WARNING: Looooooooonnnnggg post ahead
I think at this point it's important to back out a little and establish how blinking fits into the game and the lore (such that there is). I see two options: either "blinking" is a short-ranged FTL jump (my preference), or blinking is a unique teleport that uses different principles and technology. I think either approach is both interesting and balanceable, but a half-FTL half-unique middle-of-the-road approach would cause many problems. So I think that it's important to decide on an overall direction before working out details.
.
Short Range FTL - thoughts, pros, cons:
If blink is conceptually a micro-FTL, then FTL drives should function for both long- and short-range FTL. On one hand, this makes a lot of sense because of all the similarities between blink and FTL. Both are teleports that use an efficiency mechanic, need components throughout your ship, and have charge time; and so far players have naturally equated the two. Also, blink as micro-FTL doesn't require any new parts, which both reduces complexity and makes it easier to add. Finally, this would make FTL not-completely-useless in multiplayer.
But on the other hand, in single player every ship will have FTL. Clearly not every FTL-capable ship should have an effective in-combat blink, so there would need to be some kind of mechanic or requirement that separates useful from useless blink. So far we've talked a lot about using efficiency as that mechanic (with penalties to range, cast time, and/or limbo time). Other options which I like less include specialized parts ("blink control room") or specific design constraints (requiring a small ship size). If blink is treated as a micro-FTL, it's also important to handle any differences between long- and short-range FTL, such as fuel usage and movement/orientation requirements. And also, even if most ships can't use micro-FTL in combat, they can use it out of combat. I personally think this would be a cool thing and would make sense (if I can teleport between stars why I can't I teleport 10 feet?), but it sounds like you/Walt don't/doesn't.
Pros:
- very many similarities between blink and FTL (teleportation, efficiency, etc.)
- no new parts need to be added, reducing complexity
- FTL drives would gain a multiplayer use
Cons:
- needs requirement to separate useful blink from useless blink
- must handle differences between short- and long-range FTL (e.g. fuel)
- all ships could (probably, depending) blink when not in combat, reducing uniqueness
.
Unique Teleport - thoughts, pros, cons:
If blink is conceptually a unique teleport, separate from the existing FTL, then there would almost certainly be a separate blink drive part. On one hand, unique blink would make blink a rare and special thing to have on a ship, which would make it feel much cooler when it does happen. It would also be easier to balance, since each stat of FTL and blink could be fine-tuned separeately, without affecting the other. Unique blink would also nicely account for differences between blink and FTL, such as fuel usage and movement/orientation requirements.
But on the other hand, unique blink would feel a lot like FTL #2. As it's planned right now, blink and FTL would both be a teleport, that uses an efficiency stat, needs to be scattered around your ship to work, has charge time, and probably would have the same graphical effect - the only differences would be range, fuel, and self-damage (which I think should be on FTL too anyways). I think that having two mechanically equivalent parts would be a very bad thing, even if they have different functions. Blink drives would probably need to be completely redone (e.g. surround your ship with "blink armor"), which would add a lot of complexity and at least one extra part. Also, if blink was separate from FTL, FTL would still be useless in multiplayer. IMO all parts should have a use in all modes.
Pros:
- most ships could never blink, making blink feel unique
- easier to balance
- accounts for currently planned differences between blink/FTL
Cons:
- would need to plan many, many more differences between blink/FTL, or blink would feel too similar to FTL
- would need new parts, increasing complexity
- FTL would still be useless in multiplayer
.
Walt leaning towards having separate FTL & Blink drives, which simplifies the game mechanics and interface
I disagree that unique blink would simplify things. IMO a unified blink+FTL part would have a simpler interface for both piloting and designing. With a separate blink and FTL, the piloting UI needs separate buttons for both blink and FTL, and separate ways to show things like charge progress, max range, damage risk, etc. The design UI would need to show both FTL efficiency and blink efficiency, and both pilots and designers would need to remember whatever subtle/not-so-subtle differences there would be between the two parts.
With a unified blink+FTL part, the piloting UI would only need one button - "FTL" - that could be used for both blinks (if you target the playable area) and long-range FTL (if you target the galaxy map). When designing, the UI only needs to show one FTL efficiency. Since a unified drive would have nearly identical mechanics for both FTL and blink, players would only have to learn one set of mechanics instead of two.
Basically, I think that unifying blink+FTL makes the most sense, from both a design/mechanics perspective and from a player/controls perspective. It would be easier to use and would prevent both design overlap and needless complexity. And from a lore perspective, why can FTL drives shoot you across galaxies but not across the street? Separate FTL and blink definitely has it's advantages, but I don't think they outweigh the complexity cost of redesigning blink to be different from FTL - which I think would almost certainly need to happen. It's definitely an option, but not the one I would prefer.
