Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Disconnect turret POV from maneuvers
CaseytheHutt
Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:07 pm
#40
Yep - you're just my kinda Imp. Fly straight some more in that Deci 
/salute
/salute
Kinshi
Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:15 pm
#41
Learn to shoot better. The turret in the starship is not a tank. The only thing controlling its movement is YOU.
I just did a run in Kessel with one of those last night and had no problem shooting down targets. Quit expecting the computer to do everything for you and you will find you can learn to shoot.
If you pay attention you can tell when the (your) ship starts to turn and begin compensating.
I just did a run in Kessel with one of those last night and had no problem shooting down targets. Quit expecting the computer to do everything for you and you will find you can learn to shoot.
If you pay attention you can tell when the (your) ship starts to turn and begin compensating.
CaseytheHutt
Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:42 pm
#42
I respect your right to an opinion Kinshi - and maybe I'm just a retard - but I spent over an hour non-stop trying to target tier 4 and 5 fighters from a turret. We tried it using linear motion and maneuvering. When the platform was stable we could target okay but the ship got SHREDDED. When the platform was maneuvering we survived just fine but couldn't hit crap. I assure you, me and my optical trackball are pretty darned effective at positioning a cursor accurately but for the life of me I COULD NOT effectively target while the ship was maneuvering. This isn't hand-grenades - close isn't good enough. If you want to hit a fighter that's maneuvering you've got to be spot-on with that turret and I don't care how good you are at compensating for the ships motion there is no way you can be spot on unless that ship is barely altering course.
I stick to my initial point. Unstabilized turrets just aren't good enough. They detract too much from the potential and render the turrets less valuable than they should be given the strenth these ships should represent for the effort they require. Not saying you never hit anything. Not saying that the ships are useless. But they're not nearly as effective and useful as they SHOULD be and stabilized turrets are the first and most obvious correction needed.
I stick to my initial point. Unstabilized turrets just aren't good enough. They detract too much from the potential and render the turrets less valuable than they should be given the strenth these ships should represent for the effort they require. Not saying you never hit anything. Not saying that the ships are useless. But they're not nearly as effective and useful as they SHOULD be and stabilized turrets are the first and most obvious correction needed.
BlueChris
Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:57 pm
#43
I've beenthinking about the "Return on Investment" where investment is the hassle ofgathering a crew, thecrew manhours,and the opportunity cost of not having that many fighters in the air instead... Seems like a real Multiplayer Ship would have to be something on the order of a Corellian Corvette to make the whole endeavor worth it. The whole balance of power is out of whack the way it is now, and even gyro stabilized turrets might not fix it.
Personally, I haven't been in the current MPS ships because ships of that size class have seemed to be sitting duck deathtrapsin space combat games as long as I can remember. I'm more of a "speed kills" kind of guy.
Dreamland
Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:01 am
#44
The thing that helps me with turrets is to zoom way out in third person as far as i can. Its way too jerky zoomed in. I also like to use the mouse to target in a turret because it's fast and precise. Using the joystick and being zoomed in is an excercise in futility. I just thought i'd point that out in case any of you were trying to do it this way.
Thunderghost1
Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:03 am
#45
ClabeBobea wrote:I agree that the MPS turrets should have the stabilizers to keep the turret pointed in the direction the gunner intends the gun to be pointed. As for whomever brought up the turrets and barrel rolling, once the gun has reached the limit of its view it stays in that position until the gunner has done something to move its view or until the ship has turned enough to where the turret can be realigned to where it was pointing before the rotation had begun. As for the stabilizers on the Y-wing or Tie Aggressor those ships should not have them because the technology or equipment needed to allow a turret to move independantly would require to much room and/or mass on those ships. But MPS would have enough room or mass for this said technology or equipment and this would greatly improve the JtL experience for a number of pilots. This is just my opinion/view on the situation, disagree or agree but stop bringing up the WWII Bombers. The Bombers didn't utilize the Gyro's because of the fact they took up to much weight on the Plane, In space the mass of these Stabilizers would not matter much.Good Day
If you can, hop on to planetside and try gunning in a Prowler, that is how turrets should work, it's still difficult due to the target manouvers and size.
Gyrostabilized is the way to go.
NattyDreadlock
Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:44 am
#46
You're asking for Gyro-stabilized turrets. That is reasonable, but honestlyit should be ahrd to survive as a freighter. Basically fly in greater numbers(Iknow thats asking a lot), realizing the safety in numbers is in part due to concentrated fire but also because of the fact that the more freighters there are the less likly it will be you that dies. The reason being, what ever freighter the enemy fighters focuses on will take a lot of pounding. Odds are someone will go out in blazing glory, but with enough freighters you guys can make it to risky to come back for more of you...atleast one freighter will likly have to sacrificed while the wolves home in on its trail of blood and ship parts.
Study WWII bomber formations..or basically just remember to bunch tight together evade as a cohesive cluster and maintain concentration of fire. Try to have everyone in the formation fire on the same enemy fighter.If you guys randomly spilt your fire amoungst all the enemey fighters, you basically erase the benefit of being in formation. Under concentration of fire you guys will spend less time per fighter in killing it. Each fighter you kill severly reduces the amount or ordnance available to come to bear on you.
Last make sure your escorts know to STAY WITH THE FORMATION! Do not go chasing an attacking fighter all over the system. If you cant kill him near the formation, let him go. If he doesnt come back you have done your job, if he does, you'll get a second chance at him. But if you leave the formation, you basically leave a gaping hole in the defense...now you have helped the enemy do his job by leaving a flood gate open to the freighters for his attacking freinds to exploit.
Tarcus
Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:43 am
#47
/agree.
It is near impossible to do anything in a YT besides store stuff. I just use it instead of my Yacht for its speed.
If the turrets are disconnected....the gunners will have some hope of hitting stuff. You can't just say "the gunners should learn to adapt" or anything like that, because that is extremely hard. You'd need a pilot, two gunners at the minimum to practice for hours to figure out a good method of attack, and that's just ridiculous. The benefit of all of that work is hardly worth the effort...3 guys in single fighters would do better anyway.
_Smoke_
Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:20 am
#48
Firstly, I must state that I absolutely agree with the claim that multiplayer ships need love. When compared with SW canon and the wealth of EU resources, it doesn't take much thought to realize that our gunboats are sadly underpowered.
The World War II comparison is a fairly logical one to draw, however, given the intent stated by Lucas. Assuming that the game intends to copy this basic functionality, the problem we have is not that the turrets are not auto-stabilized but that MP ships are too fragile and undergunned in relation to their cost in resources and manpower.
At the moment, my feeling is that the Elite-level MP ships need to be able to give and recieve quite a bit more damage than they are currently capable of. If you increase the damage threshold on these ships significantly, then you reduce the need for the pilot to be pulling wild evasives by quite a bit. Incease the damage rating on the guns, and you need less hits to take down an enemy fighter. To summarize:
Greater life expectancy + more stable firing platform + fewer hits to destroy your enemy = a better MP ship experience, and one which is much more true to Star Wars canon. Optimally, MP ships should be able to takethree times the shield damage (with a higher recharge rate)and at least double the armor damage of a fighter (or something in that neighborhood). I'm going to be pushing for such changes in the very near future, although the exact percentages are open to discussion.
~S
Vegitaa
Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:06 am
#49
_Smoke_ wrote:
Greater life expectancy + more stable firing platform + fewer hits to destroy your enemy = a better MP ship experience, and one which is much more true to Star Wars canon. Optimally, MP ships should be able to takethree times the shield damage (with a higher recharge rate)and at least double the armor damage of a fighter (or something in that neighborhood). ~S
Fully and totally agree with that. A way this could possibly be implemented is by adding mount points to the MP ships. Add a second shield generator, multiple engine slots, additional reactors (we have a main why not a secondary) this way you can take advantage of the huge mass the MP's provide while making them better. Then when someone says, "Why is the MP's so overpowered/faster/tougher/etc..." The answer would be, " Because it has two shield generators, one forward one rear. It has 4 engines so of course it's fast. It has 2 guns per turret that why it fires faster. It has multiple reactors which is why it can continue to fire so much..."
Just a thought, that maybe difficult to implement though as they would probably have to change a lot on the model. Not too mention it would not be able to be made retroactive much like the new mass changes... Just a thought from an old beta tester..... (We have had this discussion before somewhere I believe.... deja vu...)
Fidgiter
Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:44 am
#50
The technology is rather simple to have turret able to adjust to ship movements but ultimately it comes to two questions? MPS Ship Capabilities within the Game Balance and Technical Issues for Implimentation.
MPS Ship Capabilities within the Game Balance
A MPS with a full crew (4) should be as effective as 4 master level ships. At present they are not even close to as effective and this is a serious problem for the MPS. I'm not sure that gyroscopic stabilizers on the turrets will create a balance between them but it is a step in the right direction. Until and unless the MPS is on parity with other options they will be nothing more than an expensive novelty.
Technical Issues for Implimentation
When the ship turns information is sent to the client of the person operating the turret so the view changes accordingly for the person in it. Instead of having the view changes accordingly the turret should automatically move in the oposite manner countering the ship maneuver and be subject to the same range of motion constraints as if the turret operator had done that move themselves. It isn't difficult to impliment.
CaseytheHutt
Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:36 am
#51
Smoke, I agree with you fundamentally that the problem is more that the ships should be tougher than the turrets aren't stabilized. But I'm being practical here. The number of changes to the number of systems (crafting and ships) that would be required to effect that change DWARFS what it would take to stabilize the turrets. Long term sure, toughen the things up big time, but in the near term stabilizing the turrets is an EASY fix that will go a good bit towards resolving the matter. It's easy, it's positive, why not make it a priority?
Vegitaa
Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:49 am
#52
Hey Casey, I didn't get a chance to try it out yet but did the auto-level option (in the options screen...) help at all with gunner positions?
Well, more to the point did it work like it does when you're in a fighter?