View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0001336 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - New Unit Ideas - Starships | Nov 13, 2010 8:37 pm | Nov 15, 2010 8:59 am | |
| Reporter | Antialias | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Severity | feature | ||||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Summary | 0001336: LOTS- Nexus Spireship | ||||
| Description | A controller-type spireship, somewhat similar to the hive golem. The ship itself is fragile and unarmed, but it can manufacture remote drones when in supply. The remotes are uncontrollable directly; instead the player interacts with the controller starship to set the remotes' behaviour. Although individually weak, the remotes can coalesce into a variety of different configurations, for example: - Lines of three that fire Zenith Beam Frigate-ish shots. - V-shapes of 7 that fire penetrating beams like the beam cannon turret. - The remotes form the perimeter of a strong forcefield centered on the controller, its size depending on the number of remotes. - The remotes disperse over a wide area and provide anti-missile cover (perhaps by taking some damage themselves) - The remotes bunch onto the core as a last line of defence. The remotes would stay in formation around their controller at all times, and would become inactive (or berzerk) if their controller was destroyed. Different levels of controller would have access to different configuration settings, to strongly incentivise the player to acquire the higher level ships. The number of remotes per ship would have to be capped in some way... perhaps this could be tied to the new asteroid-based resource system, to the number of kills of the controller, or to a more conventional ship cap. Changing the controller's configuration should take a little time and leave the core vulnerable; the intention of the ship is to be able to provide a counter to a single known threat, so it shouldn't be able to switch between roles too easily. Conversely if it would force the player to slow down their advance too much it would be vexatious to use, so it shouldn't take too long to switch. Perhaps 60ish seconds of inactivity, during which the ship is a high priority target for the AI and takes significantly increased damage. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
I love that name... Nexus... anyway, perhaps the remotes would turn into a neutral "faction", acting hostile on all they encounter, as they are confused by their lack of a controller or something. as for the anti missile, perhaps they could fire the same anti-missile projectile that is used by the turret. |
|
|
Actually, I think having the remotes go hostile would be pretty annoying, and not really add that much flavour... I've never really used the anti-missile turret, but I guess that's what I was going for. Mobile anti-missile cover is pretty rare. I was thinking this might be a bit difficult to implement, so perhaps it could be modified to be deployable- you deploy it in enemy territory with a particular setting, and it creates a number of units around itself proportional to the number of stored remotes (which would be an internal number, you'd never have to actually code their behaviour). The number and function of these units would be dependant on the configuration set, as before. The units would be controllable directly, but wouldn't be able to go through a wormhole on their own- you would have to load them back into the controller. Deploying and undeploying would be fast, but changing modes would still cause vulnerability. |
|
|
Too complex for the short term, but definitely interesting! |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 13, 2010 8:37 pm | Antialias | New Issue | |
| Nov 13, 2010 9:19 pm | Giegue | Note Added: 0003415 | |
| Nov 14, 2010 6:48 am | Antialias | Note Added: 0003430 | |
| Nov 15, 2010 8:59 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0003519 | |
| Nov 15, 2010 8:59 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Nov 15, 2010 8:59 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => considering |
