Ship Talk

[Louist]

Since I seem to have opened this particular can of worms, I'd have to also request that combat not sacrifice enjoyment in favor of realism. Being the nervous diplomat that I often am, I also have to say that I will, of course, live with whatever combat mechanics the developers in their infinite wisdom choose to bless the game with

I like firing arcs, I find them more realistic from a ship design aspect than, say, that magic ribbon around the Enterprise that shoots out phasers in any possible direction. Designing and producing a weapon system that has a full unobstructed 360-degree view would be orders of magnitude more difficult than simply placing separate weapons to the aft, fore, and so on.

That said, I've never really considered the physics and realities behind space combat. This may indeed not be the most realistic way to do things, but it is something I am familiar with and know I enjoy. If it turns out that firing-arcs are unnecessary or contrary to fun-making, I'll gladly give another system a chance.

Err, I forgot to hit the quote button, and the posts I wanted the reference seem to be too far back to grab from below, but here's the gist: Ed, I wasn't at all knocking the SotS economic model. It works great. I was merely shining my torch on the fact that the game is heavily geared towards blowing ships up, and researching bigger guns that allow one to blow up ships in new and interesting ways.

[InfStorm]

To avoid my long diseration on ship design, just hit summaries.

Including firing arcs adds in options like:
Fixed fire weapons
Turrets of varrying widths of fire (45/90/180 degrees)
Broadsides

Vector based movement adds options like:
Much more varied movement (thrust to mass ratio for example)
engines who's ability to turn the ship varies
Flying Backwards to fire at the guy tailing you
Limits on maneuverablity depending on the pilot (Rasberry jam anyone?)

One thing vector based movement & Firing arcs actually make more desirable is fighter craft. Smaller mass ships are easier to maneuver for less fuel. (are we tracking fuel?)

With the power of computers today, it would be just a matter of Math to do a "near-real physics" for space combat. I say "near-real" because real physics doesn't make for drama in space combat.

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by InfStorm

Vector based movement adds options like:
Much more varied movement (thrust to mass ratio for example)
engines who's ability to turn the ship varies
Flying Backwards to fire at the guy tailing you
Limits on maneuverablity depending on the pilot (Rasberry jam anyone?).

As simple as it was - anyone who remembers the classic arcade game Asteroids - I think did a fair representation of 2D space movement. Adding weapons mounted in places other then just the "front" and converting to turn based movement - conceptually at least to me I think would be good general starting point.

Also just for the record I thought it was strawberry - but I checked - your right it was raspberry.

[Xrati]

Complex combat play, leads to less playing enjoyment. Especially when you have to design them. You start the game with "maybe" some default ships and then spend the rest of your time designing them! No fun there. If you want to design ships with arcs and such, then I believe you will turn a lot of players off of the game. KISS rules are now in effect...

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by Xrati

...Especially when you have to design them. You start the game with "maybe" some default ships and then spend the rest of your time designing them! No fun there...KISS rules are now in effect...

I'll start by saying again that I certainly both understand and appreciate the need to balance things for the sake of game play/fun/entertainment and certainly KISS rules play a part of that.

But I totally disagree in the respect that designing ships is no fun. While combat is only 1 of the big 4 "eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate" - to me the other three only prop up my ability with technology and resources to better blow things up with. Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus - and I am biased towards the one that packs heat.

Ship design was always one of my most favorite aspects of SE4 and most certainly of SE5 - what I did find to be lacking in fun area was the management of both ships and ships designs (upgrades) which could use some KISS treatment.

Speaking only in the sense of general game play ideas and pipe dream wants I would like to see capital ships take a much larger significance (firing arcs being a portion of that) and be far fewer in number then normally portrayed in most games - making both ship design and smaller ships more critical to game play.

[Xrati]

Building your ships IS fun. BUT when you have firing arcs involved it becomes a greater strain on those players who don't care for such detail. The game has to appeal to the masses ($$$) and with that in mind, like all other things for general use they get dumbed down. The game will not sell on firing arcs or not. It will sell on playability for all level players. Modability will keep it from becoming boring and add new challanges.

[jars_u]

Originally Posted by Louist

I like firing arcs, I find them more realistic from a ship design aspect than, say, that magic ribbon around the Enterprise that shoots out phasers in any possible direction.

In sum I would like to say:

YES!