+- Bugbyte Forums (http://bugbyte.fi/forums)
+-- Forum: Battlevoid Forums (http://bugbyte.fi/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Battlevoid: Sector Siege (http://bugbyte.fi/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Are you open For Suggestion's? (/showthread.php?tid=303)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - KalWinters - 06-16-2017
Pretty big request here, probably outrageous actually, but I'd like significant changes to combat from what it was in Battlevoid: Harbinger.
-get rid of or change superweapons (Plasma mega cannon, Nuke cannon, Deathray, etc.)
(The late game of BV: H devolved into a battle of who could utterly nuke the other the quickest, full of mindless insta-killing and little strategy.
More often than not I would warp into a supposed empty sector only to find a single ship incoming, and that ship would usually have two plasma mega
cannons mounted on it. Soon enough one of my escorts pops, and I grumble and curse the game as I spend the tens of thousands of scrap I have lying
around to replace it.)
-another use for scrap (It usually just sits there as I accumulate it)
(I see from the screenshots you've made changes to currency in the game but I thought I'd bring this up.)
-overhaul defences and effective weapons against them (Change shields, add armor, hull is fine)
(You already kind of started to do what I had in mind for defences in BV: H, where you had certain weapons do more damage to shields and others do
more damage to hull. However, in doing so you made some weapons utterly ineffective for some jobs. I'll propose my idea for a combat system,
ignoring superweapons for the moment. I'm mostly getting this idea from a game called Sunrider: Mask of Arcadius, where the idea works beautifully. So, if you need to get a better idea of what I'm trying to say, you can go play that.
-Defences
Shields: Instead of a recharging health bar, make them reduce a percentage of incoming energy weapon damage. Make the shields have a radius so their protection extends to their allies and overlaps with other shields for added protection.
This mechanic promotes making formations, and with the removal of a recharging health pool, make repair ships more valuable and a juicier target.
Armor: Reduces a percentage of all damage that gets past shields. Armor amount reduces as you lose hull points. Armor reduces damage from kinetic and missiles 2x.
This mechanic makes it more risky to take damaged ships into battle, and again makes repair ships have a bigger role.
Hull: with these changes, your hull will be your only pool of hit points, cleaning up ui.
-Weapons
Kinetic(cannons): Short range and inaccurate, but cannot be blocked by shields, high damage to hull, armor is twice as effective at blocking.
Energy(lasers): long range and incredibly accurate, but can be blocked by shields, low damage to hull, armor has trouble blocking.
Missiles: long range and incredibly accurate, cannot be blocked by shields, high damage to hull, armor is twice as effective at blocking, can be intercepted,
possibly have an ammo count for missiles?
*for combat examples, check bottom
-remove jumping to sectors? (make sublight speed only speed)
(This one I'm not sure about, but I wanted to bring it up because it would give smaller, faster ships a role. Say one of your stations is under attack by a raiding party, If you can just warp in battleships, then what's the point of ever having small response ships.)
*Example:
say you have 500 hull points and 50 armor points and your armor reduces 25% damage (or 50% for kinetic or missiles)
then you get hit by a kinetic slug that does 100 points of damage, 50 points after reduction
you now have 450 hull points and 45 armor points and your armor reduces 22.5% damage
were you to get hit again by that kinetic slug that does 100 damage you would now take 55 points of hull damage
*Example2:
say you have 500 hull points and 50 armor points and your armor reduces 25% damage
Then you get hit by a laser beam that does 100 points of damage, 75 points after reduction
you now have 425 hull points and 42.5 armor points and your armor reduces 21% damage (approx)
were you to get hit again by that laser beam that does 100 damage you would now take 79 points of hull damage
*Example3:
say you have 500 hull points and 50 armor points and your armor reduces 25% damage, and you are inside of an ally's shield that protects 25% energy damage
Then you get hit by a laser beam that does 100 points of damage, 50 points after reduction
you now have 450 hull points and 45 armor points and your armor reduces 22.5% damage, and you are inside of an ally's shield that protects 25% energy damage
were you to get hit again by that laser beam that does 100 damage you would now take 52.5 points of damage
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - AdmiralGeezer - 06-19-2017
@KalWinters.
You have some great ideas! Can't promise we will implement any but you gave us a couple of nice tech tree ideas at the least. Thanks!
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - darkphantomvids - 06-27-2017
Will this game have mod support?
BV:H had the potential have mod support with custom fighters and even custom ships so im very curious if you will go that direction in the future
EDIT 6/28/2017
this is after the game is released to the public
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - Clap - 06-29-2017
Of even just a ship designer with different levels slowing you to put more on and have a bigger ship....
Well I say 'even ' although this would likely take place of work
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - lemm - 07-06-2017
This looks like Battlevoid Harbinger but with a more sophisticated strategy layer overtop of the tactical layer. I thought BV:H looked nice but got kind of boring after awhile. The main problem I had with it was that every battle played out just like the last and that it was hard to apply positional tactics like one would do in XCOM or a roguelike. Ships moved very slowly and there was no terrain on the field, so every battle felt like two whales sumo-wrestling.
If I could make a suggestion for the tactical layer, it would be to have more terrain on the field. Asterioids, gas clouds, buildings, gravitational anomalies and such, procedurally generated for each map, will make each battle a bit different. Ships could also launch drones which could generate temporary terrain (e.g., blind-spot discs, linear force fields, etc).
Other things like weapons that only have on hit effects (e.g., propulsion disruption, angular propulsion distruption, weapons lock, sensors lock, crew panic, inability to modify target) without doing damage would help make different ships complement each other, especially if there is such a variety of effects that no one ship could carry enough weapons to deal all of them.
As for the strategic layer, I think that there would be more replay value if the player were prevented from researching the entire tech tree on each playthrough. For example, if there are 12 ultimate technology items, perhaps the player will only be able to research 6-7 of them on the average playthrough.
Tactical Screen wider, please - Numak - 08-11-2017
Would be possible to make the zoom out screen more wide? That was the only issue i hated from Harbinger, the tactical screen was so tiny and many ships were out of screen and no chance to zoom out to get better perspective of the battle forcing me to scroll side to side and up to down, in Sector Siege would be even worst if we can get bigger fleets.
Please, please, give us the chance to zoom out to a significatively wider area.
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - AdmiralGeezer - 08-11-2017
@Numak.
Yeah, Sector Siege should have sufficient zoom out!
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - RogueAD - 08-24-2017
I'm not sure how difficult this would be to implement, but I noticed something about BV:H that limited some of my tactics regarding fighters:
It seems like the bomber AI (plasma/missile) is to Target capital shops for the most part when your fleet arrives in-system, which makes sense and is almost always what I wanted then to do. Fighter logic (bolter/laser) is to stay near your capital ships as fighter & missile defense for the most part, which is sometimes useful. However, many times my bombers will rush off to attack enemy capitals (and I'd want to keep my own capitals away from the larger enemy vessels) and get slaughtered by the enemy fighters. There is an option to allow your fighters to attack enemy capitals ships, but it would be great if you could give your different fightercraft different standing orders.
For example, something simple like telling your fighters to "protect bombers" or " protect capital ships" would add a nice tactical layer to combat. I don't really think you'd need any more complex orders than that. Just my two cents.
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - AdmiralGeezer - 08-24-2017
@RogueAD.
You will be able to set the settings for fighters yourself! Options are Defensive (Stay close to mothership), Aggressive (Fly away and attack all revealed units)
Additionally, you can set them to target mainly Big ship units, fighters or missiles specifically.
RE: Are you open For Suggestion's? - RogueAD - 08-24-2017
(08-24-2017, 08:52 PM)AdmiralGeezer Wrote: @RogueAD.
You will be able to set the settings for fighters yourself! Options are Defensive (Stay close to mothership), Aggressive (Fly away and attack all revealed units)
Additionally, you can set them to target mainly Big ship units, fighters or missiles specifically.
Awesome! Looking forward to the release!