[gameplay] balance of energy & O² as gates (updated)

Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
edited September 2017 in Ideas and Suggestions
update : (the idea evolved and I admit the original topic was giving a wrong idea, sorry for that, as a new forum member I got used to it being stuck)


KEY IDEAS:
- Seamoth/Prawn store lot of O²
- Cyclops produce O² if the engine is turned on.
- Air-tank recharge O² from SubsO² reserve.
- (late game) Air tank capacity increase by 30%.
- O² can be resupplied from surface or seabase.


WHY ?
0) FUN
This is not meant to make the game harder or needlessly complex. It is meant to give a better gameplay and overall feeling of exploration.
It does limit dive time (away from surface or seabase), but this was calculated with hours of diving, scalable with upgrade.

1) Easier balance:
Currently it is difficult to balance submarine gameplay using Energy alone, nerfing energy only make it more frustrating to change powercell and losing all energy give you no solution for survival. As a result range is basically infinite and using power-hungry feature is discouraged.
With separate Oxygen, the devs (or modder) could use more energy without penalizing players.

2) More use of some game mechanic
- It lessen the repetitive Back&Forth to infinite subs, by having higher capacity-tank
- Building deeper seabase is now rewarded, yet not obligatory.
- You can refloat an O²depleted submarine using floater, if in a cave, rescue it with Cyclops. Cyclops can be repaired.
- Cyclop get infinite O² if you don't fear making noise.
- Damage can cause leak and O² reserve, allowing to make the submarine sturdier and still keep a balance.
- I expect more use of safety-line if the air-tank had more range

3) New choices and options to escape death:
- out of energy: you get more time to think, get rid of the problem manually before you pull out the spare energy, or plan an escape route.
- out of oxygen: you still have energy to make a dead run to surface or a nearby seabase.

GAMEPLAY CHANGE:
Subnautica_Gating_with_energy_air_suggestion_2.jpg


TARGETED BALANCE
Subnautica_Gating_with_energy_air_suggestion.jpg



(Optional)
- damage make subs leak O², fire eat O².
- compatible with developers' plans for O² from plants, or Cyclops dock.
- seabase module to produce O² / early seabase to get air from pipe
- If seabase have an unique room to produce O², then Bulkhead can be use to make it the safe room in case of emergency


NOTE: the topic was created a while ago, many post below are now outdated
Post edited by Sam_Starfall on
gamer1000kSnailsAttack0x6A7232Lulzes
«1

Comments

  • EvilSmooEvilSmoo Join Date: 2008-02-16 Member: 63662Members Posts: 657 Advanced user
    Energy+H2O=O2+H2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

    We have a submarine. We have power. We have an ocean of water. With technology, we have O2 from said water. Vent the H2, and use the O2 to recharge the sub, and scrub out some CO2.
  • gamer1000kgamer1000k Join Date: 2017-04-29 Member: 230121Members Posts: 313 Advanced user
    Great ideas, I think I mentioned a similar thing in a post awhile back about subs having giant O2 tanks instead of infinite O2, but I didn't anywhere near as much effort into planning out the progression as you did. Keep up the good work!

    I second the dinghy suggestion. It fits perfectly into the basic survival equipment category and would allow for early game mobility around the safe shallows without requiring the Seaglide to be unlocked so early.

    As far as the Cyclops and infinite O2 goes, it's a large enough sub that it would realistically be able to mount an oxygen generator, but it could still have large air tanks that can be refilled at the surface so the generator only has to be turned on long enough to fill the tanks. Maybe a small O2 generator for the Seamoth/Prawn could be unlocked later and require materials in the Lost River or Lava Zone for players who want more autonomy for these vehicles in the endgame, especially when exploring the ALZ with a Prawn.

    I like the idea of repurposing the air pipes to bring air from the surface into shallow bases and then having the O2 generator base module unlocked later. This would allow O2 generation to be realistically power intensive (O2 + H2 is very energetic rocket fuel, reversing the reaction with electrolysis takes a lot of energy) without making the early/mid game overly punishing on power. Bases would also probably need an O2 tank module for when the power goes out.
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    edited June 2017
    EvilSmoo wrote: »
    Energy+H2O=O2+H2.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis

    We have a submarine. We have power. We have an ocean of water. With technology, we have O2 from said water. Vent the H2, and use the O2 to recharge the sub, and scrub out some CO2.

    You forget the process is extremely hungry in electricity.
    The only submarine who can afford it today are nuclear submarines with plenty of power to spare.
    Here we are talking of Submarines that run on battery. Also, if we followed that logic, then players should be equipped with the same tech and carry powercell, not air-tank.

    The point is precisely to Improve the balance by changing this.
    - IT DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME HARDER (no really, it balance out with advantage)
    - IT DOESN'T MAKE THE GAME LONGER (or at least only in the fun way)
    if we can increase Air-tank we can get more done, you will have a reason to care about how far you are from seabase/cyclop/surface.


    Something similar was planned originally (up to april 2016)
    https://trello.com/c/U7i9ffNs/22-turn-off-o2-in-bases-when-power-is-off
    The way I figure it, it was a placeholder/failsafe and now new solutions are available since a lot have changed. Nothing new is needed (except a overhead UI for the local O² storage).
    - Energy have now every piece to be reworked.

    - Players late-game diving-tank can be increased since it won't be refilled near-indefinitely in submarines.
    The "light tank" could be made for "fast & minimal loiting time" as it's meant to be
    The "HC tank" could be made for "long loiting time but more consuming" as it's meant to be
    Stacking Air-tank can even be made unnecessary if the "time outside subs" isn't the only parameters for survival (it would add "total time away from a seabase/surface).

    - If energy & O² are separate we can afford to run out of energy and rebalance the energy production to make it more fun.
    The dev can rebalance EMP (to start fire only?) and Lava Larva energy drain
    The dev could make the most of Cyclop features without blackout killing you
    (switching the Cyclop into silent-mode could switch to on-board oxygen)
    - Seabase could have O² storage specific to the number of room not damaged (making the bulkhead useful isolating safe-room).

    The idea stand even if the cyclops keep infinite O² and no new module are introduced
    - But we can now have fire aboard the Cyclops (or anywhere) consume oxygen, so you can make fire rare and still have a source of danger (rather than an annoyance).

    The problem of balancing is to find the "sweet spot" but here they start from "POWER = INFINITE O²", so the sweet spot is being half-eaten by Energy nerf and spread thin by freeO².
    Adding a long duration right now (10minutes per Seamoth) wouldn't kill the game at all, and yet would shape how you play in a (nice) way.
    This is only my opinion as an ARMCHAIR DEVELOPER and I won't spam-bump the topic, but I will believe in it so long as I don't see a reason it can't work.

    I believe the idea can even be tested right now at no cost as a GAME MODE
    - Estimate the average mission duration of a long Seamoth mission : Make it the O² stored -20%, Air-tank refill from it.
    - As an exchange, Light & High-capacity tank gain +50% capacity.
    - Make Pressure Compensator increase O² storage
    - Cyclops turned OFF use storage as well


    To conclude I would like to point out:
    https://trello.com/c/NYiN5x9A/72-expand-pipes-to-bases-o2-power-loot (my suggestion give more use for this)
    https://trello.com/c/7lNaPgNm/59-plants-generate-o2 (my suggestion give more use for this)
    https://trello.com/c/Hg1gT7QR/193-cyclops-dock (my suggestion give more use for this)
    I'm led to believe it was always an eventuality, the dev are just running out of time.

    gamer1000k wrote: »
    Great ideas, I think I mentioned a similar thing in a post awhile back about subs having giant O2 tanks instead of infinite O2, but I didn't anywhere near as much effort into planning out the progression as you did. Keep up the good work!

    Thank you, at this point the only thing I can do is hope the Developers agree (and more support from other people, assuming I carried my point well enough)

    The reason I think the Cyclop "must" keep infinite O² until it can dock is because if it can't use a station as a refilling station it won't have the LARGE margin of O² storage that would be best for this most dangerous part.
    But so long as the Seamoth/Prawn have limited O² => so they can increase Air-tank significantly => so staging seabase/making the cyclop serve as gate.

    Then I think we will have enough to see the improvement
    (and players will have a reason to use seabase as staging station rather than have infinite O²)



    ps: don't worry I'm running out of material for my WALL OF TEXT.
    Post edited by Sam_Starfall on
  • EstebanLB01EstebanLB01 Join Date: 2017-05-09 Member: 230377Members Posts: 56 Advanced user
    You are forgetting that the game is set in the future when space travel is possible, so the process might be done with better technology
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    I didn't, electrolysis energy cost is high by physics. But I do recognize that calling to nuclear subs was stupid as Subnautica Energy is definitely ruled by gameplay.

    With starship, gravity manipulator, energy shield, Santa Claus machine, hand held powercell power storing between kilowatt to megawatt, the game shouldn't have any air-tank and just use portable oxygen generator with Powercell for basically infinite dive. The players would be using foldable propeller smaller than shoes and not fins, and all submarines would be capable of supercavitation.
    (and somehow you can recharge those with small solar panel or thermal generator)

    So no this topic isn't a call for realism, but gameplay.
  • EvilSmooEvilSmoo Join Date: 2008-02-16 Member: 63662Members Posts: 657 Advanced user
    https://phys.org/news/2016-03-efficiency-electrolysis.html

    SN has a handheld device capable of constructing an entire room in seconds, and a rifle capable of slowing leviathans. It's less of a stretch to imagine efficient electrolysis.
    0x6A7232
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    Did you read my last post?
    SN as handheld device capable of replacing AIR-TANK.

    If you wanted less of a stretch you'd have to fo go full magitech and get rid of the air-tank for powercell-powered O².
    In fact it would even be less of a stretch to get rid of energy scarcity, a civilization with such molecular/femto-tech Omnifactory would easily create micro fusion-reactor (the ingredient for fusion aren't hard to get, we just don't know how, such civ would know how)
    If you wanted more realism the Cyclops would also have its own bigger, dedicated battery, not a few powercell.

    So WHAT is less of a stretch again?
    - That it is possible, but in practice too costly in energy that you are better storing air?
    - Or that Subnautica is a game which mimic "not so futuristic" diving but use Fictional magitech gravity & ridiculously efficient battery as a lampshade to simplify the gameplay?

    For information, we are around 60% of the PHYSICAL maximum for Electrolysis efficiency, you can't change physics. The only room for improvement is in wasting less energy with sub-process.
    And for that: If you look at current submarine, like this electric-diesel one, batteries take a lot of place already, the diesel is to recharge while at surface to avoid crippling the propulsion when you can rather store O², the reverse work as well (not crippling life-support for beefier engine)
    It apply so long as your power-source isn't too beefy to be just powercell.

    The topic is about improving the gameplay really, and I assure you that I really want to avoid provoking the same "go back to resupply every 30s" that bother so many player with the Air-tank, I'm even talking of boosting those.

    Damn, this post got way too long again
  • DragoWhoovesDragoWhooves UK Join Date: 2017-05-30 Member: 230836Members Posts: 90 Advanced user
    I didn't, electrolysis energy cost is high by physics. But I do recognize that calling to nuclear subs was stupid as Subnautica Energy is definitely ruled by gameplay.

