Jump to content

Suggestion Please do not use a EVE lock on weapon system


banks456

Recommended Posts

 

 
Hi everyone,
 
Just to clarify on this topic:
We totally understand that First Person Shooter gameplay would be more immersive.
However, we have to take everything in account. And when we do, then we have to make some compromise.
We want combat, but combat is not the main feature of the game. Only one of the main features, equally important with building, real massively multiplayer system in a single-shard universe, exploration, trading, etc. Once this was sorted out, it was logic that we wouldn't sacrifice things like the massively multiplayer aspect just to have the best First Person Shooter possible. In that case, even if it's not the best combat mechanics (we totally agree on that), target locking combat gameplay is the answer for the best compromise. So it's not a decision led by personal taste, but really the most relevant decision on the technical aspect in our case.
 
We totally understand that it won't appeal to every player.
We are aware that our game won't satisfy everybody, and it's the same for any game.
 
Best regards,
Nyzaltar.

 

 

Thank you for responding to my question. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for all of your responses..   I'm sure this game will do very well but as for me the combat system is a deal breaker.   I've played EVE online and in my personally opinion their battles are boring by today's world standards.   In my personal opinion I rather have a limit on the number of players in one game with a fun combat style vs playing with 100s of players with a boring combat style.     I know people love EVE so they will flock to this game but it just isn't for me. I will stay with Space Engineers buggy and laggy  but fun combat style. lol  I do see this game being a much better version of EVE and maybe taking all of their fan base but to sell this combat style to Star Citzen or Elite Dangerous fan boys isn't something I see happening. Combat styles matter and FPS is the standard in that world. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not like to speculate, hence why I do not post as often as many do. I believe discussion on matters at hand is more important, but but due to combat being in development I think the lines are blurred between speculation and the matter at hand. So on with my 2 cents.

 

 

I have never played eve and have no clue how their system works, but I have played WoW for 10 years, Warhammer Online (RIP), SWTOR, GW2 and most recently Landmark (worst combat in the history of games, IMO). Most of my time spent in these games was PVP, although I did raid in WOW's early days (well earliest days I grinded High Warlord for 7 months on Sargeras Horde).

 

 

Nyzaltar already said the game is going to be target locked/tab targeting. Personally I find this very welcoming. I prefer this type of combat probably because that is what most of the games I have played over 10 years offer but I also like the roles that characters performed vs the "anyone can do anything" way of landmark, which is frankly extremely boring.

 

 

I personally think that tab targeting combat in Dual will make it more fun to play vs the first person perspective. I have gone back and forth on the issue but the more I delve into how the game could work with tab targeting, the more excited I get.

 

If "roll" elements are baked into attacks based on the type of ship we can balance the game in a somewhat simple way.

 

For example. It was mentioned that large ships could just tab to target a smaller ship and fire their guns pretty much instantly killing that small ship. While this will be the case, if we set some rules governing the elements or ship size (based on voxel count) we can start to balance the combat.

 

I think that dude to the mechanical nature of the elements, the things that make the ship fly, that they should be included in a roll when a ship is attacked...let me just break down a scenario.

 

 

Large capital ship vs a small 1 man "premade" ship:

• Small ship is quicker (0 to 60 time) but not faster (high speed) vs the capital ship.

• Small ship can maneuver faster (turning, acrobatic moves etc flying all around the capital ship), capital ship pretty much moves in a large arc or straight line.

• Small ship targets large ship and fires their guns. The small ship has a 100% chance on hit to hit the capital ship (reduced by distance), a % to roll on hitting a visible element (like engines, guns etc based on the amount of elements vs the amount of voxels the capital ship has), a roll to actually hit the element or the voxels surrounding it. The higher the elements the higher the chance to hit an element, and then finally the roll on how much damage the small ship will do to that particular element or voxel based on weapon size and or type.

 

The capital ship would work like this.

• Capital ship targets smaller ship with giant cannon. 50% chance on hit to annihilate the small ship, but a 5% chance the capital could even hit a small ship in the first place. The more powerful the gun, the longer the cooldown before it can attack again.

