Discussion : How to improve game combat ?

[Viridis00]

Since you guys are fairly on point with the HP and such, I'd like to go off on a tangent for this idea.

The game would benefit a lot from directionally oriented shields (the core could be the reference point for what is forward, rear, side, ventral, and top shields.) and a more dynamic camera system that allows a player to more strategically focus on their own and their target's relative position while flying around. Star Trek Bridge Commander uses this system for their 3rd person ship-to-ship combat, and shield rotation is a fun and core strategic gameplay element. Video related (skip to 1:53 for combat).


The only reason this would not work as well in Starmade is due to the fact that all ships can reach the same max speed. However, we really need more dynamic cameras for a better experience in the first place, be it something similar to this or not.

 

[Mered4]

I understand why you folks would think increasing shield capacity is a cool idea, but here's wot I think:

Make power suck more.

That's right.

Nerf power.

Crazy, no? Here, let me explain:

First, you nerf power so you can't just snowball with your weapon arrays - you have to keep them small to stay within your power regen, and having multiple systems on one ship makes more sense because you have extra space that your power was using.

Then, you reduce the power consumption on defensive effects so they are still usable. Hell, make it so they are more effective than they are now! More defensive effects! More!

Shield rechargers would probably need adjusted, but overall it would bring down the average number of rechargers due to sucky power.

The unnecessary side effect could be that folks will add tons more power to normalize it, but if done right it will encourage smaller weapon groups, larger shield caps, smaller shield regen, and larger power groups.

 

[max stripe]

I understand why you folks would think increasing shield capacity is a cool idea, but here's wot I think:

Make power suck more.

That's right.

Nerf power.

Crazy, no? Here, let me explain:

First, you nerf power so you can't just snowball with your weapon arrays - you have to keep them small to stay within your power regen, and having multiple systems on one ship makes more sense because you have extra space that your power was using.

Then, you reduce the power consumption on defensive effects so they are still usable. Hell, make it so they are more effective than they are now! More defensive effects! More!

Shield rechargers would probably need adjusted, but overall it would bring down the average number of rechargers due to sucky power.

The unnecessary side effect could be that folks will add tons more power to normalize it, but if done right it will encourage smaller weapon groups, larger shield caps, smaller shield regen, and larger power groups.

you see the problem with this is that thrusters require alot more power than they did in the past.
this would kill off all ship designs that didnt focus on power....
dont nerf any systems. buff them

 

[Lecic]

you see the problem with this is that thrusters require alot more power than they did in the past.
this would kill off all ship designs that didnt focus on power....
dont nerf any systems. buff them

So LOWER thruster power consumption? Your "problem" is as easily fixable as every other solution to the lessened power that Mered4 suggested.

2. I think fighters turn way too fast. I think big ships turn okay though. I want small ships to by default turn slower, and that the scaling to the turn hard cap be also slower. Why? Because having so fast turning really makes no need to have a proper dogfight. You just aim at the opponent, and that's it.

Actually, without an atmosphere or the possibility of stalling, small craft turn around faster, because inertia and tensile strength and such. Plus, turning on a dime is the main advantage fighters hold. If it turned as slow as a corvette does now, why would I bother with it?

Easy, just increase shield capacitor values. Right now, the time to kill between a weapon blob and shield blob of the same size is around 3 or 4 seconds (and that's without considering missiles, which have much better burst damage). Weapon and shield damage/absorbtion values are just completely disproportionate at the moment.

The problem comes from a previous update. Shields were heavily boosted with the weapon update to account for the massive burst damage of nukes (which has been fixed recently). However, capacity and regen hadn't been seperated at the time, so ships had a huge amount of regen and simply could'nt power their shields. Shields were then reduced to counteract this problem but it was a classic over-nerf, with weapons depleting shields of the same mass in a few seconds.

However, with capacity and regen now being seperated into two blocks I seriously believe that it's time to increase shield CAPACITY values (to multiple times what it is now). That way you don't get invincible ships that can out-tank everything like last time. That'd just result in longer and more fun battles. Small ship VS big ships balance would stay the exact same, with less chance of one hit kills for the big ship (remember that regen stays the same too).

TL;DR Increase shield capacitor values by a good amount, keep regeneration the same.

Edit: I'd like to point out that this isn't the only change that is needed, but it's already a massive step in the right direction. Not to mention that it's a simple config change, takes 15 seconds to make.

Shield capacitors should be increased a little, maybe, to account for the block separation. Flat out buffing the shield capacitors to much higher numbers will lead to what Vanhelzing and I were saying in that other thread that was asking for a big boost to capacitors.

This was brought up in a separate thread. Someone else and I both came to the conclusion that players would place less shield capacitors on their ships, get the same value in shield HP and then place more weapons on the ship. In the end I can take out enemy shields just as fast as before and it solves nothing. It's more complicated than just giving shielding more capacity per block.

