Request for Comments: Ship Design

[eleazar]

.....why don't they play StarScape instead of FO, given FO's different focus, and thus why don't we design FO differently?

What is FO's focus?
I've found past discussions of the relative weight that combat should have in the total game, but no conclusions.

[Geoff the Medio]

In this case, FO is a turn-based 4X strategy game with a RTS-TBS hybrid battle system in which the player controls (at least) dozens of ships simultaneously, rather than an arcade action space shooter where the player has control over a single, high customizable, fighter craft.

As to battles vs. other stuff ratio, there's no official % rating. There is some reluctance to make high level design decisions (or at least statements) about this, so I think the plan is to design reasonable systems for each and tweak some details if battles, or any other part of the game, takes too much time or are too complex.

[utilae]

Since this thread is getting a bit close to death, time to revive it.

.
.


Now I will talk about some things I would like incorperated into Ship Design.

1) Propulsion
One awesome idea I've had in the past is to have different methods of propulsion to build into your ship. Having different ways of getting around the galaxy can make for an interesting game. And ships can be very unique between races based on their travel type.
Eg
Pullers - Specialised Engine Ship - Each can pull so many engineless ships through space. A group of engineless ships can move between systems simply by having the right amount of Pullers in their group.

Pushers - Specialised Engine Ship - Same as Puller, though push. Not sure what different attributes they could have.

Carriers - They carry ships, so can be a means of propulsion for short ranged fighters etc.

FTL - Faster Than Light Engine for open space

Sublight - Slower Than Light Engine for open space

Sail Propulsion - Super cheap, super slow, unlimited fuel.

Mass Driver - Launch ships from a planet or starbase using a mass driver. May be one way trip if no mass driver in target system.

2) Stealth / Detection
A stealth / detection system as we are working on now. I think both passive and active systems can be used, as this is just equipment. I would like stealth and detection to be based off the sum of component stealth and detection for the ship.

In the case where engines ouput alot of emissions lowering stealth, different propulsion types (mentioned above) can play a part in stealth. For example, Solar Sails might be too slow for travel between systems, but in space combat they have no emissions, increasing stealth and are very cheap and need no fuel. Engineless ships that use 'pushers/tugs' can leave their engines at the edge of the system to be more stealthy.

3) Powersource
I was thinking that different power sources could make for interesting ship design. Along with space, you could have power as a requirement for a component, though it has been said many times that this would equate to the same as space. Still, I think a powersource component could be interesting. One powersource might be unstable, but increase engines speed, so damage might cause the ship to explode before the hull is overwhelmed. Another powersource might be low powered, but might be good for stealth ships.

More ideas required . . .

4) Crew
When you design a ship, you design it for the crew as well as its equipment. Life support, crew quarters, etc. I was thinking you could put crew quarters of certain types into the ship. So you put in the captains quarters, that is the captain, his room, his furniture, his dog. A crew member takes up space. Crew members would be generic in that they dont have names, but are simply the jobs/positions on the ship, eg captain, helmsman, navigator, security, etc.
Each crew member might have set bonuses specific to their job:
eg
Ship 1 has:
* 1 Commander -each 50 space, +10% increase in other crew bonuses
* 2 Gunners -each 50 space, +10% bonus to hit
* 1 Navigator -each 50 space, Scan Range increased +10%
* 5 Security -each 50 space, Ship Boarding Combat Defense +10%

I don't know whether crew members should die, or be disabled in battle, but if so, they could be replaced/eneabled automatically at a spacestation.

In terms of experience, I think there should be experience ratings where you have a beginner crew all the way to veteran crew members. The experience would likely increase their bonuses.

5) Technology
Their could be widely different technology types to incorperate into ship design. For example, Organic/Metal/Energy/Crystal, etc. An organic ship may not be able to have Metal parts, but with the right technology and research you can make interfaces to link them. Some races would have preset technology types, but are still able to obtain the other technology types in the game, however it is alot of work to do so, eg their not all at the bottom of the tree, your starting one is, but the rest are at the top somewhere.

The purpose of this is to provide a system of incompatibility of technology in spying, but also difference in the ships of different races.

6) Weapons
In past 4X games mainly Moo2, there have been different weapon types eg beam, missile, etc. But there have been obvious interesting effects that we can implement, but have not been used in previous games. The biggest example is area effect weapons (though their were pulsars). Missiles could have blast radiuses. We can do interesting spread fire weapons (shoot in many directions). Weapon bullets with smarts (eg breeding bullets, attach and leech bullets). Mines would be awesome making travel difficult and providing terrain. We can even have non damaging weapons, eg reveal map, detect ships, knock out shields/engines/weapons.

We just have to be creative.

7) Defenses
You have armour, shields, etc. Once again we can be creative and have different interesting types of defenses. Maybe some internal ship defenses, eg sentry guns to mount on the rooves inside your ship to stop boarding.

8.) AI designed into Ships
When equipment is place on a ship during design, it would be cool if you could specify behaviour that cannot be changed in battle cause it is set in the design.
Eg
Weapon X - If biggest target - attack first
Powersource Y - If stopped, power off engines and double sheild strength.

[Sloth]

Regarding ship design:
I support the idea of making a difference between interior slots/space and exterior slots/space for components, because in other games you always cut the interesting funky equipment in favor of more weapons.
Of course also some non-weapon equipment should take exterior slots (like construction or drop units, special sensors, shield generators etc.)

The pros:
- Ship classes/kits can have lots of interior space or lots of exterior space according to their purpose
- It would go well with the new ideas for power sources, crews and interior security.

The cons:
- More micromanagement with ships, which would otherwise be only equipped with weapons

[eleazar]

Welcome Sloth.



A general comment: FO aims at that sweet-spot of maximum tactical value with a minimum of complexity. Or perhaps i'm overstating the latitude given to complexity.

In other words: the goal is to have game features that work together in interesting ways, not simply to have lots of features.

I don't think i'm going out on a limb to say that ship design will not include crew quarters. This is not Sim Spaceship.

The player controls (at least) dozens of ships simultaneously. It is not an arcade action space shooter where the player has control over a single, high customizable, fighter craft; the level of detail of the ships design system should reflect this distinction.

Just have it look at big components first! :p from years of experience I've learned that the easiest way to solve those mini-riddles is to simply arrange the big items first.

IMHO the ship-building design has failed if it becomes a mini-riddle.


An auto configuration is a good idea, not as an excuse to make ship design overly complex, but as a convenience to players. Our leaders see no point in making FO so complex that you need an AI to play it for you.

After all, the AI needs to know how to design ships, so putting that to work for the player shouldn't be too hard. It might also be used as a way to jump-start a ship design. Perhaps the player chooses from a list of archetypes, or click his goals for the ship (speed, defense, stealth, cost, etc.)

[Geoff the Medio]

A bit of a summary post (not claiming all original ideas)...

A grid system for ship design like this is nice in that in supports a variety of levels of design complexity. For example, the location within the grid of a part could be irrelivant (to keep things simple) or it could determine how the part functions (facing), or how vulnerable the part is.

- Weapons placed on a particular side would fire primarily in that direction.
- Parts require one or two "outer hull" slots to function. Most weapons would likely fall into this category.
- "Inner hull" slots would presumably be less prone to battle damage. Outer hull parts are more likely to be damaged by fire coming from that direction.

Regarding various propulsion methods, does this need to be discussed as part of design? The design-relevant part is just that you could potentially have a ship without an engine, so we shouldn't assume an engine must always be there. Otherwise, the various suggetions just amount, in the design sense, to putting a different engine part or parts into a design.

Regarding power sources, unless there's a convincing argument about what they can do that's interesting and good that can't be done without them, or can't be done nearly as well, I'm not inclined to add them. Yes they could make engines better, but so could putting in a better engine.

An issue we should discuss, which has relevance to power sources, different hull / technology varieties, or any part types, in whether we should have dependencies between parts. For example, we could require a particular type of engine in order to mount a particular type of weapon. A particular sensor system might be mutually exclusive with a particular weapon. If we had power soures, then a particular type might be required for a group of other parts. Similarly for hull types / tech varieities, parts of one stream might not go into a different type of hull. Is this just too complicated to be worth it? What interesting results could it produce, besides making the choice of one stream of hull instead of another more significant?

Weapons and defenses seems like propulsion: not relevant to a design discussion.

[marhawkman]

Just have it look at big components first! :p from years of experience I've learned that the easiest way to solve those mini-riddles is to simply arrange the big items first.

IMHO the ship-building design has failed if it becomes a mini-riddle.


An auto configuration is a good idea, not as an excuse to make ship design overly complex, but as a convenience to players. Our leaders see no point in making FO so complex that you need an AI to play it for you.

when I said "mini" I meant the sort of decision that an experienced player can make in a few seconds.

[eleazar]

Regarding power sources, unless there's a convincing argument about what they can do that's interesting and good that can't be done without them, or can't be done nearly as well, I'm not inclined to add them. Yes they could make engines better, but so could putting in a better engine.

I tend to agree. A first glance power sources seem like a complication, not an enhancement.

An issue we should discuss, which has relevance to power sources, different hull / technology varieties, .... Similarly for hull types / tech varieities, parts of one stream might not go into a different type of hull. Is this just too complicated to be worth it? What interesting results could it produce, besides making the choice of one stream of hull instead of another more significant?.

Divergent, but parallel streams of tech is shot down by Aquitane here (first 4 posts). No doubt, if we get this thing playable someone will develop a mod that has this, but will they be able to balance it?

...or any part types, in whether we should have dependencies between parts. For example, we could require a particular type of engine in order to mount a particular type of weapon. A particular sensor system might be mutually exclusive with a particular weapon. If we had power soures, then a particular type might be required for a group of other parts.

If this happened too much i think it would be annoying. Theoretically it might be used as a balancing tool, if a certain combination was too powerful— but that might feel very artificial. Can someone provide example where this sort of relationship would be useful or interesting?

[utilae]

If this happened too much i think it would be annoying. Theoretically it might be used as a balancing tool, if a certain combination was too powerful— but that might feel very artificial. Can someone provide example where this sort of relationship would be useful or interesting?

Maybe this could be like Sets in Diablo.

If you have an entire compliment of organic parts on your ship you get a bonus or if you have Naquada Generator and Transport Rings, then you get a bonus - this would be only if the entire set is in your ship design. Don't know what the bonus would be, +s no doubt.

[Sloth]

A grid system for ship design like this is nice in that in supports a variety of levels of design complexity. For example, the location within the grid of a part could be irrelivant (to keep things simple) or it could determine how the part functions (facing), or how vulnerable the part is.

- Weapons placed on a particular side would fire primarily in that direction.
- Parts require one or two "outer hull" slots to function. Most weapons would likely fall into this category.
- "Inner hull" slots would presumably be less prone to battle damage. Outer hull parts are more likely to be damaged by fire coming from that direction.

When I look at your sample design, I see some issues which will complicate things:
- Big parts can be placed on one of the corners so that they are in the front and at one of the siedes at the same time ( bow and port for example)
- I would feel the need to rotate parts with size 2x1, to make more weapons fit in.

I'm shure both matters can be taken care of, but I would go for a bit more simplicity, like separating the 5 coloured parts, so you just have to fill each of them up, when designing a ship.

[eleazar]

A grid system for ship design like this is nice in that in supports a variety of levels of design complexity. For example, the location within the grid of a part could be irrelivant (to keep things simple) or it could determine how the part functions (facing), or how vulnerable the part is.

- Weapons placed on a particular side would fire primarily in that direction.
- Parts require one or two "outer hull" slots to function. Most weapons would likely fall into this category.
- "Inner hull" slots would presumably be less prone to battle damage. Outer hull parts are more likely to be damaged by fire coming from that direction.

When I look at your sample design, I see some issues which will complicate things:
- Big parts can be placed on one of the corners so that they are in the front and at one of the siedes at the same time ( bow and port for example)
- I would feel the need to rotate parts with size 2x1, to make more weapons fit in.

I'm shure both matters can be taken care of, but I would go for a bit more simplicity, like separating the 5 coloured parts, so you just have to fill each of them up, when designing a ship.

I'm not sure Geoff intended otherwise, but i agree for simplicity, and so a component can be sensibly placed on the 3D model, a multi-slot piece should only be able to go on one of the 5 sides (counting the inside)at a time.

For the outsides it should be easy to automatically rotate a piece sensibly.


I don't especially like the pure grid approach, because it's only tenuously connected with the actual appearance of the ship. A round or wedge shaped ship wouldn't work so well as a grid. And as size increases internal slots increase much more rapidly than external slots (for the same shape) I'd prefer to rig things so large ships don't have an excess of internal slots.

[Geoff the Medio]

- Big parts can be placed on one of the corners so that they are in the front and at one of the siedes at the same time ( bow and port for example)
- I would feel the need to rotate parts with size 2x1, to make more weapons fit in.

Is there a reason we need to have parts be larger than one slot? If there were always one slot per part, there'd be no need to rotate or concern about which several covered sides a parts falls on...

A round or wedge shaped ship wouldn't work so well as a grid.

If parts were one slot per, the slots could be arranged in any arbitrary way, not fitting onto a grid at all, without complication, as long as each slot can be reasonable assigned to one of the "sides".

And as size increases internal slots increase much more rapidly than external slots (for the same shape) I'd prefer to rig things so large ships don't have an excess of internal slots.

What's wrong with larger ships having proportionally more external slots?

[utilae]

Is there a reason we need to have parts be larger than one slot? If there were always one slot per part, there'd be no need to rotate or concern about which several covered sides a parts falls on...

There is no point in having a grid system then, since it just boils down to putting parts in easily, you might as well just have a list system.

[marhawkman]

Is there a reason we need to have parts be larger than one slot? If there were always one slot per part, there'd be no need to rotate or concern about which several covered sides a parts falls on...

There is no point in having a grid system then, since it just boils down to putting parts in easily, you might as well just have a list system.

But that was just pointing out that you wouldn't necessarily be required to use parts larger than 1x1.

As for the comment about large ships.... Having lots of internal space is a good incentive to use "Death Star" type weapons. Why? they require it. Or at the least bigger weapons...

[Sloth]

Is there a reason we need to have parts be larger than one slot? If there were always one slot per part, there'd be no need to rotate or concern about which several covered sides a parts falls on...

There is no point in having a grid system then, since it just boils down to putting parts in easily, you might as well just have a list system.

To have the same features you could just have 5 lists with some open "slots" each. Or am I missing something?

That way you don't have to make graphics for each weapon/equipment.
Would save a lot of time...