Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Any ideas how to improve the game or the site.

Should missiles be missilier?

yes
2
100%
no
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 2

Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby magellan » Sun 4. Jan 2015, 09:26

So i seriously need to revisit space combat.
And also a few weeks ago I saw this:
Image

So should missiles in spacecombat actually fly towards the target, maybe hit a rock or gascloud on their way, get shot down etc?
Obviously they would be very fast, and have high turn rates. Not sure if they should leave behind exhaust trails. But otherwise this might be fun...
magellan
Pilot
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue 17. Sep 2013, 21:22

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby Spacehamster » Tue 6. Jan 2015, 00:43

magellan wrote:So i seriously need to revisit space combat.

I subtly hinted about that multiply times. :)

Hmmm, honestly main problem of Prospectorrl's space combat for me next:
[+] Spoiler
I still don't understand what a hell happening during combat. Why hostilies so crazy fast (Even when I have top tier ship with best eng... everything what you even can find for spacefaring bucket), why they shoot so many times (reloading time issues?), why my ship just stand still while reloading, why this rockets (And any other weapon) instant hits enemy (wait I know why), how I just won (He decided to fly into meteor at ramming speed?)?!! Dark Magic?!!... Well, I just (almost) completely clueless. Completely.


Land combat... well - current motto: "Big gun - big future" and "big band - big time". Still I like it. Mostly.

Anyway, not only stonesoup have fancy stuff like that - many entries from 7drl have interesting approach to it (I about combat. Just combat). And they can give few ideas what will make current -mostly bland- prospector (either land or space) combat more unique and interesting.

Few examples:
http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=DDRogue [Fancy battle movement system]
http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=MetroidRL [Fancy height system]
http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=Sword_In_Hand [I don't remember fancy what. What a pity]

Also pretty nice battle system:
http://www.roguebasin.com/index.php?title=CastlevaniaRL

P.S. Definitely missiles should be missilier.
P.S.S. It really bad what only a few members of that forum are active at all.
Sry for my engrish - i'm just a hamster :)

Space hamsters are never wrong!

Oh no! Its Wooly Rupert, the Tyrannohamstersaurus of Ill Omen!
User avatar
Spacehamster
Pilot
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon 30. Sep 2013, 12:57
Location: Minsc's hand.

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby magellan » Wed 7. Jan 2015, 14:42

This made me look at the actual stats of enemy ships.
And you are right: they are seriously overengined! Pirate fighters had engine 4 and 2 HP.
The formula for movepoints is engine*2-HP*0,15 for 7,7 rounded up resulting in 8 MPs with 9 being the highest possible!
And of course poor player can't put an engine 4 into his fighter.
Next version will also see an adjustment for armor type. Right now every HP makes you slower. More advanced types should weigh less and slow you down less, and they will do so in the future. 18 HP of diamonoid armor will weigh the same as 10 points of standard.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
magellan
Pilot
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue 17. Sep 2013, 21:22

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby magellan » Wed 7. Jan 2015, 14:58

Hmmm.... looking at those stats maybe some randomization would be nice?
Let pirate fighters for example have 1-5 hp and 1-2 engines? Random weapons? At least for pirates and merchants?
magellan
Pilot
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue 17. Sep 2013, 21:22

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby Spacehamster » Wed 7. Jan 2015, 19:04

magellan wrote:This made me look at the actual stats of enemy ships.
And you are right: they are seriously overengined! Pirate fighters had engine 4 and 2 HP.

Fun fact: I didn't fought pirates since R167. Because one simple reason: they suicidal idiots who loves to hug with rocks.
Also I want to point at robos at ruin type special planets. I wonder, their firepower was boosted? Or I so unlucky?

magellan wrote:The formula for movepoints is engine*2-HP*0,15 for 7,7 rounded up resulting in 8 MPs with 9 being the highest possible!


So that answer question about why they shoot so often as well (Or it just my imagination.). Probably separate MP system for weapon (Shooting, cooling and etc.) and move (Engines+weight)
[+] Spoiler
--Add-- I reread that paragraph and... what a heck I wrote? I should explain it more detailed with good example or two.
? So we can have almost immobile space ships which can rain enemies with rockets... Oh than ship parts going to have a weight as well.

magellan wrote:Hmmm.... looking at those stats maybe some randomization would be nice?

