Forums » Suggestions
Several suggestions
1. Reverse should be a little slower than going forward.
2. Place a large button on the hud that lets you know when your flight assist is on or off.
3.The ability to look around in the cockpit , behind, left, right etc..
Great game , and I'm enjoying playing it.
2. Place a large button on the hud that lets you know when your flight assist is on or off.
3.The ability to look around in the cockpit , behind, left, right etc..
Great game , and I'm enjoying playing it.
In reply to 1.: There are about as many advantages as disadvantages to that. Naturally, it would stop backpedaling. However, it would also drastically change the way one would have to fight in VO, depending upon how big the difference in velocity is. If it were coupled with an increase in reverse accelerationas soon as you stop decelerating (more precisely: if your movement vector changes from general forward movement to general reverse movement, possibly with an offset value), it would be interesting.
2.: I would favor a color-changing thing, e.g. red for physics, blue for arcade/FA the element to change color could be the energy bar, speed bar, whatever.
3.: This has been suggested numerous times, and to date, it has not been implemented yet. I think the devs want that, but it's not too high a priority right now. I might be wrong, though.
2.: I would favor a color-changing thing, e.g. red for physics, blue for arcade/FA the element to change color could be the energy bar, speed bar, whatever.
3.: This has been suggested numerous times, and to date, it has not been implemented yet. I think the devs want that, but it's not too high a priority right now. I might be wrong, though.
isn't 3 controlled by mouselook on and off? or do you mean, see the structure of the cockpit?
How would you control this movement with a joystick verus the keyboard?
How would you control this movement with a joystick verus the keyboard?
3. The pov hat switch on your joystick is what I would assume would be used to view the different directions. An example of what I mean is , when your fighting an opponent and you need to view what's behind you, you just pull down on your hat switch, or there's multiple opponents to your left or right .
1. turbo is faster than reverse thrust. basicly the way i figured it worked was Turbo was the ship's main engins where as straffing was handled by the manuvering thrusters. i guess it's a matter of opinion.
it would be kinda' cool though if all axies had their own thrust values. so a Valk might have good thrust on all axies with forward thrust being strongest, but a Cent would have weeker top side and reverse thrust. i'm not sure how difficult that would be to implement but it would deffinately be a difficult task to balance ships with that adjustment.
2. personaly i'd like to see an indicator in that box with the wirefraim that indicates Flight assinst status. I'd also like to see that wirefraim indicate what thrusters are firing as FA mode corrects your coarse and when you manuver.
3. i just use my radar, but POV changing would be cool.
it would be kinda' cool though if all axies had their own thrust values. so a Valk might have good thrust on all axies with forward thrust being strongest, but a Cent would have weeker top side and reverse thrust. i'm not sure how difficult that would be to implement but it would deffinately be a difficult task to balance ships with that adjustment.
2. personaly i'd like to see an indicator in that box with the wirefraim that indicates Flight assinst status. I'd also like to see that wirefraim indicate what thrusters are firing as FA mode corrects your coarse and when you manuver.
3. i just use my radar, but POV changing would be cool.
I'm sorry Q but there's no way a valk should be an all around better ship at manuvering compaired to a cent, in any respect actually. Cents should have the most manuverability but have little to no long range capabilities. They are fighters that require carriors for support and long range transport, the valk is a medium fighter and much more bulky. But this is all for a diff thread.
Back on topic.
1. I don't understand the logic behind having your reverse slower, your in space, everything is the same as there is nothing to cause resistance. Plus the ships run on _gravity_ drives, so it's not a matter of propellent or exhaust ports.
2. I'm all for better HUD elements!!!
3. As others have said, you just need to use mouse look.
Back on topic.
1. I don't understand the logic behind having your reverse slower, your in space, everything is the same as there is nothing to cause resistance. Plus the ships run on _gravity_ drives, so it's not a matter of propellent or exhaust ports.
2. I'm all for better HUD elements!!!
3. As others have said, you just need to use mouse look.
I was thinking that having a slightly slower reverse would benefit pvp. A pilot either commits , or he has to turn and run.
