SPEC

Development directions, tasks, and features being actively implemented or pursued by the development team.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

TBeholder wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:This would be unlike any ordinary mission. It would have no player action defined beginning or end; you couldn't accept it or complete it.
Of course you can "accept" or "complete" it. It just doesn't disappear on either event and is "accepted" by being in a system while belonging to a non-hostile faction. :)
I would actually implement this, as I said, with mission guards that check who you killed recently. It would pop inside the mission computer as "Claim bounty on X". It shouldn't be awarded automatically, since that's not how life works: nobody will pay you until you ask.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: It would pop inside the mission computer as "Claim bounty on X". It shouldn't be awarded automatically, since that's not how life works: nobody will pay you until you ask.
But you don't have to fly back to base and claim payment for any of the other mission types though. When you kill a bounty ship for an ordinary bounty mission, you get paid instantly.

And that is realistic in the sense that, with mission computers, transactions are highly automated and completely handled by a third party (the computer network). In other words, the process of doing business is streamlined between now and the next millennium.

There also isn't any game play advantage to forcing the player to push a button to get paid; there's no skill or thinking involved in pressing a button. It is equivalent to forcing the player to scribble his signature down using a vector paint interface every time he accepts a mission contract. :)
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote: It would pop inside the mission computer as "Claim bounty on X". It shouldn't be awarded automatically, since that's not how life works: nobody will pay you until you ask.
But you don't have to fly back to base and claim payment for any of the other mission types though. When you kill a bounty ship for an ordinary bounty mission, you get paid instantly.
That could be changed, although I'm not sure with which purpose. After all, you've already been involved in accepting the mission.
Deus Siddis wrote:And that is realistic in the sense that, with mission computers, transactions are highly automated and completely handled by a third party (the computer network). In other words, the process of doing business is streamlined between now and the next millennium.
While that might be true for missions you explicitly accepted, I don't see 1) how could the contractor know who you are in order to pay you, and 2) how would the player know why he's receiving extra funds.
Deus Siddis wrote:There also isn't any game play advantage to forcing the player to push a button to get paid; there's no skill or thinking involved in pressing a button. It is equivalent to forcing the player to scribble his signature down using a vector paint interface every time he accepts a mission contract. :)
In essence, I don't like the arcade quality "scoring points on kills" would give to the game. Because, once you automate it like that, it does feel like scoring points.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: In essence, I don't like the arcade quality "scoring points on kills" would give to the game. Because, once you automate it like that, it does feel like scoring points.
Ah, I see your point.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: SPEC

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:I would actually implement this, as I said, with mission guards that check who you killed recently. It would pop inside the mission computer as "Claim bounty on X". It shouldn't be awarded automatically, since that's not how life works: nobody will pay you until you ask.
This would be better, but harder to implement.
klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:And that is realistic in the sense that, with mission computers, transactions are highly automated and completely handled by a third party (the computer network). In other words, the process of doing business is streamlined between now and the next millennium.
While that might be true for missions you explicitly accepted, I don't see 1) how could the contractor know who you are in order to pay you, and 2) how would the player know why he's receiving extra funds.
1) If there's a broadcasted standing offer, kills falling under it may be reported automatically, too.
2) Like in Elite? "<BOOM> Bounty: ¢ 150".
klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:There also isn't any game play advantage to forcing the player to push a button to get paid; there's no skill or thinking involved in pressing a button. It is equivalent to forcing the player to scribble his signature down using a vector paint interface every time he accepts a mission contract. :)
In essence, I don't like the arcade quality "scoring points on kills" would give to the game. Because, once you automate it like that, it does feel like scoring points.
It's a matter of a setting's feel, yes. Ranging from the way Elite does it to everything being explicitly micromanaged like most things in Frontier ("call us to pay docking fees"). As long as it's consistent...
Maybe a reasonable compromise would be having all mission-related transactions completed upon docking/landing on a base that belongs to the mission-giver (which usually is faction or its representation in a given system), at least when there's no inherent end point (as in delivery). Maybe also capships, but not all.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
Primordial
Merchant
Merchant
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Primordial »

You could spawn loot/cargo off of ships - a futuristic equivalent of a black box, perhaps.
You could give it to the authorities in system as proof-of-kill style bounty hunting. Essentially translates to scalping or taking your enemies heads.
Or you could sell it as valuable information to people who might pay more than the authorities are giving for the kill. Depending on who's system it is,the economy, and who's around, depends on who will pay for what.

