Instead of camera with arbitrary limitations: Lidar

[Zijkhal]

A lot of ppl would like to have cameras for ship parking and the like, me included. And a lot of ppl would not like armored cube designs, where the bridge of the ships are buried under several layers of of armor with only the cameras providing vision, me included. One solution would be to make cameras have arbitrary limitations like low fps, narrow fov (which would make it useless for parking) and such.

Why not just forget cameras alltogether, and introduce Lidar in its place? It would be much easier to justify limitations for Lidar, and also justified to have a range limitation, as after a while, the resolution of Lidar would be so low that it would not detect a barn from the inside. A 200-300m range Lidar that does not output a detailed image, but more like a crude shape using several dots / generic low detail night-vision-like image would be useful for docking and CCTV, but would be unusable for ship control in combat or otherwise due to the extremely low range and resolution.

 

[mop82]

Seems like you could do the same thing with a grid of range finders, depending on their max range.

 

[Zijkhal]

Seems like you could do the same thing with a grid of range finders, depending on their max range.

Kinda yes, but not at all. To replicate this functionality with rangefinders, you'd need a huge structure, Loads of yolol, and get a crappy low fps image. And it would eat a metric shit ton of computational power, as that rangefinder array would essentially be a raytraced image.

A dedicated Lidar, however, could be faked with a camera with special textures + effects, saving a ton of computational power. Also, it is much easier to justify limitations for Lidar than a camera.

 

[Unlucky]

I understand your concern but I don't see buried cockpits + cameras being a huge issue. Assuming the cameras are fragile; as soon as they lose cameras covering one angle of their ship they're effectively blind without TPP.

There may be other build limitations that we may not be aware of too. We don't know mass/weight, armor values, and the effect these values have on ship integrity, etc. These factors may make building armored cubes an impossibility on their own.

 

[Zijkhal]

I kind of agree, but cameras can easily be made redundant, and could be hidden under several layers or glass on top of the extreme redundancy (dozens of seperate cameras per direction kind of extreme), so cameras definitely are a concern, and even the devs dont seem to be sure what to do with the topic.

Thats why I suggested an alternative, to get parking cameras without the concerns above.

 

[Unlucky]

That's a fair assessment. Never underestimate a player's ability to cheese the system.

But I still believe it is counterproductive to limit our creative ability based on speculation (and possibly poor experiences from other titles). I would recommend giving the players a fully fledged camera and then introducing limitations throughout the testing process as needed.

For example, to counter redundancy increase the power consumption of cameras so it isn't viable to have 10 of them strapped to the rear of your ship albeit 60 of them covering every angle. Decrease the armor value of glass, which has already been stated by the devs to be extremely fragile, to counter layering. Or just eliminate the possibility of armor stacking all together by increasing the strain on the frame of the ship from multiple layers.

My main point is that I don't want to see features gutted before they even reach testing, when there are so many 'what ifs' and workarounds that can be implemented instead.

 

[CalenLoki]

It's always easier to wait with features and see if players actually needs them.

Implementing, then removing not only require more work, but also provokes a lot of crying amongst community.

BTW any of your suggested ways of making cameras weaker hits external cockpits a lot more.

Armour stacking is unavoidable. If you can't bolt plate to plate, you just sandwich them with beams.
Glass needed for cam/cockpit protection is proportional to FoV. So biggest advantage of cockpits get highly taxed.

Power consumption apply only to cameras that are turned on.


I'm for cameras, just limited in a way that makes them useless in combat.
1hz 128p being my current favourite. Allows drones/security/rear view while being useless for firing or long range scouting.

 

[Unlucky]

There has already been an established need for external cameras and expressed murmurings by the devs. Whether or not it's that important to you or the next guy is subjective.

Again, unless you have insider info you'd like to share on frame/bolt integrity and durability or building mechanics, it's too early to state to what extent armor stacking is possible, if it will even work in the first place.

For my proposed fix of increased power consumption, you brought up a valid point. My counter proposal would be to add a 20 sec boot timer upon connection to a power source, or something along those lines.

Or perhaps a new weapon. Since the devs are moving along with missile tech, how about an EMP? That seems like one of the better black and white solutions.

I don't see how a 1hz 128p camera that's supposedly useless for viewing your surroundings in combat could possibly be useful for a drone intended to view its surroundings not in combat. Not only that but if the devs are building this beautiful world, who wants to spend their time looking through a 128p camera?

 

[Quinc]

I would rather just have the camera. Most people would prefer cameras where you can see things clearly. Seeing things as a series of dots, or ultra-low resolution would be annoying. People who want cameras wouldn't necessarily be content with a camera-ish "lidar". Note LIDAR exist in the real world and doesn't have range limitations.
It seems like the source of this camera controversy is actually the fear that super heavy armor will be overpowered. I think if you fear super heavy armor then you need something that attacks that directly. Trying to limit cameras because of armor seems silly. Already the game has structural integrity concerns, armor piercing projectiles and torpedos. Something you may be forgetting is different ships cost different amounts and not every fight will be one on one. While initially the armor cube has no weak spots, once the enemy focus fires a particular spot, that spot will become a weak spot. Hypothetically any weapon could break any armor with enough concentrated fire. The ship that requires heavy armor needs more structure, more engines, and more fuel, and obvious more metal to create in the first place. The armored cubes will be out numbered and out gunned. So armor definitely helps, but does it justify the extra cost?

 

[CalenLoki]

It's not about armour durability, it should be strong. And visibility is not the only concern.

Cockpit is also clearly visible from outside access port for boarding parties or place where they can hijack ship controls. Not only eyes of the ship, but also brain, mouth and ears.

Emp weapon that disables all cameras seems like decent solution to rule them out of combat.

Making armour paper would make large ships even more useless in combat.

 

[Quinc]

Cockpit is also clearly visible from outside access port for boarding parties or place where they can hijack ship controls. Not only eyes of the ship, but also brain, mouth and ears.

It sounds like you want to be able to "head-shot" a space ship, which I find utterly bizarre and inappropriate. I know head shots and big glowing weak-spots have been in computer games since the begining but I feel opposed to including them into Starbase. Even without a designated weak-spot each piece of the ship has a specific function, and so any damage should have a noticeable effect. I don't think there should be a specific area that is clearly more vital than the others, let alone one that is also clearly visible to attackers. Starbase should distinguish itself from other games by making it clear that the brain, mouth, eyes, and ears can all be destroyed separately, and there is no singular method to destroy the enemy, and no clear dichotomy between a fully-functional ship and a fully destroyed ship.