| Author |
Close Jumping |
Captain Caveman
Cadet
Joined: October 12, 2002
Posts: 668
|  Posted: 2003-08-21 05:02
Just read Jimmy's and Eleda's post regarding a change to the accuracy of a plotted jump, and I must say that I liked it. Basically, they suggested that when a ship calculates a jump, their re-entry point will not be exact.
So here's a slightly more specific idea based on how missile accuracy is calculated (used to be my old job so I know a thing or two about this).
1) Ships have a minimum jump distance of 2000gu's.
2) Each ship has something called a CEP (circular error of probability) based on its size. The bigger the ship, the bigger the CEP. The CEP works, by being the radius of a circle, centred on the aim point, within which 50% of your jumps will land. The distance from your target could follow say, a normal distribution.
In plain English, this means that when you calculate a jump, half of them will land within this circle. The other half will fall outside of this circle (but not too far outside of the circle, and the probability of falling a long way outside the circle is very small, and will be a maximum of say, 1000gu's).
So just for arguments sake, heres some sample values for the different ship types.
a) Scout - CEP of 100 gu's (very accurate jumping)
b) Frigate - CEP of 200 gu's (accurate jumping)
c) Destroyer - CEP of 300 gu's (relatively accurate jumping, but theres a 50% chance that you will land outside of beam range of the target if you try to close jump it)
d) Cruiser - CEP of 400 gu's (50% of the time you will land at the edge of fusion torp range, and sometimes you will even land outside of fusion torp range)
e) Dreadnought - 500 gu's (Most of the time, you will land outside of beam range)
f) Station - 1000 gu's (Don't even bother trying to close jump)
What this will basically do, will be to decrease the number of closejump-alpha-die scenarios that we get at the moment. It will penalise the players that are good at close jumping, but crap at what I'd call proper combat, whilst rewarding the players who have the skills to fly properly.
If you're still not understanding it. Heres the simple version.
current method
Me can close jump. Me like close jumping. Me see damaged ship. Me close jump it because me good at close jumping. Me mash space bar. Me kill enemy ship that would normall kill me in open combat. Me like this. Me feel all warm inside. Me send message saying player is noob and crap.
new method
Me can close jump. Me like close jumping. Me see damaged ship. me close jump it because me good at close jumping. Me mash space bar. WAAAAAARGGGGGHHHH!!! Me outside torp and beam range. Why me not killing ship??? Ship starting to move now. It hurting me!!! Mummy!!! Make it stop!!! Quickly. Me press alt + F4!!!!!
Obviously, because probabilities are involved, on the odd occasion you will still jump within weapons range, but there will now be an element of chance introduced to the system so we will not see as many ships being destroyed simply because someone knows how to close jump.
Also, because this idea was taken from the frigates post, it might be possible to create a frigate specific device that could actually increase the accuracy of jumps, say a jump beacon (which could halve the cep of all ships that are jumping to the frigate), or simply add this increased jump accuracy to all beacons as they currently stand.
Though to be honest, this idea is pretty much negated by the jump and hit the floor running system currently in place in beta.
_________________
|
Barthezzz
Fleet Admiral
Joined: May 31, 2001
Posts: 5630
From: The Netherlands
| Posted: 2003-08-21 05:06
hmm NO.
My Planet Collisions are high enough as it is.
Not to mention that flying 1000 Gu to an enemy planet in a station sucks, i really dont want to have to do it with allied planets as well.
_________________
|
Captain Caveman
Cadet
Joined: October 12, 2002
Posts: 668
| Posted: 2003-08-21 05:11
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 05:06, Barthezzz the Crash Test Dummy wrote:
hmm NO.
My Planet Collisions are high enough as it is.
Not to mention that flying 1000 Gu to an enemy planet in a station sucks, i really dont want to have to do it with allied planets as well.
|
|
Stations were not meant to be capping machines. They were meant to be support ships, albeit big ones. You want to fly to a planet to pick up troops? Then you pay a penalty for doing so.
