Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TrashMan]

Yet they have clearly visible rear thrusters and no retros.

For diversity sake (different designs and ship performance), wouldn't it be better to specify rear speed separately?

[TaLaR]

Forward/backward acceleration is different.

[TrashMan]

Acceleration and de-acceleration are two values, but top speed is the same.
I'm not even sure if de-acceleration applies after you reach 0 or if it uses acceleration to go in reverse, since a few ships I've tried seem to perform the same.

[SCC]

Acceleration uses 100% value for accelerating forwards and 100/75/50/25% for acceleration in all other directions, depending on the ship class.
The reason behind forward/backward speed being the same is probably one part a nod to the fact that the battles are in space, one part a way to make ships less vulnerable.

[intrinsic_parity]

The idea of a top speed in space makes no sense anyway. I'm not totally opposed to this, but I would have to play it to see how it feels. There's a good chance it would mess up the AIs ability to escape.

[TaLaR]

Let's assume top speed was removed, leaving only different accelerations (and combat map made infinite, of course).
It would end up in more or less same place - ships with more acceleration kiting ones with less, but with more technical difficulties (AI, said infinite battlemap, etc).

I know of only one game that went for realistic space combat - Children of Dead Earth. And it's not bad, but it has nothing in common with Starsector.

[Rounin]

I know of only one game that went for realistic space combat - Children of Dead Earth.

There are a number of games with Newtonian physics, like I-War 1 and 2, the Evochron games or Frontier: Elite 2, but like you said they're a completely different beast from Starsector.

[Deshara]

The idea of a top speed in space makes no sense anyway.

It's a safety feature. As-is in Starsector you are incapable of ramming something so hard your ship blows up; your ship's relative velocity is limited specifically for this reason.
would you want to live on a space station being docked nonstop by ships whose max relative velocity isn't throttled below the "blow the station in half killing everyone inside" limit?

Consider: Do you know what a hoverslam (also know as a suicide burn) is? It's when you don't slow down at all while approaching an object, and hit your retrothruster to begin breaking at the exact point where a 100% retrothrust all the way up to collision would exactly kill your relative momentum -- your speed doesn't change at all in preparation for a landing, and then smoothly cuts from your travel speed down to 0 at the exact moment of collision.
I would do this all the time. I'm an impatient person, and I know for a fact I'm not the only one bc people get in traffic accidents constantly doing stuff like this.
If your relative velocity weren't throttled, a single retrothruster failure (keeping in mind that in long-distance travel you never use them for months at a time, so how do you know they're still working upon arrival?) would kill thousands.

A speed limit in space is the only thing that makes sense. I wouldn't wanna live on a space station while people like me are allowed to fly at the speeds they want to lol

[Rounin]

your ship's relative velocity is limited specifically for this reason

That's nice, but you already move your ships at speeds capable of traveling multiple AUs in a few days, way above the dangerous levels you just described.

[intrinsic_parity]

I wasn't trying to suggest that top speed be removed, just pointing out that there are no realism arguments here, its all about what actually works well for gameplay.

[Deshara]

your ship's relative velocity is limited specifically for this reason

That's nice, but you already move your ships at speeds capable of traveling multiple AUs in a few days, way above the dangerous levels you just described.

when there's nothing else around. To wit; a stationary fleet is capable of catching a fleet going burn-level 20 without having to match speeds. The assumption can be that the ships in transit detect a fleet moving in to an intercept path and trigger an automatic brake to relatively safe speeds to prevent the chance of a catastrophic impact

[Rounin]

The right assumption is that it's an arcade game with no pretense at even being remotely realistic. Trying to justify these things with real life logic is silly.
Besides, asteroids don't trigger safety brakes, just slow you down a bit - still moving at hundreds of thousands of kmph while a mass that would instantly vaporize you just casually gets flung away.

[Deshara]

asteroids just slow you down a bit.

Do they, though? Or does your fleet just slow down enough that the difference in velocity multiplied by the asteroid's size is within confidence limits, and your fleet just bumps it out of the way as it goes at its now-safe speed?
After all, we don't actually know how big the asteroid is -- the campaign map is just an abstraction. It could be a pebble, maybe dangerous at burn 20 but definitely safe to just kick out of the way as you go at burn 16.
_{I love these pedantic arguments about abstractions; they fuel me. I am fueled by this}

[Thaago]

They slow you because the game needs terrain that slows the player. We have an intuitive feeling of 'oh, we shouldn't run into asteroids' that makes it plausible.

In terms of 'realism' its totally bogus - you're not going to run into anything in an asteroid belt unless you are trying to or really unlucky.

[Rounin]

Do they, though?

Yes, because the drop in speed occurs after they impact your little bubble and bounce away, giggling in their stoic space-rock way. Cheeky pebbles have the manners of infants.