I'm just use to ww2 flight sims with full fields of view. Although mouselook is an option , I believe it's a bit tedious when compared to using a pov hat.
I'm just use to ww2 flight sims with full fields of view. Although mouselook is an option , I believe it's a bit tedious when compared to using a pov hat.
1. Perhaps having reverse THRUST be different is the way to handle this. The ships are designed to attack (or defend) depending on their role. There's no reason why ship designers would design their ships to make everything even if they could make certain strengths that would promote the ship's ideal role.
I also agree that it would be good for PvP, if we want to have large nation wars, we need fighters to be designed to promote engagement, long range fights sorta beg the question of why you're fighting in the first place.
If you can't compel someone to be in range of your blasters, then you really can't attack anyone, you can only attack those who are willing to be attacked
I also agree that it would be good for PvP, if we want to have large nation wars, we need fighters to be designed to promote engagement, long range fights sorta beg the question of why you're fighting in the first place.
If you can't compel someone to be in range of your blasters, then you really can't attack anyone, you can only attack those who are willing to be attacked
" ships are designed to attack (or defend) depending on their role. There's no reason why ship designers would design their ships to make everything even if they could make certain strengths that would promote the ship's ideal role."
Um, then why are there always post about how vanilla the ships are? Everyone wants to dumb down the cent to make it more like the valk and hog, and same goes for the prom. Ship in vo are created equal. Which sucks!
"I also agree that it would be good for PvP, if we want to have large nation wars, we need fighters to be designed to promote engagement, long range fights sorta beg the question of why you're fighting in the first place"
In a war situation it's all about the kill, not the intercepter duel, so if you don't have to see your opponents face all the better, blow them up from the comfort of your lounge chair in a station if you can. But again, this is about ship roles, which in theory all the ships should have but are vary rarely used in such ways due to the overwhelming duel oriented fighters and fights that are use the set the statistics for the ships. The only way to truely solve this would be to have fixed loadouts though.
"If you can't compel someone to be in range of your blasters, then you really can't attack anyone, you can only attack those who are willing to be attacked"
Aren't you a pirate?? Don't pirates constantly attack players who don't want to be attacked, or are still playing privateer? 0_o
Um, then why are there always post about how vanilla the ships are? Everyone wants to dumb down the cent to make it more like the valk and hog, and same goes for the prom. Ship in vo are created equal. Which sucks!
"I also agree that it would be good for PvP, if we want to have large nation wars, we need fighters to be designed to promote engagement, long range fights sorta beg the question of why you're fighting in the first place"
In a war situation it's all about the kill, not the intercepter duel, so if you don't have to see your opponents face all the better, blow them up from the comfort of your lounge chair in a station if you can. But again, this is about ship roles, which in theory all the ships should have but are vary rarely used in such ways due to the overwhelming duel oriented fighters and fights that are use the set the statistics for the ships. The only way to truely solve this would be to have fixed loadouts though.
"If you can't compel someone to be in range of your blasters, then you really can't attack anyone, you can only attack those who are willing to be attacked"
Aren't you a pirate?? Don't pirates constantly attack players who don't want to be attacked, or are still playing privateer? 0_o
johnhawl218,
both the valk and cent have sililar mass, but the valk has a larger volume and surgave area so it has more space for manuvering thrusters, (perhaps in those big bods on either side). whereas the cent has large rear engins but no real space for simiolarly powerfull thruster along the other axies
Shapenaji,
actualy manuverable turbo would help nation wars more than reduced reverse thrust. it would be easier to chase down pilots who run away. besides in large wars double teams and hit and run tactics will always make dueling styal combat pointless.
both the valk and cent have sililar mass, but the valk has a larger volume and surgave area so it has more space for manuvering thrusters, (perhaps in those big bods on either side). whereas the cent has large rear engins but no real space for simiolarly powerfull thruster along the other axies
Shapenaji,
actualy manuverable turbo would help nation wars more than reduced reverse thrust. it would be easier to chase down pilots who run away. besides in large wars double teams and hit and run tactics will always make dueling styal combat pointless.
In space you don't need to have big manuvering thursters for a small ship, which is why the cent is the best light fighter in the game, though it's been hit too many times with the nerf bat. The valk is a heavily armored variation on the cent making it more of a medium assualt ship. Just look at how manuverable the ships are in BSG, they can turn themselves over on a dime, the cent should be able to do that (as should the hog for that matter). But, again this is for a diff thread.
johnhawl: Nah, I was talkin about what I think ships should be, the last line in my post was regarding what they are now.
Bear in mind I said "different" reverse thrust, rather than reduced.
Certain ships, designed to be defenders, could, in fact, have superior reverse thrust, but these wouldn't be the intereceptors.
Lord Q: yeah, I would like maneuverable turbo as well. Though I think varying directional thrust abilities would be a nice feature in addition.
Hit and Run tactics are a little TOO effective right now, as is evidenced by the strategy I used in the most recent Nation War. 5 Pilots in Vultures taking the victory while losing next to nil health should not be that straightforward.
Bear in mind I said "different" reverse thrust, rather than reduced.
Certain ships, designed to be defenders, could, in fact, have superior reverse thrust, but these wouldn't be the intereceptors.
Lord Q: yeah, I would like maneuverable turbo as well. Though I think varying directional thrust abilities would be a nice feature in addition.
Hit and Run tactics are a little TOO effective right now, as is evidenced by the strategy I used in the most recent Nation War. 5 Pilots in Vultures taking the victory while losing next to nil health should not be that straightforward.
by johnhawl218: "Plus the ships run on _gravity_ drives, so it's not a matter of propellent or exhaust ports."
That is why I mentioned the hemispherical change in acceleration (which actually also factors in different reverse thrust, only on a slightly more complex level).
Maneuverable turbo is, at least in my opinion, a dire need. It needn't be much, perhaps .1 to .2 rad/s for the ships with the best spin torque. It would make skilled flight (flight as in fleeing from a pirate, reaver, w/e) more interesting, allowing for actual dodging whilst turboing.
That is why I mentioned the hemispherical change in acceleration (which actually also factors in different reverse thrust, only on a slightly more complex level).
Maneuverable turbo is, at least in my opinion, a dire need. It needn't be much, perhaps .1 to .2 rad/s for the ships with the best spin torque. It would make skilled flight (flight as in fleeing from a pirate, reaver, w/e) more interesting, allowing for actual dodging whilst turboing.
1: I think decreasing backwards thrust on certain ships would be a really good idea. I don't think it matters what engine / "drive" they have, even if it is gravatic. A quick explanation could be that the grav drive is optimized for forward thrust, which takes away some of the power of going backwards. Not all of the ships -have- to run on grav drives either. You might be able to make an interesting mix of directional turbo / thrust with certain combinations of ships.
2: Meh.
3: We'd actually need an actual cockpit before adding this feature.
2: Meh.
3: We'd actually need an actual cockpit before adding this feature.
Shapenaji,
i don't think you can make hit and run less effective (short of turning the game into a fire and forget missile fest). no matter what you do to ship's stats 2-3 ships pecking at another and then retreating when the victum turns to face them will ALWAYS work.
i don't think you can make hit and run less effective (short of turning the game into a fire and forget missile fest). no matter what you do to ship's stats 2-3 ships pecking at another and then retreating when the victum turns to face them will ALWAYS work.
Doukutsu: Yes, maybe they are using a photokinetic engine in conjunction with the gravitic drive, which would also be more or less congruent with the increased engine 'exhaust' whilst boosting, as well as the still omnidirectional movement.
As for the non-gravitic drive ships, that won't work with the current model, since then you'd need thrusters for spin control.
[edit]
Yahoo, I contradicted myself (again). Of course the photokinetic engines could work as directional thrusters, like the turbo. However, the current ship models do not suggest such a way of propulsion.
[/edit]
As for the non-gravitic drive ships, that won't work with the current model, since then you'd need thrusters for spin control.
[edit]
Yahoo, I contradicted myself (again). Of course the photokinetic engines could work as directional thrusters, like the turbo. However, the current ship models do not suggest such a way of propulsion.
[/edit]