk argument against it though is it?
i'd like to like it if any point were to it
from what you describe its just "repaint items when something better comes along".
which doesnt change any mechanics

or from another interpretation (which im still not sure about what you are actually proposing because you arent clarifying anything) having to redo ship equipment layouts because someone else developed something and the power supply of my ship is now broken despite me not changing anything in my loadout.
because the downgrade ripple from the new generator development hit the power generation of my mounted generator and now its less than what i need to run my equipment.
mcsven wrote: As for insisting it's a waste of processing power: once an item moves far enough away from the player it'll be absorbed into a much less granular simulation. It's only when they come close to the player that it'll really become relevant. I'm still sceptical that this would be a meaningful performance impairment.
except that there are still thousands of instances near the player under any circumstances unless e is alone in the far wilderness.
Post

Re: Squaring the "Vertical Progression" Circle (maybe)

#287
Okay, reading through mcsven's comments I had an idea. Let's see if this makes any sense:

Start with a numbering system where each weapon type has a base value which is used to generate the other weapons in the category. The armor and damage stats start at 100% and tick down 1% every x period of time. They do this till they reach 1%.
Do this for all armors/shields and damage types. For old wrecks, have the computer generate percentages based off of whether or not the tech was from a lost civilization and how long the civilization existed. (or other fun data)

Possibly take research time into account, linking it to the decay rate of technology (this is a very rough idea, don't hit me too much on this point).

If every in game armor and damage stat decreases over time, and new items spawn in at 100%, then the player feels like technology is improving over time even though the base values for particular technologies remain stagnate.

Coded Damage x percentage
Damage: 16 x %100 = Age 0 = 16 Adjusted Damage (seen in game)
Damage: 16 x %80 = Age 2 = 12.8 Adjusted Damage (seen in game)
Damage: 16 x %50 = Age 5 = 8 Adjusted Damage (seen in game)

In this system I wouldn't let the players see the damage. I think I'd just show age of the item, and have it set up where super old weapons have a chance of being better than current gear, while tech that just got replaced wouldn't be good for another 300+ age cycles.


Thoughts? Does this help solve the problem?
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron