Space combat is primitive?
- Thread starter Neva
- Start date
Is that so? Refusing using cameras leaves same deathcubes but with one tiny weakspot.
And it's kinda weired if a sniper can disable a big battleship by sniping it's pilot)
And without cameras with zoom it is not possible to implement long-ranged weapons.
So I'd suggest to look for other solutions of deathbticks problem.
That is sad.
And it's kinda weired if a sniper can disable a big battleship by sniping it's pilot)
And without cameras with zoom it is not possible to implement long-ranged weapons.
So I'd suggest to look for other solutions of deathbticks problem.
That is sad.
@Verbatos i think that is kinda been the posters point.
they want less skill and more lock on click. you try to explain that all games only have to forms of firing mechanics, aim and fire then lock on but they will argue that its not true but yet not give any real proof of this third mechanic they talk about, other than they keep referencing EVASIVE MAUNEVERS, which if you ever watched or was in a dog fight in this game then they would know this has already been implemented and outside some polishing, works well with fighters.
which were only missing radar and lock on as of right now, but yet they also feel:
so by their logic this game is only missing 2 of the components they really want but yet its still more primitive to most primitive shooter. there are just all over the place.
one post they are against meta, another they are for it, then not against then defend it with the same auto click mechanics that makes meta, they all over the place on this one. example:
here they talk about needing depth:
also there is no EA yet so either they mean CA or again IDK, but then they go in about how its not needed, "depth"
then again on how it needs depth,
this is defenitely one of those, "im right regardless post". even @XenoCow probably one of the most knowledgable people we have right now as a player for SB(a person a lot of us get our info from, not only one but one of the major ones), has said,
they want less skill and more lock on click. you try to explain that all games only have to forms of firing mechanics, aim and fire then lock on but they will argue that its not true but yet not give any real proof of this third mechanic they talk about, other than they keep referencing EVASIVE MAUNEVERS, which if you ever watched or was in a dog fight in this game then they would know this has already been implemented and outside some polishing, works well with fighters.
which were only missing radar and lock on as of right now, but yet they also feel:
so by their logic this game is only missing 2 of the components they really want but yet its still more primitive to most primitive shooter. there are just all over the place.
one post they are against meta, another they are for it, then not against then defend it with the same auto click mechanics that makes meta, they all over the place on this one. example:
here they talk about needing depth:
also there is no EA yet so either they mean CA or again IDK, but then they go in about how its not needed, "depth"
then again on how it needs depth,
this is defenitely one of those, "im right regardless post". even @XenoCow probably one of the most knowledgable people we have right now as a player for SB(a person a lot of us get our info from, not only one but one of the major ones), has said,
well if the combat system looks primitive to you, to me this is the best combat system I have seen. it hard and I like hard. its going to make teams work together, its going to bring out some creative ideas, (a friend has tried one of my ideas to making combat easier and proof of concept is working). the combat of this game has a lot going for it.
Well, first of all it's not a fps shooter to have some intersesting aiming/shooting mechanics to master like recoil patterns, ADS moving speed reduction etc. So there is not much about aiming in this game (and any other space game).
Second thing is - this brings a lot of limitations. For example, you can not have sensors like radars that output target position (into LUA data pipe) relative to your ship. Otherwise it would be possible to code auto-aiming turrets. But without this kind of sensors a lot of other stuff would be impossible - autopiloting (of some sorts), proper IFF, situational awereness displays (like minimap) etc.
Third thing - radars could be another layer of complexity in combat, bringing stealth, cuntermeasures and jamming into combat, making it more deep and interesting.
Second thing is - this brings a lot of limitations. For example, you can not have sensors like radars that output target position (into LUA data pipe) relative to your ship. Otherwise it would be possible to code auto-aiming turrets. But without this kind of sensors a lot of other stuff would be impossible - autopiloting (of some sorts), proper IFF, situational awereness displays (like minimap) etc.
Third thing - radars could be another layer of complexity in combat, bringing stealth, cuntermeasures and jamming into combat, making it more deep and interesting.
@Venombrew
Dude, you keep arguing for the sake of argument.
Wrong. This thread is about combat being primitive. Comming up with this kind of conclusion is kinda mad.
The point is, align sight+click is not that more skill demanding then lock+click. Combat complexity should come frome other things.
Yeah, but we are talking about what is there in combat other then firing mechanics.
You didn't watch the DCS video, did you? There's a big difference between radom movement to make it more difficult for enemy to keep you in his sigts (Starbase) and possibility to shoot down enemy while completly avoiding his shots (DCS).
It's like you're comparing Mario Kart vs Forza and saying those are almost same racing games with same basic mechanics.
