By biggest concern around vehicle (and space) combat is the pain to repair without using repair by to template. It's too hard to repair by hand. Either an auto repair bay with crafted drones as "munition" like dynamic healing. maybe or visual help to show damaged or missing blocks. The other problem imo is the difficulty to change targeting, what turret group target what. We have to pass in the component UI to switch flags. We can create group of weapons, but we should be able to create custom settings and change that directly with Shorcuts. If we have the ability to change damage/target strategy quickly and reparing between fights, it's easier to take risk and out brain the AI. For the moment it's just a shield regen/damage ratio game, and it can take really long time to take ship down.
@Wolfoot if you are OK with the actual flight characteristics of "whirly birds" CVs then this is a bit off-topic. First step before repairs is battle, and the way battles happen now was the concern of the OP, not really what happens after. For targets it's more a question of UI than flight control/ thrust etc. And the point was also to avoid relying too much on turrets auto-targetting as main strategy to take down ships.
cool thanks. I think maybe on possibility is slowing down certain turrets tracking, so that a ship doing strafing runs with high transversal can be useful. like not even 5 corvettes could beat a dreadnought. or 10. or 20. it would murder them all.
i think every turret being such a damager dealer needs looking at. maybe change some things. like energy weapons hurt shields more but hardly armor. kinetics hurt armor but can't bypass shields easily. maybe add some main guns the pilot controls. make each gun only useful in its roll. some close in weapons only. like suppose you made lasers such that they could only hit reliably up close. or you have different categories of laser, from small to large. it needs more options. and whatever it does, needs to get away from constant whirly bird to dodge, while you shoot and aim for generators and just rinse repeat. things such as implementing scanning to find where generators are located on an enemy ship, then doing strafing runs targeting it in a ship like a corvette which with high transversal relative to target is faster than the capital class guns can track. basically the bigger the gun and more damaging the less tracking speed it should have. you could have point defense turrets too for projectiles like artillery...so many things could be iterated and hashed out. guns could have a power bank to draw from, for like lasers, which could overheat, you know little things that means a ship like a dreadnought with 200 guns can't constantly fire happily until it runs out of ammo. wrong game i guess. but i feel it could have a pass and be better. theyve never done nothing with it except slap on turrets which auto fire.
That's a good one. I thought about reducing speed of lasers, mostly red enemy ones, but now that we can have real continuous lasers like a ray it will be possible to test continuous lasers "tracking" fighters. Needs some testing obviously, but a very welcomed change. To simply "disable" a ship, instead of poking holes into it (and lose some loot/ devices) and requiring some x-ray scanning mechanic, I would go the simple way of an EMP weapon that shuts down the opponent's ship/ core for (delay). In order of power, EMP would be best to drain shields then disable a ship but zero effect on hull, lasers would be second to drain shields and third for hull damage, and ballistic would have zero effect to drain shields but best damage against hull. Agree to reduce turrets turn/ track speed, but this needs adjusting with a range : at close range it can't keep pace, but at what range can it begin tracking correctly ? 100 % agree. In fact I very much liked X-Wing series system, at lest on the fighter side of things : a common "power pool" that could be distributed among front-back shields and lasers. If more to shields then lasers dealt less damage, and the other way around when more power to lasers. Not really possible to do this now by simply adjusting devices/ power usage, they all draw power independantly of each other. This one requires more thought as I have a feeling there is a possible workaround to get the desired results.
Reading the discussion around CV mobility/agility, and the slower preference for larger ships with some people, I guess I had a slightly different perspective for some of my most recent combat CV builds. Now, I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t watched a ton of sci-fi, and Empyrion is my first space game. So I don’t have strong “RP” feelings like many do. I play the game to have fun and don’t have visions of recreating another environment here. With that being said, I understand this is just my opinion, so take it for what it is. I feel like sci-fi, slow ships, are that way because they aren’t designed to be agile. The thrusters are directly in the back & simply push forward. I’m sure there are examples where this is not true, but I think this is the case for a large majority. My most recent ships are extremely overpowered from a thrust perspective, in a way that I don’t think you see in the sci-fi stuff. I also highly leveraged torque, with very optimal thrust layout. I say this knowing that many others do the same. Here’s the way I look at it: If the thrust exists to move such a vessel, then overpowering the thrust should also enable you to make it much more agile. To put numbers to it, if I can move a 200kt carrier in space, at slow numbers, why can’t I use a similar amount of thrust on a 10kt combat CV to make it really fast? This is the point I can’t get past, and why I think high agility should stay in the game, when built right. Last thing on this, vanilla thrust/torque could easily be reduced by quite a large amount, tbh. That would reduce the effectiveness of inefficient designs, and force people to use better thrust layout.
This is not about RP but about (known and actual) physics. This point has been supported and debated by players with serious physics background, and even the game was designed to follow physics to some extent. If you read the thread you should have seen this mentioned in one of my posts. Currently we have "structural integrity" applied to bases : if a row of horizontal blocks goes longer than 12 blocks without being supported, it breaks down, in a normal 1 g environment. Nothing should prevent players from putting any amount and force of thrusters on their ship, but their ship should just be subject to normal physics : linear and angular accelerations produce g forces, and ships under great strees could break or bend/ compromise hull and structure integrity. Just like you I designed insanely agile and fast ships in all 6 directions (SV and CV) but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea to allow this. Lots of players went that route when experimenting building in Empyrion, some even designed ships with "gaps" between blocks just for the fun of it. But because thrusters are very weak compared to normal armored blocks and cover a huge surface, ships made with lots of thrusters had these thrusters "hidden" behind armor, to allow the double benefit of high maneuverability and high armor cover everywhere. Eleon has now provided ways to prevent this and force thrusters to have their exhaust "exposed" to work. Fair game, but when this was first announced a few years ago it created quite a stir among some players who became specialized in this type of builds... Detonating a nuclear device beside an aicraft carrier would surely "move" it, but it should not simply be pushed away without a scratch. If some players are afraid that they may be losing their specialized edge in design, then they are just falling into a false debate : the rules being the same for everyone, if physics and CV movements become more realistic, then it will still be up to the designer to find ways to push these limits to the edge. Different limits but same principle. And again, if you read the thread, surely you saw that there were many proposals to mitigate loss of "zippiness" of CVs via weapons and armor changes too. Also think about "walking on a moving ship" : if players were to be able to walk in an actual hummingbird CV they would be smashed dead against walls, floors and ceilings.
I guess I see Empyrion through the lens if it being a video game, not a real world simulation. Realism to a certain extent makes sense as a reference point, but there are a lot of unreal components in other aspects of the game. Trying to nail down a specific aspect of the game, to be a near real life simulation, while fantasy exists in high amounts elsewhere, doesn’t resonate with me. I understand the real world physics, structural integrity, etc. But I don’t see this as a real world simulation, I see it as a game with a good blend of real & fantasy. Real world physics would not make a fun or immersive game, from my perspective. Again, I understand & completely accept that others have different opinions. But, I also know I’m not alone in these thoughts.
I don't think you read the whole thread, because these aspects have all been covered. Regarding "realism" this aspect also has been debated to the core over and over again on many other threads, and I was among the "lesser realism = better game" crowd, but only up to a certain point. The topic is about revamping space combat to avoid CVs been able to move in completely un-immersive ways. If you suggest that the way ships can move now is immersive in the "gaming" sense of the term, then obviously you would have to explain how "suspension of disbelief" works here for that aspect. We all know this "real life physics vs game physics" argument. But there is an area where even "game physics" simply become jarring, and that is the topic here. No game that I know of has any vehicle that can turn as fast as a steroid-driven CV can turn in Empyrion. If you want to convince me that the way CVs behave in Empyrion is ok for a game, then providing some references could help your point. In no game that I know of, moving the mouse just a bit sideways has the whole vehicle pointing immediately in the new direction, apart from Empyrion.
I did read the whole thing, and I chose to comment on a specific topic. I do not need to comment on everything. Besides, what makes you think I even care about your perspective on my opinion? I mean really. I’m sharing an alternate perspective on a topic that was specifically discussed here. Don’t agree with it? Fine, I’m ok with that. You are not compelled to argue with every perspective shared that does not agree with you. People say they want CV to be slow & lumbering. I’m saying the agility needs to stay to some regard. I already said some reductions to thrust make sense. Clearly you are not reading. And unless you have something actually constructive to say, I don’t see a need for you to further respond.
You wouldn't be here replying. Now calm down and keep it civil please. This is a discussion, not a political debate. That is not precisely what you wrote, and I can see you are already changing it to be more in-line. If you try to make a point telling me "games are like this and that" then I say nope, show me examples. You are now jumping on your battlehorse and just avoiding to answer. Don't make a diversion, stick to the topic. You say you read the topic ? Then you saw that nobody ever proposed to completely remove "CV agility" so there is not even a debate on that point. We're talking about the extreme cases that make CV motion "jarring". If you don't want to discuss and accept that opinions, yours as well as mine, can be debated, then just don't join a topic sir. I say "X, is good" you jump in saying " X not good, Y is good" and I should just shut up ? Good for you, not good for the others ? I don't think it's unfair to ask you to support your claim that games have this kind of capital ship movement by providing examples. And I shouldn't get the flak for asking this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Just as a reminder, this topic was even on Eleon's to-do list as a "major feature" and since nothing really changed since that time, as explained in the present thread, the present discussion is just in the continuity of getting better ship behavior, despites devices buffs/ nerfs, CPU and new flight physics. From the 2018 survey : .
I’m not even going to address the jibberish in that response. There are so many lies & ignorant statements that it’s not worth my time. I said what I said. I shared what I think in my first post.
Your first post assumed we did not think one minute before posting our thoughts on the forum. You should know me better than trying this very transparent tactic of making very flaky assumptions, then fleeing when asked for examples and substance, calling my post (or me, hey?) full of lies and ignorance. Heck, I'm asking you to prove my "ignorance" and "lies" with some examples. Why do you run away ?
You just have to give me one example of another game where capital ships can have instant rotation acceleration when moving the mouse even slightly like we can do in Empyrion. That is the topic, not our personal qualities and history. Very simple. I even took the time to explain this extensively in the first posts, to make sure someone joining the discussion would understand that the topic was not simply about nerfing thrusters or trying to make the game a "real life physics simulator". You said you read the topic ? I want to believe you. Just give me facts, not insults and child play.
My first post said “Now, I’ll be the first to admit I haven’t watched a ton of sci-fi, and Empyrion is my first space game.” Now you, for some random reason, demand I provide another example of game that does a specific style? Lol, ok yeah, that makes sense. Keep in mind that Empyrion is unique, and there are no other games like it. Nobody needs to justify their feelings to you, why they feel that way, or provide specific examples to back up their feelings. You are not special, nor do you work for, or represent Eleon.
So you have zero experience in other sci-fi games but other players who want a change are surely misguided (read your previous posts again) because you "feel" otherwise, even though some of them provided examples. That makes sense ? I never asked you to justify your "feelings" but to provide examples of other games where jarring capital vessels motion is OK, and obviously you have none. You are not special either, but that should not be reason for insulting someone. .
I never said anyone was misguided. You made up those words all on your own. Change is about collaboration & hearing all perspectives. I think everyone should share their perspective here. Literally everyone. And if they are different then mine, that’s great. They should still share them, and I won’t try to belittle others that have an alternate opinion, like you are doing.
You say you see Empyrion as a game, not as a real-life physics simulator. You assume we have the other position ? You say that those who want changes do it for " RP " reasons. There were no such things mentioned here. You say the game will become un-immersive and not fun because of this, but you have no examples to provide. Other players said the contrary with examples. You say specifically in post #30 "People say they want CV to be slow & lumbering" and I mentioned distinctions should be kept for smaller corvette types, and if you read the thread you would have seen that. And when I point these to you then you get all riled up. You make sweeping statements about what was said, what others know about games and physics, etc, but hey! we better not question what you say here, else we're belittling others. And you're the one telling me I post jibberish and lies. Go fix yourself dude.
Yeah in our scenario certain weapons are far better against shields or hull. Railgun turrets will penetrate through multiple blocks, but have a very slow turn speed and do little against shields. Lasers will be great against shields but not as good against armor. We're even making use of the new beam setting to add cool new beam weapons. We're also adding shield capacitors and rechargers that let you increase the strength or recharge rate of your ship's shield. So large battleships will actually have a significantly stronger shield than a small frigate. So there is already some potential there, and hopefully reforged Eden will work as a proof of concept for some of these things and maybe if it works out the devs could look at using some of these in the default game.
