Brainstorm This Adding some excitement to combat - Small Ships - DOT Weapons - Hacking and more!

[Benevolent27]

I mean, I guess you could look at it that way, but some sort of arcade like challenge seems pretty uninteresting.

I can see your point. That's why I am encouraging people to give their own ideas on the matter. I just gave some examples as possibilities. I have seen mini-games in other games before to serve as a "challenge" and for some of them I really like them, while for others they seemed hokey. The reason I am leaning more toward a mini-game is because I think a hack should not be super fast, so you gotta keep the person busy while the hack is in progress. A simple wait time would, I think be too easy. So what is the proper way to add a challenge and skill to the process? I'm still not entirely sure, to be honest, but if it could be figured out, I think hacking would add an interesting element to gameplay.

 

[Markus_McCloud]

Heck, I'd release the arcade game as a separate app (titled StarCade: A StarMade Retraux Arcade). I know I'd download it. :D

 

[Awdred]

1: That's a cool idea.

2: Well, it could work, but I don't think I want this.

3: That'd be useful and fun.

4: Great idea there.

5: It could be fun, but thirty seconds could demolish a fighter. Perhaps shorter, or a sort of "cyber-defense" that could both make it harder to hack you and decrease the effect.

6: YAS! This would be awesome.

 

[Benevolent27]

1: That's a cool idea.

2: Well, it could work, but I don't think I want this.

3: That'd be useful and fun.

4: Great idea there.

5: It could be fun, but thirty seconds could demolish a fighter. Perhaps shorter, or a sort of "cyber-defense" that could both make it harder to hack you and decrease the effect.

6: YAS! This would be awesome.

Haha, thank you for taking the time to read my post. I'm glad you agree with many of my suggestions!

2: Not to demand agreement on all things or anything, but.. Why no flare guns?! lol. I know I am throwing a lot of things on the wall to see what sticks, but I think it'd be fun to be hanging on the seat of my pants, my radar jammer has been disrupted, and I am on the verge of destruction in my little fighter plane when I shoot that flare out and survive an onslaught of missiles. I know the idea is not perfect, because it does share some of the same role of a radar jammer, though it would also work against heat seekers. It would also allow a player to direct the enemy's fire. Imagine shooting a flare at another enemy ship, and timing it just right so a bunch of lock-on missiles actually hit your enemy's ally. I'm curious to know, what is it about the flare gun idea you don't like?

5: For hacking, I agree that the idea could use some work. I, personally, have mixed feelings about the idea I presented, but I am all for adding dimensions to combat, broadening the roles players can have in war. Though I do not think it would be easy at all to hack a smaller fighter. You'd have to get pretty close to it and all the fighter would have to do is move away to break the link. This is part of the balance of hacking I propose. I think a larger ship would need to actually counter-hack, whereas a smaller ship would just want to move out of range.

 

[wanzer]

mby an idea

aside the present remote logic blocks add a set of broadcasting and receiving crystals that you can connect to logics

the difference is that anyone close enough can trigger them rather then just have 2 blocks connected

the upside for this is that you can send a barcode msg on one of the frequencies (for the logic gurus) and make stations ships and gates listen and reaction on these codes

the down side is that other players can attempt to hack/crack the codes being send and use it to get excess to the station,ship,gates in less desirable ways

these are just a few examples of how data can be used and abused *within the games rules ofc*

 

[Benevolent27]

mby an idea

aside the present remote logic blocks add a set of broadcasting and receiving crystals that you can connect to logics

the difference is that anyone close enough can trigger them rather then just have 2 blocks connected

the upside for this is that you can send a barcode msg on one of the frequencies (for the logic gurus) and make stations ships and gates listen and reaction on these codes

the down side is that other players can attempt to hack/crack the codes being send and use it to get excess to the station,ship,gates in less desirable ways

these are just a few examples of how data can be used and abused *within the games rules ofc*

Hmm... That is an interesting concept.. intercepting and decoding signals. Though I'm not sure how practical this would be. It does seem to sort of add a logic to hacking though. Hmm.. I will need to think on this.

 

[wanzer]

Hmm... That is an interesting concept.. intercepting and decoding signals. Though I'm not sure how practical this would be. It does seem to sort of add a logic to hacking though. Hmm.. I will need to think on this.

the practical side comes from the fact that one broadcaster can communicate with more then 1 receiver
its also a good thing to have these broadcasting crystals not broadcasting over a distance bigger then 1 sector

 

[whooplaah]

I like the matrix hacking mini-game. I'd be fine with it being a 2d maze, rather than a 3d one. Something like a mini-map exploration maze.