The Confed factions aren't going to buy Confed black boxes as bounties.
A merchant on the black market might.
An information fence might also buy a black box.
The Aera certainly will.
etc.

That might work for non-specific bounties.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

Primordial wrote: You could spawn loot/cargo off of ships - a futuristic equivalent of a black box, perhaps.
You could give it to the authorities in system as proof-of-kill style bounty hunting. Essentially translates to scalping or taking your enemies heads.
Or you could sell it as valuable information to people who might pay more than the authorities are giving for the kill.
I like this idea.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
Primordial wrote: You could spawn loot/cargo off of ships - a futuristic equivalent of a black box, perhaps.
You could give it to the authorities in system as proof-of-kill style bounty hunting. Essentially translates to scalping or taking your enemies heads.
Or you could sell it as valuable information to people who might pay more than the authorities are giving for the kill.
I like this idea.
I'd rather go for gun camera though.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: I'd rather go for gun camera though.
You could keep it that way for bounties (i.e. bounty missions remain unchanged).

But if it is a military craft you destroyed (whether for bounty or not) and the escape pod survives, it could be collected and sold to another faction for its intelligence value.

It is another way to make random space situations financially rewarding (through salvage). You are minding your own business on a cargo run and encounter an Aera flight group. If you prevail, you can sell whatever survives to the confederation military. Otherwise you would get nothing since attack craft rarely carry any cargo to salvage.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

Yes, derelicts and salvage in general need some love.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote:Yes, derelicts and salvage in general need some love.
Did you have some ideas about how you wanted to handle these?
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote:Yes, derelicts and salvage in general need some love.
Did you have some ideas about how you wanted to handle these?
I'm not really sure about derelicts. But salvage should be in the form of dead-in-space ships after they receive a pounding.

In essence, ships should very rarely blow up, especially capships. Instead of blowing up, they'd become dead, drifting (perhaps spinning), and you'd be able to dock and plunder them (assuming you have EVA equipment).

Other salvage modes would be by having dead ships spawn cargo containers, but not your usual cargo container, but instead one whose mesh is a chunk of debris. You could tractor it, and it would be mostly scrap metal, except for some lucky pieces that could have refurbishable components.

You shouldn't be able to tell what it is (for cargo containers too), unless you have a specially capable sensor package.

Derelicts could be randomly spawned debris pieces, presumably leftover from some earlier battle, or hidden dead capships or stations. Though for that last one, we would need a lot more landscaping (there's no really hidden place in VS, we'd need that).
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: In essence, ships should very rarely blow up, especially capships.
What would determine whether the ship blows up immediately or is disabled? Is reactor damage simulated?
Instead of blowing up, they'd become dead, drifting (perhaps spinning), and you'd be able to dock and plunder them (assuming you have EVA equipment).
So I suppose once you docked, the base interface would come up and you would have a special type of base where all the goods could be bought at zero price. And maybe you would sometimes find a special fixer; the survivor(s) of the wreck offering you the (lucrative) mission of evacuating them to the nearest port.
Other salvage modes would be by having dead ships spawn cargo containers, but not your usual cargo container, but instead one whose mesh is a chunk of debris. You could tractor it, and it would be mostly scrap metal, except for some lucky pieces that could have refurbishable components.
Cool.

And if the ship was disabled but largely intact, you could bring it in and refurbish it.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote: In essence, ships should very rarely blow up, especially capships.
What would determine whether the ship blows up immediately or is disabled? Is reactor damage simulated?
Maybe. Though I think even random would do the trick, you know...

