Author Topic: What kind of combat style do you prefer? "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" style?  (Read 14601 times)

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: What kind of combat style do you prefer? "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" style?
« Reply #105 on: August 14, 2014, 10:48:51 am »
...it [the frigate] compensate by being faster sure...

This isn't guaranteed to be true. If fuel use is a thing it'd be crazy-costly, but a battleship could easily be faster than a frigate, assuming engines are just things you can slap on there and keep stacking up for more power.

I'm not sure about this FTL-bubble discussion. I've been thinking in terms of instanced areas, so it'd make sense to me that you FTL into an instanced area at the perimeter and FTL out at the perimeter - so ships doing stuff at a planet would see anybody coming into the planet's SOI and be able to escape in the opposite direction.

Agreed, I do like a good troll hunt. Still, it's sad when a multiplayer game become a massive, paranoid hide-and-seek party (see Rust, DayZ, Minecraft PvP, etc..). Lengthy, persistent progression and PvP don't go well together, unless you keep said progress on death.  :P

The trick is making MP with good PvP where the game is similar to all those bad-PvP examples. That is something I don't know that we've discussed much, other than the 'ships logging out on logoff' thing; randomly encountering a death star in your starter shuttle is bound to be bad news. Maybe an EVE-esque 'security zone'?
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

MRC

  • Founder
  • Knows dev CPR
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Mental breakdown in progress...
Re: What kind of combat style do you prefer? "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" style?
« Reply #106 on: August 14, 2014, 11:59:02 am »
I'm not sure about this FTL-bubble discussion. I've been thinking in terms of instanced areas, so it'd make sense to me that you FTL into an instanced area at the perimeter and FTL out at the perimeter - so ships doing stuff at a planet would see anybody coming into the planet's SOI and be able to escape in the opposite direction.

Could be the case, we're going on with a lot of assumptions and wild guesses really. :P

The trick is making MP with good PvP where the game is similar to all those bad-PvP examples. That is something I don't know that we've discussed much, other than the 'ships logging out on logoff' thing; randomly encountering a death star in your starter shuttle is bound to be bad news. Maybe an EVE-esque 'security zone'?

A good implementation of PvE would be enough to keep troubles away. Remember that BR is PvE focused.
Shoving everyone together or sharing the same vital element should keep everyone in a cooperative mindset.
With love.  ~MRC

Me2005

  • Founder
  • Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: What kind of combat style do you prefer? "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" style?
« Reply #107 on: August 14, 2014, 03:50:43 pm »
Could be the case, we're going on with a lot of assumptions and wild guesses really. :P

Wild guesses based on real-life physics. Unless they tweak engines to only give X thrust no matter how many you have, or so that you simply can't generate enough power  to run a big ship that fast, or some other contrived solution; big ships and little ships can have exactly the same straight-line acceleration characteristics.

@PvE: Yes, but then it'd be good to limit PvP or only specifically allow PvP in certain conditions, i.e.: when both players  agree to it or in a simulation-setting.
But you were dead a thousand times. Hopeless encounters successfully won. A man long dead, grafted to machines your builders did not understand. You follow the path, fitting into an infinite pattern. Yours to manipulate, to create and rebuild.

I know who you are.

You are destiny.

MRC

  • Founder
  • Knows dev CPR
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Mental breakdown in progress...
Re: What kind of combat style do you prefer? "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" style?
« Reply #108 on: August 14, 2014, 04:30:13 pm »
Wild guesses based on real-life physics. Unless they tweak engines to only give X thrust no matter how many you have, or so that you simply can't generate enough power  to run a big ship that fast, or some other contrived solution; big ships and little ships can have exactly the same straight-line acceleration characteristics.

Speaking of guesses about the warp, FTL and instanced area travel mechanics. I have no doubt that you could build battleships that can outrun frigates (sounds hilarious ;D).

@PvE: Yes, but then it'd be good to limit PvP or only specifically allow PvP in certain conditions, i.e.: when both players  agree to it or in a simulation-setting.

I'm thinking the PvE should be set in a way where PvP-style actions are not prevented but are detrimental to everyone's overall progress. If you have to work as a united fleet blowing someone up only set you back. It can make some good dogfight practice though, if you can afford it.

PvE mechanics could make it into it's own topic, we're taking this topic off track (woopsie, my bad I think).
With love.  ~MRC

Cy83r

  • Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 1254
  • It's Shooowtime!
Re: What kind of combat style do you prefer? "Star Trek" or "Star Wars" style?
« Reply #109 on: August 26, 2014, 04:02:58 pm »
Getting back to warping restrictions for a sec, I have one more idea to throw out there:

What if ships with FTL drives exerted some type of interference field around them, proportional to their mass, which would cause enemy ships to be unable to engage FTL? Imagine an invisible bubble around every ship. If one ship's bubble comes in contact with another ship's hull, then the would not be able to warp unless it exited the bubble. Basically, if you get too close to a ship, you won't be able to run away unless you get far enough away from them. The interference could also prevent ships from warping in, so a large ship would not be able to warp in right on top of a small ship, and vice versa.

For example, let's say you have a large, heavy cargo ship giving off a wide field of warp interference that a group of pirates in small fighters have targeted. Their ships are small and light, so their warp interference bubbles are much smaller. They will have to get in close to prevent the cargo ship from fleeing, but they cannot warp to a point within the cargo ship's interference field. So they have to warp in somewhere far away from their target, giving it enough time to see them and try to escape- unless the smaller ships can reach it it in time, or disable it. On the other hand, maybe the cargo ship is better armed than the pirates thought. It could fight back, and the pirates would have to retreat. They would have more distance to cover until they would be out of the field, compared to the transport, but they would also be faster and more maneuverable. There could also be a minimum amount of strength required for a ship to prevent another ship from warping (~5% of a ship's mass, from one or multiple ships) so if enough smaller ships are destroyed, they wouldn't be able to prevent a large ship from escaping. This would also keep a tiny ship from landing on a huge ship and preventing it from entering warp.

It's similar to some other ideas that have been floating around, and I think it's simple enough to be flexible and lead to some interesting scenarios.   

That's a hard cap on jumping, what if we take a page out of games like Battletech and Full Thrust and make that warp bubble, rather than outright interdiction, which would dissuade closer ranges, and instead make it a damage gradient.

Hypertrophic Reactions/Interstitial Feedback: while powered up and ready to jump, FTL drives create an area of unstable space that violently interacts with other active FTL interfaces; radius of this effect and its corresponding hypertrophy gradient (i.e. damage falloff over distance) varies between each style of hyperspace mechanism, but a general rule of thumb is that a bigger drive creates a larger, more lethal interference envelope when charged for transit.  Jumping inside such an 'interdiction zone', depending on the relative size between offending vessels, has often spelled the doom of both the blockade runner and the interdictor alike.  At best, either party can expect their drive cores to be ravaged by the interstitial feedback, if not large sections of the drive compartment(s) to be irradiated or even slagged by the outpouring energy of such destructive waveforms, roughly described by a popular physicist as "a small pocket of the universe unfolding inside the hyperspace engine's workings".

Standing Charge: the downside to this 'hyperspace interdiction' method is that simply charging an FTL drive for a jump requires a massive and sustained power input, meaning that an 'interdictor' vessel isn't doing much else with its powerplant besides keeping its FTL core up and running

Signal Flare: worse than merely soaking a large amount of output from local reactors, an active FTL drive is easily detectable with the most basic commercial subspace detection equipment nearly halfway across most solar systems (such outposts can easily be operated by a single spacer in a minimalist setup, much like the archaic hobby of HAM radio operation).
Jibreel: Yeah but [Hufer] that's like [Axis] complaining that his Toyota Camry is stuck in the mud and you responding "Well my M1 Abrams doesn't seem to be having much trouble."