Proposed Short-Range FTL ("blink"/"hop") Mechanics

Tobi-wan_Kenobi

Walt And assuming that means needing to add more blink drives/cores, then I also want the locations of those cores to be a design factor.

I feel ya, but don't know how that could be implemented.

I think most people agree that the FTL drive efficiency should contribute to blink, so it would seem silly and redundant to go placing blink parts all around a ship with a separate coverage heatmap.

Maybe blink cores have to be adjacent to FTL parts, like the engine room? So you would want to cluster your FTL parts around blink cores as much as you can while simultaneously trying to spread them out to achieve high FTL efficiency. So the goal would be to arrange both parts in space efficient formations at key locations while using as few expensive blink drives as possible, and while trying to stay out of the way of other functional interior systems, like factories. AND while trying to keep them close as possible to reactors so that crew can bring power quickly for a blink.

As it is, it's easy to find a spot to place another FTL part. But if you need to have two FTLs, a 2x2 blink core adjacent to them, and a nearby reactor, now you have to find room for all of them in the same area. Then you have the damage potential of bad blinks, so you would want fire extinguishers nearby. In a part-dense ship(and you would want a blink ship to be as dense as possible), things could quickly get crowded.

That's about all I've got. I feel like I'm a bit out of my depth at this point. Ultimately, you know better than us what your vision for the game is. I'm sure the end product will be just as brilliant as the rest of the game.

nop

Walt Like a co-op Bounty Hunter mode?

Yeah, any kind of co-op galaxy campaign. It seems like your BSG-esque loop could work as co-op.

If FTL remains useless for PvP, that remains just fine, but people with favorite campaign ships have no MP outlet besides adversarial or progression-less PvAI, so I see a lot of FTL-equipped campaign ships there. It's not because PvP would be their first choice, it's the only social game mode atm. People still have fun and do creative things with PvP, but the game doesn't direct them towards it.

Jabenyezaa

I support this and all ,but will enemy bounty hunter ships be able to use the ftl hopping mechanics?( If it becomes a thing) If enemy ships are able to use it, then it could introduce a whole wave of new strategy that has to be involved in making a ship.

FireShredder24

Walt

I think FTL ramming is probably not something I want to allow, for balance reasons. (Not to mention I have no idea how to actually code that.)

You don't really have to. People could just design a ship with four exposed reactors on the front, blink right up against the enemy, and detonate an Explosive Charge(or four) to cause collateral damage to the enemy ship.

Also, would it be possible to turn some FTL drives that are fully fueled off, so they are not drained when you blink, then activate them and blink back out again?

Dalas120

Walt So something that I've witnessed having watched probably hundreds of hours of people playing Cosmoteer is that, nearly universally, people really hate having an FTL efficiency lower than 100% (or seeing any yellow/red on the overlay) and will do everything they can to get to 100% (or at least very close) without rationally considering the underlying economics. And so, if FTL efficiency and blink efficiency are the same thing, then I'm 99% sure that the average player in singleplayer will have near-maximum blink on all their ships, not because they've made a deliberate choice to have blink on all their ships, but because they were satiating their psychological desire to max out that percentage bar. I think that would be a bad thing

I definitely agree that would be a bad thing. Do you think that it could be avoided with surface UI changes, such as doubling all efficiency numbers (so old 50% is now called 100%, and old 100% is now called 200%) and visually deemphisizing efficiencies above 100% (e.g. yellow for 50%, green for 100%, slightly lighter green for 150%)? UI changes plus exponentially more work/cost to get above 100% might be enough to discourage people who just want to see their whole ship in the green.

Walt I think it would be useful for me to explain how the current FTL fuel cost is calculated. I'm not saying it can't be changed (I'm not particularly wedded to this approach), but it's probably useful to understand as a starting point.

Ohhhhhhh, I see. Thanks for explaining it, that's definitely not what I assumed. Clearly I've been playing bounty hunter wrong 🙂

Walt Dalas120 Obviously fighting will never be perfectly comparable, but at the very least players should be able to use the same warship effectively in both modes.

Honestly, I think that is likely to be an unachievable goal as singleplayer gets more fleshed out. Imagine, for example, if things like hydroponic farms and research labs and holodecks get added, basically anything that plays a role in long-term singleplayer progression. Those will be pretty useless in multiplayer.

Depending on how long-term singleplayer progession works, I don't think they would have to be useless. A holodeck, for example, in single player might be used to improve your crew, subject to some kind of ceiling (say, 10 veteran crew per holodeck). The same mechanic could probably work in multiplayer, except ships would start with those 10 crew already trained.

Stuff like research labs or asteroid mining or trading bays definitely wouldn't help you in MP combat, but those wouldn't help you in SP combat either so I don't see any problem - a SP warship would fight just fine without it's own labs. I'm only against the sort of thing where X part is necessary to kill enemy ships in singleplayer, but cannot help kill enemies in multiplayer (e.g. FTL).

Walt You would prefer this to a wholly separate system? Is that because it'd keep the systems unified instead of having two separate-but-similar systems?

Yeah, that's my reasoning - I strongly dislike separate-but-similar, especially for something that used to be unique. I agree with your concerns though, that it would muddy the lore and there would be even more balancing/UI issues to figure out.

Walt

Dalas120 Do you think that it could be avoided with surface UI changes, such as doubling all efficiency numbers (so old 50% is now called 100%, and old 100% is now called 200%) and visually deemphisizing efficiencies above 100% (e.g. yellow for 50%, green for 100%, slightly lighter green for 150%)?

Possibly, not sure. If green=100% and a full bar=100%, that might work.

Dalas120 subject to some kind of ceiling (say, 10 veteran crew per holodeck). The same mechanic could probably work in multiplayer, except ships would start with those 10 crew already trained.

Yeah possibly this could work in some cases, as long as it doesn't feel too contrived.

Elethio

Walt If velocity is zeroed or reduced relative to the background grid, then this is still something kiters can easily take advantage of and would probably make kiters even more powerful. You just have to blink to a position where now the enemy's momentum is carrying them away from you instead of toward you. The only solution I can think of is to reduce velocity relative to the enemy, which would be pretty weird and confusing.

What I mean by this is ships would keep the same vector, but they have their speed capped when they come out of a blink. That way a kilter cannot combine both maximum speed and blink ability to stay away from a pursue, instead a kite designer would have to choose between either speed or blink as a way of staying out of range.

Of course a ship with good acceleration could get up to speed quickly again, but they loose that velocity as soon as they blinked again. Somehow I think combing maximum acceleration and blink range in the same ship would be difficult, so hopefully that makes for some more interesting design choices.

PewPew

First, I have not read the whole discussion (that's a lot), so I hope that what I am going to say has not been said or is not off topic.

I read somewhere in the discussion that Walt wanted to encourage the fact that blink pushes to create more multi-faced ships. The problem is that the ships are spinning so fast that it probably would not be a real threat to the enemy ship. It has happened to me, on a wrong AI decision, that an enemy ship is showing me his backside. And I dont remember having enough time to inflict enough damage to be a real threat.

To remedy this point, I have an idea in two parts:

1- Allow the player triggering the jump to choose a direction in which the ship will exit.

2- That the exit of the jump causes an energy shock wave capable of causing damage proportional to the mass of the vessel that has executed it.

The idea is to make it a kind of backstab capability. I made a drawing :

Tobi-wan_Kenobi

PewPew
Cute comic, lol.

Personally, I think blink shouldn't be weaponized. It should be a utility part that enhances the potential of other parts - defense (dodge a huge railgun or give your shields a moment to recharge), offense (slap their butt!), and mobility (controlling range).

I would say that the problem you described can be overcome by using high-alpha weaponry, like railguns. Inflict as much damage as you can in the seconds before the target turns. I'm sure there will be more high-alpha weaponry in the completed game, such as the proposed nuclear missile launcher. https://trello.com/c/ZCWfZfxy

Blinking to someone's weak side shouldn't be a free win - just an opportunity to do some good damage.

PewPew

Tobi-wan_Kenobi Thx :3

I didnt necessarily think of damage. We can also imagine that the residual energy of a jump can be fixed to what it meets and "bogged down", slow the movements of the affected ship. As if he found himself trapped in a slimy substance. I think it can be an interesting mechanic.

Tobi-wan_Kenobi

PewPew "bogged down"

That's what tractor beams are for.

PewPew

Tobi-wan_Kenobi Oh, you're right, I didnt think about it.

Walt

Thanks for the great feedback and ideas, everyone! Super helpful! Here's an updated Tactical FTL Jump proposal.

Also, I'm locking this thread so that the conversation gets moved to the new thread.