...but I think the following increases coolness:
  • Ships that reach 0 hull, get disabled.
  • If you go on hitting it, hull goes into negative. Each hit while in negative, spawn debris particles and cool fireworks.
  • If full hull strength is X, every time a hit makes hull transition from -i*X to -(i+1)*X, ie, every time you cross a negative multiple of X boundary, there's a chance the ship will break apart in pieces or explode.
  • When it breaks apart, it does so at the point of impact. Numerous debris particles (and salvagable debris) is spawned at that point, and the dead ship is turned into two units, each with a dynamic mesh created by splitting the mesh at the impact point (this will require a lot of creativity to make it right, especially when showing the ship's interior, but would be über cool). Ways to accomplish this:
    • Each mesh has a flag "splittable", when a mesh is splittable, it has a tree of subparts, with each mesh splitting in at least 3 parts. The part that was hit, it blown and turned into debris, the other two parts become the remains. This way, art is handcrafted and would look ideal.
    • If we implement modular artwork, modules can act as splitting points. This would be rather cheap, and should probably the first approach.
    • Possibly, an automatic way to create the interior mesh would involve an imposter cloud for some greebleful interior, that is cut into the appropriate shape with stencil buffer techniques. I'm not overly fond of this option (stencil isn't so hot), but it might be worth investigating.
    • It is also possible that an imposter cloud could be fit inside the piece's interior without need for stencil, and still look alright.
  • Debris resulting from an explosion comes in three types:
    • Bullet-like particles. They don't travel far, but they act as bullets, and do some damage when they hit something. This is easily done by spawning bolts with the proper texture. Bolts will probably need some cosmetic enhancements to get the right appearance though.
    • Salvageable parts, cargo container in size, more or less, that you can tractor in, relatively slow moving.
    • Bing hunking chunks. They'd be somewhat persistent, and result in navigation hazards. Like an asteroid, only junk.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: SPEC

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:What would determine whether the ship blows up immediately or is disabled? Is reactor damage simulated?
Maybe. Though I think even random would do the trick, you know...
...but I think the following increases coolness:
  • Ships that reach 0 hull, get disabled.
  • If you go on hitting it, hull goes into negative. Each hit while in negative, spawn debris particles and cool fireworks.
  • If full hull strength is X, every time a hit makes hull transition from -i*X to -(i+1)*X, ie, every time you cross a negative multiple of X boundary, there's a chance the ship will break apart in pieces or explode.
Why not "hull falls apart when it reaches 0", while a ship with dead reactor(s) is helpless, same with lifesupport functionality brought to 0?
klauss wrote:
  • When it breaks apart, it does so at the point of impact. Numerous debris particles (and salvagable debris) is spawned at that point, and the dead ship is turned into two units, each with a dynamic mesh created by splitting the mesh at the impact point (this will require a lot of creativity to make it right, especially when showing the ship's interior, but would be über cool). Ways to accomplish this:
    • Each mesh has a flag "splittable", when a mesh is splittable, it has a tree of subparts, with each mesh splitting in at least 3 parts. The part that was hit, it blown and turned into debris, the other two parts become the remains. This way, art is handcrafted and would look ideal.
    • If we implement modular artwork, modules can act as splitting points. This would be rather cheap, and should probably the first approach.
Why do it backwards and substract instead of adding? Handling "physical" sub-meshes proper would allow ship parts with less autonomy and overhead than full-on subunits, and allow to have separately damaged ship parts in which components are installed (i.e. WC style). Possibly targettable separately, if one is discernible as such (boolean) and of a size within the attacker's sensors' resolution. That is, e.g. a ship has a built-in "components" like Console_Left, which have heatsink rating (when we'll count heat), some upgrade space, a mount and a portion of shield's emitters (which can be handled via multipliers applied to sectors). Hit it enough, and this damages that part's integrity, some installed components, one mount dies and the shield's left segment becomes very thin. But hit the "core" ship part enough, and the ship falls to pieces (depending on basic construction type, like "explosion" now - Rlaan would be different, etc).
Then we may as well handle any visible meshes (like an external weapon mount) as "unit parts", too.

As to derelicts, transfer via base interface would do well enough, indeed. Eentually - maybe, use more autonomous sorts of repair bots to go and "mine" them?..
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

TBeholder wrote:
klauss wrote:
Deus Siddis wrote:What would determine whether the ship blows up immediately or is disabled? Is reactor damage simulated?
Maybe. Though I think even random would do the trick, you know...
...but I think the following increases coolness:
  • Ships that reach 0 hull, get disabled.
  • If you go on hitting it, hull goes into negative. Each hit while in negative, spawn debris particles and cool fireworks.
  • If full hull strength is X, every time a hit makes hull transition from -i*X to -(i+1)*X, ie, every time you cross a negative multiple of X boundary, there's a chance the ship will break apart in pieces or explode.
Why not "hull falls apart when it reaches 0", while a ship with dead reactor(s) is helpless, same with lifesupport functionality brought to 0?
Because that's what the engine does now, and it doesn't work.

