X-Rebirth No piloting Capital ships!!??

[A5PECT]

PS. IMO "Assign crew to position" is just syntactic sugar and is no different from "Run turret command 'Attack all friendlies^H^Henemies' ".

The primary concern is if the new turret commands work better than the old ones.

After that, we worry if they're more fun to use.

I'm imagining the latter being much easier. It doesn't get any less fun than my frontal PPC bank getting distracted by an insignificant fighter while a fully-armed destroyer is bearing down on me. In the middle of the entire firefight I have to open up my command console, open up the front turret's commands, and re-issue the attack command to get it doing what I want it to.

[X2-Eliah]

Technically, yes, syntactical sugar, but videogames in general are just a whole load of mathematical equations draped in visual & syntactical sugar - so you can't really dismiss such details as easily, since then you could dismiss more and more, until you're playing an excel calculation spreadsheet. sugar is what, in the end, makes the game consistent & immersive.


I still agree that flying caps in X is not really satisfactory/fulfilling, and that losing the current method in X:R is no big deal.

[Fulgrymm]

That's very true. Mechanically, it's just giving the AI in the game a command to do X. Calling it a crew member changes nothing. I would be utterly fascinated, however, if you could take over any of the crew positions manually. Like Navigation or Tactical or Engineering or what have you.

[pmenso57]

Yes, many user factions have we.

• RTS. Be in the middle of the battle, see everything, and command the fleet from safety. Safety can be either armoured command and control center of a ship, or camera position outside of any ship.
• Heck with that. Fly the brute.
• It was a mistake to let the player into the Capitals in the first place.
• ...

To clarify, I'm not against adding stuff like RTS elements. Fleet control is something that is sorely lacking in X. However, I hardly spend any time flying most of the ships I own in the game. For example, I rarely fly cargo ships though I know some people do. The point is that I can if I want to--same thing with capitals. That is part of what makes it a sandbox.

All of that aside, maybe it doesn't matter to most players and maybe it is a better fit for Egosoft's vision of the "perfect space sim". That's fine, but it won't interest me as the niche (at least the current niche) would be lost.

OTOH, I don't buy any supposed technical argument. As many have repeatedly mentioned, it's the same set of mechanics as for other ships but using a larger model. IOW, it isn't a technical argument of not implementing one thing in favor of another. It's question of vision regarding what makes X interesting and/or unique. Obviously, Egosoft can do whatever they want. Likewise, I can like or dislike whatever I want.

[TrixX]

Well my 2c on the subject is that currently the mechanics of flying the M1/2/7 classes of ships are like watching paint dry. I much prefer dogfighting in an M4/3 as well as M6's to a degree (speed hold me back from using them more in the stock game).

If the ability to command the bridge of a Capital was there, with orders issued and the ability to indirectly control the ship that would make things far more interesting, as well as the ability to command your fleet from the bridge/war room. This would give capital's back the role they should have instead of being massive, slow fighters that we currently have, or as aprictoslice has a massive, fast, M3 class manoeuvrability M2

[mrscribbler]

OTOH, I don't buy any supposed technical argument. As many have repeatedly mentioned, it's the same set of mechanics as for other ships but using a larger model. IOW, it isn't a technical argument of not implementing one thing in favor of another. It's question of vision regarding what makes X interesting and/or unique. Obviously, Egosoft can do whatever they want. Likewise, I can like or dislike whatever I want.

And as has been both implied and said outright: having capitals that fight like slow, oversized, many-turreted fighters misses the point of capital ships in the first place, is unrealistic, and opens the mechanics up to abuse by the player (much like SETA and missiles).

Ideally, a capital ship gives up delta-v for damage resistance/absorption. But it's lack of delta-v means that a capital ship does not lend itself to the same interface and tactics as a fighter.

What we have not been told is that there is no longer an interface for us to use to command our caps. All we have been told is that the interface has received an additional layer (the ship captain). Throwing an internet hissy-fit isn't going to change anything when you don't even know what it is you're hissy-fitting over.

Mind you, I would never want to tell a forum user they can't throw an internet hissy-fit over vague statements made by developers who seem to enjoy trolling*. Heaven forbid it! But maybe you folks could stop hyperventilating over vague statements -- even if it amuses the entire Egosoft team to no end.

* Egosoft: No, really, we've been perfectly clear (points to vague statement)! We're not trolling...snicker...honest!