 

 

Of course this could be even more complex but this is just a basic idea on how it could play out. Think of it as a tank vs DPS balance in the typical MMO. Tanks (large ships) do crummy damage but can take a beating. DPS do lots of damage but take little damage (well not a lot of damage vs a tank). Then instead of just having the two classes we see tiers of classes based on ship size which is a value based on the density of voxel count and elements.

 

Large ships would be tough against small ships, probably not destroyable. No Luke vs Death Star scenarios here. Small ships would be vulnerable, but unlikely to get hit in the first place.

 

Now, a large capital ship vs another large capital ship...that could be interesting. The % to hit goes up due to the targets being larger mass and the damage goes up.

 

Anyway. I need to eat, these are some basic ideas I pulled off the top of my head. I am sure all of them are open to critique.

 

EDIT: One thing to note. The different elements are going to be your "spells" on your action bar. In wow I had over 75 keybinds. I imagine large capital ships will have a full UI with tons of buttons, small ships not so much. I would imagine if you had 3 large guns they would all fire on the same key, but have modifiers applied due to the amount of guns being fired. Of course chance to hit would also be based on an arc. If your guns are all firing forward and the ship is behind you, they would not fire on it. Simple facing.

 

 

 

I don't know what Dual has in store for combat so everything I said could be pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for my imperfect English, I'm not a native speaker.

This is so strange to me. While there have been one-shard space sim MMOs with skill based targeting even 15 years ago despite the old hardware and dial up connections, nowadays it should be impossible? I don't buy that for a second.

A game as old as Jumpgate is still the benchmark then which all of the new space games miss. Surely it was not as massive as WoW or EVE, and the devs did probably not become millionaires, but it worked very well and was profitable for more than a decade. It is such a fine niche game that I am yearning for today.

Nowadays there are only instancing hells like Elite or Star Citizen, games that claim to be multiplayer but put ridiculous distances between players to avoid interaction like No Man's Sky, or games that sacrifice something as crucial for immersion in a space game as manual piloting and fighting for the rather silly goal of having "hundreds or thousands of players in one battle", as EVE or DU.

I tried EVE, and coming from the highly immersive Jumpgate, couldn't believe the success of this boring eye candy interface to a spread sheet program.

It would be so easy with the giant procedurally generated game worlds that are possible nowadays to hit the sweet spot of distributing players in a way that avoids loneliness as well as overcrowding.

Instead of cramming hundreds or even thousands of players in the same place, why does no game come up with intelligent game mechanics to spread people before overcrowding up to the server limits takes place?

You can make use of the vast game worlds to spawn new players not too close and not too far away from each other, have a nav computer offering alternative similar destinations if the first destination is becoming crowded, a dynamic mission system to lure players away from places that are in danger to get filled up, have a readout of ship density in the map, you can have random hits in battles at distances at which even skilled pilots can't hit other than randomly instead of precise tracking and calculating, and avoid unique attractions in the game that everyone wants to visit, like planet Earth.

Just a few ideas to avoid instancing even without mind-blowing new server technology or sacrificing highly immersive game mechanics. I am sure if dedicated game devs would just decide to think in this direction, a real one-shard space sim MMO can be achieved easily with the technology of today.

It is especially strange to me that a game as ambitious as DU in many fields throws in the towel so quickly when it comes to the basic quality of a space sim - piloting your own ship and fighting in a way that is fun.

I don't want to be a tiny cog in a monstrous machine like a "battle of thousands", I don't want to build a gigantomaniac bloody death star - my prime objective is to simply FLY my ship in a an open world without dreadful instancing again before I die. :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A game as old as Jumpgate is still the benchmark then which all of the new space games miss. Surely it was not as massive as WoW or EVE, and the devs did probably not become millionaires, but it worked very well and was profitable for more than a decade. It is such a fine niche game that I am yearning for today.

1 shard + massive = high ping. HIgh ping = terrible fps experience, so the game has to be targetlocked.

 

 

 Tab-targeting could negate jet-fighters entirelly, since tab-targeting them would mean instant-death froma battleship's cannons.

 

This could be balanced by making the battleship's cannons turn rate unable to keep up with the speed of a fighter, like it is in EveOnline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 shard + massive = high ping. HIgh ping = terrible fps experience, so the game has to be targetlocked.

Jumpgate was 1 shard and delivered great fps experience for about 30 pilots in the same sector with the technology of 15 years ago. Today battles between 100 ships shouldn't be a problem. I don't need bigger battles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Junmpgate was 1 shard and delivered great fps experience for about 30 pilots in the same sector with the technology of 15 years ago. Today battles between 100 ships shouldn't be a problem. I don't need bigger battles.

 

you may not, a battle over the domination for a major moon or similar most likely will (if DU gets a proper playerbase)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great posts, Thoger, even though I disagree.

 

Dual Universe space combat, as described by NovaQuark, reminds me of original Battlestar Galactica. I think even the Vipers used a form of gun lock.

When I'm thinking about cruiser battles -which is more the direction NovaQuark is looking forward to- we will likely need target locks since gunners and pilots are likely to be manned by separate characters. As the cruiser veers in whichever direction, the gunners on port or starboard or aft still need to be able to destroy their targets.

We'll need to play to weigh in meaningfully.

 

I'm hoping to use a solo ship primarily for exploration rather than battle and have battle primarily from a multi-crew ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you may not, a battle over the domination for a major moon or similar most likely will

it's a question of game balancing. A game can be balanced to take out a moon with 1 player or with 1000 players. My prefered magnitude would be 100 because it allows battles big enough to get lost in and a satisfying experience of flying and fighting.

 

I think even the Vipers used a form of gun lock.

I don't know, it looked rather tense and action-packed for me. Neither in a movie or TV series nor in a game the fight mechanics should be realistic, but immersive and fun. I agree having the computer fighting the battle and the pilot leaning back - or rather having unmanned drones - will be the most realistic form of air or space fight in the far future. But it won't make a satisfying game.

 

I'm hoping to use a solo ship primarily for exploration rather than battle

Exploration should also be a demanding task - even in deep space one should have to face occasional encounters with AI enemies (space monsters, alien ships or automated defense systems) to make it more interesting. (I don't like pseudo-human NPCs in an MMO though - all human avatars / ships should be players.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll have to see how many people fit on a cruiser. 

100 players may only be 5-10 cruisers. A cruiser to cruiser battle should probably last 20-30 minutes at least.

How long will it take to build and/or repair a cruiser?

When it takes hours or days or months to build a cruiser, FPS paced combat which can destroy a cruiser isn't balanced gameplay.

 

Action-paced is relative.

In the demo we've seen, that solo ship is flying at an action pace and would lose a tab-target lock as seen in WoW or EQ in just a handful of seconds.

We'll have to play the game to see how easy it is to maintain a target lock on solo ships as they maneuver around through space.

We don't actually know what that will feel like in Dual Universe.

What we do know is that combat needs to be slow enough for various tactical teams on cruisers to be able to respond with countermeasures.

 

"Realistic", "immersive", "fun", "satisfying" are all subjective.

And, again, we have to keep in mind who the primary target audience is - players who wish to be able to destroy objects at an action pace or players who will be taking days and weeks to build complex objects.

FPS pace is great when players and objects can just respawn and jump back into the fray in a matter of seconds. It's not optimal for RPG tactics or games where it takes several hours or days or weeks to build objects.

 

Again, "demanding" is subjective.

All kinds of ways to make exploration interesting without combat being the primary focus.

Survival in space won't necessarily be about combat in a game that's hoping to include toxicity, etc.

Avoiding radiation fields or solar flares - resupplying fuel. We don't know what kinds of challenges and obstacles will be implemented, but it doesn't have to be primarily about combat. 

And I hope space exploration is not primarily about combat. But, with open PvP in most areas, I expect combat to be readily available.

 

All-human avatars in space is not at all realistic.

Also, the lore already mentions alien ruins. I don't know how often we will be encountering non-human NPC pilots - realistically, it should happen at some point.

I expect the vast majority of space combat will be human players who originated in Arkships from Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll have to see how many people fit on a cruiser. 

100 players may only be 5-10 cruisers.

It lacked precision when I said 100 "players"; I meant 100 "ships (moving objects that are involved in combat) controlled by players". (Edit: In my second post, I even said "ships", not "players".) Avatars who are inside ships just follow the movement of the ship (plus some movement relative to it if they move inside the ship), which shouldn't increase the server load in a battle significantly (should be close to zero if an avatar is required to be seated at his station to operate the controls in battle).

