New Health System Idea (to make it work)

[Blaza612]

Spoiler: Overcomplicated bollocks

I have been thinking of how we could possibly do the new health system, and I have had a couple of ideas. I'll start with the simplest:

Make the core indestructible until the majority of necessary systems are destroyed. This seems way to simple to be viable, but it seems like it could still work really well.

Creating a new ship simply places an entity (with its entire existence being a single block), and in order to fly it, you would have to place a cockpit somewhere in the ship. However, when you create the ship, you could also choose a kind of skeleton from a selection of prebuilt skeletons, which of course can be added onto.

The other idea, is making every part of the ship, rely on eachother. Think of it as a cell (bio, not an excel cell :p) where the core is the nucleus, it simply handles all of the systems, and ties them together automatically, and if one system is destroyed (a crucial one, if a gun is destroyed the ship wont die) then the ship is effectively destroyed, this would put emphasis on destroying the systems rather than going for the core, but you can also tie them together, manually. Binding two different keys to do a special kind of selection, will allow players to connect all of the systems up properly, you won't be screwed over if the core is destroyed. The only problem I see with this so far, is that the only truly necessary system is power, that is the only one that would realistically consider a ship, dead. The core itself, would only be necessary for building the actual ship, as the cockpits could be used to fly the ship.

EDIT: Ignore all of this, I've been badly overcomplicating this entire thing, scroll down to whooplaah's explanation for how it should actually be. :P

 

[Ithirahad]

I would recommend that you wait and see how the system is initially implemented before trying to suggest ways to change it... Also, these ideas seem kind of... strange. I agree that we should have a cockpit/chair block to fly ships, but the other stuff seems a little weird and largely unnecessary. If system disabling becomes a thing, it should just disable that system. Say, 50% of thruster blocks are destroyed -> thrust system is disabled until repaired with an AstroTechnobeam. I don't really see destroying a single system destroying the entire ship. (Wat?)

 

[ResonKinetic]

remov corebab

 

[Ithirahad]

remov corebab

Schemaball and all the other Schineballs seem to be doing this sort of thing as we speak...

 

[ResonKinetic]

Schemaball and all the other Schineballs seem to be doing this sort of thing as we speak...

THERE IS A GOD

 

[Ithirahad]

...Only thing is, we don't know how far they're gonna go. The core is no longer the center of mass and rotation, and the new HP system will make core-drilling no longer the only meaningful tactic in combat, but beyond that we have no idea what's gonna happen.

 

[Yrjosmiel]

this just sounded a little like robocraft.

 

[Ithirahad]

this just sounded a little like robocraft.

Yeah, Robocraft's damage/death system is good, IMO. Only thing is, here, instead of "Electroplates," we have shields and can also perhaps have some form of second shield based on armour amount - basically structural integrity. People seem highly opposed to the latter concept, but IDK why... If anything, shields should work differently and that sort of functionality (on a smaller scale) should be given to armour.

 

[Yrjosmiel]

Like nearly everyone has suggested before, I think that the shields should be like defending an entire region. Like, other entities can take cover in that area of a ship. But, in my twist, think that this should be another shield type.

I'd call it bubble shield.

 

[Lecic]

Make the core indestructible until the majority of necessary systems are destroyed. This seems way to simple to be viable, but it seems like it could still work really well.

I don't really like any of these suggestions, but I especially don't like this one. The entire point of the HP system is to make combat NOT core-centric, and yet this continues that.

Like nearly everyone has suggested before, I think that the shields should be like defending an entire region. Like, other entities can take cover in that area of a ship. But, in my twist, think that this should be another shield type.

I'd call it bubble shield.

Hey, did you know you can do this already? Use forcefields or glass doors to make an extended shield that can protect other entities and can be turned on and off as you need to. Note that it will still protect from cannon and beams while off, though missiles will fly through when turned off.

 

[Yrjosmiel]

Hey, did you know you can do this already? Use forcefields or glass doors to make an extended shield that can protect other entities and can be turned on and off as you need to. Note that it will still protect from cannon and beams while off, though missiles will fly through when turned off.

that's dope

 

[Blaza612]

I would recommend that you wait and see how the system is initially implemented before trying to suggest ways to change it... Also, these ideas seem kind of... strange. I agree that we should have a cockpit/chair block to fly ships, but the other stuff seems a little weird and largely unnecessary. If system disabling becomes a thing, it should just disable that system. Say, 50% of thruster blocks are destroyed -> thrust system is disabled until repaired with an AstroTechnobeam. I don't really see destroying a single system destroying the entire ship. (Wat?)

Of course these sound strange, they sound ridiculously odd to me as well, but that's simply because of the fact that we're used to the core system so much. I'm not thinking of ways to change, I'm thinking of ways to implement it in the first place, not sure why though. :P
About the ship systems, I'm torn on that, and it's for the very reason you said. If it were implemented, it would have to be something important that actually makes sense, such as power, but that's only one important system, meaning that this matter of system destruction couldn't work unless say life support was added.

I don't really like any of these suggestions, but I especially don't like this one. The entire point of the HP system is to make combat NOT core-centric, and yet this continues that.

It does still make it core-centric, but this was simply something for those who don't want the system to change too much, it's my least favorite, but I'm attempting to cater to everyone here. On a side note, at least say why you hate the other ideas, an opinion spouted out is useless unless backed up by reasoning. :P

 

[Lecic]

It does still make it core-centric, but this was simply something for those who don't want the system to change too much, it's my least favorite, but I'm attempting to cater to everyone here. On a side note, at least say why you hate the other ideas, an opinion spouted out is useless unless backed up by reasoning. :p

Alright then.

Creating a new ship simply places an entity (with its entire existence being a single block), and in order to fly it, you would have to place a cockpit somewhere in the ship. However, when you create the ship, you could also choose a kind of skeleton from a selection of prebuilt skeletons, which of course can be added onto.

First part of this is a pointless nerf to very small speeder vessels. An additional cockpit should not be required to pilot something. The core should be able to function as a cockpit. The second part of this makes no sense. What does this pre-built skeleton do? How does it relate to the first part of this?

The other idea, is making every part of the ship, rely on eachother. Think of it as a cell (bio, not an excel cell :p) where the core is the nucleus, it simply handles all of the systems, and ties them together automatically, and if one system is destroyed (a crucial one, if a gun is destroyed the ship wont die) then the ship is effectively destroyed, this would put emphasis on destroying the systems rather than going for the core, but you can also tie them together, manually. Binding two different keys to do a special kind of selection, will allow players to connect all of the systems up properly, you won't be screwed over if the core is destroyed. The only problem I see with this so far, is that the only truly necessary system is power, that is the only one that would realistically consider a ship, dead. The core itself, would only be necessary for building the actual ship, as the cockpits could be used to fly the ship.

Destroying a single system should not destroy the entire ship. This makes no sense from a realistic or gameplay perspective.

 

[PizzaPress]

I think losing the blocks, and thus effectiveness, is a good enough disabling. I personally don't want potshots causing massive trouble, and a smaller ship also can't pack as much in and protect it at the same time, especially if you're making the systems around the ship and not the other way around.(which is another reason why I would like computers to have more HP and cost less...)
Note: not referring to HP system. Talking about systems like lose 50% of thrusters = thrust down.

 

[whooplaah]

I'm looking forward to the HP update, partly because I haven't read any official word on how it will be implemented. If it were up to me, and I'm just speculating here:

Assume:
1 hull = 100 hp
1 computer = 75 hp
1 weapon module = 25 hp
1 core = 1,000 hp

I build a ship with:
20 hull (2,000 hp) + 2 computer (150 hp) + 50 weapon module (1,250 hp) + 1 core (1,000 hp) = 4,400 hp for a ship that is 73 blocks

A ship is considered 'dead' when below 30% hp, in this case at 1,320 hp or less. So the HP that the ship looses to get to the dead state may be anything. Shooting out the core would be a large chunk of the HP, targeting the hull would take the HP out fastest, but taking out weapon systems would both damage HP and cripple offense. Loosing any one component is not enough. In the end, the pilot doesn't die just because I shot the core or the cockpit, but because I blew up 70% of the ship they were in.

This type of approach would make hull more meaningful, it would keep coring as a legitimate strategy (especially against small ships) but not let coring decide the battle (except against really small ships), and because 70% of the ship has to be blown away before it's dead there is much less left to salvage. The assailant has to decide whether to blow up the shield blocks during the fight or leave them so they can be salvaged afterward.

The one downside to this approach is that there is no computer for thrusters. If I have to blow up 70% of a ship, I'm probably going to take out one or two weapon computers. A ship with no weapon computers can't fight and will retreat/dodge/jump.

If the game later added in blocks like the cockpit, they might function like a core. A cockpit is a vital component, so it has a high HP value. It's good for boosting HP on small ships, but if it gets blown up then it takes a large chunk of HP with it.


Other fun ideas:

1) If the core/cockpit that the player is currently in gets blown up then the player gets dumped into the ship as an astronaut. They have to walk through the ship, while under fire, until they get to another cockpit/core block that will allow them to fly the ship. That's if they don't get lasered in the process.

2) Blocks have a % chance to explode when destroyed. Some blocks (like hull) are less volatile while others (like power reactors) are more volatile. If one block gets lasered and is destroyed it might cause an explosion. That explosion deals damage to the 6 neighbor blocks which, if destroyed, might also explode. The process continues. This makes it so that volatile blocks (power reactors, shield blocks, computers) should be well insulated. If they are built close together they are more efficient but also more vulnerable. A ship with a lot of HP could be taken out quickly if a nexus of volatile components is targeted (just like the Death Star).

 

[ne3zy]

I'm looking forward to the HP update, partly because I haven't read any official word on how it will be implemented. If it were up to me, and I'm just speculating here:

Assume:
1 hull = 100 hp
1 computer = 75 hp
1 weapon module = 25 hp
1 core = 1,000 hp

I build a ship with:
20 hull (2,000 hp) + 2 computer (150 hp) + 50 weapon module (1,250 hp) + 1 core (1,000 hp) = 4,400 hp for a ship that is 73 blocks

A ship is considered 'dead' when below 30% hp, in this case at 1,320 hp or less. So the HP that the ship looses to get to the dead state may be anything. Shooting out the core would be a large chunk of the HP, targeting the hull would take the HP out fastest, but taking out weapon systems would both damage HP and cripple offense. Loosing any one component is not enough. In the end, the pilot doesn't die just because I shot the core or the cockpit, but because I blew up 70% of the ship they were in.

This type of approach would make hull more meaningful, it would keep coring as a legitimate strategy (especially against small ships) but not let coring decide the battle (except against really small ships), and because 70% of the ship has to be blown away before it's dead there is much less left to salvage. The assailant has to decide whether to blow up the shield blocks during the fight or leave them so they can be salvaged afterward.

The one downside to this approach is that there is no computer for thrusters. If I have to blow up 70% of a ship, I'm probably going to take out one or two weapon computers. A ship with no weapon computers can't fight and will retreat/dodge/jump.

If the game later added in blocks like the cockpit, they might function like a core. A cockpit is a vital component, so it has a high HP value. It's good for boosting HP on small ships, but if it gets blown up then it takes a large chunk of HP with it.


Other fun ideas:

1) If the core/cockpit that the player is currently in gets blown up then the player gets dumped into the ship as an astronaut. They have to walk through the ship, while under fire, until they get to another cockpit/core block that will allow them to fly the ship. That's if they don't get lasered in the process.

2) Blocks have a % chance to explode when destroyed. Some blocks (like hull) are less volatile while others (like power reactors) are more volatile. If one block gets lasered and is destroyed it might cause an explosion. That explosion deals damage to the 6 neighbor blocks which, if destroyed, might also explode. The process continues. This makes it so that volatile blocks (power reactors, shield blocks, computers) should be well insulated. If they are built close together they are more efficient but also more vulnerable. A ship with a lot of HP could be taken out quickly if a nexus of volatile components is targeted (just like the Death Star).

GOOD ONE MATE! Seriously best HP suggestion I've seen, only tweak I would make is make it so once the core is destroyed additional hits on it will damage the whole ship (so you get more damage per hit), this or make it so it damages the whole ship for % of damage per second until it's repaired..
Again good job on that proposal!! Devs should see this.

 

[godmars]

1) If the core/cockpit that the player is currently in gets blown up then the player gets dumped into the ship as an astronaut. They have to walk through the ship, while under fire, until they get to another cockpit/core block that will allow them to fly the ship. That's if they don't get lasered in the process.

I'm trying to figure out the reasoning of this. If I were standing in the bridge of a destroyer, or in the cockpit of a fighter, I would assume there wouldn't be much left of me to get up stroll over into another cockpit.

 

[Visitor]

Whooplaah - and by similarity, OPs - idea is in big part simple but decent (though values would require balancing - no way should some electronics have 75% durability of actual armor plating) even if merely a variation of similar ideas I saw in the past.

I do have a problem with some absolute percentage value that make ship dead, however. I understand logic behind it, but I don't see why a ship mostly composed of armor plating should be disabled where said armor plating is striped down, even if internal electronics is fully operational. I wouldn't mind instead if the game would keep track of internal module/computers etc HP separately and require certain percentage of that to be destroyed to disable the ship.

Though in all honesty, for destroying internal systems, I'd rather have chain reactions - as in 'should a block of internal electronics like shield generator, a module etc be destroyed, all other 'internal' blocks directly connected to it should also suffer some collateral damage (or automatic effect of very weak explosion with pierce effect could be automatically generated with the center of it being the destroyed block)' but that's somewhat separate idea.

 

[whooplaah]

I'm trying to figure out the reasoning of this. If I were standing in the bridge of a destroyer, or in the cockpit of a fighter, I would assume there wouldn't be much left of me to get up stroll over into another cockpit.

The reason I suggested this is to prevent coring. Though it seems reasonable to take a ship down just by shooting the cockpit, for a game this is too much of a weakness. What would be the point of an HP system for the ship if I can just destroy 1 block to kill the player and effectively kill the ship as well.

That's why I suggested that the core and cockpit take out a large chunk of the ship's HP instead. It is still a vital area, but loosing the bridge/core doesn't end the battle straight away. Or as ne3zy suggested, loosing the core/cockpit makes a ship take double damage - a serious disadvantage - or automatically takes out 20% of the ship's hp.

Getting dumped into space/the ship was just a thought. An alternative is that the player teleports to the next available component on the ship, rather than walking themselves (which might be a better game-play choice despite not making sense).

 

[Valiant70]

I'd say kill the pilot if the pilot is hit. If someone else is still onboard and survives, there may be a possibility that the crewman could activate an auxiliary control center or jerry-rig another control center. Losing the pilot is enough damage. I don't think there needs to be an additional debuff (doesn't make sense anyway).