I think trying to make the newtonian space combat easier by making it non newtonian is kind of defeating the point and i suspect it might not really help new players. Yes, new players need a softer introduction and yes the learning curve needs to be better, but is it really likely that velocity based accel is just going to solve this problem for newbies? Someone who has no control of their ship isn’t going to get that control with accel tweaks. At the cost of combat being newtonian well, its putting the cart before the horse, the game needs to be deep so new players have things to look forward to. Being fully newtonian is a big selling point for many.
But yes, because we need solutions, here are some alternate suggestions:
More flight assist modes, enabled by default. Right now in assist turn speed is limited by velocity, but what about a different mode option that limits velocity by turn speed, something that even cancels the players forward velocity if they’re trying to turn faster. Basically how comstab worked in SC a long time ago. If the problem is getting to such high velocities forward that the player drifts out of control while turning, then limiting forw velocity based on current turn rate can work. Also, there could be an artificial assist only ramp down on increasing velocity, just to help new players, something that could always be turned off.
High-strafe thrust loadouts options with low mains by default, these could be the default “easier” option with current behavior coming in the form of an upgrade.
Tractor beams (not webifiers)? In a different discord i was having a lot of conversations about how many a tractor beam that when activated mutually accelerates both you and your targets towards each-other might be a good idea. Pulling laser tractor beams are real life working tech too and the equal and opposite element keeps it nicely newtonian, though right now they only work on very tiny particles in lab enviornments and don’t pull the emitter towards the target but ehhh, details. These could reduce the amount of “running” that happens by biasing both players to accelerate towards eachother.
On the random penetration, it will converge over large numbers yes, but it doesn’t exactly take many hits to kill an inty and with large caliber cap ship weapons the difference between a pierce and not will make the difference between a turret under the shields getting stripped off or not. Double the particle effects and audio effects seems worth it really. You could also combine both into a third particle effect/sound specifically for times when the shields penetrate and the hull gets hit.
here is a quick simulation i’ve written and run in python based on the ingame stats and probability based functionality running 100000 simulations, damage of one kinetic shot and adjusting the probability of a pierce based on the percentage. In my opinion the Std deviation here is unacceptably large, the law of large numbers can’t really take effect. (x axis is number of hits from the kinetic inty gun to kill)
Code
import numpy as np
import random as rand
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
hp = 80
shield = 125
dmg = 8
data=[]
for loops in range(100000):
shipshield=shield
shiphp=hp
alive=True
hits=0
while alive:
hits+=1
if rand.random() > (shipshield/shield):
shiphp-=dmg
elif shipshield >=0:
shipshield-=dmg
if shipshield <=0:
shiphp+=shipshield #shipshield negative overflow added to shiphp, subtracting values
else:
shiphp -=dmg
if shiphp<= 0:
alive = False
data.append(hits)
histrange= max(data)
plt.hist(data, bins=histrange,range=(0,histrange))
print(np.std(data))
plt.show()
The range is from 16-27 shots to kill and the std dev is 1.6… Basically, ouch! (And i know weapons with higher dmg and lower rate of fire are planned. This will be much much worse for those weapons!)
.
