Missile dodging

[BeefBacon]

My problem with seeker missiles is that they have a 99% hit rate. Considering the damage they do - especially to small ships - this seems a little ludicrous.

I propose that objects moving at a perpendicular vector to the missile should have a good chance of evading the missile altogether. This would reward small, fast ships that have increase maneuverability.

I'd also propose that smaller missiles should have a better turn rate than larger ones. This would encourage anti-fighter swarm missiles to take care of smaller ships, rather than firing a lock-on nuke.



The top image shows the current state of affairs while the bottom image shows my proposition.

 

[Megacrafter127]

If the targeted ship moves at a constant speed in a constant direction(regardless of what direction it is), it should be hit.
However, if it accelerates AND performs dodging maneuvers, I agree.

 

[Malacodor]

My problem with seeker missiles is that they have a 99% hit rate. Considering the damage they do - especially to small ships - this seems a little ludicrous

That's why you can shoot them now.

I'd also propose that smaller missiles should have a better turn rate than larger ones. This would encourage anti-fighter swarm missiles to take care of smaller ships, rather than firing a lock-on nuke.

Agree, but larger missiles should also have more HP.

If the targeted ship moves at a constant speed in a constant direction(regardless of what direction it is), it should be hit.

Definitely. Evading should require some skill and not come for free.

 

[BeefBacon]

That's why you can shoot them now.

That feels like a half measure that benefits larger ships over smaller ships. Large ships can support a lot of point defence turrets that can (will be able to) shoot down missiles. Small ships will be forced to constantly turn around to shoot missiles down, rather than rapidly changing direction to avoid the missile. I'm hoping the damage pulse can be used to hit missiles. Could be used as chaff.

Agree, but larger missiles should also have more HP.

I agree.

If the targeted ship moves at a constant speed in a constant direction(regardless of what direction it is), it should be hit.
However, if it accelerates AND performs dodging maneuvers, I agree.

I disagree. A missile shouldn't be able to turn at right angles just because its target is moving in a straight line. If a missile is required to change direction beyond its capacity to do so in order to hit its target then it should lock off target and continue in a straight line.

Accelerating should have no bearing on whether or not a missile hits. All that matters is your ability to change direction relative to the missile to make that angle shallow enough that the missile cannot turn to hit your ship

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Small ships could just use logic and 3rd person camera.

 

[Megacrafter127]

Accelerating should have no bearing on whether or not a missile hits. All that matters is your ability to change direction relative to the missile

changing one's velocity or direction of movement(regardless what relative to) is called acceleration.
congrats, you contradicted yourself.

 

[Malacodor]

That feels like a half measure that benefits larger ships over smaller ships. Large ships can support a lot of point defence turrets that can (will be able to) shoot down missiles. Small ships will be forced to constantly turn around to shoot missiles down, rather than rapidly changing direction to avoid the missile.

Larger ships must fend off more missiles, and fighters can have a turret or two as well. And I'm absolutely for making turn rates of missiles dependent on damage, but I think aside from that no more limitations are needed.

I'm hoping the damage pulse can be used to hit missiles. Could be used as chaff.

You seem to be a friend of countermeasures. :D

 

[BeefBacon]

changing one's velocity or direction of movement(regardless what relative to) is called acceleration.
congrats, you contradicted yourself.

Acceleration refers to a change (usually an increase) in velocity - it has no bearing on direction. Changing direction is changing direction. Increasing speed is usually referred to as acceleration. You can accelerate in a direction, and you can change the direction you are accelerating in, but 'acceleration' is not a term that refers explicitly to - or one that even implies - a change in direction.

Relativity is important. If I am driving and a car is alongside me and I suddenly stop, the car beside me will zoom past. I have not accelerated, yet that car is now half a kilometer down the road. If a missile is following my ship and I stop suddenly, maybe move to the side a bit, the missile will continue past my ship - or at least it should. In the game's current state, the missile would do a handbreak turn and hit the front or the side of my ship. This is what I'm arguing against.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Acceleration refers to a change (usually an increase) in velocity - it has no bearing on direction. Changing direction is changing direction. Increasing speed is usually referred to as acceleration. You can accelerate in a direction, and you can change the direction you are accelerating in, but 'acceleration' is not a term that refers explicitly to - or one that even implies - a change in direction.

Relativity is important. If I am driving and a car is alongside me and I suddenly stop, the car beside me will zoom past. I have not accelerated, yet that car is now half a kilometer down the road. If a missile is following my ship and I stop suddenly, maybe move to the side a bit, the missile will continue past my ship - or at least it should. In the game's current state, the missile would do a handbreak turn and hit the front or the side of my ship. This is what I'm arguing against.

Lovely speech (ah, the slow clapping processor is still active on my computer). You just forgot the speed is always in a certain direction. Changing your does actually cause your (in this case) ship to accelerate in a different direction, but it is acceleration nonetheless.

 

[BeefBacon]

Lovely speech (ah, the slow clapping processor is still active on my computer). You just forgot the speed is always in a certain direction. Changing your does actually cause your (in this case) ship to accelerate in a different direction, but it is acceleration nonetheless.

Right... so you can change direction, and then accelerate in that direction?

 

[Esarai]

I've always been of the opinion that the damage potential of a missile should be inversely proportional to its turn radius. Larger missiles take longer to turn and do massive damage, while smaller ones don't do as much, but are almost guaranteed a hit.

Also your graphic is wrong. Missiles turn circularly at a constant rate. It probably appears oddly exponential like that due to movement of both vessels. All missiles currently turn at the exact same rate, leading to ICBM-scale weapons that have the same accuracy as an air-to-air missile.

 

[Megacrafter127]

Acceleration refers to a change (usually an increase) in velocity - it has no bearing on direction. Changing direction is changing direction. Increasing speed is usually referred to as acceleration. You can accelerate in a direction, and you can change the direction you are accelerating in, but 'acceleration' is not a term that refers explicitly to - or one that even implies - a change in direction.

Relativity is important. If I am driving and a car is alongside me and I suddenly stop, the car beside me will zoom past. I have not accelerated, yet that car is now half a kilometer down the road. If a missile is following my ship and I stop suddenly, maybe move to the side a bit, the missile will continue past my ship - or at least it should. In the game's current state, the missile would do a handbreak turn and hit the front or the side of my ship. This is what I'm arguing against.

I am refering to the scientifical term of acceleration. And in that case an increase OR decrease in velocity is acceleration.
And regarding a change in direction:

velocity is a vector, and as such it can be splitted into multiple other vectors, which, if added together, equal the original vector. Now, usually if a vector is split, it is split into axis-aligned vectors, because calculating with them is easier. This makes it understandable, that a change in direction of movement also is an acceleration. 2 vectors of the exact same length, which just go in different directions aren't the same vector, and since acceleration refers to a change of the velocity-vector over time…​

Anyhow, if you picked up my post pointing out that contradiction in a negative way, that was not intended, and I apologize for writing a misleading post.

 

[Vengeance42]

Acceleration refers to a change (usually an increase) in velocity - it has no bearing on direction. Changing direction is changing direction. Increasing speed is usually referred to as acceleration. You can accelerate in a direction, and you can change the direction you are accelerating in, but 'acceleration' is not a term that refers explicitly to - or one that even implies - a change in direction.

Relativity is important. If I am driving and a car is alongside me and I suddenly stop, the car beside me will zoom past. I have not accelerated, yet that car is now half a kilometer down the road. If a missile is following my ship and I stop suddenly, maybe move to the side a bit, the missile will continue past my ship - or at least it should. In the game's current state, the missile would do a handbreak turn and hit the front or the side of my ship. This is what I'm arguing against.

This may be getting increasingly semantic, but yes you have accelerated when you stop your car!

http://physics.info/acceleration/

You are accelerating in the opposite direction of your current motion.

 

[Malacodor]

Acceleration refers to a change (usually an increase) in velocity...

...the speed is always in a certain direction. Changing your does actually cause your (in this case) ship to accelerate in a different direction, but it is acceleration nonetheless.

Both of you are right. Changing direction isn't acceleration in common language, but it is in physics. Even sitting in your chair in earth's gravity field can be seen as acceleration.

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Right... so you can change direction, and then accelerate in that direction?

You need a force to turn a ship. Everyone agrees to that, right? And the formula for force is:
force = mass x acceleration, or F = m x a in physics terms.
Conclusion: when you change direction (turn) you basically accelerate in a certain direction.

 

[BeefBacon]

I am refering to the scientifical term of acceleration. And in that case an increase OR decrease in velocity is acceleration.
And regarding a change in direction:

velocity is a vector, and as such it can be splitted into multiple other vectors, which, if added together, equal the original vector. Now, usually if a vector is split, it is split into axis-aligned vectors, because calculating with them is easier. This makes it understandable, that a change in direction of movement also is an acceleration. 2 vectors of the exact same length, which just go in different directions aren't the same vector, and since acceleration refers to a change of the velocity-vector over time…​

Anyhow, if you picked up my post pointing out that contradiction in a negative way, that was not intended, and I apologize for writing a misleading post.

I see. I was referring to the common vernacular. It makes more sense to refer to terms as a layman. The common use of 'theory' for example is different to the scientific use of the word.

As a general rule I don't respond well to what I perceive to be snarky comments. Explaining oneself (as you have done here) does more to resolve a disagreement than crude wit. Still, thanks for your apology. I suppose I should have asked for a better explanation than to assume you were at fault, so you have mine as well.

This may be getting increasingly semantic, but yes you have accelerated when you stop your car!

http://physics.info/acceleration/

You are accelerating in the opposite direction of your current motion.

You are quite right, though this is usually referred to as decelleration.


Perhaps we should go back on topic, eh?

I've always been of the opinion that the damage potential of a missile should be inversely proportional to its turn radius. Larger missiles take longer to turn and do massive damage, while smaller ones don't do as much, but are almost guaranteed a hit.

Also your graphic is wrong. Missiles turn circularly at a constant rate. It probably appears oddly exponential like that due to movement of both vessels. All missiles currently turn at the exact same rate, leading to ICBM-scale weapons that have the same accuracy as an air-to-air missile.

Agreed. And yes, the graphic was designed only to show a rough visual indication of what I mean. I would have made a .gif but I've work to avoid - I mean do.

 

[Keptick]

Missiles can now be shot down by beams. Read the changelog and git gud

Note: Anti-missile only AI setting is also on the way. So you should be able to add a miniature Anti-missile beam turret to your ship and seriously increase your chances of survival (in the case that shooting them down manually isn't enough).

 

[FunnyBunny14]

Both of you are right. Changing direction isn't acceleration in common language, but it is in physics. Even sitting in your chair in earth's gravity field can be seen as acceleration.

No you're not accelerating. Unless you're falling the floor of course. But I think you're not.
Unless you're referring to the gravitational acceleration that gets canceled out because the floor and the chair are preventing you from falling. In that case you are completely right.
Although if you were to draw your acceleration graph of the moment you are sitting in the chair you would see no acceleration.
Conclusion: physics are strange (but still make sense).

 

[Megacrafter127]

No you're not accelerating. Unless you're falling the floor of course. But I think you're not.
Unless you're referring to the gravitational acceleration that gets canceled out because the floor and the chair are preventing you from falling. In that case you are completely right.
Although if you were to draw your acceleration graph of the moment you are sitting in the chair you would see no acceleration.
Conclusion: physics are strange (but still make sense).

Spoiler: offtopic

until you get into quantum physics and have to combine it with relativity and electromagnetism , physics aren't strange.

 

[BeefBacon]

Missiles can now be shot down by beams. Read the changelog and git gud

Note: Anti-missile only AI setting is also on the way. So you should be able to add a miniature Anti-missile beam turret to your ship and seriously increase your chances of survival (in the case that shooting them down manually isn't enough).

I'd just like maneuverability to be rewarded. Turning round and shooting is all well and good (really good, actually) but it'd be nice to be able to move out of the way without, say, losing a ship you were chasing. Seems like constantly turning to target missiles would be an irritating distraction.

Are beam turrets already targeting missiles, or are they the only ones that can hit them? I did a test with lots of small cannons (it looked like a fight from Battlestar Galactica, it was wonderful) and missiles couldn't even get close.