Planet collisions too high? Then simply jump further away from a planet.
_________________
|
Barthezzz
Fleet Admiral
Joined: May 31, 2001
Posts: 5630
From: The Netherlands
| Posted: 2003-08-21 05:28
Stations arent made to be support Ships.
They would need less weapons, less cargo and more Drone Bays.
And Stations dont need to be capping to have to jump to an allied planet.
And Jumping further away from the planet in a station is a bad idea, the game is slow enough as it is.
EveSpace here we come! 
And its not only Stations, Dreads will often crash into planets.
Cruiser planet crashes is going to be atleast double of what its now.
_________________
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2003-08-21 05:30
I like it.
especialy the minimum of 200Gu in order to jump 
At barth reply after the patch you will NOT be needed to orbit in order to drop inf we will have drop pods then and i think its range is about 300Gu.
so no more hope i can stop in time to drop just fly by and drop the inf
_________________
- Axi
|
Barthezzz
Fleet Admiral
Joined: May 31, 2001
Posts: 5630
From: The Netherlands
| Posted: 2003-08-21 05:34
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 05:30, Axianda *XO* wrote:
I like it.
especialy the minimum of 200Gu in order to jump
At barth reply after the patch you will NOT be needed to orbit in order to drop inf we will have drop pods then and i think its range is about 300Gu.
so no more hope i can stop in time to drop just fly by and drop the inf
|
|
Still it will really slow down the game for anything above Destroyer.
Of course, i only fly Assault dessies so why do i care.
Anyway, Like i said. Quake style play sucks and very slow aint to bad.
Just as long as you dont get between them because that seriously sucks.
_________________
|
Captain Caveman
Cadet
Joined: October 12, 2002
Posts: 668
| Posted: 2003-08-21 05:37
But Bart, lets be serious about this. The pre-dominant part of this game is combat. By preventing ships from close jumping and forcing them into open combat, the pre-dominant part of this game will improve. And surely that is worth slowing down the capping of planets that already takes an oscenely small amount of time.
_________________
|
Piotr-san
Chief Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: July 18, 2002
Posts: 385
From: Poland
| Posted: 2003-08-21 09:03
The station wasnt meant to.. dont make me sick with such sentencys faustus didnt know what for evrything was,support station yech right.Crusiers are already enough powerfull they after being close jumped can still bet that dread , cj is the only thing that keep ships like ead ad usefull.I know whats the purpose of your post 2-3 close jumping eads can bet even the best pilots and it doesnt suite ya.Eh who cars changes wich would help ds to become popular again like changes to newbie fa or
changes to dreads wont every come out maybe in the next year when faustus realise his game is dead.I nevre comment such posts couse evrything that i read for the last year gone to junk and its a waste of time trying to make that game better.
edit1:grammer
[ This Message was edited by: Piotr-san on 2003-08-21 09:07 ]
_________________
* LobbyGhost votes [PB]Piotr-San for most likly to be Dems mom
Raptus regaliter
|
Mortarr
Vice Admiral
Joined: January 29, 2002
Posts: 161
| Posted: 2003-08-21 09:43
Plak, on the one hand, you say you don't want QuakeSpace, yet with the next breath, you're worried CC's suggestion will slow the game down. We're a lot closer to "QuakeSpace" right now than we are "EverSpace". I'm sorry if you don't have the patience for the game as it is now. I happen to like CC's suggestion.
I would add one thing, though, to counter the fears of collisions with friendly planets.
A structure that can be built, call it an ILS (Instrument Landing System) Antenna, or what-have-you. If built on a planet, it allows accurate jumps to that planet only. As a possibility, if the planet's faction changes, the planet is self-destructed by "loyalist guerillas" to prevent the capture of IFF codes by the enemy.
_________________
The Light at the end of the tunnel has been switched off due to budgetary concerns.
|
Lith Ragond
Cadet
Galactic Navy
Joined: November 25, 2001
Posts: 1854
| Posted: 2003-08-21 09:53
i suggested this forever ago, and i got a "no dice" answer, i like the idea, i really do, but i dont think it is very probably for DS. plus, why would humans, 200+ years from now, not have an accurate navigation system?
_________________
|
DaMadCow
Fleet Admiral
Joined: July 20, 2001
Posts: 407
From: A Farm
| Posted: 2003-08-21 10:02
this may work once ships get rebalanced and such. But until then we probably need the shelve this.
_________________
|
Mortarr
Vice Admiral
Joined: January 29, 2002
Posts: 161
| Posted: 2003-08-21 10:03
Maybe because it's difficult to get navigational references from real space when you're travelling FTL?
_________________
The Light at the end of the tunnel has been switched off due to budgetary concerns.
|
Chromix
Cadet
Joined: June 29, 2001
Posts: 3052
| Posted: 2003-08-21 10:28
I suggested something similar long time ago. I like the general idea, the pinpoint precision is a problem, but some values would need some tweaking...
_________________
|
Malduc{-GTN-}
Cadet
Joined: January 19, 2003
Posts: 544
From: New Jersey
| Posted: 2003-08-21 10:50
This puts the larger ships at a serious disadvantage vs smaller ships. The AD and EAD for instance, their main power is jumping in and annhilating their opponent with a few well timed alphas. Take the kluth Shell and other destroyers for instance. Very fast, and very well armored. If you want to come kill it in an EAD and you jump say 500 gu from it in a precision jump that was aimed to be right on top of it. You are outside weapons range, and the smaller, faster ship now gets behind you, dodging your torps and not coming within beam range for some time. Your engines start flashing, your ship slows, and your turn radius all but disappears. The ship now moves to within beam range to finish you off. Personnally I don't like this idea, it will eliminate many people from considering the use of dreads, which is one of the best UGTO assets. I think this will seriously cripple the UGTO, for our cruisers aren't anything to shout at, and our assualt destroyer, while nice, has no special slot for reactor or eccm (vs kluth) to keep it going in all out combat for long, if at all vs a cloaked ship. This won't do very much to the kluth, who all use the smaller ships such as destroyers anyway, with the occasional ganglia/siphon. I don't like the values, but it is a decent idea. Maybe make the percentage of misjumping less and the range that you will miss much less. For instance, scouts 98% of jumping to their target, frigates 93%, destroyers 88%, cruisers 83%, dreads 78%, stations 73%. Then the ranges of misjumps will be greatly less than 1000 gu, even for stations, not sure about this though, but say a maximum of 300 gu off target? Just a suggestion, feel free to add, reply.
Malduc
_________________
The Bond of Brotherhood Shall Never Be Undone.....Nor Shall The Legacy of the Fleet Once Known as GTN
One Creed, One Bond, One FLEET.
Honor Is All
|
Juxtapose
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: May 11, 2002
Posts: 1308
From: Give me your bullets!
| Posted: 2003-08-21 10:59
Close Jumping is good...random endpoint locations are bad.
Without JumpGates on the new UniServer, I want to be able to plot a course from the ICC JG to land me in orbit around Mycopia in Luyten so I can refuel...without having to worry about it.
It would be unrealistic for the Jump Drive technology to be so haphazard. Sure maybe it was in the fictional past-tense of DS, but now people have been flying around for decades and all those little bugs have worked themselves out.
Jump Drives are like Airplanes. Would you ever fly if the probability of the Jet landing on the runway lessened with the amount of passengers taken onboard? No!! Why? Because there would be no Jets!
Its the same reason why folks don't drive around in Nuclear powered, Rocket cars at 600 mph. We got the technology, just the probability of your Honda Accord exploding, showering your suburb with nuclear debri is prohibitively high (not to mention all those damndable Tree-Huggers would certainly pickett the car Manufacturer).
So, my point is: Random Jumping is bad! Minium Jump range is o.k.
I agree with everypoint made by the apponents of random Jump Drives.
_________________
I type with the tongues of my enemies, ascend from the backs of my friends, ignore the plight of innocents, and dance on the graves of my gods
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