 

When it takes hours or days or months to build a cruiser, FPS paced combat which can destroy a cruiser isn't balanced gameplay.

Small, manually controlled fighter crafts should of course not be able to take out a cruiser one on one (but should have a chance of survival if flown by a skilled pilot because of superior speed and agility). The most effective strike forces should be cruisers accompanied by fighters, not just cruisers or just fighters. Cruisers should not be effective for quick, precise destruction of specific parts of a ship or installaton, but should be the highly armored backbone (perhaps refuel / rearm / repair platform) of a squadron which can't be destroyed quickly.

 

We'll have to play the game to see how easy it is to maintain a target lock on solo ships as they maneuver around through space.

That could indeed make piloting skills relevant for combat even with a target lock system, good idea. A pilot who just hits a button and leans back shouldn't have a chance to win, and an attacked pilot who doesn't fly evasive maneuvers should be dead quick. If DU implements such a system instead of EVE- style "press a button and watch the dice rolling", I will give it a try. But it may be a small step from such a system to full-blown manual combat which I would still prefer.

 

What we do know is that combat needs to be slow enough for various tactical teams on cruisers to be able to respond with countermeasures.

Cruisers just need to be sufficiantly armored to survive long battles instead of having boringly sluggish battles.

 

And, again, we have to keep in mind who the primary target audience is - players who wish to be able to destroy objects at an action pace or players who will be taking days and weeks to build complex objects.

But it makes no sense to sacrifice one of these target audiences - and the third target audience who would like to do both - without necessity. A game can be balanced to cater for all of these playstyles and some more.

 

FPS pace is great when players and objects can just respawn and jump back into the fray in a matter of seconds. It's not optimal for RPG tactics or games where it takes several hours or days or weeks to build objects.

I dont see a problem here at all. Of course smaller crafts should be easier and quicker to build and replace, but also easier to destroy to balance things out - easy. And keep in mind it wil be hard and take time to design / build / script a ship from scratch, but once you have the blueprint and the necessary ressources, replacing it wil be considerably easier and quicker.

 

All kinds of ways to make exploration interesting without combat being the primary focus.

Of course, I completely agree with that. I am by no means a player who is just focussed on fighting, I hate simple shooter games. But as soon as fighting is an element of a game, it should be made interesting, and then it can also be an interesting ingredient to spice up exploration. Only spicing it up occasionaly, not the main focus, I totally agree.

 

All-human avatars in space is not at all realistic.

I don't get what you mean here (perhaps due to my limited English). You mean there should not be just human avatars, but also alien avatars? And by avatars you mean players, not NPCs? - In that case I don't agree. All aliens (and their ships) should be AI and all humans (and their ships) should be players to avoid confusion. I hate it if AI as stupid as a brick pretends to be human in an MMO, that's highly immersion-breaking for me, and I want to know quickly if I am facing a player or an NPC.AI as aliens (or machines) is way more plausible than as pseudo-humans because their lack of communication and non-human behaviour can be explaind by their otherness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would actually be pretty easy to fake twitch combat. Just require the cursor to be over the targeting bracket for a weapon to fire. You can use more precise systems targeting through the GUI.

 

Lots of games have used traditional MMORPG tab targeting and then added some stupidly simple aiming input which changes absolutely nothing on the server's end. Games which come to mind are Tabula Rasa, SWG NGE, and The Repopulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Jumpgate with close to realistic Newtonian physics, "jousting" (straight on, turn, straight on) only worked against the weakest AI.

And I think there is less to worry about battles on the ground, because the movements are basically 2D instead of 3D, which should mean less strain for servers and clients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Thoger

Uhm, this is not EVE 2.0 mate. It's not 2D movement with cool graphics to make you forget of that. The problem with ship combat being tab-target is due to the sheer sizes of the ships and how much of a toll it would take on the server to calculate real-time tracking of shots.  Look at the image of the turrets in the game and see how big they are in comparison to the playable character. Ships need tab-targeting as of lore-wise logicall standpoint, as ships in FutureSpace would run on quantum processors or whatever, making manual targetting a thing of the past (check the Lost Fleet series for more on that, the author is an ex-navy ship driver and has pinned down the whole space-jousting thing).


Also, DO YOU EVEN PHYSICS BRO?


Ships rushing at one another at high speeds and carrying  ENORMOUS MASS , can't simply "turn".  It comes down to angle of approach, which is how DU is probably going about it, given the LUA script examples they released. You build your ship like a trap, perhaps with powerful turrets on the back and a missile bay aiming behind you and bait an enemy into following, then you blow them up or whatever. That's how they go about combat in space the way I see it. Pre-planned tactics, instead of Call of Duty, sugar-rushed twitch monkey reflexes.


So, sit down, bring out your spreadsheets and start thinking ahead of your enemies. 


Do what Batman does.


Invest a lot of time and money into building your gear, make sure you have utilitiy functions on board your ship and have a plan to kill ANYTHING in your way (usually, by shooting at it).



DISCLAIMER : I am talking of the Batman in the movie Murderman VS Captain Hypocrite : Dawn of Killing, so chill your titters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhm, this is not EVE 2.0 mate. It's not 2D movement with cool graphics to make you forget of that.

Concerning 2D I was referring to ground combat which you brought up. There is considerably fewer movement in the third dimension on the ground compared to space. But I'm afraid with EVE-style combat, it really would be EVE 2.0, even to the point of making three dimensions in space rather pointless, since there would be no need to be a skilled pilot making effective use of them during battles.

 

The problem with ship combat being tab-target is due to the sheer sizes of the ships and how much of a toll it would take on the server to calculate real-time tracking of shots.

Ship size is quite irrelevant for the server load, it is the complexity and speed of movements in combination with the amount of ships taking part in a battle that determines the strain. You did not read this thread, did you? There was quite some detailed discussion about it already.

 

Look at the image of the turrets in the game and see how big they are in comparison to the playable character.

Again, not at all relevant for the server load.

 

ships in FutureSpace would run on quantum processors or whatever, making manual targetting a thing of the past

I already adressed that: "Neither in a movie or TV series nor in a game the fight mechanics should be realistic, but immersive and fun. I agree having the computer fighting the battle and the pilot leaning back - or rather having unmanned drones - will be the most realistic form of air or space fight in the far future. But it won't make a satisfying game."

 

Ships rushing at one another at high speeds and carrying  ENORMOUS MASS , can't simply "turn". 

That's right. I was talking about small and agile fighter crafts. In Jumpgate, big freighters carrying heavy cargo had an enormous inertia (breaking distance), which, because of full-blown manual control, required specific skill and experience to handle - which was great and fun, and allowed pilots to specialize in space trucking since not everyone could handle it.

 

Pre-planned tactics, instead of Call of Duty, sugar-rushed twitch monkey reflexes.

I am 48 and I want to play with my reflexes involved as long as I have them. But full-blown nanual space flight and battles are not so much about reflexes, more about a steady hand, situation awareness, and, would you believe, a lot of tactics: chosing the primary targets wisely, chosing the effective weapon and movement pattern depending on speed, armor and distance of the enemies, estimating the amount of missiles and afterburner fuel they have left, etc; a lot more tactical decisions must be made when not flying solo but in a squad: what combination of different ship types is most effective, be aware who needs urgent support to allow him to back off to regenerate the shields, be aware not to "steal a kill", is there time to dock / repair / refuel or is it better to sacrifice a ship and return to the battle in a new one, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Thoger


The combat as far as they have described it, is going to be tab-targeting with cone of fire. And by what I gathered from everyhing I read, they intend for the ship to move WASD style, possibly Q & R for roll, A & D for yaw.


Concerning ground combat, the fact that gravity is a factor in the game engine, makes the high ground an even greater advantage (for obvious reasons). Plus, player-built cities. I mean, nuff said. Urban warfare taken to the ultimate extreme. Possible high-rises, apartment buildings and so on. And since the game is first-person, I can see ground combat possibly being dealt with TERA Online's lock-on, which treats your "attack speed" as your "casting speed" and your animation is the time to lock. Or they could go the first-person movement prediction combat, who knows. 


Plus, I have the impression that people will catch up to the fact that ACTUAL space combat is not Star Wars broadsiding combat, but literal starship-jousting. I can see people scripting their ships on timers to pivot their battleship's reinforced bowl to meet the brand of an attack. You know, shit in space flies fast. You need to pre-plan an attack to the last second before contact is made for some brief moments (the way Nyaltar explained it on the Answers thread), cause you won't be dogfighting a battleship, it's not the open seas and starships are not sailing on wind. Jet-fighters will probably have the benefit of being so agile, that lock-on will be difficult, due to their speed, so it makes jet-fighter dogfights viable for that class of ship, possibly going up to a Destroyer-class starship.


In such context, a Lock-On system for ships is functional. It makes sense you need to rely on lock-on for your weaponry. It's FutureSpace and shit. 



P.S. : Funny how Star Citizen's "realism" dictates that frigging battlecruisers in space dog-fight each other. Because you know, people mastered FTL, but advanced lock-on mechanics? Pfffft, ain't nobody got time for that.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the motivation behind it, but the lockon mechanics take much of the immersion away from actually experiencing the game as a first-person avatar.

It would be IMHO better if Novaquark would compromise by scaling down the size of players in an instance to allow for manual aiming and real-time projectiles during combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for all of your responses..   I'm sure this game will do very well but as for me the combat system is a deal breaker.   I've played EVE online and in my personally opinion their battles are boring by today's world standards.   In my personal opinion I rather have a limit on the number of players in one game with a fun combat style vs playing with 100s of players with a boring combat style.     I know people love EVE so they will flock to this game but it just isn't for me. I will stay with Space Engineers buggy and laggy  but fun combat style. lol  I do see this game being a much better version of EVE and maybe taking all of their fan base but to sell this combat style to Star Citzen or Elite Dangerous fan boys isn't something I see happening. Combat styles matter and FPS is the standard in that world. 

Indeed! The concept of "spell-casting and rolling the dice" by clicking on enemy ships has been done for over 10 years in EVE. Simply reusing those archaic mechanics takes away much of the novelty and appeal of the otherwise fantastic concept of DU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could a hybrid system work?

 

We know that a lock-on system simply isnt as much fun. It takes away the freedom that you want in a game world that you create and populate.

 

The devs have stated that large ships could have huge crews... what if crews are required for manual firing?

 

(This is just my example, not sure how much would be feasible in the game) For example, say a frigate has 6 turrets and a crew of 10. Take 4 away for pilot, copilot, engineer, and navigator. Those 6 remaining members could each operate a turret and give it manual firing ability. Now say the crew is just the core 4 (im TMing that, I like the sound of it), the copilot could have the ability to lock on to fire the turrets.

 

This could do two things:

1) It would promote flying in crews rather than alone and thus reduce the number of ships in a battle, easing the computational requirements.

2) It still allows the lock-on system to be in place.

 

If you think about it, would you rather have 50 people manning 25 ships, or 50 people manning 5? I feel like that along could reduce the computational requirements enough to allow manual fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to the latest gameplay footage, I begin to believe the devs aim for a lock-on system but like TERA's system. You have to maintain your crosshairs on the target to do dmg to them and if they exit your lock-on area, you miss them. It's not gonna be a point and click adventure like EVE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, it would be great if we could target certain points on an enemy construct. Something like a clip in ST: Nemesis (1:08:27 or so) you see Data selecting targets on the Scimitar. For example, I see their huge engines at the rear, so I target those to prevent their escape. Or I see that they have a large, windowed section on top of their ship, so I target that, thinking it's the bridge. Or I could take a guess at where their reactor is, so I target that.

 

This would give rise to a "Tactical" station where the crewman at tactical relays coordinates to the turrets rather than having them shoot at the centroid of the enemy construct by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On top of that, it would be great if we could target certain points on an enemy construct. Something like a clip in ST: Nemesis (1:08:27 or so) you see Data selecting targets on the Scimitar. For example, I see their huge engines at the rear, so I target those to prevent their escape. Or I see that they have a large, windowed section on top of their ship, so I target that, thinking it's the bridge. Or I could take a guess at where their reactor is, so I target that.

 

This would give rise to a "Tactical" station where the crewman at tactical relays coordinates to the turrets rather than having them shoot at the centroid of the enemy construct by default.

Judging by the latest gameplay footage, you could tag Elements on a ship to destroy, with possible impact forces being dispersed on nearby voxels. It would make for great tactical counter-play if a ship was built with an obvious point to taunt the enemy into focusing there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...