Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote drones

Talk among developers, and propose and discuss general development planning/tackling/etc... feature in this forum.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by klauss »

log0 wrote:@klauss
Not sure if I understand you correctly but "protected zones" with SPEC-denial fields which are time limited sounds kinda weird. Would make "temporary protected zones"?

What options would someone have when running in such a field (with > 1min duration), and not having the firepower to deal with the opponents? Loading last savegame?
Defense platforms are a special case. It would be time-limited because, presumably, platforms wouldn't be able to keep it up for long, so it would be activated on-demand. Staying around them long enough for their interdiction capability to run out would be, as you point out, tough. But that's because it's a strong-hold.

Less defended positions would use cheaper, lower-grade hardware, and would be able to sustain those fields much less. Mines, for instance, would only last a few minutes, maybe. Ships would be able to keep it running for longer, but not indefinitely. And they'd be a target for law enforcement.
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: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by IansterGuy »

klauss wrote:Defense platforms are a special case. It would be time-limited because, presumably, platforms wouldn't be able to keep it up for long, so it would be activated on-demand. Staying around them long enough for their interdiction capability to run out would be, as you point out, tough. But that's because it's a strong-hold.

Less defended positions would use cheaper, lower-grade hardware, and would be able to sustain those fields much less. Mines, for instance, would only last a few minutes, maybe. Ships would be able to keep it running for longer, but not indefinitely. And they'd be a target for law enforcement.
That sounds really good and I really like the on demand, this implies that they would be remote controllable as well. I'm not sure if those mines should last so long though because that is a long time to just end up getting hit by more SPEC busters to make it happen again. I was thinking 30 seconds would work better to give the victim some hope against the time release plasma method which would block 100% of SPECs abilities. Peoples focused attention span can be as short as 8 seconds so for intense game play I assume something interesting should happen kinda every 8 seconds like getting shot for example or managing the ship. Sustained attention normally around a maximum of 40 minutes unless interest is renewed, so one should expect the player to want to do something different rather than repeating by that time.

Other details to define depend on what would be meant by calling something a defense platform. Is it stealth with only batteries powering the field? Does it have a reactor, guns, and shield. Is it pretty much a space station? Are there different sizes that can be deployed from various ships as a cargo jettison? What are the factors that determine how useful these things are. It sounds like some other things need to be finished first like cargo wingmen, docking with ones own ship, looting cargo, and pirating ships.

I just realized a potential complication with batteries being used instead of starting up a hot noisy reactor for rather better stealth. How long does it take to start up a reactor? How much input power would it take to start? Perhaps a ship in full stealth needs to have it's reactor off and operate on capacitors. Once it is revealed it would take minutes to startup a reactor again, and until then it would need conserve power by not SPECing and shooting too much. If something is stealth and it shoots a weapon, is the last known vector displayed as a target? Is there a minimum range where things are not stealth anymore?

I'm not sure who is following this, but I hope there are not any holes in the cannon tech that has been late suggested to rationalize the jammers behavior.
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by IansterGuy »

I know the plan at this time is instead of adding more features, codding should focus on re-factoring and making additional features easier to add in the future. That sounds good, but I'm sure that trying to better define future the features here would not hurt, even though there are other features to finish first.

About now I'm thinking there has been enough good ideas to make a working solution, if it was to be done. After these last few comments I think the vital parts of this puzzle fit together from what has been presented. Are there any other problems to solve? because I'm thinking it is getting near time to simplify the big picture into something easily described as implementable. Though early solutions where described to seem complex, I'm sure each SPEC inhibition source can be fairly simply defined now.

[#1. Temporary area effect using a 'SPEC pulse' on an area near a target. Dissipates over distance.]From the point the device exploded make all SPEC slow, at the blast point 100% and diminishing exponentially like the equation (1/x^2) and over a time of average like 1 minute


[#2. Temporary target effect using time released plasma from missiles and mines called 'SPEC-busters'.]Completely disable the SPEC of a target until only 10 percent of the hull is covered in SPEC inhibiting compound. This could take like 30 seconds average. Inhibit SPEC proportional to the last 10 percent of saturation. Remove the compound at a constant rate, but pause the removal when SPEC is activated.

[#3. Persistent 'SPEC-denial field' mounted on a ship as previously discussed or on some sort of reusable subunit device. The area effect would not be as large as the SPEC pulse or as lasting.]This one could be complex, but also simple. Activating the device by pressing a permanent toggle button would activate a device. All ships have it for defensive reasons, but it but may need to be upgraded for significant offensive use. The device when activated would consume constant power of the SPEC drive at about the same rate using SPEC would. It would block SPEC 100% from the source and a fairly small distance outward, diminishing exponentially to an equation like 1/x^2, but unlike SPEC-pulse it would not diminish over time.

[#3.5. 'Plasma Plum interference'] In addition, over a very short range when activated, the shield system partakes in quickly extending plasma plumes toward any enemy that has their shield down. Getting hit by a plasma plume would be similar to getting hit by a SPEC-buster, but the effect would not last as long once the source is removed because in general shield plasma cannot be specialized for sticking hulls for timed release. So once a shieldless ship is within a short range, a plume is released and upon contact it immediately saturates the ship area. If their SPEC is activated the saturation of plasma in the area does not dissipate when the source is gone but any remaining follows the ship. When the source is gone normally either the cloud dissipates at a constant rate, or it dissipates faster when thrusting out of the saturated area vector. When shields are activated the lingering plasma clears much quicker.

[#4. The ships own speed Governor to assist safe intercepts especially when all other SPEC inhibitions are not present.]If the ship is nearing an intercept path. Slow SPEC proportionally to the likely hood of collision at that point. The ships current location and consumed space is 100% likely hood of collision. This would be effective in Autopilot and manual overrides, except in full manual.

[#5. The real permanent 'physical limitation' of SPEC proportional to size to avoid worry of point blank crashes. Similar to what is already implemented.]When nearing another ships consumed space, stop before collision, or slow proportional to it's 'gravity curvature'. This would be effective in every control method including full manual.

With all these methods implemented, the science fiction would be as realistic as I can think to make it. I acknowledge that not all methods are really necessary especially #3.5 and #4 though would make a complete solution end to end. The rest would be to decide which items and units to add, and the balancing of them.
Shark
Confed Special Operative
Confed Special Operative
Posts: 360
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 9:34 am
Contact:

Re: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by Shark »

I am having trouble understanding the OP... I'm OK with the added delay when starting SPEC, but I don't understand exactly how a cold start is supposed to differ from a warm start. Could someone please explain that to me? Not to sound mean, but it took me over a half hour to read that post. :(

SPEC interdiction is something I've definitely been waiting a long time for, too. I like the idea of massive interdiction devices aboard ships, as well as interdiction mines, but don't think interdiction missiles are very 'fun'. :? I think the Star Wars universe handled this sort of thing pretty well. See here.
Deus Siddis wrote:This all worked fine in v0.4.3. But 0.5.0 added enormous traffic congestion that does nothing but get in your way and clog up the radar and target selection interface. As a result, SPEC had to be modified to be unaffected by all but the heaviest ships, and only just barely so. So called "interceptors" and all light craft can't intercept anything that isn't already deep in the gravity well of a planet.

IMHO, this all could be solved relatively easily by going back to sane traffic spawn density, at least between destinations, and then returning SPEC sensitivity back up to where it belongs. Then you will have interceptions again, you won't have too long of travel times and won't have to cycle through the 1000 in-system ships to target the one you want.
I have to disagree with you. I like the high traffic count, and don't think that SPEC should be affected by other ships, period. If there are collisions, they should not be attributed to some inherent limitation of SPEC.
IansterGuy wrote:The most difficult thing I'm trying to accomplish it seems is making interceptors able to intercept. Though I don't think the solution is to go back to a lower spawn density. That would be like stopping the rain in the sky to fix the hole in the roof. In games it's easy too easy to stop the rain but that does not make the game any more dynamic to changes.
That is an awesome metaphor! I might put that in my sig. :)
log0 wrote:What options would someone have when running in such a field (with > 1min duration), and not having the firepower to deal with the opponents? Loading last savegame?
1. Running away. 2. Traveling in groups. 3. Active policing by local authorities.
klauss wrote:Defense platforms are a special case. It would be time-limited because, presumably, platforms wouldn't be able to keep it up for long, so it would be activated on-demand. Staying around them long enough for their interdiction capability to run out would be, as you point out, tough. But that's because it's a strong-hold.

Less defended positions would use cheaper, lower-grade hardware, and would be able to sustain those fields much less. Mines, for instance, would only last a few minutes, maybe. Ships would be able to keep it running for longer, but not indefinitely. And they'd be a target for law enforcement.
I don't see why a ship shouldn't be able to maintain an interdiction field indefinitely if it has a big enough reactor to do so. I mean, ships are able to use SPEC indefinitely for flying. Why shouldn't the opposite also be possible?
IansterGuy wrote:[#2. Temporary target effect using time released plasma from missiles and mines called 'SPEC-busters'.]Completely disable the SPEC of a target until only 10 percent of the hull is covered in SPEC inhibiting compound. This could take like 30 seconds average. Inhibit SPEC proportional to the last 10 percent of saturation. Remove the compound at a constant rate, but pause the removal when SPEC is activated.
I don't think suggesting chemistry as a means of starting/stopping SPEC is a good idea. I think we should stick with the physics we have already. Otherwise, it will open the door for SPEC-inhibiting microbes, and then all hell will break loose. :mrgreen:
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by klauss »

Shark wrote:I don't see why a ship shouldn't be able to maintain an interdiction field indefinitely if it has a big enough reactor to do so. I mean, ships are able to use SPEC indefinitely for flying. Why shouldn't the opposite also be possible?
Somehow, an interdiction field would be more energy-demanding. In any case, it would be nice to limit SPEC's range too, at least for low-end craft. Otherwise, what's the point of SPEC capacitors?
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: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by Deus Siddis »

Shark wrote: I have to disagree with you. I like the high traffic count,
The traffic doesn't actually exist except in close proximity to destinations, because you can't actually encounter or interact with it anywhere else. It is just a shit ton of little dots populating your radar screens and cluttering up your target selection interface.
If there are collisions, they should not be attributed to some inherent limitation of SPEC.
If there are collisions? You consider this an if situation?

Without collisions there is no interaction outside of small pockets around destinations. You have totally broken the game and the universe to satisfy your desire to not limit SPEC in any reasonable way. The space fighters the game centers itself around are useless because they can't intercept anything. The universe is broken because with no natural force to slow SPEC down, war devolves into M.A.D. as long range SPEC missiles can be launched directly at planets with no hope of shooting them down.
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by IansterGuy »

Shark wrote:I am having trouble understanding the OP... I'm OK with the added delay when starting SPEC, but I don't understand exactly how a cold start is supposed to differ from a warm start. Could someone please explain that to me?
"opposite 'Full Manual SPEC'"? "opposing spec fields"? Over Powered? I'm not sure, so I will just answer the second part of the questions. As for cold starts verses hot starts, I was throwing around ideas a fair bit and some particular ideas are not really necessary, but they highlight some funky power control. This is similar to the feature request to be able to turn off the reactor. If I remember we talked about both cold starts for SPEC and cold starts of the rector. A warm start for SPEC means that it has already established everything but the actual space warping. Once activated the drive would consume significant power even when the ship is not moving at all yet. In this case it has been activated by the same method that we activate SPEC now, by pressing [Shift+A]. If SPEC's set speed is kept at default zero then indeed the shields would stay up until SPEC's speed setting is increased by pressing [+] or any relevant button for the SPEC accelerate function. The shields would then be retracted back into the ship which is much faster than dropping them and waiting for the materials to disperse. Once space is mostly clear SPEC emitters would be free to start warping space to into the alcubierre bubble and the space in the bubble containing the ship would be propelled onward to the speed of light and beyond.
Shark wrote:Not to sound mean, but it took me over a half hour to read that post. :(
The issue is that we where kind of talking about things that where already discussed in the lost forum. Also my writing style is purposely short with as much information as I can pack into the sentence. It is a bit lazy but it also makes it so people can either quickly skim the words to get a picture of my meaning, or read those same words deeper to get my full meaning. Sometimes I use analogies in parallel for clarity, but sometimes I don't do all that I could when it comes to, using examples. It takes a lot more typing to use a proper example or analogy and I prefer to practice using more specific words using a thesaurus.
Shark wrote:don't think interdiction missiles are very 'fun'. :?
I have seen them in games before but they worked a bit different. For example in Iwar2 ships can initiate LSD FTL travel at any moment when far enough away from massive objects, but Interceptor missiles can travel FTL to stop the player from escaping for another 60 seconds. This makes little sense because why can't all missiles do that, but it did force a player to finish a mission or die. The player also had moments where he could fire those missiles on escaping NPC's, or chase down a FTL ship at speeds as if they where moving at normal speed for the final approach; but normally the NPC's would fight to or near their destruction.
Shark wrote:
IansterGuy wrote:The most difficult thing I'm trying to accomplish it seems is making interceptors able to intercept. Though I don't think the solution is to go back to a lower spawn density. That would be like stopping the rain in the sky to fix the hole in the roof. In games it's easy too easy to stop the rain but that does not make the game any more dynamic to changes.
That is an awesome metaphor! I might put that in my sig. :)
Sure go right ahead, it's not like I was planning to. It could use a few alterations to hold it's own in a single sentence though.
Shark wrote:
IansterGuy wrote:[#2. Temporary target effect using time released plasma from missiles and mines called 'SPEC-busters'.]Completely disable the SPEC of a target until only 10 percent of the hull is covered in SPEC inhibiting compound. This could take like 30 seconds average. Inhibit SPEC proportional to the last 10 percent of saturation. Remove the compound at a constant rate, but pause the removal when SPEC is activated.
I don't think suggesting chemistry as a means of starting/stopping SPEC is a good idea. I think we should stick with the physics we have already. Otherwise, it will open the door for SPEC-inhibiting microbes, and then all hell will break loose. :mrgreen:
I should have started that quote by claiming something like, 'every spec buster has the potential to cover the hull with a certain amount of SPEC inhibiting compound, where percent saturation would depend on the size and quality of the SPEC buster and the size of the target.'

I think this reasoning is more a physical conduction reason than a chemical reason, because essentially the space around the ship should be clear even calculation wise to avoid variables needing to be accounted for. Klauss liked shields interfering catastrophically with SPEC, and Log0 liked missiles, so I figured add that to SPEC busters with a unique behavior.

Spamming missiles for duration of dogfights would be common. Though with physical countermeasures, I think that since there would be a chance of avoidance they would also contribute to forcing an early crucial decision weather to stay longer or to run.

To create unique game play and to differentiate the SPEC inhibiting compound from the other wave interference, SPEC busters would have an effect that only effects one ships and gradually wanes. This instead of effecting a hole area at the cost of energy or effecting an area for a short time at the cost of a self destructing device.

To make it more difficult to escape using a half disabled SPEC drive SPEC would not further recover from any inhibiting substance on the hull once the SPEC drive is activated. To reason is that if the target runs too soon they are easy to catch by a ship is not inhibited and travel time does not count for further recovery but rather would drain the SPEC drive for the next attempt.

I had two possible explanations for this and I like the second one now only. First was that once SPEC is activated the substance would be attracted to the emitters, directly interfering as they stick to them and temporary stop fuming the interference substance. What I prefer now is the shield clean up method. Where while activated the shields clean up the compound at a constant rate and really the shields themselves also cause catastrophic interference with SPEC so cannot propel through space the ship till shields are retracted.

I didn't answer your comment about avoiding microbe weapons because I think why not have them. They are essentially the same problem as Nanites and micro robots, which also need an explanation. The shield clean up explanation would solve both of these. My thought is that the shield system would not just protect from projectiles and energy weapons, but would consist of all kinds a tricks to thwart every known type of attack on the ship, including microbes and nano-bots. If the shield can project and concentrate particles and energy into a semi rigid fabric, why would it not be able to pull small particles away from the hull or fry them or radiate the proper interference patterns to hinder them. I think it all works, not point in stopping their implementation, it just needs an explanation.
TBeholder
Elite Venturer
Elite Venturer
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 2:40 am
Location: chthonic safety

Re: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by TBeholder »

To point out the obvious or not to point out the obvious? That is the question.
The obvious: for any chemical interaction to matter, said emitters should have thin and completely uncovered vulnerable parts.
Even more obvious: ...in which case, who needs chemical interactions at all? In a high-velocity combat it's easier to hammer it than to gently touch it. :lol:
"Two Eyes Good, Eleven Eyes Better." -Michele Carter
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Method to reduce the combat role of SPEC, and remote dro

Post by IansterGuy »

TBeholder wrote:To point out the obvious or not to point out the obvious? That is the question.
The obvious: for any chemical interaction to matter, said emitters should have thin and completely uncovered vulnerable parts.
Even more obvious: ...in which case, who needs chemical interactions at all? In a high-velocity combat it's easier to hammer it than to gently touch it. :lol:
Always point out the obvious when it seems to make no sense. That is the answer.

I did speak of them as if they would be exposed emitters for simplicity, but what I really was thinking was more like conductive points for the lines of flux of a magnetic field generator to pass through, unimpeded by the armor which may likely be insulating. All of the sensitive equipment would be deep inside thick conductive plate.

The emitters would be simply be conductive plates specially designed to carry wave lines and flux line emissions to the outside of the hull at fictional very high resolution and precision. To achieve this precision, an effectively infinite number of fictional flux lanes would be designed in to the conductive materiel. If the emitters are damaged or impeded in any way, the resolution and precision of emissions would be deteriorated, and their performance would suffer.

Flux lines and wave lines are very general terms it can mean many different types of emissions that could even fictionally include a space time manipulation wave, or something similar to direct around the SPEC bubble. This would probably be done in combination with another lager piece of equipment in the ship that does the heavy work.

Now to answer your query. My thought was that a high resolution magnetic field would be sensitive to outside influences and damage, but the source of the transmission could quickly compensate for most momentary interference and persistent damage. What the SPEC buster compound would do is be attracted to the emitter and constantly change their conductive paths to alter the pattern of the flux lines as much as possible. The changes in interference would be too random and too fast fast for the transmission source to attempt compensate. So the presence of the compound would be worse than physical damage and would need to be removed before SPEC can properly operate. The shield system would automatically clean away the foreign substanes the same way it manages it's own rogue particles, but since shields can't be on at the same time as SPEC trying to SPEC would stop the cleaning.

Some types of fictional emissions would not require as much resolution, EMP for example would require none, so would not be effected by interference. The shield sustaining would likely partially share the same emitters but would not notice the loss of resolution and precision because of the proximity and the physical nature of the shield design gives the system something to actually hold on to which is much more forgiving than targeting flux lines and waves to points or curved planes in empty space as may be required by the SPEC drive.

Emitters themselves would be tough, but not as tough as the armor, and their performance would be effected by how damaged they are, but they would not stop functioning until they are destroyed. Their other weakness would be that they let in waves the same way they let them out, even if they where designed to partially block them. The proposed EMP weapons could do damage to powered up transmitters and sensors behind the emitters in particular.
Post Reply