    With starship, gravity manipulator, energy shield, Santa Claus machine, hand held powercell power storing between kilowatt to megawatt, the game shouldn't have any air-tank and just use portable oxygen generator with Powercell for basically infinite dive. The players would be using foldable propeller smaller than shoes and not fins, and all submarines would be capable of supercavitation.
    (and somehow you can recharge those with small solar panel or thermal generator)

    So no this topic isn't a call for realism, but gameplay.

    maybe add a self-generating 'tank' in late game you could also make it so the charging swim-fins charge up your oxy-gen battery as well as held tool
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    That bit was supposed to be sarcasm.
    The point of the topic is to go AGAINST having infinite air (in vehicle) so you can have more in Air-tank. (and balance energy/air more easily thanks to that)

    Even absolutely very final late game, having powercell=infinite air (just like in the Seamoth) kind of defeat the point of managing air.
  • Timelord_FredTimelord_Fred Join Date: 2017-07-05 Member: 231596Members Posts: 264 Advanced user
    edited July 2017
    Removing infinite air from subs would be a major and unessesacry pain. It would make exploration to areas like the Lost River or ILZ extremely hard. The subs are supposed to act as ways for you to travel to deep areas without having to constantly resurface. This is a game, the subs have infinite air for game plays sake. It isn't supposed to be realistic.
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    edited July 2017
    Thank you for NOT reading a lot and objecting against a caricaturally bad implementation of it.
    Without you I wouldn't have reason to repeat that this is to improve Subnautica as a GAME.

    Also, It seem you don't know about it but there's a feature in game called "building your own Seabase" where you usually resupply Energy, the idea is to resupply Air as well (so devs don't need to nerf Energy to balance everything) it was part of the reasons Cyclops would initially keep infinite O².

    AS VIDEO GAME DESIGN go this would be win in every sense of the word
    - Removing subs infinite O² ---> Giving air tank more capacity
    Why? "because it's not fun to have to resurfacego back to the subs every 60 seconds" as you say.
    - You get to manage O² over longer duration.
    - You remove the frustration of the ultra-limited Air tank (that we know push player to have 10 bottle in their inventory)
    - You get a reason to build Seabase that serve something
    - You get a reason to resurface (even every hour) reminding you just how deep you were
    - It would allow situation where you have to put Floater on a submarine to bring it back to surface-
    - Devs get more ways to balance the game other than cutting your energy (so you can have a lot more energy to use while still being at risk)
    - More game mechanics can use this: Silent running could cut O² production
    - Fire on-board the Cyclops could be based on this.
    - ...etc

    Uploading (modified) picture (look like I'll have to change free host):
    (only change is that Cyclops get infinite O² unless it's in silent running mode, meaning you can refill air but you might get attacked)
    Subnautica%20Gating%20with%20energy-air%20suggestion_zpstj5ewov6.jpg
    Post edited by Sam_Starfall on
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    edited July 2017
    Here is an update of the suggestion with new pictures, to make the idea clearer and answer some feedback.

    NEW PICTURE:
    Subnautica_Gating_with_energy_air_suggestion_2.jpg


    ORIGINAL PICTURE

    I'll just profit to remind that it require absolutely no new parts to work, only "some code" (ok, add some UI, and work time of course). I'm hopeful it can be tested in a basic form with Cyclops still having infinite Air when powered. And for it to make everything easier to balance.

    Also, I've yet to imagine or be told a situation using this balance that cannot be solved by HAVING FUN.

    ex: If you were to be in the Lost River or Inactive Lava Zone:
    For a powered cyclops, yo only need an active engine
    For a Seamoth a seabase with moonpool & power source at range (and now you have a reason to make more than one)
    For a dead cyclops with no energy/air: to repair it, start the engine, having the seamoth reserve linked as backup will give margin and time to reach surface
    Anytime you have no roof above you, you can use floater to bring a dead subs to the surface.
    If the game detect you died of oxygen while inside a seabase/subs, just respawn you with more oxygen.


    Always open to criticism, but I'll kindly ask for it to be warranted, I've given such leeway in the NEW PICT that some players wouldn't notice it, and it open new possibility that can make is EASIER than the current balance.

    Thank you for reading and any support.
  • DaveyNYDaveyNY Schenectady, NY Join Date: 2016-08-30 Member: 221903Members Posts: 1,333 Advanced user
    It seems like an interesting idea, but why over think it when what we already have works just fine.
    B)
    Timelord_Fredjamintheinfinite_1
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    DaveyNY wrote: »
    It seems like an interesting idea, but why over think it when what we already have works just fine.
    B)

    Following that logic, why add anything to the game? It worked fine before the cyclops could be destroyed, it worked fine before battery charger, it worked fine before a lot of things. Really we should have stayed to the concept art before the first alpha, it was so nice, no letdown.

    Joke aside I'm only trying to suggest better as everyone here do.
    I'm not overthinking it, the basic idea have been explained in 5 lines and can be tested in a basic form in a failsafe way.
    The rest is just things anybody would suggest if it was like that and me trying to explain WHY IT IS EASIER and MORE FUN, trying to prevent people to come up with the worst interpretation possible after reading 5 lines.

    It probably doesn't help that the game was built around ULTRA LOW CAPACITY air-tank,
    Try to shift the burden from the air-tank to the Submarine and some will immediately answer that you are trying to make submarine into 5 minutes of waterboarding torture.
    Just know that I also have arguments if someone said it would make Air-tank last too long, that Air-tank capacity should never ever increase, that the gameplay with infinite O² in Subs and ridiculously limited Air-tank is the best balance that will ever exist. That there should never be reason to build more than one moonpool, or that energy should be the only way to nerf the players range...

    We can't be too prepared.

    For information:
    I used a figure of 5 hours of playtime with only 3 refill for 1h35mn each dive (be it seamoth or cyclops) you would have to force yourself to spend that long away from any base or surface.
    This is to show there's a lot of room for balance, go ahead and time yourself during your next game.

    I don't care being told my idea is actually bad if it's for good reasons.
    Am I overthinking it? it's a legitimate concern and next time I may try to explain in a shorter way, why it can be both simple and better/easier.

    I may be totally biased but the only criticisms I can make against are:
    - It ask TIME from the dev to code and test while the game is near release (at this point I'm only hoping to be part of the expansion)
    - the fanbase may overeact about it just because it change their routine. If it happened before release, you have bad advertising
    - it would make me right, can you imagine the horror? Developers would have to preemptively ban me to avoid a spam of dingy boat suggestion.
  • Timelord_FredTimelord_Fred Join Date: 2017-07-05 Member: 231596Members Posts: 264 Advanced user
    You would have to build a moon pool in the Lost River or the lava zone in order to do anything down their. Moon pools are too expensive, the Lava zones are too dangerous, and the LR has too crappy of power options for this to be viable. There is no reason to force the player to build multiple bases. The time it would take to reprogram all this would also outweigh the problems with the current system. All this one needs is a little balancing, and it will work fine
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    Fred you are getting insulting, It's like you deliberately ignore what I write to badmouth it.
    I put answer for EVERYTHING you said. Several times.

    The plan I showed here would give more than enough O² for anybody who isn't a wuss or an hypocrite.
    The plan I showed have the Cyclops still capable of producing O² but storing it. It'd work perfectly with the current On/Off feature.
    The stored O² have a very large surplus, for the purpose of having a gameplay where this supply can be endangered by damage, fire and leaks.

    There is many reasons to make multiple-base useful to players and you know it. Please do show anything in my suggestion, even using a 30mn per dive figure that would prevent a player from still doing it with a Cyclops, Reminding you again and again that the Cyclops still have it's O² production, only halved.
    This suggestion don't force you to do much, it would even give more choice than you currently have.

    You can have moonpool in the Lost River or the ILZ, and their cost can be reduced by the developers in less time than it took you to write this post.
    I never build 2nd bases in survival. They have never been worth the material to me. That said, I may end up building one in the ghost tree place soon. The Lava zone is actually a really great place for a base with its potential for thermal power as long as you are careful.
    You also asked for an "advanced thermal generator", well I find your idea useless and redundant, yet mine is giving yours a reason to exist.

    But the truth is that just by making NUCLEAR POWER more useful you'll have the a power source to make a seabase anywhere late game.

    So excuse me if I consider your "time it take to reprogram" to be lacking. I'm sure currents will be easy to add in comparison >:)


    ps: It seem I can now edit the original post of the topic, I'll have to update it later.
    0x6A7232
  • Timelord_FredTimelord_Fred Join Date: 2017-07-05 Member: 231596Members Posts: 264 Advanced user
    You can have moonpool in the Lost River or the ILZ, and their cost can be reduced by the developers

    The moon pool price is the way it should be. It is supposed to be an expensive yet powerful piece of tech. Reducing it's price would be stupid
  • Timelord_FredTimelord_Fred Join Date: 2017-07-05 Member: 231596Members Posts: 264 Advanced user
    edited July 2017
    I simply don't like the idea of the seamoth being a giant air tank.
    Sam_Starfall
  • gamer1000kgamer1000k Join Date: 2017-04-29 Member: 230121Members Posts: 313 Advanced user
    I like this idea, and it would work even if the only aspect of the game that was changed is that the Seamoth/Prawn now have finite air supplies.

    The only place in the world that you're not a few seconds away from the surface in a Seamoth is down in the Lost River and ILZ/ALZ, but by that point you're almost guaranteed to have a Cyclops (which could have oxygen generation) or at the very least the means to build a moonpool and a base in the area.

    I can see this being more of an issue with the Prawn since the only place it can surface is on the mountain island, but it's late enough game tech that the moonpool or Cyclops should be available around the same time. It could be given larger tanks to compensate for the air recharging difficulty. Both vehicles could potentially have a late game oxygen generator module as well.

    Maybe the player could also recharge vehicle air tanks with extra air tanks in their inventory.
    Sam_Starfall
  • leenpowellleenpowell Join Date: 2017-07-19 Member: 231926Members Posts: 26 Advanced user
    I like almost any idea that allows players to have a more challenging experience while exploring this game. Maybe this could be an options in a potential "custom game" menu where players can choose how hard their experience is; a simple checkbox for "Infinite O2 in Vehicles".
    Timelord_Fred
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    I should be happy that my suggestion can be TESTED as a game-mode. But if you have read the Topic's first message, this isn't a question of difficulty. We are losing a lot of potential in amazing features, game-mechanic and immersion simply because it is impossible to create those around a single resources like energy, easily swapped.


    So making a game-mode with "infinite O² activated", you might as well call it "Less-fun game mode with less features, more frustrating diving, less seabase...etc" :*
  • leenpowellleenpowell Join Date: 2017-07-19 Member: 231926Members Posts: 26 Advanced user
    I like the idea. All I'm saying is that giving people different options for their experience would be better than forcing a single way to play on everyone. I agree with you that having to manage a little bit more for the payoff as you propose would be great but not everyone agrees. Tons of people love the game the way it plays now, admittedly I love it. But I would also love to be able to have options for the experience.

    The devs have game modes that range from basic survival to being a God, I don't see why they can't just have list of different options for players to tailor their own experience, similar to what Ark does for their game. Then everyone can be happy, no?
    Timelord_Fred
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    Sure, I'm just saying that to reflect properly the change, this suggestion would replace (normal) "Survival/Story mode" while the previous (current) balance might has well be renamed "hardcore with less features" mode. :p
  • BeigeAlertBeigeAlert Texas Join Date: 2013-08-08 Member: 186657Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Pistachionauts Posts: 2,829 admin
    Why would you want to nerf oxygen in vehicles anyways? It's hard enough for me to explore Subnautica b/c I'm such a coward...
  • LulzesLulzes Join Date: 2017-07-25 Member: 232050Members Posts: 121 Advanced user
    I like this idea, I agree a) we need more incentive to build deeper and b) having power as the only balancing factor is limiting.
    Sam_Starfall
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 198 Advanced user
    BeigeAlert wrote: »
    Why would you want to nerf oxygen in vehicles anyways? It's hard enough for me to explore Subnautica b/c I'm such a coward...

    I want to assure you that the goal is bound to make it EASIER to explore (as I aim for more fun, not pointless challenge).
    Really.
    This is no more of a nerf than any other act of game balance is.

    - You could have HOURS of oxygen in a Seamoth and the gameplay improvement would still happen. (after all, I'm only trying to lessen INFINITY)
    - You would get more O² in Air Tank (which would stay balanced if you couldn't fill them for more than said hours of vehicle-stored Air)
    - You would get more Energy to defend yourself (since you get another way to balance early-game range)
    - The only vehicle which cannot make a fun dash to the surface (or a base) in 3 minutes top is the one which can generate O² or carry a run-away vehicle : the cyclops, all other building keep infinite O² (until someone else see how immersive managing air and fixing leak can be and request for unpowered base to be survivable longer than on one player-tank).
    - You won't be a "coward" anymore for building another base, you will be applauded as a "well prepared adventurer".

    Think of it like a second health bar that stay up even if the first one (energy) failed and add a different intuitive, non intrusive, gameplay.

    My deeper answer to "why":
    Is that IMHO, Subnautica is missing a lot of gameplay potential because of a simple "but safe" energy-only balance. It's like hearing a single string guitar.

    You can ask me for more explanation on any little details about my post or picts, I am not a game developers like you, but I'm inflated enough to claim there's no holes in my suggestion (and it's not just full of air either).

    The best with it is that it require no new parts. An UI at worst, and can be tested as a more complete "survival mode" (didn't say harder o:) ).
    With this added on, a lot of other mechanic can be made less tedious.
    gamer1000k
  • gamer1000kgamer1000k Join Date: 2017-04-29 Member: 230121Members Posts: 313 Advanced user
    edited August 2017
    To add to what @Sam_Starfall said above, the vehicles actually do have limited O2 right now. It's their battery. As soon as the battery runs out, O2 production stops. Because energy and O2 are one and the same right now, using vehicle abilities effectively drains O2. If you forgot to turn the Seamoth's lights off (or the game turned them back on for you when you loaded a save) and the battery died while you were away, no O2 for you. Same goes for Lava Leeches sucking your vehicles dry and the lights on the Prawn that can't be turned off.
    Sam_Starfall
  • LulzesLulzes Join Date: 2017-07-25 Member: 232050Members Posts: 121 Advanced user
    gamer1000k wrote: »
    To add to what @Sam_Starfall said above, the vehicles actually do have limited O2 right now. It's their battery. As soon as the battery runs out, O2 production stops. Because energy and O2 are one and the same right now, using vehicle abilities effectively drains O2. If you forgot to turn the Seamoth's lights off (or the game turned them back on for you when you loaded a save) and the battery died while you were away, no O2 for you. Same goes for Lava Leeches sucking your vehicles dry and the lights on the Prawn that can't be turned off.

    I'd say adding O2 supply to the equation would balance this out nicely. Subs run out of power far too quickly (until Ion stuff, which is OP and should be scaled back) and removing O2 generation as a power drain would make their range about right. When you get thermal recharge for Prawn and Cyclops, you probably also have Ion cells, and Lava Leeches aren't an issue, therefore unlimited O2. Making O2 separate would add some needed challenge.
    gamer1000kSam_Starfall
  • Timelord_FredTimelord_Fred Join Date: 2017-07-05 Member: 231596Members Posts: 264 Advanced user
    edited August 2017
    BeigeAlert wrote: »
    Why would you want to nerf oxygen in vehicles anyways? It's hard enough for me to explore Subnautica b/c I'm such a coward...

    TZ69M2
  • PowerPistonsPowerPistons Neverland Join Date: 2017-08-07 Member: 232266Members Posts: 26 Advanced user
    I think that this is an AWESOME idea, partially because I'm the person that purposely crashes the cyclops to have a challenge. And I like having tons of different things to manage.
    Why do people look at you funny when you start borking along with other dogs?
Sign In or Register to comment.