Weekly Update #118

[hrobertson]

If they’re for usable equipment rather than cargo, why call them cargo points?!? Surely ‘equipment slots’ or ‘internal hardpoints’ would be more appropriate?

For warp interdiction is the mass-based disruption scheme not feasible?

[Lomsor]

I’m willing to test the device based warp interdiction but never liked the concept of having such fundemental functionallity as a loadout tradeoff.
The whole “press button to stop enemy” gameplay never felt much fun to me.

On top of that, with these high speeds dropping someone out of warp could surely work but then getting to that dropped out ship in time before it runs away could be problematic.

Also the question of multiple ships… with high enough range you may be able to drop out a couple of people but they will all be quite faar from each other.

[cybercritic]

I think capitals should be given some abilities if they do not exert enough gameplay at the moment, rather than to micromanage fire arcs and other stats. One thing that pops into mind is for capitals to exert anti-warp fields, they would create a bubble around them, maybe with internal components different abilities can be swapped in and out, something like disabling all shields of all ships within a radius. There is a lot of possibilities with internal compartments to specialize roles for ships.

I’m willing to test the device based warp interdiction but never liked the concept of having such fundemental functionallity as a loadout tradeoff.

The whole “press button to stop enemy” gameplay never felt much fun to me.

I-War2 had a very nice system, you would fire anti-warp missiles, those missiles would go into warp themselves and pop a target out of warp at some distance, they have a defined flight time, it’s possible for them to miss, because they are guided like normal missiles and if you do take a target out of warp, you still need to travel to the point where the missile hit. That takes the ‘one button win’ completely out of the equation, the anti-warp missile can obviously be accessible by an ‘internal compartment’ upgrade.

[Naiba]

I think capitals should be given some abilities if they do not exert enough gameplay at the moment, rather than to micromanage fire arcs and other stats.

I don’t see how ‘turning your ship to point guns at the enemy’ is micromanagement. Right now there’s no management. I also don’t particularly see why adding in arbitrary push-button abilities would make the agency problem all that much better.

Although it’s a much simpler environment and movement system, the weapon mechanics in Fractured Space and Dreadnaught do give a lot of tactical choices that just aren’t present right now in Battlescape. I’m not overly fond of the games themselves, but they nail down the sense of controlling a giant capital class spaceship quite well.

[cybercritic]

Giving the biggest weapon mounts on capital ships narrow fields of fire at cardinal angles might help with giving players more of a sense of agency. Different weapon types with different ranges in different directions would give a reason to manoeuvre around a combat space for better results.

As an example of a default load-out that might work well: Forward mounted weapons with lower damage but faster projectile speed for sniping. Side mounted weapons with far more damage but much lower projectile speed for close range broadsides. It could make range and positioning matter a lot more than it does at the moment. You’d get much more dynamic capital ship fights over different engagement ranges. It would let players feel like their actions made a difference in the fight.

I was referring to your ‘solution’ @naiba, it’s to micromanage the ship capabilities and load-outs in order to solve the current issues.

[Lomsor]

I don’t see how manually aimed weapons could work right now. A solution to the problem of lacking awareness of the surroundings when flying corvette and above is a prerequirement in my opinion and I’m not talking about UI solutions here, I’m talking about being able to fly and look around at the same time in order to get a sense of what is around you.

Here’s some thoughts on that:

Capital Ship Controlls

Currently Capital Ships (Destroyer, Cruiser, Carrier) are controlled the same way the smaller ships are controlled. I-Novae mentioned that they will implement a separate scheme for controlling these Capital Ships. Several options have been discussed off and on over the past months in the community. Here’s a thread just for this topic. I would like to hear what others think would be optimal and why they think it would work for them or in general. I want to list all options I’ve heard up unti…

[Naiba]

I was referring to your ‘solution’ @naiba, it’s to micromanage the ship capabilities and load-outs in order to solve the current issues.

I’m asking for a reason to turn your ship in any direction but directly forward all the time. I’m asking for a reason to think about range and positioning rather than just sit next to a furball.

Having weapons with limited fire arcs that suit different ranges located in different places around the ship would do that, and has been proven to do that in plenty of other games.

Having your ‘solution’ of generic push-button abilities would not do that.
(then again, this is probably down to a failure to communicate, I’ve been wanting to write up a full thread post on capital ships for a while now and did an awful lot of condensing here)

[INovaeFlavien]

Giving the biggest weapon mounts on capital ships narrow fields of fire at cardinal angles might help with giving players more of a sense of agency. Different weapon types with different ranges in different directions would give a reason to manoeuvre around a combat space for better results.

But does it make sense realistically that massive guns have a cap on their rotational angles ( say, ± 30° ) when lighter guns have none ( ± 180° ) ?

Of course, we can add as many artificial constraints to the game to improve the gameplay, but those would be exactly that: artificial limits for the sake of gameplay, at the expense of realism.

[Naiba]

Well if you’re looking for apologetics, there’s the far more complex loading mechanisms and higher recoil forces to worry about on large guns, plus the ability to fit more armour up and around the sides, rear and top of the turret.

Realistically though? Probably not the smartest idea in terms of raw combat effectiveness if there aren’t other competing design considerations, no.

[Slash78]

When it comes between “realism” and “gameplay” I just look at the difference between World of Tanks and War Thunder Ground Forces. Sure, the latter tries so much harder to be “realistic” and the gameplay isn’t bad in simulator mode. But they throw it all away and then some in the other two modes. World of Tanks doesn’t try to be realistic, Wargaming goes for gameplay. And because of that,World of Tanks has considerably deeper gameplay.

Though this is you game and not my game.

[Naiba]

World of tanks… deep gameplay… OK then.

[Slash78]

There is a lot of depth and nuance. That’s why so many run to the forums after 500 or so battles complaining about the game being “rigged”, how awesome of a game they and they don’t understand why they don’t have an +80% win rate and kill and damage ratios well under 1 :1.

Either “rigged” or they need to change the game to “add more skill”, which is to say, make it play more like an FPS game.

[Tjafaas]

Of course, we can add as many artificial constraints to the game to improve the gameplay, but those would be exactly that: artificial limits for the sake of gameplay, at the expense of realism.

Man, just take a look at the game itself: it’s pure sci-fi!
Flying at super-light speed with warp, firing energy weapons, energy shields, small spaceships capable of exiting and entering atmosphere with fuel tanks as small as those of current cars (for the interceptor)…

None of the previous points are realistic (constructed and functional at least in POC), at best they’re theoratically possible.

Of course, all the laws of physics still apply, for instance going too fast in atmosphere will apply huge constraints on a ship and probably burn it… but that’s very different from human engineering, that may or may not find solutions for rapid atmosphere entry.

So please consider “laws of physics” first, then “gameplay”, then “human engineering” that you call “realism” in this case.

And to answer your previous question: yes, it makes sense. Not so long ago, early tanks could not rotate their canon on large angles. Their lighter equivalent, rifles, were quite easy to manipulate by the infantry. So you could, for lore reasons, consider the game as “early” ages of space journey and consider capital ships as “tanks” and interceptors as “infantry”.

[hrobertson]

Instead of limited arcs, perhaps much slower weapon rotation speeds? That would mean the ability of a weapon to track a target would depend on the distance to the target and the relative speed.
This could be a reason to not simply dive into the middle of a battle, plus maintaining the ships orientation to a target would minimise turret rotation required thus enabling them to keep on-target.
This gives a reason to care about range and orientation.

[mattk50]

Large weapon rot speeds are already kinda low at times. They could definitely be somewhat lower, i wouldn’t go crazy with that though, too slow and players will be sitting and waiting too often, and the function of freelook might mean that looking behind you drags your weapons unintentionally.

[cybercritic]

I’m asking for a reason to turn your ship in any direction but directly forward all the time. I’m asking for a reason to think about range and positioning rather than just sit next to a furball.

Having weapons with limited fire arcs that suit different ranges located in different places around the ship would do that, and has been proven to do that in plenty of other games.

Having your ‘solution’ of generic push-button abilities would not do that.

I’m not offering a solution to what you think the problem is, I’m offering an avenue to increase the amount of capital gameplay.

World of tanks… deep gameplay… OK then.

You really should read his post, the guy was actually agreeing with you, gameplay over realism and TBH WoT should be looked up to, not down at.

[Naiba]

I’m not offering a solution to what you think the problem is, I’m offering an avenue to increase the amount of capital gameplay.

The lack of capital gameplay was what I thought the problem was. That’s why I didn’t really see much difference in the amount of additional management involved between ideas.

You really should read his post, the guy was actually agreeing with you, gameplay over realism and TBH WoT should be looked up to, not down at.

Eh, that’s fair. I’m a fair bit biased against it after being lied to be the development team since beta. Gave up on it due to the spotting system in the end a couple years back.

[cybercritic]

IDK, maybe I’m old, I don’t think micromanaging my rotation and guns is the proper gameplay to add for captials, maybe if I was 10 years younger that would be a thing. I would rather worry about my general positioning and the strategic possibilities that my capital adds to the battelfield.

It’s mind boggling to actually have the captain of a capital aim guns for me, designate target, done.

[Naiba]

OH! no, I was offering my comment to be INSTEAD of having manual weapon aiming.
You’d turn your ship so the weapon could bring itself to bear.

[cybercritic]

You are suggesting more involvement with piloting a capital ship?

I’m suggesting strategic abilities and if possible a RTS command scheme, but I think that is off the table.