Blaspheming against the flight model.

[Valorin]

I'd love a toggle. Like we now are able to switch flight assist on and off, I'd love to be able to change to other flight models as well, even if that means I would be out of control very fast because it's hard to control.
I remember times with Frontier back then, where it was jump, autopilot on, combat, still autopilot on and pushing the lastertrigger because the autopilot was much better at targetting than I was, and onward to the station, let the autopilot dock, done. So I think controls are really hard with a completely realistic flight model and I can even imagine that our ship computer simulates something we are better at controlling, but I would love to have the option to switch back one more step than FA off. Not sure if I would even use it, to be honest, but I want it.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It's not just an issue of realism though, it's an issue of forcing arbitrary gameplay decisions that make the gameplay and flight model less enjoyable in addition to being less realistic. The game could have easily implemented different decisions and it would have sold just fine, in fact removing many of these arbitrary restrictions would have probably made the game more accessible because all the game achieves with blue zone throttle restrictions, nerfed yaw and annoying boost mechanics is to make the gameplay less intuitive and easy to learn for new players.

Possibly, or possibly not. One cannot say for sure without them doing it. You have an opinion of what might have been, but please, don't try presenting it as fact. And its not like FD will change the flight model in general at this stage. While some might applaud it, some would hate it, so all they would be doing would be swapping one set of complaints for another.

What they can do is make some tweaks to improve the flight mode, specifically in relation to NPCs. That's about it.

 

[Valethar]

So which game out there does it 'right'? I see all this yapping about arbitrary mechanics, poor decisions, etc... yet no one cites any examples of how it's actually been done 'the right way'.

 

[babelfisch]

Did you read the OP or my post in this thread? The decisions that FD have made regarding Elite's flight model are very much arbitrary. There is no reason whatsoever to implement blue zone maneuvering, nerfed yaw or boost slowdown other than to force players into an arbitrary flight model that has nothing to do with space combat.

I read the OP and must say that neither I nor the AI need to rely on reverse thrusting when I play the game, so I can't really understand his problems.
I also read your post and it perfectly describes why you don't like the flight model, I can see that you put a lot of effort in it and I would say it's a pretty good post. Personally I don't agree with it though, because I like the flight model.

To be perfectly clear: Your post is well written, it's constructive but this is also about personal preference, and I like ED's flight model. It's fun.

 

[ForeverN00b]

So which game out there does it 'right'? I see all this yapping about arbitrary mechanics, poor decisions, etc... yet no one cites any examples of how it's actually been done 'the right way'.

Independence War 2 or Terminus are the two examples that pop into my head.

 

[Stigbob]

Independence War 2 or Terminus are the two examples that pop into my head.

I war2 was just a series of elliptical jousts usually the win going to whoever turned fastest and hit the other in the rear after passing, it was reasonably good fun. But it was nothing special, and nowhere near as much fun as ED.

Realism is boring.

 

[CMDR Redcrest]

BVR is what exactly?

 

[Stinja]

BVR is what exactly?

Beyond Visual Range.

In 21st century combat, the use of missiles at 20km between aircraft, and so on.

As an example a wing of aircraft say wanting to destroy an aircraft-carrier ship, would fly to their missile range, unload, and fly away - all without spotting the ship directly with the human eye (using radar).
The defenders have to either rely on shooting down incoming missiles, or put up their own aircraft beyond the missile range of the attacks, and shoot down the enemy aircraft before they can launch.
Typically both sides would then try to fire air-to-air missiles at each others aircraft (again BVR), and if the attackers succeed then attack the ships.

The individual skill of pilots to dogfight is generally not needed; just taking off / landing and firing missiles (to way over simplify). Which means it may not be an "enjoyable" combat style for some.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Don't get me started about the lack of proper BVR combat and the ridiculously limited sensor ranges. I routinely need to locate targets in a RES by looking for laser flashes for ships that aren't on my sensors at all. The ridiculousness of this is something I just have to ignore but it really does destroy any sense of immersion in combat.

You are not alone in this. It does that to me too. And I also have to use the same technique.

Interestingly enough, Star Citizen is currently running into many of the same issues with their flight model, i.e., a balance between realism and playability. At this point they are still continually adjusting top speeds and boost mechanics so it is very much a work in progress but it tends to suffer from the same limitations that Elite has regarding the lack of effective BVR combat. Essentially what it comes down to is that if you are going to base a space combat game on using guns as primary weapons then you are going to have to force players into a combat style that mimics atmospheric combat to some extent. I can accept that relying on guns in space will create certain gameplay limitations but there are still much better ways to do this then what Elite has done with their flight model. Hopefully Star Citizen will take a look at what Elite has done and try to avoid making the same mistakes.

From what I've seen so far, they will make them and more. They don't even recognize that the ships have a problem of lack of inertia. I have little hope for SC, after all the bad decisions they have made.

FDev and CIG should just consult the guys making Rogue System, for some tips...

 

[Han_Zen]

Did you read the OP or my post in this thread? The decisions that FD have made regarding Elite's flight model are very much arbitrary. There is no reason whatsoever to implement blue zone maneuvering, nerfed yaw or boost slowdown other than to force players into an arbitrary flight model that has nothing to do with space combat.

The reason to implement theses mechanics were that the backers wanted them.
The high level backers(DDF) wanted a flight model, based on the pitch/roll model of of Elite.

Those that payed, got to vote. Simple as that.

 

[babelfisch]

I still don't know how BVR combat could work in this game. I would just high wake to the next system as soon as someone targets me.

 

[Siranui]

It's not just an issue of realism though, it's an issue of forcing arbitrary gameplay decisions that make the gameplay and flight model less enjoyable in addition to being less realistic. The game could have easily implemented different decisions and it would have sold just fine, in fact removing many of these arbitrary restrictions would have probably made the game more accessible because all the game achieves with blue zone throttle restrictions, nerfed yaw and annoying boost mechanics is to make the gameplay less intuitive and easy to learn for new players.

You're saying that without knowing the tactics evolving from the system that you - in your head - have decided is ideal, though.

And why on earth would a ship with 6 axis of movement install thrusters larger and heavier than strictly required on 4 sides, when 2 would do? There is even less need to have as much yaw as pitch on a spacecraft as their is on a modern aircraft. Heck: When was the last time you flew a plane that yawed as hard as it pitched?


Fortunately we live in a happy consumerist society where if a product does not meet your needs you don't need to scream outside the factory gates in the manner you are doing, but can just move on and buy the product you *do* like...

Don't get me started about the lack of proper BVR combat and the ridiculously limited sensor ranges.

Hardly an arbitrary design choice. It was made to enable dogfighting. Because firing missiles at blips on RADAR is dead boring.

 

[Siranui]

FDev and CIG should just consult the guys making Rogue System, for some tips...

*Googles*

Oh, the next game that does not yet exist which people are going to spend a year loudly and gleefully shouting how it will destroy ED.

Let's wait until release before doing that, shall we?

 

[edgepixel]

So which game out there does it 'right'?

While I still consider ED's flight model fun, the flight model of Independence War 2 was both fun and feeling more intuitive. It did devolve into a jousting match between ships, but it was still fun. Oh, not to mention FA-Off that you could USE (if memory serves). The fun of flying in ED though, more than many of you realize, is more due to the SOUND model than to the flight model per se. Whoever did the sound in this game g deserves a Nobel prize.

there should be a high-skill/high-risk niche for flying the smaller ships in combat.

Totally second that. I love games where early items/weapons/ships are still useful/competitive throughout its whole length. That's good game design, where the fun is in the mechanics, not in the collect-a-thon.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Games have to sell, otherwise the games wouldn't get made. Which is worse? The arcadey flight model or no game at all? Its not stupid, its sound business logic.

Contrary to what FDev, CIG and many people think, a proper amount of both simulation traits and fun gameplay are not mutually exclusive.

ED just needed to get rid of speed limits, introducing, instead, acceleration limits in proportion to human limitations (better thrusters would allow for improved acceleration). Also, removing artificial yaw limitation wouldn't destroy fun gameplay, because it would add new ways of controlling your ship, not subtract to them. And allowing for slightly better scanner ranges, with limited BVR combat, to multiply the playstyles.

FDev just lacks the courage to do it.

You might want a more realsitic flight model, but usually that doesn't go down well with the majority. Take a look at what happened to Hellion when you take realism too far.

Helion was a chain of silly, poor decisions by complicating unnecessary aspects of the game with boring, faulty, grindy gameplay, just like FDev, in its own way, does frequently. That game was not a good example of a proper mix of hardcore simulation and arcadish gameplay.

 

[UnhappyDev]

So, have you played Elite Frontier? Because if you lust for realism, that one has you covered. And it is not a lot of fun.

Yes, combat consisted of 'zap the pixel'. It was like playing a bad Atari 2600 game. I avoided it whenever possible.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

But seriously, BSG and Expanse are bad examples, for in both shows the combatants somehow agree to move at low speeds relative to each other. That is not what happens typically. Usually it turns into a jousting match, also BVR means virtually ensured mutual destruction.

Not if you limit the power/accuracy of BVR combat until it is balanced with close LOS combat.

A good example would be starting combat from afar and when the BVR weapons were exhausted, decrease distance to fight close combat with proper weapons for it. This would add to gameplay, not sacrifice anything in it.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

It's not just an issue of realism though, it's an issue of forcing arbitrary gameplay decisions that make the gameplay and flight model less enjoyable in addition to being less realistic. The game could have easily implemented different decisions and it would have sold just fine, in fact removing many of these arbitrary restrictions would have probably made the game more accessible because all the game achieves with blue zone throttle restrictions, nerfed yaw and annoying boost mechanics is to make the gameplay less intuitive and easy to learn for new players.

Absolutely correct. It does. A poor sequence of illogical unrealistic choices makes it less intuitive and harder to learn.

 

[the100thmonkey]

The flaws in the flight model go far deeper than just flying backwards. There are many arbitrary restrictions which FD has done intentionally from the outset to force players into an "atmospheric flight" model, i.e., airplanes in space:

1. Blue zone maneuvering requires ships to limit themselves to a narrow range of speeds to prevent players from reducing their speed to zero to have the smallest possible turn radius. There is no logical physical explanation of why this would be the case, i.e., why maneuvering thrust would require forward velocity when the maneuvering thrusters are completely independent from the main engine. It's basically an artificial "stall speed" equivalent to prevent ships from becoming "turrets", and yet the most realistic and entertaining space combat depictions (i.e., Vipers in BSG and the Rocinante in the Expanse) are most interesting precisely because 6 DOF maneuvering is used properly.

Interesting to watch does not necessarily make for something that is fun to play.

2. Artificially nerfed yaw rates mean that you usually need to roll/pitch to change direction, which again is an attempt to force an "atmospheric" flight model. There's no logical reason to artificially nerf yaw thrusters and it simply forces the ships to be flown in a manner that is less "turret like" where you simply pitch/yaw the ship onto a target.

But it was done specifically to make ships into not turrets in space.

3. Artificially limited boost mechanics and top speeds further limits the gameplay, again to force an atmospheric flight model in space. The top speeds are somewhat understandable for gameplay purposes, but the need to continually spam boost and having the ship slow down every single time is ridiculous. There should be some sort of override where the ship maintains boost speed until you either maneuver or reduce the throttle, i.e., the reverse thrusters should not continually try to slow your ship down while you are telling the ship you want to be continually boosting. The gameplay idea here is to replicate an "afterburner" and "atmospheric drag" that you would encounter when flying a jet aircraft. In atmospheric flight you can't continually maintain your top speed without afterburner and the use of this is limited mostly due to "fuel" demands, in Elite they've instead decided to use the boost capacitor energy to limits top speed instead of fuel. Again, these artificial limitations just try to turn what would otherwise be a realistic fight model into arcade-like gameplay.

Actually, FA-off boost bleed was introduced in 1.2 in response to complaints (from PVPers, iirc) that the Cobra and the Clipper were effectively impossible to kill. Boost, flip FA off and flip your pursuers off as you charge your FSD. They couldn't catch you. With 2.1 and the ridiculous speeds ships can now reach (my Viper Mk.III cruises faster than a vanilla version can boost,) my view is that the boost bleed in FA-off can and should be removed. An afterburner mode instead of boost would be interesting.

4. FA-off mode might make up for these problems if it were implemented intelligently instead of being a ridiculous twitch-gameplay mode. If FA-off was designed around a "neutral" control input being translated into zero net ship movement, i.e, if keeping the stick centered was interpreted by the flight model to automatically center the ship's roll/pitch/yaw rates while keeping each flight axis otherwise uncoupled, it might be a useful and enjoyable flight mode for most people. There is no reason to completely disable all flight assist in FA-off mode and the need to continually adjust the ship's orientation in FA-off is another needless arbitrary decision that FD did to keep players from using it routinely to get around the arbitrary limits of normal flight. Some players have been able to master FA-off technique but for most players it's only real use is to reduce your turning radius without leaving the blue-zone maneuvering range for throttle inputs, which was an arbitrary decision to begin with.

Rotational dampening is arguably more arbitrary than no dampening. Decoupled mode in SC (which does this) feels plasticky.

You also seem to have contradicted your observation about space combat in TV series: There's no evidence in any of those shows of rotational dampening. It's not the flight model's fault if you can't manage your rotation.

At this point we're stuck with the existing flight model and I don't see any way that these core issues are going to be improved. The only real hope is that FD will do some rebalancing of ship speeds or maneuvering to ensure smaller ships remain relevant in terms of gameplay, i.e., by using modules such as the Enhanced Performance thrusters for smaller ships. I still enjoy flying my Sidewinder, Eagle and Imperial Eagle but from a combat perspective they really aren't competitive and there should be a high-skill/high-risk niche for flying the smaller ships in combat.

There is - it's called not dying.

 

[Uiros Ueramos]

Did you read the OP or my post in this thread? The decisions that FD have made regarding Elite's flight model are very much arbitrary. There is no reason whatsoever to implement blue zone maneuvering, nerfed yaw or boost slowdown other than to force players into an arbitrary flight model that has nothing to do with space combat.

Precisely. Nothing to add.