here is another stupid thing i have feed back on

A moving target in space is no harder to hit without sudden, erratic movement. That movement would put it at risk of hitting other friendly vessels, their fire, or even space debris. Missiles, lasers, are impossible to miss with in space without the intervention of countermeasures. Kinetic weapons move too fast to miss unless you had poor aim to begin with. Like they wouldn't have computer assisted aim.

After reading around the forum checking this game out today I can say this is easily the question that tires me most.

note, i believe that stuff will begin moving

yes your right that in the scope of accuracy moving/non moving wouldn't be significant difference, but theres other factors on why the ships wouldn't stop.

- If accuracy is as accurate as your emphasizing, a ship moving wouldn't significantly reduce its accuracy (as long as the computer can calculate).

- Ships are either moving towards a certain strategic goal in the area or will move strategically around the area example: group A is fighting group B, group C who are allied with group B just appear in sensor range. If group A thinks they can annihilate group B alone and then group C alone (not both together), they would start heading in the opposite direction of C (most likely not as fast as C is approaching), so it takes a bit longer for C to arrive than if they were not moving at all.
remember this can is on a massive scale where fleet C is out of range of any attacks and even fleet A and B are extremely far from each other.

- Would take more energy for the ship to fully stop each time it starts shooting, than just continue moving and slightly changing angle/velocity.

anyway most of these games are extremely unrealistic .

I want my ships to stay where they are. If I plant them just out of the range of the gauss platforms, I don't want them moving into the kill zone and getting blown up just because someone thinks it would look cool. archpsi, your little scenario there could easily be accomplished with a bit of micromanagement.

computers are good but their not perfect.

in combat in space few ships would be moving at full speed in combat so inertia shouldn't be a big problem and that is why they invented seat belts for the bridge crew. lol





out of range or out of shot direction.

Actually, unless damaged they are. Its the human element that screws up

yes but u cn watch volleys in tis game miss if the ship moves so it should be like home world where only the shots that acctualy hit do damage

Never said it would. Processing time is the question, and frankly within twenty years we'll surpass the human brain. By then predictive firing and computer assisted/corrected aim will be child's play.

If the designers are going to be wasting processor cycles with unit AI like this I say forget it. The limiting factor on realism is computing power, and to waste it on something little more than a gimmick (like this thread) is not a good sign.

*cough* Antimatter, jump-drives, and weapons that consume more energy than retrorockets argue this point to nil. If you had a choice to let yourself drift into fire you would not do it.

To a point they have to be. The game is already overflowing emulated 64bit numbers if I read one of the preview right. Only so much can be done with today's computers, and there's no guarantee that realism is fun. Physics is right up with graphics as the heavyweight load contender in a game.

[quote]

If a star destroyer can shoot lasers at a correlian corvette and miss , then it can happen in Sins.

this is an example of how one uses a frame of reference such as Star Wars to determine what could be justifible as realistic , without needing to resort to nit picking physics.

Your average joe gamer is going to be doing exactly that...

So I agree with the OP because Games dating back to 1999 and pretty much every Sci-fi will have frigate size ships that move to avoid weapons fire, so to have Sins with 100% accuracy is going to look unrealistic in most people minds regardless of whether physics 101 says its right or wrong.

Forget about Star Wars and CPU assisted firing mechanisms. Think more of calvary than our modern navy! The ships should not be dogfighting and weaving to avoid enemy fire. To avoid being in the enemies firing solution (range and cone-o-fire) they need to move. Movement should not be about dodging lasers, but rather being in a position where the laser cannot target you.

Overall and ultimately, movement during combat is a necessity. Currently it is very micro-intensive to flank and maneuver effectively, but not impossible. However, in all most all cases in dynamic vs static combat with all else being equal, the one who moves dynamically will beat the one who stays static. This is the problem, this is more than a gimmick, and this should be discussed more!

Actually, your scenario is the only non-gimmicked one. Remaining in motion is a gimmick, as is the argument of AI simulated advanced tactics (the three way interaction).

Firing directions are hugely important, and if you could efficiently tell units to avoid areas of fire their lifespans would be much longer. Except, of course, if you got shot first.

