GSB2 Design: Modules

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

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Berny_74 » Sun Jun 08, 2014 4:59 am

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


Yes there is something wrong and am attempting to edit it as we type.

Berny
Also Editing other post

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

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Aeson » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:56 pm

Doctor Xenon wrote: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.

Depends on what the mechanism of the penetration is. If it's just causing the shield generator to overload and blow out a nearby section of the hull/armor, rather than actually penetrating the shield bubble, then there's no reason for the weapon to be shown to penetrate the shields.

Doctor Xenon wrote: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.

It makes sense within certain limits. Any reasonable number of 0.50-cal machine guns will not do to do any appreciable amount of damage to WWII battleship armor in any reasonable time frame. A 5" field gun shooting at the same target, however, could possibly cause an amount of damage worth noting in a reasonable amount of time, especially if a decent number of such weapons were firing at the same target. There's a reason why you use one weapon instead of another against a specific target, rather than saying 'enough 0.30-cal rifle bullets will sink a battleship.' Yes, enough could possibly do it, but it'd take an incredible number, to the point where you'd probably be better off getting in rowboats and trying to storm the ship than trying to sink it by shooting rifles at it. The only reason why strafing heavy warships with light weapons such as WWII fighters carried was effective is that there was typically vulnerable stuff - unturreted AA guns with exposed gun crews, windows on the bridge, searchlights, wireless antennas, RADARs, etc - which was not protected by the armor and located somewhere that a strafing fighter could hit. If you wanted to sink the ship, you still called in the bigger guns - torpedo bombers, dive bombers, level bombers, your own heavy warships - rather than spending all day expending extraordinary amounts of ammunition to chip the paint off the ship's armor.

StigRS77
Type II Robot
Type II Robot
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:20 am

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby StigRS77 » Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:19 am

From my own post in Master Wishlist:

12. Equipment requiring more than one slot, so that ships will have various bundle slots depending on their size and build. These would have crossover capability, so a Cruiser for instance could have one bundle-slot consisting of two hard-slots together which could either fit two Cruiser-class weapons or one Dreadnought-class weapon.

13. Instead of an armor class (AC) negating all damage, a different way of calculating armor would be better imo. It should be damage reduction up to zero damage, so a beam laser would always take something away from the total armor, while the puny pulse lasers of a fighter's cannon would stay at 0 indefinitely. Let's say a cruiser tank has AC: 80 and "damage sponge" of 500. A laser beam has 50 damage and 70 armor penetration. Instead of relying on random "lucky shots", an algorithm reduces the damage to 2 damage to the armor (or something else that is balanced), and 70 penetration damage to the "damage sponge". Next shot the AC is 78 and there is 430 damage left before penetrating the hull, consequently the next hit will do more damage to the armor (72?). A lightly armored ship would have an AC rating of 40 and DS 250, and then the beam laser would do, say, 10 damage to the AC and 80 damage to the armor. Cliffski would of course have to balance this properly :p

I changed some of the wordings to suit this thread.


MODULES

There is one thing that bugs me about GSB1, and that is that so many of the modules are useless in a competitive sense. It is especially the weapons that do good damage to both shields and armor that are uncompetitive.

Take the Quantum Blasters ,for instance. They are cheap but not cheap enough to allow you to have significantly more ships on the battlefield than your opponents. Their shield and armor penetration are both inferior to Cruiser Lasers and any beam or pulse laser weaponry, and their range is inferior to Plasma and Fast Missiles. The same goes for Lightning Beams, Fusion Torpedoes, Rocket Launchers and Nuclear Missiles, among others - they are nice for a bit of fun, but it would be better if they were relevant choices when creating challenges and when facing difficult battles.

Due to the lack of damage potential, Quantum Blasters could fire twice as fast, for instance. The same with Lightning Beams thanks to the extremely short range.

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

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby tater » Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:04 pm

Armor would not be "used up" I think, like melting layers. Weapon make discrete holes, and the only change for diminished armor is one round/shot hitting the exact hole make by another.

User avatar
CptFox
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:21 pm
Location: RizingGamesUK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby CptFox » Thu Jun 26, 2014 10:39 pm

Heeeeeey GSB2 thread has brought me back from my (god knows how long) slumber (It was far to exciting to miss out on), The only two mainly aesthetic things that ever bugged me about GSB where:

-Fighters can shoot 360 degrees around them; while a small niggle it always bugged me that no 'dogfights' ever happened where I could follow one fighter around and see him chase and gun down someone in-front of him! I mean I always assumed weapons go on front for such small craft and (excluding exceptional designed craft ) some wouldn't be able to fit a 360 turret on a fighter frame? (granted introducing cones of fire would be more work/balancing but would look awesome and be 100% worth it, probably)

-Weapons fire from you only hits the underside of the enemy ships; something I managed to ignore for a large amount of game time but once sighted peeved me off a little, particularly clear when you watch missiles arch in towards an enemy and proceed to disappear under them with a random following explosion (its a small problem but I like impacts!) agreed its pretty miss-able in big fights but I was always the one to be following projectiles all the way to their target through the chaos of a battle to see if they could hit their satisfying explode-y mark!

Can't wait for GSB2 :D
.:. Chair-leader for The Friendly Community Mod Squad.:.
Giant Space Zombie Survival: http://positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6365

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 » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:45 am

CptFox wrote:Heeeeeey GSB2 thread has brought me back from my (god knows how long) slumber (It was far to exciting to miss out on), The only two mainly aesthetic things that ever bugged me about GSB where:

-Fighters can shoot 360 degrees around them; while a small niggle it always bugged me that no 'dogfights' ever happened where I could follow one fighter around and see him chase and gun down someone in-front of him! I mean I always assumed weapons go on front for such small craft and (excluding exceptional designed craft ) some wouldn't be able to fit a 360 turret on a fighter frame? (granted introducing cones of fire would be more work/balancing but would look awesome and be 100% worth it, probably)

-Weapons fire from you only hits the underside of the enemy ships; something I managed to ignore for a large amount of game time but once sighted peeved me off a little, particularly clear when you watch missiles arch in towards an enemy and proceed to disappear under them with a random following explosion (its a small problem but I like impacts!) agreed its pretty miss-able in big fights but I was always the one to be following projectiles all the way to their target through the chaos of a battle to see if they could hit their satisfying explode-y mark!

Can't wait for GSB2 :D


Completely agreed with this, and every thing i could read at all GSB2 topics (specially Astros feedbacks, awesomeness!)
Sorry for the short and widespread post!
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
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7972
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby cliffski » Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:57 pm

Firing arcs are indeed now supported. Missiles didn't always go under did they? I'm pretty certain they don't now, anyway :D

User avatar
Archduke Astro
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm
Location: Building The Future.

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Archduke Astro » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:51 pm

cliffski wrote:Firing arcs are indeed now supported.

Awesomeness multiplied by sheer coolness! ;) GSB2 takes another step towards a bright future.

Gotta insure that firing arcs are varied enough to be useful while not making them require too big a slice of the ever-diminishing AI pie. I'm confident an effective compromise can be reached.

Praetors wrote:(specially Astros feedbacks, awesomeness!)

It's kind of you to say so. :) My sincere thanks, Praetors.
.
•• Positech Global Moderator & Forum Sheriff ••
GSB "Combined-Arms Combat" Advocate & Analyst
Enemy of Forum Lulz | Defender of Faction Diversity

∞∆……CURATOR OF CREATIVE CONCEPTS for GSB's Friendly Community Mod Squad……∆∞

karadoc
Junior Line Worker
Junior Line Worker
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 3:56 am

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby karadoc » Sat Jul 05, 2014 5:36 am

Regarding shield / armour penetration, my point of view is that the current system for shields is good (ie. shields block 100% of damage if the penetration isn't high enough), but I think using that same system for armour feels weird.

I found it strange an unintuitive that armour can suddenly go from preventing 98% of damage to preventing 0% of damage, with nothing in between. But the main thing I found weird was that armour modules have a profoundly different effect depending on whether you have just a couple of them, or lots of them. (If you have just a couple, then they are effectively just some added hull points; but if you have lots, then they suddenly start preventing damage from a variety of sources.)

