An idea for cockpit damage mechanics for balance

40 seconds to a couple of minutes longer does not equate to indestructible.

Prohibit AI from aiming at cockpits and cameras...

The next step will be what? Aim at weapons and engines?

Wouldn't it be simpler to disallow and ban AI-controlled turrets and missiles?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm really getting annoyed at the ideas of players who believe that they MUST have a chance on their inflatable raft to beat another player's titanium cruiser.

Currently in SE1 weapons can be set to prioritise Power systems, Propulsion, Weapons or default.

There is no hint at what the default AI prioritises as a target when multiple target points on a ship are available.

I guess that decoys are high up on the list, but I do not know how default targeting switches priority after locking on to a target point.

What I do know is that my camera and cockpit look like a box of chocolates to the default AI targeting system and then it is all quickly over, before I have even had time to take in the view.

Currently in SE1:

To get the chance to review my own demise, I would need to have set up a recording of the 5 second wonder from a different perspective in the precognitive expectation of the event occurring. Otherwise I am left with an empty space, thinking O well how did that happen, and with a degree of vacant loss.

Just a little view and a little memory of my time in combat would make all of the difference and make it an experience to look back on.

Question: In combat when flying a vessel how often do you play in 3rd person vs 1st person, and which one is the most intense?

Does this not depend on the size of the vessel that you are flying?

You're asking what type of view of the game suits me better...

I prefer the first person view, the cockpit view or the camera view. The problem is that in such a view it is very difficult to accurately judge the distance when maneuvering, especially if I am controlling a large ship. So I often have to switch to third-person view willy-nilly.

In combat, of course, this is a problem - you can't look around, and switching the view of different cameras won't make up for it.

Maybe 3D glasses would help, but I rather doubt it - what I've had a chance to try is enough for a headache and kinetosis, but not to play for more than a few minutes.

If I recall, turrets set to default prioritize decoys, followed the closest active block on a target (though it gets confused and picks randomly often enough). Of course if you're getting hit that quickly and reliably in your fighter then the fighter's durability wont matter much and you need to work on evasive maneuvers. If you're trying to play Skywalker and fly a strait line down a trench in a ship that isn't armored with plot while things shoot at you then you are just asking to be blown to bits.

Semtex is right, fighter vs large-grid is how you play the game on the Fromsoft difficulty setting. It isn't impossible but if you aren't ready then it is just going to kill you. So, how about you post some pictures and loadout info on your fighter and on what you're attacking, and I can see about helping get you past that first opening shot from whatever you're fighting.

Players are simply in thrall to template thinking.

They build their ships not as space battleships, but as space replicas of existing aircraft and naval ships. And they don't understand that "aircraft with a cabin up front" is a solution forced by terrestrial conditions and contemporary technical capabilities.

They're not engineers, they don't think like engineers, they just play at being engineers.

I don't claim to be better, but at least I'm aware of it...

In a small ship strategically placing the pilot position delays the inevitable destruction by a little, a remote block is far easier to protect, much depends on who is doing the attack run and the angles or multiple angles of incoming fire. Improving the defences of the pilots position, to allow it to last at least as long as an equivalently armoured remote block piloted vehicle, would be a good move. The game is for the player not for the AI after all.(needs testing)

In a medium sized small grid ship, piloting position has better value, time in combat is improved, but it is still not enough to satisfy. I am quite happy for my hydrogen tank to explode and the engines fall off as long as I am in the pilot seat to see it.

Let me put it another way.

What is the problem in small ship combat? The warped universe that Keen has created.

The zero chance of small ships is a direct result of the limitations of the ship's movement speed, the disproportionately high speed of missiles against it, and the "infinite" rate of transmission of enemy location information.

Why?

The low speed of the ship does not allow for hit-and-run tactics - because you can't run away due to the low speed.

The "infinite" speed of information transfer allows opponents to correctly predict your future position after any evasive maneuver, and projectiles with speeds many times yours will always catch up with you.

Your situation is worse than that of a WWI fighter pilot... Because there are already enough machine guns on the any ships...

I'll give you that full hit and run is extra hard if your target has enough acceleration to keep you in range by the time they hit 100m/s. Fighters engaging a target like that are generally forced to commit to the attack until they've taken out either the enemy thrusters or weapons. But while it is extremely difficult it is not impossible, and if you really want to just zip in for a single shot and then dip out then you've got a prototech jump-drive now.

Playing the ace isn't easy, it isn't supposed to be, but it isn't impossible either.

So far we have only considered the situation where a small ship is attacking a large ship, or a base, or a base defended by a large ship. That is, the situation where the small ship chooses the time and possibly the place of the battle.

Now imagine the reverse situation - a large ship discovering and attacking the base of a small ship....

How do you define the size of a ship in SE2?

small=? big=? and so on.

How many different size bands would be useful?

would the progression in scale bands be linear, logarithmic, or add hoc?

With ships on Earth TEU is used for container ships, other metrics use comparison to physical limits in fitting along narrow transit routes.

What do you use to be descriptive of ship size in space and make it memorable sense?

"How do you define the size of a ship in SE2?"

-Either by SE1 standards: "This ship would most practically be replicated in large grid, this one in small grid", or relative to its competition: "this ship is larger than this ship". I typically refer to them by relative grid size since SE1 is an appropriate frame of reference until SE2 gets built up enough to pull reliable numbers from.

"...large ship discovering and attacking the base of a small ship...."

-Unless the base is a fortress and contributes to the fight the balance will always heavily favor the larger craft (as it should). The issue here is that people keep thinking that their inability to literally face-tank anti-vehicle weapons in something armored with tissue paper means the tissue paper is defective, when they are in fact just misusing it.

As a (somewhat) balanced solution, I suggest an armored cockpit that is much tougher but also heavier. Think light vs. heavy armor in SE1. That way, players can have their robust cockpits but need to compensate for the weight with stronger drives.

Hooray for the new member of the ace league of ace pilots.