Distance of guns

Tucker · Post by **Tucker** » Mon May 04, 2009 12:46 am

I do like the way this game follows laws of physics for a good bit of it. But I was wondering about the beam and particle guns. Beam weapons such as lasers in theory would nmot follow the inverse square law. thats only true for a "perfect laser " though and since there is no such thing and the beams do widen after the diversion point they do drop off accordiong to the inverse square law. As such it would seem they would do more damage at close range than at a very great distance but would not just suddenly stop. Also different types of beam weapons would have different beam divergence so thier ranges before drop off would be different.

Since there are different forces effecting the particle weapons it would seem to me they would have a different range than the beam weapons. I don't think that the inverse square law applies to Neutral Particle Beam s Just to complicate it wouldn't particles have still a different rage in atmosphers because of things like air reistance and gravity

Do I have this wrong ? Would it be more true to life in the game if different weapons both type and power not only did different damage but had different ranges or is there a flaw in my understanding ?

Of course that does not mean its a needed or feasable change in the game. So really I just hope for good discussion on space based weapons here more than anything that will hugely impact how we play

Post by **Vice** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:25 am

The principle is sound, different weapons would likely have different ranges. The range limit of 500 meters tends to focus more on the limitation of the MDTS (tracking system), the computer's ability to project/predict a given target's movement and speed up to a certain range limit. To do this, the weapons also 'harmonize' for optimal effectiveness. This harmonizing brings beam weapons together at a focal point directly on the target, combining their energy at a common location. Particle cannons do the same, but they do not attempt to combine their energy in the same way beams do. In the game's representation of beam weapons, bringing two light speed lasers together at a common point inflicts more damage against shields. A few players have discovered ways of getting a few more meters of range from a particular weapon class, but generally they are all limited to 500 meters for a common link with the limits of the MDTS system (allowing players to keep track of one range instead of 3 different potential ranges). At ranges above 500, it becomes far more difficult for particle cannons to hit a target because of how much distance and time the target has to maneuver out of the way before impact.

Earl · Post by **Earl** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:48 am

If we look at the physics of a beam, then we should think about a focus point... Realistically it should only do the most damage at that focal point, which would be very difficult to use in a fight. It does look a bit funny that they stop right out at the edge of the range rather than going on forever but it'd be hard to use them if you couldn't gauge a distance.... That and the beam wouldn't actually emit any light either until it hit something...

From a gameplay perspective I think the system is great as is, but if it could be considered, different ranges for each model of beam would be very awesome. To balance it, maybe the higher damage beams have shorter ranges and the lowest power would have much better range? Could encourage a lot of weapon switching if you wanted to try to get someone pretty far out.

Or, what about a lens array you could stick in an equipment slot to boost range? Since the cannon has the relay system, maybe the beams could have something similar to make things more interesting. If it was effective enough, some people might trade out and we'd have some pretty diverse strategy going on.

Nigel_Strange · Post by **Nigel_Strange** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:03 am

I've always thought that the particles from the cannons should have a constant velocity relative to the ship firing them, rather than to the universe at large. So, if you're going really fast, the cannonfire would look the same to you, but would be going much faster to a fixed reference point.

I know this has been brought up before, and I think that, again, the limitation is the computing ability of the MDTS.

However, I've seen this work with other games. The faster you are going, the closer your target reticle and your aiming reticle get together, because the projectiles are going so much faster.

Earl · Post by **Earl** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:13 am

Maybe the MDTS should be weak. Consider it as a realistic feature rather than a gameplay limitation? It shouldn't be able to compensate for everything.
I don't use it, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of others don't because it can't consider everything a ship is doing and can't anticipate their next move so well. Players will probably wean themselves off of it as they improve anyhow.

Newtonian particle action would be so cool! Imagine flooring it with your afterburners to give your particles enough momentum to reach more distant targets? Problem with implementation is that the projectile would need a timed limitation('burn out at X seconds') rather than the range one for that to work, and that's probably too hardware intensive and would require a lot of code.

Draakjacht · Post by **Draakjacht** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:29 am

I love this. Everything Tucker and Nigel, to a certain extent, is true. In Wing Commander, the different weapons had a range variation which required the pilot to toggle weapon systems in battle to maximize energy usage and damage output. Tachyon had a similar concept, but rarely to never mixed weapon types, leaving it a rare concern. It would make the game more accurate. As for the MDTS, it's completely up to Vice, as the system capabilities of future avionics are merely conjecture, especially in deep space situations. The most interesting extension of these ideas would be what is the effect of gravity fields on the particle flight paths? And what would a nebulae or collapsing star do to the MDTS system?

Fun Fun!!!

Post by **Vice** » Mon May 04, 2009 2:54 am

Ironically, the particle cannons do use a timer based limiter already, they just don't have different caps. This would be a pretty major change from the current setup, so it would need to be considered very carefully. Range variation would certainly throw another interesting element into the weapon system, in addition to yield, energy use, and cycle rate.

Nigel_Strange · Post by **Nigel_Strange** » Mon May 04, 2009 3:47 am

The game does not need an overhaul. I think I, and most other players, like it the way it is.

But...there are future games, I hope :-)

Glock36 · Post by **Glock36** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:17 am

I smell more massive recoding with minimal "fun factor" gain.

Nigel_Strange · Post by **Nigel_Strange** » Mon May 04, 2009 6:42 am

I don't think this is going to get recoded. The current system has worked well for several years now, so there is little incentive for Vice to change it, especially since, as you say, there is likely minimal fun gain.

However, every few years, Vice seems to start a new game, so it's something to test out later.

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Mon May 04, 2009 12:57 pm

I'd like to see this, implemented for lets say, a single build.

For the new game, I'd love to see a tiered system of weapons (small range, medium range, large range) that exponentially increase in cost, but also in yield/speed/fire rate.

Actually, I'd have everything tiered.

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:06 pm

Yeah, would be nice, with some of the top weapons, you can only get if you have a very high rank. I think that may work ok:)

verbosity · Post by **verbosity** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:16 pm

I want a 'mimbari' style laser weapon, lasts only a second and uses all your energy, but its a constant straight-line beam (no mdts) while its on and has a range of at least 1k ( and lots of damage if you make a hit )

I think differing ranges could be a positive move, but I'd like to see how it affected game play( both MP and SP ) first......

I'd also be in favour of this if it increased the number of weapons available.....

[Edited on 5-4-2009 by verbosity]

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:19 pm

What about increasing the effective distance of higher class cannons and beams if we get more classes of Beams and Cannons which are rare to get?;)

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:28 pm

What I personally would love to avoid is the possibility of having a single best weapon. The best would be if there were 3 top weapons, one for range, one for yield and one for particle speed.

Same goes for everything, really. Weapons, ships, loadouts, ect.

Tucker · Post by **Tucker** » Mon May 04, 2009 9:08 pm

Good discussion eveyone but as I said in the start I was not necessarily saying we needed to change anything in the game. I apprecaite the massive amount of work that Vice does on updates already. I too was a wiing commander and priivateer player and while I love the games they never did a rewrite around player wishes. Vice does this all the time and its a rare thing to encounter.

What was said about the targeting system makes perfect sense and though in real life they may continue line of sight that would mean other players and friendlies could "run into" the beams. So changing it in the game may be one of those be careful what we ask for things. Some folks already don't like that the excalibers keep going.

There has been some good discussion here though about how these devices would work and I appreciate that and look forward to more comments on it

[Edited on 5-4-2009 by Tucker]

Accountant · Post by **Accountant** » Tue May 05, 2009 5:16 am

Originally posted by matthewfarmery
Yeah, would be nice, with some of the top weapons, you can only get if you have a very high rank. I think that may work ok:)

I like most of the ideas in this thread except this one. Tying weapons to "rank" just turns the game into a level/unlock quest. Why would an arms dealer turn away a paying customer just because (s)he doesn't have someone's idea of a suitable rank? If I have the cash I should be able to buy whatever the market is offering.

The only thing that makes sense to relate to rank is military ships. Anything else is unrealistic and not very fun.

-Accountant

Maarschalk · Post by **Maarschalk** » Tue May 05, 2009 12:31 pm

Good points Accountant!;)

matthewfarmery · Post by **matthewfarmery** » Tue May 05, 2009 1:12 pm

Originally posted by Accountant
Originally posted by matthewfarmery
Yeah, would be nice, with some of the top weapons, you can only get if you have a very high rank. I think that may work ok:)
I like most of the ideas in this thread except this one. Tying weapons to "rank" just turns the game into a level/unlock quest. Why would an arms dealer turn away a paying customer just because (s)he doesn't have someone's idea of a suitable rank? If I have the cash I should be able to buy whatever the market is offering.

The only thing that makes sense to relate to rank is military ships. Anything else is unrealistic and not very fun.

-Accountant

yeah true, there is that, a good point, but I was perhaps thinking of, when buying from hidden stations or planets, perhaps if more hidden stuff was added, when you get to a high rank, then it could turn into a quest to find the station and perhaps do something for the sation before you can buy the weapon /s / ship/s

it just a thought, as it adds to the gameplay / explorer aspect of the game

[Edited on 5-5-2009 by matthewfarmery]

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Tue May 05, 2009 1:22 pm

Military weaponry might very well be restricted to rank, actually. I wouldn't let an ensign fly with my 200 billion credit experimental superweapon if I had anything to say in it.

warsign · Post by **warsign** » Tue May 05, 2009 1:28 pm

Originally posted by verbosity
I want a 'mimbari' style laser weapon, lasts only a second and uses all your energy, but its a constant straight-line beam (no mdts) while its on and has a range of at least 1k ( and lots of damage if you make a hit )

I love that kind of weapons.

I want to add a weapon kind, I've seen it in "Tachyon The Fringe", sim game from Novalogic, some kind of magnetic mine, you try to stick them on the opponents hull. You have to be too close to your enemy.Some kind of magnetic mines drain your shield energy, some kind of detonate manually.

[Edited on 5-5-2009 by warsign]

Earl · Post by **Earl** » Wed May 06, 2009 3:33 am

Tying weapons to "rank" just turns the game into a level/unlock quest. Why would an arms dealer turn away a paying customer just because (s)he doesn't have someone's idea of a suitable rank?

-Accountant

If they're not arms dealers, if they're the military. Sure, you should be able to get anything, but some kind of impact on the way things act for you would be good.
Access yes, but consequences. Maybe to counter the idea of having to aquire military grade weapons only from the military without consequence, you could only get the non-violent experimental parts (like the mantis, or upper level shield boosters) by having a certain reputation with an associated other faction in a system.
This isn't an idea for unlock quests, it's an idea to increase the diversity of players by giving them more choices. It'd mix up what everybody has- Play by the rules, more challenging/restricted game straight on. Get what you want devil may care, and maybe you have to play things a little more carefully in the bigger picture (avoiding systems, dodging patrols, etc.) Maybe even interesting PVP expansion is possible- Military players vs. Guild players? Each could have something the others may not have easy access to.

...off topic much?
A long range, long duration weapon sounds cool! Kinda getting close to some kind of area of effect (Don't cross that line!) Something that provokes some evasive flying might mix up that jousting type of fighting a bit. Maybe you can't always see this opponent, because he's dropping some kind of barrier behind you and you have to turn to pilot around it? Something like that combined with the fact that we can face/fire at any heading could make things very very intriguing, but could change the combat a bit too much.. As a depleteable secondary weapon though, could provide a strategic dimension without becoming cat and mouse.

ShaggyMoose · Post by **ShaggyMoose** » Sun May 10, 2009 10:54 pm

There are plenty of games that force you to have a "military license" for heavy weaponry. Certainly this could be tied to rank. On the other hand, you could aquire this weaponry on the black market, but this could cause the military to put a bounty on you.

Accountant · Post by **Accountant** » Sun May 10, 2009 11:29 pm

There are plenty of games that force you to have a "military license" for heavy weaponry.

...but that doesn't mean it is right. Other games force you to use arcade physics, don't provide planetary descents, and treat combat like rolling dice.

This is how I see the issue of rank: I want to buy that shiny new weapons system over there. I have 50 million in cash ready to transfer to your account. Will you, as an enterprising arms dealer, really turn down cash because of something silly like rank? I know I sure wouldn't...

@tha_rami

Military weaponry might very well be restricted to rank, actually. I wouldn't let an ensign fly with my 200 billion credit experimental superweapon if I had anything to say in it.

As a military officer you might not, but what if you are an arms dealer? I would sell that ensign anything if he had 200 billion credits. And just because it is military weaponry, does not mean only the military sells it. Arms dealers have a way of acquiring things...

Really, if you needed a military rank to buy something, we could not buy anything. Even when working for the military, we are mercenaries. Ship frames are the only thing to me that makes sense to tie to rank. The rest of the stuff should be purchasable from arms dealers whether we have the right rank or not.

-Accountant

ShaggyMoose · Post by **ShaggyMoose** » Tue May 12, 2009 1:12 am

Originally posted by Accountant
There are plenty of games that force you to have a "military license" for heavy weaponry.
...but that doesn't mean it is right. Other games force you to use arcade physics, don't provide planetary descents, and treat combat like rolling dice.

This is how I see the issue of rank: I want to buy that shiny new weapons system over there. I have 50 million in cash ready to transfer to your account. Will you, as an enterprising arms dealer, really turn down cash because of something silly like rank? I know I sure wouldn't...

lol. Thanks for selectively ignoring the second line of my two line post.