As I can see that:
Pirates: Ragtag band of misfits. So random stuff they plundered from unlucky.
HP:1-5;Eng:1-3; Erm... I need to look at ingame hull stats first.
Traders: Prospectors and... well traders. So random as well.
Anti-pirate patrols: I still don't know: they are PMC (So fixed standard equipment) or prospectors as player (Random stuff and ships from LRF to Destroyers).
Spacefaring Aliens: I always saw their fleets as military one. So fixed standard equipment.
Robos: Automatic and have one default design. So fixed as well.

I have a few ideas for space combat... but that will make things overcomplicated. And I always against that. Still you can find few of them reasonable:
[+] Spoiler
#0. Not just missiles... everything what shoot should be missilier. Well, that can take away feel of Star Trek-like immobile combat. At other hand - fast armorless ship will be a good thing to have - you can evade all this nasty things (specially disentegrators)!

#1. Shields have 4 separate parts. Front/Left/Right/Behind. So you can let enemy deplete your front shield and turn to other side. //New space combat AI, heh. Also troubles for players who don't use tile version.

#2. Want to turn ship? Know that took MP as well. You can fly straight much far per one turn then with all this maneuvers.

#3.1. Guns what have shooting arc. Front/Left/Right/Behind 90'/180'/270'/360'. Will go smoothly with idea #1 and #2.
Example: Your Laser battery can shoot only to front in 90' arc. And your front shield depleted. So turn to enemy and shoot him while endangering yourself or flee and wait until your shield replenish? Eh, guns with behind arcs will be too overpowered.

#3.2. Guns what have shooting arc. They can be turned in different direction during combat but you need to spend additional time in order to do it.

#4. Tractor beams as offensive weapon. Catch enemy/meteor and shot him in direction of meteor/enemy/plasma stream!

#5.
It sci-fi, right? So different type weapons with unique strength/weakness. One can ignore ship shields but slow and weak. Other one weaker near suns. Powerful plasma what have a small chance to blow mida...space due space dust and garbage, radiation emitters what kills crew, etc.

#6. Special ballistic ship weapons\devices with strong recoil. Side shooting allows slow side moves. //No no no.

#7. Energy generators can be adjusted for single jobs with penalty to others: Extra shield regeneration, extra weapon MP, extra cooling, extra MP.

#8. Kind of afterburner mode: divert energy from all ship devices to engine.

#9. Kind of weight system. Oh, that gonna be good, specially with weapon slots limit and additional energy generators. But going be hell to balance.
Sry for my engrish - i'm just a hamster :)

Space hamsters are never wrong!

Oh no! Its Wooly Rupert, the Tyrannohamstersaurus of Ill Omen!
User avatar
Spacehamster
Pilot
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon 30. Sep 2013, 12:57
Location: Minsc's hand.

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby magellan » Sat 10. Jan 2015, 10:27

I had the exact same thoughts concerning randomized ship stats. (Traders and Pirates don't get standard issue ships)

Your shield sides idea has actually been that way for quite some time.
Maneuvering jets do a bit of the thing you describe as afterburners
Firing arcs is something I have been thinking about, but am not sure how to implement. Maybe just generally have ships fire in front of them, and widening the firing arc according to number of turrets?
I like the turning cost thing.

Anyway i just opened a new file: spacecombat2.bas spacecombat code is ancient in parts, and propably redoing the whole thing would be better than just patching in new stuff. In the meantime I can still tinker with the rest of prospector and propably will release a minor update tomorrow.
magellan
Pilot
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue 17. Sep 2013, 21:22

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby Spacehamster » Sat 10. Jan 2015, 17:19

magellan wrote:Your shield sides idea has actually been that way for quite some time.

Well it pretty difficult to notice when you use overarmored ship and your shield got whipped in seconds because you terrible slow. Still here should be a in-game hint (Maybe from bar patrons?) what additional HP slows down a movement.

magellan wrote:Firing arcs is something I have been thinking about, but am not sure how to implement. Maybe just generally have ships fire in front of them, and widening the firing arc according to number of turrets?

I see another few another ways but I too tired now to properly explain them (Kind of fixed turrets and mobile turrets system).

P.S. Also I recalled about something called active protection systems (APS). That will be a nice addition for space combat.
Sry for my engrish - i'm just a hamster :)

Space hamsters are never wrong!

