How much realism in the Infinity Universe?

General
81

[quote=“Arkenbrien, post:80, topic:554”]
Should we expect that ten players besides the pilot manning the turrets to sit in there going back and forth a million times just in case on that million and first time it comes under pirate attack?[/quote]

That question, and myriad like it, is answered by understanding two simple rules.

One player can operate any or all of a ship’s weapons
One player can designate only one target at any given time

Actually, this specific question can be answered by observing that a freighter that makes a run a million times without seeing a pirate but once won’t bother putting weapons on his ship. They are a pointless expense.

From there, think about what you would do if you were on a freighter and saw pirates either frequently or infrequently, many or few, strong or weak, and those two rules above applied to you and anyone else on the freighter.

The short form is that when you encounter multiple enemies, you tend to want multiple friends. It doesn’t matter if the enemies are in one ship or multiple, nor if your friends are in one ship or multiple. The gear everyone controls clearly plays a role, but so does the number of players. In a multiplayer game, that’s the way it should be.

[quote=“Arkenbrien, post:80, topic:554”]
Even for a combat oriented vessel, manning a turret does not seem like an awful amount of fun unless you are looking for fights (and having a good bit of luck).[/quote]

The only time players will be dedicated gunners (controlling some number of the ship’s weapons) is when it is known that the ship is going to be in a fight. They are known as combat ships. That’s what they’re for. They are trotted out when there’s going to be a fight. If a game is designed such that players have to rely on luck to find interesting gameplay, then the game has other problems.

82

I believe that the only reason for Infinity not having automation would be based on the fact that implementing it takes time and effort. It sure is easier to leave it out completely and come up with some mumble on why it’s not possible using fiction…

83

Actually, it’s entirely possible that auto-aim could be implemented using features that are required for a game engine to be useful and either a few lines of code or a few drag-and-drops in a UE4-style blueprint. Coming up with mumble, meanwhile, can be surprisingly difficult.

1 Like
84

Thing is that you don’t even need to come up with mumble to add or exclude a feature, and this is turning into a mumble thread :wink:

Given the option to actually code something or think for an excuse why not to code something, depending on what type of a person you are, it’s entirely possible that some would choose to mumble.

85

And suppose those same player-piloted fighters go up against your automated drones, what happens then? Are the drones just going to ignore them?

1 Like
86

I prefer realism, getting away from realism seems to dumb down games for easier game play learning. At the same time can make replay value shorter or less rewarding. Realism should be the aim.

87

I wounder if they could have more then one mode for combat. That way they could check out what version works best.

88

I understand that we are talking about gameplay and personal perefences here, but the whole notion that you would not use a computer to do the aiming instead of you is just plain stupid. Even today, computers are way better at this sort of stuff, and we are usually not aiming at anything more than 2-3 km away. I’d leave the twitch combat for small fighters only. Since we are in space, the fighter itself is practically a turret. Above that it just makes no sense at all.

I don’t really think there is an explanation that can fit “no aiming” and “spaceships” into one feasible idea. Your average navigation computer’s orbital calculations are way more complex than leading a target a few km away. I find it really weird how much you guys cling to the twitch shooter idea. Am I the only one who thinks we can have complex and really enjoyable combat that does not (necessarily) revolve around aiming at the enemy?

(And yes, this is obviously my subjective, personal preference talking regarding gameplay.^-^)

3 Likes
89

Hmm… so calculating your orbital trajectory is more complex than calculating the angle relative to your orbital trajectory to fire a projectile to get an orbital (or suborbital, or escape) trajectory that intersects the orbital (or suborbital, or escape) trajectory of your target?

Something seems off about that… but I agree there’s not enough of a difference between the two operations to be able to compute one but not the other.

90

Technically if you and your target are in orbit around the same body you can ignore all calculations relative to x. You just need your targets vector and the muzzle velocity of your gun. Easy as cake(for a computer) at the point. I think if you will ever be dogfighting in a fighter you and your target will always be in the same relative orbit be it stable, elliptical, or an escape trajectory. If your target is moving slow enough to aim at it and not zipping away you’re fine.

For example, you don’t calculate earths orbit around the sun if you wanted to run past me and shoot a bullet at me. You just calculate the angle and fire.

That being said having a specially equppied “sniper” fighter sized craft with oversized railguns could be funny and interesting…at that point you could sit in another orbit and take pot shots at ships doing other things

1 Like