Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#31
Hyperion wrote: We call them haulers. totally dumb cargo containers would presumably be as rabiator says.
who is "we"?
I thought with haulers of "real" ships with maybe reduced AI, and not of containers
Hyperion wrote: Also, I sincerely hope we avoid the E: D cargo scoop nonsense, seeing videos of that, it looks pants-shittingly tedious... Better to have tractor beams or at least a large net.
Well, it could be an update for your ship.
Very basic ships have a normal cargo scoop, advanced ones have all around tractor beams
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#32
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Gazz wrote: That's pretty much the point of having "cargo pods" be minimal maneuverable ships.

Logistically (and AI wise) it would also be a lot easier if they were ships and not just containers.
Ships can be directed to a holding area.
With "just containers", some ship must go there, move the pod elsewhere, get the next pod... that's a lot more effort and coordination than telling the blocking container to MOVE IT.
I just want to note that it would be nice to still be able to build "grabships" to carry things around.
As an "upgrade" to having the containers float around by themself
Josh has already confirmed drones, why not have a "cargo drone" that can be loaded up and fly to the destination of your choice. Not quite simple containers that fly themselves, and not quite a cargo tugboat, somewhere in the middle. :think:
- The Snark Knight

"Look upward, and share the wonders I've seen."
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#33
Idunno wrote:
Hyperion wrote:
That's pretty much the point of having "cargo pods" be minimal maneuverable ships.
We call them haulers. totally dumb cargo containers would presumably be as rabiator says.

Also, I sincerely hope we avoid the E: D cargo scoop nonsense, seeing videos of that, it looks pants-shittingly tedious... Better to have tractor beams or at least a large net.
Yeah! And let's call them Transfer beams! :monkey: :ghost: :shifty: :shh:
That would be the easy way. Not gonna happen with Josh :monkey: .

What we might get is a tractor beam that visible pulls in the object, a hatch opening and the object being pulled into that...
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#34
Just_Ice_au wrote:
Josh has already confirmed drones, why not have a "cargo drone" that can be loaded up and fly to the destination of your choice. Not quite simple containers that fly themselves, and not quite a cargo tugboat, somewhere in the middle. :think:
I was thinking something along those lines, yeah.

With the difference that grabships would be fully fledged ships themselves.

Kinda like a 1-container-hauler but with the ability to dock/undock the containers from a bigger hauler without assist.

:think:

Edit:
Rabiator wrote: What we might get is a tractor beam that visible pulls in the object, a hatch opening and the object being pulled into that...
I dont really think that we will get hatch animations, generating animations using code is hard enough with fixed, known assets, and with procedural ships it gets even harder.

Also:
Whats the conceptual difference between a transfer beam that pulls in dust and a tractor beam that pulls in containers?
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#36
Cornflakes_91 wrote: Also:
Whats the conceptual difference between a transfer beam that pulls in dust and a tractor beam that pulls in containers?
There is the obvious cosmetic difference:
The tractor beam would pull in the intact object, which results in a nice animation. The transfer beam just plays over an asteroid until it is considered depleted.

Otherwise, a transfer beam might be limited to collecting raw materials while a tractor beam could salvage all kinds of stuff intact. Now this may be intended and I even consider it a good idea. But there is a qualitative difference.

In a game with a traditional tech tree, the tractor beam could be an upgrade to the transfer beam.
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#37
Rabiator wrote: There is the obvious cosmetic difference:
The tractor beam would pull in the intact object, which results in a nice animation. The transfer beam just plays over an asteroid until it is considered depleted.

Otherwise, a transfer beam might be limited to collecting raw materials while a tractor beam could salvage all kinds of stuff intact. Now this may be intended and I even consider it a good idea. But there is a qualitative difference.

or a transfer beam trades speed per unit versus integrity of the transported object.

basically a transfer beam is a tractor beam set to fast, and rips apart what its transferring.

whereas a tractor beam is set to careful, is slower but keeps your things intact
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#38
In Independence War 2, cargo ships carried their goods in standard shipping containers on the exterior of ships. To facilitate material handling, all shipping containers were equipped with small thruster packs and basic guidance units. RP wise the addition of these parts was just a very basic tool for material handling around stations, loading and unloading of ships, and station keeping when stored outside of a station(of course, station keeping isn't necessary in a game world that has an arbitrary 'stopped' and no gravity perturbations that can disrupt orbits, still, that's no reason not to have it represented).

Gameplay wise, they sped up gameplay by not requiring you to dock with every single container, and also without having magic tractor beams, since it was a relatively 'low tech' sci fi world. It also handily explained why containers would stop after a cargo ship jettisoned them to escape, or you blew it up. You could also remote into them with the ships remote control functionality and fly them. A mission or two let you do this to steal stuff.

I could definitely see the shipping containers in LT having the same functionality for the same reasons. Its a very logical addition for the environment.



