What is this
Every Thursday, I will share a dev diary about what we've been working on over the past few weeks. I'll focus on the interesting challenges and solutions that I encountered. I won't be able to cover everything, but I'll share what caught my interest.
Why am I doing it
I want to bring our community along on this journey, and I simply love writing about things I'm passionate about! This is my unfiltered dev journal, so please keep in mind that what I write here are my thoughts and will be outdated by the time you read this, as so many things change quickly. Any plans I mention aren't set in stone and everything is subject to change. Also, if you don't like spoilers, then don't read this.
Space Engineers 1
The next update for Space Engineers brings many new gameplay elements to survival mode - including more environmental hazards. Here is a small teaser.
Space Engineers 2 - Rethinking Combat
This week we spent time discussing what combat should look and feel like in Space Engineers 2. Nothing is final yet. We're exploring ideas, identifying the pain points from SE1, and trying to define what kind of combat experience we actually want to build.
What are we aiming for?
We started by outlining a few core principles that we think should guide combat design in SE2:
- Longer, more tactical engagements
Fights should take time - measured in minutes, not seconds. We want to avoid sudden one-shot kills and give players time to react. - Preparation should matter
Players who scout, build defenses, or prepare ambushes should be able to generate unfair local advantages. - Rock-Paper-Scissors balance
No single weapon or strategy should dominate. A system where different combat types counter each other could make battles more dynamic. - Player feedback and clarity
You should know when you’ve hit something, what damage you’re doing, and what’s happening around you - without guesswork. - Support both attack and defense playstyles
Offensive and defensive roles should both be viable, with tools and mechanics that support each side.
Combat Duration & Survivability
In SE1, a single cockpit hit could end the fight instantly. We’re thinking about ways to prevent this - possibly through shields or other durability layers that give players more time to react. The idea isn’t to make combat slower for the sake of it, but to make it more interesting and fair.
Weapon Dynamics: Rock–Paper–Scissors
We explored a triangle-based balance model:
- Aimed/manual weapons beat automated turrets
- Automated turrets beat rockets/missiles
- Rockets/missiles beat aimed weapons
This would encourage diverse ship builds and make strategic choices more meaningful, especially in PvP.
Detection, Infiltration & Defense
We’d like players to have ways to detect enemies - not just through visual spotting but via tools like scanners or sensors. This also opens up infiltration gameplay, where a player could sneak into an enemy base or ship and gain an advantage. But for that to work, defenders need countermeasures - like surveillance systems, detection blocks, or hacking protection.
We’re also toying with the idea of hacking encounters as a mini-game or high-stakes mechanic during infiltration.
Safe Zones & Risk Management
Safe zones came up a lot. We’re considering making them:
- Limited in size and availability
- Costly to maintain over time
- Slow to set up
The idea is to preserve tension and avoid scenarios where players are untouchable. One suggestion was to have safe zone chips decay over time, even when stored, to prevent stockpiling. There could also be progression systems that allow players to expand their safe zones later in the game.
Character vs Grid Combat
Another angle we’re still thinking about: how important should character combat be compared to grid combat? Should it play more like a shooter, or more like an engineering-driven encounter?
Some ideas we’re toying with:
- Characters boarding grids and taking them over
- Combat-focused suit upgrades
- Dedicated tools for sabotage or infiltration
There’s also potential to make enemy characters more visible or tagged on your HUD if they’re hostile - not allied - making encounters easier to track and respond to.
Conclusion
As always, these are early design discussions. Some of these systems may evolve, combine, or be cut entirely. But this is the direction we’re thinking about as we continue shaping SE2 into the game we’ve always wanted to play.
Let me know what you think combat in SE2 should feel like!
Oh cmon guys, stop with silly animations on blocks. What is that even supposed to be ? You need consultants with actual engineering degrees, and from other fields of the game, what you are creating from your own imagination is an abhorrence.
ReplyDeleteHuh? I’m guessing they have to hire a full time material scientist from NASA to consult on their block textures too?
DeleteAs an engineer, they are doing great. All of their new animated blocks get the shape language and motion good enough to make sense. I love the direction they are going with adding more animated blocks.
DeleteIt's a hydrogen engine. I really don't think it matters for most players. This game is not a sim.
DeleteAlright dude, back to frown town for you
DeleteWhat exactly are you talking about here?
DeleteSci-fi game has imaginary sci-fi animated stuff. Wow, get used to it.
DeleteDude common it’s a game the engine is cool ( make the pistons come out only a little )
DeleteI agree. If that's supposed to be an engine it will shake the whole ship apart with those oscillation forces.
DeleteI mean, using your imagination to view things differently despite not making technical sense is overrated anyway. It’s only one of the most powerful tools a human has available, why would you use it anyway?
DeleteNeed to remember this is a game about somewhere in the far future where anything is possible and a speed limit in space...
DeleteF tier bait
DeleteNot all blocks make sense (why does the tool of the lathe in the assembler spin too? The piece already gets rotation from the spindle), but this looks like a normal engine with V pistons. What's the problem with it?
DeletePerhaps it doesn't make sense as a gasoline engine as it has no valves or camshafts; maybe a tirbine generator would make more since as it IS a genorator, not an engine. buuuut its designed and made in space! Creative freedom is fun, even if it looks a little silly to someone who knows how it actually would work. The important part is how its played! If we want it technically accurate, that is one of myriad reasons they just spent so much time giving us modding support. Some appreciation? Please?
DeleteCombat should be very active, i am talking about gravity ship mobility and responsiveness with standard thrusters. Slow immobile ships fighting each other simply does not spark interest in players.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Real world large-ship space combat in real life would be more akin to that of fighter jets, long range and travelling at ridiculous speeds rather than moronic star wars style brawling similarly exciting to listening to my RE teacher talk about aliens for the entire period. Most modern sci-fi just butchers what space combat should be to be fun and exciting. Do I want Expanse style hyper-detailed spaceships engaging in complicated but realistic action, or do I want grey Doritos going at 3mph firing lasers with less range than throw a boulder.
DeleteI like the longer combat being a focus for sure.
ReplyDeleteIn SE1, I cannot tell you how many times my cockpit has been destroyed withing 5 seconds of engaging with an NPC Gatling, despite the cockpit being made with bulletproof glass.
something i have always found lacking on SE is boarding. people can just get from 0 to 100 in one second, relative dampeners have problems to trigger at quite small distances and high speeds and weapon shred anything that tries to land on another ship.
ReplyDeletei think that a better optimized missiles AI and being able to slap it on a pod with shields and something to damper the high velocity impact that the landing would be as well as breaching charges could make possible boarding (i would also suggest for turrets to stop firiing at ships connected by landing gear so landing on enemy ships is viable).
by making boarding accessible, the game would allow a way for players to get around the problem of enemy shields as they would no longer be firing through them.
about breaching charges: make them a 1x1x2 micro blocks and to have like 2 square meters of damage output towards the direction it is placed. with the building prefabs concept of SE2 or making the blocks to be a single component and pasted with 100 health it would be easy to do.
Grappling hook for catching fast moving ships. Would only work in 0g fights.
DeleteCable latching to ships
Deletewhy limit it to 0g? if u can hook, u hook. it doesnt matter if theres atmosphere or not
DeleteI've always wanted to make a board craft but SE1 just doesnt make it possible so this would be really cool.
Deletei know that opening your helmet at alien planet is a bad idea as u get damage but, asides of the no breathing damage, will the rain make even more damage if your face is exposed?
ReplyDeleteI would like to raise 2 points around combat, or to be more precise about what happens after combat.
ReplyDelete1. Taking over enemy grid: right now in SE1 you basically need to grind down and repair most of the grid in order to take control over it. It's faster to just destroy it for parts and print a new one. If for example taking control over all of the control seats would give you the control or some kind of other hacking system to take control over the grid it would make more sense to event try and take over control of defeated ships.
2. Repairs after combat: Currently if you took a lot of damage but your ship is still functional, then it's easier to just scrap the entire ship and print a new one, as large grid welders can't reach more than a block to fix the insides of your ship. Some method where it would be possible to fix large ships from a blueprint by some kind of machine would be great. It can and probably should be slower than the player doing the fixes manually but there should be a way.
Please do not add shields. it goes against everything that SE is about. Exposed cockpits and bridges should be punished in combat since they aren't protected by armour.
ReplyDeletemaking a combat ship should be a challenge to itself, like how making a mining ship is one or your first ship to get to space, starting on a planet in se1. thinking about not if but when you take damage should be encouraged in making combat ships.
We understand the purist view of keeping SE "vanilla-style" with no shields, relying solely on armor and design. But let’s be real — Space Engineers is a sandbox game, and mods like shields exist for a reason: they expand gameplay, open up new combat dynamics, and give players more freedom to create ships that are both functional and fun.
DeleteNot every ship needs to be an armored brick. Shields allow for design diversity — from sleek fighters to mobile command ships — without sacrificing survivability the moment a single turret fires. This isn't about making combat "easy"; it's about making it strategic. Shields still break. They still require power. They still require planning.
If you want the hardcore "armor-only" experience, that's your playstyle — but don’t force that limitation on everyone else. SE is about creativity, adaptability, and pushing boundaries, not gatekeeping how people play.
We want shields. Let people build how they want.
Keen: Add glass to cockpit.
DeleteCommunity: Attach 3 stages of armour to it, now!
I want to agree with you, but the reality of no shields is the combat you find in Se1. Combat ships just become slabs of armor with a coffin like cockpit in the middle. You lose out on so many designs and options without some sort of shields. In theory I agree there should be some engineering challenges unique to combat ships. But, as we saw in Se1, if the challenges are too cut and dry then combat ships become boring and all extremely similar. That’s just my take though.
DeleteI'm not against shields but I do think armour should be ARMOUR
DeleteYep it's never made sense that in stuff like star wars they had these super exposed bridges but it was because they had shields and thats not the direction I want SE2 to go. In a lot of my ships I have the big bridge for show but then a CIC surrounded by multiple layers of heavy armor which is a much more realistic way of combat.
DeleteI casually disagree here. I appreciate combat realism and would enjoy the direction you've described; however, the fact remains that things like exposed bridges are cool, dramatic, and compelling. They're an important part of the general sci-fi/fantasy design language, and I think punishing them too hard in SE2 would bring a lot of disappointment for a lot of people, even if it would bring some satisfaction for a smaller niche of people like us.
DeleteNow I don't think shields are the only way to solve this problem, but I also they have enough potential to be worth considering; if implemented thoughtfully, they could be a great way to introduce some new types of engineering challenges to the game.
Don't forget that energy shields are not a 100% guarantee against all weapons. I think shields will block lasers and bullets, but missiles will ignore them. It will be cool!
DeleteShields could be effectively implemented without compromising aesthetics by way of active defense system (ADS) laser turrets that screen incoming projectiles.
Delete- Having a well-defended ship would come with the challenge of optimizing turret placement for best area coverage while balancing how much work each turret has to do. Players who want to protect specific sections could either ensure more ADS coverage on that face *or* reinforce armor.
- Balance and progression could be adjusted with simple tweaks to fire rate, power requirements, effectiveness against different projectiles, etc.
- Feeds further into Rock-Paper-Scissors combat: Potential counterplay to ADS could include overwhelming the system with gatlings, using projectiles too massive to effectively shoot down, precision strike on spots with poor coverage or directly on turrets, etc.
- Allows for slower-paced combat without turning grids into "bullet sponges"; fights could be much like an armored duel between knights: A cautious standoff, both sides testing each other's defenses, followed by a decisive burst of action that shifts the dynamics of the fight.
- In the real world, early forms of this technology are being fielded right now for use against missiles and artillery.
I think that shields at most should block laser fire and reduce damage from gats. It should not however prevent ramming and other such maneuvers for the sake of balance. I think it allows for some of the range of building people are talking about but still encourages making intelligent decisions in a combat environment (ie not putting a Star Destroyer bridge on where it can just get blown up in a super exposed position).
DeleteOverall I don’t like shields, but I hope they compromise.
Also to Icey, who the heck is “we”?
about engineer combat: in SE1, the fighting is too unfair, an interior turret instakills a player 8/10 times, with a perfect accuracy at huge ranges, players need to deal more damage to weapon blocks. maybe making weapons to be a different category of block which gets a multiplier of x3 or x4 of damage when shoot by a player.
ReplyDeletethe Hud tagging of enemies seems cool but limits the infiltration. one option would be to tag on hud players who shoot at a certain range and only if they are in your field of view (no seeing throught walls) and making upgrades to the suits focused on stealth for the ping to last less while other players can get upgrades for the ping to last more or for the weapons to be supressed. i would also make the suit upgrades to be like a skill tree of the player instead of actual suits as people dies too easy on SE and would be a shame having to get a new specified suit over and over again.
This is completely untrue. Interior turrets have an AI range of 600m. Their bullet spread at 600m is over 2m, bigger than the character. You can be completely still at 620m and not ever get hit and take your time lining up a rocket shot with your shoulder fired rocket launcher and one shot the interior turret.
DeleteAt 799m for a Gatling turret, you can fire one rocket without getting hit, tap s to get out of range, reload and then move right back in range and finish the turret off with another rocket. Bullet spread is over 8 meters at 800m for the Gatling.
To get even closer and under the guns, you just fly in little circles as you fly toward the turrets and they will miss you and you can get under them and grind into the target.
It doesn't really make sense for a small player character to be able to take on a turret the same size as the character though....
DeleteTo be honest, as someone who was the typical grinder monkey for my group, boarding and destroying a ship with just a few bottles of hydrogen and a few explosives in worst case scenarios was super easy.
DeleteCombat involving characters should account for less than 10% of the overall gameplay.
ReplyDeleteAlso, balance between large and small ships should be handled separately — at least when it comes to weapon blocks, not physical collisions.
disagree in the combat involving characters thing. whats the point on building dropships, apcs and all that kind of vehicles if the only viable option is to slap turrets
DeleteYEAAAAAHHHAHAHAHA YOU GUYS LISTENED WHEN I MENTIONED HACKING AND STEALTHY INFILTRATION WOOOOOOOO
ReplyDeleteOh, heck yeah. I wanted to bring it up at some point that combat in SE1 is too quick. Understandable, that engineers get 1 shot by a bullet but makes very unsastisfying gameplay, that for every encounter I have to bring a tank with a cockpit on the back, hoping that it won't get destroyed by the time I deal with a turret. Also the peak and lean method for clearing turrets is a bit strange. With heavier and bulkier suits coming based on the concept arts, I think it's really time to make sure an engineer can deal with turrets longer than in SE1..
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSomething I felt was severely limited in SE1 was ground combat and air-to-ground/anti-air combat. The guns and gunplay felt really poor, even for a game that wasn’t trying to be a shooter in the first place. Recoil and bullet spread were all over the place, anti-personnel weapons could punch through armor blocks, and ATGMs and AA missiles were either built using vanilla blocks—making them heavy and often not worth the resources—or they were modular or weapons blocks from mods, which tended to be overpowered. Overall, there was generally no reason—other than roleplay—to build armored fighting vehicles to assault a base with the aim of capturing it.
I would love to see a quick and easy takeover of an enemy production facility bog down into an SE-version of Stalingrad, where players on each side have to come up with new ground vehicles or tactics to dislodge one another.
Mortars, artillery, ATGMs, handheld anti-tank weapons, grenades, breaching or satchel charges, squad weapons, stationary MGs—the sci-fi equivalent of a Maxim machine gun on the third floor getting blasted by a space Churchill AVRE.
A ticket system for respawn points (maybe something like Foxhole’s shirts) could be a way to end an assault if the logistics of bringing new tickets to the front break down.
Maybe I'm swimming alone here, asking SE2 to be too much of a milsim/warsim game, but I believe this direction could help SE2 not only set itself apart from SE1 even more, but also attract new players—especially those who might feel overwhelmed or intimidated by the building aspect of the game. It would give players another meaningful way to engage with the game beyond just building and exploring.
How exactly do you plan to treat rockets in the rock-paper-scissor scenario you are envisioning for combat? I can see the idea of manual weapons able to snipe turrets because of deliberate aiming from the player and turrets intercepting barrages of missles more efficently than a player can do, but i'm puzzled on how missiles fit into the equation to counter manual aimed weapons.
