Weekly Update #90

It’s less about the number of types or even the exoticity of the weapon, it’s more about the difference in gameplay it creates. The presented weapons types do create somewhat differing gameplay. It’s just quite widely used and known. Sure people will know what to expect … just not a lot of reason remaining to open up I:B if the gameplay turns out similar to other games.

I quite like weapons that can be used defensively and aggressively.

Bombs/Mines with very high Damage Radius
Grappling hooks
Area Deniers (Block/Slow Weaponfire/Ships in an area, also allows players to create terrain where there is none (Hint: Space)

one idea that i’d like to import from Gundam is an idea for a defense system where a ship can fire off a few missiles that explode and fill a good area of space with a kind of interference causing material that seriously hinders energy based weaponry

it could be dual effect when you think about it
it does make a certain percentage bolts detonate prematurely
but that detonation would have more aoe than normal but be less powerful
combine that with big turrets of a battleship and you got yourself some flack

= @TheCoach

One more thing I’d like to see in sci-fi games is ships also deploying combat drones
small things with a sort of battery for a shot or two that essentially perform an attack from multiple directions

= Another idea from him

Definetly, and please not 5 weapons that are basically the same, every weapon should have unique characteristics, area control/denial, stun mines, temporary cloaking, mines, shield mines, emp blasts from capitals that disable weapon tracking, all thess different abilities would make it a really interesting and tactical game, I hope things like that will be playtested to see if the concept works etc. and balancing will be done im beta phase etc.

= @playbenni

From the Discord 6. November 2017

5 Likes

Look at the crop of modern action movies. The superhero stuff, Guardians of the Galaxy, whatever. There are tons of inventive minds in Hollywood that have come up with all manner of plot vehicles to accomplish all manner of results. (plot vehicle == gameplay)

Fire a beam weapon that ricochets or even fractures into multiple beams when it hits another ship’s shield. Have a “I only get one of those” Iron Man beam weapon that uses an expensive charge for a short duration high damage attack. Configure your shield, then slam into somebody to knock them off target.

Something that nobody really talks about here is multiplayer weapons. Unreal Tournament 2003 had the Onslaught game mode where players used their Link weapons to build the node network that was central to the game mode. But instead of simply pointing at the node and getting a green beam to build the node, you could point at another friendly who was pointing at the node to build the node even faster than two players could. And this could extend and build into an entire network of players linked together by green beams, building the node.

I’d like to see stuff like that as well. Imagine several ships employing a beam weapon like that. How about firing a beam at a friendly who “catches” it, then fires it again, only adding his own power - and getting a little extra power from the overall operation. Repeat that in a network to really amp up a single shot’s power.

Separately, I’ve already mentioned gun directors in the form of Interceptors. Well, you could also have target designators where Interceptors actively mark targets for large ship weapons. Suppose a capital can fire a salvo of up to 20 missiles or 8 beams or whatever else, but each attack requires its own designator. So you’ve just involved N Interceptor pilots to deliver those N attacks.

How about weapons that don’t just blow the crap out of the enemy, but ruin their ability to blow the crap out of you? Fire a Pulse round that detonates on or near a bunch of ships. It produces a blast that not only messes with their sensors, but even throws them around a bit. If ship alignment is at all significant (e.g. the beam weapon stuff above) then getting thrown around would complicate life. Perhaps an entire Interceptor group could be scattered by one of these things. How about firing them in rapid sequence to keep throwing the enemy around, allowing your own ships to get past a blockade?

There are so many possibilities that it boggles the mind.

In the end, what could make Battlescape stand out is weapon systems that require player skill. If all I can do is line up my ship at something and push a button then the gameplay will be the same stuff that’s been around since arcade days. To be different, the game needs weapons that involve skill during its active use. Not skill in buying them cheaply or configuring them optimally, but in using them. Coordination with other players, timing, positioning, fiddling with knobs and dials, etc.

8 Likes

Very much agree that mines and/or bombs would be cool.

Not saying I disagree with/dislike the other types, just that I hadn’t thought about mines/bombs at all.

I think just limiting the weapons to blaster/lasers and projectile/missiles wastes a lot of potential.
In what other game would nukes actually be doable in a way that does not ruin gameplay?
Battlescape has huge battle areas and distances, why not use this potential to create something that hasn’t been done before?
Why not make purchasing nukes for a big amount of credits possible? 1 million credits = cruiser equiped with nuclear torpedo. The torpedo could even be made interceptable…

Not having any area control weapons in a game that is fundamentally about area control is nonsensical to me. Just shooting at stuff is played out.

3 Likes

Assault guns - high ROF, medium damage, good accuracy and range
Blast canons - medium ROF, high damage, good accuracy, lower range
Close-in guns - very high ROF, low damage, low range
Sniper weapon - low ROF, high damage, good accuracy, long range
Flak guns - medium ROF, low damage, long range, multiple projectiles per shot
Vulcan cannon, high ROF, high damage, low accuracy
Flechette guns - high ROF, low damage, medium range, multiple projectiles
Reaper - very high ROF, medium damage, medium range

With branded variants with slightly different stats within each type of gun.

It’s a game about shooting other people. There’s great benefit in “fetishising” the weapons that are available and giving the player a chance to have favourites.

4 Likes

8 Likes

I’m going to echo the basllistics squad. While you might not want to discard the laser stuff entirely, focusing on depth via different types of ballistics might be easier to develop and balance than having a bunch of different type of weapons, especially since ammo would be finite in every case.

I would also like to add onto @TARS’s thoughts that nukes could fit uniquely in this game like no other, because it has the scale for them to operate on.

3 Likes

Having somewhat dumb missiles in capital ships that can be directed by players seems like a cool idea. Imagine your capital ship fires a 10 missile salvo. Usually just half would hit and maybe take out a gun or two, but if 5 players directed it somehow, you could take out the 5 guns that are on the side that can aim at your team’s capital ship, giving it a huge advantage. Having somewhat bad missiles on fighters that require laser targeting to not be easily distracted by countermeasures would also be fun and match that whole “player skill should beat pure firepower” idea.

Having things like railguns/lasers on capital ships that require time to charge(visibly) and fire very accurately but to a fixed position(no auto aim) and for high damage would also make capital ship combat more fun than just pointing at the target and holding the mouse button so the auto turrets do the job. Add also a sort of “dash/dodge” on the capital ships that require to recharge and depletes energy(call it maneuvering thrusters overload) and you get a viable way to both have positioning/tactics as something important, but you also can test a capital ship player’s reflex(while reducing boredom by having the player require to keep concentration). I still remember all the cool stories that this type of capital ship dodge has made possible in the Halo books. In the books they could also be fired so that a ship could quickly be spinned to aim the railguns.

And since space is so big, maybe instead of dumb mines we could have special “shield wall” mines, that you would need to drop 3 of them near aech other so they could link and destroy/damage players that pass between them. Call them “barrier trap mines” or whatever. They would be inert until a high speed ship passes between them, then it would activate right before it goes through, making the ship take collision/energy damage if not fast enough to dodge. The farthest the mines are apart, the less damage it gives because the area of the triangle shield wall would be bigger, and the wall would be less dense. You could even use this as flak defense, having those mines take multiple shots of small missiles and survive, forcing enemy players to destroy one of the mines to break the link and allow the missiles to go through, or fire from a different direction. Basically making cover a thing again, but in space.

Another idea is a sort of harpoon mine, that latches on to the other ship and reels in to attach to the ship as it passes somewhat close. After that the payload can vary. Either it just blows up after it has enough time to reel in(you could be fast enough to spin and shoot it before that happens), or it could suck some of the ships power(less maximum or recharge rate, maybe), or disable targeting, or start hacking your missiles to lock them in the ship and eventually detonate them unless a teammate destroys it. Just imagine a timer ticking until they blow up, making people run for a teammate to shoot it off, or you carefully lining your ship in front of a capital ship turret, or diving in the atmosphere to burn it off.

Other weapons… hmm, how about a battering ram shield that can be used to hit another player and cause damage based on the speed difference. The shield would take some time to swap from “cover me from damage” mode to “stay in the front like spear” mode. Combine this on capital ships with the “dash” and you end up having combat like viking ships ramming each other. Maybe this could also be used to gain speed in atmosphere, at the expense of having no defense shield.Even better if you had to press a button to activate the shield just in time, or you would use too late/early, so and the shield would dissipate before(or not activate fast enough) and you would hit full speed with no protection.

For missiles, maybe there could be some that latch on to a ship and basically act as an ion thruster, sucking the ships power and using it to push it in the direction it hit the hull. It would be used to spin the capital ship out of alignment and mess with its aim until a player comes to destroy them, or until they run out. Maybe one could be countered by the maneuvering thrusters, but if a squad of bombers hits a capital ship with a few of those in the same spot, the capital ship would start to spin a lot, making it miss all shots for some time. A capital ship with no escorts would then be dead meat against an experienced squad of bombers.

More ideas… hacking rocket that allow you to do all sorts of fun stuff after hitting an enemy ship. Maybe you could make it so if that player fires a missile at you it blows up in the missile bay, or you could choose to disable/mess with that indicator of the future location you need to fire to hit a moving ship, or maybe you chose to have the controls randomly move a bit, or maybe you could set it so you would press a button and the current target hud thing keeps following your speed, but you could actually have stopped, or hidden behind an asteroid, so the enemy would be chasing a decoy hud icon. This would make electronic warfare interesting, and maybe instead of requiring to hit a special rocket on the enemy you need to be close to the enemy for X seconds and use a lot of energy to complete the hack.

Also, add a sort of chemical ammo that covers the enemy ship and catches fire/melts as it hits air/atmosphere. Damage would be even higher if fired in space, so if the ship enters atmosphere in x minutes the damage would be huge. Would allow you to use it to escape other ships by going to a planet after a quick orbit fight.

Another option is to make some energy weapons do very little damage, but instead severely cripple the other ship power system for a while. So much so that after enough shots the other ship shuts off a bit. This would allow ship builds where you shut off the other ship and get close to hit it with a sort of shotgun style gun, or dump high damage rockets. Crippling targeting systems and other stuff could also be a thing.

Other ideas with little explanation:
-attachable torpedo with gravity field that sucks in all projectiles and both pulls missing shots to hit the affected ship, but also slows down or warps the trajectory of the ship’s own weapons.
-trackers. Hit a capital ship with a tracker and run away, and you will know exactly where it is from anywhere in the galaxy. For a while.
-Small tactical EMP nuke torpedoes that disable enemy ships or damages its energy systems. Maybe only affects ships with shields down unless direct hit.

  • Blinding flare/torpedo. Essentially a continuous space flash bang that blinds both visually or just sensors. Could be used to hide incoming torpedoes from sensors. Or have a couple of those things set up so it hides an entire approaching armada.
  • lasers that deal more damage the longer they aim at the same ship(ideally the same spot in capital ship, but this might be hard to code), this would vary with the ship’s armor rating, so thicker armor takes longer to melt and expose the insides. Same idea as the laser guided missiles really.
  • Decoy torpedoes. Basically the torpedo would launch tiny decoy drones around it so one torpedo looks like 10. Have fun discovering the real radar blip to shoot at.
  • anti-figher swarm rockets. Capital ships could shoot “walls” of heavy damaging projectiles that are slow. Approaching bombers/fighters would then have to be nimble to fly through the holes in the wall.
  • adjustable timer flak guns. Capital ship flak guns where you have to adjust the detonation timer. Involves skill/timing to protect against fighters and missiles. Explain a lack of proximity detonation with “hacking or tricking the sensors”.

I better stop because it is 5 am…

8 Likes

Weapon types depend on the flavour and actual nature of the gameplay you want to create. Currently, there are only six ships in the game, which is fairly minimalist. If you want to keep that aspect, there should be a few well- defined weapon types. Typically this means making simple mechanics facilitate gameplay that is as varied or engaging as possible.

If minimalism isn’t what you wish to achieve, then a varied spectrum of standard and exotic weapons would work well.

I agree with the ideas of changing the terrain somewhat with energy fields that do different things and last for different durations.

I’m also a fan of the hardpoints being individually targetable. That would really reward gunnery skills.



