Planned Remote turret control block

[akimzav]

I propose basically the following: make a block which can be connected to docked ship core, and which will will allow taking control of that block it is connected to, maybe in somehow limited way (f.e., can not switch to other docked cores while controlling one, and/or can not undock while controlling remotely).
Remember, in Star Wars Battlefront 2 there were displays by interacting with which you could remotely control turrets, while physicaly still being inside of the ship?

This mechanic can even be expanded to allow remote control of undocked cores, i.e. not being directly or inherently docked to the ship where control module belongs. For instance, a limitation can be a range of control (simply lose control if distance is greater than X), and/or vulnerability to EMP strikes (lose control on a enemy's special weapon (not necessarily the existing EMP module) activation at some range) etc.

This can also theoretically be a full replacement for the existing 'core switch' system, which currently uses some kind of teleporting mechanic.

It also can play nicely with upcoming 'duty stations' and NPC's interaction with those stations in general and with theese proposed remote control modules.

 

[Urza der Gehasste]

I like this Idea.
I would like to "leave" my cruiser/carrier to control a turret or a fighter by myself. But that's really risky, because a fighter gets easily destroyed. And missiles can kill you inside your ship while you are on the way to a turret. And once you are dead you respawn light years away at your spawn/station. Meanwhile the fight goes on without you.

I know there should be limits for this block/system. So I would give it a maximum range of 2 or 3 sectors in each direction. Not sure what would happen on the border... maybe you get a warning and loose the control of your remote controlled ship. Or it suddenly stops. Or you get transferred physically into the ship core of the remote ship.

 

[wiesshund]

I dont agree with telewarping to a fighter risk free.
I mean if a fighter dies, so should Mr Pilot too, but a better way to hop around a ships mounted turrets would be good.

Currently you can UP ARROW through the turrets, if you are lucky you might get into the one you want, but most likely you will land in the garbage collection turret, and more importantly, you wont be able to get out except for physically ejecting from the core to find your self now behind the ship watching it move away from you at 150m/s
hitting DOWN ARROW just bounces you from garbage base to garbage barrel sadly.

SO a better plan to get in and out of mounted things is good.

Getting killed while walking through the ship when its under fire, well that is realistic after all.
But one guy does not usually have to hop out of the captains chair, sprint 500m down multiple corridors, climb into the starboard anti missile turret, kill incoming missile, hop out, run 150m to the other side of the ship, get into the lockon missile turret, fire on some enemy fighters, then run like hell back to the bridge to turn the ship from impending collision.
All the while trying to stay oriented to ship and in ships gravity.
Maybe when there is enough players that a large ship might have 10 or 20 guys crewing it.

 

[Urza der Gehasste]

I dont agree with telewarping to a fighter risk free.
I mean if a fighter dies, so should Mr Pilot too, but a better way to hop around a ships mounted turrets would be good.

Ok, the idea needs some balancing. But at the moment its no fun to use the little ships from my carrier. It should be possible to return onto the carrier after death.
Maybe you still loose some credits or HP when the ship you control remotely, gets destroyed.

And more players aren't a real solution for this. Who wants to use the fighters when they know they won't survive more than 30% of the battle. At best...

In games like BF2 you respawned at the carrier. I know this is not BF2. But why not use some good mechanics from BF2 for the battles at SM?
(And to be able to place the current spawn block at ships isn't a solution either. When the carrier gets destroyed I would end up at 2 2 2 instead of my base.)

 

[wiesshund]

Undethinator on flag ship

Yes if you lose flagship you end up at galatic spawn, but hey it is combat, there has to be some risk involved
And if you lose your flagship, things are pretty bleak are they not?

Put undeathinator on "Hospital Ship"
keep your "Hospital Ship" one sector out of combat or something.

BF2 spawns at the carrier because you cant get any farther away, there arent any further spawnpoints in the map
the locations are fixed, and the map a tiny shoebox.
And if all you have left is the carrier, and i sink it, you cant respawn at all, you lose

 

[akimzav]

I am unsure about the fighter remote control to be balanced or not. It is, no doubt, somewhat similar to having an undehinator at a capital ship. The difficulty here is to decide, which method (remote control or on-carrier respawning) is to be marked as 'less fair' than the other. I myself find it hard to decide this.

However, assuming we have chosen remote control to be unfair, we can nerf it. As I mentioned before, one of possible ways is to limit operating range of controlled ship; we as well may implement other disadvantages.
Why would we might want remote ship control then, you ask, as it in many ways similar and, besides, is nerfed?
The answer is simple: you do not physically leave your capital ship/carrier while operating, and you can anytime abandon your drone to do something else, and/or switch the entity controlled, fast.

Again, I personally find it difficult to say whether it is OP or not. Destroying the ship you control your drones from impacts the battle in the same way as destroying the 'hospital ship' -- you lose in both cases.
//Actually, in my opinion, having a spawn point on a ship feels pretty much OP if to speak about defending it agains boarding parties.

 

[Keptick]

Control Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaairs!!!!

Soon™

(I doubt that remote control of an undocked entify will ever be a thing though)

 

[Micro753]

This mechanic can even be expanded to allow remote control of undocked cores, i.e. not being directly or inherently docked to the ship where control module belongs. For instance, a limitation can be a range of control (simply lose control if distance is greater than X) ...

To limit the range, I would have it based on mass. Anything above X mass cannot be controlled remotely. The smaller the ship, the farther its range should be. For example: 1 sector for a ship at the mass limit to 3 sectors for a ship at half the mass limit or less. This way you can't control a titan without any risk. It would be limited to small bombers and fighters.

 

[Valiant70]

Perfect. Put it in the game.
[DOUBLEPOST=1458413182,1458412790][/DOUBLEPOST]

I doubt that remote control of an undocked entify will ever be a thing though

In a series called Andromeda, drone fighter craft were controlled remotely by pilots wearing virtual reality equipment. It's a reasonable and realistic thing to do. Limited control range and weaknesses to cyber warfare or EMP attacks should provide reasonable drawbacks to balance this.

Personally, I see no issues with controlling destroyers or even battleships from a separate command ship. Take out the command ship and the fleet is dead in the water. It's a strategic decision that gives you a risk tradeoff. Use a tough command ship to keep more people alive, or put people in the other ships to make them more mobile, independent, and less vulnerable to electronic mayhem. Put all your eggs in one tough, padded basket, or spread them out to keep more alive overall if a hand grenade lands in the big basket?