Hyperion wrote:

A fighter doesnt have room or energy for ECM so it uses short lived chaffs to buy time for steering away

Says who? These are magical spaceships, who's to say they can't create a dozen or a hundred short lived holograms of themselves and take wildly looping maneuvers to ensure you can never be sure which one is which... They could probably even project pseudo projectiles that are exactly like real projectiles but cause no damage...

Also laser painting sounds like just another good use for lasers... +1 to content

I disagree if laser painting allows a ship to just spam torpedoes from pete knows where and watch the carnage.

You can just have an effective range for such lasers... or maybe make them easy to knock out...

It's sort of annoying when real technology that exists today is kept out of sci fi because it's not fun to be on the losing side of such attacks. No one ever wants to be Japan on August 7,1945 because America is using cheats... and making this whole game of planes really not very fun.

Seems to be just the way games will go so long as people want to play symmetrical warfare.

Hyperion wrote:You can just have an effective range for such lasers... or maybe make them easy to knock out...

It's sort of annoying when real technology that exists today is kept out of sci fi because it's not fun to be on the losing side of such attacks. No one ever wants to be Japan on August 7,1945 because America is using cheats... and making this whole game of planes really not very fun.

Seems to be just the way games will go so long as people want to play symmetrical warfare.

It has to be kept out because otherwise the player could just rush to spam torpedoes and then it becomes "I WIN"

Hyperion wrote:They could probably even project pseudo projectiles that are exactly like real projectiles but cause no damage...

Those are fun. I used them frequently when playing a Romulan ship commander in the 1983 edition of Star Fleet Battles.

In that game they were called "pseudo-plasma torpedoes." Like regular (crazy powerful) plasma torpedoes, PPTs took three turns to arm, but when fired, they looked just like regular PTs. Opponents would then have to choose: do I assume it's real and fire one or more of my very limited weapons at it, possibly wasting those shots? Or do I assume it's a pseudo-plasma torpedo and ignore it, and maybe take massive damage if it turns out to be a real plasma torpedo?

I loved playing the Romulans.

Hyperion wrote:Seems to be just the way games will go so long as people want to play symmetrical warfare.

How do you justify the alternative to semi-symmetrical warfare in a game like Limit Theory, which has a design goal that NPCs should be able to do anything inside the world of the game that a player-ship can do?

If the player will have the capability to apply vastly asymmetrical force against other NPCs (as opposed to run-of-the-mill limited asymmetry which actually needs to be possible), then in LT it must be possible for multiple NPCs to apply vastly asymmetrical force against the player's interests. If that can happen, that's the scenario usually referred to as "game over."

Which of those designs is likely to be more fun for more players?

I enjoy the way EVE handled missiles.
they have a blast radius. damage dealt is the fraction of the ship that is inside the blast radius over time (taking into account blast velocity and ship velocity)
I don’t like the limited range or the unlimited number of missiles in space at any time.

dumb missiles require a guiding signal. a ship can only supply as many of these as they have the sensors to do so. Phased array radars can illuminate a few, but still not infinite.
dumb missiles are cheap, easy to jam, highly explosive.

smart missiles have guidance built in. no jamming will stop it, they're too smart. Point defenses can and will stop it though. more of their payload is dedicated to sensors which means less propellant and less explosive. and more expensive.

the biggest gripe I had with EVE was the sheer number of missiles you could carry.
missiles are big. ships can't carry many.

Are you kidding? EVE's version was gamey as hell.

Besides point defense can be defeated with moar missiles. Which is okay with close range bombers. Less okay if you can park a ship across the system and spam torpedoes for the lols.

My opinion is. ECM and decoys work better the further the Missile is from the target. If a missile ever locks onto a decoy it sticks with it and never switches back to the target. (To prevent missile spam with the intention of "burn through") From long range chances are a few will still remain locked. Yet those can be defeated by point defense (Tho not so much if the target is a lonely transport with minimal ECM/point defense.) This means that close range bomber or corvette launched warheads will mostly home true and have little time to be eaten up by point defense. (Meaning interceptors will be a key element of any defense)

AbhChallenger wrote:
Unless you get gamey and give torpedoes stupidly low FoV. The missiles would be able to "burn through" the ECM and lock on once they have closed range.

I would MUCH rather have gamey "lock onto a phantom or decoy and it's teh game over missile" than gamey low FOV for large torpedoes that have plenty of room to mount a large FOV sensor.

thats called an "unguided missle" and is per definition impervious to jamming

their low FOV would also not be per definition gamey, it would be a counter-development to jamming.

if a high FOV makes you susceptive to jamming you'd build weapons against slow or unmoving targets with low FOV that they still hit their targets in the case of jamming.
it would also provide more room for payload, which is better against a big targetn which has a high propability of being able to shoot your torpedo down

against fast and agile targets you'd need higher FOV's that they can still keep an eye on their target if it moves around, but it makes them more receptive for jamming attempts.


so you'd have a choice in building missles
do you mount a hig FOV sensor because your target is fast and agile and you need to track it, but you have to take the easier jamming
or you mount a low FOV sensor against slow or stationary targets, which is much harder to jam but looses its target very fast

Hyperion wrote: Says who? These are magical spaceships, who's to say they can't create a dozen or a hundred short lived holograms of themselves and take wildly looping maneuvers to ensure you can never be sure which one is which... They could probably even project pseudo projectiles that are exactly like real projectiles but cause no damage...

because every fight would instantly devolve into an E-War engagement, likely killing fun for many

Flatfingers wrote:

Hyperion wrote:Seems to be just the way games will go so long as people want to play symmetrical warfare.

How do you justify the alternative to semi-symmetrical warfare in a game like Limit Theory, which has a design goal that NPCs should be able to do anything inside the world of the game that a player-ship can do?

If the player will have the capability to apply vastly asymmetrical force against other NPCs (as opposed to run-of-the-mill limited asymmetry which actually needs to be possible), then in LT it must be possible for multiple NPCs to apply vastly asymmetrical force against the player's interests. If that can happen, that's the scenario usually referred to as "game over."

Which of those designs is likely to be more fun for more players?

It's true that given the current scope of LT, Guerrilla/insurgent warfare is a bit beyond what I would reasonably expect right now, but that doesn't mean such play styles cannot be made fun and interesting.

Asymmetrical warfare from the weaker side is ultimately about harassing the enemy until they die the death of a thousand paper cuts hitting at vulnerable infrastructure and/or wave after wave of resources sent to an absolute slaughter or they give up and leave the weaker power alone.
The weaker side also takes advantage of the limitations of the stronger power, such as internal political dissent (Viet Cong), the difference of maneuverability in a given terrain for different actors (the Winter War or the Russian invasion of Afghanistan), taking advantage of a thinly stretched enemy to cause additional harassment while others do the heavy lifting (the resistance movements under the Nazis) the political costs associated with the superior power unleashing their full force and causing significant collateral damage (the US can't just nuke a city with terrorists in it)

I would say that it's only a "game over" scenario when the player is not given the option to adopt the tactics and strategies of terrorists and guerrillas.

because every fight would instantly devolve into an E-War engagement, likely killing fun for many

It's always about cat and mouse, countermeasures need to have a weakness that can be exploited or be made obsolete by counter-countermeasures. the invention of Radar followed by the invention of stealth aircraft taking advantage of radars weakness, followed by electromagnetic emission detection and so on. Admittedly new countermeasures take a bit of creativity and rely upon the actual nature of any such device or tactic (the properties of the game engine/code in this case). Nor can I really see a procedural way to have the game of cat and mouse...

However an E-war where you could hack the enemy for great victory rather than fight them in guns blazing combat if you wanted would be fantastic! I would love to win a battle by getting the enemy to start firing on itself, redirecting missiles back to the point of origin, ramming ships into one another... how can you say that would kill the fun? unless you're losing of course...

Hyperion wrote:

because every fight would instantly devolve into an E-War engagement, likely killing fun for many

It's always about cat and mouse, countermeasures need to have a weakness that can be exploited or be made obsolete by counter-countermeasures. the invention of Radar followed by the invention of stealth aircraft taking advantage of radars weakness, followed by electromagnetic emission detection and so on. Admittedly new countermeasures take a bit of creativity and rely upon the actual nature of any such device or tactic (the properties of the game engine/code in this case). Nor can I really see a procedural way to have the game of cat and mouse...

However an E-war where you could hack the enemy for great victory rather than fight them in guns blazing combat if you wanted would be fantastic! I would love to win a battle by getting the enemy to start firing on itself, redirecting missiles back to the point of origin, ramming ships into one another... how can you say that would kill the fun? unless you're losing of course...

it would kill the fun for those who just want to play a straight space shooting game.

having such effects between fleets, where E-War and ECM ships are all over the place this is fine.

but if every 1on1 fighter engagement dissolves into a hacking fest where the actual equipment is secondary... errr

and thats why i say the heavy ECM and E-War equipment should need bigger ships

AbhChallenger wrote:

Hyperion wrote:You can just have an effective range for such lasers... or maybe make them easy to knock out...

It's sort of annoying when real technology that exists today is kept out of sci fi because it's not fun to be on the losing side of such attacks. No one ever wants to be Japan on August 7,1945 because America is using cheats... and making this whole game of planes really not very fun.

Seems to be just the way games will go so long as people want to play symmetrical warfare.

It has to be kept out because otherwise the player could just rush to spam torpedoes and then it becomes "I WIN"

I think a better solution is to buff the defenses, for instance with really good point defense lasers. Otherwise the credibility of the game as Science Fiction suffers. At worst, it will only deserve the label "Science fantasy".

Or you could change the game into something closer to a submarine simulation, where running stealthy is important to win. Reportedly Elite:Dangerous uses that as a game element.

Cornflakes_91 wrote:
it would kill the fun for those who just want to play a straight space shooting game.

having such effects between fleets, where E-War and ECM ships are all over the place this is fine.

but if every 1on1 fighter engagement dissolves into a hacking fest where the actual equipment is secondary... errr

and thats why i say the heavy ECM and E-War equipment should need bigger ships

Again, I get this vile taste in my mouth when it seems people are wanting to make strict WW2 Era Navy /Air Force comparisons to what vehicles can be. why can't you have a small dedicated hacking ships to go in and fight that way? No one complains that Magic is allowed in fantasy games, though it can do all sorts of things that a sword cannot... Certainly, I would agree that if every small "fighter" sized ship could be amazing at all forms of fighting, it wouldn't be fun, but that's a balance issue, not a mechanical one. Nor should every faction in all of space have to fight the same way, perhaps some areas they do in fact mainly fight via mobile hacking platforms and could destroy an enemy with no protection against that, but to balance it out they may have very weak shields and h
guns because that's not how fighting as they know it takes place, so if you actually do get your guns off and hit them, it will do a lot of damage... again much like the wizard class in fantasy games.

Also, if you just want a straight space shooter dogfighter, those already exist, why wait for LT?

Rabiator wrote:

AbhChallenger wrote:

Hyperion wrote:You can just have an effective range for such lasers... or maybe make them easy to knock out...

It's sort of annoying when real technology that exists today is kept out of sci fi because it's not fun to be on the losing side of such attacks. No one ever wants to be Japan on August 7,1945 because America is using cheats... and making this whole game of planes really not very fun.

Seems to be just the way games will go so long as people want to play symmetrical warfare.

It has to be kept out because otherwise the player could just rush to spam torpedoes and then it becomes "I WIN"

I think a better solution is to buff the defenses, for instance with really good point defense lasers. Otherwise the credibility of the game as Science Fiction suffers. At worst, it will only deserve the label "Science fantasy".

Or you could change the game into something closer to a submarine simulation, where running stealthy is important to win. Reportedly Elite:Dangerous uses that as a game element.

And again I counter that by saying increased point defense makes bomber craft close range attacks pointless. In my X3 AP game bomber craft are virtually nothing to me because my perfect point defense mosquito defense system knocks their torpedoes out every time.

Hyperion wrote: Again, I get this vile taste in my mouth when it seems people are wanting to make strict WW2 Era Navy /Air Force comparisons to what vehicles can be. why can't you have a small dedicated hacking ships to go in and fight that way? No one complains that Magic is allowed in fantasy games, though it can do all sorts of things that a sword cannot... Certainly, I would agree that if every small "fighter" sized ship could be amazing at all forms of fighting, it wouldn't be fun, but that's a balance issue, not a mechanical one. Nor should every faction in all of space have to fight the same way, perhaps some areas they do in fact mainly fight via mobile hacking platforms and could destroy an enemy with no protection against that, but to balance it out they may have very weak shields and h
guns because that's not how fighting as they know it takes place, so if you actually do get your guns off and hit them, it will do a lot of damage... again much like the wizard class in fantasy games.

im not saying that everyone should fight the same, but we also have to think of the players who dont want to have the sole fighter they are sitting in

Hyperion wrote: to start firing on itself, redirecting missiles back to the point of origin, ramming ships into one another...

and loose because there is no form of defence against that without forcing the hacking gameplay onto them.
(hardenberg, victor and surely lots of others too)

imagine a fantasy game where the first wizard you encounter stuns you, blinds you and gets you to fall into your own sword without any form of countering him without getting a wizard yourself.
that wouldnt be fun on the receiving end.

because thats how i understand your explanations

Hyperion wrote: Also, if you just want a straight space shooter dogfighter, those already exist, why wait for LT?

because i dont want only the space shooter but the living AI, the evolving universe, the infinite possibilities etc.
theres no other game out there providing that

That's the nature of a game where you are thrown into a living universe that doesn't give a damn about you any more than any other AI, isn't it? would it be any different than your first meeting with a highly advanced gunship and blows you to dust in seconds? Couldn't it happen that your first kill had friends in high places who bring the wrath of God upon your head? you wouldn't stand a chance... tough for you I guess.
Maybe make an easy mode where the enemies scale up with you rather than being alive and seeing you as a pawn/obstacle for their plans...


Hacking doesn't seem to be making it into LT 1,so the exact nature of how to build a cat and mouse around it is just speculation. presumably though there will be some level of defense that even the most hacking averse player can get...

Again, it of course needs to be balanced, there needs to be a way to defend against anything that can be thrown at you, and there needs to be a weakness that that defense style has to some other attack.

Chaff may deflect missiles, but expands your radar presence, broadcasting holograms may make hitting you difficult, but consumes a lot of energy and that has to come from somewhere like weapons or thrusters, hacking may bring down enemy systems and get the enemy to attack themselves, but can be time consuming and make you vulnerable to physical attacks while you try to take over their systems...

AbhChallenger wrote:And again I counter that by saying increased point defense makes bomber craft close range attacks pointless. In my X3 AP game bomber craft are virtually nothing to me because my perfect point defense mosquito defense system knocks their torpedoes out every time.

Then perhaps we need a good but not perfect point defense for balance.

I have not played X3AP myself yet, but I'm told that the mosquito defense system was introduced because missiles were considered overpowered. So maybe that was a good thing for X3AP.

In general, I think it might not be possible to make every type of craft attractive to use. Either the bombers can deliver meaningful attacks, then you might see an age of the carrier as in real life. Or they are easily brushed off as you say, then the battleship rules space.