4 Likes

https://masteroforion.gamepedia.com/Ship_weapons

Here is a list of Master of Orion weapons. :smile:

Some good ideas and different ways to be killed (and vis versa)

Definition of torpedo

plural torpedoes
1 : a weapon for destroying ships by rupturing their hulls below the waterline: such as
a : a submarine mine
b : a thin cylindrical self-propelled underwater projectile
2 : a small firework that explodes when thrown against a hard object
3 : electric ray
4 : a professional gunman or assassin
5 : submarine 2

Using words to mean different things. That is were different languages come from. :frowning:

What about a possibility of choosing ships loadout?
Not just deciding which weapon to load but how much ammo, how much flares/chaff, how much fuel. Of course this would have much more sense if ships wouldn’t consume fuel. What type of fuel? Maybe different type of fuel for different drives.

I imagine situation where ships would need to travel a great distance to a battle because there are no carries or other spawn point nearby. So to be able to do that pilot would need more warp fuel. He (or she :wink:) would need to sacrifice internal space by converting it into an extra fuel tank/cell.
When there will be a carrier nearby, then no extra warp fuel would be needed. Pilot could use empty compartment as an additional ammo storage. Maybe for some battery/capacitor to store energy which could be used for energy weapons, shields. Or even give up on extra loadout to be a bit more fast and agile.

This reminded me destroyer drones:

This entire discussion is a classic example of why it is not smart to name things before you have to. “Guns” and “Lasers” and any name really instantly have associations and expectations attached. IMHO it would be much better to experiment with weapon mechanics and balance without naming the things beyond Weapon A, Weapon B, and so on. That way, you look at what works and is fun, and afterwards name it to something fitting. Naming first narrows the thinking and leads to a process where you design for preexisting expectations and paradigms, thus arriving at results very close to things that already exist.

If you feel like you absolutely need names during development, you could still use such names that describe what a weapon does, not how. For example, “gun” or “cannon” implies chemical reaction and gas expansion to propel a projectile. “Laser” has a fixed physical definition of what it is and can do.

If you instead said “Projectile Accelerator”, you leave open if it is electrical, magnetic, chemical or some other exotic form of projectile acceleration. If you said “Continuous Beam weapon” you would leave open what that beam is actually made of. And so on.

The 3 principle categories of projectile weapons, energy weapons and self propelled guided weapons make sense along with their fundamental attributes. Trade ammunition vs. energy management, trade burst damage vs. sustained damage and have different combat dynamics. A solid foundation to build on, that part i would not change or challenge.

Imho, this foundation is very much capable of providing variety and depth. Both in having a spectrum of simple weapons with different stats in each category, but also as the base of more exotic weapons. Who says what kind of warhead is inside a large projectile or missile? Can be everything from just something that goes boom, to some huge boom, to an area of effect damage/slow/attraction/sensor blinding/shot blocking effect. Energy weapons could have all sorts of primary or secondary effects.

And every weapon can have additional mechanics if wanted. Spinup, charge up, overheat, damage over time and many more. Any ship system that exists, from shields to weapons to engines can theoretically have weapons that are designed to disrupt it.

( And if the budget for visual effects and models was higher, you could design all sorts of weapons for the rule of cool, from squashing a ship round through a tiny black hole to ripping its armour off exposing the interior to cutting it in half with a death beam. But that is out of budget and scope for now. :wink: )

What is important is to experiment. Experiment boldly with many stupid ideas early on. Narrowing down from a wide field, instead of expanding from a narrow field. This is what i hope to see.

6 Likes

I’ve certainly banged the drum on fiction versus gameplay. There are no ships or fuel tanks or bullets or heat. It’s all about positions, vectors, bounds, proximities and so forth. Viewed that way, the weapons just become a series of data transformations. Think up transformations, figure out what they would mean in terms of fiction, and consider implementing the most interesting ones.

I’d love to see that as well, but I doubt that INS has the resources to do anything other than the plan they’ve already outlined. I just post ideas because it’s fun and rather cathartic.

@INovaeKeith What do you think the chances are that we could get a mod system almost as extensive as Fallout 4?

I want to be able to come up with a lot of good customized loadouts :crazy_face:

1 Like

I’m actually going to have to side with Skyentist on this one. You described weapon characteristics, but each and every ones of these will be either energy or ballistic related. There is nothing stopping any weapon type from having a huge variety of selections: the “blaster” style could be huge and powerful, it could fire super fast, it could have limited or extended ranges. Lasers can be the same, based on focal length and power outputs. Ballistics…well, I don’t think it takes too much imagination to imagine how a ballistic weapon could fit each of these roles, given that they already exist.

