Yes, same as now.


I think it was decided not to include shields so it will be more in line with generic (non-Dome type) defenses, which give bonus to satellite's structure proportional to their structure/armor, but not their shields.
We may revise the collision damage formula for fleets, since it has other problems.


That's the plan for the bright distant future. (Maybe not so distant, but not now either.)


If giant insectoids that teleport between planets doesn't sound “unrealistic” enough for you, why having them move around a planet fast enough to ram into a fleet does?
Many gameplay elements are just gameplay elements. They don't need to be “physically possible” or “explained by lore” — those things may be nice to have but aren't a primary goal.

Fleets in those missions aren't becoming orbital objects yet, so nothing changes for them for now.

The thing is, “medium” and “high” orbits don't really exist. As I see it, they were only needed to “explain” why fleets in local coordinates (LC) don't collide with satellites, even though they are visible in the same 3D space around the planet.
Fleets on “high orbit” were already a part of LC space, the missing part was interaction between them and satellites. Since this part will be added with the upcoming patch, there would be no need for “orbits” — all objects on given galaxy coordinates would exist and interact in the same LC space.


Right now, free-standing fleets (placed to defend “high orbit”/LC), wouldn't attack fleets on satellites automatically. To attack them, you would still need to send an 'Attack' mission from LC directly to satellite. Ships on such a mission will drop out of LC-space until they return from attack. That's not a very consistent behavior, we'll fix that by making attacking fleets present in LC in a future update (or, maybe, even during the testing of this one).

Хоть бы кто-то из вестников Апокалипсиса расчёты привёл… А не просто вопил, что флот для тарана бесплатный, а для спутника тяжким трудом был построен.


Cтанция может в локальных координатах маневрировать и уходить от столкновений.

You can do that in Complaints section, no one would care unless it's really violent. But here, in game mechanics discussion, I'm going to enforce the rules.


If someone wants to drown the game in money and buys a moon, resources for station/dunk and a lot of ships to break someone's satellite — that's not an exploit. Colonizing a Pirate station may be cheaper, but if someone wanted to use it to attack someone's satellite, why would they devise such a convoluted scheme that includes passing the station to a new account?

I'm not saying that costs of new methods are perfectly calculated and all your points are non-issue. We'll most likely revise fleet's 'collision strength' and/or satellite structure bonuses during testing. I just don't see «using freebie ships to break moons» as a realistic exploit scenario.


Not an arcade, fleets are going to be mostly autonomous as they are now. More like blending the “combat space” with “galaxy space” (local coords).


If I were to make a decision, I would limit the amount of effective fleets a player could send off on missions, and make all PvP-like zones (asteroids, stations etc.) controllable only with flying fleets. So anyone could have as many ships as they like, but any meaningful interaction would be limited, to promote better competition and skill in choosing right fleet for each task (instead of top players' dominating with unkillable “steamrollers”).
Administration doesn't like that idea though. They are going for a “Russian way”.



Can't answer this question, because I don't want to enforce this. I don't care about combat being a wall of text (as CS3 was), 2D pew-pew with optional wall of text (as CS4 is now), or a 3D pew-pew (as CS5 is going to be).
I'm also not a player myself, so I don't have any investment in the current state of the game. I'll do my best to make sure the gameplay is “coherent”, but I have no incentive to keep it from being different. And pretty limited decision powers anyway.


A crusade of administration against top players is in full swing, and your account is developed enough to feel that. I'm sorry for all the suffering, but can't help much.


If we wanted a shooter, we could make one from CS4 (current combat system) already. But the manual control is pretty limited now, and it will stay limited. Administration doesn't want players “to win battles by spamming mouseclicks”.
As I see it, this is more about epic pictures, than a radically different gameplay.


I do. We have no obligation to keep any posts, especially those that violate the rules.


It is a nice question.
We are using Babylon.js library, which seems like a better 3D-engine for browsers than any homebrew we could pull off. So if that one is too stressed by our unit amounts, there's no way we could upgrade it to allow smooth operation.
I agree, there could be more humane ways to get out of this situation than forcing players to get rid of their own ships. When earlier combat systems struggled with the same problem, I employed some methods to reduce the load in place (reservation in CS3, clusterization in CS4) without messing with general gameplay. But for the CS5 I'm not going to be a sole/main developer, and I'm mostly picking up what happened during my three year absence for now, so I have little power to decide how to fit the game and new demands together.
As for accumulating funds and announcing Xcraft2 in a single big update instead of butchering a live game — I don't know the financial side of the project to comment on that.

Было

Гидралиски точно не будут. Они не летающие
Викинги, скорее всего, будут, они по умолчанию как раз летают.

Удачи, лол.

Гидралиски уже «защищают» структуру спутника. Викинги не при делах

Походу, это надо было наоборот пожирнее выделить…

Правила разрешения/запрета столкновений для нубов/столиц/Инквизиции и т.п. не меняются.

Enough “spy sats” to destroy a moon will cost millions of resources as well. And it may be many more millions, than Dunkleosteus costs.


First, you can't just order your fleet to ram into something. You need a moving satellite, which new accounts don't have.
Second, even if you take a moving satellite on a main account and place those free ships from account farm on it, you'll still need thousands of them even for a small moon.
Third, an account farm doing this have a very slim chance to go unnoticed. ~200 damage per day from one account using freebie ships will require either many days or many accounts. The former isn't practical, and the latter will have tremendous interaction footprint. Which is also would be visible outside of the farm, by a moon's owner at least.


If you have other questions you can ask them tomorrow, preferably without insults.

Флоту пока что легко увернуться: подняться с координат/спутника и никакого суицида©
Про оповещения о спутнике в опасной близости (как при атаках) вопрос уже был

Нет. Броню никто трогать не будет. Просто расчёт урона при столновении может измениться на «базовую броню» или «фактическую броню делить на X»

Каким образом это «отразится», если столкновений с нагами сейчас пока вообще нет?

Если оно такое тощее — то да.
Но если вы так хотите абьюзить пороговую схему «не меньше половины брони», то у меня ещё куча времени, чтобы заменить её на вероятностную. Что-нибудь вроде «если урон меньше брони юнита, то он взрывается с шансом (урон)/(броня), при условии, что шанс не меньше 0.01». Думаю, администрация против не будет.

См. выше.
Кроме того, не факт, что мы оставим прочность флота как есть.

Возможно, в будущем появится что-то типа «радиуса поражения гравитационной волной», чтобы задевало всё, стоящее рядом, но не прямо сейчас.

Ich verstehe die Frage vielleicht falsch, aber ich denke, das sollte nicht der Fall sein. Flotten mit der Mission "Angriff" werden noch nicht zu Orbitalobjekten, daher können sie mit nichts kollidieren

That's a bit off-topic, but this change wasn't secret, it can be found in Balance Forum log on April 20th


As for the main topic, this change is a step toward next generation of combat system, which will have fleets as physical objects fighting on local coordinates. There's a lot of animosity from players directed at that goal, but it's not stopping the administration from pursuing it by any means. Even the recent Production butchering was partly motivated by that (the stated goal there was reducing unit counts, which at the current rate can easily overwhelm the 3D-engine).

(I understand that players are still bitter about all the nerfs coming seemingly at random, but I suggest having a constructive dialog about the developed feature. We got quite a lot of good questions from ru-forum already, so we'll post an update with more info after we process that feedback.)

Я же попросил

Die Kollision tritt auf, wenn Objekte in lokalen Koordinaten zu nahe beieinander liegen, wie dies jetzt bei Satelliten der Fall ist



Wenn Ihre Flotte zu einem mit einem Satelliten verbundenen Orbitalobjekt wird, kann sie nicht mit diesem Satelliten kollidieren.

(Entschuldigung für Google Translate, ich wollte eine schnelle Antwort geben. Wir werden Informationen aus anderen Diskussionen sammeln und ein geeignetes Update bereitstellen, das die häufigsten Fragen später beantwortet.)

Базовая броня считается по структурным ресурсам. Добавки к «структуре» НТ от зданий/обороны тоже считаются от их структуры (хотя там не учитываются бонусы, но это немного другой вопрос, Dmitrijj_Ivanov его уже поднимал)


Допустим. В ЛК не хватает места, чтобы их расположить? По-моему, внутри сферы радиусом 50к должно быть достаточно места, даже с учётом сопровождающих флотов и максимально толстой планеты


И что с этим не так? У кого-то есть две неподвижные луны, стоящие впритирку, одну из которых надо срочно оборонять, и есть риск, что флоты неудачно встанут в оборону и заденут другую луну? Это не звучит как реалистичный сценарий (хотя, если тут луны, как оказалось, при создании могут друг с другом сталкиваться, то я лучше проверю)

Восстановление планируется не делать. Обломки тоже могут быть снижены, до 10%