Oh no! Its Wooly Rupert, the Tyrannohamstersaurus of Ill Omen!
User avatar
Spacehamster
Pilot
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon 30. Sep 2013, 12:57
Location: Minsc's hand.

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby magellan » Tue 13. Jan 2015, 16:36

My main problem with firing arcs is concerning the user interface. Also I am not sure how fun it would be to juggle weapons between different turrets.
A simplistic approach might be the best: 45° in front per turret. That would give the battleship a respectable 180° and the ASCS an ability to fire over it's shoulder with 225°.
But please: Go on. Let me hear your ideas if you aren't too tired :)
magellan
Pilot
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue 17. Sep 2013, 21:22

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby FriskyTentacles » Sat 14. Feb 2015, 16:56

So maybe ships can have turret locations? Like a port turret, an aft turret, a fore turret, and possibly even an omnidirectional turret slot.

Make it so that it only allows you to select a turret that can hit the enemy. I'd love to see ships with odd firing angles, it'd make engines super good for strafing the enemy. Plus you'd see some interesting hull designs where all the turrets face backwards or are all on one side.
Giant enemy goat.
User avatar
FriskyTentacles
Redshirt
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat 14. Feb 2015, 16:20

Re: Space Battles: Should missiles be missilier?

Postby Seraph » Mon 9. Mar 2015, 01:04

I know I'm new and all, but I thought I'd throw my 0.02cr into the mix here.

Missiles:
Ship to Ship missiles should probably be moving so fast (advanced propellants) that only the longest-range shots would have time to animate a missile flying at all. Consider that the current SRAAM Sidewinder missile flies at Mach 2.7; that's short-range. Long range missiles tend more towards Mach 4+. I suppose it really all depends on the scale of distance in space battles, which is admittedly difficult to discern - a destroyer and a fighter occupy 1 tile each, regardless of the implied massive size difference. How 'far' is 1 tile in space combat, then?

That said, I like the idea of other things interacting with/stopping missiles. I'm not entirely sure you need to draw flying missiles for that though - couldn't it be handled by invisible detection of obstacles, gunner skill, luck, etc? Without seeing it, though, it just feels like the game is cheating you out of shots. It's hard to deny a player the results of their actions without incurring bad feels. It's a sticky wicket, to be sure.

Current enemies:
Absolutely are too statistically advantaged. (I still wouldn't say pirate fighters are powerful.) Only top-end spoileriffic threats and unique, named targets should be that borked - everything else should work within an approximation of the restrictions the player is under; an non-unique enemy destroyer should never be able to do something a player destroyer couldn't.

Firing arcs:
A thematically good idea that would be annoying in practice for the players. Nobody likes not being able to shoot their weapons at things; it feels terrible, like you wasted money/effort on the weapon that isn't useful in this moment.

Also, there is an assumption in most roguelikes (including this one, a lot of the time) that there is no 'active' facing - your character/ship essentially faces every open direction as they need to. The presence of shield arcs in space means that there is some element of facing in this game already, but making it more complex will require more inputs. Like adjustment jets to change facing without moving, or the ability to cut all thrust and drift on inertia (the better to keep you in my forward launcher arcs, my dear). And more inputs does not always equal better gameplay - sometimes it just equals more tedium and confusion for your players.

APS:
-Flares are not terribly useful in space, because they would not overwhelm a ship's engine heat signature. A flare that could is a gigantic waste of technological development and I can't see many civilizations doing so. They'd stick with the more useful options below, and develop them into a better form.
-Chaff is somewhat useful, but you'd have to release a cloud of (present-day, conventional) chaff somewhere near the size of an asteroid to distract missiles from the radar signature of a big-ass spaceship. (A drone, emitting a cloned radar pulse, would be better suited for this - and MUCH more awesome!) It's also possible that advanced science = advanced radar-emitting materials...but I doubt it.
-Point-defense Weapons (anti-missiles, anti-fighter guns) are the big winner here, being not just practical but REALLY TROPEY for space vehicles. The idea of devoting a weapon slot to a PDW, which would then make Gunner rolls to take out drones and missiles as they come, is extremely interesting.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, take them with a grain (or mountain) of salt. Hopefully something helpful was in there somewhere.
Seraph
Redshirt
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun 8. Mar 2015, 23:21


Return to Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest