Weekly Update #118

#9

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

#10

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:

3 Likes
#11

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’ :wink: 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)

1 Like
#12

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.

#13

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.

#14

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.

#15

World of tanks… deep gameplay… OK then. :wink:

#16

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.

#17

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”.

1 Like
#18

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.

2 Likes
#19

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.

#20

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.

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.

#21

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.

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.

#22

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.

4 Likes
#23

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.

#24

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.

1 Like
#25

Yes to all the above.

#26

Maybe this discussion should be continued in the thread @Lomsor linked?

In that thread I expressed my favour for an RTS/EVE-like control system where the player can prioritise/designate targets rather than manually aiming, specify distance and orientation rather than manually piloting, etc, etc…

3 Likes
#27

mm yes can’t wait for this.

1 Like
#28

Clearly the solution to battleships is going full broadside.

6 Likes