Poll: Camera

[CalenLoki]

Another hot topic recently: cameras. should we have them or not?

Common arguments for:
-reverse/docking view
-easier turret control
-drones (if they can send view through transmiter)

Common arguments against:
-remove need for cockpits/turret control bubbles
-armour cube designs

Possible limitations, to allows cams for non-combat only (second vote option):
- low frequency, 1-5hz (fps)
- greyscale only
- long warm-up, 1-5s (prevents switching them too fast)
- blurry or low res, 144-240p
- feeds to ship screen only (can't see small details)
- feeds to full-screen only (can't see multiple screens)
- prevent use of buttons while viewing
- very narrow fov, 20-30 degree
- all controls locked while using the camera (by Five)

 

[STEALTH]

I'm going to have to give a hard "NO" to cameras just like I don't care for TPP with the Endos!

 

[BadWolf]

I also say "NO", I think they do not fit the style/feel of the game as it is now

 

[The Tea Master]

I said yes but i'm rethinking that vote as i do think they have a place but i agree that they don't fit in very well with the games style and feel as of right now.

Also we may not have cameras but i a huge fan of having scanners and sensors that can send data though transmitters, because i feel that they wouldn't replace anything but only mainly enhance.

 

[TheSunsPariah]

If the camera ran at a rate similar to standard Yolol chips (1 frame per second), I wouldn't be opposed to it. A 1 fps camera would allow you to armor up cockpits and close off windows, but not work for any sort of effective aiming device.

 

[Azelous]

Look, if someone wants to build and live out of a brick, who am I to deny them a sad existence? So long as cams are easier to destroy than a cockpit, said play style shouldn’t get out of hand.

 

[dusty]

Look, if someone wants to build and live out of a brick, who am I to deny them a sad existence? So long as cams are easier to destroy than a cockpit, said play style shouldn’t get out of hand.

Keep in mind, there aren't any pre-defined cockpits like in SE. You can control a ship from more or less anywhere with the universal tool, or just have several control areas for redundancy.

 

[Azelous]

Keep in mind, there aren't any pre-defined cockpits like in SE. You can control a ship from more or less anywhere with the universal tool, or just have several control areas for redundancy.

Fairly certain that while you may be able to slightly turn a ship via the universal tool likely you'd have to adjust each axis of rotation or vector of thrust individually, which is not by any means a competitive method of flying a ship.

As far as having "..several control areas for redundancy.", if your alternate control area(s) are buried deep within the hull of the ship with only cameras for vision, if the camera(s) get destroyed you are effectively useless no matter how many control areas you have.

 

[Captain-General Kitten]

I would like there to be camera's cuz it will add realism.especially for docking procedures. looking if your engine is safe to enter. and more

 

[dusty]

As far as having "..several control areas for redundancy.", if your alternate control area(s) are buried deep within the hull of the ship with only cameras for vision, if the camera(s) get destroyed you are effectively useless no matter how many control areas you have.

Sounds like a good reason to have and protect multiple glass viewports and/or control stations placed around the hull.

 

[Unlucky]

Yes. It expands on our creative possibilities, especially in the drone department.

 

[Atsuい]

No objections, provided there won't be a significant performance hit in a typical situation. My RL car has a rear-view camera for parking, the best innovation since sliced bread! Now imagine how many blindsides a medium-sized space ship has, then having to maneuver it in 1st person through narrow station corridors .

 

[Lionard Freezer]

I think Cams would be a great addition but also a great risk.
Noone likes fighting aginst a brick so i would say that we should have cameras ig but that weapons could break them throught the shock of a nearby protectile hitting the hull (kinda like a really bad cam that breaks really easy).
since Cams would be great as a flying assistance i really want them but dont really know if the pros or the cons are greater...
Edit: and i would say that the pictures the cam makes (video of 1fps is basicly a picture that get updated) cant be transported using a transiver becourse that would take too much transfeering space to transfeer.

 

[Unlucky]

I've said it in another thread and I'll say it here; we shouldn't be limiting ourselves based on speculation.
We don't have any details about the functionality of cameras. Or if it's even possible to create a flying armored brick with the construction system. Is armor stacking even a thing? How does their 'structural integrity' system play into that?

I don't know why a lot of people are on board to either gut or completely forgo what could be an awesome feature because they're afraid of something that hasn't happened. Let's not forget this game will be released into early access. There will be plenty of time for FB to put in a normal, ungutted camera and allow players to test. And if it doesn't work or if it's exploited, change or remove it.

 

[Azelous]

So! I am primarily making this thread in part as a suggested solution to the problem raised by this thread, however I am willing to bet it has other applications.

My idea is that a flak cannon be added as mounted weaponry. A flak cannon is a weapon that fires shells that explode nearby their target to inflict shrapnel damage to the target. Historically, flak cannons have been used against flying targets which are harder to hit, however are fragile due to being made of light components and as such are still susceptible to this type of weaponry. In Starbase this weapon type would be most effective at two jobs:

• Firing on small fighters
• Taking out sensitive equipment

In terms of shooting small fighters, adding this weapon would be historically accurate and help ensure those with lesser aim are still able to stay relevant in terms of applying damage to small nimble craft capable of evading most firepower through quick maneuvering and a slender silhouette. Even if the damage is minimal, near-guaranteed damage is better than missing and dealing no damage.

Now, in more direct response to the thread I linked, I would heavily presume that this sort of weaponry would highly counter players who build heavily fortified ships with the cockpit in the center and use cameras to maneuver and fire upon enemies. Cameras ought to be a more delicate component, and as such would be very vulnerable to repeated aoe attacks. This would also apply to any other components on the exterior of a ship, be it guns, communication, or ship sensing equipment. This gun type would not be used to destroy a ship, but to render it unable to fire and/or immobile.

In terms of design of use, I would imagine the gun using a timed delay or proximity delay able to be adjusted using YOLOL. Timed delay would be especially interesting, requiring the user to use YOLOL with a distance measure to calculate and automate the delay or length of the fuse on fired shells.

Made a thread suggesting a weapon type that would directly counter cameras.

 

[Lionard Freezer]

^Really nice thought!

 

[Verbatos]

Cameras would be insanely useful in large ships, since the whole crew can't be everywhere at once. If someone boards your ship or a segment breaks, cameras would allow a player to pinpoint the disturbance and go there, without spending any time searching for that one single wire break in a maze of a ship.

 

[Quinc]

Adding options is better than not for this game. It would be silly to think that every avatar has a working example of camera technology inside their head but can't figure out how to replicate it. Using cameras for visibility should be an option. Cameras would be hard to hit but relatively delicate, and should each require a small amount of expensive materials ("Xhalium"). Thus certain weapons could blind the enemy that relies on cameras. Some people worry about cameras leading to large armored cubes but ideally the game should deal with that issue by adding even more options, such as rail guns that can penetrate armor, or torpedos allowing small ships to carry heavy ordnance. Fortunately the game already has rail guns and torpedoes, as long as they continue to be effective against super heavy armor, super heavy armor will not be OP.

 

[dusty]

Fortunately the game already has rail guns and torpedoes, as long as they continue to be effective against super heavy armor, super heavy armor will not be OP.

Endoskeletons do have cameras on their unit, but similarly, they also have an infinite supply of fuel for their jetpacks (not to mention battery life). If we can handwave that away for the sake of balance, I don't think it's unfair to go the other way with it as well. Additionally, as far as I'm aware we've not actually seen any heavy armor, as the ships in the videos have been made of some lighter stuff (bastium, I think?). It's not implausible that there's an armor that can stop a rail gun round in its tracks, or another that is particularly resistant to explosives.

As to balancing cameras with weapons or countermeasures that disable them: well, then you're just implementing a meta. If cameras are widespread (as they would be, for the clear advantage they yield), then you'd be foolish to not equip your ship with them and their corresponding countermeasures, and each battle would play out relatively similarly as each ship attempts to blind the other before going to town. This isn't necessarily that different from requiring a physical line of sight, ie glass cockpits, but while both a cockpit and a camera present similar benefits, the cockpit is less of a simple target. Large ships like the Centurio present a notable target with their command bridge, but when protected appropriately that size also obfuscates the individual role that every unit on the bridge plays, and targeting (say) the navigator out of a half dozen stations is going to be no easy feat for a fighter that is evading return fire - to say nothing of those super neat flip-up armor panels that protect the bridge. On the other hand, though a single camera unit of a given physical size is a harder target to hit, it may be quite simple given appropriate countermeasures, and presents as a clear and definitive target: shoot this thing to blind them. You could, of course, build secondary and tertiary systems as redundancy, but is a ship bristling with cameras really an interesting design?

I'm all for adding options, but cameras detract from the pool of variety more than they add to it.

 

[Unlucky]

As to balancing cameras with weapons or countermeasures that disable them: well, then you're just implementing a meta. If cameras are widespread (as they would be, for the clear advantage they yield), then you'd be foolish to not equip your ship with them and their corresponding countermeasures, and each battle would play out relatively similarly as each ship attempts to blind the other before going to town.

That's actually the idea, but conversely the theory is that the availability of countermeasures will make cameras obsolete for combat roles.

I.e. Who in their right mind would rely entirely on cameras when a single EMP torpedo can render them completely blind? If you want to waste time and resources outfitting your ship to be structurally sound enough to stack armor/bury your cockpit, extra engines to move the additional mass + fuel resources to power them, then the dozens of cameras and infrastructure just to be EMP'd, lose vision and get shredded, then be my guest.

With that being the case wouldn't having a glass cockpit and VFR be more advantageous? With the total reliance on cameras for vision having such extreme flaws, it negates their use in ship to ship combat. And they can be available to those of us who want to use them for drones, large ship maneuvering, etc.