Turn the ship core into a vehicle core

    Joined
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages
    23
    Reaction score
    0
    Hello there.

    I think I have a cool idea, make the Spaceship core into a vehicle core, and add different types of vehicles.

    To be a bit more specific, when plopping down a vehicle with the X key or what-have-you, instead of building a ship, it pops up a command prompt saying "What would you like to build with this core?", with a small selection of vehicles to build.

    Different vehicles would be suited for different tasks, Spaceships would be similiar to what they are now, and they would be the "base" vehicle, with the "Basic" statline and all of that, a standard from which every other is gauged. A list of vehicles (and their strengths and weaknesses + tasks);

    Spaceships; these would be just like they are now, but in the planetside warfare strategy, they would basically be the super-heavy transport/support vehicle.

    Aircraft; These guys' hulls would be weaker, but the attached thrusters would be alot more energy efficient (although they can't go to space), the only real downside is that they get more "mass" then usual per block, forcing you to be relatively small (though for some people this isn't a bad thing)

    Standard Land vehicles; These guys are your tanks, trucks, that sort of thing. They would be a bit more energy efficient then spaceships, but they can't elevate or anything, they can only really slide across the landscape. They also have a bit harder hull, and weapons can be a bit more powerful than usual.

    Legged Land vehicles; Obvious, this is for stuff like mecha and related vehicles. they have a fairly simple form of locomotion, and their armor isn't too much weaker then the standard, their real appeal is how easily they can handle rough terrain with no large variations on speed, and how relatively easy they can be to repair. (To handle coding the legs, see if you can get help from maxis and their spore game)

    Naval Vehicles; due to the bouyancy of water, these things can have an impressive amount of weight and mass count, without impairing speed and maneuverability all that much. Due to most important things being on land, these are generally dedicated for support roles, like mobile air-fields or artillery stations.



    Now, I can see what's apparently wrong with my little crappy idea "Why do you even need this stuff, just bombard the crap out of it" Simple, they would be used for faction home capturing! To make sure it doesn't get out of hand, a faction claimed planet would have a dmg resistance modifier (like the faction block, but a bit less and entire planet wide)



    Does this Idea make sense? basically, it simply adds a fairly modular way to conquer planetside faction homes, although it doesn't really have a reason to exist. What should you be fighting for in a land war?

    post ideas!, Discuss and that stuff.
     
    Joined
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages
    9
    Reaction score
    5
    I have also put much thought into something almost the exact same as your idea, i think it would be cool if you have say orbital turrets on a planet, they have to be connected to a certian block, or area, so that if you control that area, or say hack, and or break the block and put it back down you take control of the turrets thus getting the defenses of the planet, if they did do this planets size should be 10-20 times bigger however, so that there can be an ocean area as well on a planet, for boats like you said.
     
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    1,183
    Reaction score
    614
    • Competition Winner - Stations
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Legacy Citizen 10
    This is a neat idea, I like it. A naval core sounds pretty pointless though.
     
    Joined
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages
    150
    Reaction score
    0
    K.I.S.S

    Keep
    It
    Simple
    Stupid

    Thus, keep the current system, it works, allows freedom, and has no drawbacks.
     
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2013
    Messages
    10
    Reaction score
    0
    • Legacy Citizen
    sorry but I see no advantage of a airplane in a stargame, a battlecruiser in \'\'orbit\'\' can easily take them out.

    not legged walker and ground tanks. its s space game, fought is space
     
    Joined
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages
    23
    Reaction score
    0
    If you read it all and sat down and thought about it, I basically suggested a glorified way to attack faction homes, that is somewhat \"balanced\". Plus, you can\'t really hold something if you have no boots on the ground, right?
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    sorry but I see no advantage of a airplane in a stargame


    A fighter module (limited to 1 like a faction-module) could produce 10 thrust and 100 power but decrease the efficiency of other thrusters by 50%.

    It could increase the power-storage by 230k but decrease reactor efficiency by 75% (require docks to refill at planetary/orbital power-source-docks)

    It could add a value of 3 blocks to the first weapon cpu in your hotkey bar - the first array of it - but discuraging from using more blocks by decreasing their efficiency by 33% each.

    It could stabilize small landing shuttles horizontally, making it less awkward to fly in gravity and encuraging peoples build landing shuttles smaller.
     
    Joined
    Sep 7, 2013
    Messages
    23
    Reaction score
    0
    Like he said, different sub-types of cores would be suited for different tasks, simple as that
     
    Joined
    Feb 26, 2014
    Messages
    154
    Reaction score
    185
    i wouldn\'t implement differnt cores. I think it would be better to to use special blocks, fo example:

    - Atmospheric engines: They would only work on planets but use much less energy. That way you would have more energy left for other systems.