I don’t actually understand the hate against having energy and kinetic weapons together. Anytime you offer a variety, you increase the opportunities for strategy. I used to play a game called Pardus, it had Energy/Bio/Conventional weaponry, and Energy/Bio/Conventional armor. Generally speaking, Energy was high damage/low fire rate, Bio was low damage/high fire rate, and Conventional was a balance. Energy did something like 200% to Bio, 110% to Conventional, and 50% to Energy, Bio did 150% to Energy, 120% to Conventional, and 50% to Bio, and Conventional did a flat 90% to everything except maybe 100% to Conventional. Restricting yourself to just one or the other eliminates this possibility of a round-robin, choose your weapons wisely situation.

All weapons generally lumped into the “power” weapon category. Rockets are just unguided missiles, so you probably wouldn’t see those, but it’s not any more complicated to add once you have missiles implemented. I don’t see how rockets would be considered superior to a standard ballistic weapon, however. Missing from your list is also the “Torpedo,” but that is generally just a large, slow missile.

Both of these are typically loaded into the above “power” weapons, and neither will be very effective against ships designed to fly in space/reenter an atmosphere. Nukes have some value on a planet, perhaps, in hitting a ground installation with an EMP effect if detonated high or a high-pressure wave if detonated lower. Regardless, these are not typically considered to be an individual weapon type so much as a category of power weapon.

All could be considered “energy” weapons, but the only two you have here not already being implemented are effectively “push” and “pull” tractor beams. Given proper balance, I give it a solid “maybe,” but interfering with the flight of another player is iffy for anything other than preventing escape/interception of a high speed target.

Neither of these will be of much value in space. If you breach the hull of a ship, you’d be better off using a detonation with a shockwave to attempt to rupture more bulkheads, exposing the crew to the vacuum of space, which would be far more lethal than biological or chemical attacks. Externally, neither of these will be able to chew through armor in any significant amount.

On planets, it could be argued that such attacks would rapidly neutralize a base, but it could also be argued that the buildings are designed to be air-tight and positively pressurized, leading to a preference towards breaching walls again.

And all of the considerable varieties of them.

1 Like

Apologies for the double post, but I don’t think it’s relevant enough to my previous post, and hope it gets attention in and of itself.

I seem to remember reading that the intention was to give ships weapon values roughly equivalent to modern day aircraft, but that seems very…limited to me. IIRC, most aircraft only carry about 20-30 seconds worth of ammunition, plus some limited quantity of missiles/bombs/etc. Unless replenishment facilities will be plentiful, or unless ships are intended to be vaporized in a few seconds even in one-on-one scenarios, this level of ammunition will be woefully inadequate for getting more than a few minutes away from a resupply point.

And that was my whole point. You can have a large variety of interesting weapons within a single generic type. It was a reply to Skyentist asking what this “large variety of weapons were?”

Focusing attention on a single weapon type is a good idea for a very small team with extremely limited resources. Each additional weapon type requires a whole new set of effects and mechanics. Adding a weapon type with different mechanics (eg. draining energy instead of ammunition) means integrating and balancing that mechanic with every other system in your game. That doesn’t just double the length of time it takes to implement, it multiplies it by every other system that needs to be interfaced.

This is called scope limitation and is something with which I’ve had a lot of experience.

2 Likes

Will projectiles bypass shields to some degree? Maybe high shields only lessens the damage.

Limited ammo for projectile weapons encourages short bursts of fire to conserve ammo. This becomes pointless if the shields constantly recover between bursts.

Short, damaging bursts with projectiles would make them feel more satisfying and impactful. Energy weapons would therefore have to burn through shields first to cause damage, but can do that because there is no ammo limit.

1 Like

I don’t know anything about Fallout 4’s modding system so I have no idea :stuck_out_tongue:. Either way it’s hard to say, modding is important but we don’t have any resources to devote toward it right now. We’re just trying to take it into consideration as we build the game so we can more easily integrate support for it after the game ships to retail.