All this talk of hovercraft reminds me of the old Grav Cycle from the Tribes games 
Edit: Also I was a huge fan of the way the vehicles felt in Star Wars Pod Racer.
You said by default (I assume you mean all ships in the game), I was thinking more a specific mode/module.
1 Like
That doesnāt explain the kidsā game comment. As I stated, Iām not proposing a no-hurty-crashy mode, but are you saying if no-hurty-crashy mode is a mode or module then itās ok? That doesnāt make sense.
Anyway. I suspect that was just a throw away commentā¦
There is a big difference between a mode and a module.
If itās just a software mode that can be selected, why not make that mode on by default? Why would people turn it off?
If itās a physical module that has to be bought and or installed in a hangar (presumably at the cost of adding mass and taking up space that could be used for something else), Iād ask why? Is the convenience of being able to hover without pressing the upwards thrust key a big advantage that needs a cost associated with it? I donāt think it is.
Just have the hover function not have that much power. That way, when someone aproaches the ground too fast ā¦ like regular fast ā¦ he would crash, only when decelerating oneself first can the hover function be effective enough to take over the last bit of countering the gravity of the planet, this would also require player input if he jumps down a canyon or cliff or something simmilar as the hover mode wonāt be able to stop that fall either.
I agree, except what is regular fast?
For a given velocity magnitude, the shallower the angle you approach the surface at, the less downwards velocity component you have and the longer time the thrust has to negate what downwards velocity you do have. Therefore your approach can be faster than if you are travelling down at a steeper angle.
I think @hrobertson and I are on the same page here.
The system would be based on thrusters. By default, itās on, to help newbies. Because itās based on thrusters, whatever thrust you get from thrusters is the best the system can do for a given ship. Gravity and ship velocity will tend to erode the effectiveness of the system.
10g fighters flying over the Earthās surface? Piece of cake. 1g battleships flying over the Earthās surface? There are going to be lots of skid marks, ending in rather large holes in the ground.
I donāt see it as a physical module, but certainly as a standard autopilot mode that the player can turn off if desired.
Surely there are pieces of software out there that try to help you that you have turned off because it didnāt help you the way you wanted to be helped.
If the pilot cannot set the repulsive altitude then the fixed altitude will frustrate some pilots. If the system has a habit of pushing off hard when the pilot tries to just graze the top of a hill, then a skilled pilot would want the system off. So if it gets in the way of pilot preferences or is simply too difficult to configure so that it matches pilot preferences, then theyāll turn the thing off.
1 Like
I said Iād like to try out a hovercraft idea in alpha, but by default I donāt think Iād want every ship to be a hovercraft right out of the box, or be able to become one with a flip of a switch.
Mode meaning game mode, as in a separate asset you pilot, a hovercraft that is dropshipped etc. Or possibly a module you acquire to allow your small ship some terrain hugging capabilities which probably works better as there will be no ambulation to get into the hovercraft.
Bottom line is Iād like some pilot skill required to not die in a horrible crash.
Probably depends no how hard it is to actually hug the terrain in your ship and not crash. iirc last time I tried a speed test I was hugging the terrain engine at mach 44 or whatever stupid number it was, Iād have to do it again and figure out the speed. (Not at all saying that will be how fast players will be able to go, but the terrain gen was working without popping at that speed)
1 Like
If the intended gameplay is that flying a ship close the the surface, even at low speed, is something only skilled pilots can do, then there should be no hover inducing autopilot in the game in any form.
Dropping a hovercraft or purchasing/installing a module does not constitute pilot skill.
Sweet 
I would disagree, expanding gameplay is what the buggy in ED is for, and kind of where this discussion started.
But is the ED buggy something only skilled players can pilot? No.
We agree that gameplay can be expanded by making low level flight a thing. We are discussing how low level flight should work.
The ED buggy is akin to a hovercraft or module that you purchase for your ship. Thatās not player skill which you have just stated to believe should be required.
This is where Iām confused: You say you want pilot skill to be required for hovering/low level flight, and yet you also say your preferred way of having players access the hovering/low level flight gameplay is by the installation of a module/hovercraft.
Do you see why I feel there is some contradiction here? Perhaps Iām missing something.
Did I say that?
I donāt feel that having pilot skill to hug terrain should exclude the possibility of a different type of asset (hovercraft) being utilized for other gameplay purposes. What those purposes are? Donāt know atm, but planets are large game worlds.
Ah I see! So two separate realms of hovering/low level flight with different gameplay. One that requires pilot skill, the other that requires equipment. I get you now 
Pickup truck vs say an A-10 Warthog etc.
Basically, I loved the concept of the Mako in ME1 (not so much the execution, that terrain was a nightmare to traverse), and have always looked forward to experiencing INE in that manner in some form. Seeing the buggy in ED rekindled that desire.
Maybe in Battlescape to attack an installation on a planetary surface you dropship in some player controlled hovercraft. Then ofc you get the āwhy not just use your powerful fighter to destroy the installation?ā, which then leads someone to ask āwhy not just use your cap ship to blow up the base from orbitā etcā¦ Then comes the justification for certain gameplay yadda yadda.
2 Likes
Gene, why not just use cap ship to nuke base from orbit?
6 Likes
Yes, Iāve been arguing in this direction, including a developed yadda yadda, for some time now. It is the justification that makes it interesting - and which has inspired a whole raft of gameplay ideas.
Iām all for pickup trucks and Warthogs. Keep spaceships out of atmospheres. More specifically, keep their fuel-less drives out, which is the real stumbling block. We have so many specialized vehicles and aircraft because of tight energy budgets.
I think everyone wants more complex/involved yadda yadda, the issue ofc is scope & budget. My hovercraft desires likely exceed scope for the min budget Battlescape.
This is how I feel this post has gone:
3 Likes
Iām playing corporate architect. Scope and budget mean nothing to me.
Edit: āplayā as in āplay the role ofā
2 Likes
Fun to play as a game. Annoying when youāre in a feedback thread trying to pick out reasonable ideas to introduce/revamp in your game and all you get is an annoying back and forth banter.
1 Like
Iām just glad someone on the dev team enjoyed the Mako as much as me 
3 Likes