It's like the Revolutionary War. The Brits had for a long time, like the rest of Europe, fought in a line with their soldiers. They were trumped the way they were because we Americans resisted irregularly. At a certain point I would still call this "early space combat" especially for the TEC, whom had a millennium of peace. At a certain point you can't make everyone use the same irregular guerrilla tactics in space because the game already takes hours. You don't want it to take days to penetrate your enemy's star system.

two questions.


1 why are we assuming that the only computer is going to be attacking only.
wouldn't there also be a computer on the other ship trying to make sure that the enemy fire will miss.


2 why in this forum when someone doesn't like something that post becomes a gimmick or a troll.

if the travel speed is instantaneous, it wont matter



it... doesn't? just because two people present good cases for both sides of an argument doesn't mean that the devs dont make a decision. Also, the devs dont like openly siding with one person or the other because they want to see if anyone can post new reasons, or maybe sway their decision.

The problem with ships maneuvering to get out of the line of fire of enemy ships is that most frigates have only forward firing weaponry. This means that if they are running circles around the enemy, then neither side is firing at the other. Sure, avoiding fire is nice, but not if it means that we can't fire back.

Erm ... one problem. The player uses a computer. So really, every order the player gives is executed by the AI in the game. If you're going to make things work one way for the computer's unit AI, then you should for the player. Honestly it does take a bit of processing power. One of the top two hogs in games. So aggression and evasion AI on the same unit trying to be really effective for as many as a hundred or two units on the screen will choke a good number of computers. Even powerful dual cores if you're not careful. And like I said before:

Well, I called your idea a gimmick. It isn't really logical or tactical, and even if you don't like it that doesn't make it right. I've never once said or inferred that you're a troll.

.

your not the only one who ever disagreed with something that i or someone else has said on this forum and i am including the galciv and joeuser sites with this.

I have never seen someone be called a troll on these forums...

most people that use these forums are rather nice, with the obvious exception of the torturous devs.

To get back on topic, I agree that most battle managing would become too much micro, but many players seem to have this gripe, so maybe some set patterns that the ships could fly around in? eg, cap ships stay relatively motionless while the smaller ships circle around it. Like flea said, too much stuff would become very processor heavy, but, (close your ears devs!) im sure it cant be all that hard to implement something small that would also look cool.

Here, let me fix that...

I'm almost suspicious that the person who's complaining about being called a troll is trolling!

I think you and many others are missing the point entirely, the ships do not need to always move as you assume I'm suggesting (I never said they shouldnt stop, you should have complete control on what they do). What I'm suggesting is that you can make them stop + shoot or move + shoot.

The scenario I brought up could be semi-imitated, if I feel like zooming completely in and moving the ships precisely between shots (would need to time it perfectly) and do it for each ship, I wouldnt call that a bit of micro. At the same time it wouldnt be exactly the same, since the ships still need to stop for the shots != Moving back while continuously shooting.

I could call myself a troll and actually be serious, would that work?

Using star wars for a technological comparison is a really bad idea. Manual targetting and lever action firing systems? It's a miracle a star destroy can hit anything, let alone a corellian corvette, which is a scant 150 meters long. Wonderful movies, but an absurd universe once you start thinking about it. Faster than light travel and manual targetting. The millenium falcon was a light freigter a fraction of that size, with manual targetting, it should be all but impossible to hit something so small at any sizable distance.

As to the logic of the thread. Battle looks really bloody boring right now, aesthetically it needs something. What's the point of differing pivot rates? Capital ships even have upgrades for it. We also have firing arcs on those turrets, the point of those? The game design says that ships are supposed to move to avoid fire, it being a beneficial thing to do. They can either do it all by themselves, or people can micromanage the game to death to achieve the same effect. I'd prefer tactical reasons to fleet composition and ways to accomplish superiority over superior strength through thinking, but the game does tell me that those light frigates should be trying to get out of the firing arcs of the main guns on a capital ship.

ok here comes my little tidbit on this, if, while I am passing an enemy ship, would i not drift my stern so that my bow was aiming right down their throat as I fired my salvo of missiles and laser cannons?

drift, roll, fire! full throttle, roll, drift, fire! You get the idea, I might not have the biggest gun but I sure can run rings around you and hit you in your soft underbelly! I can get in 5 or 6 shots before you can swing your bow around for a single knock out shot at me!

Ps: your a troll!