Forums » Suggestions
*clap clap clap clap* Hear hear!
/me likes this idea very much.
Now of course I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but how would this necessarily be any different from what we have right now? The same explanation could be used for why we do have a maximum speed limit in the present model, if the ships went any faster the cosmic dust would inflict massive damage on the hull, so the computer refuses to let you go any faster.
I get the sense from your post that you think players should have the option of going faster than 200 m/s (at cost), but you give no argument as to why this should be allowed in terms of gameplay. The speeds these spacecraft are moving at are about that of a WWII fighter plane, which isn't realistic in the least. If this were meant to be a realistic space sim you would probably never see your opponent, and all exchanges of fire would be managed by an onboard computer. My point is, the devs have puposefully slowed things down to the point where dogfighting is up close and personal, and allowing ships to go any faster than 200 m/s, or "improving" the physics of the game would prevent these kinds of exciting exchanges from happening.
/me likes this idea very much.
Now of course I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but how would this necessarily be any different from what we have right now? The same explanation could be used for why we do have a maximum speed limit in the present model, if the ships went any faster the cosmic dust would inflict massive damage on the hull, so the computer refuses to let you go any faster.
I get the sense from your post that you think players should have the option of going faster than 200 m/s (at cost), but you give no argument as to why this should be allowed in terms of gameplay. The speeds these spacecraft are moving at are about that of a WWII fighter plane, which isn't realistic in the least. If this were meant to be a realistic space sim you would probably never see your opponent, and all exchanges of fire would be managed by an onboard computer. My point is, the devs have puposefully slowed things down to the point where dogfighting is up close and personal, and allowing ships to go any faster than 200 m/s, or "improving" the physics of the game would prevent these kinds of exciting exchanges from happening.
I agree that it doesn't really *sound* that different from the way it is now, and even sounds identical to what Galorin was advocating, but in reality it would create as different a piloting experience as the difference between the two flight models.
Being able to exceed the speed limit for short periods of time (say during/from fights) changes the tactics in the same way the strafing keys do. How many times have you wanted to fly down-left-backwards during a fight to keep your opponent in view (and launch a few rockets at them...). Imagine how not being able to do that would change the tactics. This would give ships the same sort of freedom in fleeing.
Also, it is true that the devs have slowed the speeds of the game down so that dogfights can take place. This shouldn't affect that, since these dogfights don't (shouldn't) allow anyone to reach top speed. If they are, then would be better tweaked by changing the acceleration. Dogfighting is a battle of agility, not raw speed (rammers may disagree).
I also think a change like this would balance out a few things. Currently all the ships have the same top speed (depending on the engine). I said before that this would allow merchants to outrun the more agile fighters. In addition, this would make fleeing have a defensive cost (armor points) as opposed to an offensive cost (energy--which would otherwise be used for the weapons). I like this because it separates the offensive and defensive actions nicely: Enhanced Acceleration (afterburners) are offensive (allow you to circle around your enemy, or cut them off), and drain energy that would otherwise be used in an attack. Enhanced Speed (for running) eats away at your defenses.
I am aware that afterburners are also useful in getting away, but in that case, the energy wasn't going to be used anyway, so the point is moot.
___________
Slightly irrelevant comment in response to Phaserlight's assertion:
"If this were meant to be a realistic space sim you would probably never see your opponent, and all exchanges of fire would be managed by an onboard computer"
What do you call autoaim? Exchanges of fire are already at least partially micromanaged by the computer--with human guidance.
Basically what the devs have done is scale the acceleration and velocity down, without changing the size of ships. If they just remove the limit on velocity, the acceleration would take care of the scaling by itself....
Being able to exceed the speed limit for short periods of time (say during/from fights) changes the tactics in the same way the strafing keys do. How many times have you wanted to fly down-left-backwards during a fight to keep your opponent in view (and launch a few rockets at them...). Imagine how not being able to do that would change the tactics. This would give ships the same sort of freedom in fleeing.
Also, it is true that the devs have slowed the speeds of the game down so that dogfights can take place. This shouldn't affect that, since these dogfights don't (shouldn't) allow anyone to reach top speed. If they are, then would be better tweaked by changing the acceleration. Dogfighting is a battle of agility, not raw speed (rammers may disagree).
I also think a change like this would balance out a few things. Currently all the ships have the same top speed (depending on the engine). I said before that this would allow merchants to outrun the more agile fighters. In addition, this would make fleeing have a defensive cost (armor points) as opposed to an offensive cost (energy--which would otherwise be used for the weapons). I like this because it separates the offensive and defensive actions nicely: Enhanced Acceleration (afterburners) are offensive (allow you to circle around your enemy, or cut them off), and drain energy that would otherwise be used in an attack. Enhanced Speed (for running) eats away at your defenses.
I am aware that afterburners are also useful in getting away, but in that case, the energy wasn't going to be used anyway, so the point is moot.
___________
Slightly irrelevant comment in response to Phaserlight's assertion:
"If this were meant to be a realistic space sim you would probably never see your opponent, and all exchanges of fire would be managed by an onboard computer"
What do you call autoaim? Exchanges of fire are already at least partially micromanaged by the computer--with human guidance.
Basically what the devs have done is scale the acceleration and velocity down, without changing the size of ships. If they just remove the limit on velocity, the acceleration would take care of the scaling by itself....
Why use fighters when you can use anti-rocket lasers? Heheh. Good points Celebrim, as always, but I think a realistic simulation would be as boring as heck. I mean, do you really want to sit there and fly at high speeds w/low accelerations through giant regions of empty space for hours/days/weeks on end?
"I mean, do you really want to sit there and fly at high speeds w/low accelerations through giant regions of empty space for hours/days/weeks on end?"
Not without time dialation of some sort, no I don't. However, allowing the player to alter the experience of time is fine in a single player game, but not very practical in a multiplayer game. In a single player game, if you want to move the dial and make every second of real time, one hour of game time that's fine and has meaning. But exactly what meaning does it have if one player has his dial set to one second of real time is one minute of game time, and the other has his dial set to one second of real time ten minutes traspire in game time?
Not without time dialation of some sort, no I don't. However, allowing the player to alter the experience of time is fine in a single player game, but not very practical in a multiplayer game. In a single player game, if you want to move the dial and make every second of real time, one hour of game time that's fine and has meaning. But exactly what meaning does it have if one player has his dial set to one second of real time is one minute of game time, and the other has his dial set to one second of real time ten minutes traspire in game time?
"I mean, do you really want to sit there and fly at high speeds w/low accelerations through giant regions of empty space for hours/days/weeks on end?"
I don't really see this as becoming an issue. If it does become an issue, we can just change the rate of damage due to excessive speed. If we think people are going too fast, we can change the equation for damage from speed from v^2 to maybe something with a more steep slope, like kv^3 or kv^4. In the extreme we could make the equation like k-ke^(-v/T). This way we can adjust the cost of the speed (k) and the rate the cost of speed increases (T) in order to resolve any difficulties caused by the rate of acceleration.
I think we can make the game realistic without making it boring. By having increased acceleration (like it is now) and limiting the velocity with a suitable soft limit, problems the game being "slow" can be avoided. Also, with in-sector transportation devices (mentioned in another thread) this can be completely avoided.
I don't quite understand Celebrim's first criticism. My best guess at what he meant was that unlimited speed and realistic velocity (inertia -- stay at current speed unless changed) would make this different than dogfights in airplanes, that that this is undesireable because we don't know what it would be like. Firstly, this is not going to be a game like dogfights in airplanes. There is no up, there is no down. There is no wind, or gravity. In airplanes you can use the air to help in maneuvering, and gravity to accelerate you into range of your opponent. This game can never be like that because it is in space. Secondly just because we don't have a path already paved for us is no reason to not blaze a trail...(or something)
Also...wouldn't it be nice if you could turn while afterburning?
I don't really see this as becoming an issue. If it does become an issue, we can just change the rate of damage due to excessive speed. If we think people are going too fast, we can change the equation for damage from speed from v^2 to maybe something with a more steep slope, like kv^3 or kv^4. In the extreme we could make the equation like k-ke^(-v/T). This way we can adjust the cost of the speed (k) and the rate the cost of speed increases (T) in order to resolve any difficulties caused by the rate of acceleration.
I think we can make the game realistic without making it boring. By having increased acceleration (like it is now) and limiting the velocity with a suitable soft limit, problems the game being "slow" can be avoided. Also, with in-sector transportation devices (mentioned in another thread) this can be completely avoided.
I don't quite understand Celebrim's first criticism. My best guess at what he meant was that unlimited speed and realistic velocity (inertia -- stay at current speed unless changed) would make this different than dogfights in airplanes, that that this is undesireable because we don't know what it would be like. Firstly, this is not going to be a game like dogfights in airplanes. There is no up, there is no down. There is no wind, or gravity. In airplanes you can use the air to help in maneuvering, and gravity to accelerate you into range of your opponent. This game can never be like that because it is in space. Secondly just because we don't have a path already paved for us is no reason to not blaze a trail...(or something)
Also...wouldn't it be nice if you could turn while afterburning?
It already is a game like dogfights in airplanes.
It is not a game like dogfights in airplanes!
I (admittedly) probably haven't been playing as long as you, but I can already tell you that the duels are very different from dogfights in airplanes.
Airplanes have to keep moving to avoid falling. Moreover, they have to keep moving *forward*. When I notice people fighting in this game, I see them moving in all directions (usually *not* forward) as they strafe and spin to dodge. I myself usually dodge backwards-down-left (at least when fighting the AI)
I (admittedly) probably haven't been playing as long as you, but I can already tell you that the duels are very different from dogfights in airplanes.
Airplanes have to keep moving to avoid falling. Moreover, they have to keep moving *forward*. When I notice people fighting in this game, I see them moving in all directions (usually *not* forward) as they strafe and spin to dodge. I myself usually dodge backwards-down-left (at least when fighting the AI)
It is not a game like dogfights in airplanes!
I (admittedly) probably haven't been playing as long as you, but I can already tell you that the duels are very different from dogfights in airplanes.
Airplanes have to keep moving to avoid falling. Moreover, they have to keep moving *forward*. When I notice people fighting in this game, I see them moving in all directions (usually *not* forward) as they strafe and spin to dodge. I myself usually dodge backwards-down-left (at least when fighting the AI). This type of fighting would not be possible in an aerial dogfight.
Dogfights also tend to occur with both planes at high speed. This means they either are heading toward eachother, or with one tailing the other. In situations where "Duelist A" is tailing "Duelist B", "Duelist B" is at a disadvantage. In Vendetta, Duelist B would not be at a disadvantage at all, because in space, you can turn in place and bring your weapons to bear on pursuers.
That's not even mentioning the effects of gravity on the dogfight.
Despite these differences, I think I can understand your confusion. When people think of aerial dogfights they think of tightly fought battles requiring quick reactions and skills to avoid being destroyed. Vendetta provides fights like this (that's why I play).
But it is important to remember that dogfights are different. In real aerial dogfights strategic positioning, equipment, terrain, and environmental conditions arguably play a far more important role than skill or quick reactions.
In short, vendetta is not a game like aerial dogfights. If vendetta becomes a game like aerial dogfights, I would probably stop playing (it would be as boring as the situations described by people against realism--change the phrase "empty space" to "open air" in the following sentence: "I mean, do you really want to sit there and fly at high speeds w/low accelerations through giant regions of empty space for hours/days/weeks on end?")
vendetta != a game like dogfights in airplanes
_________________________
Back onto topic:
I like my idea for a more physical approach (with a soft limit on max speed that could be overridden at the expense of taking damage). You could also make the max speed depend on the amount of cosmic dust in the system, making each sector less generic.
Anyway...I'm open for arguments pro/con (or perhaps an attempt by Galorin to take his thread back =)..
I (admittedly) probably haven't been playing as long as you, but I can already tell you that the duels are very different from dogfights in airplanes.
Airplanes have to keep moving to avoid falling. Moreover, they have to keep moving *forward*. When I notice people fighting in this game, I see them moving in all directions (usually *not* forward) as they strafe and spin to dodge. I myself usually dodge backwards-down-left (at least when fighting the AI). This type of fighting would not be possible in an aerial dogfight.
Dogfights also tend to occur with both planes at high speed. This means they either are heading toward eachother, or with one tailing the other. In situations where "Duelist A" is tailing "Duelist B", "Duelist B" is at a disadvantage. In Vendetta, Duelist B would not be at a disadvantage at all, because in space, you can turn in place and bring your weapons to bear on pursuers.
That's not even mentioning the effects of gravity on the dogfight.
Despite these differences, I think I can understand your confusion. When people think of aerial dogfights they think of tightly fought battles requiring quick reactions and skills to avoid being destroyed. Vendetta provides fights like this (that's why I play).
But it is important to remember that dogfights are different. In real aerial dogfights strategic positioning, equipment, terrain, and environmental conditions arguably play a far more important role than skill or quick reactions.
In short, vendetta is not a game like aerial dogfights. If vendetta becomes a game like aerial dogfights, I would probably stop playing (it would be as boring as the situations described by people against realism--change the phrase "empty space" to "open air" in the following sentence: "I mean, do you really want to sit there and fly at high speeds w/low accelerations through giant regions of empty space for hours/days/weeks on end?")
vendetta != a game like dogfights in airplanes
_________________________
Back onto topic:
I like my idea for a more physical approach (with a soft limit on max speed that could be overridden at the expense of taking damage). You could also make the max speed depend on the amount of cosmic dust in the system, making each sector less generic.
Anyway...I'm open for arguments pro/con (or perhaps an attempt by Galorin to take his thread back =)..