In essence, hull stats are crafted for combat, one thinks of hull=0 as the time you "nullify" an enemy. It's very difficult to get the disablement through reactor damage right, because the likelihood of damaging the reactor instead of hull is rather slim and unpredictable.

Not only that, but a hull of 0 means a non-functional hull. That means hull breaches, and that it lost its ability to contain an atmosphere inside, but not necessarily that it will blow up. Reaching 0 should not result in an explosion.

So the most sensible thing to do is to let it go into negatives, and consider further damage towards the negatives as just more mayhem on a dead carcass that eventually falls apart.
TBeholder wrote:
klauss wrote:
  • When it breaks apart, it does so at the point of impact. Numerous debris particles (and salvagable debris) is spawned at that point, and the dead ship is turned into two units, each with a dynamic mesh created by splitting the mesh at the impact point (this will require a lot of creativity to make it right, especially when showing the ship's interior, but would be über cool). Ways to accomplish this:
    • Each mesh has a flag "splittable", when a mesh is splittable, it has a tree of subparts, with each mesh splitting in at least 3 parts. The part that was hit, it blown and turned into debris, the other two parts become the remains. This way, art is handcrafted and would look ideal.
    • If we implement modular artwork, modules can act as splitting points. This would be rather cheap, and should probably the first approach.
Why do it backwards and substract instead of adding? Handling "physical" sub-meshes proper would allow ship parts with less autonomy and overhead than full-on subunits, and allow to have separately damaged ship parts in which components are installed (i.e. WC style). Possibly targettable separately, if one is discernible as such (boolean) and of a size within the attacker's sensors' resolution. That is, e.g. a ship has a built-in "components" like Console_Left, which have heatsink rating (when we'll count heat), some upgrade space, a mount and a portion of shield's emitters (which can be handled via multipliers applied to sectors). Hit it enough, and this damages that part's integrity, some installed components, one mount dies and the shield's left segment becomes very thin. But hit the "core" ship part enough, and the ship falls to pieces (depending on basic construction type, like "explosion" now - Rlaan would be different, etc).
Then we may as well handle any visible meshes (like an external weapon mount) as "unit parts", too.
Indeed it's a good addition. This can still work with negatives, only subparts would be weaker, so it's easier to blow them up. You just don't blow them when they reach 0, you have to keep hitting them.

I think it makes sense.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

klauss wrote: If we implement modular artwork, modules can act as splitting points. This would be rather cheap, and should probably be the first approach.
For 'capital' space craft and stations, I agree. In fact, I say each module model should not be considered complete until its interior is fully modeled and textured. Because then you get this kind of extreme damage modeling, you get an essentially render-ready scene for the 2D base interface and you get the content for the crazy pipe dream of '3D walkable bases', all at once.

For aerospace craft, due to their compactness, concentration of volatile contents and aerodynamic non-modular designs, they maybe should just break up or explode all at once.
Salvageable parts, cargo container in size, more or less, that you can tractor in, relatively slow moving.
Bing hunking chunks. They'd be somewhat persistent, and result in navigation hazards. Like an asteroid, only junk.
Will this require code changes or is there already functionality for this? Dead ships seem to release their cargo into space as well the occasional escape pod, but is there an existing way to define other objects to be spawned when the unit dies?
Bullet-like particles. They don't travel far, but they act as bullets, and do some damage when they hit something. This is easily done by spawning bolts with the proper texture. Bolts will probably need some cosmetic enhancements to get the right appearance though.
Maybe this should be a feature that is used in more places than one-- "Explosions Generate Shrapnel"? It would be just as useful for missiles and other weapons, as for ship explosions.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

Deus Siddis wrote:
klauss wrote: If we implement modular artwork, modules can act as splitting points. This would be rather cheap, and should probably be the first approach.
For 'capital' space craft and stations, I agree. In fact, I say each module model should not be considered complete until its interior is fully modeled and textured. Because then you get this kind of extreme damage modeling, you get an essentially render-ready scene for the 2D base interface and you get the content for the crazy pipe dream of '3D walkable bases', all at once.
Well, that's the option I mentioned with handcrafted interiors. But that's a bit too much to ask, IMHO, at least for all models. That's why I tried to come up with alternatives.
Deus Siddis wrote:For aerospace craft, due to their compactness, concentration of volatile contents and aerodynamic non-modular designs, they maybe should just break up or explode all at once.
Maybe.
Deus Siddis wrote:
Salvageable parts, cargo container in size, more or less, that you can tractor in, relatively slow moving.
Bing hunking chunks. They'd be somewhat persistent, and result in navigation hazards. Like an asteroid, only junk.
Will this require code changes or is there already functionality for this? Dead ships seem to release their cargo into space as well the occasional escape pod, but is there an existing way to define other objects to be spawned when the unit dies?
I think there's already a lot of functionality. We may need changes, but I'd expect them to be minor. Probably a little more configurability, and that's it.
Deus Siddis wrote:
Bullet-like particles. They don't travel far, but they act as bullets, and do some damage when they hit something. This is easily done by spawning bolts with the proper texture. Bolts will probably need some cosmetic enhancements to get the right appearance though.
Maybe this should be a feature that is used in more places than one-- "Explosions Generate Shrapnel"? It would be just as useful for missiles and other weapons, as for ship explosions.
Yes, indeed.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: SPEC

Post by Deus Siddis »

Alright, tickets...
Disabling and Debris wrote: When a unit's hull strength reaches zero it will become disabled. The further the hull strength goes into the negative, the higher the chance the unit will explode or break up and be destroyed.

Upon its destruction, a unit will spawn small and large debris chunks. Small chunks act like cargo that can be salvaged for the metals and other components they contain. Large chunks act like asteroids, hurdling through space, colliding with other objects and spawning their own small debris chunks when destroyed.
Explosion Shrapnel wrote: Explosions of all types should spawn shrapnel, essentially numerous glowing BOLT type projectiles that quickly radiate out in all directions and damage whatever they hit.
Sounds good?
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

Sounds good
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: SPEC

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:
TBeholder wrote: Why not "hull falls apart when it reaches 0", while a ship with dead reactor(s) is helpless, same with lifesupport functionality brought to 0?
Because that's what the engine does now, and it doesn't work.
In essence, hull stats are crafted for combat, one thinks of hull=0 as the time you "nullify" an enemy. It's very difficult to get the disablement through reactor damage right, because the likelihood of damaging the reactor instead of hull is rather slim and unpredictable.
Exactly: it doesn 't work because damage to components happens not as a normal course of action, but as "random event to spice it up" and has probability set accordingly.
klauss wrote:Not only that, but a hull of 0 means a non-functional hull. That means hull breaches, and that it lost its ability to contain an atmosphere inside, but not necessarily that it will blow up. Reaching 0 should not result in an explosion.
Holding the atmosphere isn't the main (or even necessarily present) function of the hull. Structural integrity is. So, "non-functional" means a sieve falling apart into cloud of junk the next impact with anything at all.
klauss wrote:Indeed it's a good addition. This can still work with negatives, only subparts would be weaker, so it's easier to blow them up. You just don't blow them when they reach 0, you have to keep hitting them.
They may fall apart, this just won't affect other parts. For that matter, the ones that aren't attached to anything may be turned into asteroid-like "space salvage" dummy units you mentioned. I.e. if the main hull is reduced to bubbling slag while the "wings" were intact, what may be salvaged from surviving pieces is what they contained: mostly intact weapons, shield subcomponents, power/cooling elements and some construction materials (if the game there and then is not "scavenge everything", this still may define salvage's worth).
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

TBeholder wrote:
klauss wrote:Not only that, but a hull of 0 means a non-functional hull. That means hull breaches, and that it lost its ability to contain an atmosphere inside, but not necessarily that it will blow up. Reaching 0 should not result in an explosion.
Holding the atmosphere isn't the main (or even necessarily present) function of the hull. Structural integrity is. So, "non-functional" means a sieve falling apart into cloud of junk the next impact with anything at all.
I knew this would be said. Still, the point is that loss of functionality does not imply disintegration.

But you're right, some hull parts might indeed be purely structural. I'd suggest then making the "disintegration probability" value (when crossing integral multiplier thresholds, including 0) be configurable per-module. That way, structural modules can be marked as such, by increasing the likelihood of disintegration.

So we need:
  • Module graph (what is connected to what)
  • Core module list (get this blown up, no more unit)
  • Module disintegration probability per zero or negative multiplier crossing
  • Module subsystem allocation (ie: which upgrades go in which module)
When a graph becomes disconnected because you blow up modules, non-core subgraphs get detached and turned into junk. Whichever modules are intact, remain intact on the junk unit, so you can scavenge.

Does it sound good?

(should go on the relevant ticket)
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: SPEC

Post by TBeholder »

klauss wrote:So we need:
  • Module graph (what is connected to what)
  • Core module list (get this blown up, no more unit)
  • Module disintegration probability per zero or negative multiplier crossing
  • Module subsystem allocation (ie: which upgrades go in which module)
When a graph becomes disconnected because you blow up modules, non-core subgraphs get detached and turned into junk. Whichever modules are intact, remain intact on the junk unit, so you can scavenge.
Does it sound good?
Just a module graph with one (normally, most massive or containing center-of-mass) being primary, parts having "command & control" property (in current terms - non-empty Cockpit property).
It would be enough if destruction of controls (all Cockpit/lifesupport functionality) renders the unit inert (i.e. salvage to pick), and when some part is left detached by destruction of another, it becomes a new unit, with the most massive part as its "primary", inert if it doesn't have control status (i.e. contains no proper cockpit) - leaving many capship/station pieces somewhat viable and interactive, but not mobile or properly defended.
E.g.: a big ship's "wing" with a pair of PD turret pods on its end and some weapons survives the main hull's destruction. Since it doesn't contain cockpit/AI, it becomes an inert unit. However, turrets are full subunits with basic AI and allegiance assigned, so as the whole thing tumbles into nowhere, they continue to shoot at the current target(s) and then respond on non-friendly locking beams (no one gives them targets) until run out of ammo, energy (for now, subunits are fully autonomous with reactors, so not going to happen) or heat capacity (which may depend on how much radiators on the "wing" are mangled, because it's still attached), or someone takes time to finish them off.
Something like this.
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: SPEC

Post by klauss »

You know, that could be doable if we assign upgrades to models. When units loose modules, they loose the upgrades there.

It looks doable.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 am

Re: SPEC

Post by IansterGuy »

The ideas that have progress from this discussion are really great. From talk of adding mission scripting I like the suggested additions to core game play, and it just got better from there. I especially like the ideas that would create replayability. A deterministic damage simulation would add so much progressing uniqueness strategy variance that I think it is the most significant feature that could be added to improve gameplay after improving interdiction.

Speaking of interdiction again I like Log0's EMP idea, just not sold as a complete solution to the interdiction issue. I like many older ideas too as a ship upgrades like 'SPEC buster missiles' to inhibit a single ship, 'Electro Magnetic Pulse' to disrupt and damage powered up sensitive equipment, 'SPEC Pulse' to inhibit all ships SPEC relative to time and distance from the source. I like the mines idea too as 'SPEC buster mines' and 'SPEC pulse mines'.

No mumbo jumbo, so I will save my mockup situation where all interdiction and interception methods are exampled.

As for the current topic, I think when the hull reaches 0% that the ships hull is breached and any more hits on the hull breach should quickly disable pilot control as lines are severed.

Without any absorption of weapon energy at all internal impacts would be devastating so that the next shots into a hull breach quickly destroys or does damage to every component in proximity. This would include the pilot who can die or eject early while the ship is still mostly operational which would be ideal for a salvage.

I like selectively exploding ships, it makes more sense. Realistically ships would not explode unless the capacitor batteries or fuel cell gasses are ignited in the presence of an oxygen supply such as the atmosphere before it all escapes. The fuel itself may not even be explosive without something as naturally reactive as oxygen and simply dissipate if the tanks are ruptured alone.

I like all the salvageable ship ideas. It would enhance game play and believability. The ship would break apart either from atmosphere pressure stress, small explosions, or weapon impact on the vulnerable interior. Then huge hazardous explosions would only happen if the reactor goes critical.

That would make it as realistic as I can think.
Last edited by IansterGuy on Wed Jul 24, 2013 10:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply