SE5 Poll on Slot Layout, take 2

[Slick]

The unknowns for non-beta testers are:

- (from the recently posted interview with MM) component placement affects damage in a similar way that Starfury handles damage. i.e. damage from the front hits shields, then armor, then outer hull then inner hull; internal damage is more likely to hit components placed in the front. With the AI handling multiplayer combat, how much does that affect gameplay? The real question is that for ships with identical components, how much does component placement matter in combat? My gut feeling is that this is a good thing that doesn't make a huge difference but adds another facet to ship design. I would think from a reality standpoint (let's not argue about reality in this game) it makes sense that damage should be taken this way.

- How much of a pain is it to design or re-design ships with this method? Time spent designing ships would probably go up, but personally that doesn't bother me because proportionally time spent in ship design is small. Additionally, if component placement has in-game effects, so much the better for game detail. Also, if I modify a design by only moving a component, I would assume that this would be considered a new design and as such previously constucted ships would have the old layout. Would I have to "upgrade" the ship to relocate components?

- Are there exploits to this method or are they not considered exploits at all. What if I shielded my bridge with cheap components. Exploit or smart design? I'd say the latter and also would point out that most Navy combat vessels have more vital areas shielded by both armor and less vital components. What if statistically more damage is taken from the front? A smart player would shield his vital components from the front with less vital components in between.

- I played a lot of Star Fleet Battles (SFB) in the '80s and that's how I eventually stumbled upon the Space Empires series around the time of III transitioning to IV. Each game has good reasons for its mechanics but I have always wished for some of the SFB aspects to be in SE such as weapon arcs and side-specific shields. Starfury has weapon arcs and side specific shields (armor too), I'm guessing SE:V probably has them too. SFB handled internal damage via a chart so there was no aspect of component placement. Now with the AI handling the helm during multiplayer combat, maybe SE:IV 360 degree arcs are superior, but they should be easily modded in SE:V if desired. Would the AI maneuver to protect downed or lesser shields?

Overall opinion: I did not ask for it but based on playing SF and knowledge of SE:IV, I think I might like it. Subject to change after playing SE:V.

[Baron Munchausen]

Slots are ok if 'inconvenient' when dealing with many components. The real problem is the difference between ship sets. In the 'form fitting' slot scheme, races that have been given 'slender' ship artwork will have far fewer actual slots to work with in designing their ships. With Starfury you can go buy another ship if you want something different. With SE V you will be stuck with the racial set you have chosen, and screwed if that set has 1/2 the slots of some other player's shipset. Ships needing many small components, like transports, could be impossible to finish properly in some shipsets. We need a standard grid for a game like SE V where fitting weapons to firing points is not necessary.

[Kamog]

The real problem is the difference between ship sets. In the 'form fitting' slot scheme, races that have been given 'slender' ship artwork will have far fewer actual slots to work with in designing their ships.

That's a good point, I'm concerned about that too.

OK, for SEV I'm only going to play races with square blocky ships like the Borg! Yup, the Borg are my favorite race now. Hopefully the Borg dreadnought will be just a huge cube full of slots that takes up the entire ship design window. With the maximized number of components, it will easily beat other races with thin spindly-shaped ships.

[Captain Kwok]

Ships still have a tonnage as dictated by the game and not by the number of slots they have... what BM was saying below was that if slots were based on each ship so some might have an advantage in how you could arrange components...

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The number of slots will most likely be standardized.

[Baron Munchausen]

Captain Kwok said:
Ships still have a tonnage as dictated by the game and not by the number of slots they have... what BM was saying below was that if slots were based on each ship so some might have an advantage in how you could arrange components...

Actually, I was saying that you might not be able to use the full tonnage allowed because of not enough slots. It won't happen early, of course, but ships that use many small components, like transports, could in fact run out of slots.

There are also very real differences between the shipsets in the proportions of armor, outer hull, and inner hull slots. This also will make for arbitrary and unfair ship design restrictions.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Since it's such a bad idea, what makes you think it's in the game?

[Baron Munchausen]

narf poit chez BOOM said:
Since it's such a bad idea, what makes you think it's in the game?

Could it be that the features list in Malfador's site says so? Or could it be the screenshots?

http://www.malfador.com/SE5scr012.htm

And then there is the recent interview already cited.

There are several 'fun' things about designing ships this way, but this is not like Starfury in one respect. You cannot change your shipset. Whatever set you choose at the game setup is what you are stuck with for the whole game.

[henk brouwer]

Baron Munchausen said:
The real problem is the difference between ship sets. In the 'form fitting' slot scheme, races that have been given 'slender' ship artwork will have far fewer actual slots to work with in designing their ships. With Starfury you can go buy another ship if you want something different. With SE V you will be stuck with the racial set you have chosen, and screwed if that set has 1/2 the slots of some other player's shipset. Ships needing many small components, like transports, could be impossible to finish properly in some shipsets.

That sounds really bad. IMHO the number and placement of slots should be independent from a ship's artwork. It seems very silly that you could get a huge bonus or handicap just because you prefered certain artwork when designing your race. (It would also confuse newbies in terrible ways, and pbw players would be forced to all take the same shipset for a fair game)

That said I really do like the idea of firing arcs and directed damage, but like Munchausen said there should be a standard grid for ships, I know that would probably mess up the current ship design window, since the grid would not fit on the artwork, but the ships for SEV are quite low on polygons and have low res textures anyhow, and these flaws are clearly visible in the shipdesign window. The shipset artwork (though very nicely done) is not designed for showing the ships zoomed in that far.

So my advice would be to change the shipdesign window so it gives a standard grid for each shipsize without the top-down view of the ship. You could replace it with a nice looking texture or some fancy artwork. The ship's artwork could still be displayed somewhere in a corner of the screen at a more apropriate zoom-level, maybe with some nice rotating animation.

(Anyhow thats just my opinion, based on incomplete knowledge and vague assumptions on how the current seV system works, I have not yet voted for this reason)