Print

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

[Thaago]

This suggestion is related to/inspired by the escape thread: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?;topic=4670.0


I feel that one of the weakest parts of the game is the fixed map borders. Sometimes when you fight large fleets and push them back to their border, you can be ambushed by a capital ship suddenly appearing... very annoying! Other times combat will drift to the edge of the map, and watching ships "bounce" off of an imaginary border is really weird. I think the worst though is when slow ships escape while getting shot by faster pursuers.

One way to fix this would be to get rid of the fixed map boundaries. A ship would escape and "despawn" only if it was a) trying to escape and b) a decent distance away from all enemies. In this way slow ships could escape - if their pursuers were distracted. If the entire fight drifts sideways, no big deal. How far is far enough is a good question, and one that can probably only be answered by testing.

I see three potential problems with removing the boundaries:

1) I don't really think this will happen, but its possible that a few frigates/fighters might get reaaaally far away from the rest of the fighting. This would be bad, but unlikely. Perhaps both units would get "lost" and be removed from battle, with their own individual fight autocompleted?

2) Where do new ships spawn? I'm thinking that the player and computer should still have their own sides for spawning - this represent where the rest of the fleet is coming from. I think then that new ships should spawn aligned with the center of fighting, with a distance equal to half of the current "map size" (which wouldn't really exist anymore). I hope these two horrible pictures demonstrate:

Spoiler

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[close]

The spawns would move with the fighting. How to calculate the center of fighting? A weighted mean of both sides with weights equal to the ship class would probably work.

3) The objectives would be stationary, so fighting could drift really far away from them. In practice I don't think this would happen: the objectives give enough of a bonus that fighting would still be focused around them.

[PCCL]

sounds like a cool idea...

the pics seem to be broken for me though -_-

[Hyph_K31]

I really like the idea, and TBH it's been something that's been on my mind for quite a while. But, the main problem for me is spawning, and immersion. As I see it, a ship just poppoing up in the middle of a batlle seems... well, stupid and immersion breaking. no offence Thaago.

Here's my solution:

each side has their own "fleet cluster" where all un-fielded ships reside. the fleet cluster would be an actual physical location on the battle map, so it would be possible for a ship to travel there. so in order to stop fleets from just glomping together and roflstomping, an hoojamaflip would need to be in place.

or perhaps the clusters are just so far away that the stellar drives are needed to cross the gap between them and the battle field. - that makes sense to me. so, when calling in a ship form the cluster you would actually have to wait for them to get into comm range before orders can be given, blah blah blah.

I hope I made sense...

[xenoargh]

Personally, I'd like to see the capturing of points to grant FP and spawning to be eliminated and see big battles as a series of encounters, not just a single battle with spawning.

Spawning causes a bunch of problems for the AI; the biggest is how the AI drips in reinforcements instead of saving up for a big wave that might be somewhat effective. 

It'd be a much, much more interesting game if you weren't sure what 100 FP the enemy was going to deploy, but you'd have to plan your own 100 FP to handle it, instead of killing the invariable early wave of fighters and Frigates and then positioning your heavies for grind kills.  Right now, in non-Vanilla FP balance, it's possible to field enough fighters and Frigates to win the first round against the AI, then recall all of them and send in a fresh, undamaged wave of heavies to do cleanup.  It'd be another matter entirely if you and the AI were placing "bets" about what forces you chose to field, and if you guessed wrong, the AI would probably cause some damage every time, even if other factors in terms of force quality were disparate.

Big battles would be a series of 'bets', instead of merely a continual chewing contest where the player's advantage lays in staying near their border in big fights unless they're pretty sure they have the battle wrapped up and can afford to eat the AI's piecemeal spawns.  If the AI was then given an advantage of FPs at harder levels of difficulty, it would make up for player builds that were so optimized that an even battle would simply never result in loss.  I really wouldn't mind fighting the AI at 2:1 odds sometimes, even at the large fleet battle scale, personally.

[Axiege]

I like this idea. It seems silly that a very short distance can be the difference between in the battle and retreated.

[Gothars]

This sure is interesting, but I'd say there's no chance of such a major change being implemented. We can discuss this on hypothetical level. Maybe in Starfarer 2


One issue: you say some bad things that could happen are unlikely. That might be true, but I don't  think that's good enough.

For example, you might want to get to the objectives, but the enemy was a bit fasten than you and then just pushes you away from them further and further. That could easily happen if your ships rely on superior weapon range.

Other example: those two frigates that get away, what if they stay just in front of the border where they would auto resolve? A single surviving enemy could draw out the battle infinitely that way (or a player who does not want to admit defeat).


But, since I'm already hypothetical: It would be cool to have fleets not decelerate for a battle. The fleets would come onto the borderless battlefield with very high speed and the vector they had on the campaign map. So if you fly frontal in an encounter the fleets would just pass by each other and fire a few shots at best. To really engage a ship you had to match it's speed and vector on the campaign map prior to the engagement, so you would be unmoved relative to each other. That could give extra meaning to fights in low velocity environments like asteroid belts and gravity wells.

You could even pass by a fleet a couple of times and fire all your missiles and torpedoes to weaken it for a final attack.

[Thaago]

I really like the idea, and TBH it's been something that's been on my mind for quite a while. But, the main problem for me is spawning, and immersion. As I see it, a ship just poppoing up in the middle of a batlle seems... well, stupid and immersion breaking. no offence Thaago.

None taken - I think the popping is also immersion breaking, but its needed if you want to have the current deployment point system. One part of my idea I didn't explain very well is that the spawn location would be beyond the fog of war from the battle center - you wouldn't be able to see the enemy ships when they pop in, so it would seem much more fluid in terms of reinforcements actually arriving.

each side has their own "fleet cluster" where all un-fielded ships reside. the fleet cluster would be an actual physical location on the battle map, so it would be possible for a ship to travel there. so in order to stop fleets from just glomping together and roflstomping, an hoojamaflip would need to be in place.

or perhaps the clusters are just so far away that the stellar drives are needed to cross the gap between them and the battle field. - that makes sense to me. so, when calling in a ship form the cluster you would actually have to wait for them to get into comm range before orders can be given, blah blah blah.

I think I would actually find this much more immersion breaking than the popping - why is the cluster just sitting there instead of advancing? My rational behind the reinforcements is that the initial fleet was spread out, and this is where the actual engagement happened, but if all the ships are just sitting there...

I was wondering a while ago if it might be better to just get rid of the whole reinforcement thing all together. Let all ships be there at the start, just start them much farther apart. That way there would still be a skirmish phase where faster ships go for capture points, and only later do the big ships show up. Eh, I dunno.

This sure is interesting, but I'd say there's no chance of such a major change being implemented. We can discuss this on hypothetical level. Maybe in Starfarer 2

Unfortunately I agree with you... but I do think its one of the weakest parts of the game so I'd at least mention it.

One issue: you say some bad things that could happen are unlikely. That might be true, but I don't  think that's good enough.

For example, you might want to get to the objectives, but the enemy was a bit fasten than you and then just pushes you away from them further and further. That could easily happen if your ships rely on superior weapon range.

Hmm.. maybe I'm not understanding right, but in the situation you describe you aren't going to get the objective in the current system either. If you can't push the enemy off of it, you aren't going to get it.

Other example: those two frigates that get away, what if they stay just in front of the border where they would auto resolve? A single surviving enemy could draw out the battle infinitely that way (or a player who does not want to admit defeat).

That is a big problem - smaller, faster ships could just skirmish around and never be caught. It would make having small ships of your own to clear stragglers more important, but thats not really a solution. Controlling the nav buoys would be important. This is a problem with the current system as well (freaking Hounds never retreating when up against 3 destroyers...).

[Gothars]

Hmm.. maybe I'm not understanding right, but in the situation you describe you aren't going to get the objective in the current system either. If you can't push the enemy off of it, you aren't going to get it.

The problem was not about getting the objective, but about the combat drifting so far away from them that they become irrelevant. Right now you can push away the enemy, but not very far. On the border he's either forced to stop running and fight or to go for break-trough maneuver.

Maybe a solution would be to have not a central plain with objectives, but new objectives appearing as the battlefield moves along. Old objectives would become too far away and loose effect. As I understand those buoys and comm relays are supposed to be scattered throughout space anyway, so it would make sense.

That is a big problem - smaller, faster ships could just skirmish around and never be caught. It would make having small ships of your own to clear stragglers more important, but thats not really a solution. Controlling the nav buoys would be important. This is a problem with the current system as well (freaking Hounds never retreating when up against 3 destroyers...).

I think a different battle resolution mechanic could be a solution.
Just suppose you could strip and board destroyed ships in the combat screen (not practical during combat, simply because that is very dangerous for the docking ship).
Also suppose that a ship can start powering up its interplanetary drive at any time, but that would take some time during which weapons and shields are offline (and maybe is more vulnerable like with HEF). Once engaged, the drive can not be deactivated timely and is (almost) not steerable.
A battle would not end if any specific set of winning conditions is met, but if one fleet decides to leave the battlefield.
You could plunder your opponents remains and just ignore any fast ships that are out of your range, they would practically count as escaped. Your victory (or loss) would not be defined as a set of conditions, but by the financial gain or loss in that battle.

This might also explain (in-game) why
- ships have to slow down for combat in the first place (a fast traveling fleet could be ripped apart as they transit)
- ships can't use their interplanetary drives during combat (with semi exception of the onslaught line of ships)
- ships in a fleet travel so far from each other that they cant arrive on the battlefield at the same time ( different start times, high collision vulnerability combined with minimal maneuverability)





 

[Hyph_K31]

or perhaps the clusters are just so far away that the stellar drives are needed to cross the gap between them and the battle field. - that makes sense to me. so, when calling in a ship form the cluster you would actually have to wait for them to get into comm range before orders can be given, blah blah blah.

As for why they don't just advance, the same could be said of the current system. It's to do with logistics/command ability, Etc and the availability of objectives to aid fleet command.

In my eyes at least, the only big difference is that the borders are fuzzy, as opposed to being "solid". It's also interesting to think about the possibility of choosing which direction your ships approach, within reason.

[HazardJake]

What about a spawn beacon that you can move around, that you'd have to defend or you can't get anymore forces into the battle. Hehe, and with the Interplanetary drives, you can turn frigates into large kinetic rockets, or an onslaught into a ram!

Having both fleets just fly in from cruise speed to combat speed would bring a new thing to watch out for, having a pair of dominators strafe your broadsides. Having an alert where they come into play would be neat~

[ArkAngel]

I don't know about this. I mean the current way is good enough for me, but removing borders just seems unneeded    All though starting battle moving already seems like an idea. Plus endless battle ground can = endless combat with hyperions, if the AI good enough then it can out maneuver an nature fleet, maybe even solo it.