Notifications
Clear all

Alpha 9 released

Page 10 / 10

Brianetta
(@brianetta)
Commander Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 863
 
potsmoke66 wrote:
btw, she's a bit unrealistic, or i would like to get a split screen to (at least i guess it would be more annoying then really helpful), i mean i can't fly backwards and fire forwards, what a beast...

Gernot, you can fly backwards and fire forwards if you like. You have the same ship, after all. Just remember, you are not in an aeroplane. You do not have to be pointing in the direction that you are moving.

Having said that, I'll happily admit that I have trouble pointing my ship at anything in particular. Luckily, I have manual control over all six thrusters. That's great for docking, but lousy for fighting.


ReplyQuote
SeanN
(@seann)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 19
 
robn wrote:

This could be made of anything. New equipment/weapons, targetting systems, remote firing drones, who knows what. Something that always bothered me about Frontier (and by extension Pioneer) was how un-futuristic the technology seems given that its set some 1200 years in the future. Maybe this is our change to rectify that a little by dreaming up some really crazy combat technologies that still make sense given the physics model.

I'm not the creative type, so it probably won't come from me. What ideas do you all have?

I think robn has good idea about adding technology to help the player that might want or need it. I always enjoyed FFE and FE2 as exploration sims. When pirates attacked it seemed more a hindrance than fun because it kept me from seeing the planets in the system. A good set of preventive or defensive equipment and a way to escape/avoid a fight would be welcome. Stuff like:

em damper: makes ship more difficult to detect from a distance.

stealth device: makes ship difficult to see visually and in scanners but thruster use increases visibility and possible detection.

thruster suppressors: reduce visual signature even more.

em absorbing hull plating: reduces chance of ranged detection.

enhanced shielding: stronger defence.

hull/system repair droids: smaller and lighter but slower than Hull auto repair unit.

different scanners with varied abilities/range of detection for AI.

And when all else fails: Missile Pods.


ReplyQuote
Pyros
(@pyros)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 172
 
Brianetta wrote:
Pyros wrote:
But in a game, fun should take clear precedence over realism.

We have realism (well, an approximation of it). We either turn it off, and make fighting a fun and rewarding game in itself, or we leave it on, and cope somehow. Seriously: the only way to make the realism/fun trade-off is to either get rid of the current realistic physics, or to temporarily switch off realistic physics for an artificial "fun mode" when the scrapping starts.

I'm happy to neglect fighting. In Frontier, my strategy was always to trade heavily in the safest systems, until I could afford a ship where I didn't need to worry about survival. I'd carry missiles, but I didn't bother buying a laser. I never went looking for a fight, because it was difficult and uninteresting, principally because the Newtonian physics model really gets in the way of close-in ship-to-ship combat.

My 2c

I really doubt that you a "common" user case 🙂

IMHO realistic physics strongly contribute to the feeling of "big wide space and freedom" - something that is missing in many games. Anyway, the typical dogfighting is not a realistic space fighting case - but it is the one that players are more used to and the one that traditionally is seen as "more fun" - with the advantage of having dozens of games (including non space games, like airplanes) which have more or less tested "what works" and "what doesn't".

That said, as the physic model is "set in stone", nothing says one cannot innovate and besides a more or less "not working" classical combat (seriously, it is not a question of being really easy or difficult, but how exasperating the combat becomes with "jousting") to also have a more tactical approach to space combat. MIRV missiles, large space detonators, exotic weapons (gravity weapons, electronics, software warfare, proximity mines, tractor beams, shield weapons, ...). Easier said than done though ;).


ReplyQuote
Brianetta
(@brianetta)
Commander Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 863
 
Pyros wrote:
My 2c

I really doubt that you a "common" user case 🙂

It's irrelevant. Newtonian physics in space, and the fun of "staying on his six," can't coexist. Anything wildly different from the airborne dogfighting style causes inevitable complaints. People are going to have to get used to being a little disappointed, and (as John-who-writes-the-combat-AI put it) learning something new.


ReplyQuote
Pyros
(@pyros)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 172
 
Brianetta wrote:
Pyros wrote:
My 2c

I really doubt that you a "common" user case 🙂

It's irrelevant. Newtonian physics in space, and the fun of "staying on his six," can't coexist. Anything wildly different from the airborne dogfighting style causes inevitable complaints. People are going to have to get used to being a little disappointed, and (as John-who-writes-the-combat-AI put it) learning something new.

Just for clarification, I was referring not the the enjoying of newtonian physics and "realistic" flight model, but to the avoidance of combat to the point of not having a laser 😉


ReplyQuote
Grimm
(@grimm)
Senior Chief Registered
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 71
 
Brianetta wrote:

It's irrelevant. Newtonian physics in space, and the fun of "staying on his six," can't coexist. Anything wildly different from the airborne dogfighting style causes inevitable complaints. People are going to have to get used to being a little disappointed, and (as John-who-writes-the-combat-AI put it) learning something new.

I don't think so. I-War and Jumpgate had both newtonian based combat systems. Sure there where not 100% realistic and accurate but they both took the influence of inertia and physics into account. Personally i had fun with this combat systems. You still can make a adrenalin driven combat system within the newtonian physics but you need a technological background for that and some limitations for the vessels.

In theory you can run away from any attacker you encounter, if you have enough power to fly in a random direction till your enemies sensors can't find you anymore. This could be a possibility for peacefull players to avoid combat, just running away. To make chasing an enemy possible you can invent emp missles or guns to prevent your target from using too much energy for the escape. I-War used this system. Of course this does not solve any AI problems or the issues with the combat system itself but it gives a possibility to avoid most fights for peacefull traders unless they not encounter a well equiped pirate with emp missles.

There are some games with newtonian physic system which have combat. Maybe looking at the source code, values etc..., if available, could help. A few games i can actually think of: I-War, Allegiance, Vegastrike, Jumpgate, Starshatter. And of course the original Final Frontier and FFE and their remakes. The source from Final Frontier isn't a help at all? I'mean basically it uses the same system like Pioneer or am i wrong?


ReplyQuote
Brianetta
(@brianetta)
Commander Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 863
 

I'm going to cherry-pick your post a little, please don't be angry.

Grimm wrote:
I don't think so. I-War and Jumpgate had both newtonian based combat systems. Sure there where not 100% realistic and accurate but they both took the influence of inertia and physics into account.

They were less accurate than Pioneer, and remained less accurate at all times. They were fun, you're quite right, but you need that physics model to do that sort of fighting that way.

Quote:
In theory you can run away from any attacker you encounter, if you have enough power to fly in a random direction till your enemies sensors can't find you anymore.

Tip: You don't have enough power. Why? Because less massive ships with the same engines accelerate more given the same thrust force. In the debug start of Pioneer, there are only two ways to run away. The first is to jettison something first. The enemy has the same ship and equipment as you, but isn't carrying a tonne of fuel, so he can run you down. The second is to hyperspace. He can't follow, without any fuel.

Quote:
The source from Final Frontier isn't a help at all? I'mean basically it uses the same system like Pioneer or am i wrong?

The source from Frontier (there was nothing Final about it) isn't a help at all. It's not GPL software. Also, its fighting system was every bit as rubbish as Pioneer's. Luckily, though, you could aim turrets while paused, which finished fights early.


ReplyQuote
highlander
(@highlander)
Petty Officer Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 24
 

You could, in theory, have a dogfight with someone (involving getting on their six), even if you are hurtling through a solar system at 15,000 km/sec

Your ship's frame of reference would be to its own pre-fight speed - you would then accelerate and move around in free flight (maybe even using the Elite flight control system for "combat mode"?), all the while you and the pirate (who has had to match your speed and direction in order to attack your ship) keep moving towards your autopilot destination.

Damn, I hate it when I feel I'm not explaining myself properly! 😕

OK, try this - you and your opponent are in an imaginary box, which is hurtling towards *your* destination at the speed and direction *you* were going at before the StarDreamer was interrupted by your opponent's arrival. You both start off at the same speed as the box. But in "combat mode", you are both moving around inside that box, dogfighting. Your ships control thrusters work as normal, adjusting your attitude, and affecting your ship's speed relative to that box.

This is entirely compatible with Newtonian flight because the small changes you are making to your ship's pre-fight speed/direction are enough to move around a lot relative to each other, but not enough to make a perceptible difference to your speed/direction overall.

Does this make sense to anyone?


ReplyQuote
Brianetta
(@brianetta)
Commander Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 863
 
highlander wrote:
You could, in theory, have a dogfight with someone (involving getting on their six), even if you are hurtling through a solar system at 15,000 km/sec

Getting on the six of an opponent means staying behind them, relative to their weapons and cockpit, so that they can't see or shoot at you. This tactic isn't possible in a vacuum based Newtonian physics model.

When you get behind an aeroplane, you can stay behind them because when they turn they also change direction. You just need to turn with them. A spacecraft in a vacuum does not move that way. If you get behind it, it can turn to face you, bringing weapons and targeting to bear. You can't get behind it again without flying around it, and it will turn and shoot you as you do that, if you're daft enough to try.

Newtonian space allows ships to strafe each other, and other tricks that just can't happen in an atmosphere. It's like a first person shooter, on ice, in 3D, without any cover. Good luck trying to hammer dogfighting into that, regardless of your frame of reference.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 54 years ago
Posts: 0
 
Brianetta wrote:
It's like a first person shooter, on ice, in 3D, without any cover.

That has to be one of the best descriptions I've read in a while! 😀


ReplyQuote
Subzeroplainzero
(@subzeroplainzero)
Master Chief Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 171
 

I'm glad people are questioning the combat model now. I proposed a new long range tactical approach a while back but it wasn't too well recieved. I just think that dog fighting at extreme speeds would be cool but is ultimately impossible. This could be the big thing that makes this space sim stand out from the croud if it's possibly to implement a long range combat model that is both fun and deep enought to allow players to experiment with all kinds of tactics. It's a tall order though, to be honest I really wouldn't know where to start.


ReplyQuote
Brianetta
(@brianetta)
Commander Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 863
 
Subzeroplainzero wrote:
I'm glad people are questioning the combat model now. I proposed a new long range tactical approach a while back but it wasn't too well recieved. I just think that dog fighting at extreme speeds would be cool but is ultimately impossible. This could be the big thing that makes this space sim stand out from the croud if it's possibly to implement a long range combat model that is both fun and deep enought to allow players to experiment with all kinds of tactics. It's a tall order though, to be honest I really wouldn't know where to start.

Start by thinking about what the player's experience would be like. The interfaces the player would use, and the sort of timescales that would be involved. Then think about what sort of ranges, weapons and countermeasures might have to exist in order to achieve this. Remember, it's a game, and gameplay is always a valid place to start. If it's fun, and it works, it's a win.

Once you have a firmer idea, you can create an issue for it on the issues tracker (see my sig, below) where it will get classed as a feature request. Conversations on there can be long and in-depth, with full markdown support, including images where they're helpful. With that, and IRC, ideas can be thrashed out until everybody's happy that they understand you, and that the idea is a sound one. What happens after that will be known... after that, of course.


ReplyQuote
GAlex
(@galex)
Crewman Registered
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 7
 

as for a "combat mode" that mixes newtonian flight and interesting combat session i second highlander's idea...

it's surely possible to mix the "set speed" mode (having the targeted ship's movement vectors as the point of reference so that the nav computer compensate automatically and you are in the "box" highlander pointed out) AND the manual control (for full control over the relative movement respect to the target).

obvioulsy the pilot should take into account not to accelerate too fast thus exiting the frame of reference

dogfighting isn't interesting in space. in space a ship have quasi* 6dof and there are so many manouvres available to get fighting funny while realistic.

*: quasi means "almost" because the manouvring thrusters have less power than main (retro) thrusters.

so you basically have many choices given a specific opponent:

are you flying a small fighter and fighting a large "brick"? simply mix main and manouvring thrusters to "spin" like an electron around it's nucleus continously avoiding frontal approach (and turret fire.. will turret be implemented?) and firing ... phew ... phew ... short laser pulses... for loong time until target (or your patience) is destroyed, or flee in a orthogonal route respectively to opponent vector relative to the planetary system of reference...

are you involved in a "fair" fight between similar ships? give proof of all your ability to predict AI tactic, or begin spiraling in front of your opponent while flying backward and firing continously to fool the poor PC logic...

are you the "brick" under attack? send a distress call and ask the developers to implement turrets or escort squadrons!

... OR ... if you are a fan of jousting ... let the joust begin ... taratatatataaaaaaaaaa!

(again ... too much words)


ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 10