[THE_TrashMan]

in today naval warfare, we should expect battleships launching cruise missiles and torpedoes from tens or hundreds of miles away, cannons are considerably obsolete and only used as the last resort; same with carriers, they would have launched fighters & bombers from far away.

since we aren't on space warfare age yet, we do not know how will space warfare fought... however it's logical to say that it won't be back to ancient way of short distance battles with capital ships engage each others below 10 km distance

so IMO capital ships weapons should have much stronger, faster and longer reach; also IMO the game should put more emphasis on electronic warfare like those found on modern military vehicles simulators... I mean space ships on that age must have multiple sensors musn't they?

improve those aspect first and then we will have a better space combat

You can only answer those question if you answer anther set of questions - what's hte battlefield like?

Realisticly, space is VERY sensor friendly. ECM and decoys are not likely to work at all. There ain't no stealth in space.


LEt's look at weapon ranges. Lasers? Focusing and difraction problems limit it's effective range realisticly. Same with beam cannons of various kinds.
Mass drivers? Unlimited range and a massive bang, but their EFFECTIVE rage is quite short.
Missiles? The only thing with real range, but they can be shot down...space is very sensor friendly, and missiels will have to have very pwoerfull and very hot engines - meaning you can see them from afar.

Now let's talk about ship classes.
Carriers dominate the sea warfare...but why? Because of the curvature of earth, they are out of sight of the battleship. They have a obstacle in the way. For another, the battleship cannot close the distance in any meaningfull time.

Now change the envirmoent to space.
The carrier has a far harder time hiding. The battelship can bee-line towards it. Worse, space favors missiles more than fighters.
And finally, one has to consider propulsion. How fast can the BB close the distance? One word - jump drives. The carriers range advantage is null and void.

[A5PECT]

One word - jump drives. The carriers range advantage is null and void.

You're assuming jump drives are in Rebirth.

Also, to solve the missile vs. fighter dilemma, why not give the carrier some way to project fighters as quickly as missiles? Say through, a launch catapult?

A fighter delivered to a target in such a manner could maneuver to avoid being shot down, then deliver its own missiles from multiple angles at close range. If the fighters are sufficiently numerous they could overwhelm an individual battleship.

[pmenso57]

OTOH, I don't buy any supposed technical argument. As many have repeatedly mentioned, it's the same set of mechanics as for other ships but using a larger model. IOW, it isn't a technical argument of not implementing one thing in favor of another. It's question of vision regarding what makes X interesting and/or unique. Obviously, Egosoft can do whatever they want. Likewise, I can like or dislike whatever I want.

And as has been both implied and said outright: having capitals that fight like slow, oversized, many-turreted fighters misses the point of capital ships in the first place, is unrealistic, and opens the mechanics up to abuse by the player (much like SETA and missiles).

Yet in virtually every sci-fi show or book that has such a ship (in a protagonistic roll) has some point where manual control is taken. Whether this is realistic or not is largely irrelevant--otherwise, we'd have to throw out most of the entire sci-fi genre. Besides, following a realism argument, if a computer does a better job of navigation and controlling spatial motion of a capital than a human, then it would do a better job with a fighter also. OTOH, compared to typical scenarios nowadays (ignoring a few corner cases such as a few cars that can park themselves in limited contexts), autopilot is used only in the non-complex cases. Despite computer assistance, a 747 is still taken off and landed manually.

From a gameplay point of view, I know what would be involved to have good (smooth and dynamic) path-finding in 3D. I'd be extremely surprised if Egosoft came up with an efficient algorithm that could perform better than I could (or almost any other player). What would be even more "boring" than piloting a capital ship is watching it take forever to navigate anywhere that has many other objects around (e.g. asteroids, other capitals) compared to what it would take with manual control. With a good algorithm, however, having a lead ship (i.e. of a formation) can drastically lower the computational workload if done properly.

As I've said, I'm not against adding new stuff or improving existing stuff, but I'd consider it a step backwards to remove the manual control. At the end of the day, I want both control and the ability to delegate that control as I see fit.

[Kapakio]

Yet in virtually every sci-fi show or book that has such a ship (in a protagonistic roll) has some point where manual control is taken.

Please mention when almirant Adama took manual control of Gallactica on the series?

[pmenso57]

Yet in virtually every sci-fi show or book that has such a ship (in a protagonistic roll) has some point where manual control is taken.

Please mention when almirant Adama took manual control of Gallactica on the series?

I said virtually every sci-fi show, not every sci-fi show. I personally didn't watch most of the new version of that show because I found it to be, coincidentally, a boring soap opera in space (same thing with Stargate Universe). Personal taste, of course. To each his own. OTOH, there are many other shows that serve as obvious examples such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and Farscape. In addition to a host of books.

Regardless, I'm not arguing that what you perceive as entertaining is wrong. I am simply stating what I perceive as entertaining. However, what I advocate is a superset of current functionality with RTS elements (or whatever) for better fleet control and (possibly) better flight mechanics on large ships rather than a subset of current functionality with RTS elements (or whatever) for better fleet control. In other words, I favor an inclusive model where phrases like "to each his own" actually have meaning because there are choices. This is as opposed to exclusive models that devolve into (paraphrasing), "My way is the right way, and your way is idiotic."

[Kapakio]

OTOH, there are many other shows that serve as obvious examples such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, and Farscape. In addition to a host of books.

Can you mention specific examples?

Star Wars: Never saw no one piloting a capital ship (Death Star or the big battle ships). Millennium Falcon is not a capital ship if thats what you are implying

Star Trek: Only the old series. On the new versions I never saw the captains manually piloting

Firefly: Again, not a capital ship

Farscape: As far as I remember, the ship and the pilot was one symbiotic being. No real pilot that could steer the wheel here.

[SuperG]

The whole franchise was uptill now a UNREAL-istic space game/(non simulator)
So if it not realistic. Well the game vision of egosoft was more focused on gameplay rather then realism.
If you aim for balanse balans is unreal. In reallife things tend to be extreemly unbalansed.
There i a Armsrace.

Could it be with rebirth the shift focus to tad more realism? don't know.

But the problem is egosoft has a pecific niche market development budged wich is far from triple A. I expect is very limited.

This genre and this type of game has a extended feature rich set that make it complex and in depth game, wich requier more dev time then avarage FPS game.
The Q&A needs supercede FPS genre with a large margine.

It offer A multifold of gameplay variations.

So I expect this kind of niche market games to be unfinished and rushed out and bugy.

That's the core problem. Capital ship gameplay is a extreem variation in this game compared to Fighter gameplay. And fleet gameplay is gameplay variation where genres are merged.

This means a very huge and complex User interface requierment to handl all those gameplay and genre and many subgenre needs.

This type of game is just very UI and AI demanding.

I hope there start from scratch has something to do with it to to deal with those Game engine legacy problem.

[Gothsheep]

Farscape: As far as I remember, the ship and the pilot was one symbiotic being. No real pilot that could steer the wheel here.

Not that it's relevant to anything even close to this topic, but there was one episode where they had to fly it without Pilot. I forget why. If I remember, it didn't work very well.

[e1team]

In episode III of Star Wars, in the begining, Anikin and Obi Wan land that cruiser on Coruscant...

[X2-Eliah]

Hardly landing, that was. More like crashing

Also, a metric ton of sci-fi novels have large spaceships that are not 'piloted' by the captain directly (or, in fact, a human being at all) - so the claim that nearly all sci-fi things have that is just ridiculous.

[AkrionXxarr]

Star Trek: Only the old series. On the new versions I never saw the captains manually piloting

Commander Riker takes manual control of the Enterprise in Star Trek - Insurrection.

There may be an instance in Star Trek: Voyager where manual control is taken, but I can't remember at all clearly enough if this is true or not.

[pjknibbs]

Commander Riker takes manual control of the Enterprise in Star Trek - Insurrection.

Yeah, but the Enterprise-E is barely an M7 if you go by the scale of things in the X universe...

[AkrionXxarr]

Yeah, but the Enterprise-E is barely an M7 if you go by the scale of things in the X universe...

Alright, but that wasn't in any way the point I was responding to. Someone asked for an example of manual control for 'modern' Star Trek, and I provided an answer. Don't know how one could make the leap from that, to 'Who has the bigger ship".

Ultimately if everybody wants to talk about realism in control then perhaps we should throw orbital mechanics into the mix and see just how silly space combat would actually look. x3 (Anyone who's played around with Orbiter would know what I'm talking about here).

[Tolmos]

And in all of these examples for Star Trek, Star Wars, etc etc... the captains of the ship always stood on the bridge, didn't they? They weren't floating behind in a shuttle or viper or starfury shouting on their comms "ok ok turn the ship left. left dude omg fly fly towards the damn station. Good deal right behind ya man". *points to sig*

Folks like the idea of commanding their own starship in a big, wide open universe. Who cares if we can't manually turn it (well, I will if the AI's autopilot is anything like X3:R and X3:TC... that manual flying is the only way I can get my capitals through asteroid field fights in one piece... as long as the autopilot is improved there's no reason for me to ever want manual control of my craft).

Please let us sit in our own capital ships, ESPECIALLY carriers..