Author Topic: What kind of combat style do you prefer? "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" style?  (Read 17706 times)

Erebus

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 602
In Star Trek Space Combat is mostly done like World War II dogfights. Ships hardly ever turn on the spot, instead they fly elaborate curves, ups and downs and all their weapons are in the front, firing only forward.

In Star Wars (and most other SciFi Series like StarGate or Babylon 5), Space Combat is shown like combat between Water-Battleships. First they exchange blows over long distances, moving ponderously towards each other, and sometimes when they get closer even broadsides are employed. While this is still not very realistic (For a realistic depiction of Space Combat check out the "Honor Harrington" or "The Lost Fleet" novels), in my opinion it beats the dogfighting from Star Trek.

Apparently Blockade Runner is going for the "Star Trek" style. The first videos show cruises chasing each other in circles, only one time was I able to see two ships moving slower and firing broadsides. The Multiplayer Alpha seems to confirm this, all ships are extremly agile and fast. As I said, I personally would prefer larger ships beeing waaay slower. Of course then the pilot could only fire his forward and broadside weapons effectivly at other bigger ships, and we would need automated turrets as a defense against fighters, gunboats and corvettes. And that would mean a huge effort in programming, more time etc. etc.

So what would you prefer?

Vininator

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Owner of Galactic Munitions Inc... and a cool guy.
In Star Trek Space Combat is mostly done like World War II dogfights. Ships hardly ever turn on the spot, instead they fly elaborate curves, ups and downs and all their weapons are in the front, firing only forward.

In Star Wars (and most other SciFi Series like StarGate or Babylon 5), Space Combat is shown like combat between Water-Battleships. First they exchange blows over long distances, moving ponderously towards each other, and sometimes when they get closer even broadsides are employed. While this is still not very realistic (For a realistic depiction of Space Combat check out the "Honor Harrington" or "The Lost Fleet" novels), in my opinion it beats the dogfighting from Star Trek.

Apparently Blockade Runner is going for the "Star Trek" style. The first videos show cruises chasing each other in circles, only one time was I able to see two ships moving slower and firing broadsides. The Multiplayer Alpha seems to confirm this, all ships are extremly agile and fast. As I said, I personally would prefer larger ships beeing waaay slower. Of course then the pilot could only fire his forward and broadside weapons effectivly at other bigger ships, and we would need automated turrets as a defense against fighters, gunboats and corvettes. And that would mean a huge effort in programming, more time etc. etc.

So what would you prefer?

I would prefer star wars simply because it suits big ships better. Keep in mind that we urrently only have one single weapon type: a fixed weapon block. So dogfighting is the only combat style we are capable of right now. The devs plan to implement many different weapon types, including missiles and mass drivers, so I think combat will be whatever style you want to use.

McNielGDI

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 80
  • Agent of the GCAM
I think a mix of both would be good, for smaller ships, the star trek combat would work, but when it comes to warships, theoretically, you'd imagine that they'd get a large range of weapons to cover the ship in front, behind, above, below, and to the sides. so ships being able to move similarly to star trek, though slower depending on size and mass, while also moving in closer from a long range would be ideal. once they get in close and broadside, many ship pilots would likely start to move their ships again to try to get a better angle of fire or even attacking new targets. It all depends on the pilot of the ship, so I say the capability for both should be present.
GCAM Support today for a better tomorrow.

Erebus

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 602
so I think combat will be whatever style you want to use.

That wouldnt work. If you could make a cruiser extremly agile, a 2miles long dreadnought wouldnt have a chance. You could dart around it, firing into its weak spots.

Either agility and speed would have to stop at the size of gunboats / corvettes, or every ship must be able to be that fast. And THEN you would have Super Star Destroyers hopping around like Spacefighters....

Vininator

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Owner of Galactic Munitions Inc... and a cool guy.
so I think combat will be whatever style you want to use.

That wouldnt work. If you could make a cruiser extremly agile, a 2miles long dreadnought wouldnt have a chance. You could dart around it, firing into its weak spots.

Either agility and speed would have to stop at the size of gunboats / corvettes, or every ship must be able to be that fast. And THEN you would have Super Star Destroyers hopping around like Spacefighters....

In order for a cruiser to be that fast, it would have to be lightweight and have huge engines, both of which make it a very squishy target. A dreadnought would be able to kill it with only one or two well placed shots. Not only that, but high-powered engines would take power away from the shields and weapons, which would weaken it even further. Every perk comes with a minus somewhere else. If you try to impose mandatory limits on what you can or can't do with a ship that is X size and weight Y then you'll break the customization of the game. I think the mechanics of the game itself will limit what ships are capable of.

 I personally would want to see a well-built cruiser tearing into  ship 5 times its size. That means that the person who designed the ship put lots of effort and thought into it. If you built a dragster of a ship that ends up blowing up 5 seconds into a battle... then obviously it was not well designed :)

mamastoast

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1010
As Vin has already pointed out, the reason we see the "star trek" combat now is because we can only shoot straight ahead as it is, and have no way of actually aiming, so all we can do is pretty much fly in circles and hope for the best.

That said I'm not entirely convinced on this devide of combat styles. In star wars there are many, many instances of dog fighting, it's jsut that the larger ships behave very differently from fighters. So I'd 100% say they should aim for the star wars method, where it pretty much comes down to which types of ships are fighting.

Erebus

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 602


In order for a cruiser to be that fast, it would have to be lightweight and have huge engines, both of which make it a very squishy target. A dreadnought would be able to kill it with only one or two well placed shots. Not only that, but high-powered engines would take power away from the shields and weapons, which would weaken it even further. Every perk comes with a minus somewhere else. If you try to impose mandatory limits on what you can or can't do with a ship that is X size and weight Y then you'll break the customization of the game. I think the mechanics of the game itself will limit what ships are capable of.

 I personally would want to see a well-built cruiser tearing into  ship 5 times its size. That means that the person who designed the ship put lots of effort and thought into it. If you built a dragster of a ship that ends up blowing up 5 seconds into a battle... then obviously it was not well designed :)

Yes of course...IF high speed and agility would mean non-existent armor and weak weapons it would work.

But that would mean an EXTREMLY delicate way of balancing for how the power output, engine strength, engine size, shield strength, shield energy consumption, weapon strength, etc. etc. etc. work in the game. Just saying "ships above the weight of X can only be Y agile" would be more easy. Otherwise people would find ways around it, and you would encounter ships that have NOTHING to do with "well designed" but simply "abusing game mechanics".

Vininator

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Owner of Galactic Munitions Inc... and a cool guy.


In order for a cruiser to be that fast, it would have to be lightweight and have huge engines, both of which make it a very squishy target. A dreadnought would be able to kill it with only one or two well placed shots. Not only that, but high-powered engines would take power away from the shields and weapons, which would weaken it even further. Every perk comes with a minus somewhere else. If you try to impose mandatory limits on what you can or can't do with a ship that is X size and weight Y then you'll break the customization of the game. I think the mechanics of the game itself will limit what ships are capable of.

 I personally would want to see a well-built cruiser tearing into  ship 5 times its size. That means that the person who designed the ship put lots of effort and thought into it. If you built a dragster of a ship that ends up blowing up 5 seconds into a battle... then obviously it was not well designed :)

Yes of course...IF high speed and agility would mean non-existent armor and weak weapons it would work.

But that would mean an EXTREMLY delicate way of balancing for how the power output, engine strength, engine size, shield strength, shield energy consumption, weapon strength, etc. etc. etc. work in the game. Just saying "ships above the weight of X can only be Y agile" would be more easy. Otherwise people would find ways around it, and you would encounter ships that have NOTHING to do with "well designed" but simply "abusing game mechanics".
Par for the course. And balancing that stuff is not hard at all.
If you say a reactor x size supplies 20 power, 1 turret take 1 power, 1 engine takes 5 power, and 1 shield takes 3 power, you already have a set limit to how much you can do with a reactor of a certain size. add: 1 engine can move 550kg, heavy armor weighs 3kg/plate, etc. and you have even more limitation.

Erebus

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 602

Par for the course. And balancing that stuff is not hard at all.
If you say a reactor x size supplies 20 power, 1 turret take 1 power, 1 engine takes 5 power, and 1 shield takes 3 power, you already have a set limit to how much you can do with a reactor of a certain size. add: 1 engine can move 550kg, heavy armor weighs 3kg/plate, etc. and you have even more limitation.

Maybe. Maybe after some time you would STILL find yourself fighting against high-speed solid blobs of armor bristling with weapons. Enough monkeys with enough time in a room of typewriters...

Vininator

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Owner of Galactic Munitions Inc... and a cool guy.

Par for the course. And balancing that stuff is not hard at all.
If you say a reactor x size supplies 20 power, 1 turret take 1 power, 1 engine takes 5 power, and 1 shield takes 3 power, you already have a set limit to how much you can do with a reactor of a certain size. add: 1 engine can move 550kg, heavy armor weighs 3kg/plate, etc. and you have even more limitation.

Maybe. Maybe after some time you would STILL find yourself fighting against high-speed solid blobs of armor bristling with weapons. Enough monkeys with enough time in a room of typewriters...

There's no way around that. If you want a game where you can build anything, then eventually there will be someone who designs a pocket-deathstar and wipes everything out.
I don't think the answer to that is to truncate ship stats for the sake of "we want you to do anything you want... except this."

mamastoast

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1010
At some level it really just has to come down to players not being idiots and ruining the game for everyone else by buiding super space boxes of doom
« Last Edit: May 10, 2012, 02:49:19 pm by mamastoast »

blazingsentinal

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 620
  • Capt. Recin "Blaze" Aeron of the IUN
At some level It really just has to come down to players not being idiots and ruining the game for everyone else by buiding super space boxes of doom
theres always one but thats why we have moderators and the /kick and /ban commands.

Vininator

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Owner of Galactic Munitions Inc... and a cool guy.
Anyway back to the topic... Star wars > Star trek.
The battle fir Endor in ROTJ gives me goosebumps.

mamastoast

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1010
Well yea, as I said earlier, star wars really has every aspect of combat. Dog fighting, "battleship" type fighting and very long distance fighting aswell. I actually think star wars is a brilliant reference for good space combat (not just the movies)

Vininator

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1325
  • Owner of Galactic Munitions Inc... and a cool guy.
Well yea, as I said earlier, star wars really has every aspect of combat. Dog fighting, "battleship" type fighting and very long distance fighting aswell. I actually think star wars is a brilliant reference for good space combat (not just the movies)

Oh the books are awesome. Especially the X-Wing series for fighter combat :D I really wish they would make more books that focused more on the military aspect and less on politics/family drama. Seems like everything nowadays has to be about somebody falling to the Dark Side or getting kidnapped/stranded/disappearing/running away. Give me some good wholesome Turbolaser broadsides damn you!