The cargo warp rails idea is very nice as well. I love when the logical consequence of a gameplay mechanic is fleshed out to such a degree, rather than existing as a... ideological island, I suppose. Not that I'm against the latter, sometimes there is no other way, but its still satisfying when behaviors are coherent. :thumbup:

I would question the warp elevators for planets though. Warp + Atmospheres has generally been depicted as a bad thing, if not outright dangerous, due to how the two concepts seem likely to interact. Plus I'm just plain biased towards physical structures, since I can't actually recall a game where they've been depicted(except a few skyboxes). :thumbdown:
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#39
Is it possible to have a moving rail? Like, the rail rotates but people can still get on it and go to the other end? I think I remember Josh saying things like asteroids and planets couldn't be moved in LT, and I'm unsure if a rail node is coded like a planet or a ship.

Also, imagine moving rail nodes along other warp rails. :shock:
Actually, I said that as a joke, but that could be a really funny tech. Instead of painstakingly laying down warp nodes along the path, just place one down, and shoot the rest along the existing rail and deploy them with remote control!
-Keon-

(I don't have any funny quotes to put here yet. Somebody say something funny.)
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#40
Keon wrote:Is it possible to have a moving rail? Like, the rail rotates but people can still get on it and go to the other end? I think I remember Josh saying things like asteroids and planets couldn't be moved in LT, and I'm unsure if a rail node is coded like a planet or a ship.

Also, imagine moving rail nodes along other warp rails. :shock:
Actually, I said that as a joke, but that could be a really funny tech. Instead of painstakingly laying down warp nodes along the path, just place one down, and shoot the rest along the existing rail and deploy them with remote control!

i guess the "standard" warp nodes will be of station(ary) types, but your idea sounds fun.

especially as it seems that "dropping out" of a rail has a very similar "stopping range" than the rails themself have.

at least it would be a cool feature for "ponton bridges" in war zones.

dont build stations, build a couple of ships and let them lay down their own line :ghost:
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#42
hmm.. another idea connected to rails:

what if we can dual-purpose them to serve as "electric landlines"?


imagine following scenario:

a couple of big solar power stations in low solar orbit connected to the rail network
(photovoltaics, or skimming solar winds for fusion fuel or whatever technobabble one desires to create)

they distribute their energy output along the network to supply stations in the system or maybe even planetary installations.

now the connected installations dont have to include big, expensive generators locally.
but instead can tap into the relatively cheap energy supplied by the network.


pro for connecting to the network:

stations can be build smaller and cheaper, as they dont have to accomodate (big) generators locally.
you have a greater possible energy supply, as you may can tap into unused energy when you need it.


pro for the infrastructure in itself:
rail nodes can be built smaller as they dont have to contain their own energy supply anymore
same for jumpgates.
warp rail maintainer can monetise them better /without per ship taxes

con:
the system gets dependent on the power stations,
when you disable them you disable possibly big areas of the systems infrastructure (rails, gates etc)
this speaks against warzone usage, but in secure areas it's likely a tolerable risk.


gameplay pro:
another way to distinguish developed and border systems, they have an electricity grid ^^

you can affect an area's infrastructure without having to destroy all of it
/destabilises the overall economy a bit due to that, and instability makes interesting gameplay


go ahead! poke holes in my idea! :mrgreen:
Post

Re: Warp Rails as Cargo Transfer method

#43
Cornflakes_91 wrote:hmm.. another idea connected to rails:

what if we can dual-purpose them to serve as "electric landlines"?


imagine following scenario:

a couple of big solar power stations in low solar orbit connected to the rail network
(photovoltaics, or skimming solar winds for fusion fuel or whatever technobabble one desires to create)

they distribute their energy output along the network to supply stations in the system or maybe even planetary installations.

now the connected installations dont have to include big, expensive generators locally.
but instead can tap into the relatively cheap energy supplied by the network.


pro for connecting to the network:

stations can be build smaller and cheaper, as they dont have to accomodate (big) generators locally.
you have a greater possible energy supply, as you may can tap into unused energy when you need it.


pro for the infrastructure in itself:
rail nodes can be built smaller as they dont have to contain their own energy supply anymore
same for jumpgates.
warp rail maintainer can monetise them better /without per ship taxes

con:
the system gets dependent on the power stations,
when you disable them you disable possibly big areas of the systems infrastructure (rails, gates etc)
this speaks against warzone usage, but in secure areas it's likely a tolerable risk.


gameplay pro:
another way to distinguish developed and border systems, they have an electricity grid ^^

you can affect an area's infrastructure without having to destroy all of it
/destabilises the overall economy a bit due to that, and instability makes interesting gameplay


go ahead! poke holes in my idea! :mrgreen:
Well let's see....

Warp nodes are not directly connected to one another in the current iteration. Unless these warp nodes are using some technology similar to Tesla's wireless power idea (charging items using harmonics) there will need to be an explanation for how individual nodes direct the path of the ship and speed it up. If the power source is using something like Tesla's idea then only one power source is needed per node rail (more could be added to prevent power failure). It may also be wise to have these generators use nuclear or fusion power instead of solar. With solar a battleship or carrier could place itself in front of the generator to block out the sunlight.

Good idea otherwise.
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron