Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Fate of the Galaxy => Topic started by: zookeeper on August 03, 2009, 11:04:28 am
-
All right, here's my idea of how proton torpedoes (and probably bombs and rockets, too, but I'm gonna refer only to torps here) could work in a canonical manner while remaining useful in some circumstances.
Torps would be unguided. The sole purpose of the targeting computer would be to override the regular directional flight controls of your ship and aim it directly towards the target, taking lead into account. So, if you were flying towards an ISD and were intending on launching your torps at one of its domes, the following would happen:
1. You'd target the dome
2. You'd switch to targeting computer by pressing some button
3. You'd let go of your directional flight controls and let the targeting computer slowly turn your ship to point exactly at the center of your targeting reticle
4. When you'd be close enough that your field of fire would be entirely (or mostly) within the dome, you'd get that familiar locking sound
5. You'd launch your torps, which would automatically switch your targeting computer off
For point 4 to work, the torps would need to be given a smallish field of fire so that you couldn't get a lock from too far away.
Of course, you would be able to turn off the targeting mode without firing the torps with that same button which activated it. Also, you would be able to fire the torps before you gain the final lock if you'd want to.
In terms of gameplay, this would make the targeting computer useful only when the target is small and far enough that your lasers won't do (or if their damage is too low). For example against the subsystems and turrets of a bigger capship it'd be a good choice, which to me sounds about how it should be. Use of the targeting computer would be a special occasion for those relatively rare shots which require extra accuracy, not something you'd use every mission.
I think this kind of a system would make quite a lot of sense considering how the targeting computer was used in the trench runs.
So, what I'm interested in is:
1. Would there be any gameplay problems with this that I missed?
2. Would this be feasible to implement at all? Obviously the engine doesn't support this kind of stuff directly, so it'd have to be a new feature or scripted somehow.
-
Well, one obvious issue is that SW Torpedoes ARE guided. Another one, from my perspective, is that this is not how SW Torps are canonically described to work.
As for gameplay, a system like that would essentially turn you into a sitting duck for at least 0.5 - 2 seconds, which can be an awfully long time without steering, especially in multi.
-
books and films regularly depict torps fiering and then turning and chasing after a target, tbh in my oppinion the FS Aspect lock and SW targeting systems are very similar
-
Well, one obvious issue is that SW Torpedoes ARE guided. Another one, from my perspective, is that this is not how SW Torps are canonically described to work.
I'm only working off the OT here, I wouldn't know what's said of them elsewhere. I don't know if that's important enough non-movie canon or not, myself.
As for gameplay, a system like that would essentially turn you into a sitting duck for at least 0.5 - 2 seconds, which can be an awfully long time without steering, especially in multi.
Exactly! Making a torpedo run with the targeting computer would indeed be suicide if you were doing it in the middle of enemy fighters. You'd need to approach from a safe direction and/or have someone cover your behind from enemy fighters while you target that transport or capship or whatever it is you need to hit. If there's too many enemies around, then you'll need to thin their ranks before trying, or just forget about precise torp hits and just fire them from closer up.
-
If you look at ANH closely, especially the trench run, you can see the torps making a very sharp turn (close to 90 degrees) when they enter the exhaust port. The diagram that was shown during the briefing on Yavin also shows the exhaust port to have a few corners thrown in.
The thing that made using the targeting comp dangerous there was the fact that the pilot had to get the launch time exactly right; which IIRC was also mentioned in the novelization.
As for what is and what isn't canon, there is a quite easy rule in the Star Wars universe: Information in the movies > All the rest, BUT, since we see torpedoes making turns, they are quite clearly NOT unguided.
And if you read the X-Wing novels, which have the most in-depth description of SW fighter combat, it becomes very clear that SW missiles and torps use the same kind of target acquisition mechanic as FS, i.e. you have to wait a few seconds for the missiles to lock on to a target, but during that time you still have full controls over your fighter.
Consider this, as well: The torps used in ANH are standard Torpedoes, which are part of the standard loadout of the X-Wing, and which are perfectly usable in a dogfight.
-
The ANH situation was not normal. The jamming field present was absurdly strong. In cases of actual combat lock situations, the targeting should take less time.
I.E. Freespace mechanics.
-
If you look at ANH closely, especially the trench run, you can see the torps making a very sharp turn (close to 90 degrees) when they enter the exhaust port. The diagram that was shown during the briefing on Yavin also shows the exhaust port to have a few corners thrown in.
Well, that goes pretty much to the same seemingly inconclusive territory as the previous thread (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,61112.0.html). For what it's worth, I personally consider the "magnetic field pulling them down the shaft" explanation to be the more useful one, because the "they turned on their own" explanation would give them completely insane turning speed which would be lightyears away from the one that they could ever actually be given in-game.
The thing that made using the targeting comp dangerous there was the fact that the pilot had to get the launch time exactly right; which IIRC was also mentioned in the novelization.
As for what is and what isn't canon, there is a quite easy rule in the Star Wars universe: Information in the movies > All the rest, BUT, since we see torpedoes making turns, they are quite clearly NOT unguided.
Same as above, since the ANH torpedoes are the only ones that are seen making a turn at all...
And if you read the X-Wing novels, which have the most in-depth description of SW fighter combat, it becomes very clear that SW missiles and torps use the same kind of target acquisition mechanic as FS, i.e. you have to wait a few seconds for the missiles to lock on to a target, but during that time you still have full controls over your fighter.
Consider this, as well: The torps used in ANH are standard Torpedoes, which are part of the standard loadout of the X-Wing, and which are perfectly usable in a dogfight.
Of course, I don't doubt that my idea would contradict non-movie canon such as the novels. ANH itself doesn't dictate which way the torpedoes work, however, so this is more like a question of which way would produce more interesting gameplay. Whichever way is better in that respect should be picked, and if they happen to be about equal, then the one that adheres more to the non-movie canon.
-
Okay then. From a pure gameplay POV, bombing runs in FS are already hard enough. A Cyclops or Helios has an insane lock on time, during which you have to keep the target in your reticule, while getting as close as possible to the target to make sure your bombs aren't shot down. As limited as my dodging abilities are in that situation, they are not gone completely, which, to me, feels less like some deliberate fake difficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FakeDifficulty) or interface screw (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InterfaceScrew) on the part of the designer.
Concerning canon: The X-Wing novels are as canon as it gets without being filmed by Lucas. In them, Concussion missiles and proton torps are used against Starfighters (granted, they are usually used against bigger, more deserving targets, but still....). Hence, they need to be maneuverable enough to hit their targets. Which kinda rules out the unguided bit. They may have maneuverability comparable to a Trebuchet, but they still have it.
-
Oh, man, not this again. I'll start out by stating that I think the OP's idea is excellent, and fits the best with my understanding of the original trilogy and how they'd work in a game context.
Now to deal with the rest:
1)The X-Wing books were written based solely on the X-Wing games - to the extent that specific missions in the games were described in great detail, and the combat was tailored to fit the Total Games X-Wing games. As far as I understand, the main intent of this mod is to recreate the look and feel of the movies (episode 4-7 exclusively) not a reproduction of the X-Wing games.
2)The only time we ever see missles/torpedos making any sort of turns at all (outside of the crappy prequel) is the exhaust port in ANH, which was debated ad naseum in the last thread on that topic, as already mentioned above. I still vote for either some sort of magnetic field pulling them in, an optical illusion created by vent gasses, or the force making them turn. There's no way they could've made that turn on their own, and there's no way I'd want them being able to make turns like that in this game.
3)The idea presented in the OP jives with Lucas's stated intent of making space combat feel like WWII air combat - that sort of system is exactly how bomber pilots handed over control of their planes to the navigator while on the bombing run. It also explains why the three ships in the trench run were doing the run in the manner they did: one leader making the shot who can't maneuver at all during most of the run, requiring two wingmen to keep enemy fighters off of him long enough to make the shot.
So like I said, add my +1 vote for this being an awesome idea for torpedoes.
-
Oh, man, not this again. I'll start out by stating that I think the OP's idea is excellent, and fits the best with my understanding of the original trilogy and how they'd work in a game context.
Now to deal with the rest:
1)The X-Wing books were written based solely on the X-Wing games - to the extent that specific missions in the games were described in great detail, and the combat was tailored to fit the Total Games X-Wing games. As far as I understand, the main intent of this mod is to recreate the look and feel of the movies (episode 4-7 exclusively) not a reproduction of the X-Wing games.
O RLY? To me, they always felt more like recreations of the WEG RPG, but what the hell...
Whatever they are, since they do not contradict canon as established in the movies, they ARE canon.
2)The only time we ever see missles/torpedos making any sort of turns at all (outside of the crappy prequel) is the exhaust port in ANH, which was debated ad naseum in the last thread on that topic, as already mentioned above. I still vote for either some sort of magnetic field pulling them in, an optical illusion created by vent gasses, or the force making them turn. There's no way they could've made that turn on their own, and there's no way I'd want them being able to make turns like that in this game.
It doesn't matter. Torps are used to shoot down TIEs in the novels. The targeting systems in the novels do not work in the way zookeeper described. The novels are canon.
3)The idea presented in the OP jives with Lucas's stated intent of making space combat feel like WWII air combat - that sort of system is exactly how bomber pilots handed over control of their planes to the navigator while on the bombing run. It also explains why the three ships in the trench run were doing the run in the manner they did: one leader making the shot who can't maneuver at all during most of the run, requiring two wingmen to keep enemy fighters off of him long enough to make the shot.
Okay, now that is a valid statement. However, I still believe it to be a bad idea, gameplaywise, to take full control away from the player. As I said earlier, the existing gameplay mechanic in FS2 is already forcing you to emulate that behaviour, but it does so without taking away the control from you, giving you the ability to instantly cancel a bombing run when it's too hot.
-
3)The idea presented in the OP jives with Lucas's stated intent of making space combat feel like WWII air combat - that sort of system is exactly how bomber pilots handed over control of their planes to the navigator while on the bombing run. It also explains why the three ships in the trench run were doing the run in the manner they did: one leader making the shot who can't maneuver at all during most of the run, requiring two wingmen to keep enemy fighters off of him long enough to make the shot.
Okay, now that is a valid statement. However, I still believe it to be a bad idea, gameplaywise, to take full control away from the player. As I said earlier, the existing gameplay mechanic in FS2 is already forcing you to emulate that behaviour, but it does so without taking away the control from you, giving you the ability to instantly cancel a bombing run when it's too hot.
Hmh? I hope you didn't get me wrong. My meaning is that nothing would prevent you from flying normally; you'd simply obviously lose your aim if you did so. The computer would aim for you when you let go of your controls or hold down a trigger, how you could still control your ship normally should you choose to. If things would turn out too hot, then you could easily abort, or just evade and try to get close enough to fire manually without a lock. Of course there needs to be some system in place to for example allow you to keep your hand on your mouse without an occasional little movement messing up your targeting process, but that could be solved by having minor movements be ignored during targeting, or just by having the targeting active (and override your controls) only when a trigger is kept pressed.
Also acquiring that lock would be really quick once you'd be in range: you could just aim manually as well as you can and then switch on your targeting computer, which would take care of what might perhaps be only the last couple of pixels that you can't handle manually against a moving target. As I said, you wouldn't need the computer most of the time, but only when you require extra precision.
-
So lemme get this straight, FotG is considering boresight aiming for torpedoes and possibly missiles? That's a bad idea IMO as it leaves the person firing the weapons extremely exposed to enemy fire. Combined with FotG's reduced durability compared to Freespace and the X-Wing games, that means launching ordnance will be suicidal.
-
So lemme get this straight, FotG is considering boresight aiming for torpedoes and possibly missiles?
FotG isn't considering anything, I'm just presenting an idea that I feel might work nicely and would fill a gap that I feel there currently exists (a SW-like targeting computer effect different than that of the regular FS2 missile lock and different classes of secondaries such as missiles and torps behaving very differently to each other).
That's a bad idea IMO as it leaves the person firing the weapons extremely exposed to enemy fire. Combined with FotG's reduced durability compared to Freespace and the X-Wing games, that means launching ordnance will be suicidal.
If you're in a dogfight trying to get a torp lock, then sure enough it would. But would it be very disappointing and uncool if doing that was a bad idea in the first place?
-
I will agree that ordnance spam should be kept to a minimum in FotG. Making ordnance weapons aspect lockers with a fairly high lock-on time should reduce their effectiveness as dogfight weapons while still keeping them useful as standoff weapons. I think the best way to go about including torpedoes and missiles is to have them be similar to a FS2 Trebuchet.
-
A few thoughts here. When Gold Leader says he "can't maneuver", it seems to me like he's saying that because the Y-wings are in a tight formation running down the narrow trench. This is supported by him saying "We're too close!" and "Loosen up!" right after that. Going in side by side like that is probably what they normally do (though likely in a more spread out fashion) on bombing runs so that their target can't focus its fire on one bomber at a time. Obviously though in this case it boxed them all in and made them easy prey for Vader. The rebels learn from this on the subsequent runs by stringing out their formation, which lets them swerve and bob to eat up time as you see Biggs and Luke do (even while Luke is seeking a target lock).
Secondly, the FS aspect lock system already supports something like this. The fastest way to get a lock is to hold your ship completely still and let the tracking do its work (assuming your target is relatively close to your crosshairs). If you are swinging around, you can keep the target within your tracking zone indefinitely but never actually get a lock.
I like what we have been doing in the game so far, where concussion missiles are generally heat seekers and torpedoes are generally aspect seekers. It keeps torps for being much of a help in a dogfight thanks to our fast ships and makes missiles useful for forcing maneuvers but still pretty easy to avoid thanks to the inferior tracking of heat seekers. I also like chief's idea of having the targeting computer be something that you turn on in order to activate aspect seeking for torpedoes. If it's off, you can dumbfire. If it's on, dumbfire is locked out and you can only shoot with a lock.
It's also probably worth mentioning that the autopiloting features that have been employed in the FSO engine so far (as seen in WCS), while very cool for their purposes, don't make very crisp movements and are not something you would ever want to use in a combat scenario, especially in FotG where flying straight for 1.5 seconds = dead.
-
Actually it's usually faster to lock if you 'put' the aspect tracker closer to the target, and then hold still. But that can often throw you off course if you're coming in fast.
-
Well, I guess that's it then. :p
I'm still mildly interested in how feasible that would have been to implement, however.