Author Topic: Recoil or no recoil?  (Read 2951 times)

Voltaire

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 182
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2016, 09:36:18 am »
I feel that you're preventing that in a number of other ways; primarily by having power requirements that prevent such a thing.

Power requirements. "Giant gun with thrusters" should be a viable build, if you've got basically exposed reactors, crew quarters, and thrusters. There's a reason it's called a glass cannon.

Good point on power.  Heat build up could also be a factor, and could apply to reaction / warp drives as well as weapons and could have detrimental effects on other systems, i.e. life support [hope you have your space suite on].  Certain systems may not even be able to function if heat build-up reaches to critical a point, while others will function at a degraded rate.  Thermal & Coolant conduits and pumps [feeding coolant in and away] and isolation valves to let some systems continue to cook, while others are prioritised and heat pumped away.  Ofcourse radiators and ejectable thermal sinks on the ship would be required.

..wonder if this should be a new topic - sure it has been discussed before though.

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2016, 04:42:34 pm »
Good point on power.  Heat build up could also be a factor, and could apply to reaction / warp drives as well as weapons and could have detrimental effects on other systems, i.e. life support [hope you have your space suite on].  Certain systems may not even be able to function if heat build-up reaches to critical a point, while others will function at a degraded rate.  Thermal & Coolant conduits and pumps [feeding coolant in and away] and isolation valves to let some systems continue to cook, while others are prioritised and heat pumped away.  Ofcourse radiators and ejectable thermal sinks on the ship would be required.

Exactly; power requirements up all the other requirements, so should adequately drive ship building. You could trade off having a huge weapon and having the ability to fire a small one constantly on a small ship with limited power and heat dumping abilities; or dump a huge reactor on there and disregard heat dissipation for huge output per second, but only for a few seconds. The net result should be that for a given mass of power, weapons, and heat dissipation systems, ships using all varieties of weapon should have about the same DPS.

A high-ROF, high-endurance blaster would nessecairly have low DP hit, while a low ROF, low endurance blaster would have super high DP hit. A missile would need to do more damage per shot than an energy weapon, but because it's expendable, you'd automatically have a low-endurance compared to energy weapons. Kg for Kg, you should do the same damage over the course of an engagement - the missile ship needs to disengage and flee once its supply is expended, the laser ship can give chase and keep wearing the missile ship down (if it's not wrecked by the missiles); the high rof blaster might shoot down all the missiles but couldn't get in range/do damage to the missile ship before the end of the engagement.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

MRC

  • Founder
  • Knows dev CPR
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Mental breakdown in progress...
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2016, 05:53:52 pm »
Personally I see heat and power requirement as mostly 1-dimentional/linear, more power -> more systems -> more mass and heat -> more heat sink -> yet more mass. Heat is a bit better as it has a more nuanced effect while in combat, some parts of the ship heats up at different rates. But in practice I fell that energy is a bar that goes down until you're in trouble and heat is a bar that goes up until you're in trouble.

They're serviceable, but not very interesting gameplay-wise. You could say that they provide restrictions without providing opportunities in return, aside from potential weakpoints to shoot at. Recoil as a comparison somewhat handicaps ships with high weapon mass to ship mass ratio but at the same time give an opportunity for gungines and improvised emergency maneuvering thrusters, promoting skillful gunplay and clever thinking.
With love.  ~MRC

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2016, 11:17:09 am »
They're serviceable, but not very interesting gameplay-wise. You could say that they provide restrictions without providing opportunities in return, aside from potential weakpoints to shoot at. Recoil as a comparison somewhat handicaps ships with high weapon mass to ship mass ratio but at the same time give an opportunity for gungines and improvised emergency maneuvering thrusters, promoting skillful gunplay and clever thinking.

And I'd argue that the restrictions are important to player thinking about how they want to play while forcing some kind of balance in a sandbox. Recoil does nothing to balance the game, it just creates a potential problem to contend with in specific circumstances; hence my thinking that it should be limited to certain weapons and non-existent in others.

And the power/heat system would really be what drives the weapon mass/ship mass scale: A huge weapon on an otherwise minimalist ship still needs huge power systems to fire at all and huge radiators to get rid of all that heat. If you built it truely minimalist, all that stuff would be exposed. So even if you're making the ship hit at capital ++ class, a single fighter could go in and wreck it because it's reactor would be more or less unprotected, it's radiators would be where the armor would have gone (or sticking out into the abyss waiting to be chopped off), and it can't be tremendously fast while it's firing it's gun by definition - you can't design your reactor to *just* service your main gun and also have power left for much maneuvering.

Alternatively, you could trade ROF for a single larger shot, or more maneuverability when firing, or added protection. It's all about design choices and trade offs, which are really important in a game based largely around building your own space ship. If you can have it all (minecraft), then whoever has the most of it all wins. Recoil isn't going to change the balance significantly one way or the other, but it is a fine flaw to contend with for some weapon systems. Some people are fine with it, some aren't so they should be able to pick something else.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2016, 12:20:04 pm »
Steps for Mitigating Recoil
Eliminate Potential Fulcrums
Spinal Mounts OR Along Major Axis AND/OR Paired Outboard Along Major Axis
Paired Dorsal/Ventral OR Port/Starboard Lateral Turrets
Your Turreted Guns Are Actually Mounted on Parasite Craft in Spinal Fixtures
We Eject The Casing Out The Back
Maneuver As Counter-Recoil (Turn Into The Shot)
Recoil As Maneuver (Suppressive Braking Fire)
Dedicated Anti-Recoil Motors
Recoil, What Recoil?
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."

MRC

  • Founder
  • Knows dev CPR
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Mental breakdown in progress...
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2016, 05:48:46 pm »
And the power/heat system would really be what drives the weapon mass/ship mass scale: A huge weapon on an otherwise minimalist ship still needs huge power systems to fire at all and huge radiators to get rid of all that heat. If you built it truely minimalist, all that stuff would be exposed. So even if you're making the ship hit at capital ++ class, a single fighter could go in and wreck it because it's reactor would be more or less unprotected, it's radiators would be where the armor would have gone (or sticking out into the abyss waiting to be chopped off), and it can't be tremendously fast while it's firing it's gun by definition - you can't design your reactor to *just* service your main gun and also have power left for much maneuvering.

I'd love the topic to be split so we can debate power and heat in more detail. But this would be one of my main point against power/heat requirement as the exclusive balancing mechanic.

My point here ties into the powerline mechanic demonstrated 3 years ago(subject to change?). What would makes powerlines work as a mechanic is a low reactor volume and count per ship volume ratio, since a reactor is a critical weakpoint. Looking at the wireframe ship at 1:00 in the demonstration video this look to me like a great ratio, the reactor is small and deeply entrenched making the powerlines a much more viable target.

Now, increasing the power requirement would either mean more or bigger (more voluminous) reactors which would either A) spread reactors all over so cutting powerlines would barely mean anything or B) increasing weak spots size such that they become the more viable target.

So I'd want reactor to stay small and discreet to maximize the potential of powerlines. However small reactors mean small ships could attach disproportional weapon size without becoming slow and over-encumbered.

@Cy83r

See! Clever thinking in action already!

If you figure clever ways to mitigate recoil you're rewarded with less recoil. ;D
With love.  ~MRC

Commander Jackson

  • Founder
  • Lazy dev E.M.T.
  • *
  • Posts: 772
  • Ex astris, scientia
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2016, 07:09:26 pm »
Recoil As Maneuver (Suppressive Braking Fire)
This is my favorite. 

I love the image of a ship using its starboard-aft cannons to spin the ship around to bring the forward facing spinal cannon to bear.
Gabe has a wraith? That explains so much.

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2016, 07:36:32 pm »
I'd love the topic to be split so we can debate power and heat in more detail. But this would be one of my main point against power/heat requirement as the exclusive balancing mechanic.

My point here ties into the powerline mechanic demonstrated 3 years ago(subject to change?). What would makes powerlines work as a mechanic is a low reactor volume and count per ship volume ratio, since a reactor is a critical weakpoint...

Now, increasing the power requirement would either mean more or bigger (more voluminous) reactors which would either A) spread reactors all over so cutting powerlines would barely mean anything or B) increasing weak spots size such that they become the more viable target.

Not necessarily. A glass cannon is a ship mounting a weapon several classes larger than it should have. So it's fitting that it has a reactor several classes larger than it should have (not as many classes as the weapon possibly, by dumping other capabilities and by not mounting several capital-class weapons), and that it is much more vulnerable than it should be. A capital ship mounting capital weapons might be vulnerable to a glass-cannon, but it'd be less vulnerable to a glass cannon than to another capital ship; or the glass cannon would be proportionately more vulnerable than the capital ship.

