Read by Council Liquid Nebula

[mindlord0013]

Yay my station was used
As for the idea itself, I do like it, but I see some problems with it being only one sector. For example, if the sectors are small then there would be a very small sphere of nebula which even medium ships might stretch all the way across.
Also, I have to agree that it would be a really good new type of system that could spawn, like wormhole-systems do currently, but could also spawn in the void (maybe??). It should not spawn stations in and any stations built inside should be completely hidden regardless if they're discovered or not, necessitating actual scouting missions inside and faction communication to assault a base inside. However maybe increased asteroid spawning inside the Shallow and Deep zones? It would make these zones highly desirable faction bases and nesessitate the defense of said zones.

I agree that small sectors would make the small size of the nebula somewhat lacking. I suppose that's just something people would have to deal with if they decide that small sector size is what they want. I think a 5k sector size would be sufficient, which could give a 3k (500m shallow x2, 750m deep x2, 500m dark) to 4k (625m shallow x2, 1k deep x2, 750m dark) total nebula size. Again, it's mostly what is feasible to implement with what I have in mind.

I acknowledge the idea of making them system sized, but I think that would somewhat reduce their greater tactical advantages and overall fun. I totally agree that stations shouldn't spawn inside them, but instead perhaps small remenants of lost civilisations or ancient explorers. I hesitate to call the spawning of rocky objects within nebula 'asteroids', because they are not strictly so. Fistly they are always immobile, unlike asteroids. And they could also have some unique blocks such as plant life, though they would still possess ore.

 

[Megacrafter127]

You need different damage per block values for differently shielded ships. The totalDamage per mass-unit should stay roughly the same.
Perhaps some effect could increase shield resistance to give specialised ships an advantage (regenerating more than losing).


Why? If you count surface area, cubes are far superior. which post's math did you take to say that?

Sorry, my brain decided to stop working altogether due to overheating. An octahedron has the 6th of the volume of the cube it fits into.
(and yes, my brain also exchanged hexahedron and octahedron)
On another funny note, if a cube was damaged using my suggestion, it would be turned into a smaller octahedron, which then is further destroyed, but will remain and octahedron.
However, your suggestion of dividing by mass will favor cubes even more. Why? Provided the bb remains the same, the total damage potential, a.k.a the surface area of the bb, also remains constant. But if you divide the damage per block by the entity's mass, putting in as many blocks as possible reduces the damage as much as possible, favoring cubes even more.
You would need to multiply by mass to counteract that.

On another note, I think the idea was, that this pressure damage ignored shields? correct me on that mindlord0013

 

[NeonSturm]

Then look at the mass and use a fair multiplier in (blockDamage = hitBlocks / mass * mult) to make it always the same or scale with mass.

EDIT: shifted my above formula in a way that mult is solo at one side of the equation mark as some people refuse to use their brain.

• mult = blockDamage * mass / hitBlocks

 

[Megacrafter127]

mult = blockDamage * mass / hitBlocks

I can certify you both equasions are equal, but as long as I didn't mistook one of the variables for something it isn't, I still fail to see how this would not encourage cubes, provided the bb has to be constant.
So to clear out any misunderstanding, that may have occurred, I shall list how I interpreted each variable:

• mult…a constant multiplier, likely defined in a config
• blockDamage…the damage dealt to a single block of the entity
  
• mass…the mass of the entity
• hitBlocks…the amount of blocks, which are damaged, and placed on the affected entity

 

[NeonSturm]

mult…a constant multiplier, likely defined in a config

Mult = a value per entity, depending on

• mult = default blockDamage * (mass / hitBlocks)

Since Cubes have less hitBlocks:

1. the hitBlocks divisor would be lower =>
2. the multiplier for blockDamage would be higher =>
3. mult would be higher

I also confused a bit. Mult should be a divisor, not a multiplier.
(I said mult, because mult it what a just-fixed-per-block-damage does to non-cubic ships)

• div = default blockDamage * (mass / hitBlocks)
• The damage of hitBlocks is divided (for hull)
  
• The totalDamage depends solely on mass (for shields)

 

[Megacrafter127]

Mult = a value per entity

Now it makes sense.

 

[jayman38]

I think this idea would need to be released alongside "atmosphere generators" or whatever comes about to give us atmosphere.

Reason: Due to all the variable ways builders can build ship interiors or exposed alcoves, there's no easy way to determine interior versus exterior. This is something that the dev team has pointed out on most ship-atmosphere suggestion threads. "Atmosphere generators" or something like that will allow true ship interiors to be adequately protected from nebula/gas giant/submersion effects without forcing everybody to flood their ship interiors with area effect blocks.

 

[Keptick]

It might be easier to have nebula systems, so each layer could have it's own sectors with different effects. Fun things I can think of here are miniature suns, electro-magnetic storms, hidden pirate bases, etc... all within their own sectors. Basically high-risk high-reward. Perhaps by having very big asteroids spawn in there, or some other cool stuff.

HOLY SHIET THE POTENTIAL! I love the idea, +1

Edit: I dislike the idea of constant damage. It adds unnecessary coding complication and isn't really nice from a "fun" point of view (all the other hazards should be enough). Something like a constant shield drain would be nice, though. Or something that disrupts shield regen (so you still have shields but they can't regenerate, so staying for extensive periods of time would be risky, especially if you drain your buffer against pirates).

 

[NeonSturm]

Edit: I dislike the idea of constant damage. It adds unnecessary coding complication and isn't really nice from a "fun" point of view (all the other hazards should be enough). Something like a constant shield drain would be nice, though. Or something that disrupts shield regen (so you still have shields but they can't regenerate, so staying for extensive periods of time would be risky, especially if you drain your buffer against pirates).

But the constant-damage thing could apply once shields are brought down (by enemy weapons) or if you enter a sun.

 

[Keptick]

But the constant-damage thing could apply once shields are brought down (by enemy weapons) or if you enter a sun.

I still don't think that I'd be a nice gameplay element, not to mention that it might not even be feasible coding-wise :P

That might change with the HP system, but for now I say no. Does your swimsuit take damage when you're in a pool? No. I don't see why that should occur with advanced spaceship armor and the liquid nebula environment either. There's also the fact that it would also degrade any pirate station or entity located inside, which wouldn't make much sense gameplay-wise.

Of course, there could probably be special tornado sectors or whatever that damage ships, but that's entirely optional.

With that being said, how does no jump-drives while inside the dark nebula sound? Extreme risk, extreme reward, extreme fun :D. We could even have special boss entities spawn in there.

 

[jayman38]

I thought this would be appropriate to explain ship damage during deep dives.

 

[mindlord0013]

I thought I would explain some of the reasoning as to why I thought having Liquid Nebula as sector types instead of a system type. First things first, I took a fair amount of creative license with the term "Liquid Nebula". Real life nebula can be very big, and are defined as 'interstellar collections of dust and ionized gas'. The Liquid Nebula I imagined would be a way to have aquatic planets in a way that adds some variety to gameplay. You could find them in a veriety of different ways in the galaxy. They could be found in small clumps, or orbiting a sun like a planet.

Having them as planet sized would be beneficial for strategy, especially for small-medium sized ships (ships up to 500m in size). Small to medium sized ships could use a Liquid Nebula to shake off a pursuer. Assuming identical max speed and acceleration, a ship entering a planet-sized Liquid Nebula has a fair chance of shaking off an attacker. Like I have said before, a ships inside a Liquid Nebula have lowered max speed, different acceleration curves, and increased dampening, and ships within a Dark Nebula zone are more or less undetectable from those outside the surface of the nebula. For the sake of balancing, let's say that you can't use a Jump Drive from inside the Dark or Deep Nebula zones (but you could build a warp gate inside those zones if you want).

The chased ship is keeping a constant distance from the pursuer. Entering a Liquid Nebula, the pursued is slowed but can hide in the Deep and Dark Nebula zones. If the purseur chooses to wait outside the Liquid Nebula, the pursued can effectively put a planet's distance between them, or they can safely charge a Jump Drive in the Dark Nebula zone, and jump away once they emerge into the Shallow Zone. If the purseur chooses to follow the chased ship inside the Nebula, they risk damaging their own ship, losing the target in the poor visibility, and the pursued ship can even set an ambush.

Large ships (ships over 500m in any dimension) would benefit less from a Liquid Nebula. Ships up to 1900 metres can still effectively benefit from the Deep Nebula zone of a 3000m aquatic Liquid Nebula, assuming there aren't any asteroid-things to get in the way.

 

[PizzaPress]

A very lazy way to solve inside/outside is the max dimensions(including turrets) and say that the shields are repelling the nebula.

Dunno about when shields are down.

 

[mindlord0013]

Small bump, looking for a suggestion forum prefix.

 

[friendofvampires]

Maybe instead of block damage (which if there's no way to have a stable system i dont like it) it drains armor points? that impacts ships in a big way, is fairly easily fixable, wont destroy stations (player or AI), and is explained by stress fractures. it doesn't completely break because game

 

[mindlord0013]

Maybe instead of block damage (which if there's no way to have a stable system i dont like it) it drains armor points? that impacts ships in a big way, is fairly easily fixable, wont destroy stations (player or AI), and is explained by stress fractures. it doesn't completely break because game

I like that. I like that alot. Especially since this suggestion was made long before the HP update. Something to do with the armour HP being reduced (possible without damaging/removing blocks).

 

[SomethingSlimy]

Because it's supposed to be a nebula, I think it should span an entire system. I don't think this would reduce the fun or tactical advantages of them at all. I suppose your reasoning is that in a combat situation, it would be tougher for the evading ship to maneuver away from an enemy, but I just don't see it.

Otherwise, they should probably be called Gas Giant planets. Oooor we could have both, with multiple-system-wide nebulae being a weaker variant of this that allows for planets and stars inside!

Aside from that, I think this would be a good way to increase stellar diversity, while being more than aesthetic.

Oh, and +1 for Space Leviathans.

Question - would/should they come in different colors? Because if they're nebulae, and not gas giants, I think they should share the same colors as the procedural backgrounds.

 

[friendofvampires]

Gla

I like that. I like that alot. Especially since this suggestion was made long before the HP update. Something to do with the armour HP being reduced (possible without damaging/removing blocks).

glad you like it! :D
also, should there be a limit, like 50%, or should it drain armor to 0

 

[mindlord0013]

Gla

glad you like it! :D
also, should there be a limit, like 50%, or should it drain armor to 0

Dunno, I'll give it a bit of a think.