    - levitating engines: They would let the unit float at a stable high. (it\'s probably because i\'m a horrible pilot, but i realy have porblems with flying ships under planetary gravitiy)

    That way not only specialised units could be constructed but also hybrids like a fighter, that is on planets as nicely to control as in space, or landing shuttles.
     
    Joined
    Jul 12, 2013
    Messages
    14
    Reaction score
    0
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Legacy Citizen
    I think the above idea could be minimalistically achieved by making engine direction matter.

    So, if an engine is facing backwards, the forward acceleration will be increased more than the other directions (the other directions\' accelerations would naturally have to increase, too, for simplicity\'s sake).

    For landing shuttles you want more engines pointed downward.

    For a super agile fighter ship you\'d need engines pointing in all directions.

    For a forward-focused space ship, very little would have to change.
     
    Joined
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages
    6
    Reaction score
    0
    Man, don\'t get butthurt, but I would much rather see them still work on spaceships rather than do anything like this. This is a space-ship building/exploration game. Planets are too small to warrant things like this. Just place some turret AIs in orbit, or hide the faction core inside your planet. That easy. I just don\'t see a point in tanks, aircraft, ships, etc. as ANY well built frigate+ size spaceship would wipe them off the face of the planet in seconds. If the planets were bigger and orbitiing close to a planet was more dangerous for a ship, sure. but as of right now it\'s just a waste of developer time, and would probably be a laughable feature.
     
    Joined
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages
    2
    Reaction score
    0
    Another idea of Neon Sturm\'s is the stabilizing for ship flight and landing. Like if you let go of the controls the ship (the sides...e.g. wings) would align horizontally with the horizon due to gravity/stabilization. This would only apply if you had wings and/or stabilizer blocks....etc.
     
    Joined
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages
    2
    Reaction score
    0
    directional dependant engines would also be really cool.

    And gosh they really should make the planets bigger, at least some bigger than others. They\'re so fricken small.
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    For landing shuttles you want more engines pointed downward.


    And use it like a forward-focused space ship with just a cockpid and weapons facing upwards.




    So, if an engine is facing backwards, the forward acceleration will be increased more than the other directions (the other directions\' accelerations would naturally have to increase, too, for simplicity\'s sake).


    I support. But I think that would not solve everything.
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    And gosh they really should make the planets bigger, at least some bigger than others. They\'re so fricken small.


    Maybe just make it like space engineers and use bigger blocks (you need 8 blocks to place 1 big) for planets and stations...

    I think it would be cool to fly through a canyon, but not with the current size and low details of ships compared to planet size.

    Copy&Paste features could reduce the segment count which needs to be transfered over the internet (by encuraging building for a better compression).
     
    Joined
    Mar 19, 2014
    Messages
    17
    Reaction score
    0
    The only way this idea could work is if there was a significant increase in planet size. Don\'t get me wrong, I fully support the idea of land/air vehicles being added to the game, but without ample land to drive on, water to sail on, or air to fly in....

    ...what\'s the point?

    Vehicles of this kind can not happen. Not until there\'s a purpose for them.

    Also, there would need to be some limitation set in place for space ships (ie fuel or something) to make \"traditional\" vehicles more practicle in atmosphere. Otherwise you\'d see \"taxi\" stations popping up all over planets where you get in a spaceship and fly to where ever you need to go on the planet and land at another \"taxi\" station.

    There\'s just no point to it yet.
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Also, there would need to be some limitation set in place for space ships (ie fuel or something) to make \"traditional\" vehicles more practicle in atmosphere. Otherwise you\'d see \"taxi\" stations popping up all over planets where you get in a spaceship and fly to where ever you need to go on the planet and land at another \"taxi\" station.


    True, How about heavier (in mass) blocks for vehicles? That would boost all armor by x%, all power regeneration or shield by x%...

    Thrust on vehicles could be almost infinite. A single thruster would make mountain care, no matter the weight. A second thruster makes it a racer car, but not so good to control at low velocities and short distances.

    Also because AD is left right -not the mouse-, you can control a turret and drive at the same time.



    I think once space ships trade of thrusters for FTL-blocks, dedicated shuttles will have a purpose. Maybe not on a moon, but a 1g planet where you can only jump 1 to 2 m heigh.
     
    Joined
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages
    1,831
    Reaction score
    374
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Top Forum Contributor
    • Legacy Citizen
    Well, another limitation for larger ships could be getting crushed by gravity. You wouldn\'t want to get too close to a planet, for fear of getting trapped in the gravity well and getting destroyed.
     

    NeonSturm

    StormMaker
    Joined
    Dec 31, 2013
    Messages
    5,110
    Reaction score
    617
    • Wired for Logic
    • Thinking Positive
    • Legacy Citizen 5
    Same with real-life aircraft carriers or the ark :)

    You can\'t build the ark for all animals. Wood is not durable enough. (You can\'t just increase everything by a factor of 2)