[Suggestion] Easy solution to make ground vehicles/buildings relevant unlike other space games

[zorozeenee]

In space engineers ground vehicles play really no relevant roles in the game as anything a vehicle can do a ship can do better. Ground vehicles can never be as large as a ship and practically work, and buildings are glued to the ground. Therefore some sort of balance measure must be put in place.

These 2 measures should fix the future issues.

1. When planets are finished make the atmosphere higher than any weapon range. Right now setting it to 10km in height would work but this could change.
2. Disable spaceship shields only when in atmosphere.

This still allows players to do "orbital bombardment" or any other uses of space vehicles (such as fighters or ground attack ships), but still allows buildings with turrets or ground vehicles to have a fighting chance as they will most likely be of much smaller size.

Without these measures I doubt ground vehicles or buildings will be at all relevant and thus will move the playerbase off of one of the coolest aspects of the game; planets. Instead of what happens in space engineers where battleships come down and level whatever they want, a base with large enough turrets to keep them at bay will force an attacker to land vehicles and attack on ground where they can use terrain to their advantage and have access to shields.

[Crimson-Artist]

Years ago I suggested a similar idea to the Starmade discord. My idea was a "Bombardment Shield" system.

It would be an additional shield on top of the normal ones but it would nullify 90%+ damage that comes from outside of the bubble. only damage that comes from inside of the bubble would bypass it. The bombardment shield bubble would also be much larger then a normal one (100-300 meter radius depending) so as to accommodate smaller craft. since combat will be focused on a smaller area no need to disable shields on entities since only smaller craft would be able to deal any real damage.

[zorozeenee]

Years ago I suggested a similar idea to the Starmade discord. My idea was a "Bombardment Shield" system.

It would be an additional shield on top of the normal ones but it would nullify 90%+ damage that comes from outside of the bubble. only damage that comes from inside of the bubble would bypass it. The bombardment shield bubble would also be much larger then a normal one (100-300 meter radius depending) so as to accommodate smaller craft. since combat will be focused on a smaller area no need to disable shields on entities since only smaller craft would be able to deal any real damage.

I think that idea will cause more issues, since smaller vehicles still can fire from ranges of 8.1km so now this adds another disadvantage for attacking ground vehicles. You would now make ground vehicles to have a nearly impossible shield to break through.

To fix this would might increase the size of the bombardment shield but then larger ships could easily fly into it,

Also larger craft are often far larger than even 10 times the size of the ground vehicle so it wouldnt really mattter since the larger ship would simply be able to wreck the shield

Also what is stopping ships from then using bombardment shields as well?

The only thing stopping the larger ships from going in would be fear of damage that could be expensive or time consuming to repair. Which my original idea solves without adding additional problems from ground vehicles.

[Crimson-Artist]

the bombardment shield was designed to be a space station/ground base system only. Its supposed to stop massive capital ships from just firing at max range and wiping out everything but be vulnerable to smaller vehicles that can operate inside of its bubble. the trick was always how big the bubble should be in order to make things fair.

things such as weapon range become irrelevant when the only thing that matters is if you are inside the bubble or not. The only thing that attacker have to worry about it closing the distance. which is something that was always going to be a problem

[zorozeenee]

Yea but a bombardment shield would simply get out dpsed by a large battleship, wouldnt matter, the large ships can still just sit at max range a fire away, with my system the ship might choose to test the standard shields against his own armor take some damage or fully commit which is risky or very expensive, with your system the ship will compare his own firepower with the base and sit at max range and destroy it

not to mention ground vehicles outside bubbles could be easily wiped out, why even use ground vehicles at that point when an air vehicle has the same power as a ground one, also air vehicles will always have a speed advantage so if i was an attacker i wouldnt bother with ground vehicles, they would be obsolete

i see the idea you are going for but it doesnt really make sense when broken down and leaves ground vehicles in state of obsolescence

If you can address properly why an attacker would choose ground vehicles over air, i might concede

[Crimson-Artist]

removing shields from ships seems like a rather extreme handicap just to make ground vehicles a better option. The bombardment shield is suppose to make brute forcing harder rather then completely stopping it. I mean if you have the resources to field a ship that can bust its way through a bombardment shield with just 10% of its max firepower while under attack from the base and its defenders I think you win by default.

I acknowledge the problems with vehicles under my system however ground vehicles would still have to be fairly large to be effective. Under both systems the approach would be the hardest part for vehicles. A base with enough firepower to make a unshielded large ship stay away can probably smoke smaller shielded vehicles easily. It all depends on how repair costs will be balanced in the future as if armor tanking is really cost effective I would just go all ships for their maneuverability and not use ground vehicles at all.

A potential compromise would be to give vehicles unique equipment rather then just a straight nerf to ships. A signal jamming system could be exclusive to vehicles. The signal jammer could make its harder for the AI in turrets and ships to target and hit ground vehicles. For players the signal jammer would not let them target ground vehicles which could disable certain weapons like lock on missiles. If players wanted to hit ground vehicles they would have to just eyeball it.

[zorozeenee]

removing shields from ships seems like a rather extreme handicap just to make ground vehicles a better option. The bombardment shield is suppose to make brute forcing harder rather then completely stopping it. I mean if you have the resources to field a ship that can bust its way through a bombardment shield with just 10% of its max firepower while under attack from the base and its defenders I think you win by default.

I acknowledge the problems with vehicles under my system however ground vehicles would still have to be fairly large to be effective. Under both systems the approach would be the hardest part for vehicles. A base with enough firepower to make a unshielded large ship stay away can probably smoke smaller shielded vehicles easily. It all depends on how repair costs will be balanced in the future as if armor tanking is really cost effective I would just go all ships for their maneuverability and not use ground vehicles at all.

A potential compromise would be to give vehicles unique equipment rather then just a straight nerf to ships. A signal jamming system could be exclusive to vehicles. The signal jammer could make its harder for the AI in turrets and ships to target and hit ground vehicles. For players the signal jammer would not let them target ground vehicles which could disable certain weapons like lock on missiles. If players wanted to hit ground vehicles they would have to just eyeball it.

Yes ground vehicles might have to be bigger to attack a base, but any ship can be the same size and much more effective because of their ability to move faster and without obstacles. Thats the problem. You have highlighted some minor strengths of your idea which has problems. If you could, please tell me why my system would be bad?

[Crimson-Artist]

I did in the first sentence. Removing shields outright seems like a really harsh nerf to ships just to artificially raise up vehicles. Even if its just armor tanking the firepower and maneuverability of ships would still win out against a static base with shields. Vehicles would still need something more hence the signal jammer.

[zorozeenee]

I never suggested removing shields outright, only to disable them when it atmosphere, and no they won't win out on a base with shields if the ship and base of equal strength and weapon range, and the ship is in atmosphere.

It's not harsh at all, you may think that but it's really just an opinion.

Also stealth will be available to ships at some point, it's bound to happen.

If they don't implement this change or use yours ground vehicles will be utterly useless.

On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 12:09 PM Crimson-Artist @.***> wrote:

I did in the first sentence. Removing shields outright seems like a really harsh nerf to ships just to artificially raise up vehicles. Even if its just armor tanking the firepower and maneuverability of ships would still win out against a static base with shields. Vehicles would still need something more hence the signal jammer.

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/tsunamayo/Starship-EVO/issues/5039#issuecomment-1410849407, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALDU52P4MXE2RB4QTGJ6RQ3WVFIOBANCNFSM6AAAAAAUIOAFXQ . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>

[Briaireous]

Why are both of yall so fixated on only the combat aspect of the different types of entities. If ya do the shield system, in combat, sure it may work... but the moment its a non combatant situation, you might as well just swoop in with your ship to mine or explore the planet or park it as a base of operations.

All ya gotta do is up fuel consumption for ships the closer it is to the planets surface. This increase in fuel consumption can start at whatever the decided distance it is from planets to make ships more costly to operate close to the planet. The fuel consumption rate can also have different levels of increased consumption based on ship size. Thereby making it more favorable for smaller ships traveling near planets. Of course fuel consumption can't be too high to render going near planets with ships worthless.

The increase of fuel consumption near planets can either exponentially increased or linearly increased the closer a ship is to the planet and capped at a point where ships can still be used, but is costly when compared to the cost of using a vehicle for the same task.

And then buildings can have a even lower fuel consumption compared to even vehicles as they can't move. (Iirc, currently buildings have hella heat dissipation? Been a while since I messed with landlocked structures.)

Using fuel consumption as the balancing factor, even when the player is not in combat, there will be benefits to using a land based vehicle to travel as opposed to using a ship. A ship may get you places faster, but the vehicle will allow you to use it longer.

Ships can still overpower vehicles and buildings given that they have enouph firepower and shields. But, they won't be able to stay in combat as long as the other two due to fuel consumption. Definitly wouldnt want you ship to suddenly drop shields and stop firing due to no power during a long fight.

As for obtaining fuel in atmosphere, could just use the fuel scoop to scoop the atmosphere to fuel. The rate of scooping would be slow enouph that vehicles can't be used as if it has infinite fuel, but fast enouph that you won't wait An hour just to operate the entity again. Tho for buildings, the rate of consumptuon would be just a little bit less than the rate of fuel scooping.

[cloudrambler]

Within issue #5029, Tsuna suggested a future idea to evaluate ship aerodynamics (assumed this will be a crude approximation) as a way of rewarding flight-like ships with better atmospheric performance. The original premise was "more lift", but since the non-realistic engine placement does not relate to specific lift that would not work. It would however make sense to combine the aerodynamic score of a ship with its rate of fuel consumption.

Fuel consumption of a ship near a planet could increase above baseline proportional to some arbitrary gravity gradient, with consumption at the surface being perhaps 20 to 50 times higher. Then this increase could be reduced by the ships aerodynamic score, perhaps reducing it by a factor of (up to) 10, so it would only be 2 to 5 times baseline.

It could also be included that the aerodynamic score also relates to velocity, cancelling out if the ship is moving slowly.

So a ship could fly low effectively it it was flight-like and moving fast. Both of these aspects can be combined with warfare, but both require more skill to build and pilot the ship; which feels like a reasonable trade-off. Otherwise you would burn through fuel very fast and could not maintain sustained contact.

All of these factors combined would mean that the effective way to use ships vs ground targets would be as bombers; which seems realistic. This tactic could be reasonably countered by flak turrets to sweep for bombs, making ground bases matched against ships, with far lower resource demands. Especially as bases could be made from concrete, which is basically the spoil from mining and so much cheaper than the rare metals needed for ships.

[Briaireous]

Within issue #5029, Tsuna suggested a future idea to evaluate ship aerodynamics (assumed this will be a crude approximation) as a way of rewarding flight-like ships with better atmospheric performance. The original premise was "more lift", but since the non-realistic engine placement does not relate to specific lift that would not work. It would however make sense to combine the aerodynamic score of a ship with its rate of fuel consumption.

Fuel consumption of a ship near a planet could increase above baseline proportional to some arbitrary gravity gradient, with consumption at the surface being perhaps 20 to 50 times higher. Then this increase could be reduced by the ships aerodynamic score, perhaps reducing it by a factor of (up to) 10, so it would only be 2 to 5 times baseline.

It could also be included that the aerodynamic score also relates to velocity, cancelling out if the ship is moving slowly.

So a ship could fly low effectively it it was flight-like and moving fast. Both of these aspects can be combined with warfare, but both require more skill to build and pilot the ship; which feels like a reasonable trade-off. Otherwise you would burn through fuel very fast and could not maintain sustained contact.

All of these factors combined would mean that the effective way to use ships vs ground targets would be as bombers; which seems realistic. This tactic could be reasonably countered by flak turrets to sweep for bombs, making ground bases matched against ships, with far lower resource demands. Especially as bases could be made from concrete, which is basically the spoil from mining and so much cheaper than the rare metals needed for ships.

Exactly more or less what I was thinking. Just without the flak, and concrete

[david-ford]

The concern here seems to be focused around sieges on bases more so than using ground vehicles for exploration of planets. Make a bombardment shield makes sense for offering a decent amount of defense against getting pummeled from a distance and cheesing the game. That said, they need a way to retaliate as well, so why not add a way to respond to bombardment like orbital defense drones that will target ship systems? These shouldn't have a ton of health, but they should be fairly challenging for a larger ship to maneuver and defend against. They should be quick, and highly agile, but light damage and low health. Their strength would be in numbers, and their ability to get in close enough to make targeting them with automated turrets not a viable option.

These smaller drones would have the same capability that ground vehicles do for orbital defense, in being able to bypass the ships shields and go right for the critical systems. They won't do enough damage to just take down a ship, but they should significantly increase the risk incurred by sitting at range and bombing a base by targeting ship systems like engines and weapons. It then becomes a question of can they bust the shield and hit the base before the drones are able to do enough damage to disable their weapon systems, engines, or both?

Then for making the ground vehicles worth the effort, you've tackled adding risk to orbital bombardment, and on ground there's risk from the turrets and ground defenses. So, approaching on foot might not be the best idea. Approaching in a siege vehicle would provide much better protection from the defenses and allow the players to get in closer for the assault.

[Briaireous]

The concern here seems to be focused around sieges on bases more so than using ground vehicles for exploration of planets. Make a bombardment shield makes sense for offering a decent amount of defense against getting pummeled from a distance and cheesing the game. That said, they need a way to retaliate as well, so why not add a way to respond to bombardment like orbital defense drones that will target ship systems? These shouldn't have a ton of health, but they should be fairly challenging for a larger ship to maneuver and defend against. They should be quick, and highly agile, but light damage and low health. Their strength would be in numbers, and their ability to get in close enough to make targeting them with automated turrets not a viable option.

These smaller drones would have the same capability that ground vehicles do for orbital defense, in being able to bypass the ships shields and go right for the critical systems. They won't do enough damage to just take down a ship, but they should significantly increase the risk incurred by sitting at range and bombing a base by targeting ship systems like engines and weapons. It then becomes a question of can they bust the shield and hit the base before the drones are able to do enough damage to disable their weapon systems, engines, or both?

Then for making the ground vehicles worth the effort, you've tackled adding risk to orbital bombardment, and on ground there's risk from the turrets and ground defenses. So, approaching on foot might not be the best idea. Approaching in a siege vehicle would provide much better protection from the defenses and allow the players to get in closer for the assault.

ya know you can just build the bombardment shields yourself, and i assume, be able to make a orbital defense drones too once ai becomes a thing.

in my opinion, what was suggested aside from the fuel consumption rate, is buildable by players using what is available in the game.

[zorozeenee]

Why are both of yall so fixated on only the combat aspect of the different types of entities. If ya do the shield system, in combat, sure it may work... but the moment its a non combatant situation, you might as well just swoop in with your ship to mine or explore the planet or park it as a base of operations.

All ya gotta do is up fuel consumption for ships the closer it is to the planets surface. This increase in fuel consumption can start at whatever the decided distance it is from planets to make ships more costly to operate close to the planet. The fuel consumption rate can also have different levels of increased consumption based on ship size. Thereby making it more favorable for smaller ships traveling near planets. Of course fuel consumption can't be too high to render going near planets with ships worthless.

The increase of fuel consumption near planets can either exponentially increased or linearly increased the closer a ship is to the planet and capped at a point where ships can still be used, but is costly when compared to the cost of using a vehicle for the same task.

And then buildings can have a even lower fuel consumption compared to even vehicles as they can't move. (Iirc, currently buildings have hella heat dissipation? Been a while since I messed with landlocked structures.)

Using fuel consumption as the balancing factor, even when the player is not in combat, there will be benefits to using a land based vehicle to travel as opposed to using a ship. A ship may get you places faster, but the vehicle will allow you to use it longer.

Ships can still overpower vehicles and buildings given that they have enouph firepower and shields. But, they won't be able to stay in combat as long as the other two due to fuel consumption. Definitly wouldnt want you ship to suddenly drop shields and stop firing due to no power during a long fight.

As for obtaining fuel in atmosphere, could just use the fuel scoop to scoop the atmosphere to fuel. The rate of scooping would be slow enouph that vehicles can't be used as if it has infinite fuel, but fast enouph that you won't wait An hour just to operate the entity again. Tho for buildings, the rate of consumptuon would be just a little bit less than the rate of fuel scooping.

This is already the solution that space engineers went for, it didnt work.

[zorozeenee]

The concern here seems to be focused around sieges on bases more so than using ground vehicles for exploration of planets. Make a bombardment shield makes sense for offering a decent amount of defense against getting pummeled from a distance and cheesing the game. That said, they need a way to retaliate as well, so why not add a way to respond to bombardment like orbital defense drones that will target ship systems? These shouldn't have a ton of health, but they should be fairly challenging for a larger ship to maneuver and defend against. They should be quick, and highly agile, but light damage and low health. Their strength would be in numbers, and their ability to get in close enough to make targeting them with automated turrets not a viable option.

These smaller drones would have the same capability that ground vehicles do for orbital defense, in being able to bypass the ships shields and go right for the critical systems. They won't do enough damage to just take down a ship, but they should significantly increase the risk incurred by sitting at range and bombing a base by targeting ship systems like engines and weapons. It then becomes a question of can they bust the shield and hit the base before the drones are able to do enough damage to disable their weapon systems, engines, or both?

Then for making the ground vehicles worth the effort, you've tackled adding risk to orbital bombardment, and on ground there's risk from the turrets and ground defenses. So, approaching on foot might not be the best idea. Approaching in a siege vehicle would provide much better protection from the defenses and allow the players to get in closer for the assault.

small drones will just get destroyed from range and will do next to no damage

[david-ford]

The concern here seems to be focused around sieges on bases more so than using ground vehicles for exploration of planets. Make a bombardment shield makes sense for offering a decent amount of defense against getting pummeled from a distance and cheesing the game. That said, they need a way to retaliate as well, so why not add a way to respond to bombardment like orbital defense drones that will target ship systems? These shouldn't have a ton of health, but they should be fairly challenging for a larger ship to maneuver and defend against. They should be quick, and highly agile, but light damage and low health. Their strength would be in numbers, and their ability to get in close enough to make targeting them with automated turrets not a viable option. These smaller drones would have the same capability that ground vehicles do for orbital defense, in being able to bypass the ships shields and go right for the critical systems. They won't do enough damage to just take down a ship, but they should significantly increase the risk incurred by sitting at range and bombing a base by targeting ship systems like engines and weapons. It then becomes a question of can they bust the shield and hit the base before the drones are able to do enough damage to disable their weapon systems, engines, or both? Then for making the ground vehicles worth the effort, you've tackled adding risk to orbital bombardment, and on ground there's risk from the turrets and ground defenses. So, approaching on foot might not be the best idea. Approaching in a siege vehicle would provide much better protection from the defenses and allow the players to get in closer for the assault.

ya know you can just build the bombardment shields yourself, and i assume, be able to make a orbital defense drones too once ai becomes a thing.

in my opinion, what was suggested aside from the fuel consumption rate, is buildable by players using what is available in the game.

Yeh, I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek :) It didn't translate well, my bad. To say it plainly, I agree, and I think the solutions already exist in the game.

I don't get the impression the main focus for a lot of players in this game is large scale warfare, but rather creativity and exploration.

[cloudrambler]

I played Space Engineers enough to see that the developers were not making good design choices. The whole simulation (I would not call it a "game") is focused on the destructibility of individual voxels, with every other context being heavily sacrificed to keep that core novelty alive. The implementation of fuel in Space Engineers is extremely unbalanced, with chemical engines being overly realistic fuel drains and electrical engines being excessively effective. You cannot balance player interactions within a situation that freely permits such wholly unstructured mechanics.

From what I have seen of Tsuna's work, STEVO has been developed to embody a simple and consistent methodology; which if maintained, should allow the game to be easily balanced, as all elements have both meaning and consequence that players can understand and work with.

My point is simply that just because another developer failed to achieve balance using power as a moderating aspect, does not mean that the same mechanic could not work here.