New "passive" AI type setting for rail ship parts - solves many problems

[Thalanor]

Current problems:
1. Turrets (and docked exposed drones) obviously should only be protected by mothership shields until shields drop below X%. Moving rail parts on ships that have pruely aesthetic / door purposes should get full shield protection, and be considered "part of the hull".
2. Docked entities do not have thruster plumes. They should have these, but at the same time that would automatically give docked ships plumes, too. There needs to be a way to differentiate.

Easy solution:
1. Add "passive" setting to the list of AI types (Ship, Turret...)
2. An entity without bobby AI is automatically considered passive except for entities that feature a rail turret dock (to automatically exclude turret bases from this)


Advantages:
- Only entities set to passive gain mothership shield protection from 100 to 0 as opposed to the usual 100 to X for all other entities like turrets
- Only entities set to passive emit thruster plumes when docked
- Entities set to passive will ALWAYS contribute their thrust to the mothership, no need to remember thrust settings (there is no reason why you would ever not want the thrust anyways)
- Entities set to passive can get their own nav filter

 

[Calhoun]

Handy for those docked parts that serve no purpose except beautification.

 

[Control]

What about allowing placement of interactive rails on a single entity? So that they need not be attached to an additional core.

IF it has a core, AI it.
IF NO core, then part of ship. (rather than separate entity)

Is that possible, or set up as is because it is not possible? Since what you're asking for seems like a work-around for a work-around.. Since it is this feature of rails and docked entities which makes your request necessary. If it didn't count them as separate entities, then shielding and any passive resistance modules would transfer to all "docked" (IE: Railed) entities. Since they're counted as docked "ships" in a way, they have their own rules... You're asking for an AI option to turn that off, I'm asking for us to be able to choose in how it's built (and avoid 1 extra block via a core on every railed feature)

I get that part of this necessity is so that a human can aim a docking beam or whatever to get it on there in the first place, which is why I question the ability to do my suggestion, and I offer it up more as a question because of that.

So why are docked entities ALL handled as turrets and ships, rather than part of the original ship, just a "moving" component? =/ *shrug*

 

[Thalanor]

What about allowing placement of interactive rails on a single entity? So that they need not be attached to an additional core.

IF it has a core, AI it.
IF NO core, then part of ship. (rather than separate entity)

Is that possible, or set up as is because it is not possible? Since what you're asking for seems like a work-around for a work-around.. Since it is this feature of rails and docked entities which makes your request necessary. If it didn't count them as separate entities, then shielding and any passive resistance modules would transfer to all "docked" (IE: Railed) entities. Since they're counted as docked "ships" in a way, they have their own rules... You're asking for an AI option to turn that off, I'm asking for us to be able to choose in how it's built (and avoid 1 extra block via a core on every railed feature)

I get that part of this necessity is so that a human can aim a docking beam or whatever to get it on there in the first place, which is why I question the ability to do my suggestion, and I offer it up more as a question because of that.

So why are docked entities ALL handled as turrets and ships, rather than part of the original ship, just a "moving" component? =/ *shrug*

A core is a necessity if it is supposed to be able to move (independently), since every entity in the game is internally represented as a nested tree-like structure with a core as it's root. That is annoying for small doors etc, but not avoidable.

 

[Benevolent27]

Current problems:
1. Turrets (and docked exposed drones) obviously should only be protected by mothership shields until shields drop below X%. Moving rail parts on ships that have pruely aesthetic / door purposes should get full shield protection, and be considered "part of the hull".
2. Docked entities do not have thruster plumes. They should have these, but at the same time that would automatically give docked ships plumes, too. There needs to be a way to differentiate.

Easy solution:
1. Add "passive" setting to the list of AI types (Ship, Turret...)
2. An entity without bobby AI is automatically considered passive except for entities that feature a rail turret dock (to automatically exclude turret bases from this)


Advantages:
- Only entities set to passive gain mothership shield protection from 100 to 0 as opposed to the usual 100 to X for all other entities like turrets
- Only entities set to passive emit thruster plumes when docked
- Entities set to passive will ALWAYS contribute their thrust to the mothership, no need to remember thrust settings (there is no reason why you would ever not want the thrust anyways)
- Entities set to passive can get their own nav filter

Not a bad idea, but I think you're wrong about there being no valid situation where someone might NOT want to have thrusters inherited. When power balancing a ship, thrust matters. If a warship is a carrier, it may prefer to have most of it's energy go to it's weapons systems, and then it releases the drones if it needs to. But too much thrust being inherited could throw off it's power balance, making it so that every time it moves, most of it's energy is lost due to the excessive thrust inherited. However, when extra thrust is desired, the carrier has the option to turn it on. Though this is a special use scenario, it is a valid one. A second situation is when one ship is towing another. If you've ever accidentally inherited another ship's entire thrusters (especially on larger ships, where it creates a major diminishing returns situation), you'll see why you would NOT want to inherit the thrust.

Perhaps thruster plumes can simply show on thrusters that are actually being used by the ship. If thrust is inherited, then those thrusters show plumes. When not, they don't.

For your ideas on shield sharing, perhaps there could be a setting that differentiates between docked entities and turret entities for shield sharing. It does make sense to me that a moving turret might be harder for the main ship to share shields to than one that is stationary, right? But for setting an AI to "passive" in order to benefit from 100% shields, I think this can become problematic, because why shouldn't it also enjoy the same benefits as other securely docked entities? When comparing a stationary AI to a turret turret that can move, the turret gets 75% shield sharing. The stationary AI has a much lower range of targeting, but still only has 75% shield sharing. Why not just give it the same 100% shield sharing status as other stationary docked entities since it is limited in it's targeting range?

 

[Thalanor]

Not a bad idea, but I think you're wrong about there being no valid situation where someone might NOT want to have thrusters inherited. When power balancing a ship, thrust matters. If a warship is a carrier, it may prefer to have most of it's energy go to it's weapons systems, and then it releases the drones if it needs to. But too much thrust being inherited could throw off it's power balance, making it so that every time it moves, most of it's energy is lost due to the excessive thrust inherited. However, when extra thrust is desired, the carrier has the option to turn it on. Though this is a special use scenario, it is a valid one. A second situation is when one ship is towing another. If you've ever accidentally inherited another ship's entire thrusters (especially on larger ships, where it creates a major diminishing returns situation), you'll see why you would NOT want to inherit the thrust.

True, its a really rare use case but it wouldn't do harm either to keep it a toggle setting (I'd really make the inherit state default though, but thats a minor thing).

For your ideas on shield sharing, perhaps there could be a setting that differentiates between docked entities and turret entities for shield sharing. It does make sense to me that a moving turret might be harder for the main ship to share shields to than one that is stationary, right? But for setting an AI to "passive" in order to benefit from 100% shields, I think this can become problematic, because why shouldn't it also enjoy the same benefits as other securely docked entities? When comparing a stationary AI to a turret turret that can move, the turret gets 75% shield sharing. The stationary AI has a much lower range of targeting, but still only has 75% shield sharing. Why not just give it the same 100% shield sharing status as other stationary docked entities since it is limited in it's targeting range?

I think I don't understand fully what you mean - the point of 100% shield sharing for "passive" docked entities is that these entities are effectively to be considered a part of the hull. Passive means they don't have a targeting range in the first place - you would use "passive" for a fold-out wing, or pivoting thruster nacelles, and similar; basically things that you could just as well put on the main ship. It makes no sense to not grant these entities full shield protection (and it makes no sense to extend that buff to turrets). "Passive" isn't meant ot be "stationary AI", it is meant to be entirely devoid of any sort of AI interaction.

If it is a turret barrel, a turret base or a docked fighter --> partial protection like now (turrets are meant to be vulnerable after shields drop below X, and fighters are meant to be stored in internal hangars if you want to give them full protection, otherwise they are technically turrets that don't move, but can still shoot automatically)
If it is a decorative part of the main ship --> no reason not to give full shield protection

 

[Control]

A core is a necessity if it is supposed to be able to move (independently), since every entity in the game is internally represented as a nested tree-like structure with a core as it's root. That is annoying for small doors etc, but not avoidable.

That's exactly my point. Allow the parent ship to inherit the nested-tree, the railed structure is PART of ship A, and there is no ship B. We're unable to do this, as railed objects currently require two ships. I am suggesting that ships be allowed to contain railed components within themselves.

An example of this working in one way, is how blueprints inherit the docked components. For at least that instance, the game considers it all one entity. On the development side, is there no way to have a similar function at work on a ship in action?

 

[Pacific_Jim]

It is 100% necessary for moving parts to be classed as a separate entity. It's how the game engine processes the fact it's meant to move, and deals with the necessary collision checks. Whilst there could be streamlines in the way the game processes this, it's something you're never going to get away from.

 

[Thalanor]

That's exactly my point. Allow the parent ship to inherit the nested-tree, the railed structure is PART of ship A, and there is no ship B. We're unable to do this, as railed objects currently require two ships. I am suggesting that ships be allowed to contain railed components within themselves.

An example of this working in one way, is how blueprints inherit the docked components. For at least that instance, the game considers it all one entity. On the development side, is there no way to have a similar function at work on a ship in action?

The thing is that this would not be possible without an error-prone rewrite of parts of the core engine. The ship core concept is deeply rooted in the engine, and for similar reasons there has been no core relocation mechanic in-game yet either. It would of course be awesome to do both these things, but my bets are that we're not going to see that happen.

 

[Benevolent27]

True, its a really rare use case but it wouldn't do harm either to keep it a toggle setting (I'd really make the inherit state default though, but thats a minor thing).


I think I don't understand fully what you mean - the point of 100% shield sharing for "passive" docked entities is that these entities are effectively to be considered a part of the hull. Passive means they don't have a targeting range in the first place - you would use "passive" for a fold-out wing, or pivoting thruster nacelles, and similar; basically things that you could just as well put on the main ship. It makes no sense to not grant these entities full shield protection (and it makes no sense to extend that buff to turrets). "Passive" isn't meant ot be "stationary AI", it is meant to be entirely devoid of any sort of AI interaction.

If it is a turret barrel, a turret base or a docked fighter --> partial protection like now (turrets are meant to be vulnerable after shields drop below X, and fighters are meant to be stored in internal hangars if you want to give them full protection, otherwise they are technically turrets that don't move, but can still shoot automatically)
If it is a decorative part of the main ship --> no reason not to give full shield protection

Why would there need to be a "passive" setting at all? You would just give attached entities that are not turrets 100% shield sharing. But if an entity that is docked to a rail basic/turn rail does have an AI, why not keep the 100% shield sharing? However, for the sake of argument, let's say having and AI turned on reduces the shield sharing to 75%. There'd be no need for "passive," because simply turning the AI on or off fills the role of how much shields will be shared to it.

 

[Thalanor]

The "passive" setting would automatically apply to entities without an AI module and without turret docks. However, I would want to avoid people being able to protect their turrets by switching them off - they are still meant to be vulnerable, offline or not (imho).