Also, I haven't been saying a capital reactor can't be as small as, say, 27 reactor blocks total (3x3x3 cube) vs. a fighter's 1x1x1; or some other thing that would preclude power lines being important severable items. Or that the reactors couldn't be the same size, just different classes. I prefer a layout where the power system is a greater proportion of the ship's total interior volume (say 10%-20%), but that really is a different discussion. I'd prefer to have both power lines and largish reactors so you've got interesting effects from hitting certain points on a ship: knock a line out from a weapon to the reactor, and it no longer functions (but is undamaged; robocraft does this well). Knock the reactor hard and you've blown a sizable portion of the ship away and disabled it (unless it's got backup reactors).
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

MRC

  • Founder
  • Knows dev CPR
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Mental breakdown in progress...
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2016, 08:38:43 pm »
I'd prefer to have both power lines and largish reactors so you've got interesting effects from hitting certain points on a ship: knock a line out from a weapon to the reactor, and it no longer functions (but is undamaged; robocraft does this well). Knock the reactor hard and you've blown a sizable portion of the ship away and disabled it (unless it's got backup reactors).

As far as "interesting effects" goes I'm sure there will be plenty of interesting consequence for destroying various systems like fuel lines, ammo dump, heat sink or whatever else we might see implemented. The reactor itself should be the hardest one of the bunch to reach since it's so critical to the function of every other system (and 'cause it blows up good).

Otherwise I pretty much agree. ^-^
With love.  ~MRC

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2016, 04:55:17 pm »
As far as classes go and inasmuch as it pertains to power/heat dynamics without going off-topic, you can think of it like a square/cube tradeoff.

Reactor classes increase geometrically, hypothetically in nice clean cubes: 1^3 (1c); 2^3 (8c); 3^3 (27c); 4^3 (64c); 5^3 (125c).  We'll assume class ratings of components scales from 1 to 5 for ease and simplicity.  While the size increases only slightly between each reactor, the comparable volume and thusly the comparable power output (plus efficiencies from using a larger single package) tail off as class rating increases.  Principally, I'd make the prediction that you're more likely to see redundant reactors on larger vessels where the redundancy itself (and possibly cost reductions) outweighs increasingly minimal differences in size and output between the larger reactors and you're more likely to see overlarge single reactors in the smaller ranges of craft most notably in glass cannons where volume will be at an assumed premium.

With a radiator two of the dimensions with increase faster than the third and I don't really expect the things to get larger than 1c thick in the first place.  Correspondingly we will see the oft-elaborated need to maximise surface area in order to take advantage of greater heat dissipation needs in larger and more powerful vessels.

Weapons are even further distorted towards linear power growth over class rating increases, principally you can make the round longer than it becomes wider to take advantage of penetration effects, hitbox profiles for missiles, and fuel economy (again for missiles).  So while linearly compact, firepower might experience a somewhat more geometric increase over class rating.  However while any level of "alphastrike" firepower is attainable fairly cheaply, rate of fire in cannon, velocity/maneuver in missiles, and beam concentration (i.e. range) in energy weapons might suggest geometric cost-curves for a given level of performance.  A cheap solution to the performance curve is saturating your platform with weapons emplacements and relying on numerous but inexpensive attacks at closer engagement zones, but that becomes its own cost-curve for given levels of performance at the end of the day as well.

All other systems except beside senscomms, thrusters, and perhaps large-scale life support seem like they should have a near linear use-to-volume ratio.  How are we even doing gravity? Will gravity wheel systems work as a specially coded scalable prefab? Will the falling mechanics and induced gravity be a function of acceleration/velocity? Or are we using space opera gravity and building wheels just for show?

tl;dr
Reactor Classes: cubic size disparity, high cost to increase performance
*Thrusters: most are a reactor, or a series of reactors, with one end open to space, otherwise near-linear tankage-to-thrust input until we start using Newtonian fuel accounting
*Life Support: assumedly volumetric performance ratings for "atmo-generators"
Radiator Classes: squared size disparity, linear cost over surface area to performance
*Senscomm: they're a type of radiator with a bunch of computers attached to the back end
*Life Support: filtration equipment relies on membranes similar in function to radiation setups
Weapon Classes: near-linear size disparity, low cost to increase basic firepower per unit of munitions (i.e. "per kg of bullet"), high cost to increase secondary firepower factors (velocity, cyclic rate, maneuver, dissipation, etc)

P.S.  Getting back to whether or not recoil would be a decent addition or an unnecessary complication, my personal opinion is that it adds a special depth to designs that doesn't just rely on what sort of gear you're kitted out with, but it ties into design necessities in the same way as you would plan your thruster placement.  Even if compensating devices are available to install, a well-designed ship that doesn't need to rely on those extras will be that much more efficient and gives builders a special niche to focus on within the general grind to the game's progress.  Even further it opens up the game to quirky designs that, by choice or accident, become known for unique and possibly even desirable maneuvering profiles.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2016, 05:03:46 pm by Cy83r »
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."