Wrong. Again. DCS was just an example. And if you want to implement this type of combat - you'd need proper radar simulation. And it's not just a 'lock' button as you think. You'd need gimbal limits, doppler effects simulation, RWR, frequency selection, etc. etc. And proper missiles simulation as well (which is not just you shoot them and they just hit a target, as you probably think).
Wrong again. Those two components are only usefull in conjunction with ranged weapons, missiles and other mechanics which are not possible witout those two. Nobody is asking ot just add autoaim to current type of combat. This woun't change anything.
Dude, I really don't get why you can not imagine a more complex type combat. Didn't you ever play something except for shooters and space sandboxes? I assume no aviasims, but maybe some games about naval combat, or Children of a Dead Earth for example?
Dude, you keep arguing for the sake of argument.
Wrong. This thread is about combat being primitive. Comming up with this kind of conclusion is kinda mad.
The point is, align sight+click is not that more skill demanding then lock+click. Combat complexity should come frome other things.
Yeah, but we are talking about what is there in combat other then firing mechanics.
You didn't watch the DCS video, did you? There's a big difference between radom movement to make it more difficult for enemy to keep you in his sigts (Starbase) and possibility to shoot down enemy while completly avoiding his shots (DCS).
It's like you're comparing Mario Kart vs Forza and saying those are almost same racing games with same basic mechanics.
Wrong. Again. DCS was just an example. And if you want to implement this type of combat - you'd need proper radar simulation. And it's not just a 'lock' button as you think. You'd need gimbal limits, doppler effects simulation, RWR, frequency selection, etc. etc. And proper missiles simulation as well (which is not just you shoot them and they just hit a target, as you probably think).
Wrong again. Those two components are only usefull in conjunction with ranged weapons, missiles and other mechanics which are not possible witout those two. Nobody is asking ot just add autoaim to current type of combat. This woun't change anything.
Dude, I really don't get why you can not imagine a more complex type combat. Didn't you ever play something except for shooters and space sandboxes? I assume no aviasims, but maybe some games about naval combat, or Children of a Dead Earth for example?
@Neva lol okay, whatever you say. the fact majority of the people on this topic heavily disagree with you including those who have more contact with the devs than anyone should of gave you some insight, you believe what you want. but hey proving all us wrong helps you sleep better, you do you.
@Cavilier210 quick question on this,
pretty much a lot of medium ships and all large have to run with a piloting crew of at least 2 right? so typically if you were to get off a really like snipe, someone else just take that persons spot til they come back from the 3d printer right? so even if you were lucky enough to land a crazy snipe from a bizarre angle, chances are its not gonna slow the crew down. a rail gun hit lol is gonna def do the trick, cause it dont matter how many crew members you got if there is no cockpit left.
@shado20 dude were not there yet! but in about 2 months after EA start, i got a pretty good design for free form on mines that right now you have to manually force out of the back of your ship if i was able to piece it together. but once they update the yolo code and add the free form, im pretty sure i can make mines to a limit use. this fall and winter with the new updates coming out, we gonna make so some cool shit.
@Cavilier210 quick question on this,
pretty much a lot of medium ships and all large have to run with a piloting crew of at least 2 right? so typically if you were to get off a really like snipe, someone else just take that persons spot til they come back from the 3d printer right? so even if you were lucky enough to land a crazy snipe from a bizarre angle, chances are its not gonna slow the crew down. a rail gun hit lol is gonna def do the trick, cause it dont matter how many crew members you got if there is no cockpit left.
@shado20 dude were not there yet! but in about 2 months after EA start, i got a pretty good design for free form on mines that right now you have to manually force out of the back of your ship if i was able to piece it together. but once they update the yolo code and add the free form, im pretty sure i can make mines to a limit use. this fall and winter with the new updates coming out, we gonna make so some cool shit.
Last edited:
Lolwut? I see that majority is more like "nothing else can be done in a space game" or "they'll do something in the future".
Just a simple explanation of how this game combat differs from Space Engineers and Empyrion would be enougth. But noone did this, so I assume it really does not have much difference.
Just a simple explanation of how this game combat differs from Space Engineers and Empyrion would be enougth. But noone did this, so I assume it really does not have much difference.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2019
- Messages
- 110
While i agree that this post is quite important i dont get how you might have missed some stuff.
First of all, combat is placed pretty far down the line in terms of priority. We havent had any real combat other than the events the devs did as they want to focus on other things at the moment. The building aspect is a lot higher than just 1v1s.
Since we havent had any natural combat we dont really know much other than dogfighting. In the actual game stealth would have quite a big impact since you could just get sniped in your cockpit while mining.
There is also the argument of no skill. Just aim and fire right? And then you say that it doesnt matter that you can disable thrusters, kill pilots in one stot or explode the whole ship if you shoot in the same spot a few times untill you explode your enemys reactor. There are so many points in your ship, especialy in fighters, that are easily destroyed and very important. The only need it to aim at the important parts. Which would require skill wouldnt it?
I also dont really get how you say there would be a lot of tactics and then mention a war game that is faction v faction instead of 1v1.
If you have a 1v1 or a 500 v 500 is pretty different. Alone since if 1000 players would fight against each other they wouldnt use 1000 fighters, but gunships (and when we can build bigger ships with better armor, since good armor hasnt been implemented yet since its not even EA) that would need 3-10 people per ship to man all guns, It would be very different.
I agree that some things should change, but we dont even have more than 1 material to build rn. Dont you think that heavyer armor would already solve some of these problems? I myself would love if they would implement that the space sludge loses its effect while in combat. That way drifting would be much better as you could evade and shoot at your opponent at the same time. But that would work aswell if you would just have a gunner that shoots the person that is following you.
First of all, combat is placed pretty far down the line in terms of priority. We havent had any real combat other than the events the devs did as they want to focus on other things at the moment. The building aspect is a lot higher than just 1v1s.
Since we havent had any natural combat we dont really know much other than dogfighting. In the actual game stealth would have quite a big impact since you could just get sniped in your cockpit while mining.
There is also the argument of no skill. Just aim and fire right? And then you say that it doesnt matter that you can disable thrusters, kill pilots in one stot or explode the whole ship if you shoot in the same spot a few times untill you explode your enemys reactor. There are so many points in your ship, especialy in fighters, that are easily destroyed and very important. The only need it to aim at the important parts. Which would require skill wouldnt it?
I also dont really get how you say there would be a lot of tactics and then mention a war game that is faction v faction instead of 1v1.
If you have a 1v1 or a 500 v 500 is pretty different. Alone since if 1000 players would fight against each other they wouldnt use 1000 fighters, but gunships (and when we can build bigger ships with better armor, since good armor hasnt been implemented yet since its not even EA) that would need 3-10 people per ship to man all guns, It would be very different.
I agree that some things should change, but we dont even have more than 1 material to build rn. Dont you think that heavyer armor would already solve some of these problems? I myself would love if they would implement that the space sludge loses its effect while in combat. That way drifting would be much better as you could evade and shoot at your opponent at the same time. But that would work aswell if you would just have a gunner that shoots the person that is following you.
Well, to some degree that is true but let me bring some examples here:
1) Tank combat games.
Here people do aim for weak points. But that is because of two factors: if you don't hit the weakspot - you do not penetrate armor at all and inflict no damadge. Second is that after a shot you have a long reloading process. So people do try to make every shot count.
2) WWII air combat games.
Here, while you able to kill a pilot or engine with a single bullet - people just tend to spray into enemy's center of mass, because every shot damadges enemy's aircraft anyway and it is really hard to hit something percicely when your opponent is constantly maneuvering.
So with Starbase combat nature being more close to second example, I assume that weakspots pinpointing is going to be less of a factor.
But. If long-range semi-automatic weapons will be implemented - "sniper" ships might be a thing, where hitting weakspots would be crutial. Yes, it's an option that might add both complexety to combat and it would make sence to use different ship roles in the game. (but we need cameras with zoom for that as well)
You mean my example with missiles vs cannons vs armor? It's just another example to aviod cannon-fighters vs cannon-fighters vs cannon-fighters in fleet vs fleet encounters. Regarding 1 vs 1 examples - missile combat might be pretty interesting, I've posted a video from DCS in this thread.
Are you sure about that? It might make sense to have those 3-10 guys in separate fighters, because 3-10 guys crowded in a big slow target might be a bad Idea.
I mean I have a concern about theese gunships. People say that with implementation of tripods that might be a new class of ships. But IMHO 5 guys in fighters targeting one big gunship are way superior to 5 guys in a gunship targeting 5 agile targets (if armor and weaponry are similar, which is the case right now).
Heavier ships are only usefull if they can carry heavier weaponry. Or their armor can not be penetrated by light ships at all.
It might. It depends on implementation.
1) Tank combat games.
Here people do aim for weak points. But that is because of two factors: if you don't hit the weakspot - you do not penetrate armor at all and inflict no damadge. Second is that after a shot you have a long reloading process. So people do try to make every shot count.
2) WWII air combat games.
Here, while you able to kill a pilot or engine with a single bullet - people just tend to spray into enemy's center of mass, because every shot damadges enemy's aircraft anyway and it is really hard to hit something percicely when your opponent is constantly maneuvering.
So with Starbase combat nature being more close to second example, I assume that weakspots pinpointing is going to be less of a factor.
But. If long-range semi-automatic weapons will be implemented - "sniper" ships might be a thing, where hitting weakspots would be crutial. Yes, it's an option that might add both complexety to combat and it would make sence to use different ship roles in the game. (but we need cameras with zoom for that as well)
You mean my example with missiles vs cannons vs armor? It's just another example to aviod cannon-fighters vs cannon-fighters vs cannon-fighters in fleet vs fleet encounters. Regarding 1 vs 1 examples - missile combat might be pretty interesting, I've posted a video from DCS in this thread.
Are you sure about that? It might make sense to have those 3-10 guys in separate fighters, because 3-10 guys crowded in a big slow target might be a bad Idea.
I mean I have a concern about theese gunships. People say that with implementation of tripods that might be a new class of ships. But IMHO 5 guys in fighters targeting one big gunship are way superior to 5 guys in a gunship targeting 5 agile targets (if armor and weaponry are similar, which is the case right now).
Heavier ships are only usefull if they can carry heavier weaponry. Or their armor can not be penetrated by light ships at all.
It might. It depends on implementation.
..........I have never in my life seen somebody post this much about a game they publicly claim is boring.
*edit* Wait (and I apologize), I suppose you never used the words "boring", you just say "primitive". Which has kicked off 4 pages of back and forth on the matter. Somebody could walk up behind a brother and bash their brains in with a rock and it would be primitive, HIGHLY EFFECTIVE....but primitive. Honestly I'm not even sure why anyone should argue whether the game mechanics are primitive or not, that's kind of subjective I suppose and could keep this thread going in circles until EA was well underway and we find something else to argue about. But combat is "fun". It is also exciting and will get your blood pumping. Same as chasing down some poor schmuck with a rock would likely get your blood pumping and if he is fighting back with his own rock then you may be a lot of things in that moment however BORED will not be one of those feelings you will be having.
*edit* Wait (and I apologize), I suppose you never used the words "boring", you just say "primitive". Which has kicked off 4 pages of back and forth on the matter. Somebody could walk up behind a brother and bash their brains in with a rock and it would be primitive, HIGHLY EFFECTIVE....but primitive. Honestly I'm not even sure why anyone should argue whether the game mechanics are primitive or not, that's kind of subjective I suppose and could keep this thread going in circles until EA was well underway and we find something else to argue about. But combat is "fun". It is also exciting and will get your blood pumping. Same as chasing down some poor schmuck with a rock would likely get your blood pumping and if he is fighting back with his own rock then you may be a lot of things in that moment however BORED will not be one of those feelings you will be having.
Last edited:
It's not about the whole game, It's about combat part.
If the whole game concept was boring - I wouldnt've been here)
That's a big difference.
Uhm, I just make parallels to other space combat games.
Space engineers - people complain about stupid deathbricks.
Empyrion - people complain about stupid deathbricks.
Star Citizen - devs intentionally did not implement autotargeting. And now people complain about combat being just point and click (especially for multicrew ships). And here is Starbase with no-autoaim, no-cameras polcy digging itself the same grave.
And now look at Elite Dangerous. It has autoaim. But the combat is more about maneuvering, then shooting, so it does not matter.
Look at "from the depths". Ok, not a space game. But the variety of weapons (different ranges, autoaim on some, no autoaim on others, missiles) make people create completely different weapon platform designs. Compare that to current Starbase builds - everyone is just trying to create the same meta fighter.
And Stormworks. It has no weapons yet at all! The only way you can damadge another vehicle is by ramming it with something. And still, people have already built SAM-s, AA missiles, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, targeting platforms (laser/gps/radar) on ships, planes, helis, etc. etc.
If you think about it - it's kinda insane that a sandbox game with NO proper weapons implemented have more variety of complex weapon systems developed by players then those "space combat" sandboxes like Space engineers and Empyrion.
I'm just really worried that Starbase would make same mistakes.
If the whole game concept was boring - I wouldnt've been here)
That's a big difference.
Uhm, I just make parallels to other space combat games.
Space engineers - people complain about stupid deathbricks.
Empyrion - people complain about stupid deathbricks.
Star Citizen - devs intentionally did not implement autotargeting. And now people complain about combat being just point and click (especially for multicrew ships). And here is Starbase with no-autoaim, no-cameras polcy digging itself the same grave.
And now look at Elite Dangerous. It has autoaim. But the combat is more about maneuvering, then shooting, so it does not matter.
Look at "from the depths". Ok, not a space game. But the variety of weapons (different ranges, autoaim on some, no autoaim on others, missiles) make people create completely different weapon platform designs. Compare that to current Starbase builds - everyone is just trying to create the same meta fighter.
And Stormworks. It has no weapons yet at all! The only way you can damadge another vehicle is by ramming it with something. And still, people have already built SAM-s, AA missiles, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, targeting platforms (laser/gps/radar) on ships, planes, helis, etc. etc.
If you think about it - it's kinda insane that a sandbox game with NO proper weapons implemented have more variety of complex weapon systems developed by players then those "space combat" sandboxes like Space engineers and Empyrion.
I'm just really worried that Starbase would make same mistakes.
Last edited: