N3rull N3rull

This HAS to GO!

This HAS to GO!

The arcing turns are retarded.

Period.

(scroll to the bottom for suggested solutions; keep reading for rants)

You guys at Ironclad say that people complain about the game being too static, that the ships don't move around too much and that sort of stuff to justify the arcing maneuvers of units.

You'll not make need for speed out of this game. But you can put a little sense into the pathing!

Maneuvering larger fleets is all but impossible. Ships all aim for their places in formation and when that shifts slightly, they begin to do those damned arcing turns, ending up all over the gravwell, eating enemy's starbase railgun fire and clearing minefields with their faces.

Example:

I entered the gravwell from a safe direction so as to evade the extensive minefield. I approached the enemy starbase (it had been where the yellow X is) by circling the minefield and attacking from a mine-free side (green arrow).

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/5153/screenshot28d.jpg

After finishing off the starbase I realized that I couldn't get out of the minefield. I couldn't go forward, because the gravwell "edge" was too close to evade mines. "Just turning back" would be the best option

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8374/screenshot29k.jpg

 I knew what would happen, but I didn't have time to micro all ~100 ships (I could've used the Z-axis, but the ships would do the same thing only above the minefield), so I just waved my hand and watched them do their "clever" turn.

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/9441/screenshot30b.jpg

Effect: 6 ships dead, dozen barely alive and the minefield cleared neatly. Awesome :thumbsup:   

And that Vulkoras... how the hell is THAT supposed to be anything close to turning around???

ANOTHER example:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please, PLEASE, if you really want to succumb to children's whines about how they want their battleships show off  with drift racing in space, give them an "I want my ships to do idiotic circles instead of turning" option in fleet management. But for the rest who would really want the ships to do sensible stuff - please, at least make the ships turn 90 or even 50 degrees first before they accelerate. It would DRASTICALLY reduce the "stupid circle syndrome".
Those circles truly make this game annoying at times. Kortul using Jam weapons deliberately flies half a gravwell away from the rest of the fleet simply because he has to make a thousand mile circle in order to move ten miles back. Skirantra suddenly stinks like a camel, cause the whole fleet decides to stay half a gravwell away from it (and away from repair cloud of course). Ordering your fleet to move AWAY from the enemy starbase makes your fleet fly right THROUGH it, deliberately so as to catch fire from all possible weapon banks on the beast.

Argh! Somebody give me a SINGLE screenshot depicting a situation where a HUGE CIRCLING TURN is the SENSIBLE THING TO DO.

I beg you IC, rethink this ship behaviour. It really makes controlling large fleets too much like trying to hold a glass of water on your open palm after the glass is gone.

 

PS. Any of the following suggestions would fix the arcing turns stupidity to some extent, ordered from most brutal (longest wait, greatest arcing reduction effect) to the lest noticeable movement-wise, whilst still having a big impact on the arcing.


My suggestions are:
- make the ships wait until their destination is in the forward hemisphere (long wait) or
- make the ships start accelerating after turning 30-50 degrees instead of immediately. That alone would make a HUGE difference! (as in: accelerate if destination is less than 150-120 degrees from current heading.)
- make the ships start accelerating if their rotation ratio has reached its maximum. It would take roughly 1-2 seconds of wait for all ships, 3 sec for a starbase, and would reduce the circling by almost a half!

1-2 seconds of wait before accelerating <-> 50% lesser arcing turn.

That's the best deal I have ever heard if you ask me.

254,152 views 107 replies +5 Loading…
Reply #76 Top

You know what I just noticed and what in my opinion is the most laughable thing about this pathing?
That in the furthest point of the ship's arcing turn, in the point where the ship is facing 90 degrees from the destination and where it would finally begin to get closer to the target, in the point where it can NOT get any worse... the ship slows down to make a shorter-arced turn!

LOL!

I am fighting like caged tiger (or a ferret maybe) to have those ships slow down before the turn so as to make the turn smaller and more effective, while it turns out that the ships already slow down to make a tighter turn, but they do that in the worst possible moment!

HEADSHOT! x_x

Reply #77 Top

I completely agree with this but there is a bit of a work around.At least for cap ship if yo tell it to move directly behind it it will just spin and not move to get there.Then when it turns you tell it to go where you want.Not sure how well it works with large group of ships but at least for a cap you can control this.Should you have to?I think not.

Reply #78 Top

Frakk! Another promising tactical maneuver screwed by those arcing turns... >_>

I hope this gets fixed ASAP in the next patch (1.20?).

Reply #79 Top

Not before I corner some of the IC guys in a dark alley and force them, using any means necessary, to abandon their unexplained, irrational love for big arcing turns. That's what I am afraid of, anyway.
But for the time being, we can at least voice our discontent with this arcing foolishness.

+1 Loading…
Reply #80 Top

Quoting N3rull, reply 79
Not before I corner some of the IC guys in a dark alley and force them, using any means necessary, to abandon their unexplained, irrational love for big arcing turns. That's what I am afraid of, anyway.
But for the time being, we can at least voice our discontent with this arcing foolishness.
End of N3rull's quote

 

You mean the DEVs actually think this is a good feature?  8C  WTF?... >:(

To me, its obviously bad game design mistake, if not a bug outright..

Reply #81 Top

I will be off skiing for the next ten days so flaming me will not meet any resistance - enjoy.

Just don't let them convince you that crashing into the enemy fleet, starbase or minefield in front of you has anything to do with "smart" , "sensible" or "retreat".

Take care.

Reply #82 Top

Can't say I agree with all your opinions on the game balance N3rull, but you have a winner here.  Spaceships really should be using their thrusters to maneuver and then engaging their main drives.

I personally favor the proposed solution of having ships only begin accelerating with their engines once their current destination is within X degrees.

Reply #83 Top

I mean... there is no reason the ships cant spin on the spot extremely fast... in fact... i dont know why ships in Sins have to move so slow in the first place? despite what we see in the movies, there is nothing to say, with the correct piloting, a ship cant flip 180 degree in a few seconds, THEN power its main engines...

at this point though, im past hoping for change, IC is rather stubborn that way... im just hoping Sins 2 will be better...

Reply #84 Top

Inertia and safety of the crew prevent ridiculous turning rates.

Reply #85 Top

TELEPORT TO THE RIGHT ANGLE!

Reply #86 Top

Quoting Mazuo, reply 84
Inertia and safety of the crew prevent ridiculous turning rates.
End of Mazuo's quote

inertial dampening?

advanced technology we cant imagine yet?

besides, im talking about rotating around the center of gravity, not neccesarily breaking momentum (if there is any to begin with). subverts your entire argument

Reply #87 Top

Turn too fast and the centrifugal force throws everything to either end of the ship and, if you go WAY too fast, might cause the engines and forward guns to be ripped out of the ship and flung into anything unfortunate enough to be in the way.  THAT's why you can't perform high speed turns around your centre of mass.  Also, you have to accelerate the mass of the ship around its centre of gravity, and then deccelerate that same mass as you approach the angle you want to place the ship at (otherwise you deccelerate too slowly and overshoot) all while managing the centrifugal and g-forces on the ship to prevent it coming apart or the crew being killed due to extreme changes in acceleration.  The ship is a lot more than the big lump of metal that the player can see.

Reply #88 Top

Turn too fast and the centrifugal force throws everything to either end of the ship
End of quote

true, but then thats what inertial dampeners/artificial gravity is for...

if you go WAY too fast, might cause the engines and forward guns to be ripped out of the ship and flung into anything unfortunate enough to be in the way
End of quote

you realise these ships are no where near big enough to accelerate that fast that quickly... they can only accelerate for the time it takes the ship to rotate 180 degrees... if they continued spinning, then yes... but its like this: you are running for 10 meters, if it takes you anything more than 6 meters to reach your top speed, you wont reach it before you need to start decelerating.

same thing applies here, it will take more than rotating half the length of the ship to reach the speed of the shearing forces required to rip the engines off, if it can reach that speed in the first place...

as for the second part of your post.... i think you pretty much said what i said above... which is confusing... but still...

lastly, like i said... inertial dampeners and artificial gravity. Solves all your problems

Reply #89 Top

Its not about the turning speed, I dont think its too slow. Maybe it can be made faster, but not too fast, because even if we forget realism, inertia and centifugal force, it will just look funny.

The issue is that ships always immidiately accelerate forward with main engines, even if they are ordered to turn around. That is the problem.

Reply #90 Top

Hasn't this kind of subject come up before? I remember something about most Sci-Fi shows/movies as well as games often have space fleets act  more like navy vessals than real spaceships. One subject was bought up before was that in real space there would be no need have small fighter and bombers yet in many shows,movies and games they are common place.

Reply #91 Top

subverts your entire argument
End of quote

Your misunderstanding of basic physics or relying on technobabble does not win you any points.

The mass of the ships can only be accelerated so quickly.  Their thrusters are obviously less powerful than the giant engine on the back.  If you'd rather claim that the ships can do anything because they're magic, go for it, just go create your own topic please.  This one seems more dedicated to adjusting how ships move for balance and gameplay reasons and slightly for realism's sake.

Reply #92 Top

heres the thing: we see ships doing BOTH... wether they are turning in a big arc turn, or if they are spinning in place... it takes the same ammount of time for the ship to do that 180...

I mean... watch an akkan spin to turn to face an enemy... it turns preety dam well.

All we want is that kind of turning when the ship needs to GTFO.

 

 

Reply #93 Top

you realise these ships are no where near big enough to accelerate that fast that quickly... they can only accelerate for the time it takes the ship to rotate 180 degrees...
End of quote
Hyperbole.  Even then we appear to have reached a point where this whole turning rate argument has become muddled.  I'm arguing AGAINST ultra-fast turning/acceleration rates, you seem to think I'm trying to argue for them?  Or are you also against them?  I was certainly not reiterating your post.  That said, I probably didn't conclude my post properly, which caused some confusion as to what I was arguing.

 

Besides, high-speed on-the-spot turns are out for another resaon; they look stupid.  These are huge space-ships, which we expect to have mass and low rates of acceleration, so having them turn at unrealistic-looking speeds would look weird and totally break the immersion.  Slow, on the spot turns (except when moving), that's what I'm for.

Reply #94 Top

I'm arguing AGAINST ultra-fast turning/acceleration rates, you seem to think I'm trying to argue for them? Or are you also against them?
End of quote

as is understand it, you were sayng turning spinning on the spot too fast would rip the engines etc from their mountings and fling them into space. i was saying that its unlikely the ships would be able to rotate fast enough in the space provided for their engines to be ripped off.

BUT! there is no reason why they cant rotate on the spot much faster than they do now, other than the immersion effect like you said... still, they could turn a LITTLE bit faster dont you think?

also, Mazuo, i started off by saying the ships should be able to rotate on the spot quite quickly. you brought in science by talking about inertia and 'crew safety'... its a little model of a ship, mate, there is no crew, yet you slam me by talking about inertial dampeners (which are actually reference in Sins lore so where does this magic shit come from?)

yes, realism is good, but the rule of cool usually prevails and i think having a ship rotate a little bit faster than what might be realistic would be acceptable... especially if it prevents you running into an enemy fleet of a face full of space mines...

Reply #95 Top

The point remains they don't need to turn any faster, they simply need to understand that firing their engines at full power will result in long curving turns, splitting the fleet and frequently charging into even more enemies.

As for bringing in science, I'm not sure why I should refrain from doing so.  Massive ships of heavy materials require significant time or thrust to accelerate in any direction.  Regarding inertial dampening, the only mention of manipulating inertia in the entire Sins manual is in relation to the Vasari.

Anyway, IC could surprise me, but I'm guessing they're pretty happy with how it is now and this is probably best left as a strong suggestion for Sins 2 or whatever space game they hopefully have planned next.

Reply #96 Top

BUT! there is no reason why they cant rotate on the spot much faster than they do now, other than the immersion effect like you said... still, they could turn a LITTLE bit faster dont you think?
End of quote
I suppose.  Although really, that's what "Advanced Manouvering" is for.

 

I've noticed one of the reasons these turns cause problems is because when you tell a fleet to move behind it, the vessels on either side of the flagship try to maintain their position relative to the flagship, causing the paths of almost all the vessels to cross over completely.  You think there would at least be some intelligence the so the ships swapped their positions relative to the flagship (vessels on left of F.Ship align themselves on the right of F.Ship, and so on) rather than risking numerous collisions by crossing paths (especially when the fleets order themselves so precisely so each wing is symmetrical) and also to shorten the route (even with arcing turns).

Reply #97 Top

Quoting Pbhead, reply 92
heres the thing: we see ships doing BOTH... wether they are turning in a big arc turn, or if they are spinning in place... it takes the same ammount of time for the ship to do that 180...

I mean... watch an akkan spin to turn to face an enemy... it turns preety dam well.

All we want is that kind of turning when the ship needs to GTFO.

 

 
End of Pbhead's quote

 

good observation!!

:thumbsup:

Reply #98 Top

Quoting CrazyElectron, reply 96

BUT! there is no reason why they cant rotate on the spot much faster than they do now, other than the immersion effect like you said... still, they could turn a LITTLE bit faster dont you think?I suppose.  Although really, that's what "Advanced Manouvering" is for.
 

I've noticed one of the reasons these turns cause problems is because when you tell a fleet to move behind it, the vessels on either side of the flagship try to maintain their position relative to the flagship, causing the paths of almost all the vessels to cross over completely.  You think there would at least be some intelligence the so the ships swapped their positions relative to the flagship (vessels on left of F.Ship align themselves on the right of F.Ship, and so on) rather than risking numerous collisions by crossing paths (especially when the fleets order themselves so precisely so each wing is symmetrical) and also to shorten the route (even with arcing turns).
End of CrazyElectron's quote

 

Yes, I assume a fleet would perform practice manuevers during training.  Someone posted about the German High Seas Fleet in WW1 practicing a new maneuver of all the ships turning 180-degrees at the same turn rate at the same time.  iibc, they used this maneuver at the battle of Jutland and it worked in combat.  If early 20th century humans can do it, surely a spacefaring race can also do this type of maneuver.

|-)

 

Reply #99 Top

gameplay wise, sure it's annoying. But if you want to argue on realism than the current turn model for Sins is pretty accurate.

- In space, theorically you can turn using sub-engine just like how satelite use rockets to adjust their flypath nowadays. However, while we don't need to rely on inerta or aerodynamic, the Force VS Mass relationship still exist in space. Say a ship has a main engine of 500K Newton and several subengine of about 2k Newton each. Theorically, a ship can make a 180 turns in space while not moving an inch using its sub-engines, but those 2KN engines won't turn the ship as fast as if you have borrow the inertia from using the main engine.

- Now come the question, why don't use multiple sub engine and make a quick turn? I think some of you underestimate gravity, inertia and g-force in space. Sure, space has no gravity, no friction ...etc... but that doesn't mean you can go wild without consequence. It seems people forget that there is a big different between the environment between a ship interior and the vacumm is HUGE. And this difference is actually even more severe than an airplan in the atsmosphere or a ship on water. If it has to compare, it would be more like a submarine at max depth. You guys keep saying space is vacumm, but like I said it seems most forget that the interior of a space ship is NOT a vacumm. For something the size of a space ship to make a hard turn there will probably enough force to either tear the interior apart, or send the crew to medbay. S

 

Now as far as gameplay goes ... well it's annoying no doubt. For example last night I was fighting in a nebular sector. I have my fleet draw the enemies to one end of the system while I sent a probe to build a starbase on the other end (and lock the phaselane so they can't withdraw). By the time the starbase has its first armorlayer and weapon online my fleet started to fail so I order them to withdraw toward the base. And well, thanks to this wide arc turn I saw my fleet scatter all over the place and I lost a couple capships because they were seperated from their supports. Personally I think the combat model in Sins is a still a bit on the arcadish side to really worry about real physic and well, a mix compromised don't exactly work too well.

 

Reply #100 Top

Doesn't interstellar empires have powerful computers onboard their ships that can coordinate the exact amount of thrust to turn more effectively, plus keep the fleet in formation during the turn instead of splitting up?