Forums » Suggestions

Unrealistic speed, of course. Realism = more fun

Apr 07, 2010 PaladinOfLancelot link
The problem with current movement engine is totally unrealistic, for anyone who knows something about physics or ever watched some sci-fi movies.

I mean in the game we are running at max speeds which should be sub-light, and are sub-sound which is kind of extremely weird in a bad way....

I know adding more speed would probably cause problems for devs with lags etc, but there are always some smart workarounds. Because if there weren't, it would be impossible to create any realistic multiplayer simulation/racing game, and there are many out there and they're doing fine.

Flying at 220 meters/second is a greater pain for me playing this game than having some more lags. So i would openly welcome lags, and say goodbye to speed limits.

IMHO the only speed limit should be about 0.99 light speed, as the relativistic theory of Physics says You can't accelerate much more in normal space. But i think that 0.25-0.50 light speed would be fine as well, because it would take hours to accelerate to such speed anyway.

Just think of the advantages:
- Realism
- MUCH Faster travel
- MUCH more fun when flying and maneuvering
- New suicide possibilities ;P (accelerate to great speed and fly into asteroid field)
- Even more challenging and interesting combat
- Piracy would become harder perhaps ?

C'mon guys, this is a **space** game, not an **atmosphere** game for God's sake.
Apr 07, 2010 incarnate link
I know adding more speed would probably cause problems for devs with lags etc, but there are always some smart workarounds. Because if there weren't, it would be impossible to create any realistic multiplayer simulation/racing game, and there are many out there and they're doing fine.

I'm not aware of any fun, existent space games using relativistic speeds (Star Trek Online does not count).

It's actually not about lag at all, it's about combat being impossible. We originally tested the game without speed caps.. you can never see anyone or do anything. It all happens too quickly. If we were to be "realistic" we would just add in long-range guided missiles and beam weapons that would destroy people before they were as much as a single pixel on your screen. That's not very much Fun. But it is likely how space combat would actually play out in reality (of course, reality also doesn't have asteroid fields with densities higher than like.. one asteroid per hundred kilometers).

I totally understand the objections, and I'm not arbitrarily opposed to changing around speeds or whatever. But our combat system and flight model are often regarded as one of the best things we have going, and I would need a pretty compelling case of making it more fun, before I would consider changing it. "Because it's realistic" is not fun. Microsoft Space Simulator was really freakin' boring.

The other issue of just doing a general boost to the cap, is that the game becomes playable only for people within a small area, such as North America (or even just the Midwest). People in Europe can currently play, and play pretty well. But that will effectively stop if we boosted speed caps and acceleration significantly (or even a small amount). Trans-atlantic latency is too much to overcome.
Apr 07, 2010 genka link
Hello!
This is the suggestion forum, so I have come to offer some suggestion on your post.

1) It seems to me that one of your main points is that realism is fun, and yet, you close your post with a sentence that seems inconsistent. Perhaps using the word "simulation" instead of "game" would keep the theme strong through to the end?

2) An important factor in today's simulation market is how cool the graphics are. Sadly, this isn't as important to most people as realism, but this is one of those cases in which looking cool and realism go hand in hand!
As you say, a realistic speed for the spaceships of vendetta online would be relativistic, which opens up a whole can of awesome looking relativistic worms! Some mention of how cool things would look when you're going 0.99c would, I feel, improve your post.
Apr 07, 2010 Whistler link
genka's back in form. I've missed that.

I've played this game at ultra-high speeds, and I can tell you that combat immediately becomes tedious. The twitched-based combat we love here becomes impossible. We'd all have to switch to guided weaponry, and frankly that's just not fun in my book.
Apr 07, 2010 Whytee link
Or....... we could all forsake the weapons and go mining instead!! Wait, this is not the RP forum?

Seriously, realism is a no-brainer here. You are okay with wormholes, mining laser beams, spacestations the size of nothing that supports tens of thousands, magic respawning, ion storms, and autonomous bots that never seem to evolve and you pick on the speed?

I'd say, in relation to some Sci-Fi movies, I think the speed is pretty good. Look at the dogfights in Star Wars, pretty bang on...:)

Welcome back genka, now TROLL
Apr 07, 2010 PaladinOfLancelot link
First: I think You are mostly right about this. In the reality-model is not possible to have fun of fighting in close range.

Second:
However, i think there is DISTANT possibility of a realistic game engine which would maintain the fun-dogfights we currently have, but it would be too much work for the devs and deep modification , so i'm not really suggesting it - just thinking loud here.

How ? Make an automatic follow-and-match-speed function which every ship's computer would have. The function could *roughly* match relativistic speed with direction vector of a given ship automatically (it would be also useful for convoys of any sort). So we would essentially have the same dogfiths we have now, but in (great) relativistic speeds.

This would be very difficult mathematically & alghorythmically to implement properly and balance out to keep the current "fun" level we have.

Again: as i said, im not really suggesting this, just thinking loud. This is not bad idea in general, but difficult to do.
Apr 07, 2010 Whytee link
ship moves at 250.000 m/s in direction A, has "follow" function. Dogfight ensues with other ship moving at 240.000 m/s in direction B parallel to previous ship. First ship stops moving in direction A and starts moving in direction B. Effect: Deceleration from 250.000 m/s to 0 m/s and then acceleration from 0m/s to 240.000 m/s.

Either it will take AGES (the realistic model) or we would be so much crushed and smeared body in the bottom of our ships. Or we would have to adapt inertial dampers, making the fight look like.... now?

If both ships are moving at the same vector with a follow function, the fighting would take place along an axis of movement, completely different from anything we have now. Interceptions would become impossible. Dogfights would have to be agreed upon by both parts and carefully set up. In other words, it would Suck:)

For what it is worth, just add a M in front of everything. So the fastest ships move at 225 Mega m/s, pretty fast.

On another note, this IS the suggestions forum, keep thinking aloud:=)
Apr 07, 2010 ladron link
I still find it hilarious that GS produced an abysmal implementation of unlimited-speed flight back in the day, assumed that it was the unlimited-speed part that was the problem, and 'fixed' it by capping speeds.
Apr 07, 2010 Whistler link
Why are you here?
Apr 07, 2010 Dr. Lecter link
Flying at 220 meters/second is a greater pain for me playing this game than having some more lags.

You've clearly never tried to kill a Rev C flown by some no-talent assclown playing on a 512k Macintosh connected via dial up from Goatfuckinastan.

Maybe we just add another decimal place to the speed and your little brain will feel better?
Apr 07, 2010 PaladinOfLancelot link
@Whistler, @Dr.Lecter

Whatever.

I just admitted i was wrong, so i don't see the point of this discussion, especially in this tone.

Time cost of proper implementation of such feature would be great, but potential gains are almost nonexistant. It's as simple as that.
Apr 07, 2010 Dr. Lecter link
potential gains are entirely nonexistant

Fixed that for you. You have a real nice day now, ya hear?
Apr 07, 2010 incarnate link
Lecter, try being a little more diplomatic. We're trying to gain new users, not drive them all off by telling them they have tiny brains.

Ladron, we didn't just consider "capping" things and calling it a day. We looked at other options too. The problem isn't just combat, it's also interaction with the game universe. Plus, at that time we were trying to minimize packet size (modem era) so sticking with 32bit floating point seemed like a good idea. To really make use of higher speeds, one would need to increase that resolution to reduce the buildup of positional jitter. But even leaving all of that aside.. like I said in my initial post here, I have yet to see anyone else do it either, in the decade since then. Perhaps there's some awesome gameplay model out there waiting to be discovered; I would rather spend time improving and extending the game we have, I think our combat is pretty fun as it is.
Apr 07, 2010 PaladinOfLancelot link
@Dr. Lecter

[[[Fixed that for you. You have a real nice day now, ya hear?]]]

They are nonexistant only in this small brain of Yours.

In mine they are existant as I am quite a hardcore programmer, so please don't tell me what is possible and what not.

And stop trying to insult me, I have +200% tetrion anti-insult shield installed on myself. You don't have a weapon that can penetrate that.
Apr 07, 2010 PaladinOfLancelot link
Btw, can somebody close this thread please ?

Matter is resolved, more discussion is unnecessary.
Apr 07, 2010 incarnate link
Sure.
Apr 08, 2010 Whistler link
Clarification: My "Why are you here?" comment was directed at ladron.