GSB2 Design: Modules

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7969
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby cliffski » Mon Jun 02, 2014 4:06 pm

Ok this is my current working document on this topic:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t3g ... sp=sharing
If I've done it right, anyone can comment on it, but only I can edit. I'll update it as I decide on more stuff.

User avatar
ponyus
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:45 am
Location: sweden
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby ponyus » Mon Jun 02, 2014 8:54 pm

Thruster-packs

yes please. maybe also a "thrustboost" thing to add to hull designs?

Carriers

i love the idea. though i think gunships would be large enough to come with their own FTL capability.

Fuel

another great idea. perhaps add more explosive-ness to fighters as they blow up depending on how much fuel they have?
Gameplay Designer and balancing wizard for Gratuitous Space Battles 2

to me "gratuitous" means "awesome"

Winner of the 2011 community mod contest

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7969
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby cliffski » Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:45 pm

ponyus wrote:another great idea. perhaps add more explosive-ness to fighters as they blow up depending on how much fuel they have?


Hey that could be pretty cool.

Doctor Xenon
Type I Robot
Type I Robot
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 12:58 pm
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Doctor Xenon » Tue Jun 03, 2014 8:41 am

More/larger explosions are always a plus.

User avatar
Praetors
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 1820
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:27 am
Location: In a Patrol mission at Argena Prime.
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Praetors » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:01 am

cliffski wrote:
ponyus wrote:another great idea. perhaps add more explosive-ness to fighters as they blow up depending on how much fuel they have?


Hey that could be pretty cool.


Also, may be asking for too much, but what about a collision system? You know, very damaged ship goes kamikaze, the more fuel, the more colateral damage :)
PI: positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5698
TP: positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6928
TG: positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=7659

Engineer of the Friendly Community Mod Squad.

User avatar
AcePalarum
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 1132
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: Lurking Right Behind You

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby AcePalarum » Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:09 am

Once again, my immediate reactions to ... various parts. For bits I don't include, you can safely assume that I concur with them as they are presented.

Torpedoes are slow but much higher warhead


One additional characteristic: Torpedoes should definitely be heavier than other types of missile; I would suggest that the smallest ship able to carry a torpedo is a gunship, as I assume gunships will be a bit less prone to "slow = instant death" than fighters.

Unsure on the topic of whether there should still be penetration values for weapons? If so, they need to be a relatively weak mechanic.


How about this as a weakening factor: shields and armor have a resistance, and weapons have penetration for each; however, instead of "penetration < resistance = useless", how about it reduces the damage by a set proportion (50%? 75%?) as a way of further stratifying the weapons beyond anti-shield/anti-armor/anti-hull?

For instance, suppose we have an anti-shield weapon with low penetration that deals 100 damage. Against higher resistances, it drops to 50 damage. Next to this, we have a high-penetration anti-shield weapon that deals 65 damage. The first weapon will be more effective against the lower-resistance shields, the second more effective against high resistance, but neither is entirely useless at any point (at least against shielded ships). Armor could follow a similar scheme.

Shields should be raised again after they have been destroyed, if there is a repair module on the ship. A downed shield is just downed like before with a disrupted shield, only maybe down for twice as long? Recovery rate is dependent on the repair module integrity…


I would add one exception: any shield with 0 natural recharge (I've modded a few and found they can make for an interesting option) cannot recover even if a repair module is present. Maybe factor in the shield's natural recharge rate somehow, so that a faster-recharging shield will also recover faster with a given repair module?

Missile Revenge Scrambler
Sends enemy missiles back to the sender


Is it possible to avoid resetting the missile's fuel when it gets turned around? That particular quirk in GSB1 makes the Parasites' scrambler ungodly powerful in a lot of setups.

Shield support beams
Boosts the strength of nearby ships shields (cruisers and dreadnoughts only)


Would this type of beam also be able to boost the efficiency of a shield repair module to bring a collapsed shield back up faster, or would it be restricted to ships with active shields? Personally I would prefer the latter.

Shield projector beams
Projects mini-shield bubbles around nearby fighters


I think this should be restricted to whichever ship classes can mount carrier bays - at the least, nothing below a cruiser should be able to handle this type of projector.

Fuel tank
For fighters and gunships only, when exhausted, the ship must return to a carrier to refuel (at 25% speed once it runs out) or just wait in the rear for reinforcements. Variable sizes.


This should be coupled with a new order (similar to Cautious) that sets a fuel limit that triggers a return for refueling, so the player can avoid having a group of quick fighters that get massacred because they always drop to "empty tank" speeds on the front lines.

Fighters will require a carrier in order to make it to the battle. So the new carrier module will have a fighter capacity, and the player will be unable to deploy fighters without carrier support.


The fighter capacity of carrier modules will need to be balanced carefully - while any truly massive fighter swarm should effectively require at least one dedicated carrier dreadnought, It should be possible to provide a reasonable fighter screen for your ships with either a smaller dedicated carrier or a scattering of carrier modules throughout your larger ships.

They get automatically assigned to the nearest carrier to their proposed start-position.


Should fighters be required to report to their original carrier bay for refueling (as long as it is still functional), or can they refuel at the closest opportunity? The second scheme could allow for a situation where as the battle grinds on, fighters become less effective as they have to travel farther for refueling and returning to the battle since the closest carriers are out of supplies.

Fuel Tanks
Small medium or large, affects the refuelling speed for fighters, otherwise it’s very slow


Would these only affect refueling speed, or would the tanks instead/also affect how many fighters the carrier ship can refuel before its supplies are exhausted?

Class-Specific Modules


A suggestion that may or may not be a total nightmare to code, but I'll throw it out there:
Frigate: Footprint Magnification System. Similar to a decoy projector, but projects a cruiser hull (randomly selected from the race's available cruisers each time the FMS fires up?) over the frigate mounting it, affecting the enemy's targeting choices. Unlike a decoy vessel, a ship mounting a FMS is still armed and so can draw fire from the Rescuer and Retaliate orders.


One thing to consider: a higher variety of module types will also require at least some hulls to have a corresponding increase in total module slots. It feels very restrictive to have every hull force a choice between, for example, support modules or defense modules, with no room for including both capabilities at lower concentrations. Obviously not every hull has to have the capacity to be everything, but it's also less than ideal to have no hulls capable of multi-purpose loadouts.

I am really liking the shape of GSB2 as it has coalesced so far. :) I hope we can all be of assistance in making it the best game possible.
While my ability to succeed is finite, my capacity for failure knows no bounds.
*Basement Tinkerer and OCD Savant of the Friendly Community Mod Squad*

Mods: Matmos Rift, Antares Expanse, Great Powers Stations

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7969
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby cliffski » Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:40 pm

Good point re: the shield projector. I'll make a note of that.
Even in GSB1, as I recall fighters will always head to the nearest carrier to repair. I'm planning on the refuel mechanic working using the same system. They go to the enxt furthest if the nearest is full, as I recall.

User avatar
tater
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby tater » Fri Jun 06, 2014 6:36 pm

Penetration and damage are not the same, or rather should not be. The "hull" damage is the actual damage done, shield penetration is the ability to get through shields, and armor should be the ability to penetrate armor.

I might have a difference between reducing shields, and penetrating sheds (more later).

A target has shields, so if the shield penetration is below the shield's strength, the shot is blocked. If the weapon damages shields, then it could reduce the shield strength vs further attacks (some weapons might never damage shields, others might have crappy penetration, but reduce shields, makes for more variable weapon types).

Any shot that gets through then attacks armor. If it cannot penetrate, it does no damage. I think in general armor should not be reduced, period. You can shoot a billion BBs from an air gun at a tank, and you will never damage it, ever. If a shot has a penetration that exceeds armor, then it does the hull damage.

User avatar
darkstar076
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 2200
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:14 am
Location: Lurking somewhere in the Forum

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby darkstar076 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 12:19 am

cliffski wrote:One thing I was thinking of changing was the penetration mechanic, which confused almost everyone. I think a system where weapons did a variety of damage to each type would make more sense. So a weapon does 30 damage vs shields, 10 vs armor, 3 vs hull, for example. Or maybe better expressed as it does 35 damage, and is 100% effective vs shields, 33% vs armor, 10% vs hull.


I have been chewing over this one for awhile and I agree with my fellow veterans, having break points in the Penetration will help with the Variety.

Each Weapon comes with the following Stats
Shields - Penetration Rating and a Effectiveness Rating
Armour - Penetration Rating and a Effectiveness Rating
Hull - Effectiveness Rating against Hull

2 Tier: Weapon Damage System
--------------------------------------------------------
Weapon Fires and Hits Target

If Hull, Proceed to Damage has been Dealt
If Shield or Armor is hit:
- If Weapon Penetration(WP) is Less than Defence Resistance(DR) then Damage is Reduced by a Factor (WP/DR)
- If Weapon Penetration is Equal or Greater than Defence Resistance then Full Damage

Damage has been Dealt:
Modify Weapon Damage by Effectiveness Rating
--------------------------------------------------------

While you still have a case where Every weapon can damage anything, the damage potential is further reduced which means ships might survive a little longer. A Break Point could be introduced where if the Damage is below 5% (for example) then no damage is dealt.

The downside with all this, it still might be to Complex for new players.

So to help the New players, we introduce something in the options menu of "Beginner Mode". If this is enabled, the game does not take into account Penetration ratings and hence you have a quicker more explody game. Should you disable this option, Battles will be slightly longer (still explody) as ships defences will hold longer.

Thoughts - (apart from this is a real deep rabbit hole ?)
Wisdom is something you generally obtain around three seconds after you needed it the most
-=Modding Guru & Egon Spengler of the Friendly Community Mod Squad=-

Doctor Xenon
Type I Robot
Type I Robot
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 12:58 pm
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Doctor Xenon » Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:11 am

darkstar076 wrote:Thoughts - (apart from this is a real deep rabbit hole ?)


"Will you take the red module, or the blue module?"

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7969
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby cliffski » Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:26 pm

I think it might not be *too bad* for new players because of this new mechanic where some damage is *always* being dealt regardless of penetration. Players who want to dig deeper and ask WHY their phasers do such poor damage against ship X can then investigate and discover the mechanic. Hopefully a more polished tutorial and help system and post-battle stats system this time around will make this less of an issue anyway.


So the system would work like this:

Ship fires weapon with Damage 50, shield effectiveness 100% armor effective 50%, hull effective 0%. Shield penetration is 10, Armor penetration is 20

Target has Shield resistance 20, armor resistance 15

Because shield penetration is below resistance, the damage done is halved, so we are dealing 25 damage. Shield effectiveness means we deal the full 25 damage.
The enemy only has 20 shield points, so the shield is taken down, leaving 5 points to hit the armor. armor pen is 20 which is high enough so the full 5 make it to the armor. Armor effectiveness is 50% so 2.5 damage is applied to the armor.

How does that sound?

User avatar
darkstar076
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 2200
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 2:14 am
Location: Lurking somewhere in the Forum

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby darkstar076 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 3:01 pm

cliffski wrote:How does that sound?

Sounds good to me :)


As for an extreme case where you have an armoured Dreadnought being pestered by a Fighter, Maybe this is where you have the No effect Kick in, for example:
- The Fighter fires a weapon with Damage 5
- Shield effectiveness 100% armour effective 50%, hull effective 0%.
- Shield penetration is 5, Armour penetration is 5

Target Dreadnought has Shield resistance 20, armour resistance 80

Because shield penetration is below resistance, the damage done is now at 25%, so we are dealing 1.25 Damage. Shield effectiveness is still 100% so we deal the full 1.25 damage. Yeah its gonna take awhile to chip away at the shields but they will get there.

Later, Once the shields are down . .

Because armour penetration way below resistance, the damage done is now at 6.25%, so we are dealing 0.31 Damage. Then we have to reduce it further due to the armour effectiveness so its now 0.15 Damage.

Therefore any damage that is less then 1 is No Effect. If the Fighter scores a Lucky Shot than the damage dealt is 1. . .

Speaking of Lucky Shots, In GSB 1 the Lucky shot ignored Penetration Values (IIRC) - in GSB 2,maybe the Lucky Shot is not modified by Penetration values ?
Wisdom is something you generally obtain around three seconds after you needed it the most
-=Modding Guru & Egon Spengler of the Friendly Community Mod Squad=-

Aeson
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:11 am

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Aeson » Sat Jun 07, 2014 4:40 pm

cliffski wrote:Ship fires weapon with Damage 50, shield effectiveness 100% armor effective 50%, hull effective 0%. Shield penetration is 10, Armor penetration is 20

I would personally prefer the game just list the damage numbers for armor, hull, and shields separately, so you'd have 50 shield damage, 25 armor damage, and 0 hull damage, rather than telling me that the weapon does 50 damage but is 100% effective against shields, 50% effective against armor, and 0% effective against hull. It's the same information, yes, but telling me the percentages means that I have to do a bit of math before I know how much damage weapon A does against defense B whereas telling me the actual damage values gives me that information immediately; additionally, the math in this example is not hard, but if there's a weapon that does, for example, 51 damage and is 37% effective against shields, 15% effective against armor, and 107% effective against hull, I'd have to break out a calculator in order to figure out what that does (and yes, I know that this example is a bit odd since I chose not to make the weapon 100% effective against anything).

It's also not saving you any space here, as you have 1 line for theoretical damage, three lines for effectiveness, and two lines for penetration, whereas simply stating the actual damage values gives three lines for damage and two lines for penetration. I tend to feel that more compact ways of presenting (or storing, in the case of the contents of the module file) the same information are better, if it doesn't reduce the clarity of the information presented, but other people may feel otherwise. Of course, when displaying the information in-game, you could just eliminate any effectiveness percentage lines that are equal to 100%, but that may be more of a headache to code.

cliffski wrote:How does that sound?

The system described sounds reasonable to me. I'm not entirely certain about having the penetration < resistance be a flat multiplier; perhaps it might be better to have the multiplier be something more along the lines of (0.125 + 0.25*penetration/resistance) when penetration < resistance, so that there's an advantage to having a penetration value closer to the resistance value even if it doesn't quite defeat the resistance? Although that might cause difficulties in giving feedback on weapon performance, since we don't necessarily know the resistance values of the opposing side's ships.

Berny_74
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Berny_74 » Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:58 pm

I am not quite keen on the idea of
cliffski wrote:where some damage is *always* being dealt regardless of penetration
.

I am in the firm belief that at a certain point a ship should be invulnerable to a weak weapon system. Fighters unless armed with something specific to damage a Capitol ship - no matter how many there are - should do nothing but fly rings in frustration. This was somewhat applicable in GSB 1 as Fighters were next to useless until they slid under the shield.

The same goes for defensive weapons designed for fighters/small craft should have almost negligible effect on a larger craft. Conversely a weapon designed against Capitol ships should be next to useless against small craft by the mere fact that it just can't hit them.

I also do not like the ablativenes of the armour - both in GSB1 and how it is sounding here in GSB2. I would much prefer armour to represent an invulnerability or at least in some way reduce the actual damage continually through out combat without just disappearing into the nether.

Also I believe Aeson's suggestion of just numbers instead of percentages should be looked into - I know I don't want to pull out a calculator every battle.

And if you are worried about new players unable to understand the system - play out the Tutorials in a manner that shows how certain weapon systems operate against certain opponents.

Berny[edit]
The image I had apparently no longer works at the website - that website is
http://www.wrecksite.eu/docbrowser.aspx?87
Even 5 Decades later the Bismarck's armour looks like it could take a beating.
The original comment above was directed a view along the deck near the turret, and perhaps will later work.

And here is a link to wikipedia where the USS Monittor and CSS Virginia where unable to defeat each other's armour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Monito ... r_1862.jpg

Hopefully by posting the links I won't krunk up these websites either.
Last edited by Berny_74 on Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Doctor Xenon
Type I Robot
Type I Robot
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 12:58 pm
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Doctor Xenon » Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:14 am

This is more of an aesthetic issue, but it's always irritated me when a weapon would appear to be blocked by a shield, but the damage indicator would say "armor -X" (X = whatever damage is done) or whatever. It took me some time to figure out that that meant that the weapon was piercing the shields and doing damage to both the shield and the ship. To me, it would make more sense if in such cases, the weapon physically kept going. When striking the shield, it would say "shield -X" and keep going to strike the ship for whatever remaining damage it does to the rest of the ship. Of course this doesn't happen in cases when the shield is strong enough. You guys get what I'm talking about, right?

About the penetration always doing damage, I think that it makes sense. When you toss a single small rock at a person, it won't do much of anything. They'll be somewhat annoyed, but that's about it. But when they are repeatedly pelted by lots of people it becomes much more effective. (not that I'm condoning throwing rocks at people, I just thought it would be a good analogy)

By the way, Berny, is that image you linked to supposed to show something? All I'm getting is a blank white page.


Return to “GSB2 Gratuitous Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest