Speed

[mou]

for now ships can go as fast as they go forward when they go left or right or back which is REALLY stupid

they should go 100% speed when going forward, 30% on left and right, 50% when moving back something like that

because big ships can shot small ships just by going backward and shot, go left or right to follow a escaping ship without turning

for planets I think we need a auto hovering block to land easily on planets

 

[MichaelSeph]

The lateral speed doesn\'t only advantage the big ships, small ships/flyes would not be able to avoid bullets if they could only move forward (at full speed), so it\'s actually worse for fighters that can be taken down easier rather than against the \"big ships\".



Anyway, through logic seen at \"UFO\"s and certain US experimental ships, if we want to build more, circular spaceships, or spherical, or ones ment to easely go up and down, it wouldn\'t be fair to limit the lateral movement on a ship that is ment, as shape/functionality, to move in other directions than forward.

So this speed limitation would damage the freedom in building ships in the ways we imagine them.



Anyway the autohovering blocks idea (like the old Magnetic Docks that are off due to the bugs) could be greatly usseful to avoid ship\'s collisions with a planet when landing on it... but this is on a totally different topic than the thread\'s title and main suggestion :P Bad mixup.



-Mike

 

[Naf5000]

Perhaps the x, y, and z dimensions of an engine\'s bounding box could determine how quickly it lets the ship move in a given direction. A tall engine will let you go up and down quickly, a long one forwards and backwards, and a wide one would give you high lateral accelleration. Adds a challenge to ship design without affecting its versetility too much.

Also, I\'m assuming the hovering blocks idea comes from the fact that, if you cut vertical accelleration, it\'ll become much harder to fly over a planet.

 

[Stakhanov]

They tend to restrict creativity. Imagine if flat ships just couldn\'t fly up or down !

My favored method is to have thruster groups only work in one direction , based on the output. Thus , a ship with even directional thrust would have 1/6 the acceleration of a ship that can only fly forward , given the same number of thrusters. This would allow specialization and even unorthodox designs (such as gunships that fly backwards faster than forward)

By the way , \"speed\" is not helpful as a thread title. :p

 

[Directfix]

Big ships take longer to move backwards as it has to stop then make a new direction. I would suggest that one doesn\'t get to close when chewing on a fat ass ship.

 

[Stradiuos]

You do realize that if his idea of less speed going anywhere but forward was implemented, EVERY ship would be affected. So how would a small ship get taken down easier by a big ship if they are under the same new limitations? The smaller one would still be faster. (considering it has enough thrusters for it\'s size still)

If the small ship moves up in a fight to get away, then the big ship chasing it has to move up and his mass is gonna make him slower still.

You got to think about what I\'m saying, cuse I don\'t think you thought of it like that.

 

[THEBOBATRON]

In my opinion backwards movement must be put down to at least 20% of forward speed. This is because it ruins combat for me as most fights seem to be one ship reversing and one going forward, just shooting at each other until whoever has more shields/weapons wins. It completely takes out the fun and skill of dogfighting, and constantly trying to out-manovere your opponent.

 

[Ultraviolet Dugong]

Manuvering thrusters make a lot of sense both realistically and from a gameplay perspective. It doesn\'t make any sense for a large ship to be able to accelerate from 0 to 50 in half a second but be unfixably slower than molasses while turning. This manuverablility, of course, should also be relative to mass; small fighters should only need small manuvering thrusters (like a single block) to turn quickly, whereas enormous ones would need large clusters. For convinience, all ships should be able to turn slowly without them, IMO.

There is still the issue of giant ships being a bit too good, so there needs to be some balancing factor there. Maybe there could be a maximum cap on acceleration of ships, based on their mass? This way fighters would be even more manuverable.



As an aside, anyone find it odd that larger ships slow down faster? Seems to me they\'d have more inertia...

 

[Unit117]

Personally I feel that movement should be left alone. It has been stated many times on the forums that a lone fighter should never be able to go one on one with a Calbiri class vessel, and to be quite honest I agree with that sentiment. Not to mention that big ships already seem to fit the role of lumbering behemoth, at least when it comes to turning.It looks as if it would be mind numbingly boring to try and pilot a larger vessel, with any nerfs, especially in combat. Of course, I\'m biased seeing as quite frankly I enjoy building and flying larger ships.

 

[iStormUK]

Directional engines would be nice to add, to increase lateral movement. And perfectly plausible, since the only way to turn in space is to either use RCS thrusters, or to vary the main engine output to apply more thrust to one side than another. I would very much LOVE to see an RCS system implemented, so large ships can help counteract their incredibly crap turning circles. Perhaps with a cap of some kind to prevent deathstar sized ships from turning completely on a dime