- JoshParnell wrote:I rewrote the hardpoint system to incorporate the notion of "fixed" hardpoints, i.e., things that are factory-installed and cannot be replaced or removed. These fixed hardpoints will include a hull, thrusters, a basic sensor, and a basic power grid. This means that when you buy a ship, you can rest assured that you'll be able to move, you'll be able to take a bit of fire, you'll be able to pick up objects on your nav computer, and you'll be able to route power between your subsystems. These are all extremely basic functions, and it doesn't seem like any ship should come without them.
- JoshParnell wrote:IMO, it's just no fun to think about having to acquire these items just to get a workable ship (which is how it used to be). Given this, I've changed the "expansion" hardpoint slots to the following categories: generator, structure, and weapon. Generators can be used for shields, extra power supplies, cloaking fields, propulsion boosters, scanners, sensor boosters, and so one. Structure is used for armor, perhaps cargo expansion, perhaps damage mitigation systems, etc. And, of course, you know what weapons are I think this layout works reasonably well for now, and I'm already enjoying the lower complexity of this system than the previous. As usual, lambaste me with your criticisms in the suggestion forum, as I'm sure this line of reasoning raises many questions and potential holes in gameplay ;| Let's hear them!!
I have a problem with the idea of fixed hardpoints.
- 1. The player is unable to upgrade or remove the default factory parts. This removes a choice from the player and keeping this restriction would be unnessary as it feels punishing.
Ships the player has designed and is trying to build and if there are no custom factory required parts present a extra fee should be charged then the player would have to place the factory parts.
Now for the Expansion hardpoints.
I'm enjoying how you are simplifying into categories and i agree with that completely.
What concerns me about this dev blog is how you are taking choices by simplifying and restricting players i just think this oversight is just due to being tired.
I am bias in the need to customize as i am obsessive for example about perfecting a character in rpg, and building ships in Kerbal Space Program. In my bias i stand for anything you can give players to customize along with an array of tools to manipulate with i'm all in about.
The other side of the story player who want to simply play the game and not have to fuss too much about gathering parts to build their first ship and want to have the ability to rapidly prototype their ship designs in real space flight. The goal is to make both player happy for this problem it is possible you can do it in a few ways.
- 1. Make every inch of the ship customizable but have a factory required parts check and a fee if none present as i said above.
2. Have a advanced mode and standard mode available in the standard mode the factory parts are always placed with the hull and in advanced mode you are able to edit that hull or make your own. these mode would need to be obvious to the player.
3. Have a simulation mode where the player can fly their ship from blueprints or available ships in the local market into a scenario of their choosing free from real consequences but limited to the scenario so no Infinite Scenario Limit theory its a mini game after all.
3a. In the the blueprint creator mode within the ship builder it would be nice to have the ability to place any known systems to the player placeable onto the ship. These placed parts and the ship would only be usable if 1. the player has the items to build. or 2. the player uses the ship within the simulation.
(to define known systems anything that has been a. scanned by the player, b. available on the market c. any system the player has in their inventory, d. any system the player has created.)
I prefer the 1st, 3, and 3a idea myself.
As a future player in LT i'm responding well to many of your ideas and respect how you are in touch with the community by listening, replying.