That someone else is probably me.

 

[Criss]

you see the problem with this is that thrusters require alot more power than they did in the past.
this would kill off all ship designs that didnt focus on power....
dont nerf any systems. buff them

His plan is solid. The fact that ship designs would be considered obsolete by doing this is an invalid point. This is alpha still. Not a finished game. Hell the devs shouldn't really be caring about altering values and such till beta but they have done so already with a few things. If our ships completely break because we are switching to a new system, a system that could solve many problems for gameplay, then oh f***ing well. Sorry but thats the truth of it. If it means possibly fixing the game then I will gladly play with many alterations to the mechanics. Ship redesigns or not, we are all just testers still.

Those of us that paid have ensured that we get a copy of the FULL game when it is released. We should all keep that in mind.

As for the whole power thing. I just fought in my 260~ meter dragoon. I went up against 60 AI enemy frigates (I'm in a destroyer) and 1 AI dragoon. Here is a picture of the ship after about 45 minutes of surviving this pirate wave. I died once when I spawned in the enemy dragoon. It had missiles whereas the other ships did not.

I can tell you exactly why I survived. I was using incredibly small weapon systems on those enemy AI. Forcing the player to use smaller weapons is actually quite brilliant right now if you want a fight to last longer than 30 seconds.

Like seriously guys... You are using weapons capable of clearing out half the ship shown above in one hit and you want to do things like increase shield health and stuff? Maybe we should be thinking smaller instead of bigger. Leave the superweapons to the capital ships and not everything you spit out of your shipyard.

To add to this, in a game where the entirety of my universe is my creation, it is just as much my decisions and actions that create a balanced gameplay experience, not just the devs. Think of it this way. Is a new player going to know how to set up the weapon combinations immediately? Or know how to design proper ships? The equivalent of these "valid points" from a new player standpoint is "give me ships that can fight pirates so that I do not have to learn the game mechanics". We know how the game works. Some of us are discovering ways to give ourselves a more enjoyable experience. It may not be out instinct to build small. Or nerf instead of buff. In the end I will eventually face another player with completely different build processes. And they will kick my ass. It might be unfair. I can't change that, not without asking for a very restrictive game.

 

[Mered4]

His plan is solid. The fact that ship designs would be considered obsolete by doing this is an invalid point. This is alpha still. Not a finished game. Hell the devs shouldn't really be caring about altering values and such till beta but they have done so already with a few things. If our ships completely break because we are switching to a new system, a system that could solve many problems for gameplay, then oh f***ing well. Sorry but thats the truth of it. If it means possibly fixing the game then I will gladly play with many alterations to the mechanics. Ship redesigns or not, we are all just testers still.

Those of us that paid have ensured that we get a copy of the FULL game when it is released. We should all keep that in mind.

As for the whole power thing. I just fought in my 260~ meter dragoon. I went up against 60 AI enemy frigates (I'm in a destroyer) and 1 AI dragoon. Here is a picture of the ship after about 45 minutes of surviving this pirate wave. I died once when I spawned in the enemy dragoon. It had missiles whereas the other ships did not.

I can tell you exactly why I survived. I was using incredibly small weapon systems on those enemy AI. Forcing the player to use smaller weapons is actually quite brilliant right now if you want a fight to last longer than 30 seconds.

Like seriously guys... You are using weapons capable of clearing out half the ship shown above in one hit and you want to do things like increase shield health and stuff? Maybe we should be thinking smaller instead of bigger. Leave the superweapons to the capital ships and not everything you spit out of your shipyard.

To add to this, in a game where the entirety of my universe is my creation, it is just as much my decisions and actions that create a balanced gameplay experience, not just the devs. Think of it this way. Is a new player going to know how to set up the weapon combinations immediately? Or know how to design proper ships? The equivalent of these "valid points" from a new player standpoint is "give me ships that can fight pirates so that I do not have to learn the game mechanics". We know how the game works. Some of us are discovering ways to give ourselves a more enjoyable experience. It may not be out instinct to build small. Or nerf instead of buff. In the end I will eventually face another player with completely different build processes. And they will kick my ass. It might be unfair. I can't change that, not without asking for a very restrictive game.

I agree. It's always bothered me that capital ship turrets in Starmade stretch half the length of their parent vessel. Smaller weapon arrays and smaller weapons in general would really help the situation.

That said, a lot of folks like to reference the old days where two cap ships would just shoot at eachother for a few minutes before exploding. "You want those days back? they were so boring! Shorter fights! Rarghh!"

They were boring, but not because it took a while to kill folks - it was boring because we had two weapons types.

Now we have 10 or so. And then some.

 

[Keptick]

Edit: nopenopenope, ignore this

 

[hzzzln]

Vanhelzing, did you by any chance record that fight? It sounds very interesting and maybe the video even contributes to this discussion.

 

[aceface]

Actually, without an atmosphere or the possibility of stalling, small craft turn around faster, because inertia and tensile strength and such. Plus, turning on a dime is the main advantage fighters hold. If it turned as slow as a corvette does now, why would I bother with it?

I agree with you that they should turn fast. Just not as fast as they do now. About 50% - 75% slower of the current base turning speed. Why - because in dogfights no matter how you maneuver, it will always be the person with more shields and weapons who wins, because you can never get out of someones fire range due to the so fast turning speed. I don't think big ships should turn fast, and I don't think that small ships should turn slow, I just think that the smaller ships should turn a little bit slower so that it is actually possible to utelize thrust to escape someone's arc of fire.

 

[Matt_Bradock]

Wow... OK... lotsa opinions there.

Let's see, where to begin...

aceface, dogfights are for atmospherical combat. If you want realistic space fighter combat, I recommend watching Battlestar Galactica (reboot, not the old one) and Babylon 5. In both series, turning mid-flight to face the opponent chasing you and firing your guns at him, or using directional thrusters to strafe sideways and shoot the crap out of something, are valid and practiced tactics. Sorry to say that, but aeroplane-style dogfights have no real place in a space game with Newtonian physics.

About the weapon vs shield problem: buffing shield capacity could solve some problems. It can be argued that people will just take some shields off and put more guns on, but you seem to forget something. Shield capacitators by themselves, don't cost power, so you can just put on more. The rechargers use power. (one of the reasons behind the system separation) On the opposite side, every single extra weapon block you put on, WILL increase your power consumption as well, so if you want a bigger gun, you gonna need to also add more support, effect, power reactors and power capacitors. Ship size efficiency is already kind of capped with the 1 million e/sec soft cap on power generation. That makes ships power efficient up to about 12K mass. After that, to feed the juice to your systems, you have to place a ton of reactors as well.
Currently, the missiles are the biggest problem as no other weapon is capable of removing millions of shields and core a ship the same time for that block count, and do that from the next sector. I think missile/pulse torpedoes are fairly balanced with their extreme reload time and slow travel speed. Proper point defense can and will prevent them from hitting as well as evasive maneuvers. It's the Missile/beam setups that are problematic as they are extremely hard to shoot down due to their insane travel speed. (almost as fast as cannon projectiles?) There is some balancing at them though as you can't get a lock on jamming ships. But then, the power generation soft cap makes it extremely hard for a big capital ship to run a jammer, maneuver and shoot the same time - they just don't have the generation/block efficiency to do that. If they want to do that, sacrifices must be made in shield capacity, and/or weapon/defense systems, and they still have to manage their power consumption, and watch out for scanner pulses that remove their jammer.

So, if you're afraid of being nuked by a missile, don't go big. Go smart and go smaller, use a ship that can sustain a jammer without sacrificing maneuverability, defensive systems and weaponry. Also, install point defense.

Turret size could be a problem, but in my opinion, the main problem with it is the unified turning speed. Turret turning should be the same as ship turning, based on dimensions and mass. This way the small point defense and anti-fighter turretry can react and track a lot more efficiently, and large turrets would take time to turn onto target and could be evaded with proper maneuvers (and at range, again, jammer. It greatly decreases turret accuracy)

Honestly, I don't see your problems. Build smart. Do your homework. And decide what role you want your ship to take, just like in EVE. If you do that, you'll be fine. Every weapon system in the game has its counters, you only need to find them. They have lock-on sniper missiles and long-range cannons? Use a jammer. They have rapid fire weaponry and swarm missiles? Stay at range and use beam support. They have a lot of turrets? Swarm missile the bastards. But don't whine about how OP weapons are, because your ship isn't prepared for every single possible scenario. Learn to build, learn what to use, how to position, and most importantly, to sometimes disengage and run.

 

[aceface]

but aeroplane-style dogfights have no real place in a space game with Newtonian physics.

I agree with you, they don't. What I am saying is that the forward thrust be more powerful than the other sides, because 99.9% of all ships I have ever seen in games or starmade have big engines facing backwards, which is what a spaceship would have because it can't waste engines for all directions.

And again, I just think small ships (100-150 mass) have way too fast turning speed, as in you can do a 360 (at least with my default sensitivity) in 1-2 seconds. I doubt the small invisible directional thrusts on a ship would be able to do such a thing. Elite dangerous is a very scientifically accurate game, and here the smallest ship (sidewinder) cannot do ridiculous 360s in a couple of seconds.

 

[Criss]

They were boring, but not because it took a while to kill folks - it was boring because we had two weapons types.

I'm thinking some graphical and audio updates could make lots of this less boring. Explosions. Heavier looking beams. etc...

Vanhelzing, did you by any chance record that fight? It sounds very interesting and maybe the video even contributes to this discussion.

I plan on doing some combat testing in some future videos.

 

[Naiphe]

what about simply making weapons blocks have diminishing returns somehow? so that after so many weapon blocks are added to a ship you get less bang for your buck dependant on ship mass or block count, and increase shield caps substantially (not regeneration) so that instead of ohko from a death cube it would take 7 or 8 shots to down a shield?

Also what about having ship size/mass of the ship shooting affect each shot somehow vs different ship sizes. So that huge ships struggle to hit small tiny fighters, rather than have it so bigger is always better?

 

[NuclearFun]

what about simply making weapons blocks have diminishing returns somehow? so that after so many weapon blocks are added to a ship you get less bang for your buck dependant on ship mass or block count, and increase shield caps substantially (not regeneration) so that instead of ohko from a death cube it would take 7 or 8 shots to down a shield?

Also what about having ship size/mass of the ship shooting affect each shot somehow vs different ship sizes. So that huge ships struggle to hit small tiny fighters, rather than have it so bigger is always better?

Once there was a time when weapon systems, shields and thrusters all had diminishing return ... did not work out either (those were the times of checker board amcs)

I am just going to wait for the coming hull system before i talk about balance though.
Right now i see a huge disparity between offensive systems (cheap to craft, abundant in numbers and also the power to support them) and defensive systems (heavy hull and shield caps [blue asteroids... where art thou?])

What i would very much like is a better system for turrets so you could for instance set a group of turrets on missile defense or even control them directly in a fight, turret AI accuracy and turning speed to balance things against small ships (not unlike EvE-Online maybe).

Lock on warning or missile lock warning (maybe a new function of the scanners?) would be nice and could provide thrill.

More UI slots for more systems and cheaper (in power need and size) effect systems to bring out more diverse ships and play...
The effect systems sound nice in theory (armor hardener... i would use that) but they just do not seem viable enough to sacrifice the space needed.

 

[aceface]

Once there was a time when weapon systems, shields and thrusters all had diminishing return ... did not work out either (those were the times of checker board amcs)

yeah i remember those time. alternatively the whole weapons system could have diminishing returns instead of a single weapon block. curious to how it would work in practise...

 

[CyberTao]

(almost as fast as cannon projectiles?)

By default in the config, missiles move at 1.98 times the server speed, and missile+beam gets a x2 modifier so it's quite close to 4 times the server speed (Cannons are actually 10 times in comparison, with no speed modifying on any slave). Cannons are far too small and too fast to see them flying through space at a distance, so I can see why people may think missiles are faster.

But missile speeds are insane when you think about it, 1.98 times the server speed default? That's almost as fast a 100% overdrive, which I believe should be the MAX missile speed (missile+pulse moves at ~1/2 the server speed, missile+missile go at .99 times the server speed, and missile+cannon is without modifier). Just halving these speeds (and a light boost to +pulse and +missile to keep it viable) would have quite the effect on PD and missile combat.

 

[Keptick]

Vanhelzing Lecic Your logic is flawed. That's cause you assumed that everyone would use a higher weapon/shield ratio, in which case you'd be right. However, assuming that you have two ships of equal mass with a similar combined amount of shield and weapon blocks, the one with the higher shield ratio wins (if we look at pure damage per second figures).

 

[CyberTao]

Vanhelzing Lecic Your logic is flawed. That's cause you assumed that everyone would use a higher weapon/shield ratio, in which case you'd be right. However, assuming that you have two ships of equal mass with a similar combined amount of shield and weapon blocks, the one with the higher shield ratio wins (if we look at pure damage per second figures).

The idea of raising shield caps to overpower damage is the same as telling people to not use as many weapons. If ships weren't so front heavy with DPS, you'd get more out of the battle, but people design ships to do maximum damage and then get sad when other ships cripple too fast? Wasn't that the intention?

 

[Snk]

Why are we not factoring in the skill of the pilot in this discussion? That is what it really comes down to.

 

[Criss]

I think I am just going to record some combat. Instead of people talking about hypothetical decisions made by players based on changes we are discussing I will just show you guys. Specifically how one can change the number of weapons used instead of values for blocks in the game, and have drastic effects on ship longevity in combat.

We aren't getting anywhere by saying "players will do this, and that." Players already take the game in many directions / playstyles. They will continue to do so. The aim is to give "the norm" decent balancing and gameplay experiences.

Vanhelzing Lecic Your logic is flawed. That's cause you assumed that everyone would use a higher weapon/shield ratio, in which case you'd be right. However, assuming that you have two ships of equal mass with a similar combined amount of shield and weapon blocks, the one with the higher shield ratio wins (if we look at pure damage per second figures).

I frankly will not even discuss changing shielding so drastically when there is a Hull HP system that is supposed to be the focus right now. When this major piece of the puzzle is implemented then we can start looking at balancing values. Otherwise we might have to do it twice or more times.