X-Rebirth No piloting Capital ships!!??

[tianlongprc]

I do not mind not being able to fly a cap ship. Admirals do not usually take control of the ship. But it would just be silly to not be able to sit on your bridge and give out commands to the ship and the fleet.

While some have said that it can be taken out or not needed. Here is my two cents. Each game in the x series has improved "For the most part" on the last game. I do not understand why there would to be any need to take a step back. I think that they can build on the immersion level. I want cockpits and I want a bridge on a capital ship with at least a few variations.

If the X-series is going to become the best space flight simulator players need to have to feel that they are in space, inside an object, and be able to feel the world around them.

P.S. I only bought X3-TC because I could fly the smallest ship to the largest ship in the game. If I can not do that, then I might as well play eve-online(and wait 2 years to be able to fly a cap) or find a different game that will allow me to do that. As for flying small ships, if all I wanted to do was that then there are many many space games that will allow me to do that.

[Virtualaughing]

Cap ships ohh well

X2 Capital ships FTW. At least the speed of them. It is totally wrong to slow down BSs in the name of "ballancing". Because of the so called ballancing you don't require so much skill to fly them. Overall the BSs in X3 R/TC is a major setback compare to X2. Those antennas is just wrong. How funny when your ship explode because your antennas touch a base or other BS. Yeah. The current slide with BSs way too much i know but at least we got some opportunity to catch up on the enemy. Another thing is why cant we use keyboard to stop the ship from turret view. The autopilot not helping you to follow your target very well.

Removing the opportunity to controll BSs from the bridge or use turret view on special cases is a BAD BAD idea. There is nothing more fun than to clear a xenon sector alone. Because the LONG process to setup them i hardly wanna see any of my BSs killed by the enemy. BSs must be tough one to kill and must be fearful.... Not to mention that, if you have to open any menus under enemy weaposn fire and you can't steer the ship when you do so is just suicide action to make.. Steering the ship and giving few commands during fights is the way of XTREME pilots...
.... but if you have frame rate issues that is near to impossible.
Im sure lots of us meet situations when all the actions made by autopilot is delayed because overloading CPU.

As for the complainers about the turn rate. Just imagine a rollercoaster circle with radius of 2-4 km, sitting slide-ways (notsurehowtowriteotherwise), and you make a full circle, back 'n forward, up 'n down within few sec. Ok, ok. I know about the Sci-Fi answer, inertia damping....

plz don't forget we don't know any fact related to X Rebirth because it shrouded by clouds

[THE_TrashMan]

- A different manuver mechanism: right now fighter yawn, turn, strafe and capital ship also yawn, turn, strafe. no difference.

This is like saying tanks need a different manouvre mechanism, because cars move forward and backwards too.
Let's have cars only turn left and tanks only turn right!!!! That will make them different!

Yawn, turn and strafe are pretty much the basic and most normal movement methods. This sentance of yours is...I don't even know how to describe it...

[NUKLEAR-SLUG]

- A different manuver mechanism: right now fighter yawn, turn, strafe and capital ship also yawn, turn, strafe. no difference.

This is like saying tanks need a different manouvre mechanism, because cars move forward and backwards too.
Let's have cars only turn left and tanks only turn right!!!! That will make them different!

Yawn, turn and strafe are pretty much the basic and most normal movement methods. This sentance of yours is...I don't even know how to describe it...

Bad choice. Tanks DO have a different maneuver mechanism, they have tracks. Independently driven ones as well which lets them turn on the spot.

[A5PECT]

This is like saying tanks need a different manouvre mechanism, because cars move forward and backwards too.
Let's have cars only turn left and tanks only turn right!!!! That will make them different!

I was actually just about to make that analogy. A tank turns by turning its treads in opposite directions. This allows it to rotate while remaining on the same point on the ground.

A car turns by rotating its wheels and traveling along the path created by them. This way cars can't make turns as tightly as a treaded vehicle, but they can maintain a higher speed while turning compared to a tank.

Both vehicles run on combustion engines, they both move by turning wheels, but they handle very differently. A tank drives differently than a car.

In X3, a fighter doesn't handle any differently than a destroyer. The destroyer is slower, but it still accelerates just like a fighter. The destroyer is less maneuverable, but it turns just like a fighter. The destroyer has more turrets, but it fires them just like a fighter.

In X3, we don't have cars and tanks. We have cars and stupidly huge cars.

Everyone who complains about the removal of direct piloting of capital ships always say it's a removal of the player's choice. I say the player never had a choice to begin with. He could fly a fighter, and he could fly a bigger, slower fighter.