ReplyDeleteI think you answered your own question. The missiles counter manual aimed weapons because they cant shoot missiles down. So a ship with no automatic weapons will get easily destroyed by missiles.
DeleteYou have described perfectly what I’d love combat to me. But please for the love of god, no shields. Unless you’ve already finished how shields work and stuff, which I doubt, (at which point it would be a waste to remove) shields would just make the game feel unrealistic and way too arcade-like. Shields were an excuse for movies and video games to not have to care about making realistic damage to equipment until the shield went down, at which point you design some giant explosion for the first hit after the shields go down and that’s the battle done. I haven’t gone on many hateful rants like this myself, but shields just don’t belong in SE or its successor. What is the reason for such a complex building system when a shot doesn’t actually do anything to yourself. Apologies for the two intellectual people who think shields should be a thing, but no.
ReplyDeleteI think that shields can only exist if combat isn't balanced correctly. For example, if combat is similar to Se1 then many types of ships and designs go out the window for combat. Instead, it will be a repeat of Se1 with blocks of armor covered in a million guns flying around as "ships". In this scenario, I think shields are a fix that allows for people to design and use more visually pleasing or exciting ships in combat.
DeleteHowever, if combat can be balanced in such a way that fixes the boring and repetitive combat loop of Se1 then I would agree with you about shields.
On the other hand, we have no clue how powerful these shields would be. I could see them being a very cool addition if they required a few blocks to set up and were not as OP as in star wars. Something like a weaker shield that you could use on fighters to get them close to ships would be interesting.
I do see where you are coming from, but I think that shields should be seen as a way to add even more engineering possibilities, not limit them. If anything, combat as it exists now in Se1 is what limits engineering because it forces you to bury everything in armor.
I just want to let you know you’re not alone and I support you.
DeleteI have to say, slowly but surely SE2 is going to be a clear replacement to SE 1 in the coming years. I'm coming up to my 15,000hr mark in SE 1 and I will admit I am very critical of the game, the direction, the content, but still find much enjoyment in many aspects of the game. The upcoming survival changes need to push the player harder and further than ever to give them not only a want but a NEED to create. Environmental challenges that give purpose to builds. Counters to certain playstyles that min/max the fun out of gameplay would also be recommended as the entry price for MP survival combat is too high for the majority of players. There is no fun in watching turrets miss a grid moving at "break neck" speeds and there is no glory in taking out an opponent that simply doesn't have the skill to fight back (believe me). Perhaps a G-force damage calculation should be applied for players moving at extreme acceleration.
ReplyDeleteIf you add shields that should definitely be an endgame thing, like alien tech and such. Early game might work better with reinforcements and armored cockpits and such, or decoy cocpit modules that would draw enemy fire to a different part of the ship. Kind of like a "fake cockpit". Otherwise, I'm all in for slower combat.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of slower, more tactical combat is very very interesting. The triangle of power idea is also quite interesting, but I think you need to make sure to keep the sandboxy feel there, after all, in theory, the power triangle breaks the minute I decide to have all three types of weapons on my ship, I would imagine, so balance is going to be tough. Maybe make having weapons problematic on its own, so that players will naturally not just create battle beasts that can still destroy everything in seconds unless they really really want to. Maybe make ammo really expensive, or make weapons that basically consume all the power on the grid after they've been fired, like the railgun in SE1 does to smaller ships, or maybe make weapons overheat easily and turn off until they cool down again. There are plenty of interesting possibilities, so I'm sure you guys can find the right way forward.
ReplyDeleteFor players invading grids to be a functional part of the game, mechanisms that allow for boarding pods are a must. This verges into the category that most excites/concerns me for SE2 - Player made weapons.
ReplyDeleteBy miles, my favorite part of SE is PMW. Large missiles, kinetic torpedoes, I’d like to see groundwork done on SE2 to reconcile the jank in that department and make it natural to use creativity to build innovative combat mechanisms. Let it evolve naturally from player use, not “who can fit the most gun blocks on their ship”
A couple of pain points from SE1 and some possible ideas.
ReplyDelete1. In SE1 my biggest pain point was that fighters with forward cockpits were totally useless. As you mentioned getting 100-0 in 2 seconds feels bad. I'm happy to see you considering this problem.
2. Combat in an old game Star Wars Empire at War had a system where shields blocked energy weapons but not the ballistic weapons. Perhaps including a system where energy weapons are longer range but blockable by shields and then ballistic weapons are shorter range but bypass shields.
3. Combat would feel better with .ore active management. This could include a better system for launching decoys, the rock paper scissors .model you mentioned sounds awesome, my only concern is that all ships will need all the weapon types to be viable.
4. In SE1 I always found the custom turret controller to be one of the best additions added to the game. I would love to see that brought back ASAP but with a better interface for managing weight so that large turrets can be better controlled.
5. Lastly, I feel like a good philosophy for the combat could be a 2 staged approach. The ship vs ship combat should really feel like an engineering challenge, but having a need to board and hijack should play a bit more like a shooter. Almost like the engineering challenge is disabling and boarding the enemy ship and then once onboard having a slightly more engaging and dynamic shooter type of gameplay to steal or hack or sabotage would be awesome. I've always loved the fantasy of sneakily boarding an enemy ship to sabotage systems while my friends pilot our capital ship in combat.
Overall, really agree with the combat philosophies described above and see a lot of room for improvement from SE1, especially in combat length and tracking missiles. Three pieces of feedback from my time in SE that'd I and my community would love to see:
ReplyDelete1. Homing missiles and flare/decoy measures built into the game. Would really add something, especially for fighters, and modding solutions, while sometimes great, are not truly built into the engine. Also totally fine if vanilla scripts + AI solution make this something engineers have to build.
2. More distinct differences between space and atmospheric combat in gravity drop of weapons, maneuverability, and speed. My group fell in love with simple "aerodynamic wing" mods that generate lift/steering based on forward momentum, as it transformed atmosphere fights into dogfights, while space remained more conducive for strafing space combat
3. Consider how to incentivize using small grids and larges grids together in combat. In SE1, small grids are overly fragile and easily defeated by turrets in vanilla. To help incentivize mixed use (for so or mp) consider potentially a higher atmospheric grid speed for smaller grids on a logarithmic curve, make heavy armor weight less punishing/boost small thruster performance, and consider how additional defensive options can be given to stay in the fight longer, such as decoys/countermeasures,/ECM against turrets.
Thank you!
Apologies if duplicate, but seems my first comment didn't post!
ReplyDeleteOverall, love the direction SE2 combat is heading, especially with the emphasis on longevity. 3 pieces of feedback from myself and my play group:
1. Consider how to differentiate atmospheric and space combat more. Gravity on weapon, lower max range, and most importantly, changes to ship maneuvering. My group found that simple atmospheric "wing" mods that vastly increased lift/steering at high speeds made atmospheric combat feel very different and more exciting. This could be done with atmospheric drag OR could simply be done by making atmospheric thrusters more powerful.
2. Consider how to make smaller grid/strike craft have viable and survivable in vanilla, even in late game/mp. Aside of shields, would love to see more effective small thrusters (allowing for higher maneuverability), higher durability armor/shield options (perhaps costing resources for lighter weight - in SE1, small heavy armor is prohibitive for most grids in weight with little durability payoff), and other defensive counter measures to increase their ability to stay in the fight (countermeasures, decoys, ECM?).
3. We LOVED custom turrets being added to SE1, providing the perfect mix of engineering and combat planning (with occasional jenk). Keep this function and incentivize it more by providing a second tier of armored rotators/hinges.
It would be nice to somehow implement ship size dynamics so even small fighters are useful, compared to SE1 turret spam, maybe you could make a way to organically limit the number of turrets like heat management or something like that
ReplyDeleteI really like how combat works in EVE online, for example citadels have certain vulnerability windows, where you can attack them. Safe zones could have something similar so base raiding is still possible and interesting
ReplyDeleteCombat:
ReplyDeleteSE1 combat is pretty unforgiving, you do get used to it eventually, but when I first started playing many years ago it was soul destroying. The respawn system makes you feel like your characters life is cheap.
