Blair Fraser Blair Fraser

Space Mines and More

Space Mines and More

As Brad and Brian mentioned, Ironclad and Stardock have a fair bit of new stuff coming for Sins in the way of updates, patches and so forth. 

One area of concern is the memory and CPU eaten up by Space Mines. I'd like to hear some suggestions on how we can keep mines in the game without consuming so many resources (and if we can make them more fun that'd be great too). Keep in mind that they need to be racially distinct.

If you have any ideas, let me know in this thread and we'll see what can be done. 

-Blair

181,090 views 109 replies
Reply #51 Top

Disclaimer: I will not present a perfectly balanced idea, so don't nit pick on the details, this is all about concept.

In general: Mines would become an area of effect damage over time that has a chance to do substantial damage instead of a constant rate of damage.

Mine fields should be a very risky thing to navigate.  To save processing power, Minefields would be an area of spherical space instead of individually drawn mines. Some colorful dots at a distance would be seen for minefields that aren't cloaked enough to know that they are there, but when you zoom in very close there wouldn't be anything. Mine fields are "too small to see" when compared to the size of planets. 

Once a mine field is built, it can be replenished in various ways that won't need another infusion of resources, or at least a smaller cost of resources.  The terran minefield would be replenished via a new structure.  The advent and vasari mine laying vessels would have a "replenish" option that would cost less or nothing at all that could be set to autocast.  The vasari minelayer would use antimatter for this ability and have a long cooldown, the advent would cost production time and antimatter at the drone hosts for the minelaying ships, and then would cost the ships themselves as normal.

Mine fields that have a % chance to kill/damage a ship that remains inside of them for X amount of time.  In essence a minefield would be a "zone of death and chance" that could be navigated successfully if you are lucky, or you could lose a large part of your fleet if you are very unlucky.  This danger would deter most players and would provide an effective defense.  Naturally each race would have different overall chance of killing ships in their minefield.  the Terrans would have the most likely chance to kill an enemy fleet, followed by the Vasari and the Advent.

A minefields Hit points would be the amount of mines that it has.  A scout would fire once and kill a mine.  Mines would attack ships inside of them at X amount of mines per second depending upon the total amount of mines avaliable. Every mine lost reduces the chance an enemy/friend will be hurt by the minefield, until at last the minefield has expired when the last mine is used. Every mine in the mine field would be a % chance of hurting an enemy ship, and the amount of damage done would be a % chance as well. 

ALSO, an important addition, an enemy wouldn't know how many mines you actually have in the minefield, so even a minefield with one mine in it could deter an enemy moving through it.  The only way to find the number of mines a minefield has would be to send a scout next to it and start attacking it.

For example:

Say a mine field has 100/100 mines in it.  Ship A comes in and starts getting hurt at 100% mines per second.  Ship A gets destroyed quickly, taking say 5 mines (or chances) with it.  So now the mine field is at 90%.  Ship B comes in and starts getting hurt by the minefield at 90% of the maximum mines per second.  Ship B ends up taking 10 mines with it.  Ship C enters, and takes a mine attack from the minefield and takes it at 80%...so on and so forth. 

The numbers can be tweaked to optimise memory use and it could be simplified that a minefield would go down at a rate similar to the logistics slots of the ships destroyed in it.

So a minefield at full strength would be dangerous, a minefield that has had a fleet pass through it and detonated half its mines would be half as effective.

Mine fields are a two way street for the vasari and terrans, they hurt your own ships as well as the enemy.  Advent have mines that can better home in and recognize friend from foe, with the lowest payload and area of effect of the three species.

For convenience trade ships wouldn't be affected at all by minefields, I would foresee it causing too many problems, mainly you would stab yourself in the back.

But if the developers want to make a new kind of economic warfare, be my guest! :)

 

Offensive use of mines by Advent and Vasari:

Both races would have their minelayers/fighters create a zone of death that is smaller than the terran's huge planetary defensive minefield. If a terran starbase gets an offensive minefield, it would be larger than the vasari minefield(more on this later).

For Vasari:

The vasari ruiners should be slower and turn slower. The Vasari minefield would be medium in size and cost relatively similar to what it already costs and do similar damage.  Vasari minefields would also harm their own ships inside of them, this includes the upgraded gravity mines.  Vasari mines should take the most care to properly use as the vasari subverter/mine layer combo is very strong.  When using an antorak marauder's speed increase the vasari mine layer speeds should be what they are now, and any gravity minefields would be negated by the ability so the vasari fleet could escape.

For Advent:

Advent mine fields would be the smallest in size and overall fleet damage, would home in on enemy ships at a greater range and wouldn't damage their own fleets.  The Advent homing minefield act normally and are the only mines that don't damage friendly units while in the area.  Scouts would counter this mine field and be the only ship that isn't targeted by them.  The smaller size of the mine field would make it more difficult to push an enemy fleet into it with guardians.

For TEC:

TEC could build a mine field structure that would be visible(depending upon how balanced it would be) yet the mines themselves would be invisible.  The mine laying structure would have a designated area around the structure (similar to the radius of a repair bay, or whatever is balanced) that would cloak all mines. The structure could be destroyed safely with strike craft and scouts would also be a counter for this type of minefield.  This would alert players that the planet indeed does have mines, but it wouldn't let them know the EXACT location of these minefields for safe navigation.  Terran space would be tricky to navigate.  Scouts wouldn't be able to detect the mines UNTIL the mine laying station is destroyed.  There would be one minefield allowed per structure, or whatever number of mine fields makes the most sense!

The advantages of these Ideas:

Less CPU needed to draw the mines

Ways to decrease costs once a minefield is built, and a way to replenish minefields easily.

Easier balancing, mine damage is now chance based and ranges from a one hit kill to no damage per second.  As long as these chances are substantial enough, the mine fields will be a significant deterrent worth the value of the research put into them.

Disadvantages:

lets see what someone in these forums comes up with :).

 

Some other minefield ideas aside from the others stated above:

1. I think that the TEC need a reasonable offensive ability in their starbase arsenal.  I would venture that a freshly built TEC starbase have the option to deploy a smaller, balanced minefield in an enemy gravity well to assist the TEC fleet.  The vasari starbase gets movement, the advent starbase gets fighters, and the terran starbase needs an advantage as well. It should get a smaller than normal minefield that does less damage than a normal TEC minefield, but that does do more damage than a vasari or advent minefield.  A TEC player could place this minefield anywhere inside the gravity well, or within a certain range of the starbase, whichever is balanced.

2. Give one of the sucky advent capital ships a mine laying ability just for kicks (just antimatter cost, no credits) perhaps it might make one of them useful.   Or the developers could give halcyon's/advent starbases the ability to make mine squadrons as well.

3. Give TEC and Advent a mine upgrade specialized to their race similar to what the vasari have. An advent minefield could be upgraded to reduce the antimatter of all ships inside of it by a balanced amount.  TEC should have Fleet stunning mines  as an upgrade.  The "stun" will affect each ship once upon entering the minefield and would completely stop the ship reducing its speed to zero.  This would mean that ships caught in the minefield would stay in it longer and would take more damage from it making it an even nastier surprise.

Reply #52 Top

A lot of people have a lot of different ideas on how to enhance/balance/add variety etc. on a lot of different issues...with that in mind, I'd like to add my two cents by suggesting some fixes for things that simply don't work (as in semi-bugged)...

First, Incendiary Shells...ability simply does not work, the DPS keeps cancelling itself out or something, not real sure...anyway, changing onReapplyDuplicateType to PrioritizeOldBuffs (instead of New Buffs) seems to do the trick...would be nice to see a secondary (like armor reduction) but that is a matter of opinion...at least change the ability so that it works, should be a real easy change to implement in whatever patches you have...

Second, Martyrdom...the problem with this ability actually is the stacking limit...for whatever reason, a stacking limit causes issues when multiple seekers attack a target with martyrdom...you'll find that in the current version of sins, if 10 seekers (or 100, or whatever number) attack at the exact same time, only one seeker's worth of damage is actually done to the target...remove the stacking limit and the autocast requirement of having half of hull gone, and this ability works great....select the seekers, and then click on the target (with the ability on autocast) to do a massive kamikaze rush...

Third, Resurrection...it would be nice if the AI actually used this ability intelligently...actually, in general, changing the AI use time conditions and target conditions for ultimate abilities may be something worth considering too...I've made some changes to those that seem to get the AI to actually use their ultimate abilities that they didn't use to use...

Fourth, Debris Vortex...it is impossible to actually get the 2nd level of this Vasari SB ability...you can pay for the upgrade, but it will still use the stats of level 1 (and still display level 1)...the issue is with the AbilityDebrisVaccuum.entity file...it is in that file where the max number of levels is set at 1 (yet it should be at 2)...should be a real simple fix, probably just a typo someone did...

Anyway, I'd say these things for the most part fall into the "obvious" category of changes to make...I'm going to assume the reason why they haven't been changed already is that the devs simply were not aware of these issues...

Reply #53 Top

First, Incendiary Shells...ability simply does not work, the DPS keeps cancelling itself out or something, not real sure...

This is a bug that also affects some other abilities, including the ability of the Vasari turret.  The behavior is supposed to be that the new buff replaces the old buff (this makes sense).  But the problem is that the old buff is removed when the volley is fired, but the new buff is only applied once it hits.  Because the volley can take about a second to hit the target, this is a significant amount of time where the buff is effectively removed.

Instead of changing the "PrioritizeOldBuffs" (that's fine for a mod, not for a patch), the way this works should be fixed to remove this timing "blind spot" and cause the old buff to be removed at the same time the new buff is applied.

Reply #54 Top

Second, Martyrdom...the problem with this ability actually is the stacking limit...for whatever reason, a stacking limit causes issues when multiple seekers attack a target with martyrdom...you'll find that in the current version of sins, if 10 seekers (or 100, or whatever number) attack at the exact same time, only one seeker's worth of damage is actually done to the target...remove the stacking limit and the autocast requirement of having half of hull gone, and this ability works great....select the seekers, and then click on the target (with the ability on autocast) to do a massive kamikaze rush...

Hark! do i hear a counter to a sova rush for advent?

Reply #55 Top

Hark! do i hear a counter to a sova rush for advent?

It's a four-lab level upgrade, totally non-viable as counter to rushing.  You'd be better off putting up one extra lab and going for fast destras.  Three labs is pretty well the limit of what can be considered "viable" as an opener, and for most practical approaches you're stuck with two.

Reply #56 Top

I do like the idea of making mines less of "specific objects" and more of "zone of space" (which should be cylinders, not spheres, to prevent z axis abuse. )  you could even make mines something like a planetary improvment... have the entire grav well mined... in a sort of "try going around THIS!" sort of way. (which is the biggest problem with mine fields... they are soooo easy to go around. 

(could replace tec mines as method of deployment... instead of using slow and stupid con frigs which should be doing something else than building mines when I am like "oh shizz... planet about to get attacked... ya... lets build MINE FIELDS... no... how about I want my con frigs building repair bays and maybe a frig factory.... " 

 Currently with tec mines... if you are building mine fields.... either the enemy is so far away that you must be a tactical genious to know they are comming... or they are already on top of you and you dont have time.  Heck.... most likely.... it would be more prudent to place that money for the mine field into more trade ports... you will prolly have gotten your money back from the trade ports in the time it would have taken to build the mine field.

I also like the invisible mine field idea (and it will make modding for cloaked ships soooo much easier) (oh, vasari scout phase out ability = weaksause)

At a min... like the optomization mod... the mine models (and strike craft models) are CRAZY COMPLEX and can be seriously simplified without almost any loss of apperance (like anyone cares anyway... they could be tetrahedrons (simplier than a cube as far as computers care) with blinking lights and no one would notice )

My biggest concern is the whole subverter freeze fleet... deploy mines under frozen fleet... PARTY issue. (and the similar advent repulse version)  This is partly because mines dont scale well... send in a single heavy and congrats... not much happens... but if an entire sqaud of LRMS in perfect formation jump in to the grav well at the wrong spot... well... 'poof'.  If a mine could damage a single ship only... then you could balance the mines to do significantly more damage... say... that squad of 20 lrms jumps into a minefield of 10 mines... 10 lrms die, 10 are unharmed. (thats what shields are for)

The reducing the number of mines and increasing the damage worked well in some mods as well.

 

Reply #57 Top

I'll be honest, I haven't read through most of the posts.  Here is my idea, create sectors (8 pie slices) of the grav well.  Each sector can be mined, but the actual mines don't exist, it's an AOE.  Each race has an ability, TEC would be damage/second, Advent would be AM/second (or shields or w/e), and Vasari would be reduced speed (or reduce armor by chance).  Scouts would serve to eliminate the AOE.

Reply #58 Top

I'll be honest, I haven't read through most of the posts. Here is my idea, create sectors (8 pie slices) of the grav well. Each sector can be mined, but the actual mines don't exist, it's an AOE. Each race has an ability, TEC would be damage/second, Advent would be AM/second (or shields or w/e), and Vasari would be reduced speed (or reduce armor by chance). Scouts would serve to eliminate the AOE.

Not Bad.

Reply #60 Top
What if instead of grav wells getting mined, races would be able to mine phase lanes? There by creating a impassable choke point (that's the point isn't it) Lanes that are mined would be off limits until cleared, maybe highlight red lanes so individual mines do not have to be created they are just there. Clearing a lane would cost money as opposed to hunting w a ship. The plus would be no need mine models, and impassable until cost, tech research is done.
Reply #61 Top
Basically what you want to do with mines is prevent movement, so maybe a more restrictive phase lane offensive/defensive measures in a tech or physical way as a game design. Don't focus so much on mines as the only way to prevent/hamper movement. Just a thought...........
Reply #62 Top

Maybe make it so the only a few ships instead of the whole fleet show up. That way the enemy fleet comes at you in dribbles making them easier to destroy.

An interesting concept, makes it almost like a warp point offensive where only one ship can come through at a time.

Reply #63 Top

Mining phase lanes would make gravity mines quite useful, I'd think.

 

:fox:

Reply #64 Top

Would be nice to make them useful for slowing down large fleets that split up and raid big empires.Cause theres really noway to catch them.Unless you have a sb on everyplanet.Pji get 1 shot by bombers so they kinda fail without large support.

Reply #65 Top

I'm not necessarily convinced about mining phase lanes. I'm not also not necessarily convinced about 'bottle-necking' phase lanes while in transit either.

 

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the AI as well as all the relevant calculations that need to be made by your computer. While mining and bottle-necking phase lanes might fall under the KISS ideal, it brings up other issues. For example, will this affect only enemy, or friendly? If it also affects friendly, what about trade ships etc that you have no control over? If it costs money to destroy, would it also then cost money to create? If we are entering into an economic war over mines, there are likely going to be better solutions within current game play mechanics such as offering missions to the pirates etc. Fleets being completely destroyed in a phase-lane does not seem FUN for one and seems rather frustrating for another. Once you send your ships off towards a planet in one big fleet (say for instance you don't know it's mined yet) you just lost your entire maxed out fleet capacity fleet. Boom. That will create a lot of rage quits and will also significantly hamper the AI even further than it already is. 

 

Please note that fleet make-up is not the only hinging factor for mines. There are people that stomp around with large big fleets. I also know quite a few players, the majority from the Single-Player as well as LAN communities that counter one big massive fleet with three or four smaller fleets of their own, scouting, hit and run, destroying economy supply lines and ultimately forcing the aggressor to either split their fleet up to defend their expanding frontier or dump money into defenses instead of economy, research, and fleet. This however is a discussion for a different thread.

Reply #66 Top

One thing that needs to be taken into consideration is the AI as well as all the relevant calculations that need to be made by your computer. While mining and bottle-necking phase lanes might fall under the KISS ideal, it brings up other issues. For example, will this affect only enemy, or friendly? If it also affects friendly, what about trade ships etc that you have no control over? If it costs money to destroy, would it also then cost money to create? If we are entering into an economic war over mines, there are likely going to be better solutions within current game play mechanics such as offering missions to the pirates etc. Fleets being completely destroyed in a phase-lane does not seem FUN for one and seems rather frustrating for another. Once you send your ships off towards a planet in one big fleet (say for instance you don't know it's mined yet) you just lost your entire maxed out fleet capacity fleet. Boom. That will create a lot of rage quits and will also significantly hamper the AI even further than it already is.
Activates on enemies only like current as they would be pointless otherwise, does not activate on civilian ships as that'd be almost an exploit, why would it cost money to destroy?, why would it completely kill a fleet rather than do just damage as they're pretty much unavoidable now?, and if a player won't scout for such a thing, they won't scout for the big SB+fleet trap they're flying into.

 

:fox:

Reply #67 Top

Here is another consideration I'd like to add to possible improvements...teaching the AI how to scuttle...

Because the AI never scuttles things (or at least not that I've seen or heard of), when they lose planets, they fail to adjust their logistic structures accordingly (like build a factory or culture or whatever after you've lost a frontline planet)...

Because the AI is so quick to fill up tactical slots, they never build superweapons (because they don't scuttle to free up the slots)...likewise, Advent carriers with homing mines will always carry those mines...

It has come to the point where destroying carriers with mines or destroying structures actually helps the AI because they will rebuild something that is more appropriate to the situation...

I doubt this will be in v1.12, but it is something I hope will be considered for (possible) future updates as it would be a nice improvement to SP, comp stomps, or MP games with dropped players...

Reply #68 Top

AI improvement would be nice. Or at least give us modders access to the codings.

Reply #69 Top

Hmmm... just an idea:

What if a mine that contacts enemy units before it arms explodes uselessly?  This would mean deploying mines right next to enemy units would have no effect, and you'd need to be sure they had time to arm before the enemy got there.  That would go a long ways to making them mines rather than hand grenades without completely killing the in-combat application Vasari has going (just making it appropriately more difficult to pull off)

Reply #70 Top

Essentially there is a delay from when the mine is built to when it actually becomes an active and viable weapons platform? I like that idea very much.

Reply #71 Top

There currently is a delay from when the mine is built to when it becomes active... and durring that time it can even be attacked and destroyed,... The issue, for vasari any way, is that they can shut down the entire enemy fleet for a seemingly endless period of time, so it doesnt matter how long that delay is. 

Reply #72 Top
Maybe if orbital structures had more defensive options. Or planetary defenders slighty larger than existing SC, lethal as hell, but can't leave the wells just like SC. But please, please make them auto dock.
Reply #73 Top

The issue, for vasari any way, is that they can shut down the entire enemy fleet for a seemingly endless period of time, so it doesnt matter how long that delay is.

Right, which is why I said merely touching the mine during this period would be enough to destroy it.  Hence deploying a mine right next to an enemy unit would cause the mine to self-destruct and deal no damage.

Reply #74 Top

Touching? or in range? cause... touching another hit box is actually very unlikely.

Reply #75 Top

I meant in range.  Didn't stop to consider my word choice there.