Extending the metaphor, a car can be operated by an individual. A tank requires a crew of multiple people to operate it. Typically one steers the vehicle and manages the engine, one or two operate the weaponry, and one coordinates the actions of the entire team. Now how does that sound familiar?

[THE_TrashMan]

- A different manuver mechanism: right now fighter yawn, turn, strafe and capital ship also yawn, turn, strafe. no difference.

This is like saying tanks need a different manouvre mechanism, because cars move forward and backwards too.
Let's have cars only turn left and tanks only turn right!!!! That will make them different!

Yawn, turn and strafe are pretty much the basic and most normal movement methods. This sentance of yours is...I don't even know how to describe it...

Bad choice. Tanks DO have a different maneuver mechanism, they have tracks. Independently driven ones as well which lets them turn on the spot.

You are right. Somewhat bad choice of analogy..but I did only mention forward/backward movement.

We are not talking about ability that veichle 1 has and veichle 2 doesn't, after all. We're talking about something so basic that ANY veichle should have it.

Who in their right man would make a capital ship that is NOT capable of strafing and rotating???
We're talking about basics of movement in space here. Capital ships are capable of the same movement as fighters BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.

If someone could give a practical example in space of compeltely different movement, please, go ahead.

[A5PECT]

For starters, strafing should take the relative mass of the ship into account. A capital ship shouldn't be able to strafe at the same speed and rate of acceleration as a fighter.

In the Halo novels, capital ships could use extremely powerful chemical rockets on the sides of the ship to strafe out of the way of incoming projectiles. However the amount of energy released every time one of these thrusters was fired was enormous, and each burst required recharging. This is opposed to fighters, whose vectored thrusters could fire continuously thanks to the ship being of much smaller mass.

Thus, capital ship combat consisted of brief but intense "steps." One ship would fire its main gun, and the opposing ship would try to fire its chemical thrusters at the right time to evade the attacker. Then, while the attacker's gun was reloading/recharging, the defending ship would get a chance to counter fire.

Fighters, on the other hand, engaged each other in long "dances" of continuous changes in direction and speed along with more persistent streams of automatic weapons fire.

Right there, you have two different ways to handle ships of dramatically differing sizes. Now I doubt that Eric Nylund's combat model syncs up with Egosoft's, but it shows that there are indeed ways to give more variance to different classes of ships in space.

[THE_TrashMan]

Not really different in term of ability.
You say "different ship handling", but capship in X2 already handle differently than fighters...you know..mass, epeed, acceleration, sluggishness. All of that fits the definition of sluggishness.

I definately agree with you onthe redicolous strafing speeds. I'd like to see that gone too.

But do bare in mind the quote I was responding to.

- A different manuver mechanism: right now fighter yawn, turn, strafe and capital ship also yawn, turn, strafe. no difference.

[Deeparth]

Broaside beam cannons!
Either that or broadside torp salvoes or both. Every ship should have a predefined number of them and every ship will have different number which cant be upgraded in number.
How bout FS2 linke beam turrets?

[A5PECT]

But do bare in mind the quote I was responding to.

- A different manuver mechanism: right now fighter yawn, turn, strafe and capital ship also yawn, turn, strafe. no difference.

I'm not asking for some kind of radical paradigm shift in space locomotion and the fundamental laws of physics. Of course a capital ship is going to be able to move in three dimensions, just like a fighter.

In the Halo example, both ships could strafe. But for the capital ship, it was a short-lived burst of speed that relied on critical timing. For the fighter, it was a continuous evaluation of the ship's current flight path, the enemy's flight path, and the trajectories of all of the weapons they fired between each other.

[THE_TrashMan]

Yes, but there really is no reason shtusters for capshps should work differently.
Any kind of thruster would work - it all depends on what you want to do.

If you want to strafe suddenly, in a burst of a speed, a shot-lived, but powerfull burst is prefered.
BUT, such bursts would actually be less advised on capital ship, because of structural strain.
Even small trusters would be enough to rotate capital ships - in fact, due to their length, slow turning would be a must, as turning too fast could not only tunr the crew to goo, but literaly break the ship.

[A5PECT]

If you want to strafe suddenly, in a burst of a speed, a shot-lived, but powerfull burst is prefered.
BUT, such bursts would actually be less advised on capital ship, because of structural strain.

True, but I just really like the idea because it really breaks up the monotony of typical slow, cumbersome capital ship movement. It give capital ship combat a good feeling of intensity, rather than "Oops, I made a wrong turn. I'm going to die when that stream of PPC rounds hits me in two minutes."

As for realism, I'm sure the turn rates of ships already in TC are completely unfeasible. I'm leaning into fun aspects rather than realistic ones.

The burst strafe idea at least acknowledges that it takes a more energy to move greater mass. Of course the numbers won't line up perfectly with the real world, but it would be funner to play.

[THE_TrashMan]

If you want to strafe suddenly, in a burst of a speed, a shot-lived, but powerfull burst is prefered.
BUT, such bursts would actually be less advised on capital ship, because of structural strain.

True, but I just really like the idea because it really breaks up the monotony of typical slow, cumbersome capital ship movement. It give capital ship combat a good feeling of intensity, rather than "Oops, I made a wrong turn. I'm going to die when that stream of PPC rounds hits me in two minutes."

As for realism, I'm sure the turn rates of ships already in TC are completely unfeasible. I'm leaning into fun aspects rather than realistic ones.

The burst strafe idea at least acknowledges that it takes a more energy to move greater mass. Of course the numbers won't line up perfectly with the real world, but on the other hand it would be funner to play.

If you ask me, that's how capshp combat SHOULD feel like - it's not about reflexes, but planning, positioning and resource managment.


Given that you pay no energy for the main engines, some high cost for thrusters seems a bit..odd. Not to menion that the difficulty of moving so much amss is already modeled by the slow acceleration, movement and general sluggishness.
Unless it's some sort of extension that straps additional boosters, which would basicly work like the turbo booster extension....

[Deeparth]

IF you make the hull flexible enough, you MIGHT be able to install burst thrusters.
If not, the huge ship would be ripped appart due to the force exerted by the thrusters.
The enormous inertia of the capships would make these thrusters unadvisable.
Hence, these thrusters are good for fighters but not for capships. Capships need slow accelaration or they'll break apart.

[iueras]

My 2 cents: I like flying capital ships. It's one of my main goals when I start a new game of X. Removing my ability to directly fly a cap ship = me a sad panda (and likely to skip X-R). I'll stick with X3:TC, thanks - warts, old code, and all. Because I can fly my massive slow moving behemoth, and I can't in X-R according to Egosoft.

I understand why some people would not like it. But those of you who do not are not everyone, as evidenced by the people in this thread saying they do like it. Removal of gameplay options for either group is bad and not in the spirit of X. Sometimes I feel like flying a quick nimble vessel, or seeing what the biggest thing I can kill in an M3 is, or things like that. But then sometimes I just feel like leveling a sector. Me, myself, not the AI. It's just more satisfying to pull the trigger myself and flatten Home of Light, rather than watching the AI do it. The latter lacks something visceral that manual control has.

EDIT: Typos.

[MadMan983]

when the news was first released they said not flying capital ships from the bridge, its a safe bet that we fill be able to fly them but not from the bridge

[perkint]

But if you read thru this thread or check the links in the "what we know about X:R" thread you'll find the post from Bernd where he confirmed no flying capital ships...

Tim

[Virtualaughing]

Honestly
I can not imagine other tactics in BS fights than to get attention from enemies with fighter drones and by fly close to them then jump to the nearest gate

Let them come in straigh line and my large forward guns only for capships and the surroundings for fighters. OFC release some additional drones time to time to reduce incomming fighters

I have no idea about how to say this but i will try...
What else we can expect from BSs maneuvers than the fighters or other class maneuvers
Panzers have chain cars have wheels lol So before we want different maneuvers for different shipclasses we must define the ways how can we dream of different dynamics in space lol We have all we can expect
btw did u ever wonder when you see a space combat far from any significant gravitational field n objects that can generate it. when one ship engines stops they stop moving asap? Did u ever think about how seriously dumb this is ??? Without engines running there is "nothing" can stop the ships if no significant gravitation nearby lol

all we have is gravity, mass, distance between maneuver thrusters
turning in 2 dimensions and accelerate decelerate

plz keep in mind all knowledge about english i have from X, FL, Stargate, song lyrics, Discovery Science. Not from school or other education

[THE_TrashMan]

Honestly
I can not imagine other tactics in BS fights than to get attention from enemies with fighter drones and by fly close to them then jump to the nearest gate

I connot immagine other tactics for fighters rather than "keep nose pointed at enemy and shoot".

Really..

[Virtualaughing]

But if you read thru this thread or check the links in the "what we know about X:R" thread you'll find the post from Bernd where he confirmed no flying capital ships...

Tim

HA?

Bernd only said that we won't be able to control them directly from the bridge.....