The fact that the effectiveness of armour modules changes so dramatically when you start stacking them is unique. Maybe that makes it interesting for gameplay and balance - but I've always felt a bit uncomfortable about it. I feel that intuitively armour should reduce damage as a smooth function of armour penetration, rather than the current binary situation of 98% prevented vs. 0% prevented.

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

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby tater » Sat Jul 05, 2014 6:39 pm

karadoc wrote:Regarding shield / armour penetration, my point of view is that the current system for shields is good (ie. shields block 100% of damage if the penetration isn't high enough), but I think using that same system for armour feels weird.

I found it strange an unintuitive that armour can suddenly go from preventing 98% of damage to preventing 0% of damage, with nothing in between. But the main thing I found weird was that armour modules have a profoundly different effect depending on whether you have just a couple of them, or lots of them. (If you have just a couple, then they are effectively just some added hull points; but if you have lots, then they suddenly start preventing damage from a variety of sources.)

The fact that the effectiveness of armour modules changes so dramatically when you start stacking them is unique. Maybe that makes it interesting for gameplay and balance - but I've always felt a bit uncomfortable about it. I feel that intuitively armour should reduce damage as a smooth function of armour penetration, rather than the current binary situation of 98% prevented vs. 0% prevented.


How many times do you have to shoot a bb gun at a tank before it does any damage? How many times do you shoot a .50 cal at the same tank before you penetrate? How about 20mm? The answer is that none will ever get through. A round with almost enough energy might spall. The real thing in space would be energy delivery. You could almost penetrate, but deposit HEAT. That would slowly build up. A low power laser constantly on a ship might eventually make it uninhabitable, even if it just warmed the hull slightly. Armor is actually tricky to get right.

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

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Berny_74 » Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:46 pm

karadoc wrote:Regarding shield / armour penetration, my point of view is that the current system for shields is good (ie. shields block 100% of damage if the penetration isn't high enough), but I think using that same system for armour feels weird.

I found it strange an unintuitive that armour can suddenly go from preventing 98% of damage to preventing 0% of damage, with nothing in between. But the main thing I found weird was that armour modules have a profoundly different effect depending on whether you have just a couple of them, or lots of them. (If you have just a couple, then they are effectively just some added hull points; but if you have lots, then they suddenly start preventing damage from a variety of sources.)

The fact that the effectiveness of armour modules changes so dramatically when you start stacking them is unique. Maybe that makes it interesting for gameplay and balance - but I've always felt a bit uncomfortable about it. I feel that intuitively armour should reduce damage as a smooth function of armour penetration, rather than the current binary situation of 98% prevented vs. 0% prevented.


tater wrote:How many times do you have to shoot a bb gun at a tank before it does any damage? How many times do you shoot a .50 cal at the same tank before you penetrate? How about 20mm? The answer is that none will ever get through. A round with almost enough energy might spall. The real thing in space would be energy delivery. You could almost penetrate, but deposit HEAT. That would slowly build up. A low power laser constantly on a ship might eventually make it uninhabitable, even if it just warmed the hull slightly. Armor is actually tricky to get right.


In the current system GSB armour the BB gun will eventually defeat the armour no matter what.

I am not sure but I believe Karadoc has two different complaints on the armour system. One is that the armour either completely repels a round or is completely damaged - increasing the amount of armour slabs reduces the amount of weapons that are capable. It sounds like Karadoc believes that armour should directly effect that amount of damage that is applied to the ship. Higher the armour less damage is afflicted.

I have mixed feelings about the armour in GSB 1. I like the fact that it stops cold small or light weapons, and I do not like how quickly it gets stripped away with either lucky shots or dedicated armour piercing weapons like Beams.

I know Cliffski placed a model of how he see things but I am not sure which thread it is under.

Berny

Jonz0rz
Senior Line Worker
Senior Line Worker
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:13 am

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Jonz0rz » Sat Jul 26, 2014 1:41 am

The biggest problem I had with GSB1 armor was that everything was controlled by 1 variable. You couldn't make an ultra-hard-to-penetrate but-once-you-do-it's-gone armor. You couldn't make cruiser ablative armors without piling on resistance as well. It was very inflexible.

