Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Have a cool idea for Starfall Online? Any suggestions on how to make the game better? Let us know!
amunari
Deck Supervisor
Deck Supervisor
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:48 pm

Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby amunari » Mon Nov 21, 2016 5:35 am

Greetings,

Introduction
This is a suggestion to change the module system. I know it's a lot of work guys, but i think the quality of this system is much better then the current "grid" system. The grid system is outdated, and tacky. changing this system delivers a great product and helps players significantly improve on builds, and helps make balance much easier.

Code: Select all

The new System
Image

The Idea is to remove the grid system, and add "hardware points" to the ships.
In the above picture you can see small, medium, and large points.
Next,
Each ship will now have key systems for the hardware points

- Energy: For Reactors to power the ship.
- Engines: For Engines to generate speed, and movement
- Defensive Slots: For Armor and Shielding
- Weapon Slots: For Weapons
- General Slots: For all other systems then the above.
Next,
Abilities will no longer be part of the Layout System. Instead each type of hull will have 0-4 ability slots. This will allow for more build diversity and freedom, as well as empowering some ship types over others (for example all engineering ships).

- Special Slots: For Abilities.
Next,
Ship Systems will be changed.

Ship Mass: This will remain the same
Module Costs:
- Modules will cost Credits, Warp Points, and now Energy
- Modules will now have two groups. Energy use, and Non-energy use.
Energy using modules will be: Engines, S hields, Beams, Energy Cannons/Missiles Etc
Non-energy using Modules will be: Armor, Cannons, Missiles (ammo Using weapons) Etc.

Important: the new module system will need "reactor" for powering. A bonus will be given if energy is high. Allowing for ships to gain 20% Beam damage, 20% movement speed or turning, 20% Bonus to Regeneration of shields.

All ships will need power to power engines, or engines will go offline, along with other weapons and modules. This is for new weapon types (energy drain) later.

User avatar
miroslav
Recruit
Recruit
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:09 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby miroslav » Mon Nov 21, 2016 8:00 pm

It is a good suggestion, how ever that will make it outbalanced ... now if your ship has abilities would have less armor and/or dmg the system you suggest a ship will be overpowered by being able to have 0-4 abilities, high armor and high dps ... Making top players impossible to contest and it will put new player off by making the players with lots of tech impossible to contest . I might be wrong there but that is my opinion on that regarding the abilities having their own slots on a ship. [unless they implement that on the carriers from what I've heard that they might be working on introducing carriers in to the game and if they are limited to 1 per fleet would be considerable to implement that [special ability slots] on the carriers .

User avatar
relampago
Community Manager
Community Manager
Posts: 892
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 3:29 am
Contact:

Re: Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby relampago » Tue Nov 22, 2016 3:27 am

Thanks for the suggestion, Amunari!

Miroslav, you are partly right - we are really planning to create carrier class ships, and thought about making a special slot for fighters and etc. on it - although it's undecided yet. But those are plans for the future which is soooo far away ;)
I'm watching you!

techmarine5
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:27 am

Re: Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby techmarine5 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:13 pm

I prefer the grid system. It is slightly more realistic, and allows for more trade-off, allowing for a more balanced system. For example, if you want a ship filled with mines, then you can, you just can't have weapons or fancy armor. To be honest, I used to play a game with this hardpoint system, and it is extremely limiting, especially for the players. It means that you can't compensate for the lack of one thing with an abundance of another, and makes higher level players more powerful than good players, and that is also something you don't want to encourage. As for your comment about energy, they already have that. I do like the suggestion of excess energy giving an advantage like faster cooldowns, more damage, or faster movement, however you want to implement it.
We may not be able to predict the future, but we can certainly create it.

narfi
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:40 pm

Re: Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby narfi » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:52 pm

i do like the grid system aswell and dont see any need to change it.

Carriers sound realy intresting and i guess there are a few ways to implement the FighteR/bomber etc. squadrons on them but it would seem that adding a Weapon like slot area especially for those squadrons would allow for the most balanced option while giving u guys the chance to create several diffrent ones.

amunari
Deck Supervisor
Deck Supervisor
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:48 pm

Re: Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby amunari » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:45 pm

respectfully i do not agree.

Here's why,

First, The principle "lots of options" Is equal to "no quality". We Nick name is "spam". Ironically, i feel the quality in general for Star fall is good.

The Grid system is badly done in starfall, a lot of ship builds are useless. Metrics (server data) will prove this. At this point in the discussion no argument you can provide beyond this point will really validate keeping "Unused Models" Which means we have two options, Either 1) we change them or 2) we change the system.

This brings us to the discussion of the grid-module system. It's been something in the industry for a long time, but it's very problematic for us developers to deal with when we use systems like this, why? Because you players create new builds, and as a result it's extremely difficult for us to keep balance in the game. Now, Cyclical balance is based on the idea that players create counters, but there will still be ship options that are insanely over powered due to the build freedom of the grid system.

Lets take my Eclipse BC for example, with 800 DPS @ 600 Alpha per tick. Since there is fleet options i can have that allows me 6 of these, t hey are very hardly countered by anything on the battlefield. The only build i have seen that rivals this is a BS 1200 DPS 500 Alpha Federation Ship. Now I do not know if you guys were paying attention to numbers, But these rates are insanely high. This means that in general armor was gone in less then 5 seconds. These are huge Balance issues, and nerfing these builds will only frustrate the players from now having the build freedom they desire. Thus, Keeping the grid system provides us with two major problems, Instability of the game, and lack of freedom of builds for players.


Why is a "module slot" system better?

First off, the quality and look of it is significantly more professional. It is at the level of a AAA game. I challenge you to provide me a AAA MMO Space-Game that has grid systems like this in it. You will have a very difficult time doing so.

Second and more importantly,
With a module base slot system not only do we gain the above (superior quality) game options, but we also provide the development team with significantly easier time balancing ships in the game, as well as modules.

Why?

Lets look at some math.
If we look back at the Eclipse BC we'll see the above 800dps/600 alpha rate. This means that with 5 in fleet, we are doing 4,500 DPS and 3,000 Alpha Strike a second. This provides about 4 seconds of live time for a ship, or in extreme tank cases, about double of that (8 seconds). Metrics across platforms say that the target duration of survival for a game is about 15-20 seconds, and about 25-30 for tank oriented units. These are the "magical" numbers in game development.

Now lets look at the module system in retrospect,

A BC with 5 weapon slots on it will provide us about similar damage level to the grid system. The benefit here is that it is not by stacking the same weapon type on that ship. This will significantly improve visuals, potential build diversity, and provide a much easier form of balance, allowing the developers to alter the ship more easily (by not having to play guess work with what can or cannot fit in the ships grid space). Lastly, Modifying the module system to be heavily involved with ammo and energy would provide what we call a "control resource", further improving stability and balance; A system that would (most likely) break the grid system

So to recap

Grid

- Large levels of unpredictable balancing issues, Longer instability issues in combat resulting in one race being more over tuned for longer duration (due to development resource limitations).
- Significantly lower options to employ larger weapons on ships (Like 4x5 etc)
- More time on balance means less content expansions

Module System

- Balance could be done by either nerfing the weapon (like in present system)
- Balance could be done by increasing or decreasing the module points Size and count (Small, Medium, Large) on ship classes.
- Balance could be done by altering the control resource (energy, ammo storage)
- Balance is predictable and less likely to get broken, providing more development resources for content expansions.
- The game is more likely to be balanced due to the lower possibility of fluctuations naturally

techmarine5
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:27 am

Re: Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby techmarine5 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:28 am

Addressing the benefits that you have stated for the module system

1. As you said, already in place.
2. Still possible with the current systems, only more so.
3. Already in there
4. It is, but that means that it is a more finely tuned game that encourages players to try new ideas, find more tactics, and get more playtime out out of the same amount of content.
5. The game should reward players for coming up with new ideas instead of remaining stagnant. I agree that there will be some things that become slightly too powerful occasionally, but the idea of a pre-alpha is to help sort those out and make sure the game remains ballanced, without having to make large tweaks after launch.

As to your criticisms of the grid system,

1. You have hit upon the purpose for a pre-alpha.
2. It's the opposite. If I want to put a big gun on my little ship, I can, but that's it.
3. The fact that they will be spending more time on balancing content expansions means that the content will be better in general, as they have had more time to think on it, and to see interactions that could go wrong, reducing the need for patches a day or two after it gets launched.

I agree that the development time would be longer, but I would rather have a balanced, fun, and more open game to a conglomerate of expansions down the line, especially as that is not sustainable in the long term.
We may not be able to predict the future, but we can certainly create it.

techmarine5
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:27 am

Re: Suggestion: Module system Improvements

Postby techmarine5 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:31 am

Also, it is to be expected that some ships are below par. It's part of the learning curve of a game like this.
We may not be able to predict the future, but we can certainly create it.


Return to “Features and Suggestions”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron