Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by Hyperion on March 12, 2016, 12:50:20 am »
I think recoil from the big guns would be nice, but there should be an option in the navigational computer to counteract recoil forces for all guns with automatically firing maneuvering thrusters so as to allow the "Noobz" one less notch on the initial learning curve. Of course all bets are off with the advanced players farting depleted plutonium pellets around the galaxy.  :D
92
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by MRC on March 11, 2016, 05:53:44 pm »
Thrusters are pretty much just unfocused particle beams anyway. So I see no issue with that. =3
93
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by Commander Jackson on March 11, 2016, 05:32:55 pm »
Recoil Propelled Car

Recoil just solved my problem of not having enough space on the front of my ship.  I can remove half of the braking thrusters and use the recoil from the main gun to decelerate!

Officer: Sir, we need to decelerate faster.
Captain: <Dismissive> Fire a few supraluminal rounds from the main cannon.  That should do the trick.

:D
94
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by Voltaire on March 11, 2016, 12:35:03 pm »
Remind me never to be your wingman in that ship!

By the way, if they do implement recoil, I am definitely going to make a ship that is propelled by weapon recoil.  For novelty purposes of course.

Note to self: Emergency Combat Thrusters will be replaced with a wall of rail-guns.
95
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by Commander Jackson on March 11, 2016, 10:39:11 am »
By the way, if they do implement recoil, I am definitely going to make a ship that is propelled by weapon recoil.  For novelty purposes of course.

Note to self: Emergency Combat Thrusters will be replaced with a wall of rail-guns.
96
Ideas & Suggestions / Re: Shipyard and Ship Building
« Last post by Hyperion on March 10, 2016, 10:10:55 pm »
Been gone for a few days.

My first experience with online gaming was with Star Wars Galaxies which had a fairly large amount of players and I had a huge amount of fun in the game mostly because of the interaction between other players, and not so much from the game itself.

I was initially under the assumption that there would be a ship showcase on the main website that people could download a ship in game if they didn't want to take the time to build one themselves. So, my main thought point was how to reward a player for taking the (potentially significant) time to design a really well made ship and increase community interaction and game immersion a little bit. I had the idea that if someone designed a popular ship then their time they spent in the designer would be compensated by in game credits from other player's downloads, which would let them kick start game.

But, now that I've had a few days to think it over I don't think linking in game credits to this would be a good idea for a game that is widely open to modders (it would just be another thing to break and complain about).

I'm not sorry about the necromancy because I couldn't find a recent topic to post in.

P.S. Aaron, I don't think there is much more discussion to warrant a brand new topic.
97
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by MRC on March 10, 2016, 09:45:32 pm »
6) PvE doesn't tend toward mechanic-abusing designs as heavily.

Agreed, but you wouldn't want player just putting the biggest weapon they find on the starting ship and breeze to victory. There's still value here in discouraging, without preventing  ;), the use of overpowered weapon relative to your current class.

But if you think strong recoil is not a viable handicap to Wall-of-guns and Giant-Gun-With-Thruster's, what do you think would be?

Rephrase Edit: Also I wonder, do you agree overall on strong recoil but not as a handicap or oppose it overall? (I can't quite tell.) If not what recoil mechanics would you prefer?
98
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by Me2005 on March 10, 2016, 06:14:25 pm »
I think it answer the 'abusive' kind of glass-cannon (AkA capital-size cannon on a single thruster) by throwing them back at ridiculous speed and/or spinning helplessly.


I, for one, never advocated for such a thing so that's fine with me.

I think it'd be harder here than in robocraft for a few reasons:
1) The need for a pilot-area
2) The need for power generation
3) The need for actually arriving at the engagement (vs. Robocraft's battlefield; here you won't just be dropped into a war zone).
4) The need for spotting equipment
5) The need to be an *actually useful* ship the rest of the time to be profitible
And
6) PvE doesn't tend toward mechanic-abusing designs as heavily.

Of course, the list probably goes on.

Even countered by some evasive bomber perhaps?

Maybe. Depends heavily on engagement ranges, the game's placement on the hard---soft scale, turning speed (and limits to turning speed), and ship protection.

And just the way lasers behave as light. Imagine the death star's laser: it's made up of 6-10 little lasers. In reality, those lasers wouldn't combine and turn into one big one, they'd all focus on the same point to do max damage. But that'd imply the capability to focus independently on at least 6-8 smaller targets. Now, in real life, you'd probably switch it: have 1 big laser emitter running spinally deep within the ship, and split that into X little outputs that are dotted all along the hull. Since the outputs are basically just lenses, they can probably pretty easily track and defend the ship all over. Shoot, they could fire and do significant damage to the cap ship you're targeting, but also simultaneously sap off some % of total power to fire at small targets.

IMO, that'd be an awesome and super-unique mechanic for how lasers work. Sure, you could also point the emitters at things, but using splitters and ball turrets to siphon off parts of the main beam on demand would be so cool. Then they'd be very distinct from slugthrowers (rail, gauss, conventional guns: point-shoot like most people would be used to with a large store of ammunition), and missiles/rockets (launch an expendable munition that is a significant mass and basically a ship itself).
99
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by MRC on March 10, 2016, 05:23:37 pm »
I suspect it'd actually cause more glass-cannon type ships rather than fewer. It'd be easier to design around one single weapon kicking your ship straight back than around several smaller weapons firing in different directions.
I think it answer the 'abusive' kind of glass-cannon (AkA capital-size cannon on a single thruster) by throwing them back at ridiculous speed and/or spinning helplessly. Whilst no recoil would let them stand there and snipe all day. But I have nothing against a decently built glass-cannon type, they can be fairly balanced. Even countered by some evasive bomber perhaps?
100
General Discussion / Re: Recoil or no recoil?
« Last post by Me2005 on March 10, 2016, 12:59:23 pm »
I was wondering about weapon recoil as a game mechanic, in the sense of a cannon shot pushing back and spinning the ships itself rather than simply trowing the weapons' aim off.

In most games, if not all, recoil is either ignored or weak to the point that it only gently pushes ships back. So I'm curious as to why is seems so unpopular and I'd like to ask everyone: In BR, would you rather have strong, weak or no recoil and what's your case for or against?

Actually, Marathon (Bungie's first sci-fi FPS where you play a cyborg-super human largely instructed by an AI) used recoil (well, blast recoil) as a mechanic. You couldn't jump, but you could fire a grenade at your feet while running and blow yourself upwards. I don't remember if the player was required to do that in any level to beat the game, but it was required to get access to several secret areas and some story elements. A clever player could also use it to blow explode-on-death enemies into groups of other enemies.

Quote
Personally I'd root for a strong recoil model.

To be fair, you could claim (even animate, if you're that awesome) that when firing the weapon itself uses some power to counteract its recoil. A rail or stationary gun might have back blast and little RCS blasts shoot out when it fires counter to the direction it is aimed.

Quote
There's also the negative sides of course, it can be hard to keep a control of small ships with large weapons and it's an extra complication when building.

I suspect it'd actually cause more glass-cannon type ships rather than fewer. It'd be easier to design around one single weapon kicking your ship straight back than around several smaller weapons firing in different directions.

Also, I'm not sure how hard it'd be to program. Each weapon firing would add a force vector that'd have to be resolved. Sounds complicated to me.

ED: It might be ok if certain weapons had kick. Maybe all railguns are fixed spinal affairs, and kick the ship back if thrust isn't applied to counter it, but lasers, rockets, and blasters are not. Or turrets are assumed to have RCS (that might become broken at some module HP and throw the ship out of control >:D ), but fixed guns aren't.

Quote
But for me, the good outweight the bad on this one. I could take it up one notch by asking, why not also have projectiles kick you around on impact? But that's another matter entirely.

Shells kicking you on impact happens in Escape Velocity - little lightweight fighters bounce back if hit hard, which is sometimes the best way to stop them for the smaller guns. Tracking hits is probably easier to do - push player away from point of impact (which you should know) with a certain amount of force.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]