Shields on the other hand had great stuff you could mess with, and several mods have done interesting and somewhat unorthodox things with the mechanics. Matmos Rift, Uni-T, and Praetorian Industries come to mind. They all did cool things with shields that simply can't be done with armor due to the mechanics.

I think making armor pure ablative would be a mistake. We have a strong resistance mechanic. It allows certain things to be completely stopped while letting others through. If we were to trade that in for simple "raw hp that goes away first", I feel like we'd lose something really special. Imagine if all shields were suddenly resistance 0. That wouldn't make for as interesting of a game.

One of the reasons GTB didn't really catch my interest, the mechanics weren't as strong and you forced us to use all the slots, no matter how detrimental it would be. It was a big block on creativity, which is the one thing above all else that keeps me coming back to GSB. You can always do something different. There's always a surprise somewhere just waiting for you to discover. And if you think you've found it all, you can start inventing your own surprises!

Anyway, back to armor. Things got a bit messy with all the stacking multipliers and module based resistance reduction and so forth. That was a bit confusing. I'd suggest making it simple fixed resistance on a per armor-plate basis. Get rid of the # of hull slots multiplier stuff. Just boil it down to the basics. An Armor Resistance value, and an Armor Strength value. You can do a lot with that without exploding people's heads. It's very easy to see "ok, ultraheavy armor has 40 resistance, my pulse laser has armor piercing 30, that's why it did nothing".

You'll get a lot of mileage out of separating armor health from resistance. Modders will love it (I know I would :)). It opens all kinds of doors to creativity.

User avatar
Danou
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:52 pm

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby Danou » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:14 pm

Slot based boosts
cliffski wrote:Firing arcs are indeed now supported

If you want to develop futher this way, you could give some weapon slots a damage-boost, tracking-speed-boost or range-boost (to compensate the limited firing arc for example).
I would probably not add slot based boosts for HP, Armor, Shield, Speed, Power, Cost, because these are already boosts for the ship hulls.

Defense
In GSB armor resistance is reduced based on module number. With this principle you can't have lots of modules/weapons AND high armor. I don't love this principle, but I mostly like it.
Having a fixed resistance per armor-plate would make it easier and more comprehensible. If, for example, you wanted that your cruiser is protected against frigate weapons, you would just plop the appropriate armor module with X resistance, without the need to consider other things. I think this would be to easy, wouldn't it?

No matter how the armor-system works in GSB2, it's important to have some useful and well balanced alternatives and complements to armor. GSB had already a few good ones (shields, repair systems, scrambler, HP boost for Tribe), but some could need improvements:

- point defense
I don't know if it's only me, but the PD + Scanner combo didn't work well. I always used the Scrambler instead.

- ship speed VS weapon tracking speed
In GSB I missed weapons with tracking between 0.1 and 0.4. I also disliked player challenges with very slow ships.
If we had weapons with very high armor piercing and decent damage, but very low tracking speed, players would be incited to have faster ships in their fleet.

- cloaking
I didn't like how camouflage worked in GSB, but I have no idea how to make it better without making it to powerful. Especially combined with repair systems this could become overpowered.
Creator of Danou's Rebalance Mod

User avatar
CptFox
Supreme Robot
Supreme Robot
Posts: 451
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 5:21 pm
Location: RizingGamesUK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby CptFox » Sun Aug 03, 2014 8:56 pm

Quick question on the animation of modules/ships.

Will it be supported for non-weapon modules (I really want to make a black hole generator on my ships etc) and/or can ships be animated beyond lights and tractor beam conduits?

Just think of the mod-ibilities!!!
.:. Chair-leader for The Friendly Community Mod Squad.:.
Giant Space Zombie Survival: http://positech.co.uk/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=6365

User avatar
cliffski
Positech Staff
Positech Staff
Posts: 7972
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 10:27 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: GSB2 Design: Modules

Postby cliffski » Mon Aug 04, 2014 10:01 am

This is definitely something I'd like to add as an option, but it's towards the bottom of my todo list. I need to find a way to make it customizable, efficient and fast...


Return to “GSB2 Gratuitous Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest