The Target Indicators Thread

Should target indicators disappear when target flies behind large object?

  • Yes, to be able to hide would add to game play.

    Votes: 66 82.5%

  • No, it would make the game too difficult

    Votes: 14 17.5%
  • Total voters
    80
  • Poll closed .

Sagan Ross

Sagan Ross
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KAJuR5giGo

The devs wanted some feedback so here is a tiny complaint - If you put a large object like a asteroid between you and your target the radar still keeps track of the enemy (as you can see in the vid) i think it would be cooler if targets are lost and had to be reacquired once you put such a dense object inbetween. :)
 

Erimus Kamzel

Erimus Kamzel
Agreed.

It sort of defeats the purpose of using larger asteroids for strategic purposes if they don't break target lock. Also makes it impossible for players who are locked and on the verge of death to duck into a dense asteroid field and hide. Or for locked pirates to hide amongst the rocks waiting for prey.

I think objects of a certain mass should break all targeting locks. I guess in the year 3300 we'll have systems that can project where that target is and anticipate its movements so lock isn't lost, but for the sake of having the ability to fully utilize the background environment in combat I think some things need to be overlooked.
 
Last edited:

X2Eliah

X2Eliah
Well, the target could go behind an asteroid and 'go silent' (check the rockpapershotgun interview for details on that), i.e. shut down and stop radiating heat. Then it would disappear of the radar. Having the radar be a raw line-of-sight thing - idk. I think I'd find it a bit too limited, tbh.
 

Sagan Ross

Sagan Ross
X2Eliah said:
Well, the target could go behind an asteroid and 'go silent' (check the rockpapershotgun interview for details on that), i.e. shut down and stop radiating heat. Then it would disappear of the radar. Having the radar be a raw line-of-sight thing - idk. I think I'd find it a bit too limited, tbh.
Click to expand...

Well could they then at least call it something different than "radar", something like "Magic all seeing non line of sight viewing Device - MasnlosvD? :p
 

Erimus Kamzel

Erimus Kamzel
X2Eliah said:
Well, the target could go behind an asteroid and 'go silent' (check the rockpapershotgun interview for details on that), i.e. shut down and stop radiating heat. Then it would disappear of the radar. Having the radar be a raw line-of-sight thing - idk. I think I'd find it a bit too limited, tbh.
Click to expand...

That's fine but you're then in a stop and start kind of combat. Hide and seek. Nothing wrong with that. But I think to keep some dog-fighting aspects fast flowing and at pace, losing and reacquiring lock of the one being pursued if he/she is effectively using the environment to their advantage during the pursuit is a sound strategy too. It should also be possible for the pursuer to fire blind without the need for a positive lock in the hope to land some shots instead of relying on instrumentation all the time.

Besides, if you've got someone right on your tail you often won't have the time or distance to power down, hide, and stop radiating heat. I see that tactic being more viable in medium & long range encounters.
 
Last edited:

Arowx

Arowx
What about a last known dissipation bubble, the radar blip fades out and expands from the last know position of the enemy with LOS. Until re-acquired.

Although in theory you could still track the infrared backwash from a ship in an asteroid field but that would be like running ray-tracing backward or echo location.
 

Enjou

E
I think it should depend on the systems of both ships in question - better sensors would help you detect even through solid objects to an extent, but any systems on the other ship that help with stealth should also be taken into account.
 

rgb_astro

rgb_astro
It makes sense from physics perspective: waves propagate much less when they are refracted from other objects. We can assume that ship's signature is only heat which surely can't bounce off cold objects. Incoming radio waves don't bounce back (same as in stealth aircraft).

So it makes perfect sense to loose id on the target when it's behind some solid structure. HUD might still display the indicator on the last known position of the target.
 
Last edited:

cadmonkey33

cadmonkey33
rgb_astro said:
So it makes perfect sense to loose id on the target when it's behind some solid structure. HUD might still display the indicator on the last known position of the target.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'd like it to track the last known trajectory. Then fast paced action would still work and it would allow for some strategy.
 

X2Eliah

X2Eliah
Hm, fair points. And aye, I agree that it would make for some fun gameplay times.

There *might* be the issue that tracking line-of-sight is way more intensive, computationally, than tracking distance from centrepoint. Especially in a networked situation, but even in singleplayer, doing that across a 3d environment with generated objects.. Super-tricky, I fear.

But, aye. Would be cool.
 

Faerie

Faerie
I agree that large asteroids should block tracking of a ship, but what I really want to know is why anyone but a raving lunatic would choose to fly a spaceship into such an environment, let alone to dogfight there.

An asteroid field should be a last, desperate resort to avoid an enemy & I sincerely hope they don't feature in the game as much as they do in the alpha.
 

X2Eliah

X2Eliah
Well, anyone with a ship statistically worse than their opponent would want additional factors into the fight. If it is just ship vs. ship in blank empty space, then mathematics wins. Add in suns, add in asteroids, add in structures/objects - and suddenly you have potential for hiding, for ambushing, for escaping, for piloting skill..

Now, why would a superior ship fly into a field and put itself under greater danger from an inferior ship? ... Well. Hmm. Well, it might want to fly into it because of other reasons, perhaps. Or because it just plain *has* to kill the smaller ship which is hiding. Or, heck, it could fly out and wait.

But.. naw. It doesn't require lunacy to fly into one such thing, not with the ship speeds and controls being the way they are.
 

rgb_astro

rgb_astro
Faerie said:
I agree that large asteroids should block tracking of a ship, but what I really want to know is why anyone but a raving lunatic would choose to fly a spaceship into such an environment, let alone to dogfight there.

An asteroid field should be a last, desperate resort to avoid an enemy & I sincerely hope they don't feature in the game as much as they do in the alpha.
Click to expand...

It makes combat more even-handed and varied. So both sides can and should use environment. I mean, would you like to play Counter Strike on a plane surface?

Play War Thunder and you'll realise environment adds TON of fun and variety to the gameplay.
 

Beachlight7

Beachlight7
I watched Silent War on BBC2 the other night about the cold war, I saw the Russian Torpedo that mimicked a replica of the whole submarine when launched. That could be something to deploy when hidden visually behind an asteroid. The scanner would stay locked on, but onto the wrong target, the ship would actually slip out of lock unbeknownst to the hunter.
 

rgb_astro

rgb_astro
Beachlight7 said:
I watched Silent War on BBC2 the other night about the cold war, I saw the Russian Torpedo that mimicked a replica of the whole submarine when launched. That could be something to deploy when hidden visually behind an asteroid. The scanner would stay locked on, but onto the wrong target, the ship would actually slip out of lock unbeknownst to the hunter.
Click to expand...

Watched that episode as well. Amazingly interesting about sub warfare. Have anyone played Silent Hunter V? It was pretty good experience travelling around Europe and in Atlantic sneaking under fleets' radars.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom