What do you think of the new volatility system?

Novus Aeterno discussions; what more needs to be said?

What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Sypheria » Mon Jan 05, 2015 3:36 pm

Details can be found here:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13416

What do you think of it?
Sypheria
User avatar
Universe Architect
 
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: WinSock.h ln 458 #define AF_UNKNOWN1 20 /*Somebodys using this! */

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Forsaken » Mon Jan 05, 2015 6:18 pm

Sounds great!
Are there any plans for larger or more armored ships to be able to "shield" smaller ships by placing them behind each other when explosions/shockwaves occur?
IGN: Doomr
Forsaken
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:20 am

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Lord Tyrius » Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:02 am

I've heard of how this system is planned in the end several times since the "prototype" has been implemented, and I'm quite excited to see it ingame/how combat is affected :D
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Need anything or have any questions? Drop me a message! (Click)
Follow me on Twitch|YouTube|Twitter
- Cheers!, Tyrius
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Lord Tyrius
User avatar
 
Posts: 2211
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 9:54 am
Location: Forums Ancient & Developer Meat Shield

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Silligoose » Tue Jan 06, 2015 7:40 am

I am a bit skeptical about the volatility system.

On the one hand, it will of course help curb zerging and just general close-proximity formations.

On the other hand, it will also negatively affect tactical depth and fleet compositions:
- Having a mixed fleet of say a dread and 5 small ships won't be as viable anymore - as a unit they may be strong, but if spread too far apart could be off easily. With volatility, they would be forced to be spread apart, lest they get blown up/severely damaged from the dread being killed.

- Facing an enemy with primarily longer max range weapons and a corresponding longer min range, gives the option to attempt to punish such a player by getting into the the min range with your own short range weapons, preferably in numbers. With volatility, this option's viability is decreased, as your ships will not only incur the damage they normally would in trying to position themselves within the min range, but more damage would be incurred as some of your ships blow up en-route, damaging the rest of your squadron, damage incurred by your own ships as they get hit and destroyed by other ships whilst in min range of a few targets and your ships damaged by the explosion of the enemy ships.

- I'm not a huge fan of every ship potentially being a suicide ship.

A lot of my skepticism depends on how it all turns out to be implemented in the game - how often ships blown up, whether all races will have this feature, the final damage/radius numbers etc, but I would personally prefer for AoE weapons to be a deterrent to tight formations as opposed to volatility, as in that way, tight formations would sometimes be the most viable tactic, meaning greater tactical depth.
Silligoose
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:18 am

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Sypheria » Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:14 am

Dreadnoughts should never die. We want players to retreat if their losing.
As we add in more systems like officers, crafting, trade/research and aging ships, retreating will prevent a lot of financial and time losses.
Sypheria
User avatar
Universe Architect
 
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: WinSock.h ln 458 #define AF_UNKNOWN1 20 /*Somebodys using this! */

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby PerfectDeath » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:08 am

Silligoose, we will also implement two "HP pools" systems integrity (SI) and hull integrity (HI).

Systems Integrity will be the value ships have right now; however, when it runs out the ship dies leaving a hulk behind. No huge explosion.

Hull Integrity will be considerably higher (like x10) than SI, as HI gets lower (below 50%) there will be a chance that the ship will explode when hit that increases as the ship's HI gets lower.

The SI will be repairable in space, but HI is repairable from a shipyard. So it is a way to create risk for a player deploying a fleet for a prolonged period of time.
Image
support@taitale.com - kickstarter@taitale.com
I try to be on our Steam Chat as often as possible.
PerfectDeath
User avatar
Lore Master
 
Posts: 1641
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:09 pm
Location: Everytime an infiltrator masterbates, Sypheria crashes the server.

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby ante185 » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:12 am

i don't really have any merits on doing things in the most efficient order but shouldn't the fireworks go in *after* you implement the hp pools?
Realised something about myself, caused me a personal crisis and gave me w new hobby. Now I need how to draw fml
ante185
User avatar
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:34 pm
Location: Tukholma, Ruotsi

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Sypheria » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:19 am

We have hull integrity in already, we just don't have system integrity.
Sypheria
User avatar
Universe Architect
 
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: WinSock.h ln 458 #define AF_UNKNOWN1 20 /*Somebodys using this! */

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Silligoose » Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:35 am

Thank you for the clarification PerfectDeath.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate and looking at how volatility could affect the meta and overall tactical depth. The volatility system appears (or rather now appeared) to have the potential to completely invalidate a whole branch of tactics involving tighter formations from the get-go, regardless of enemy fleet composition and/or weaponry used, ie less tactical depth, but with the different HP pools of SI and HI respectfully and especially considering the much larger HI value, the chance of those tactics being invalidated becomes far less.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out once implemented, as the effect on the meta will of course depend on many variables, one of which being the frequency of ship explosions.

PS the use of 'Dread' in one example was for illustrative purposes - it could be a formation of any larger, volatile ship being escorted by smaller ships.
Silligoose
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 7:18 am

Re: What do you think of the new volatility system?

Postby Sypheria » Tue Jan 06, 2015 11:06 am

Veru'nas mechanics will require being directly in the blast range of allies and enemies.

They are not affected by the shockwave knockback or damage though.

Dreads can have low volatility. You just have top put weaker components on them or less components.
Sypheria
User avatar
Universe Architect
 
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: WinSock.h ln 458 #define AF_UNKNOWN1 20 /*Somebodys using this! */

Next

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron