Big pile of ideas

[Elminster]

I've just played through a game of Transcendence (Sys26v1tester2 with Large Static Map A actually, kudos to Periculi for the fantastic work on that). And I got some ideas how to improve (well, at least I think it would be an improvement, YMMV) the game. Most of these would require changes to the base engine instead of being easily implementable by changing the xml files.

If anyone thinks any of this could be done effectively with the current engine using scripts I would love to hear how.

I know there is pretty much no chance that any of this could be put into the engine before 1.0 (with 0.99 hopefully being close and the roadmap stating that 0.99 to 1.0 is a pure bugfix release). Non the less, here it goes:

Weapon Mounts

Ships could have a list of specific weapon mounts. Each mount should have the following information:
- name
- position relative to parent
- direction it's facing relative to parent
- maximum fire arc (from/to, relative to parent, e.g. a weapon mount on the side might default to firing forward which is
- is it on top or bottom of ship (decides if fired shoots should be drawn before or after the ship, e.g. take the Millenium Falcon with a turret on top and bottom, shoots from the bottom one would be covered by the ship sprite while shoots from the top one would be visible above the ship sprite)
- maximum installable mass
- (optional) maximum available energy
- filter list of allowed modifiers for installed weapons (e.g. this one only takes EnergyWeapons, this one only launchers, this one only weapons that don't require ammo, ...)
- is it a default mount inheritent to this ship class or is it an optional mount which can be added at some cost (credits? cargo space?)
- (optional) how it changes the installed weapon (e.g. having a special weapon mount which increases the damage of lasers, or the speed of fired missiles, ...)

Turrets/Adapters

Turrets/Adapters can be installed in weapon mounts just like individual weapons. Each turret comes with the following information:
- mass (total mass of the turret + installed weapons is considered when trying to place the turret in a weapon mount)
- maximum fire arc (can only get more restrictive, so if you have a turret with restricted fire arc in a weapon mount with restricted fire arc then the overall fire arc is the overlapping area of the mount and turret fire arc taking under consideration the direction of the the mount)
- used energy
- list of weapon mounts
- speed at which turret changes direction
- tracking range/sensor sensitivity (ir, rader, optical, grav, ...)
- hardwired programs/devices
- number of optional program/device slots

It could be possible to install programs/devices on turrets (and on the ship itself) to modify their behavior, some examples:
- [program] track the closest enemy ship within it's fire arc and tracking range and goes back to neutral if no target is in tracking range
- [program] priority track closest incoming missile (if any)
- [program] priority track closest incoming missile (if any), automatic fire at missiles without being triggered
- [program] don't shot if no target in tracking range
- [program] don't shot if no target in weapon range
- [program] don't shot if friendly is detected between turret and target
- [program] don't shot if friendly is detected in weapon range at current aiming direction (+- some fudge factor)
- [device] increase tracking range/sensor sensitivity
- [device] increase speed at which turret changes direction
- [program, fireplan] independant, all weapon mounts fire idependently at maximum speed
- [program, fireplan] linked fire, always fires all installed weapons together, waits for the slowest before firing again
- [program, fireplan] interleaved, fires one weapon mount after another, waiting for the first to cycle before firing the next (minimize concurrent energy usage)
- [program, fireplan] staggered, fires each weapon once per cycle of the slowest weapon, staggering the fire time by the number of installed weapons (so e.g. a turret with 3 installed weapons would fire the 2nd one 1/3rd into the cycle, the 3rd one 2/3rd into the cycle)

An "Adapter" is basically a turret with a fire arc and max speed of 0. e.g. What's currently a "dual laser cannon" could be done by an adapter with 2 weapon mounts, independant or linked fire plan, and 2 normal laser cannon's installed. Or the IM90 multitarget blaster would be an adapter with 3 weapon mounts, in each a 360 degree turret with an ion blaster.
This system also potentially allows the installation of multiple launchers.

Fireplans

It could be possible to define named fireplans. Instead of selecting a specific weapon as primary and secondary weapon you can choose a primary and secondary fireplan which is triggered. Each fire plan consists of:
- list of active weapon mounts
- list of active programs
- if any of the active weapon mounts is a turret/adapter it should be possible to recursively define fireplans for them.
- for any active weapon that uses ammo, which specific ammo should be used.

Sensors

Objects could have footprint values for:
- optical
- ir
- radar
- grav
- (maybe more, any ideas?)

Ship components can modify these values (e.g. stealth armor, cloaking shield would reduce the footprint, engines, weapons, active sensors, .. increase the footprint, the overall mass of the ship would contribute to its grav footprint)

Sensors can be installed which have a sensitivity and falloff value. If the sensitivity (corrected for distance by the falloff value) is higher then the footprint of another ship then it can be seen.

Active Sensors (e.g. active radar, lidar) would increase sensitivity and footprint at the same time.

Weapons (when shooting), engines (when being used), shields (when being hit), armor (when damaged) could have a higher footprint.

The footprint values could possibly be directional (while the engine has a high IR footprint backwards while in use, you wouldn't see that from the front, if you have stealth armor in the front but not the sides and back it would only help against sensors looking at the ship from the front, ...)

Missiles also would have sensor footprint and sensitivity values to determine if they can be seen or see their target.

There could also be active jamming systems that, while they do rise the footprint (signals are actively being put out after all) reduce the accuracy of targeting systems (both missile seekers and turret tracking).

High footprint values could drown out other objects with lower footprint, I'm not yet 100% sure how this should be applied, but e.g. a large freighter which is detected quite a distance away might prevent the escort of light fighters behind it from being detected even tho one of these fighters on their own would be detectable at this distance. Also, objects like suns (in optical, ir, radar and grav) or planets (mainly grav) should have so large footprints that other objects close to them are difficult to detect.

The system map could be enhanced to display long range sensor data in some way.

Energy Management

In addition to the generator there could be short term energy storage devices. They have:
- maximum charging speed
- maximum charge
- leakage percentage (percentage of charge which is leaked as heat, see below)

When activated they charge from the generator output (at max charging speed until full, but never so that the generator goes into overload). They keep their charge even if deactivated.

When systems draw more power then the generator can deliver instead of going into overload and disabling devices energy is first drawn from the energy storage device(s) util they are empty.

Heat Managment

Ship components could produce heat. A generator would produce a certain fraction of it's current output as heat. Other components produce heat as they use energy (yes, waste heat is produced both when generating the energy and when using it). Direct hits on armor (not on shields) produce heat (different types of weapons could transfer more or less heat). The environment could contribute to heat (being close to the sun is going to heat up your ship nicely).

Ships could then have a certain capacity for heat storage. There could be devices which increase that capacity.

They would also have a certain maximum amount of heat they can radiate away per second. Radiating heat increases the IR footprint. There could then be a way to turn the radiating on and off. Radiating heat should be more difficult if you are closer to the sun (or anything else with a massive IR footprint for that matter)

There could then be devices which increase the amount of heat you can radiate (but als increase your IR footprint when in use). Or some advanced technology that can get rid of heat without radiating it.

Also there could be devices that can turn some of the waste heat back into energy (as long as the second law of thermodynamics is observed). e.g. a stirling cycle, kalina cycle, carnot cycle or similar engine between the heat storage and heat dumping device which generates energy from the heat flow between the hot storage and the cooler heat dump.

Also, stations might provide heat dumping as a service for a fee.

Reaction Mass

Except for the "inertialess drive" the engines seem to be reaction drives. Mass is accelerated out of the engine in one direction, as a reaction the engine (and the ship attached to it) is accelerating in the other direction. This requires 2 things, energy which you put as kinetic energy into the mass, and the mass itself. Up to a certain point the fuel that is used to generate the energy could also be used as reaction mass. But the "better" the fuel is in Transcendence the less mass of fuel you need to get the same amount of energy. And the more energy you get out of the fuel, the less mass is left afterwards (classic case of E=mc^2, more energy, more mass was converted).

That means there could be something like a reaction mass storage on board the ship. Engines use both energy and reaction mass.

To reflect the fact that the spent fuel is also usable reaction mass the generator should keep track not only of the amount of "fuel" being put in but also the mass of that fuel. When some fraction of the fuel in the generator is used to produce energy the same fraction of mass should be moved over from the generator to reaction mass storage. This will correctly work even if you mix different types of fuel.

Reaction mass could be available from stations for a fee. It could also be possible to dump certain things from your cargo bay into the reaction mass storage. e.g. Water you could probably directly dump into reaction mass storage. For other objects there might be some device you can install which converts most other types of objects (armor, ore, weapons, whatever) into reaction mass.

This would open up the opportunity for more variations of engines with different mass/energy usage, waste heat production, ir footprint (that's the directly radiated heat in addition to the internal waste heat production which needs to be dumped sooner or later and generates more ir footprint).

Also, the inertialess drive could be changed into a "reactionless drive" which takes only energy, no mass (and most likely wouldn't produce much heat). And there could be a device like a "inertia compensator" which reduces the apperant total mass of the ship to a fraction of it's real mass when calculating the acceleration and rotation speed based on mass and engine trust. And a device "inertia damper" which when activated reacts like the inertialess drive as far as stopping goes.

In addition to just the main drive there could be additional devices which can be installed alongside it. e.g. maneuvering thrusters which just improve the turning speed. Or optional reverse trusters at the front of the ship (but with a lower trust then the main engines naturally) which would be fired with the down key (which currently seems to do the same as the up key?)

An afterburner which allows to dump large amounts of fuel (and reaction mass?) directly into the engine to give a short-term high trust.

<DriveImages> could be extended with an attribute type with 4 possible values "main", "maneuver-left", "maneuver-right" and "reverse" to define different sets of drive nozzles. <NozzlePos> would need to also take a "rotation" value.

Device Slots

Instead of having a fixed number of device slots, there could a total mass limit for installed devices, allowing either a small number of large devices or a larger number of smaller devices. Weapons in weapon mounts should most likely not count against this limit as they are mostly external. Same for armor.

I'm not 100% sure if this should be a different pool or if it should simply come of the carge limit. To prevent freighters stuffed full of installed devices it would probably be better to have different pools for cargo and installed devices. If there are 2 mass limits for installed devices and cargo it might be a good idea to offer some way to convert some cargo space into device space or the other way around. But probably only for some cost beyond just credits, e.g. convert 15 tons of cargo space into 10 tons of device space. The cargo bay extensions that can be bought would probably be something "external" and not take up any device space, but being something external that's bolted on to the ship it would noticable increase it's sensor footprint.

Switching Ship

It would be great if it was possible to switch ships during the game. Any ship class with a <PlayerSettings> section could be eligible. There could be different ways of getting other ships:
- buying them from a shipyard
- boarding a disabled ship and taking it over (this will require the introduction of some way to disable a ship without totally trashing it and some system to determine the outcome of a boarding attempt)
- draging an abondend ship to a shipyard (will require a tractor beam or something like that) and having it repaired (not cheap, but cheaper then buying a new one and gives possible access to ship types which might not be for sale new)

Switching ships should not require you to give up your old ship. If you dock at a station and buy a new ship the old ship should remain docked to the station and from the station screen it should be possible to board any of your ships that's currently docked. It should also be possible to transfer cargo between different ships you own if they are docked at the same station (maybe require a transfer fee for the cargo handlers).

It would be nice if you could then hire pilots (maybe of different skill levels) to turn any of your ships that you are not flying yourself right now into an wingman or to install software which turns the other ship into an auton.

In either case it should be possible to order your ships to dock at stations so that you can switch between different ships or use a fighter ship yourself while having a freighter or two that you can order to dock at stations and directly buy/sell stuff from their cargo holds.

Carriers

The engine currently doesn't really seem to have the concept of a carrier where other ships dock inside.

For larger, carrier type, ships the engine could distinguish between cargo, device and hangar space. The size of the hanger space would control how many ships can dock inside the carrier. There should also be hangar bay doors of a certain size (controlling the maximum size of ship that can dock inside). The number of which would control how quickly ships can start and land (each hangar bay door has a cycle time of x seconds before the next ship can use it). Optionally there could also be catapults (which can only start ships, but have a quicker cycle time).

As with between cargo space and device space there could be way to convert between hangar space and cargo or device space, but also with some disadvantag for diverging from the base design of the ship class (15:10 exchange ratio or so). If you have a larger ship it could also be possible to add a hangar to a ship that didn't have one at all (at a cost of device and cargo space naturally).

Once the basic support for hangar space and landing/starting smaller ships is in place in the engine it would be possible to make this system as complex as desired with scripts.

e.g.:

Assuming there is an hired engineering crew aboard the carrier it could be able to automatically repair, refuel (energy and reaction mass), rearm (missiles, cannon shells, ...) and dump waste heat of docked ships. Fuel, reaction mass and ammo would naturally have to come from the carrier, waste heat is dumped into the carriers heat storage. If the hired crew is good enough they could also be able to install/uninstall devices and switch out armor.

A player controlling a docked ship and owning the carrier could be able to switch to control the carrier, or to control any of the other docked ships.

It could be possible to designate groups of docked ships as flight wings, then give individual wings commands to attack this target, protect that target, return to carrier. Have individual ships automatically return to the carrier if they have x amount of damage. And so on.

Crews

This could probably be mostly done with scripts.

It could be possible to install offier and enlisted quarters on larger ships. And hire crews of different level of competency. e.g. First Officer (generally improves the efficiency of the ship in some way), Tactical Officer (increases firing speed), Sensor Officer (increases sensor efficiency), Engineering Officer (improves engine trust), Communication Officer (increases communication range), and so on. Engineering Crew, Weapon Crews, Flight Deck Crew, ...
It could also be possible to hire Marine Squads for boarding actions (or to fend of enemy boarding actions).

Star Map

While the work that Periculi did with System26 is a fantastic start, it would be great if the base engine could provide some basic support for such complex topologies. Some way to define positions of individual systems in an overall coordinate system. Define connections (possibly different types of connections to be shown in different colors, e.g. gate connections and connections which can be used by a, yet to be scripted, jump drive) between the systems. And then show a zoomable/scrollable map with the current system highlighted. It would be nice if it was possible to show different colored markers at individual systems. Also if a script could supply some information text for other systems that are selected on the map which is displayed beside the map. And maybe a mechanism to allow selecting a sequence of connected systems starting from the current system.

That's it for now.

[Betelgeuse]

nice list 8)

- maximum fire arc (from/to, relative to parent, e.g. a weapon mount on the side might default to firing forward which is
- is it on top or bottom of ship (decides if fired shoots should be drawn before or after the ship, e.g. take the Millenium Falcon with a turret on top and bottom, shoots from the bottom one would be covered by the ship sprite while shoots from the top one would be visible above the ship sprite)

I do like this due to there is nothing currently that restricts weapons passing through your ship. I do realize it is more of a realism thing though.

- (optional) maximum available energy

I am not a fan, it doesn't make much sense realistically and would limit alternative reactor schemes. (like a weapon with its own fuel and power reactor)

- filter list of allowed modifiers for installed weapons (e.g. this one only takes EnergyWeapons, this one only launchers, this one only weapons that don't require ammo, ...)

Good idea, the example isn't the best though. What would make sense to me would be that alien weapons have different mounts or different manufactures need different mounts.

I am not a fan of the Turrets/Adapters idea. Maybe if you had a fleet you would need this but I don't want to turn this game into a bullet hell type game. Plus the adapters would take away from the limitations of the mounts.

Fireplans might be interesting for something like part two, ie the enemy needs a certain combination of weapons to crack.

Oddbob will like your Sensors ideas but I am always afraid things like that will turn into alot of busy work.

I do like the idea of something like batteries for energy management. So if you want to go over your reactors rating you can do so but with lots of work.

One simple way of doing Heat is just heat up the ammo, its going off board anyway. Be aware you will never get a realistic heat system though, plus it wouldn't add much to the game.

Lots of people want Switching Ships, personally I want a build your own ship out of parts kind of idea.

Carriers, maybe in part two.

Crews, I am not a fan of crews. Maybe robotic crews would work but that kind of stuff seems better handled with devices (and that has a built in limit)

Star Map, maybe in part two. Right now there is no need for it outside of mods. (no offense to Periculi he did the best with what he could do but you really need some other kind of dockscreen for that)

[Elminster]

nice list 8)
Good idea, the example isn't the best though. What would make sense to me would be that alien weapons have different mounts or different manufactures need different mounts.

These might be better examples, yes. What I was thinking about is things like, you have 2 forward facing mounts that don't take launchers or turrets, you have a mount on the top of your ship that only takes a turret. You have a backward facing mount that only can take mine layers, ... things like that.

nice list 8)
I am not a fan of the Turrets/Adapters idea. Maybe if you had a fleet you would need this but I don't want to turn this game into a bullet hell type game. Plus the adapters would take away from the limitations of the mounts.

The general idea with the turrets is that all the current variations of weapons which shoot multiple bolts or which are omnidirectional get removed. Instead you take a non omni-directional version and put it on a turret, making it omnidirectional. Or you use a dual, spreed3, ... adapter and install multiple (same or different) weapons in it.

Naturally, instead of the weapon variants that get removed you would be able to find and buy preassembled turret/adapter/weapon combinations that match them. But you can also "build your own".

As for taking away the limitations of the mount. That's where the mass limitations of the mounts come in. the turret, adapter, weapons all contribute to the total mass which can not exceed the mass of the mount. so you might be able to install a turret with a dual adapter and 2 medium sized weapons. Or a single large weapon. But not a 1:5 adapter, each with a large turret with another 1:5 adapter with 5 fusion howitzers each...

nice list 8)
Fireplans might be interesting for something like part two, ie the enemy needs a certain combination of weapons to crack.

One of the main reasons I wanted them is for situations like:
- you got a strong forward facing laser
- you got 2 turrets with a "no friendly fire" programs on the side of your ship with limited fire arcs.

If you are on an escort mission you normally only want to use the turrets to prevent accidents so you put a fireplan with just these 2 turrets as primary weapon. But you also want to have the option of easily using your forward main energy weapon when needed, so you assign a fireplan with that as your secondary weapon.

nice list 8)
Oddbob will like your Sensors ideas but I am always afraid things like that will turn into alot of busy work.

Define "alot of busy work"?

One simple way of doing Heat is just heat up the ammo, its going off board anyway. Be aware you will never get a realistic heat system though, plus it wouldn't add much to the game.

That would naturally depend on the ammo (you wouldn't want to heat up your thermo shells too much...) and on the fact that you are actually shooting. But if you are trying to sneak through that ring of massive fortresses using your stealth armor without being detected so that you can board and steal that cruiser that just finished construction on that shipyard over there and is waiting for it's acceptance trials...

But being able to assign certain ammo types a value for how much heat they take away (if you have the special "dump heat into ammo" device installed on that weapon mount...) is certainly a good idea.

Having to upgrade your ability to store and dump heat to keep step with the generators, weapons, engines and so on you are installing creates more opportunities to find and use more types of "nifty stuff". And that's one of the main aspects of the game (at least for me).

It also serves as naturally limitation preventing you from installing these 10 ueber turrets with fusion howitzers... yes, you might be able to get one or two shoots with all turrets together off, but then you are going to get cooked in your ship if you keep shooting. And if you then cut and run and try to hide somewhere... when you dump your heat you are suddenly showing up on the sensors all over the system... which might get these pirates over there to come and investigate...

Lots of people want Switching Ships, personally I want a build your own ship out of parts kind of idea.

But that basically stacks on top of the "switching ships" feature. Once you can switch ships you can naturally also switch into a ship you just had custom built for you.

Carriers, maybe in part two.

With all the possibilities of modifying the game through the xml files I'm actually seeing it more as a general framework to build "this type of game" then the specific "default" game that it is. Giving the engine the ability to handle something doesn't mean that it must be used everywhere in the current storyline.

Crews, I am not a fan of crews. Maybe robotic crews would work but that kind of stuff seems better handled with devices (and that has a built in limit)

Crews have their own build in limits. You would need to install crew quarters and sufficient life support for them. The mass for these crew quarters would come out of the "device space" (that I proposed as a replacement for the fixed limit in number of devices). This also plays very well into your "build your own ship" idea.

Also, crews are naturally limited by your ability to pay their salaries.

Installing automated system instead of crew is naturally possible, but should open you up to additional types of cyperattacks.

On the other hand, certain weapons might be specifically designed to kill crew without doing much damage to the armor of the ship. Leaving you with an empty but intact ship to board. Or there could be weapons that specifically target electronics without turning the ship to dust, but leave the crew alive (which then, depending on numbers and abilities take more or less time to restore the ship to working order).

On the topic of boarding, the crew, numbers, type of crew, what small arms you have on board, could determine the success of boarding another ship. Or repelling borders.

Having crew vs. automated systems opens up new opportunities for ships that are specially vulnerable to certain types of attak.

Star Map, maybe in part two. Right now there is no need for it outside of mods. (no offense to Periculi he did the best with what he could do but you really need some other kind of dockscreen for that)

Goes to the "specific game" vs. "game framework" thing I mentioned above. There is no reason that the existing game needs to use this right away. But it would be cool if the engine could implement this functionality (as you say, as another type of dockscreen, which could then be linked to from the ship menu) in a basic form.

There is no need for the game engine to specifically support this as a "star map" with information coming from one specific source. Instead there could just be a generic additional type of dockscreen which is able to show node graphs which are filled in by a script and interact with them by calling scripts for certain user actions.

Might be used as a star map, might be used for something else that requires the display of a node graph.

[Betelgeuse]

The general idea with the turrets is that all the current variations of weapons which shoot multiple bolts or which are omnidirectional get removed. Instead you take a non omni-directional version and put it on a turret, making it omnidirectional. Or you use a dual, spreed3, ... adapter and install multiple (same or different) weapons in it.

Sorry no I can not support that idea. We already have problems with weapon blandness and that would just make the problem worse (as would weapon stacking). I am also not a fan of mass limitations the only reason I don't mind it with armor because armor doesn't mean much in the game.

- you got 2 turrets with a "no friendly fire" programs on the side of your ship with limited fire arcs.

No programs on your main ship. While simulation games can be fun I don't want this game to turn into one.

Define "alot of busy work"?

Busy work is actions taken without much thought needed. An example of this would be if we had to refuel every 5 minutes. "Programs" would just cover this up and are the wrong approach.

Having to upgrade your ability to store and dump heat to keep step with the generators, weapons, engines and so on you are installing creates more opportunities to find and use more types of "nifty stuff". And that's one of the main aspects of the game (at least for me).

hmm maybe I don't understand. All it seems to be for me is a limitation. You can buy things to get around that limitation but doesn't really add anything interesting to the game.

It also serves as naturally limitation preventing you from installing these 10 ueber turrets with fusion howitzers

Multiple weapons firing at once blands out the weapons. If they don't all fire in the same direction then it turns into a bullet hell game so I am not a fan of that level of multiple weapons.
This is not to say I wouldn't like forward or backward facing weapons but you can't concentrate all the fire at one enemy in that case.

But that basically stacks on top of the "switching ships" feature. Once you can switch ships you can naturally also switch into a ship you just had custom built for you.

Not really they are independent ideas. They do complement each other sure but you don't need custom ships for ship switching and you don't need ship switching for custom ships (its more of an upgrade system then but still).

With all the possibilities of modifying the game through the xml files I'm actually seeing it more as a general framework to build "this type of game" then the specific "default" game that it is. Giving the engine the ability to handle something doesn't mean that it must be used everywhere in the current storyline.

Yes but you have to remember that there is a time constraint on adding new things. Talking about things that might get in in parts 2 and 3 is fun but you have to realize the state of the game will be very different when we get there and you might see things differently. I would rather focus on what would improve the game currently.

crew

I think this idea is getting too much into the simulation type of game. I understand that it has built in limits we already have things that can do what they do so adding them wouldn't improve the game.

Star Map

As I said before time constraints.

I think the main problem is that you just through all of your ideas in a single thread. If they where each given there own thread they could be considered on there own but piling them in one thread just makes them lost in a pile of ideas. For example the star map idea could be expanded, think of other ways it could be used. You didn't give any reasons for alot of your ideas so all we have to go on is that you think they would be cool and that isn't very convincing.

[Periculi]

I was thinking that the star map could be implemented with some simple layer control and positioning. If George created a dockscreen that would allow us to set layers and position graphic icons on it, much could be done- far beyond plotting a star map. (zooming would then become the complaint from the improvists, which is another matter altogether)

And thank you for your compliments on the Sys26 mod, Elminster.

[Elminster]

turrets/adapters

Sorry no I can not support that idea. We already have problems with weapon blandness and that would just make the problem worse (as would weapon stacking).

I don't see how having more variations make things bland. e.g. the Weapons extended mod adds versions of the IM90 Blaster with 4 and 5 shoots, does that make the weapon more bland?

To prevent people from switching out weapons on their adapters all the time, don't allow uninstallation and make empty adapters relatively rare.

I am also not a fan of mass limitations the only reason I don't mind it with armor because armor doesn't mean much in the game.

Once you can change your ship / build your own, these mass limitations just help to further differentiate the ships. I find mass limitations to be a lot more realistic then a restriction to a fixed number of devices, no matter what their mass.

Right now pretty much every single weapon and device in the game must be able to fit into all player ships. If there were ways to switch ships that wouldn't need to be true anymore and there can be tradeoffs that need to be made.

Busy work is actions taken without much thought needed. An example of this would be if we had to refuel every 5 minutes. "Programs" would just cover this up and are the wrong approach.

I'm not sure how sensor footprint and sensitivity values would create "busy work"?
It just means that there are you have clear rules that describe when ships can see each other creating the possibility to install stuff which lets you see enemies sooner and hides you from them longer.

hmm maybe I don't understand. All it seems to be for me is a limitation. You can buy things to get around that limitation but doesn't really add anything interesting to the game.

So installing different reactors is also just a limitation that doesn't really add anything interesting to the game and we should just do away with this energy limit thing?

On one side the heat system gives more opportunity for other devices to differentiate themselves from each other. Same with mass limitations. There could be different generators with the same energy output but with different mass values and heat output. This turns this turns generators from a simple liner progression where you just update to the next level as soon as you can afford it into something where you can make decisions and balance energy production, fuel requirements, heat output and mass against each other to pick the on model that fits into whatever overall concept you want to follow with your ship.

On the other side there are the devices that handle heat. Do you want a ship that mainly stores it heat but you have to dump it at stations? Do you use an ammo based weapon to dump heat even tho it does less damage then that nifty quad laser you just found? Do you try to just dump all your heat all the time and be done with it? But that makes you more visible, these pirates and slavers from over there might come more often to check out what's that 2nd sun in the sky...

Found a device that can recover some of your waste heat back into eneryg? Cool!

Multiple weapons firing at once blands out the weapons. If they don't all fire in the same direction then it turns into a bullet hell game so I am not a fan of that level of multiple weapons.
This is not to say I wouldn't like forward or backward facing weapons but you can't concentrate all the fire at one enemy in that case.

It's all about creating more variations and options. Yes you could have 10 weapons firing at once. But only for a second or two before your heat is through the roof, your capacitors empty and you have to really really hope you managed to get them all or you are in deep trouble. And to install all these weapons in the first place you need to have a ship in the super dreadnought size range. Which has it's own disadvantages, large mass, relatively slow, uses a large amount of fuel (costs money), you needed to use huge turrets to fit these large weapons which have a slow tracking speed, so you have trouble targeting quick opponents...

On top of all that, your different turrets all have limited firing arcs, so you can't ever concentrate all the fire onto a single target.

Also, just because the engine supports putting things like that together doesn't mean that it needs to ever show up in a ship that the player can control. It just creates more opportunities to design different opponents.

You seem to be more in favor of playing with a quick and light single pilot fighter type craft. Which is just fine. That's pretty much what you start out with. But I don't see how having more options, all with their individual trade-offs makes the game bland?

Yes but you have to remember that there is a time constraint on adding new things. Talking about things that might get in in parts 2 and 3 is fun but you have to realize the state of the game will be very different when we get there and you might see things differently. I would rather focus on what would improve the game currently.

As I said before time constraints.

As I said in my first post, I didn't expect any of this to be possible in the pre 1.0 timeframe. I was under the impression that with 0.99 getting finalized right now and the roadmap saying the step from 0.99 to 1.0 is reserved for bugfixing that the time for any fundamental engine changes before 1.0 is already past.

Also, being a programmer for a living, I wouldn't mind working on implementing some of these things myself, but seeing that, while currently free to download, the engine is closed source I can only throw these ideas out there and see what comes back.

I think the main problem is that you just through all of your ideas in a single thread. If they where each given there own thread they could be considered on there own but piling them in one thread just makes them lost in a pile of ideas. For example the star map idea could be expanded, think of other ways it could be used. You didn't give any reasons for alot of your ideas so all we have to go on is that you think they would be cool and that isn't very convincing.

Well, it took a while to get my forum account activated so I had a while to keep writing up ideas. And I didn't want to spam the forum with 10 posts one after another... If you consider any of the ideas deserves further discussion it would be easy enough to start a thread just for that idea.

The underlying reason for pretty much all these ideas is to create more variation, taking away the linear "c is better then b is better then a, so always get c if you can", and instead giving items more dimensions, requiring decisions about what trade-offs you want to make. Taking away the "use this, this and this and you always have the best ship for all situations", instead you put together a ship like this, and it's good for one thing. Put a ship together like that and it's good for another situations. No "one size fits all".

I was thinking that the star map could be implemented with some simple layer control and positioning. If George created a dockscreen that would allow us to set layers and position graphic icons on it, much could be done- far beyond plotting a star map. (zooming would then become the complaint from the improvists, which is another matter altogether)

If it is possible to define such a low level generic system that allows to freely position graphics and allow scripts to react to mouse clicks and key presses that would certainly be great. In addition to positioning graphics it could allow certain vector graphic primitives, lines, circles, ... which would most likely also solve issues with zooming in most cases.

And thank you for your compliments on the Sys26 mod, Elminster.

You are welcome. I found the non-linear play much more satisfying then the linear one gate in, one gate out of the base game. The only thing missing was a map, I had to draw one on paper instead

[Betelgeuse]

I don't see how having more variations make things bland. e.g. the Weapons extended mod adds versions of the IM90 Blaster with 4 and 5 shoots, does that make the weapon more bland?

Lower level weapons are easier to get so why not just stack up tons of those and you already have the equivalent of a high level weapon early on in the game.
I already feel the IM90 Blaster is more gimmick and adding more shots wouldn't improve that and if all weapons could have 4 or 5 shots what is so special about the IM90 Blaster?
This suggestion would seem to make all weapons act the same.

Once you can change your ship / build your own, these mass limitations just help to further differentiate the ships. I find mass limitations to be a lot more realistic then a restriction to a fixed number of devices, no matter what their mass.

This doesn't make much sense to me. I feel the opposite. I find mass limitations to be more arbitrary (all the extra mass would do is slow you down) over the slot limits (limited number of plug ins)

I'm not sure how sensor footprint and sensitivity values would create "busy work"?
It just means that there are you have clear rules that describe when ships can see each other creating the possibility to install stuff which lets you see enemies sooner and hides you from them longer.

I don't mind that so much but with that suggestion comes suggestions of active scanning ie you actively selecting where to scan.

So installing different reactors is also just a limitation that doesn't really add anything interesting to the game and we should just do away with this energy limit thing?

Adding different reactors isn't a limitation because with new reactors you can install new things and use new fuel types.
If you could give me some uses for your heat system I would consider it but as is it is just another thing to keep track of that doesn't allow me to do anything.

It's all about creating more variations and options. Yes you could have 10 weapons firing at once. But only for a second or two before your heat is through the roof, your capacitors empty and you have to really really hope you managed to get them all or you are in deep trouble. And to install all these weapons in the first place you need to have a ship in the super dreadnought size range. Which has it's own disadvantages, large mass, relatively slow, uses a large amount of fuel (costs money), you needed to use huge turrets to fit these large weapons which have a slow tracking speed, so you have trouble targeting quick opponents...

I think this shows the problem with your thinking. You are assuming all of them and you don't really know how each one will effect the game. Systems should complement each other I agree but making the game so dependent on all these systems isn't good for balance. If something needs to be changed that will throw the whole game off. If something will be added at a later time then all you have is a bad game for the time being. Please make threads to talk about your ideas on there own without this huge mess of things weighing it down.

The underlying reason for pretty much all these ideas is to create more variation, taking away the linear "c is better then b is better then a, so always get c if you can", and instead giving items more dimensions, requiring decisions about what trade-offs you want to make. Taking away the "use this, this and this and you always have the best ship for all situations", instead you put together a ship like this, and it's good for one thing. Put a ship together like that and it's good for another situations. No "one size fits all".

Well yes that is a good thing and I would like systems that do that in a positive manner. I think what you don't realize is that some of your systems will have the "laser +1" problem. Basically you cause all the weapons to become one mass of sameness with the adapters due to the different weapons will not act any differently.


But I must say this again. I don't mind if you flood the forum. This kind of discussion isn't good for your ideas as I can not address them fairly. (you can see that I liked some of your ideas but you seem to insist on lumping them with ideas I don't like)
Please make thread for ideas that you feel should be game systems.

[FAD]

Actually, a turret mount (itself) doesn't sound like a bad idea at all. Make all weapons straight shooters--remove the omnidirectional="true" tag from them and if you want omni, you'll need to get a turret mount installed. Of course that would take up an additional device slot and possibly use more energy, but the idea in general does sound practical.
As for weapon stacking?....naaah!

[Betelgeuse]

I don't think turrets making everyone omni or whatever you want would be a good idea but a variation on that mights work.

A build your own weapon system could be interesting. You put together certain parts and try for certain combinations. With enough parts needed you could get alot of variation. If this system was put in though it would mean throwing out the old weapons due to the fact why use a pre built weapon when you can get something that does exactly what you want.

But even with that system you have the problem of always getting about what you want and that is my main concern with the turrets idea in the first place so I don't know.

[digdug]

A build your own weapon system could be interesting. You put together certain parts and try for certain combinations. With enough parts needed you could get alot of variation. If this system was put in though it would mean throwing out the old weapons due to the fact why use a pre built weapon when you can get something that does exactly what you want.

I would really love to see something like that.
Would item data be sufficient to create a working "build your own weapon system" ?

[Periculi]

I think it would, Digdug. I have gotten various devices to work with plug ins already, and item data manipulation would open the doors for a lot more interesting combination effects and other little necessary bits.

Of course, preferable to just data would be to open the weapons and other items up to scripting changes to the basic values. If you could alter the base damage and damage type of a weapon, or switch it from standard to omni or variable arc (turret style), or any of the other data in the items then we could go crazy making set effects and other combinatorial results.

[F50]

I deeply resent the IM90. Dual and omni variants are ok, but tripleomni? I would prefer not. If there is a tripleomni weapon available, it shouldn't have straight-firing or single-omni variants.