I also like the idea of designing the maze for your ship. If someone steals your ship, you can easily hack the systems because you designed it.

I think the DoT should be an effect module rather than a weapon unto itself. This way the same module can be used in conjunction with rapid-fire, explosions, shotguns, and etc. And you can do buff over time too with power supply and energy supply weapons. It could be used by itself as a passive DoT countermeasure (time reduction, for example).

I don't think that rapid succession of hits should just extend the length of the debuff. Each hit has its own counter for X seconds, so the longest the debuff will last is X seconds. Each stack of debuff wears off as its own counter expires. Shields don't regen while they are being hit, so there is not reason to have the debuff extend into infinity. I don't recall if energy behaves the same way, but it should.

 

[Benevolent27]

the practical side comes from the fact that one broadcaster can communicate with more then 1 receiver
its also a good thing to have these broadcasting crystals not broadcasting over a distance bigger then 1 sector

I'm just not sure what they would need to be broadcasting that would be so important. Perhaps it would be a necessary part of fleet controls. This would be the IN for the hacker. They would need to break down the firewall, decode the signals, and then they could issue commands to certain ships or sabotage systems. I think "counter-hacking" for this sort of system would be where people could remodulate their signals, reboot their firewalls, etc., but it would take time. If they act fast enough, they may be able to block the hacker. If they are somewhat fast, but not fast enough, then the hacker might be able to do a few things.. If they are completely negligent in defending against the hack, then the hacker may be able to do significant damage. However, how do we balance this? Perhaps there would need to be new types of hacking equipment for ships, which are expensive. The larger the arrays, the better the hacker can hack. I do not think it should be 1 sector range though, I think it should work by how far away a person is to a ship. Again, I believe hacking would cripple smaller ships if it isn't distance based. A smaller ship should be able to simply move away instead of having to worry about a counter hack, that would likely fail.
[DOUBLEPOST=1458879695,1458878748][/DOUBLEPOST]

I like the matrix hacking mini-game. I'd be fine with it being a 2d maze, rather than a 3d one. Something like a mini-map exploration maze.

I also like the idea of designing the maze for your ship. If someone steals your ship, you can easily hack the systems because you designed it.

That seems really interesting! Though perhaps they could be "security codes" or something like that. I'm still somewhat torn about the idea of a mini-game, because it may very well come across as wonky. Or maybe it would add to the kind of derpy appeal that StarMade has (which I actually like).

I think the DoT should be an effect module rather than a weapon unto itself. This way the same module can be used in conjunction with rapid-fire, explosions, shotguns, and etc. And you can do buff over time too with power supply and energy supply weapons. It could be used by itself as a passive DoT countermeasure (time reduction, for example).

I don't think that rapid succession of hits should just extend the length of the debuff. Each hit has its own counter for X seconds, so the longest the debuff will last is X seconds. Each stack of debuff wears off as its own counter expires. Shields don't regen while they are being hit, so there is not reason to have the debuff extend into infinity. I don't recall if energy behaves the same way, but it should.

I think there are different pros and cons to what I describe and what you describe. However I believe the amount of weapons we currently have is a bit limited, even if there are a lot of different combinations available. I believe DoT weapons can and should look a lot different than cannons, missiles, beams, or damage pulse. For example, how would an "acid cloud" be implemented to cannons or a damage pulse? Wouldn't it be interesting to see acid clouds flying out of your ship? Or a new type of crackling shield disruptor? I think the game needs some more graphical variety in the weapons and also in how they target. For example, perhaps the disruptors may "bend" a little toward ships, but are not completely heat seeking either. If they miss, then they keep going till they expire or get close to another entity and then "bend" toward it.

Also, did you see the section I created somewhat recently about "Charge-Up Modules"? It would basically be adding a new tertiary module to each weapon type, that is similar to what you suggest here for DoT weapons.

For the implementation of DoT weapons, the reason I suggest that the ones which have more system-wide effects to stack up to a certain degree and then that level can be maintained, so long as it is "refreshed," is because I want to encourage people to switch between different weapons. Rather than just firing a shield disruptor all day, they fire the shield disruptor to the max effect, then shoot missiles, cannons, etc., and have to toggle back and forth. The better they are at timing things, the better the weapon combos work. I am trying to reward skill based combat, rather than weapon spam.

Now, about shields, they do generate while under fire. They have an "under fire" rate, which is currently 25% of their normal regen rate. After 60 seconds of being out of combat, they go back to their normal rates, which is actually based on the % of shields you currently have (hence why you see it blip up really fast after getting to around 90% of shield capacity). Shields will, however, stop generating for 10 seconds if they get down to 0. For power, there is a pause when weapons fire or a longer pause when 0 energy is reached or a weapon is attempted to be fired without enough energy.

 

[HellishEnt]

If nothing else I would at least like the combat scanner, that would be incredibly cool!

 

[Awdred]

Haha, thank you for taking the time to read my post. I'm glad you agree with many of my suggestions!

2: Not to demand agreement on all things or anything, but.. Why no flare guns?! lol. I know I am throwing a lot of things on the wall to see what sticks, but I think it'd be fun to be hanging on the seat of my pants, my radar jammer has been disrupted, and I am on the verge of destruction in my little fighter plane when I shoot that flare out and survive an onslaught of missiles. I know the idea is not perfect, because it does share some of the same role of a radar jammer, though it would also work against heat seekers. It would also allow a player to direct the enemy's fire. Imagine shooting a flare at another enemy ship, and timing it just right so a bunch of lock-on missiles actually hit your enemy's ally. I'm curious to know, what is it about the flare gun idea you don't like?

5: For hacking, I agree that the idea could use some work. I, personally, have mixed feelings about the idea I presented, but I am all for adding dimensions to combat, broadening the roles players can have in war. Though I do not think it would be easy at all to hack a smaller fighter. You'd have to get pretty close to it and all the fighter would have to do is move away to break the link. This is part of the balance of hacking I propose. I think a larger ship would need to actually counter-hack, whereas a smaller ship would just want to move out of range.

I'm pretty sure this thread is dead now, but I wanted to respond. The reason I was opposed to the flare gun was because I felt like it was too powerful. The ability to survive an attack that should demolish your ship just felt wrong. Now, I do like the idea and all, but it needs to be balanced.

First off, the parts should be expensive, at least as much as normal weapons. Second, I'd give them a long reload/recharge time so you could continuously block every attack. Third, maybe give you a limited number of them, and you have to resupply the gun with them if you run out.

Also, I completely agree with both of those ideas for hacking.

 

[Benevolent27]

I'm pretty sure this thread is dead now, but I wanted to respond. The reason I was opposed to the flare gun was because I felt like it was too powerful. The ability to survive an attack that should demolish your ship just felt wrong. Now, I do like the idea and all, but it needs to be balanced.

First off, the parts should be expensive, at least as much as normal weapons. Second, I'd give them a long reload/recharge time so you could continuously block every attack. Third, maybe give you a limited number of them, and you have to resupply the gun with them if you run out.

Also, I completely agree with both of those ideas for hacking.

Well, it's not dead so long as folks still want to respond.

I agree that flares should not have an instant cooldown time. I'm thinking it should be like 1 minute per flare. I also like the idea of them using an ammo of some kind too. Perhaps one of the ingredients of the ammo would be ship cores.

 

[Awdred]

Well, it's not dead so long as folks still want to respond.

I agree that flares should not have an instant cooldown time. I'm thinking it should be like 1 minute per flare. I also like the idea of them using an ammo of some kind too. Perhaps one of the ingredients of the ammo would be ship cores.

Now that would be interesting. Ship core, light rod and some composites?

EDIT: Do you mind if I incorporate the flare idea into a suggestion of my own? I'd credit you since I got the idea from you.

 

[Benevolent27]

Now that would be interesting. Ship core, light rod and some composites?

EDIT: Do you mind if I incorporate the flare idea into a suggestion of my own? I'd credit you since I got the idea from you.

Sure, why not? Parts of my idea here have been modified based on the suggestions of people responding. If you'd like, post a reply with a link to it here when you're done.

 

[mo05mAn]

the problem with the same spot bonus is if a ship's turrets also target the same spot over and over again, technically it is a small 'ship'. So how do you prevent a capital ship from covering itself in small turrets that target the same spot? maybe some way of detecting the mass of the ships it's connected to...

Lecic, recently suggested a PD weapon and I expanded upon it as a countermeasures effect, but I was ignored... meh

(cries inside)​

DOT might be better as a effect rather than a weapon, but other than that I like it. Some ideas myself;

Chemical effect, will cause DOT to any object that enters its acid cloud that remains at the target point for a minute or two.
Biological effect, will cause DOT to any nearby object around the point of targeting, sticking to objects as bio-engineered microbes eat away at the object, but die due to environmental conditions (can't survive for long in a vacuum).​

Combat scanner I think will just be added to the ship's HUD

Hacking I also like, would be FUN to sneak up to an enemy capital ship in a perma cloaked ship and hack it as if it was the matrix! I do have some hacking ideas;

Back hacking, the pilot has the ability to back hack the hacker, but this tends to be time consuming as he has to search for the hacked point. For minor things it would be better just to wait for the hack to wear off. If you spot it in time, the pilot can preemptively stop a hack but that a big IF. The larger the ship the more systems the computer has to monitor vis it is much harder for a capital ship then it is for a corvette to detect, stop, and reverse a hack.
logic system disruption, temporarily freezes logic systems as they are
command system disruption, the pilot's HUD disappears, commands can still be given thou, but things like energy and shield lvls are gone.
turret motor disruption, turrets can't move for a short while, great with a properly timed flanking maneuvers
User change (for hijacking), a more direct means to ejecting a player from the ship, note: he will be forced out, faster then you can leave the hacking screen so it's best used with a buddy. However it's also the second hardest and the most time consuming thing to hack! the pilot will be locked out for a minute too.
Mainframe, you can hack the mainframe itself, cut out the middle man and take control of the ship from your access point but it's the absolute hardest thing to hack! Can only be done while in astronaut mode and leave you exposed in the open, even if you succeed. If you fail at this, any feedback will most likely kill you! If you managed to succeed however, a few things will happen at once; the pilot will immediately be alerted to the take over, along with losing control of the ship to the hacker! Not only do you take control but factions will flip too! So the turrets, linked fighters and bombers, ect. will change targets to match the hacker's faction. If the hacker is killed or back hacked both the control and factions will flip back to normal.​

DOT should be a effect. I think DOT should not allow smaller ships to destroy a titan by pounding on it for 30 minutes. if a fleet of smaller ships can't seem to take out the shields of a titan by itself, then it should never be able to. DOT should allow a fleet of fighters that can make a dent in a titan's shields do it faster. It's like taking on a tank with pistols. It's not going to work. You should not be able to nerf the tanks. you should make it so the pistols have to use skill and strategy to get into the tank and destroy the tank.

 

[Nickizzy]

DOT should be a effect. I think DOT should not allow smaller ships to destroy a titan by pounding on it for 30 minutes. if a fleet of smaller ships can't seem to take out the shields of a titan by itself, then it should never be able to. DOT should allow a fleet of fighters that can make a dent in a titan's shields do it faster. It's like taking on a tank with pistols. It's not going to work. You should not be able to nerf the tanks. you should make it so the pistols have to use skill and strategy to get into the tank and destroy the tank.

It's like hitting the same spot again and again constantly, slowly weakening the armor. Eventually you'll get through. It's the idea of creating a weak spot in the shield.

 

[mo05mAn]

It's like hitting the same spot again and again constantly, slowly weakening the armor. Eventually you'll get through. It's the idea of creating a weak spot in the shield.

so would it be only that one spot that is weekend? If so, I think if that spot stops getting hit, the shield integrity of that should regenerate over time.

 

[ZektorSK]

 

[whooplaah]

Here is another idea for big/little ship balance. What if electronic modules exploded when destroyed?

Think about how you design your ships. Game mechanics encourage larger clusters of connected modules. Now imagine that one of the modules is hit by blaster fire and has a 50% chance of exploding and damaging the modules next to it which also have a 50% chance of exploding. Chain reaction, right?

Now think about how this would affect a titan, and then how it would affect a fighter.

Large groups of modules make your cannons faster and stronger, but they also present a weak spot in your ship's design. If a fighter can pierce your hull and shields and cause enough damage to your cannon modules then boom, a one-time large loss of hp, and as soon as the modules are exposed through hull, they become a much more inviting target.

This would encourage large ship designs to separate their mega-clusters of modules (minimizing benefit), and invest more in anti-pierce effect hull placement (more mass per module). It would encourage pilots to focus fire on particular areas. Large ships would now have a weakness that scales with the size of the ship, which balances the benefits of larger guns.

I assume that George Lucas had something like this in mind when he designed the Death Star.

 

[Malacodor]

Chain reaction, right?

...and lag.

It would encourage pilots to focus fire on particular areas.

It would also encourage and reward the use of x-ray hacks to find those particular areas.

Large ships would now have a weakness that scales with the size of the ship

Because shitty maneuverability, the power soft-cap and vulnerable docked reactors aren't weaknesses?