Any questions, comments, suggestions regarding the mod development.
no avatar
User

Colt556

Posts

46

Joined

14 Feb 2012, 10:00

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Colt556 » 29 May 2012, 23:59

While we all have our own ideas on how far we should take it, one thing most everyone seems to agree on is that fighters need to be more fragile. Some people may be content with 10 or so shots, some may want 5, some may want 2-3 (like me), but we ALL want them toned down, quite significantly at that. All that needs to be done is to find out what works best. Frankly, it'd be nice if the devs just started low (canon damages), we play around with it, go "naw, too low" they up it a notch, etc etc until we find one that works.
User avatar
User

berowe

Rank

Galactic Empire

Posts

200

Joined

07 Apr 2012, 06:50

Location

Improcco

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by berowe » 30 May 2012, 05:40

Glad to see a good discussion and so many people relatively on the same page. This is what the demo is all about. Mad props to the devs watching us and saying "them mfers craze...." keep up the good work. Its like the poet said "devs work is gods work"
"You're going to have to run faster than that, reb..."
- Reaper comms -

Formerly/Currently:
Avenger-4, Dian Set, Reaper-02, Reaper-04, Reaper-05, Yol-01, The Randy Gamorrean, The Snooty Sullustian, Ithorian Sunset, INV Kalix's Bane, et alia.
User avatar
User

Sushi

Rank

Developer

Posts

3219

Joined

14 Feb 2010, 05:05

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Sushi » 30 May 2012, 13:49

This definitely was a good topic and was an interesting read for me. It actually solidified something that I always felt was a bit off with the demo and we have a few ways to go about and fix this issue.

Firstly, I think a large amount of frustration is surrounding the difficultly it is to hit starfighters. I believe this is largely related to the current size of the ships. When you compare the size of our X-Wing to ships in Vanilla Freelancer, ours are actually much smaller (25-50% in some cases). Now when you add lag factor, it is much more difficult to hit ships than it really needs to be. So, I'm going to chat with the other devs (several are on vacation right now) regarding increasing the size of the starfighters 50%. This would make the X-Wing, 19m long, instead of the 12.5m it is now. It will also make starfighters more inline with Vanilla Freelancer ships. Players will also be rewarded more often by hitting the ships and I think it will help elevate some of the frustration.

The other topic of contention is regarding overall shielding hitpoints. I think that many are right in the assertion that there's too much. I think after we see how the increased size of ships goes, decreasing shield hitpoints by a fair degree will be a good start. We will likely start from a position we are now and gradually decrease, rather than haphazardly slashing it all and working up.

Anyways, that's my two cents on it. :)
Image
no avatar
User

Colt556

Posts

46

Joined

14 Feb 2012, 10:00

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Colt556 » 30 May 2012, 16:44

Personally, I don't think you should increase the size of fighter craft. That kind of goes against the whole "survive by not getting hit" mentality we all seem to want to see. When I flew fighters at the start to get money, I found the problem wasn't really landing hits, it was that the hits didn't do any damage. It's pretty easy to land a hit there, a hit there, but when it requires 16-20 consecutive hits to kill the enemy, that's the problem.

I think, before increasing the size of fighters, we should stick with simply lowering their hp by a large amount and see if that does the trick.
no avatar
User

Pathfinder

Posts

218

Joined

02 Apr 2012, 15:41

Location

Arizona, USA

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Pathfinder » 30 May 2012, 16:58

Sushi has spoken, mate, I doubt you'll be able to influence this decision for now. Its in the hands of the devs.
My inbox is open to any critique or praise you might have toward my written RP.

"You can ignore physics all you like, but what you can't ignore is the feds."
- Path's Engineering Axiom #1
no avatar
User

Colt556

Posts

46

Joined

14 Feb 2012, 10:00

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Colt556 » 30 May 2012, 17:04

Pathfinder wrote:Sushi has spoken, mate, I doubt you'll be able to influence this decision for now. Its in the hands of the devs.


Sushi was just voicing his opinion same as us, not saying that's what they're going to do. Just because he's a dev doesn't mean everything he does/say is as a dev, that post was very clearly from a player standpoint, as evident by his "try to convince them". Don't let his dev title preclude him from joining in on our discussions.
User avatar
User

berowe

Rank

Galactic Empire

Posts

200

Joined

07 Apr 2012, 06:50

Location

Improcco

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by berowe » 30 May 2012, 17:28

I don't know who has a problem hitting... Even in a crappy turning fight against something small and agile like an Awing I can hit it almost every pass from the front and sides-- from behind it's a piece of cake. Sure there are ships with really tiny or overly narrow hitboxes (kwing, twing, howlrunner, planetary defender, bwing, ewing, etc-- which are really tough to hit, but that's not really what we're talking about in this thread. The problem is that, even hitting an enemy ship on every pass, most of the time their shield is able to fully recover by the time you get him in your sights again...

I just don't really see what increasing the hit chances will do to recover the missing "feel" of Starwars fighter combat. Maybe I'm wrong though and it will help. I actually really like the challenge in hitting ships. NPCs are a piece of cake to kill, so new pilots still have that-- and once they make the jump to PVP they see that it's even more challenging to hit a constantly evading target. It's a natural progression.

I think it's more rewarding for the pilot to fight frantically to avoid any hits all while trying to land a devastating few of their own, than it is to be in a "race to the bottom of the shield/hull tank" with 10 or more hits involved. If you've played EVE this is what I see increased ship sizes being-- by the first few seconds of a PVP fight you can usually tell which ship will lose its tank and be killed, the remaining time is just prolonging the inevitable.

This take is pretty 1v1, maybe I'm missing the point completely by not thinking of squadron actions and the broader mod's concept.
"You're going to have to run faster than that, reb..."
- Reaper comms -

Formerly/Currently:
Avenger-4, Dian Set, Reaper-02, Reaper-04, Reaper-05, Yol-01, The Randy Gamorrean, The Snooty Sullustian, Ithorian Sunset, INV Kalix's Bane, et alia.
User avatar
User

Turis

Posts

260

Joined

16 Feb 2010, 12:55

Location

Santiago de compostela, Spain.

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Turis » 30 May 2012, 18:39

Sushi wrote:...The other topic of contention is regarding overall shielding hitpoints. I think that many are right in the assertion that there's too much. I think after we see how the increased size of ships goes, decreasing shield hitpoints by a fair degree will be a good start. We will likely start from a position we are now and gradually decrease, rather than haphazardly slashing it all and working up.

Anyways, that's my two cents on it. :)


This paragraph looks like a Developer's plan and testing process to me so I don't get how Colt556 sees it as just another opinion and not as a final answer from the dev. team.
no avatar
User

Leaph Chausew

Posts

55

Joined

12 Apr 2012, 10:53

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Leaph Chausew » 30 May 2012, 18:51

I don't think that the fighters are difficult to hit unless it's very laggy. I just think shield strength decreases would be adequate, but the devs know best. :)
no avatar
User

Leaph Chausew

Posts

55

Joined

12 Apr 2012, 10:53

Re: Questions on Design Philosophy for Starfighter Combat

by Leaph Chausew » 30 May 2012, 18:56

Just my 2 cents: Lowering speed, slide and removing thrusters would seriously kill my interest in the game. I like fast paced combat.

My view is that weaker ships mean that pilots have to work together more and think far more carefully about how they're going to engage in a fighter. It means that missiles need to be checked carefully or they might critically damage a friendly (or yourself) and that careless (SWG term) 'circle jerking' would serve only to get you killed.

Having weaker starfighters would mean that forward planning and reading of a combat situation would be paramount.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign
[ Time : 0.062s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]
cron