Big turrets should cause maintenance issues, too many turrets too close together should break their own supporting grid blocks.
In SE1 AI turret targetting, in the open, is too aware, there needs to be a gap in the targetting function to let some things get through. Some leeway in AI recognising friend or threat by percentage would be useful. Disguises, camouflage, signal suppression or ID faking could be a factor.
A highly durable armour type that would be too expensive and too rare to use on capital ships, but cost effective on small vessels and cockpits would be an option.
A short duration stealth space suit would be useful, it could have a stealth liquid crystal consumable that would be required to activate the suits stealth function.
For the grid combat vs character combat: I think FPS combat would be nice - if you go with the first idea, to board and take over, I think you can separate the dangers to external and internal.
ReplyDeleteExternal dangers could be larger guns, harpoons, EMPs etc. internal dangers can be smaller caliber turrets, environment flooded rooms, like water and other chemicals, gases, laser, and mechanical traps. That variety would ensure that both combat would be viable and interesting, yet you wouldn't need a tank to progress inside a building.
Suit upgrades could be merged with the ability to survive envornmental hazards, like poison and acid resistances to survive a room with acid, grounded suits to survive electrical traps, hardened suits to survive pressure based and mechanical traps. Maybe throw in a cranial shielding to protect against psychonics? Since we are far in the future, you can dig more into the fantastical elements.
I'm fine with cockpit getting shredded in a matter of seconds. A bullet that is designed to be fired at a lg ship should shredded a small grid block. I think maybe having different ammo types for a turret; AP and non AP. Also having upgradable turret AI, at base AI they could be slow at tracking targets (this would also work with have player controlled turrets being better than AI controlled). If early game NPC's used the non AP ammo and base targeting AI, this would give a player in a small ships a chance of wining the fight. If a player wants to go after a bigger target they will need a bigger ship. Another idea would be to give all projects a ricochet mechanic (similar to how rocket type ammo works in SE1). This would encourage experimentation with amour shape and design. Also having the unified grid system is already a plus for ship durability assume ammo can still be moved by small conveyors. It'll be way easier to have multiple conveyor lines running through your ships to keep ammo and H2 fed the the blocks that need it.
ReplyDeleteAdding things like shields or making bullets do less damage is only going to encourage turret spam not stop it.
The last bit is where I’m at.
DeleteWe are programmed to seek a David and Goliath moment. Just look at the appeal of taking down the Deathstar against all of the odds. This is what people want, incredibly difficult, but not impossible and ever so satisfying.
DeleteThere needs to be some grinder defense for active ships that dissappears on wrecks.
ReplyDeleteSomething I felt was severely limited in SE1 was ground combat and air-to-ground/anti-air combat. The guns and gunplay felt really poor, even for a game that wasn’t trying to be a shooter in the first place. Recoil and bullet spread were all over the place, anti-personnel weapons could punch through armor blocks, and ATGMs and AA missiles were either built using vanilla blocks—making them heavy and often not worth the resources—or they were modular or weapons blocks from mods, which tended to be overpowered. Overall, there was generally no reason—other than roleplay—to build armored fighting vehicles to assault a base with the aim of capturing it.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see a quick and easy takeover of an enemy production facility bog down into an SE-version of Stalingrad, where players on each side have to come up with new ground vehicles or tactics to dislodge one another.
Mortars, artillery, ATGMs, handheld anti-tank weapons, grenades, breaching or satchel charges, squad weapons, stationary MGs—the sci-fi equivalent of a Maxim machine gun on the third floor getting blasted by a space Churchill AVRE.
A ticket system for respawn points (maybe something like Foxhole’s shirts) could be a way to end an assault if the logistics of bringing new tickets to the front break down.
Maybe I'm swimming alone here, asking SE2 to be too much of a milsim/warsim game, but I believe this direction could help SE2 not only set itself apart from SE1 even more, but also attract new players—especially those who might feel overwhelmed or intimidated by the building aspect of the game. It would give players another meaningful way to engage with the game beyond just building and exploring.
(Sorry if I am double posting, the post didn't show up the first time)
I agree that survivability would be great. I mostly avoid combat in SE1 because it's quite easy to get killed by a single turret if you're not careful. And if you simply overpower it, there's not much left to salvage. I love the idea of the three sided combat, but I'm not sold yet on what those sides will be. Would be cool to have a ship with 3 sides, one dedicated to each type of combat, so you can always turn the dominant side to the enemy. Enemy ships could have multiple phases, where they open up at some point, showing different weapons, requiring a different combat style.
ReplyDeleteOne thing you should consider, but I haven't seen mention here, are drones. Building a small fleet of automated fighters, or piloting one remotely. In SE1 already .5m block drones fit through doors. Can you infiltrate a base with a drone. And if not, why? I'd probably still use one just too peek around corners. :D
Regarding shields, and ship survivability:
ReplyDeleteIf you go down the shields route, I would encourage you to do something interesting with them. They don't need to just be an HP pool. They could do some sort of partial damage absorption, or work like Dune shields.
The other option, instead of shields is some sort of mid or late game block called something along the lines of "Hardened Command Room". There could be variants of it, a basic one would be 7.5x7.5x2.5 meters and would take a massive amount of damage to kill, but would have a limit of 1/2 per grid, or some other limit factor, like massive power draw. The inside would be empty, except for a single control seat. Because it is SE 2, players could add more seats, and decorations to the inside of the command room.
It's too easy to grind your way into an enemy base or ship, nothing feels safe or secure against an engineer with a hand tool. Obviously weapons should be able to blow there way into a ship hull, but there needs to be a way to protect against this for hand tools maybe. Some kind of high tech block that prevents non faction grind/weld actions. It would add a gameplay element of boarding a ship by blasting your way in, then having to find this protection block before you can begin dismantling the base/ship. This is handled in other games through something like a flag in the base which marks your territory and protects your blocks till it's taken down/runs out of power. This would be a nice half way point between safe zones, and easy to break down structures.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think there should be a block that prevents it, but instead a block that can defend against it if it’s not addressed or worked around. For example using the ai features in SE1 or something similar to have a drone or ai engineer (don’t know if we can have those on our bases), come to the area suffering the damage.
DeleteBoth active/assault boarding and infiltration boarding should be viable approaches and legitimate threats to consider when designing ships!
ReplyDeleteShields should be left to the modding community. That being said I hope you don't focus too much on the pvp aspect, since I'm fairly sure this is not the majority of players.
ReplyDeleteBut other than that all those ideas sound really good.
I'm glad that you guys are thinking about this stuff, since this could make or break the game for a lot of people. Super impressed with your progress on the game so far, love these peeks into how it gets made!
ReplyDeleteA possible but unrealistic way to prolong battles would be to make gun AI avoid cockpits, but it would mean that craft could be OP if somebody puts all their other critical infrastructure right next to one
ReplyDeleteI know a lot of people would probably disagree and it isn't realistic. But as someone who loves to build small grid fighters it would be fantastic if smaller vehicles were able to achieve higher speeds than their large grid counterparts. But this is kinda silly since typically they can accelerate faster
ReplyDeleteWill there be radiological environmental hazards? Like if a reactor is damaged and it starts spewing that green gas it does right now will we be affected by that?
ReplyDeleteTo that end, I'm curious and excited to see what blocks you will add or what existing ones you will change to allow for protection from environmental hazards. Maybe heavy armor will withstand that caustic rain on Alien Planet.
Overall I'm honestly more excited for the Survival update than I am for VS2, but I'm still excited for VS2. Love it all.
It would be great if they added energy shields. As an addition to the rock-paper-scissors concept, you can add emp-missiles, missiles that could knock down shields. Also, for balance, you can divide the damage into energy and ballistic, and the player had the opportunity to slightly adjust their shields during the battle. For example, by default, shields protect equally from hits from both energy and ballistic damage, but the shield overheats faster, but if we have an understanding of what type of weapon our enemy has, we can change the coefficient in the other direction, and we, for example, will have more protection from ballistic damage, at the same time the damage from energy weapons will increase. If you want the shields to have more hp and they overheat less - make more emitters, a cooling system, add some additional modules that are crafted from very rare materials, or are found in lost ruins. This will not allow you to turn a small fighter into a giant destroyer, because the best shields require serious cooling systems. This is increase the battle time, and will give players a sense of travel and exploration.
ReplyDeletewhile i appreciate what it is you do with SE2 I have to ask when control customization is to be implemented? I am surprised that half a year after release there still isn't a way to bind keys and it is the main obstacle to me enjoying the game. Be it due to changing keyboards, keyboard layouts or just ergonomic reasons the lack of customizable key binds is a big barrier for me
ReplyDeleteShields solve a variety of situations, but on the other hand, if they're just a full-body buffer, it justifies obvious flaws in realism and makes them invalid design for combat.
ReplyDeleteSome ideas: partial protection, limited to armor or not compatible with armor, proportional damage falloff, parry with short-term activation rather than permanent.
It would be cool if game had native support for HOTAS controlers, im sure ship pilots would love more precise controls and ease of acces to more buttons under your fingers instead of switching ewuipment bars.
ReplyDeleteI really like your approach on combat, it tackles exactly the problems I had with SE1 combat.
ReplyDeleteEspecially the idea of a shield. I always found it frustrating that by the time I was in my fighter jet, my main ship already took damage. And even if I was in my fighter jet, crossfire still damaged my ship. Having a shield on the main ship would prevent this. Shields do not need to be strong enough to protect in a full hit on battle, but to give time to react and protect from crossfire.
I would imagine that shields shield better the more energy they get (than you have to decide wether you want to focus your energy on shields, thrusters or weapons) and maybe they contain shield components that get damaged with every hit and need to be replaced after a fight (if they deplete mid fight, you're now shieldless).
Maybe there are even different variants of shields: Some that are spherical, some that are just one plane (therefor need less energy), etc.
Pls add different shell types like He or Ap or even Aphe shells, it would give the player more opportunities to customize their weapons and would enhance the rock paper scissors mechanic
ReplyDeleteCombat requires time to search and prepare for an intercept. Combat takes place at visual range, but radar needs to see the enemy from much farther away. The enemy approaches at 300m/s. If I need to wake up in a minute, I need a minimum range of 18km. If I need to engage in a few minutes of combat before the enemy destroys my freighter, I need 100km.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget about the programmable block-based weapon (all sorts of missiles, active defense, and aiming support systems). Maybe you can upgrade the functionality of the programmable blocks in SE2?
ReplyDeleteRegarding combat, the game focuses on engineers, so long, strategic combat would be interesting. Large ships where you need to control energy and coordinate weapon systems would be particularly interesting. NPCs as crew would be very interesting, allowing for automatic turrets, for example, or improving the ship's overall efficiency.
ReplyDeleteInfiltration in SE1 is not exciting because Massimo will have small turrets to get in the way, once again NPCs to protect the interiors of the ships would be a great addition, and hacking by grinding doors and commands does not make sense, there could be a tool for this purpose, such as a wrist computer and a minigame on it.
finally, the defense of bases to differentiate themselves from large ships could have powerful radars with high energy consumption that allow situational awareness of the base in advance to prepare its defenses, and once again NPCs that would take control of ships to repel aggression.
Maybe keen can add blocks that can be used to create semi-working mechs and mobile suits. It makes a lot of sense if you want to add a player vs grid to your game. It could be mech legs and arms with very small cockpits, and a heavy machine gun, or it could be a single structure mech (a variant of the suit that you can either wear or not wear).
ReplyDeleteThis blog update has me extremely giddy. I’m so excited for all of this. Every bit especially character improvement I’m hoping to see the offset camera added to se1 as well to make for more immersive gameplay. I don’t even use 3rd person anymore cuz I can’t stand it. I’ll say the only things I disagree with here is firing order for the hydrogen engine it almost looks like it’s humping.. and the damage response. I feel like as the recover for damage yes that would be awesome to know how hard or bad you got hit or took damage. However there still supposed to be some realism here and it would be odd to know the exact damage you did to someone 2km away. The guessing part of that drives suspense and caution and the need to focus. Keep up the amazing work guys seriously this is amazing and an outstandingly crazy cool update you have coming. Everyone should be stoked. Se2 if you all really keep at it will rival gta6. And I’m sure of it.
ReplyDeleteI think the combat system for grid-to-grid combat should lay a strong foundation for modding. Adding new mechanics like guided missiles, countermeasures etc should be possible without too much performance impact.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would love combat to be based on modern ship-to-ship and air-to-air combat, this would also fit the rock-paper-scissors concept.
By that I mean stuff like taking down incoming missiles with your own missiles or CIWS, air-to-air missiles needing a lock before launching, flares/chaff/ecm, diffrent targeting and detection types like infrared/radar/gps etc.
Weapons should be expensive but impactfull. Both in terms of space taken up and resources needed for building them/crafting ammo.
Maybe a dedicated cargo-system for ammo, so storing huge cruise-missiles actually takes up some space on your ship.
Give the player more control about automated weapons, like what type of systems they should target or where on the enemy grid you want them to hit. Explosive weapons should not just deal damage in a shere, some should be better at penetrating deep into enemy grids to take out reactors or other systems.
Those descisions should feel meaningfull but require good sensors and some time for gathering data.
I agree there should be some extra protection for cockpits without having to bury them deep inside your ship but generally speaking I'm not a huge fan of shields.
Have you considered more powerful weapons that are unique to stations? I always believed that stations should be far more capable defensively than ships yet in SE1 they have the same weapons available. This may help with your safe zone dynamic making base defenses a viable alternative to safe zones (or at least a first step in security). It would also provide a tactical advantage to combatants near their own bases.
ReplyDeleteWe definitely need some kind of sensor suite technology like radars, because SE1 combat essentially gives every object the same ability to detect every other object.
ReplyDelete(I think my first comment just dissapeared)
ReplyDeleteThe combat system should lay a good foundation for later modding, adding new mechanics like guided missiles should be possible without a huge performance impact.
Give players more control about what their automated weapons should aim for (like generators/sensors/turrets/fixed weapons etc.), those descisions should matter but require good sensors and some time for scanning/analysing the enemy grid.
Weapons should be big and expensive but impactfull. Maybe a dedicated cargo-system for ammo, storing huge missiles should actually take up some space on your grid.
Generally speaking I think grid-to-grid combat should be based on modern Anti-Ship/Anti-Air and Air-to-Air combat as that would really fit the rock-paper-scissors principle.
Different sensors and targeting types like radar/infra-red/gps/visual etc. Smaller missiles based on air-to-air/air-to-ground missiles for attacking nimble ships, bigger missiles based on cruise- and ballistic missiles for attacking stations and huge ships.
Countermeasures like flares/chaff and ecm. Missile detection systems and lock-on-warnings/RWS.
CIWS and anti-missile-missiles.
Fire-control being a modular system, more/better sensors and more computing power -> earlier detection and better target tracking.
Bigger ships or ships with high power consumption/lots of engines being easier to detect and track.
An atmospheric flight model/mode for smaller ships based on current aircraft. Ships should feel like they actually carry momentum especially in atomsphere. Bigger ships feeling more like, well, actuall ships.
Have you considered weapons that are unique to stations? I've long thought that station weapons should be far more capable offensively than ships. Stations that are far more capable offensively could be a tactical advantage that compliments, or even replaces, safezones. Station weapons would need to be stronger with better range - this may assist with a couple of your objectives
ReplyDeleteA better system for repairing grids AFTER but not DURING combat.
ReplyDeleteI think in this case gameplay > realism so call it nanobots or whatever.
Auto-Repair should also take a while so that you only fight when absolutely have to or are well prepared.
The fights you DO engage in should feel important rather than something that happens every 5 minutes.
I don't care too much about boarding moving enemy grids DURING combat but infiltration and sabotage sounds like fun especially in a PVE context.
Please make character building tools such as the grinder have a greatly decreased effect on enemy grids. This will add purpose to character weapons.
ReplyDeleteIf you think about it, in se1 when a player spawns in, they can tear through any ship unfairly and with ease. If you compare that with a game like rust, the players bases are completely safe from new players which don't have the necessary equipment to destroy the base. On the other hand, it is easy to destroy the walls on your own build.
THIS is the solution we need, simple to add and game changing, not overbearing and stretched like some of the others' suggestions.
DeleteI love most of the ideas here, but please no safe zones and if you must make shields, they should be expensive and overall quite weak 😠I'd be more up for a decrease in turret precision, that would make things like player made missiles, fighter and cockpits more viable in general.
ReplyDeleteI for one support the idea with slow and cumbersome ships slugging it. Imagine battle star Galactica style.
ReplyDeleteFor enhanced armor
How about stargate Atlantis wraith regenerative armor or reactive armor?
For shields Star Trek Enterprise ( Captain archers ) polarised armor. Not a traditional shield Bubble.
For sure i believe boarding an enemy ship is something id like to be able to do. But not all players include interior to their ships.
Id rather make planetary combat more viable. Tanks, artillery etc etc. Also a way to control a planet would be a nice addition.
Personally, I hate the combat in SE1, just not really that kind of player. But I do really like the idea of infiltration gameplay.
ReplyDeleteMaybe some hand held explosives or something like that would be a cool 'mechanic' to have. Small enough to be placed strategically around a large ship or base.
To offset this, maybe something like a bomb detector or something to trigger an alarm if something is placed on the ship/base/station.
Just thinking out loud :)
Rather than shields being a base game solution, you may want to consider making better tiers of armor. This can be implemented through material acquisitions, production chain complexity, tech unlocks, etc. Light and heavy armor are far too limiting as it stands. Both forms of armor blocks are far too fragile, even heavy armor just gets shredded in short order if you get hit, and forget about covering things with armor panels. Realistically, as the tiers go up on these, the production complexity should go up, but so too should the effective damage reduction - For example, if some unobtanium armor panel that requires you to go 10 tiers of crafted components deep into a web of complexity, but provides as much durability as 5 fully sized heavy armor blocks stacked in a row (and the full sized version of this armor block being far more effective but also incredibly expensive), suddenly it becomes both worthwhile and practical to consider building armor into the design without having to make the ship basically a floating block of heavy armor. This can also apply to things like Bulletproof glass (and consequently cockpit protections), etc. Obviously this doesn't have to be strictly material based, you could also bring in neat considerations like having armor that needs to be actively powered or hooked into the conveyor system, or some similar logistical concern in order to gain maximum benefits.
ReplyDeleteThat said, a tiering system also allows for secondary design considerations, such as maintainability (Higher functional block to armor ratio means repairing or making changes should generally be easier), cost (is some grotesque amount of fabrication time/material cost/whatever really worth it to put a high tier armor band around say, some freighter design, or if just picking something much lower tier but full block armor is good enough?), mass (being able to hover in atmospheric conditions on ion thrusters while being relatively well armored may not be a pipe dream), etc.
As for combat, a few pain points I personally have that I haven't seen mentioned are:
1. The inability to have someone as a grid pilot while simultaneously having people engaged in gunnery.
2. Weapon maximum engagement ranges being incredibly limited (This is probably the biggest reason for the short combat durations as they stand now. Neither side is shooting until both sides basically have no room to really evade properly. Projectile speeds and ranges should be much higher)
3. No ability to protect the actual player via equipment (No suit upgrades for better durability, no passive or active countermeasures, etc.)
Shields: The best take on shields that I know is from the PC game Freespace II.
ReplyDeleteThe shield generator had a certain Energy pool which could be distributed either evenly around the ship or incrementally focused towards a certain direction. Front, Rear, Left, Right.
If I remember correctly, the ship's energy could also be directed to systems such as Propulsion, Weapons, Shields in a similar fashion.
Go KEEN! :o)
Here's my two cents;
ReplyDelete1. Armor
Presently in SE1, you can make quite durable ships by layering heavy armor and blast doors, but the restriction is always that anything that isn't heavy as all heck and slow as a turtle can't take more then a hit or two. Light "armor" doesn't really have any meaningful protective value, and is more of an interior block. The new grid system can help with this a lot by letting you put a lot more internals behind thinner ship walls, but only really works if you don't have to build five or ten meters of armor on every facing side to stop normal weapon fire. So really I'm saying to make armor tough, but not so incredibly heavy that you can't actually add it. A medium-sided ship with a small thruster base should still be able to use heavy armor and remain maneuverable, but perhaps not enough to hold against heavy weapons or sustained lighter fire. My only request: No tiered armor. Different types of armor with different properties could be amazing - It'd allow for custom armor patterns with different functional properties - but generic tiers just take all the engineering fun out of it for no gain at all. Why on earth would anyone use tier 1 when they could use tier 3?
2. Shields
While I am somewhat of an armor purist myself, the creative freedom that comes with shields is too important to pass up in a creative game like space engineers. I'll often see people recommend to restrict them in some way to prevent people from piling all the available defense methods, but there's better options. Resource scarcity is a thing, and engineers who put all their expensive materials into one super ship will pay the price when they stumble into a trap. No defense is impregnable.
3. Turret spam.
We've all seen it, most of us have done it at least once. Nobody really likes it, and it causes ships to die quickly too. My recommendation is to look into thermals. It doesn't have to be anything overly complicated; perhaps use total armor mass as a sort of thermal battery to allow heavy ships to store up enormous amounts of heat in a sustained engagement, and manage it with thermoelectric generators (hint hint) or moderation in turret placement. For lighter or shield-heavy ships, perhaps shields could be used as a thermal radiator to cool them more quickly, but generate a lot of heat if they are struck. Thermals is a big deal in space, and I've rather missed it in space engineers. On the side, it also gives extra source values you could work with when brainstorming different sensor ideas.
4. Ship speeds and engagement ranges
A number of people before me have mentioned this, but it's really not much fun to drift slowly by your enemies while watching all the automated turrets do all the work. I propose much greater variation in weapon ranges between weapon types, and generally faster ships. (This ties back to #1). Many types of weapons should be engineered, not placed, but point defense should have much more importance then it does in SE1. If we have highly reactive point defense facing against high velocity shells from outside the effective range of your ship, it introduces a lot more dynamic combat scenarios. It should make sense not to put every type of turret in the game on every ship.
In the matters of detecting enemies I think another layer of modification can be the character itself where you have a way to dress and undress the suits allowing for the possibility of making specialized suits for every situation ex:
ReplyDeleteNormal engineer suit the one everyone starts with as it is
Builder engineer suit less hydrogen and oxygen same burn time but use less hydrogen thus making it a bit slower it grants greater inventory space for building materials
Mining suit more energy oxygen hydrogen but with less maneuverability
Combat suit with a HUD that can highlights enemies and Friends while being stronger and more oxygen while being a bit heavier this slower
Another thing to give this system more modification is to make the suit sets of items the player can equip and maybe full customizable suits where you can use a slider to tune some aspect up while tunning others down the set based idea is more so you can have a jetpack that is faster with a chest plate that is stronger making it so you have can play your own style
Also the possibility to not wear a suit at all just the engineers in some clothes to make the feel of Not everyone is a engineer another thing that would be cool is to modify the player HUD based on the helmet they are wearing or upgrades they have on their suits like radar sensors and stuff
Eve online has some interesting mechanics that could be a good source of inspiration. In Eve, fights are all about range management, different guns do optimal damage at different ranges so by controlling the engagement distance you can create an advantage.
ReplyDeleteThis comment will probably get lost among so many others, but I think even those who don't like shields might like my idea.
ReplyDeleteShields offer a lot of creative freedom, although they should have restrictions (high energy consumption) and categories. For example, a shield that's basically a solid wall against everything in both directions (you can't attack or be attacked) but consumes a lot of energy when hit, so it can block PMW (Player Made Weapons), something that a significant portion of the community uses. Alternatively, there could be a selective shield, one that can only block ammunition from "vanilla" weapons and can still be shot through. These couldn't be activated simultaneously and could have individual weaknesses in the form of specialized weapons, ammo, or countermeasures, making a more classic armored ship more energy-efficient but slower than its shielded counterpart, yet perfectly competent in balanced combat, adding more depth to the combat with a simple choice (more energy capacity and less speed, or more speed and less energy). // (Obviously, if shield-piercing systems are implemented, it would also be good to implement weapons or ammo specialized in penetrating armor, since otherwise this would once again become the game's only meta, and what we're looking for is variety.)
It would also be nice if you could deform both types of shields to give them different shapes, more angular or more rounded. I'm not sure to what extent it would be possible to give the player the ability to modify the shape of the shield and therefore its hitbox, but this would open the door to new PMWs or devices that use these modified shields in ways never seen before.
Finally, I'd like to say that I'm a huge fan of Keen Software House and the incredible work they do, as well as someone who is fascinated by everything this community is capable of creating. You can do whatever you want with this idea I'm leaving here if it gets read. Good luck, and thanks for everything.
I have two thoughts on combat:
ReplyDelete(a) Shields should absolutely be a thing, there is a reason the shield mods are popular. But for balancing, shields should draw massive amounts of energy to be stable, and even more when hit - to the point of not leaving enough energy for thrusters when taking heavy fire.
Alternatively you could borrow ideas from the cloak-drive mod, where you have to build heat vents to store the excess heat generated by the shield generation. Basically, introduce a mechanic where shields are only viable for short amounts of time.
(b) Safezones are important for PvP, mainly for two reasons: (1) you want to give players an acceptable start when joining a server late, but this could be left to modders or server admins. (2) When no player from a faction is on the server, the rock-paper-scissor mechanic effectively breaks, because the "manually-aimed weapon" aspect is completely missing. When the enemy can really just shoot your base into pieces when you're offline with no way to counter it, it's really not fun. Therefore, there needs to be a cheap way (maybe even automated, to be enabled by server owners) to spawn a safezone when all players of a faction are offline.
Also, as a general addition to combat: Physically-based projectiles, to allow realistically aimed artillery cannons.
We should have these "detection blocks" in SE1 to see how people would use them. It would breath some life into the game. Also some kind of intelligent animal events on planets. Maybe make electrical storms that effect machinery.
ReplyDeleteI think the combat elements that SE1 was missing were mainly:
ReplyDelete- shields. They look cool as hell, add tactical elements (increase power on starboard shields!!), and just make sense for a space game
- AIM9 or sidewinder type missiles. Programmable blocks made this possible in SE1 and they are incredibly fun. It also just makes sense for space again.
The turrets and forward facing weapons in SE1 were well done in my opinion, but the limited range made it play weird to build a giant ship but still have to get up close and personal to fight.
Another note, the combat elements in From the Depths are really well done too and could be good inspiration. The auto repair systems made the game not as frustrating, being able to built custom weapons added depth, and the recon elements like building a satellite were also a good idea in that game.
Absolutely agree on custom/modular weapons. This would be an incredible feature
Deletethe modular weapons would be awesome!
DeleteI believe that top speed should be determined individually depending on the weight of the ship and the number of thrusters.
ReplyDeleteFor example, the Relative Top Speed mod
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1359618037
Addendum: In SE1, the maximum speed was constant, and there were problems such as not being able to catch up with other ships.
DeleteRegarding top speed.
DeleteI believe that top speed should be determined individually according to the weight of the ship and the number of thrusters.
For example, there is the Relative Top Speed MOD (https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1359618037).
In SE1, the top speed was constant, and there were problems such as not being able to catch up with other ships.
By setting a difference in the top speed of each ship, I think the range of tactics for each ship type will be expanded. For example, a high-speed destroyer and a slow, heavily armored battleship.
I love the rock-paper-scissors approach! Something my friends and myself have found unappealing about SE1 combat is that AI turrets are nearly always the better option compared to manually manning the guns. Manual guns having a distinct advantage over automated turrets gives more purpose to multi-crews, which I like.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think weapon systems in SE2 should expand beyond single blocks, and become modular, where weapons have many sub-blocks that make up the qualities of the final product. Looking to Starmade or From the Depths for inspiration here.
Regarding top speed.
ReplyDeleteI believe that top speed should be determined individually according to the weight of the ship and the number of thrusters.
For example, there is the Relative Top Speed MOD (https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/?id=1359618037).
In SE1, the top speed was constant, and there were problems such as not being able to catch up with other ships.
By setting a difference in the top speed of each ship, I think the range of tactics for each ship type will be expanded. For example, a high-speed destroyer and a slow, heavily armored battleship.
Sorry. I accidentally posted the same comment multiple times. This most recent comment is the correct one.
DeleteI just want to throw in my opinion that I’m very happy you’re considering longer lasting fights. I want to design sleek fighters and getting shredded in seconds by AI turrets was not fun.
ReplyDeleteShields sounds fantastic for this purpose and it gives another consideration for design, power and general gameplay.
I believe energy-shields are an enrichment if it can't be exploited. thinking a step further, energy management on the ships would add a lot of depth. the fossil fuels would have a tremendous advantage on the drawback of having cargo & weight for the fuel. adding basic space game combat rules like 'lasers hit harder but are prevented by energy-shields while physical weapons aren't'.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm glad to see that you're taking a deep look at the combat system in SE2 based on your experience with SE1.
ReplyDeleteThere are a lot of comments. I might get buried, but I'd like to post my thoughts along with the contents of the DEV diary.
1. About battle time and survival rate. In SE1, if both grids were ready for battle, I think the battle was simply a war of attrition where you turned your maximum weapons and defenses against the enemy until one of you lost your cockpit. In an extremely optimized PVP, it was just a matter of firing railguns at each other while moving in circles. In the sense of firing railguns at each other until the cockpit surrounded by armor is lost, the battle time is not a few seconds, and it is unlikely that a single hit to the cockpit will end the battle instantly. But can we say that it is tactical, more interesting, and dynamic? No. I think that ships other than the "Railgun Lance" should have a role to play, and various creative ship designs should be utilized in the battle. This is guaranteed by the balance of rock-paper-scissors, feedback from players, and clarity, and to achieve this, we should be proactive in incorporating new elements that were not in SE1. Shields are a prime example. Of course, we should balance so that shield death stacks are not the strongest in creative, and we need to provide different types of shields, and make concentrated defense shields more powerful than all-around shields. Shields will be a big plus in terms of ship design creativity.
2. Weapon dynamics. A triangle-based balance model is pretty ideal. If each field had smaller sub-fields and were divided into tiers, it would provide deeper strategic options.
3. Detection, infiltration, and defense. Scanners and sensors will add depth to combat. Possible mechanisms include changing the detectability distance depending on the shape and material of the armor, as well as the size of the grid. This would allow for roles such as radar ships specialized in detection and stealth ships specialized in hiding. In addition, I think the aiming error of turret weapons should change depending on the strength of detection. This would help with balancing when turret weapons are placed on large or small ships.
Finally, one combat element that I think is important is top speed. I think top speed should be determined by the mass and maximum thrust of the ship. The Relative Top Speed mod in SE1 was one solution: having a lumbering battleship and a fast torpedo boat with different top speeds meant that they could each use their own tactics.
Combat: If the intention is to have PvP combat with infiltration mechanics then you need to be careful with how prominently you mark hostile players. Otherwise any wouldbe infiltrator will immediately be spotted.
ReplyDeleteSafe zones: I think the safe zones in SE1 actually work really well. I think you got the balance right there. Yes people can stockpile zone chips. But they need to put some effort in to do that. If it's really such a big problem that players are becoming untouchable. Boost the amount of power a safe zone requires or place a limit on how long a safe zone can be active. So far as I can remember they were introduced to protect players when they were offline. So perhaps the safe zone only really works if the player is offline.
Here are my overly long and rambling thoughts on SE combat. I actually have to break this into multiple comments in order to get it all here because its far too long. Hope it gives you some inspiration!
ReplyDeleteCombat Duration & Survivability
I can understand the frustration that can come with having your cockpit shot out and being taken out of the fight instantly. While something like shields can help with this, there are some other methods to fix this issue that I address later on in this comment that don’t involve science fiction “shields” but real life defensive systems.
Having the concept of a “weak spot” on ships is something that I think should be preserved. With good scouting, knowledge of how ships are built and careful shooting you should be able to take out an enemy ship efficiently. While it was there for the plot, we all love the fact that the Death Star was taken out by a single fighter. It's not about hitting them hard, but hitting them in the right spot.
These weak spots should be build requirements for various systems on your ship. For example you could be required to have a large cooling array on the exterior of your ship in order to run a full sized reactor. If that cooling array is damaged then your reactor goes into a lower power mode and certain high power draw systems would have to shut down. This is one way to potentially balance shields if they were added to the game. You would need shield array emitters equipped on the exterior of your ship in order for the shield to work. If those fragile emitters were damaged then your shields would be inoperable.
Similarly other defensive options should have some sort of drawback to using them. Shields would require fragile external equipment and high power draw. Armor could be extremely heavy and require additional gyros and thrusters in order to move the ship around at a reasonable speed. Active defensive systems (detailed below) could have limited ammo and require manual reloading making them less useful in a drawn out engagement.
Potentially another way to balance shields could be to have some form of wind up or cool down time related to their use. You couldn’t just press a button and instantly your ship has a protective bubble around it. The shield would require several seconds to initialize and power up to reach its full strength. And then once the shield has fallen from being turned off or disabled by enemy fire it is impossible to restart for some fixed duration. This would leave you vulnerable to surprise stealth attacks where the enemy has a chance to fire before your shields are online.
In terms of the typical play style of current SE combat with a protected bridge at the centre of your heavily armored ship, I just think that is the logical conclusion of our current system and reflects real life. There is a reason why naval warships have something called a “Citadel”. This is a heavily armoured section of the ship that contains the ship’s vital components of boiler rooms, ammo storage, etc. If something was important you put it behind a ton of armor, I don’t see how this should be any different when building combat focused SE ships.
In SciFi media we can see this with Battlestar Galactica and its internal bridge and CIC. It was important so bury it inside the ship and surround it with armour. Compare this to the Enterprise with its bridge right on the surface of the ship because of the shields that protect them. Personally I think the idea of building up armored bulkheads throughout my ship along with a citadel with my critical components is a more interesting way to build ships and much more realistic.
Weapon Dynamics: Rock–Paper–Scissors
DeleteYou could base this rock-paper-scissors on the physical capabilities of the different weapons. For example, say artillery is extremely high damaging and powerful, but it's hampered by an extremely slow traverse speed for the turret. That means even if you tried to use it to track a fighter, it wouldn’t have the traverse speed to keep up and the fighter could easily out maneuver the turret and take it out. Each weapon could be physically constrained in some way that would make them weaker against a particular ship type but strong against another.
Alternatively you could do something with weapons and the damage they do against different defensive layers. For example an explosive weapon could do less damage to heavy armor while doing more damage to internal components. This way you would have to study the enemy and see what defensive layers they are using and plan a way to break through them. This could be taught to the player in game by having specific AI factions favour a particular defensive layer. One faction could have light armor and exposed components but have strong shields. You would need to take some form of energy weapon against them to break their shields before following up with explosives on their exposed components.
Active sensors like FCR and RADAR send out a signal and listen for the reflected return. They would be able to track enemy ships with high accuracy and could be required for a weapon lock. Without them your turrets and missiles could be inaccurate as they do not have a strong fix on the position of the enemy. The downside of active sensors is you are putting out a signal and therefore making it easier for the enemy to detect you.
DeletePassive sensors like ELINT and IRST don’t send out a signal but listen for enemy signals. ELINT is looking for enemy RADAR and Radio signals while IRST is looking for the heat given off by ship thrusters and cooling arrays. While they have the benefit of being passive so they do not put out a signal that the enemy can track, they would have lower range and potentially lower accuracy compared to active systems.
This has its own rock-paper-scissors mechanic where both you and your enemy are waiting in passive sensor mode for the other to break silence first. Do you send out a RADAR pulse and try to find the enemy actively? But that might let them know where you are with their passive RADAR trackers. This would be like two submarines holding back on a firing SONAR pulse to find each other because they would give their position away. This sort of gameplay situation is impossible with the current SE spotting mechanics.
Looking at the defense side of the equation we could implement systems like jammers, flares, chaff, counter-rocket/artillery/mortar (C-RAM) and active protection systems (APS). Again these fall into two main groups with the disruption method or destruction method. Equipment like jammers, flares and chaff are meant to disrupt enemy sensors by providing additional false targets for the weapon systems to be distracted by.
Jammers would confuse the enemy by giving them several potential targets to lock onto with only one of them being the real one. If you chose to lock onto the wrong target then your turrets would be firing off into open space wasting their ammo and allowing the enemy ship to get away.
Flares and chaff would be the countermeasures for heat seeking and radar seeking weapons respectively. They would act similarly in distracting the enemy weapon system for a short duration where you can make an evasive action to get outside of its tracking range. You would need to equip and use both countermeasures if you didn’t know what the enemy was going to shoot at you with. However if you scouted the enemy beforehand and had ELINT systems in place to determine if the enemy was using RADAR, then you could take the correct countermeasure for the situation. Who doesn’t love that scene from Top Gun: Maverick where they blast over the mountain top and have to go full on defensive against the enemy missiles with high-g maneuvers and constant countermeasures? I want that kind of gameplay in SE2.
C-RAM (also known as CIWS) and APS are active defense systems that try to destroy the incoming attack with their own weapons. These are high fire rate guns or computer controlled mortar systems that detect an enemy attack incoming, calculate an interception and fire their ordinance at the right time to destroy the incoming shell. These could be used as a “pseudo-shield” with the ability to stop an enemy attack for a limited amount of time before needing reloading or recharging. For example a small grid fighter could have an APS system installed in front of its cockpit. When that large artillery shell is about to hit the cockpit, instead of the fighter being knocked out of the battle the APS takes down the shell. The fighter has survived but now its one-shot “shield” is gone and the next shell will hit its target. The fighter has a decision to make, either continue pushing in without its protection or retreat out of range before the artillery can fire again.
Safe Zones & Risk Management
DeleteI don’t actually agree with making safe zones harder to maintain. They should be there so a player that can only log to a server for a few hours a week can keep his base from getting offline raided. A better way to do it is to disable “progress” while you are in a safe zone, you shouldn’t be able to build, repair, refine, assemble, etc while in a safe zone. It is simply a place to park your base/ships while you are offline, when you come online you need to drop the safe zone so you can get back to work.
Character vs Grid Combat
Personally I don’t think SE or SE2 will ever have good character combat unless the controls and movement of the character is changed significantly. SE simply isn’t built to be a shooter, the characters move around too abruptly, recoil on weapons is unmanageable and kill times are way too fast. I peek around a corner and an interior turret instantly kills me while a decently armored ship can easily tank interior turret fire for long enough to line up its guns and take it out.
I know this might be a more controversial take but I would like to see SE copy the movement and “feel” of various popular shooters. Great examples are The Division series and Helldivers 2. Both give an amazing feeling to the weight of your character moving through the world and wielding their weapons. Also the character animations are expertly done and it really feels like my helldiver is lugging around a large and heavy weapon.
Additionally we need way more weapons for our engineers: shotguns, sniper rifles, SMGs, MANPADS, etc. Give me way more weapon options as well as defensive equipment like reinforced armor and ballistic shields. I want to be able to actually survive a single shot from a turret if I am equipped to do so. Imagine a situation where you have a squad of several engineers working together to raid a base where the guy in front is equipped with heavy armour and a ballistic shield. He can push around corners into turrets and tank for his team while someone behind him can fire their man portable railgun to take out the threat.
If "safe zone chips decay even when stored" is available.Can we consider it as another game---factorio ,the gleba productions of its DLC spaceage ?Then can we add this mechanics to some fresh production like food?
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the ever contentious discussion of shields I implore you to investigate the Integrity Field Generator blocks in the game Avorion. The basic principle being that you have a type of block that massively fortifies those around it, until the integrity block is destroyed or some damage threshold is reached and then the surrounding blocks become severely vulnerable.
ReplyDeleteI have some thoughts to possible fix one issue "if" this is the case. Well, regarding the small grid blocks 25cm and the welder, I think it would be tedious to build an elaborate structure and weld it since I can foresee that there would be a lot of components "inside" and in between the "shell" and "walls" of our buildings.
ReplyDeleteA good solution is to have the first welder be a singular block welder, and the next upgrade adds radius to the welding reach, therefore being able to weld things inside without having to open holes to weld things inside ect.
(Maybe this is allready solved, I'm just new to the SE series and I'm building things in SE2 with 25cm.)
Thanks for reading!