Leaked updated ship speeds

[GRIZZ]

Spoiler

Saw this on Mitauchi's chat, they were talking about this leaked list of ship speeds in the upcoming build.  Even if its real, nothing is final, take it as you will and try not to overreact.

[Amy Babe]

slow motion spotted ?

these look like the speed during the early ages of a.c.

 

the hornet becomes more agile than saber...

joke?

[Riley Egret]

I'ts been shoot down already, it was on Reddit too.

[CC-Corp]

only thing i'd be ok with on this list is the connie speed at cruz 900 yeah thats better  M50 speed baby ZOOM ZOOM

[GeraldEvans]

Wow. The scout slowed down some.

[Tallhart]

Apparently they are testing how combat feels when they halve the SCM speeds of all ships.

[Taldren]

The Vanguard should be far faster in AB / Cru then medium/light fighters, and far slower in Roll/Pitch/Yaw. It should accelerate more slowly too for that feeling of mass, but over half the ship is freaking engine ... it should really MOVE.

[Tom Villder]

5 hours ago, Morcar Tallhart said:

Apparently they are testing how combat feels when they halve the SCM speeds of all ships.

It would be the next logical step... slow down all ships across the board and then tweak each one based on its combat performance with the reduced speeds.  The last thing you want is medium/large ships matching speed with single-seater dogfighters and scouts.

[Caldon]

Well, it should certainly make dogfighting be less about endless strafing and more about being a good shot, pulling the best maneauvers, etc... But it might backfire and make dogfighting boring as hell

[Tom Villder]

39 minutes ago, Caldon said:

Well, it should certainly make dogfighting be less about endless strafing and more about being a good shot, pulling the best maneauvers, etc... But it might backfire and make dogfighting boring as hell

Strategy would be more important than just a matter of having the faster ship... it would also make broadsiding a possibility for larger ships.  Imagine a Retaliator and Constellation facing each other head on (like jousting) and now, when they pass each other with the slower speeds, the turrets can perform a broadside attack while both ships are maneuvering for another pass.

 

Quote

But it might backfire and make dogfighting boring as hell

If that is the case, they could tweak them all back up and then we could all be rest assured that they explored the possibility of slowing down the ships.

[Cincinnatus]

13 hours ago, Taldren said:

The Vanguard should be far faster in AB / Cru then medium/light fighters, and far slower in Roll/Pitch/Yaw. It should accelerate more slowly too for that feeling of mass, but over half the ship is freaking engine ... it should really MOVE.

Taldren, I completely agree that is how the vanguard was pitched.  The ship just is not that at all right now.  I would ok with quads in front changed to size 3 as well to give more firepower. 

2 hours ago, Caldon said:

Well, it should certainly make dogfighting be less about endless strafing and more about being a good shot, pulling the best maneauvers, etc... But it might backfire and make dogfighting boring as hell

It would still be circle strafing.  It would just make the ships more agile/ the super hornet would not be drifty. My guess is that it would be maneuvering in 1.3 but with jerk that would make planning your next move more important? 

[Amy Babe]

some contentes from Chris Roberts on this point:

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/347508/we-may-be-in-for-an-across-the-board-scm-speed-reduction#latest

[Danakar Endeel]

This may actually be a good thing if true.

I don't know about you guys, but I still think that 0.8 had it just right in terms of speed and feel of the old Wing Commander. After that CIG increased the speeds in 0.9 and to me that felt like it went from tactical positioning to arcade twitch shooter.

Now fighters may actually be able to target key components on ships (like turrets or thrusters) instead of just spraying their target with random hits until they blow up.

At any rate, we'll just have to try it first and see how it feels.

[Caldon]

The only thing remaining is component targeting, and we're all set

[DirtDiver2Nine]

Targeting a ships specific systems I.E engines, weapons and so on was something I was so pumped for because ED does this actually rather well and my thinking was "Well ED does this pretty good, Soooooo CIG should do this amazing because of the damage state systems and because it's F&$#ing Chris Roberts!" ..... And what we have now is ~Pew Pew Pew x10.....Space ship explodes~ ... So I hope when 2.6 drops we have that or at least 3.0

[Danakar Endeel]

Looking at that list, the only thing I find odd is the agility of the Sabre and Hornet. As I recall the Sabre was supposed to be the 'ninja' and more agile, but in this list the Hornet is actually more agile than the Sabre. That's a little peculiar.

EDIT: Just noticed that Amy Babe spotted the same thing.

 

[Karmaslap]

On 9/25/2016 at 0:31 PM, Caldon said:

The only thing remaining is component targeting, and we're all set

Except that if we are able to target specific components, then people are likely going to be keeping their guns on each other the whole time, giving a huge advantage to ships with more firepower and lowering the worth maneuverability

But we'll see of course

 

[Caldon]

6 minutes ago, Karmaslap said:

Except that if we are able to target specific components, then people are likely going to be keeping their guns on each other the whole time, giving a huge advantage to ships with more firepower and lowering the worth maneuverability

But we'll see of course

 

Well, that's one possible down side. A plus side is the ability to shoot a person's engines to stop them, disable their life support to take a ship intact, or indeed disable weapons to make them an easy target.

And ships with more firepower should win from those with less, unless the person flying the less powerful ship has more skill. The computer systems, as demonstrated in the PTU today, are not perfect. Skill will triumph over the computer's targeting, making the system balance itself really. A computer cannot predict how a human will suddenly turn and spin and what not. It can only deal with data it already has, so it's easy to throw it (and the enemy pilot) for a loop with an agile ship.

[Riley Egret]

On 25/9/2016 at 7:57 PM, Danakar Endeel said:

This may actually be a good thing if true.

I don't know about you guys, but I still think that 0.8 had it just right in terms of speed and feel of the old Wing Commander. After that CIG increased the speeds in 0.9 and to me that felt like it went from tactical positioning to arcade twitch shooter.

Now fighters may actually be able to target key components on ships (like turrets or thrusters) instead of just spraying their target with random hits until they blow up.

At any rate, we'll just have to try it first and see how it feels.

The idea behind it is clear, the implementation is still far off.

I have no doubt the SH will be slower/less agile than the Sabre in the end.

[Karmaslap]

2 hours ago, Caldon said:

And ships with more firepower should win from those with less, unless the person flying the less powerful ship has more skill.

Yes, exactly. If aiming becomes too easy, then skill isn't going to factor in as much when the less-skilled pilot can just hard strafe to keep moving and space turret the better pilot.

[Cincinnatus]

4 hours ago, Caldon said:

Well, that's one possible down side. A plus side is the ability to shoot a person's engines to stop them, disable their life support to take a ship intact, or indeed disable weapons to make them an easy target.

And ships with more firepower should win from those with less, unless the person flying the less powerful ship has more skill. The computer systems, as demonstrated in the PTU today, are not perfect. Skill will triumph over the computer's targeting, making the system balance itself really. A computer cannot predict how a human will suddenly turn and spin and what not. It can only deal with data it already has, so it's easy to throw it (and the enemy pilot) for a loop with an agile ship.

 

2 hours ago, Karmaslap said:

Yes, exactly. If aiming becomes too easy, then skill isn't going to factor in as much when the less-skilled pilot can just hard strafe to keep moving and space turret the better pilot.

 

Yeah, if they cut the overall speed with the existing jerk mechanics.  Your ship is stationary until your thrusters spool up.  The maximum speed means that you can't get that much separation or differential when you make a defensive move. 

@Caldon the pips are far better than a human being at determining aim points.  You have two ships tumbling in 3 axis and 3 orientations each.  I can't fire out how much to lead in those cases. You can add something to how much to lead the ship but it takes a good amount of time for this skill to be useful.  The amount to lead changes a good deal based on differential pings (between players), serve loads, etc... The problem is that agility is less useful  with jerk mechanics and a lower top speed.  When you beat a ship with superior move, you have a much shorter window of superiority before you hit top speed.  You hit top speed then can continue firing or make a move that throws off your shots. Overall, it would appear to make jukking better with the lower top speed. The problem is that jukking is super hard to well without having to direction of thrust which causes your ship to pause while the thruster move or spool up (jerk) then you are an easier target. 

The ability to target subsystems and components is already part of the xml commands for target.  It is just that we don't have the hit boxs setup for them.  Currently, I can target components on bigger ships.  The slow down makes taking out a small fighters components easier.  You can hit major areas (sections that break off) pretty easily on a freelancer or connie with practice without those areas being highlighted (lag pips OP).  

The problem is that decreasing a ship's agility means decreasing the number of viable options in a dogfight. This situation simplifies dogfighting and lowers the skill bar. I do not like this.  The time to kill increase also lowers the skill ceiling.  You can't kill people quickly when they make a mistake.  Therefore, you can't quickly turn a firepower disadvantage around.  It also means that a mistake in flying does not cost you as much, so it make sense to fly sloppy and just get more hits in. Also, jerk mechanics nerfed a good deal of the possible flight manuevers or made them not worth the possible downside from doing them imperfectly. A few new moves have been developed but they are not equivalent. I can see his style here

https://www.twitch.tv/sc_kronos/v/91337502

at 1:24 is a good place to watch

Anyone feel free to tell me where I am wrong. Please below should especially tell me that I am full of it

@Whatamuji, @XLB, @evilbyte, @Sir_Belial, @Karmaslap, @Caldon, @Aglanor, @Hlao, @FFFuu, 

[Aglanor]

I personally diverged on the present line of evolution of flight mechanics in December 2015. It's simply a matter of finding niches in dogfighting technique that work for me presently, because having ballistics not working often, the corpse bug, and the many glitches with weapons, makes me wait silently.

In theory, if they increase strafing maneuverability of light fighters along with reducing top speeds, it will be ok. Not sure if it is possible for them though.

[Caldon]

Quote

@Caldon the pips are far better than a human being at determining aim points.  You have two ships tumbling in 3 axis and 3 orientations each.  I can't fire out how much to lead in those cases. You can add something to how much to lead the ship but it takes a good amount of time for this skill to be useful.  The amount to lead changes a good deal based on differential pings (between players), serve loads, etc... The problem is that agility is less useful  with jerk mechanics and a lower top speed.  When you beat a ship with superior move, you have a much shorter window of superiority before you hit top speed.  You hit top speed then can continue firing or make a move that throws off your shots. Overall, it would appear to make jukking better with the lower top speed. The problem is that jukking is super hard to well without having to direction of thrust which causes your ship to pause while the thruster move or spool up (jerk) then you are an easier target. 

First of all, PIPs are better than humans at predicting where to fire, true. When a ship is flying in a predictable line. As soon as you start making turns and twists, the PIPs go all over the place, making agility very useful in the hands of a skilled pilot. One could in fact argue that it's easier to change direction with a lower top speed because you have less energy to dissipate in other directions. It's why making maneauvers is easier when slowed down, everyone just turned the thrusters up to 10 in normal gameplay.

As for jerking, afterburners provide a neat solution. If they increase acceleration a bit it'd be perfect.

Quote

The ability to target subsystems and components is already part of the xml commands for target.  It is just that we don't have the hit boxs setup for them.  Currently, I can target components on bigger ships.  The slow down makes taking out a small fighters components easier.  You can hit major areas (sections that break off) pretty easily on a freelancer or connie with practice without those areas being highlighted (lag pips OP).  

Targeting components on bigger ships is easy... Up close, where I'm usually shooting them But the fact that the subsystems targeting is already in the game (technically) is a good thing, because it means combat can become tactical and gives poorly armed ships a chance (shooting off the ball turret of a Hornet for example already greatly reduces it's field of fire).

Quote

The problem is that decreasing a ship's agility means decreasing the number of viable options in a dogfight. This situation simplifies dogfighting and lowers the skill bar. I do not like this.  The time to kill increase also lowers the skill ceiling.  You can't kill people quickly when they make a mistake.  Therefore, you can't quickly turn a firepower disadvantage around.  It also means that a mistake in flying does not cost you as much, so it make sense to fly sloppy and just get more hits in. Also, jerk mechanics nerfed a good deal of the possible flight manuevers or made them not worth the possible downside from doing them imperfectly. A few new moves have been developed but they are not equivalent. I can see his style here

You just said that being less agile made less-armed ships vulnerable. Shouldn't that decrease TTK since a ship is less likely to get out of the way in time?

But to the point, I mostly agree, except that A) The game should not be too difficult since people of all calibers will be wanting to have a shot at success at this game, making the game too difficult will drive them away, or just not give them the ability to learn. I agree that we shouldn't cater to the bad flyers too much a-la Blizzard, but it's still a game. And a game that isn't fun won't fly, and a game without a community dies.

B ) This is probably just a testing moment for CIG, see what works and what doesn't. If they decide that lowering speed is the way to go, they'll likely increase agility as well. Combined with the component targeting, the dogfighting will likely become more tactical rather than arcady.

[Rellim]

looks like a stat crunch to me, nothing else

[DirtDiver2Nine]

Christ Roberts gave an interview the other day to Gamer Nexus and talks about 2.6 update and at (4:20) time stamp CR talks about slowing ship speeds down in Arena Commander for dogfighting to be more up close.