Space Jelly, Thrusters, and Extreme evasion

[Zijkhal]

The drag and having to constantly use thrusters to counteract the drag reminds me a lot of one game: From the Depths. More pteciesly, a problem with extreme dodgig in FtD. So extreme, in fact, that at a range of less than 500m (often even as close as 300m), a drone going at 100-150 m/s orbiting its target can easily dodge 700m/s+ projectiles fired at it.
This issue is exasperated in FTD by the turrets being aimed automaticaly, and the built-in aiming system only doing linear prediction of the target (ie as if its target was going in a straight line).

What does any of this has to do with Starbase? The root of the issue in FtD is that atmospheric drag is very high. Like an unpowered giant airship gently floatig down as if on massive parachutes big. This means that in order for air builds to reach any kind of meaningful speeds, they need Loads of thrust. Thus thrusters provide loads of thrust. This means that the thrust to weight ratio of aircraft are insanely high. Like 0 to 100 m/s (aka 0 to 360 kph) in well under a second high. 0 to 100 m/s in a single second would be 10 g's of acceleration by the way, ten times the gravity on Earth.

My concern is that due to Space Jelly Drag, Thrusters will be way too powerful, meaning spacecaft acceleration will be extremely high, thus crazy dodging maneuvers would become possible, making any kind of gun emplacements on large ships useless.

Now, I fully understand that adjusting drag and thruster thrust values is an easy fix, however, the sooner such a fix comes should it be neccessary, the better. The real problem FTD has encountered is that changing these values would require a massive redesign of almost all aerial builds in the game, as there is gravity in FTD, and a lot of those builds rely on thrusters to stay airborne.

I realize that we do not have much to go off with regards to thrust and drag values, but judging from the few vids, acceleration seems to be very high on spacecraft, they seem to be reaching their top speeds very quickly, so I am worried that the same issue as in FtD may rear its ugly head here as well.

 

[damoran]

The drag and having to constantly use thrusters to counteract the drag

Was this confirmed as a thing? I've seen no evidence of this.

This issue is exasperated in FTD by the turrets being aimed automaticaly, and the built-in aiming system only doing linear prediction of the target (ie as if its target was going in a straight line).

I don't remember seeing anywhere that turrets in Starbase are automated (they are all manned by players afaik). So seems like you either man a turret and lead the target or have forward firing weapons and pilot the ship to lead the target.

What does any of this has to do with Starbase? The root of the issue in FtD is that atmospheric drag is very high

Aerial builds? No air in this game that I'm aware of. Unless the gas giant becomes a playable location. They also talk of a moon but one would assume little to no drag because of such light gravity. In space there shouldn't be any atmospheric drag at all on your projectiles. They would travel in a straight line from the moment they leave your weapon until acted upon by another force. Ships would also travel in a straight line until the pilot activates the maneuvering thrusters to change directions. Not sure what else you mean here.

 

[cranky corvid]

Was this confirmed as a thing? I've seen no evidence of this.

Yes, it's developer-confirmed. It depends on mass and velocity, though, rather than acting like aerodynamic drag. It's primarily there for technical reasons; the faster ships can go the more frequently the game's physics engine has to check for collisions, so there needs to be something to limit speed to keep the performance load reasonable.

 

[Zijkhal]

I don't remember seeing anywhere that turrets in Starbase are automated (they are all manned by players afaik). So seems like you either man a turret and lead the target or have forward firing weapons and pilot the ship to lead the target.

Manned vs unmanned does not matter if the target can get away from a perfectly aimed shot by changing directions at what is essentially point blank range. The issue in FtD is exasperated due to AI gun control, but it is essentially the same if the gunner and the pilot are both human, as in FtD, both are AI normally.

Aerial builds?

Aerial or not has nothing to due with it, high drag and increased thruster power has everything to do with the problem. FtD has air drag, SB has Space Jelly Drag, which are functionally identical for our purposes. And yes, Space Jelly Drag is confirmed.

 

[CalenLoki]

I was worried about the same thing, after 700h in ftd. But decided to wait for release before discussing it.
The big difference between ftd and sb is gravity. Fixing numbers here won't break any ship, just make them less agile.

 

[Zijkhal]

Fixing numbers here won't break any ship, just make them less agile.

First, one could argue that making ships less agile is breaking them, especially combat ships, because suddenly what was able to rely on evasion is pretty sluggish. This would have a knockon effect of changing entire fleet doctrines, neccessitating completely new designs all round.

Second, it is only true for as long as planets and moons are not a thing

 

[CalenLoki]

First, one could argue that making ships less agile is breaking them, especially combat ships, because suddenly what was able to rely on evasion is pretty sluggish. This would have a knockon effect of changing entire fleet doctrines, neccessitating completely new designs all round.

Second, it is only true for as long as planets and moons are not a thing

First is not much compared to spawning nether vehicles into earthlike setup (ships sinking, planes falling from the sky) or installing realistic thrusters mod for SE (everything flying in circles).

More like using cold war era tanks against modern ones. Still kind of usable, even if barely.

Second is definitely valid, but it's still far away from now.

Third is that in FtD it mostly harms built in campaign designs. There is not many of these in SB. Maybe empire/kingdom ships. But those are not meant to be optimal in the first place.
Players will adapt quickly.

 

[Tatakai]

I don’t understand, what’s bad about being able to dodge incoming fire? Isn’t that a skill?

Reducing thruster output and making ships more sluggish will mean ships travel primarily in straight lines, unable to quickly change vector and dodge incoming fire. Combat would be reduced to jousting and/or circle strafing, which is incredibly boring.

 

[Fingle]

I agree with Tataki. More agile ships just mean a shorter maximum engagement range. You are talking about how inaccurate muskets were in the Civil war and wanting sniper rifles, but maybe the devs want to keep engagement very close in order to make boarding and capturing ships a valid strategy. Just look at the Dev battles on their youtube. It doesn't look bad to me.

ps. I am not familiar with FtD, so my opinions may be invalid from a lack of knowledge.

 

[Lionard Freezer]

The big thing you guys havent mentioned is:
This weired force, the space sludge, only acts upon objects that do not have an active thruster (or at least so i heared)
that would mean no need for unrealistic strong thrusters.
Edit:
Also with a top speed of 300m/s and some weapons which fire at really high speeds (like the railgun) it wouldnt really be a problem to hit a target with a perfect shot becourse the target wouldnt have time to react. obviously those weapons will take a lot of skill to hit their marks but if you are good enought no ship could dodge.
2. Edit:
Since the space sludge only affects on the mass of the object, smaler crafts would be faster and more agile and bigger ones would be slower.
if that effect wouldnt be in the game why would you ever want a smaler fighter over a huge chunk of metall?
3.Edit: Idk if what i said in Edit 2 makes any sense, since now i ask myself if the mass of a ship decides the acceleration of that ship (without counting thrusters)... i mean... it should right?
4. Edit: To Zijkhal: We have only seen some of the smallest fighters, and with that some of the fastest ships possible i think, so i dont think you have to worry too much about what we could see in the vidoes so far. you may have seen the really small ship that flyes without real thrusters but with um...
Maneuver thrusters. those are usually only able to move the ship a tiny amount, which then again goes to: we havent really seen any big ships fight yet! we dont really know how fast they will be able to fly!

 

[Quinc]

Lots of games have zero inertia, the time it takes to turn around is equal to the time it takes to lift a finger. A few games play with Newtonian physics, though movement usually becomes a challenge in of itself. Starbase and many others try to go in between with Newtonian physics and friction. Though really there is a lot of space between the two extremes. If you are moving and then suddenly cut off engines: How quickly do you slow down? How far can inertia carry you? I have trouble telling from the videos.

It seems like a matter of opinion. Like Zijkhal, I would prefer greater inertia and less space jelly. The game could still work if the space friction stops you instantly but it would destroy the concept of velocity in the game. Why do the bullets have a constant velocity if the ships don't? Imagine the difference between a car stopping, a person on foot, a train, or a ship. It would be bizarre if a person was jogging towards you and yelled "Get out of the way I can't stop!" Though first person shooters where everyone is on foot can still involve dodging enemy bullets. You cannot dodge individual bullets but moving around randomly makes you hard to hit. Dodging in games with inertia has the same dynamic but adds others. It would significantly change the feel of the game, but that depends on what the developers want it to feel like.

 

[dusty]

The big thing you guys havent mentioned is:
This weired force, the space sludge, only acts upon objects that do not have an active thruster (or at least so i heared)
that would mean no need for unrealistic strong thrusters.
Edit:
Also with a top speed of 300m/s and some weapons which fire at really high speeds (like the railgun) it wouldnt really be a problem to hit a target with a perfect shot becourse the target wouldnt have time to react. obviously those weapons will take a lot of skill to hit their marks but if you are good enought no ship could dodge.

The space jam affects all non-projectile objects, whether they're under thrust or not. Additionally, the top speed for spacecraft is 150 m/s, not 300.

As for the size of the spaceship, it's been shown that faster speeds necessitate increasingly powerful thrust. So far, no ship has been able to max out the speed limit. Especially light ships like the Vasama can utilize maneuver thrusters as main propulsion, but it's not efficient beyond that scale.

 

[Zijkhal]

I don’t understand, what’s bad about being able to dodge incoming fire? Isn’t that a skill?

Reducing thruster output and making ships more sluggish will mean ships travel primarily in straight lines, unable to quickly change vector and dodge incoming fire. Combat would be reduced to jousting and/or circle strafing, which is incredibly boring.

The bad thing is excessive dodging, not dodging in itself. If a 300m engagement range is consideref long range because a fighter can Dodge all incoming fire, then it is a bad thing. I do not want to Nerf things to a point that everything is unable to change dirctions, just enough that dodging is not guaranteed if you press up and down thrust.

The big thing you guys havent mentioned is:
This weired force, the space sludge, only acts upon objects that do not have an active thruster (or at least so i heared)
that would mean no need for unrealistic strong thrusters.
Edit:
Also with a top speed of 300m/s and some weapons which fire at really high speeds (like the railgun) it wouldnt really be a problem to hit a target with a perfect shot becourse the target wouldnt have time to react. obviously those weapons will take a lot of skill to hit their marks but if you are good enought no ship could dodge.
2. Edit:
Since the space sludge only affects on the mass of the object, smaler crafts would be faster and more agile and bigger ones would be slower.
if that effect wouldnt be in the game why would you ever want a smaler fighter over a huge chunk of metall?
3.Edit: Idk if what i said in Edit 2 makes any sense, since now i ask myself if the mass of a ship decides the acceleration of that ship (without counting thrusters)... i mean... it should right?
4. Edit: To Zijkhal: We have only seen some of the smallest fighters, and with that some of the fastest ships possible i think, so i dont think you have to worry too much about what we could see in the vidoes so far. you may have seen the really small ship that flyes without real thrusters but with um...
Maneuver thrusters. those are usually only able to move the ship a tiny amount, which then again goes to: we havent really seen any big ships fight yet! we dont really know how fast they will be able to fly!

First, space sludge acts on everything, under thrust or not, that is how you get a soft max speed.

Second, the problem is not the raw speed. The problem is excessive acceleration.

2) there is a balance. I intentionally did not mention specific values, because it is impssible to theorize. I am merely raising awareness that excessive drag forces will lead to excessive thruster power, which leads to excessive acceleration, which will lead to excessive dodging.
I do not want to remove the agility advantage of smaller crafts.

4) size has nothing to do with it. If drag and thrust values are too high, the effect will be same on all ships regardless of size: very high acceleration, thats seen by ships reaching / almost reaching their top speeds almost instantly. How high will vary by size, but way too high nonetheless

 

[Tatakai]

The bad thing is excessive dodging, not dodging in itself. If a 300m engagement range is consideref long range because a fighter can Dodge all incoming fire, then it is a bad thing. I do not want to Nerf things to a point that everything is unable to change dirctions, just enough that dodging is not guaranteed if you press up and down thrust.

Did you watch the combat video? No one was moving around dodging excessively, it's really not something I think anyone needs to worry about right now. It looked to me like 100-500m effective combat range, with a max range of about 1000m for railguns, much higher than 300m.

With the way things appear to be currently tuned, we'll have a low skill floor and a high skill ceiling, which makes for good combat. Only someone with high skill will be able to dodge oncoming fire; and only someone with high skill will be able land shots on a highly evasive target.

 

[Zijkhal]

Did you watch the combat video? No one was moving around dodging excessively, it's really not something I think anyone needs to worry about right now. It looked to me like 100-500m effective combat range, with a max range of about 1000m for railguns, much higher than 300m.

Just because the devs dont do it does not mean that dodging and weaving isnt a far Superior tactic. The devs dont even approach battles as tactically, and their battles devolve into a "mindless slugfest" to quote one of the devs, so you can not expect dev battles to explore anything remotely reated to "the meta".

With the way things appear to be currently tuned, we'll have a low skill floor and a high skill ceiling, which makes for good combat. Only someone with high skill will be able to dodge oncoming fire; and only someone with high skill will be able land shots on a highly evasive target.

The two parts here are polar opposites of each other. A low skill floor would mean that a newbie would be able to do semi-well against a veteran. Only hihgly skilled beig able to dodge, and hit a dodging target would mean a newbie would be completely useless against a veteran.

I'd like if things were at a point that experience players in a fighter-sized ship would be able to dodge a large portion of incoming fire, but not all of them. Acceleration needs to be tuned so that if someone is going in a straight line, gets fired at, and starts accelerating, then they couldnt do a complete 180 in the time it takes for the shots to reach them.

 

[Tatakai]

Just because the devs dont do it does not mean that dodging and weaving isnt a far Superior tactic. The devs dont even approach battles as tactically, and their battles devolve into a "mindless slugfest" to quote one of the devs, so you can not expect dev battles to explore anything remotely reated to "the meta".

Dodging fire is obviously a good tactic, what I'm saying is the ships used in those combat videos don't look capable for extreme maneuvering. Yes, they are not optimally designed or piloted, but it's still enough to get an idea of how ships will move and feel.

The two parts here are polar opposites of each other. A low skill floor would mean that a newbie would be able to do semi-well against a veteran. Only hihgly skilled beig able to dodge, and hit a dodging target would mean a newbie would be completely useless against a veteran.

A low skill floor refers to a game being easily accessed and enjoyable by even a kid. If someone can start the game, pick up a gun, and manage to kill something, that is a low skill floor. Games with low skill floor: fortnite, minecraft, super mario, etc. Newbs get crushed by veterans all the time, that's kind of how the world works. A low skill ceiling however would mean a noob has a much easier time trying to kill a veteran, the problem with this is that competitive players will get bored/frustrated with mechanics that determine a winner instead of their own ability. Sounds like you want to remove skill from combat so that a newbie can take down a veteran, how is that fair to the veteran player?

Generally devs aim for low skill floor and high skill ceiling. "Easy to learn, difficult to master." The low floor keeps casual players playing, and the high ceiling keeps competitive types striving for the top.

I'd like if things were at a point that experience players in a fighter-sized ship would be able to dodge a large portion of incoming fire, but not all of them. Acceleration needs to be tuned so that if someone is going in a straight line, gets fired at, and starts accelerating, then they couldnt do a complete 180 in the time it takes for the shots to reach them

I don't think ships will be doing 180's in the blink of an eye, really unsure where you got this idea from. Again, referencing the videos we've seen, the mediocre ships have mediocre turning rates and acceleration.

 

[Zijkhal]

Dodging fire is obviously a good tactic, what I'm saying is the ships used in those combat videos don't look capable for extreme maneuvering. Yes, they are not optimally designed or piloted, but it's still enough to get an idea of how ships will move and feel.

Let me stop you right there. Put a braking thruster or two on your fighter (so same backwards thrust As forward, and if you can stop on a dime and start reversing, then the acceleration is incorrectly tuned. And that does not even take into consideration the dsigns ppl will come up with, ships that have regular thrusters instead of RCS ant thrusters for turning and maneuvering, and the frames to support those structural stresses.

A low skill floor refers to a game being easily accessed and enjoyable by even a kid. If someone can start the game, pick up a gun, and manage to kill something, that is a low skill floor. Games with low skill floor: fortnite, minecraft, super mario, etc. Newbs get crushed by veterans all the time, that's kind of how the world works. A low skill ceiling however would mean a noob has a much easier time trying to kill a veteran, the problem with this is that competitive players will get bored/frustrated with mechanics that determine a winner instead of their own ability. Sounds like you want to remove skill from combat so that a newbie can take down a veteran, how is that fair to the veteran player?

Generally devs aim for low skill floor and high skill ceiling. "Easy to learn, difficult to master." The low floor keeps casual players playing, and the high ceiling keeps competitive types striving for the top.

Removing skill completely and making skill not overpowered are completely different things. Please do not try to put words into my mouth.

When I say low skilled / newbie, I assume some basic understanding of leading shots and basic ability to control something with mouse+keyboard, at least to the point that they aim more or less where a linear extrapolation of their target would suggest them to aim. Or more precisely, I assume that a low skilled player is able to refine their aiming solution using the tracers.

I would argue that having those skills is pretty basic, yet not something that a five year old could pick up as their first game. I'd go as far to say that the games you mentioned dont have a skill floor at all as opposed to having a low skill floor.

I don't think ships will be doing 180's in the blink of an eye, really unsure where you got this idea from. Again, referencing the videos we've seen, the mediocre ships have mediocre turning rates and acceleration.

See my first point in this reply, mirror the thrusters on the front, and if thrust is too high, then the ships course will do a 180 near-instantly, though, not neccesarily its orientation.

And I am not talking about mediocre ships, I am talking about meta ships the community will make.

 

[Lionard Freezer]

I mean... if you really want this game to have no real life physics go ahead.
but if you would put 6 backwards thrusters and 3 forwards thrusters on a ship it will obviously stop a lot quicker than it can speed up (what i think you meant with the 180 thing).
but then think about the fuel consumption wich will be higher, becourse that you will need to have more fuel on your ship, becourse that your ship gets bigger and heavyer and becourse of that your ship will be a lot slower (since the space sludge affects mass).
that principle is kinda like getting rockets into orbit in the real world.
Also its realy not the time to meantion meta ships becourse (as with the astroid meta and the things we thought we could do to break the game-physics) the devs are watching and nerving/buffing/fixing stuff all the time. one of the reasons this game will be available as EA.

 

[Zijkhal]

what does physics have anything to do with it?

Also, thrusters only consume fuel while they are firing, so it would not consume any more fuel than if the forwards thrusters were firing constantly. And I meant 3 forward 3 backwards thrusters.

 

[Lionard Freezer]

We are talking about the game physics the whole time, about how to tweak them for thrusters (output) and how the space sludge should affect things.
And now i really dont know what you mean anymore.
Do you want it so that a ship speeds up really slow and the sludges effect is low (you would need a lot more time to speed up or slow down)? Do you want that thruster output depends on the placement of the thruster? Do you want game physics that have nothing to do with rl physics?
I really dont know what you want from the thruster system anymore...