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.
IansterGuy
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 8:49 am

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

Post by IansterGuy »

Current there are only superficial limitations on SPEC functionality in combat. The shields are lowered for a while after exiting SPEC, and when being pursued the ship SPEC will not be able to reach full speed. While these limitations are good they do not really stop a ship from imdefinetly running from their pursuer all around the system until one runs out of gas or crashes into the other. Since I belive the game is intended to be an action space simulator, the action should come around more quickly.

I propose a few limitations to SPEC, and some additions of technologies be added to the game to ensure fast pace action. First for SPEC add a Start up delay of about 3-8 seconds. This extra time would be to establish a SPEC field before shaping it into a wave that can move the ship. The longest part of the delay would have nothing to do with the shield interference, but rather a need to establish the SPEC field from a cold start. If the field was left on from a manual activation, then there would be no start up delay, but the SPEC drive would consume a significant amount of fuel, even when not moving. The explanation would be that maintaining the hold on space would consume energy, no matter the shape. The only startup delay would then be the delay required to retract shields particles that could interfere with the SPEC emitters. This delay would be around 1.5-5 seconds. What this would do is make the armour venerable during SPEC activation, to discourage late fleeing when the enemy is pursuing within weapon range and push the decision to flee or fight earlier biased on the likelihood of really winning before commiting.

Other thing to add would be interdiction technologies to interfere with or jam the SPEC drive of another ship. This would be common technology, but still a required purchase. It's function would be to use any available means to disrupt the SPEC systems of a hostile group or target ship. The disruption methods would include creating opposing spec fields, plasma discharges, small gravity wells, and electromagnetic discharges.

Some forms of interdiction that interfere with subspace would also partially jam FTL communications through subspace, and make fuzzy the radio waves through normal space. This would make calls for help unreliable as indicated by failed transmission messages, and disrupt long range usage of remote drones.

Ships would be equipped with passive interdiction which would not be activated but rather would protect the ship from direct SPEC collisions. Active interdiction would need to be purchased and could be targeted to a particular ship. Interdiction missiles could also be available to interrupt a SPEC start up. They would discharge plasma ions at the SPEC emitters of a target which would force SPEC to deactivate to allow for the plasma to be cleared by the shield system.
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 »

IansterGuy wrote:I propose a few limitations to SPEC, and some additions of technologies be added to the game to ensure fast pace action. First for SPEC add a Start up delay of about 3-8 seconds.
I've been meaning to do this for a while now. I guess the above means it's seconded. ;)
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
maze
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:39 pm

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

Post by maze »

I happen to like both ideas actually.

I thought about some sort of interdiction device myself a few weeks ago too. I was seeing it more in the form of a device that would suppress all SPEC capability within some radius around the ship when it is activated.Preferably a pretty large radius, like maybe 100 km. In a way it's kind of fair (when used by non-player ships against a player ship) in the sense that, while it prevents the player ship from using SPEC in order to flee, it also makes reinforcements much longer to arrive.

Just as a remark, I guess anti-SPEC missiles wouldn't be that good after all except in relatively rare circumstances, like a fleeing enemy capship who can soak more than one torpedo...not unheard of, since it did happen to me once or twice, but really not that common. As a player I'd still rather carry torpedoes and/or friend or foe missiles.
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 »

maze wrote:Just as a remark, I guess anti-SPEC missiles wouldn't be that good after all except in relatively rare circumstances, like a fleeing enemy capship who can soak more than one torpedo...not unheard of, since it did happen to me once or twice, but really not that common. As a player I'd still rather carry torpedoes and/or friend or foe missiles.
I'd imagine anti-SPEC mines would be far more common and useful.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
maze
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:39 pm

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

Post by maze »

klauss wrote:I'd imagine anti-SPEC mines would be far more common and useful.
Those would be pirate's dream, that's for sure. For tactical purpose also, when there's enemies expected to pass through some gate. Also, if they could be triggered not always by proximity but also optionally by someone watching over them, that would multiply to use cases (but that's maybe stretching even more in terms of features).
pheonixstorm
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1567
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:03 am

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

Post by pheonixstorm »

IansterGuy wrote: Other thing to add would be interdiction technologies to interfere with or jam the SPEC drive of another ship. This would be common technology, but still a required purchase. It's function would be to use any available means to disrupt the SPEC systems of a hostile group or target ship. The disruption methods would include creating opposing spec fields, plasma discharges, small gravity wells, and electromagnetic discharges.

Some forms of interdiction that interfere with subspace would also partially jam FTL communications through subspace, and make fuzzy the radio waves through normal space. This would make calls for help unreliable as indicated by failed transmission messages, and disrupt long range usage of remote drones.

Ships would be equipped with passive interdiction which would not be activated but rather would protect the ship from direct SPEC collisions. Active interdiction would need to be purchased and could be targeted to a particular ship. Interdiction missiles could also be available to interrupt a SPEC start up. They would discharge plasma ions at the SPEC emitters of a target which would force SPEC to deactivate to allow for the plasma to be cleared by the shield system.
Interdiction has been brought up before and is a good idea. Its just like many other good ideas.. no one has had the time to add it in. It would definitely add new flavor into fleet engagements as well as allow for some nasty pirate surprises between trade routes. So first thing we need is a nice gravity well generator upgrade for corvette size ships or larger. Or at least a discussion on what size ships can actually carry such a device.. I think THAT part was never discussed, just that we needed one and how cool it would be.

As for the first part.. As long as it does NOT affect non combat spec usage (cargo runs takes too long as is) I see no reason not to do it.
Because of YOU Arbiter, MY kids? can't get enough gas. OR NIPPLE! How does that mkae you feeeel? ~ Halo
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 »

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.
maze
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:39 pm

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

Post by maze »

Friendly ships shouldn't prevent each other from SPECing just by sticking close to one another. Be it just because you can have wingmen in VS.
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 »

maze wrote:Friendly ships shouldn't prevent each other from SPECing just by sticking close to one another. Be it just because you can have wingmen in VS.
It has nothing to do with friendliness or not, it's supposed to be a physical limitation of SPEC.

There are multiple solutions:
  • AI-based: make AI pick random elliptical paths between nav points, avoiding congesting any one path.
  • Instrument-based: make autopilot or manual SPEC cap the multiplier based on target proximity - that way one can pick a target and arrive there (provided that target isn't moving at SPEC speeds itself). Maybe provide a SPEC-interdiction autopilot mode to follow a SPEC-ing ship too, to intercept at SPEC speeds.
  • Scripting-based: go back to spawning on-demand when arriving to destination. I see this as going backwards... but...
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 »

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.
Well that is interesting! 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.
klauss wrote:
maze wrote:Friendly ships shouldn't prevent each other from SPECing just by sticking close to one another. Be it just because you can have wingmen in VS.
It has nothing to do with friendliness or not, it's supposed to be a physical limitation of SPEC.
Actually I think maze is right if it was solved with multiple solutions. It also lines up with your second solution to be selective between friendly and hostile. My thought on the physical limitation was that it would effect all ships not matter what, but if you think about how close one can get to a planet before the ship stops the planet fills the screen. The equivalent according to my previous gravity curvature based SPEC limitation would mean that the if the pilot is not quick enough to turn off SPEC with nothing else the ship would be none to nose with the other before stopping completely. This should avoid any annoyance slowing with friendly ships yet prevent most SPEC only collisions, even in manual SPEC.
klauss wrote:There are multiple solutions:
  • AI-based: make AI pick random elliptical paths between nav points, avoiding congesting any one path.
  • Instrument-based: make autopilot or manual SPEC cap the multiplier based on target proximity - that way one can pick a target and arrive there (provided that target isn't moving at SPEC speeds itself). Maybe provide a SPEC-interdiction autopilot mode to follow a SPEC-ing ship too, to intercept at SPEC speeds.
  • Scripting-based: go back to spawning on-demand when arriving to destination. I see this as going backwards... but...
The first solution is Okay if it was needed for other reasons too but is not really a solution. The last solution I hate because it makes the game less alive, and also avoids the problem. The second solution I like because with a few additions it opens up so much ability to tweak it until it is perfect. Instrument-based may be the hardest solution but it would give the best results. One could differentiate between hostile and friendly and give hostiles a hard time whenever possible. This is part of what I was thinking when I said have passive interdiction. Friendlies would be effected only by the physical limitation, while hostiles would automatically be inhibited at a farther distance by the passive interdiction so that they can't SPEC face to face in front of a ship and shoot then run again.

As Klauss solutions made me think, ones own own autopilot could regulate approaches to be a safe speed, I add that it should be able so follow ships in SPEC too at a safe non collision distance. Basic SPEC overrides of autopiolot would be almost as safe as autopilot because it uses the same precautions.
Only when toggling full manual would the would SPEC be aggressive, it would not stay to safe distances, but rather as close as physically allowed even to cause a collision.

I can visualize this setup working with the proposed keymaping, but I have not given it enough thought. These are the keys as of now that have me thinking.

<<<<Subsystem management>>>>
[J] Jam the specific nearby targets SPEC capabilities by setting full power directional interdiction.
[...]

<<<<<Manual SPEC flight>>>>>
[Shift+A] Toggle Full manual SPEC controls for settings of both the warp space SPEC alcubierre drive and normal space SPEC dilation_drive (In SPEC Warp the ship does not technically move in space, while SPEC dilation accelerates the ship in real space much faster than normal but with bigger limitations)
[Shift+hold[A]] Activate SPEC and accelerate at maximum velocity quickly for emergencies
[...]

<<<<SPEC Overrides>>>>
*Note Spec drive must be activated or manual toggled for theses alternative controls to be active*
[+] Accelerate in warp space speed in pressed keys direction {default forward}
[-] Decelerate in warp space speed in pressed keys direction {default backward}
[P] Set Target as warp space reference
[Alt+P] Set Point of reference for governors, navigation to current vector
[Backspace] Set warp speed relative to the reference to zero
[Alt+Backspace] Match targets speed in warp space in every direction or in pressed keys direction
[\] Set full warp space speed in pressed keys direction {default forward}
[Alt+\] Set best forward warp space intercept speed or follow speed for target automatically (If the way is clear to an intercept point it will stop at a safe point near there. Otherwise it will stop behind and follow the obstacle at a safe distance)

For full updated key map go to 'New keybinding proposal ESDF baised, left hand on home row'
Last edited by IansterGuy on Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

About key bindings, I think there are too many already. VDUs have to be clickable. Then you just click on the button that says "SPEC safety: ON"
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 »

Well most of my proposed keybindings are just bloat for the sake of proving how everything could be included. There are not many more basic controls needed, most are just not necessary and are just built as a layer on top of the simple control in a way that it should not interfear.
maze
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 10:39 pm

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

Post by maze »

klauss wrote:
maze wrote:Friendly ships shouldn't prevent each other from SPECing just by sticking close to one another. Be it just because you can have wingmen in VS.
It has nothing to do with friendliness or not, it's supposed to be a physical limitation of SPEC.
I'm aware of that, what I meant is that there shouldn't be such a physical limitation, except maybe around the heaviest capships. If there is, a the mere presence of a wingman on your wing will prevent you from SPECing, which is simply bad.

A SPEC interdiction device which can be toggled on/off is really what's needed IMHO.
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 »

maze wrote:
klauss wrote:
maze wrote:Friendly ships shouldn't prevent each other from SPECing just by sticking close to one another. Be it just because you can have wingmen in VS.
It has nothing to do with friendliness or not, it's supposed to be a physical limitation of SPEC.
I'm aware of that, what I meant is that there shouldn't be such a physical limitation, except maybe around the heaviest capships. If there is, a the mere presence of a wingman on your wing will prevent you from SPECing, which is simply bad.
Why? Just fly on an open formation.

Really it's not the ships' mass the one interfering, it's the shields/SPEC engine on those ships.
maze wrote:A SPEC interdiction device which can be toggled on/off is really what's needed IMHO.
I agree.
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:About key bindings, I think there are too many already. VDUs have to be clickable. Then you just click on the button that says "SPEC safety: ON"
I like the idea of clickable VDU's my intention was that the 'control' key while pressed would free the mouse for clicking around. It would do things like switch tabs and press buttons in the VDU, press buttons in the virtual cockpit, select units, and give commands through the right click context menu. Over all it would be a modifier key for giving commands, communicating, and controlling with either the mouse or keyboard. Rolling off subject now :P

So calling it 'SPEC safety' on/off? That could work, but I'm not sure if it is any more self explanatory then calling the opposite 'Full Manual SPEC' when [Shift+A] is toggled on. It could be simply called toggling the safety off right now. Though if dual function SPEC was adopted It would not only turn off the SPEC safety, it would also swap primary thrust controls with the at first secondary SPEC controls. I did not show it all on the assumption that the system would be as it is now with speed controls having only primary controls that swap when spec is activated. Only one SPEC function, means only primary controls. In full manual mode, if there where two SPEC functions [Shift] would be pressed during SPEC to control the ship in normal space, instead of 'SPEC alcubierre' warp space. It would be the opposite normally where SPEC can be individually started as a unit and controlled under [shift], or simply omitted.
maze wrote:
klauss wrote:
maze wrote:Friendly ships shouldn't prevent each other from SPECing just by sticking close to one another. Be it just because you can have wingmen in VS.
It has nothing to do with friendliness or not, it's supposed to be a physical limitation of SPEC.
I'm aware of that, what I meant is that there shouldn't be such a physical limitation, except maybe around the heaviest capships. If there is, a the mere presence of a wingman on your wing will prevent you from SPECing, which is simply bad.
Not really so much if the physical limitation is small that it stops the SPEC at the same distance as planets do proportional to the size. All it would do then would prevent collisions, and slow down the ship slightly in the first few moments until out in the open. If the capital ship could SPEC while a cargo wing man is trying the results could be disastrous if the landing spot is at the front like on some ships. Having the inhibition could actually speed things up because the player could activate SPEC even before they knew it was safe, and ship ship would go as soon as it was in the clear. This behaviour would rely on having SPEC inhibition relative to size.[/quote]
klauss wrote:Why? Just fly on an open formation.

Really it's not the ships' mass the one interfering, it's the shields/SPEC engine on those ships.
O yea and those shields, they should be off if your hole team is prepping to SPEC, if one guy does not the ship would be be forced to go slow off the start to avoid attracting the plasma. To mitigate this the player would aim away from the source until quickly moving away. Normally it would not be so drastic to ruin your chase unless he is so close that he is within a few times of your shield radius where SPEC can't activate at all in the slightest.
maze wrote:A SPEC interdiction device which can be toggled on/off is really what's needed IMHO.
Yeah, a toggle for a 100% inhibition for a flat distance would be much simpler to get it in the game faster. That would work, the interdiction focusing would just be more realistic, in no way essential and a lot more work.
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 »

IansterGuy wrote:
maze wrote:A SPEC interdiction device which can be toggled on/off is really what's needed IMHO.
Yeah, a toggle for a 100% inhibition for a flat distance would be much simpler to get it in the game faster. That would work, the interdiction focusing would just be more realistic, in no way essential and a lot more work.
I don't think it would be that realistic to be able to "focus" it. I don't even think it would be well balanced.
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:I don't think it would be that realistic to be able to "focus" it. I don't even think it would be well balanced.
That is sort of how modern Radar ECM works though. They create interference locally and then they extend their effect toward the target so to have more effect. Some of the techniques I mentioned like opposing spec fields and small gravity wells for interfering directly with warp wave seem that they would have a short range. Others like discharging plasma to an area would seem to have a directed area of effect. Maybe SPEC could rely on subspace tech and that subspace interference would work the same in all directions or however one wanted it. Alternatively maybe the jammers use gravity emitters to simulate a large object curving space which interferes with faster SPEC speeds. The point of focusing would be to get the maximum range and avoid collateral jamming of friendly targets. As for balance of all this there are lots of details to work out. If interdiction blocks friendlies it would cause many annoyance jamming among teammates. It would often cause the target get a good head start once out of the field and the pursuers must all agree to turn off interdiction. This would be chaos with NPC's together with the player trying to catch something.

That is the reason I came up with the idea in the first place, to make the gameplay faster, not slow down every ship in the area. So maybe I should insist on the idea after all. Just like modern jammers, interdiction should effect a small dissipating area as an undesired collateral effect on all targets including friendlies but for hostiles at a longer range becuase of the automatic focusing. having jamming for a specific target would not be necessary, but could give the programers some leverage if things don’t work out range wise. This could swing many different ways for gameplay depending on the range, dissipation of the fields, and ability to avoid friendlies and focus on enemies. I'm not quite sure what would end up being the best way, but I think creating a simple solutions would be the best start, then people could work from there after seeing what happens.
log0

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

Post by log0 »

I'd prefer to have a weapon instead of a device. A SPEC-Buster missile maybe. The missile would generate a strong local SPEC impulse on hit, which would force a time consuming(~1min) SPEC drive restart/reset/whatever or maybe even damage the drive. SPEC-Buster mines would be used to pull someone out of SPEC.
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 »

I'd rather base it all on shield technology, and say a mine creates a SPEC-denial field around it. Not sure that works with missiles, and that's good. It forces people to be creative, and it forces mines into usefulness.
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 »

log0 wrote:I'd prefer to have a weapon instead of a device. A SPEC-Buster missile maybe. The missile would generate a strong local SPEC impulse on hit, which would force a time consuming(~1min) SPEC drive restart/reset/whatever or maybe even damage the drive. SPEC-Buster mines would be used to pull someone out of SPEC.
SPEC-buster is a good name. A lingering effect from a SPEC impulse is interesting. A one time use device could plausibly have as long of range as a more expensive on board unit. It would be like those hypothetical nuclear bomb powered laser beam designs. How it would last so long maybe is by instantly creating multiple gravity ripples at various distances moving toward the area who’s effect would ripple into the area naturally at the speed of light over a second and cause so many gravity reverberations that it lasts much longer. It would dissipate over time instead of stop suddenly, and given time the player could use SPEC to slowly move out of the effected area. My thought on this is that it would end up being a defensive weapon faster ships that would rather the bigger ships not be able to use SPEC to surround them. Using it on an area would force everyone to star using real space dog-fighting maneuverings more than SPEC ones That dangerously lower the shield. I know that your idea was for one target but that is where klauss's idea comes in.
klauss wrote:I'd rather base it all on shield technology, and say a mine creates a SPEC-denial field around it. Not sure that works with missiles, and that's good. It forces people to be creative, and it forces mines into usefulness.
So is the mine a destructible one usage device, or one that can be placed and picked up latter? I say that mines should be purchased either for their area effect as described or on impact to the specific victim. The weapon would be very cheap and work by covering the ship in a conductive time released plasma like substance that must be either cleaned or simply waited to vaporize into space.

So essentially there could be two unique ways to block SPEC:
#1. Temporary area effect using a 'SPEC pulse' on an area near a target. Dissipates over distance.
#2. Temporary target effect using time released plasma from missiles called 'SPEC-busters'.

A third method would be what was previously discussed, and it would be combination of the two together for best results, but weaker because it is not destructible. Instead of a single pulse, it must maintain a field for as long as it's is needed. Though the field would slow SPEC to almost a stop and for a fair range it would lose effect as soon as out of range. Only when the ship is close enough to the active shield system of another would the effect linger for longer. This would effect hostiles much more intensely than friendlies because the shield system would compensate to avoid inhibiting friendlies while extend out plasma plumes toward hostiles automatically to cause trouble. Theses two things are my new interpretation of the active and passive SPEC inhibition that was discussed.

#3. Persistent [EDIT: Nixed "Permanent"] 'SPEC-denial field' mounted on a ship as previously discussed or on some sort of reusable subunit platform. The area effect would not be as large as the SPEC pulse or as lasting.

EDIT: #4. The ships own speed Governor to assist safe intercepts when all other SPEC inhibitions are not present; 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. :EDIT

So what do you think of that? It is combination of what everybody has said I think. Each various device could stand alone in the game except those specific measures built into the ship to avoid collisions. It should leave tones of room for tweaking, hope fully not too much.
Last edited by IansterGuy on Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
log0

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

Post by log0 »

@IanisterGuy Nah, my idea is to have the weapon affecting the SPEC drive (like overloading it or whatever) ala EMP weapons. Making it a missile/mine would give the target a chance to employ countermeasures, try to escape.

The part I don't like about proposals so far is the permanent component, like denial/inhibition/jamming fields. They would (theoretically) allow to make whole areas unSPECable which doesn't sound like fun imho.
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 »

log0 wrote:@IanisterGuy Nah, my idea is to have the weapon affecting the SPEC drive (like overloading it or whatever) ala EMP weapons. Making it a missile/mine would give the target a chance to employ countermeasures, try to escape.
I like the suspense of countermeasures, maybe physical countermeasures would work better than just ECM spoofing as it is now. This game play should be compatible with what I was thinking, since those single use weapons would be much better than any on board devices. As for overloads, the conductive plasma would overload the SPEC emitters by short circuiting a vital electric type wave or some other wave SPEC would need to emit. EMP's damage unshielded micro electronics or long runs of wire I believe. Possibly SPEC can't be shielded as well by the nature of it's workings, but EMP damages things permanently normally not temporary except when devices just have to shutdown and restart to get rid of static. Also EMP would effect the source ship more than then things around it I believe.
log0 wrote:The part I don't like about proposals so far is the permanent component, like denial/inhibition/jamming fields. They would (theoretically) allow to make whole areas unSPECable which doesn't sound like fun imho.
EDIT:Though permanent may be the wrong word that I used that could instead mean that physical SPEC limitation to avoid crashing, the persistent activateable solution is exactly what I thought maze was proposing.:EDIT You maybe right but you may need to read more into what I have said or I need to explain more because the combined solution is all reliant on having devices work within specific margins like distance, dissipation, duration. If the persistent range was much shorter it would be more just a common way to force a dogfight with a slower ship. The effective range would need to be short enough that the offender always needs to be within decent weapon range. The offender would be hard pressed to stay close enough while not getting hit, and avoid the victim successfully taking the risk of lowering shields to slowly SPEC out of range. If shields are down when hit by a SPEC buster or a plasma plume, that is when the SPEC drive would be completely unusable for the full longer duration.
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: The part I don't like about proposals so far is the permanent component, like denial/inhibition/jamming fields. They would (theoretically) allow to make whole areas unSPECable which doesn't sound like fun imho.
I believe the opposite. It would make piracy more likely, open up new piracy (or interdiction in general) techniques, and it would open up possibilities for scenery: imagine "protected areas" covered in SPEC-denial powered autodefenses.

SPEC-denial fields wouldn't be eternal, they need power, and power's limited. So they'd last a minute or two, tops, for common cheap mines. Maybe a little more for the more expensive mines, and for powered units (ship, defense stations). But making a whole area of space unSPEC-able by simply dropping a mine is something that would be impossible with these tools.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
log0

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

Post by log0 »

@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?
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:I believe the opposite. It would make piracy more likely, open up new piracy (or interdiction in general) techniques, and it would open up possibilities for scenery: imagine "protected areas" covered in SPEC-denial powered autodefenses.
Ambushes can only really happen near navigation points currently, everywhere else it is always escapeable. Navigation points should be safer than when alone in open space in a friendly system; while still more dangerous in a hostile system. Which reminds me. Jumps could have a start up delay too just like SPEC or longer.
klauss wrote:SPEC-denial fields wouldn't be eternal, they need power, and power's limited. So they'd last a minute or two, tops, for common cheap mines. Maybe a little more for the more expensive mines, and for powered units (ship, defence stations). But making a whole area of space unSPEC-able by simply dropping a mine is something that would be impossible with these tools.
I was not thinking the hole area would be unSPEC-able but rather SPEC inhibited, then hitting them with a SPEC buster or shield plasma plume after would be easier. The only time SPEC would not work at all for 30 seconds would be when a Specific target is hit by a SPEC-buster missile or stealth mine or shield plasma plume when shields are down. If hit when the shields are up, much less of the time release plasma agent would make it to the hull and the rest would be easily left behind in space to dissipate. This would make it a big gamble when trying to SPEC away and would create a new set of "Should I or should I not run now" tactics.

I almost missed an opportunity to better define the terminology so I'm trying a little harder now after making a few edits. Mines explode for a single use, no? If it is reusable maybe call it a platform. They would run on limited batteries because a reactor would make them much less stealthy at close range. I don't like the duration approach for anything that is more than singe use, I would have it all rely on power.
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?
I was thinking activatable interdiction would be lower range as I said, but also use drive capacitor energy instead of a time out. The longer the offender attacks the less capable they are to catch the victim if they run because they are draining their SPEC energy. This brings up again an issue with the way capacitors work, so maybe we should be looking at, if not power management, then an updated power scheme. Though I am not sure why the thrusters use most fuel directly, maybe partly because they need a propellant, everything else could run off the capacitors that must be charged at a constant rate. Thrusting would slow the charging because the advanced ion engines still need power unless the engines and afterburners are their own integrated reactor somehow. That could be believable because there is no need to contain any explosions of lithium-6 reacting at the rear of the ship.
Post Reply