Damage from collisions or rubber ball effect? The great in house debate! [Archive]

Sir_Cedric

02-21-2009, 02:50 AM

Ok I got this from the audio interview with Craig, mainly he said they want the game to be fun. So is it fun to have your ship getting damaged, meaning if you run into an asteroid and take damage to your ship? What if you do it by accident, is it still fun at the point? Well he said something like that, but mainly I get there is an in house debate on damage control in the game.

So should here be a risk of collisions in STO?

Would you get unset if you have to keep dragging your ship back in for repairs everytime you hit something?

Do you think things like asteroids should bounce off your ship with no effect to it?

What about PvP and the famous RAMMING SPEED?

I think this question is still up for debate in house, so lets help them figure out the answer, and post our thoughts on it here.

Thx guys.

Esp

02-21-2009, 03:04 AM

There's nothiong more unrealistic than the rubber ball 'effect'. (lack of effect, really)

CZ already told us we're getting full-on collisions, and tbh that's the only way I'd have it.

eNDIE

02-21-2009, 03:32 AM

I think it should do damage when bumping into something , maybe not so you explode but some tiny dmg:)

Maidel

02-21-2009, 03:46 AM

Do you think things like asteroids should bounce off your ship with no effect to it? .

Thats what the navigational deflector is for - its supposed to shape a path for the ship diverting small asteroids and debry away from the ship, especially as it travels at warp speeds.

Then again, if you are flying into a small planetoid, rather than an asteroid, id call that your own fault.

Having played Eve for 4 years and watching the near laughable 'bounce' effect every time you came within 1/2 a mile of an asteroid, well, i frankly hope this is VERY different.

rekon

02-21-2009, 03:49 AM

loyaltrekie

02-21-2009, 04:18 AM

Collisions cause damage but shields help. A ship mod to help further - e.g. in the case of asteroids, moving them or cutting a path through them or destroying small ones etc.

It depends on how likely collisions are. If they are a daily event, minimal damage is preferred. If ramming, even kamikaze ramming, is a viable option in combat, I will be mildly disappointed.

My issue isn't with how asteroids and things will effect starships, but rather with the PvP side of things. How all the talks, it seems space is going to be a little bit more "drawn out" and I would be sadly disappointed if there was a huge collision damage thing, considering how many people will take advantage of it. I can see it now everytime anyone gets for sake of a better example, "below 10% health", everyone is going to result to full engine power and ramming. It would kinda ruin it for me, personally I think the "kamikaee ram" should be left more to an ability rather then a "tactic", since its sure to be over used :(

Teejo08

02-21-2009, 04:35 AM

i would hate to have rubber ball effects they are annoying and remind you you are playing a game which prevents you from immersing yourself. But at the same time i don't want to be in and out of a starbase because some 5 year old decides he's going to ram every ship coming into the system.

wingnutf22

02-21-2009, 04:54 AM

Thats what the navigational deflector is for - its supposed to shape a path for the ship diverting small asteroids and debry away from the ship, especially as it travels at warp speeds.

Then again, if you are flying into a small planetoid, rather than an asteroid, id call that your own fault.

Having played Eve for 4 years and watching the near laughable 'bounce' effect every time you came within 1/2 a mile of an asteroid, well, i frankly hope this is VERY different.

Not really, the navigational deflector only deflects small thing like micro-meteoroids and the like, It won't deflect an asteroid that is about one-tenth the mass of a planet.

Maidel

02-21-2009, 05:24 AM

Not really, the navigational deflector only deflects small thing like micro-meteoroids and the like, It won't deflect an asteroid that is about one-tenth the mass of a planet.

...

erm - i love it when people only read the first sentance of a post.

Large asteroid = planetoid or mesoplanet or whatever you want to call it. Basically - if you can see the damn thing in the game and its about the same size as your ship (or bigger), then its your own fault if you fly into it.

As for it being used in PVP as an attack, i dont see the issue.

1) 'death' will have consquences, be it loss of prestige, dropping back down to a smaller ship class or other financial penalty.

2) Surely at 10% 'health' most people will be trying to escape, rather than ram you. The only reason this wont be the case is if they havent implemented point 1 above correctly.

3) A ship that is massively damaged and heading right towards you, will infact, be a damn easy target to take out, so its going to be a very risky practice that wont often pay off.

4) as for nubs that start ramming you for the hell of it with little ships - well - imaging it this way. A galaxy class star ship with full shields is rammed by a runabout. It would probably impact on the sheilds and explode doing very minimal damage to the ship it rammed. It takes something as massive as a soyuz to actually cause catastrophic damage to a galaxy class ship. So I dont think this will be an issue for longer term players.

Vicelance

02-21-2009, 05:26 AM

Maybe the game should have your helm officer take control and change direction when you are about to collide with an object. While I don't like the bouncing effect and especially don't like the phase through other ships like in Legacy, in large multiship battles we are bound to hit each other by accident, meaning entire fleets could be severly damaged before they even meet the enemy.

loyaltrekie

02-21-2009, 05:33 AM

...

erm - i love it when people only read the first sentance of a post.

Large asteroid = planetoid or mesoplanet or whatever you want to call it. Basically - if you can see the damn thing in the game and its about the same size as your ship (or bigger), then its your own fault if you fly into it.

As for it being used in PVP as an attack, i dont see the issue.

1) 'death' will have consquences, be it loss of prestige, dropping back down to a smaller ship class or other financial penalty.

2) Surely at 10% 'health' most people will be trying to escape, rather than ram you. The only reason this wont be the case is if they havent implemented point 1 above correctly.

3) A ship that is massively damaged and heading right towards you, will infact, be a damn easy target to take out, so its going to be a very risky practice that wont often pay off.

4) as for nubs that start ramming you for the hell of it with little ships - well - imaging it this way. A galaxy class star ship with full shields is rammed by a runabout. It would probably impact on the sheilds and explode doing very minimal damage to the ship it rammed. It takes something as massive as a soyuz to actually cause catastrophic damage to a galaxy class ship. So I dont think this will be an issue for longer term players.

Well since they aren't going to do the "ship death", and rather a "your ship respawns" deal, I wouldn't be suprsied to see a lot of people stacking defense in PvP and just charging you until you die. I used 10% health as a general population using it, but there will always be a group of people that take advantage of the game mechanics regardless. If they limited it to a very long ability for everyone(say like 1 or 2 hours), it would make it a whole lot better.

I can imagine the lameness now, a bunch of lowered tier, more defense then attack, style ships being used as torpedoes. I mean if your tier 1 ship could ram and destroy a tier 4 ship majority of the time, why wouldn't you?

Maidel

02-21-2009, 05:38 AM

I can imagine the lameness now, a bunch of lowered tier, more defense then attack, style ships being used as torpedoes. I mean if your tier 1 ship could ram and destroy a tier 4 ship majority of the time, why wouldn't you?

I aggree - that would be absolutely broken beyond all belief.

I can only hope they implement something more sensible - 'respawning' really does sound like a sucky idea - unless its done in a sensible manner (at a pre-set star base, with a time delay, possibly requiring time to reassign crew etc etc)

However, if given the choice beween bad game play and ramming and balanced game play and no ramming, ill take the second option.

knightofhyrule730

02-21-2009, 05:42 AM

Maidel

02-21-2009, 05:48 AM

usually pvp does not have death penalties attached to it. Soooo....
.

In the only other mainstream starship game there are death penalties (loss of ship, modifications, cargo, implants etc)

Therefore its not surprising that somepeople might expect it.

If you can 'die' and you immediately get an identical new ship, with identical modifications and identical crew - then quite frankly, whats the point? Human existance revolves around risk and reward - no risk - no reward = no fun.

knightofhyrule730

02-21-2009, 05:49 AM

You're not going to lose your ship, or gear lol. It'll probably just take some damage that a vendor can repair in a second.

edit: should that be the system, you'll never see people PVP ever. That is too high of a risk for little to no reward.

Maidel

02-21-2009, 05:51 AM

You're not going to lose your ship, or gear lol. It'll probably just take some damage that a vendor can repair in a second.

Do we know that as a fact? A lot of people are stating supposition as fact around here.

Maidel

02-21-2009, 05:52 AM

edit: should that be the system, you'll never see people PVP ever. That is too high of a risk for little to no reward.

Go play Eve for a few days - trust me 250K subscribers dont see that as an issue - and its almost 90% a PVP game.

knightofhyrule730

02-21-2009, 05:55 AM

Ah, but you see, no one really likes EvE's idea about permadeath ships.

And actually, there's a reason I don't play eve. That's it. I don't want to work for a year getting an NX91001 and then having it explode because i crashed into an asteroid when my connection failed. You won't see permadeath ships. I promise you.

edit: cryptic has said its only going to be a "light" death penalty. That also supports my idea. Losing a ship or your gear is not light, imo

loyaltrekie

02-21-2009, 06:00 AM

Go play Eve for a few days - trust me 250K subscribers dont see that as an issue - and its almost 90% a PVP game.

I'm going to guess you don't actually play eve or you would know that the entire playerbase doesn't troll 0.0, since they know they have the chance of getting ripped apart.

Esp

02-21-2009, 06:00 AM

Chiyeko

02-21-2009, 06:04 AM

Bounce=bad take out a lot of fun.

And ramming has been seen more than once in star trek and I see it as a thing you prepare for. mainly as most fights wont be a knife edge so you have plenty of time to GTFO or just blow them up. after all they move in a straight line couple of torps into the core and smile.

Maidel

02-21-2009, 06:15 AM

edit: cryptic has said its only going to be a "light" death penalty. That also supports my idea. Losing a ship or your gear is not light, imo

Well then - we shall see what there defintion of 'light' is.

Personally - id think along the lines of losing modifications and some of the training to your crew.

I'm going to guess you don't actually play eve or you would know that the entire playerbase doesn't troll 0.0, since they know they have the chance of getting ripped apart.

Yea - then that would be a bad guess. Played for 4 years since about 2 months after it started. Stopped playing about 4 months ago as it was just taking up too much of my life (had an ultimatum from my wife - Eve or me - she won)

Played in a Role playing corp for all that time that finally broke into 0.0 space and held it ever since. Same character name as im register here as - alliance was CVA, corp was IG if you want to look it up.

And you are quite right - the entire player base doesnt live in 0.0 - however seeing as you can war dec any corp, liviing in the 'safe' systems isnt exactly safe either - not to mention they released the statistics that 1/3 of the players live solely in 0.0, one third in safe space and the other 1/3 move around a lot. Shows that there is a LOT of people there who were happy with PVP and ship loss.

knightofhyrule730

02-21-2009, 06:16 AM

Collision is a viable space battle tactic... It's been done lots of times before. There will undoubtedly be some sort of death penalty - you won't see 100% healthy ships ramming for the fun of it.

A ship at 10% health attempts to ram you, chances are their engines are cream crackered. Just outrun it, firing phasers as you go. Defending against a possible ramming attack is a realistic part of any battle in Trek, so just go for it tbh. ANYTHING other than the god awful bounce-off rubbish.

O rly?

Situation:

4 Federations Crusiers are wtfpwning a group of klingon birds of pray. 2 other birds of pray in the same fleet get the call and go to the system to help. Instead of actually engaging, they cloak as soon as they arrive and then ram the 2 weakest ships. Destroying them.

Not saying that's not fair, but it is a viable tactic and you probably will see it happen if people either don't know how to play or just want to screw with people :P

Thats why to pvp you need to also be able to wear your "thin skin +5" item in real life.

Dext

02-21-2009, 06:19 AM

Ok I got this from the audio interview with Craig, mainly he said they want the game to be fun. So is it fun to have your ship getting damaged, if you run into an asteroid and take damage to your ship? What if you do it be accident, is it still fun at the point? Welll he said something like that, but mainly I get there is an in house debate on damage ontrol in the game.

So should here be a risk of collisions in STO?

Would you get unset if you have to keep dragging your ship back in for repairs everytime you hit something?

Do you think things like asteroids should bounce off your ship with no effect to it?

What about PvP and the famous RAMMING SPEED?

I think this question is still up for debate in house, so lets help them figure out the answer, and post our thoughts on it here.

Thx guys.

With this there should be some dos an don'ts like if you hit something, something should happen to your ship. There needs to be some kind of penalty for ramming or running in to something an if you die it is not like it will cost a lot to fix from what they have told us.

Maidel

02-21-2009, 06:19 AM

O rly?

Situation:

4 Federations Crusiers are wtfpwning a group of klingon birds of pray. 2 other birds of pray in the same fleet get the call and go to the system to help. Instead of actually engaging, they cloak as soon as they arrive and then ram the 2 weakest ships. Destroying them.

Not saying that's not fair, but it is a viable tactic and you probably will see it happen if people either don't know how to play or just want to screw with people :P

Thats why to pvp you need to also be able to wear your "thin skin +5" item in real life.

Surely all of that is just evidence that there needs to be some sort of death penalty.

loyaltrekie

02-21-2009, 06:32 AM

Surely all of that is just evidence that there needs to be some sort of death penalty.

Which again, if it turns in to just the weakining of the "equipment" aboard the ship, people will just use the zerg tactic of lower tiered ships with just "armor" to increase life, and propulsion and ram people.

knightofhyrule730

02-21-2009, 06:33 AM

Surely all of that is just evidence that there needs to be some sort of death penalty.

Possibly. Though you're not going to lose your entire ship. It may not even take durability damage, like in WoW. We really don't know. What we do know is that we can't argue it because neither of us will fold :P

I'm going to assume though that there's going to be some way to thwart that situation. Maybe with an upgraded science ship?

Maidel

02-21-2009, 06:36 AM

Possibly. Though you're not going to lose your entire ship. It may not even take durability damage, like in WoW. We really don't know. What we do know is that we can't argue it because neither of us will fold :P
?

Meh - i never fold, always bluff until you are beaten. :)

But seriously - i said before id take a non-broken game without collisions to a broken game with ramming in it.

Sinclair

02-21-2009, 06:50 AM

I think the screenshots look great.

Sir_Cedric

02-21-2009, 07:55 AM

How about this as an idea guys.

Why not have different zones for damage?

Meaning this.

Zone A - This area can be where we begin the game, and where we learn how to use our ships. No Collision damage possiable

Zone B - Areas with a slight risk to them, and you can be lightly damaged from Collisions.

Zone C - Moderate risks, and you ship can get up to 50% damage if your not careful.

Zone D - High risk areas, and you ship can take on full damage if your not careful. Watch you speeds in these crowded areas of space.

PvP zones will have high risk too, so why not leave the ramming tactic in play here. If you want to use the last bit of health of your ship to ram, more power to you.

IMO I understand Craig and the DEV team want the game to be fun, so if they break up the areas into different zones like I am saying, maybe everyone will have the best of both worlds. :D

USS_Parallax

02-21-2009, 08:01 AM

Ramming for damage leads to suicide fights. Either make there be no damage or limit the amount of damage. Maybe make it so ramming can't finish off an opponent so suicide proves much less useful.

I'm playing Star Trek not Terrorist Trek.

Sir_Cedric

02-21-2009, 08:06 AM

So if you ship is like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTAx8r_090o

You don't want a Ramming speed option?

whatinblueblazes

02-21-2009, 08:11 AM

How about this as an idea guys.

Why not have different zones for damage?

PvP zones will have high risk too, so why not leave the ramming tactic in play here. If you want to use the last bit of health of your ship to ram, more power to you.

IMO I understand Craig and the DEV team want the game to be fun, so if they break up the areas into different zones like I am saying, maybe everyone will have the best of both worlds. :D

I do like this idea as a compromise between the two -- although it would be difficult to justify this in-universe, I think it's a pretty sound gameplay mechanic.

If we were limited to a single collision damage mechanic, though, I would prefer to see moderate or greater damage result from ramming. In order to protect other players against ram spammers, I think certain measures should be taken.

In order to discourage ramming as a first-choice tactic by spammers, I think that damage inflicted by ramming should be proportional to the size of the craft performing the collision. For instance, a large ship will take considerably less damage from a small ship than from a large ship. Makes physical sense, right?

Now, if there were also a way by which players who consistently rammed enemy ships in PvP could be punished by restricting the size of ship they could use, that could reduce the efficacy of the "n00b maneuver" of constant ramming. That way, even if they ram all the time, they'd be the ones dying in their little corvettes.

Sir_Cedric

02-21-2009, 08:18 AM

USS_Parallax

02-21-2009, 08:21 AM

How about a countdown timer put on your in you ram? The more you do it, the higher the count goes each time you do it. So you could start off by getting a 5 minute count, then 10, 20, 40, and up and up it goes. This might help to curve the people who will do it cause they can. Just an idea.

How would that work? I'd assume you could control your ships enough so that ramming would not be a separate button but be an act of driving your ship into another ship or base or whatever.

Sir_Cedric

02-21-2009, 08:32 AM

Just like I said, if you ram another ship, and you cause major damage you get the timer. It would only come into play if your ship is destroyed, r if you destroy another players ship with the move. I am just thinking how you could keep this under control in the game is all.

KO_Gilligan

02-21-2009, 08:36 AM

Vicelance

02-21-2009, 08:52 AM

We've had some great threads about collision and damage.... I always enjoy the speculation about debris.

Do we want debris.... Of Course We Want Debris - I want Pieces of my enemy's (now Missing) Nacelle laying all over the place... that it happens in collisions --- WIN WIN
:D

I want pieces of ships to come flying off and hit other ships like in Nemesis. the big question is how long should debris fromn destroyed player and NPC ships stay before it does the vanishing act found in most games when things die. Would make for some interesting collisions in large battles.

Sir_Cedric

02-21-2009, 08:53 AM

Lets not forget asteroid fields and nebulas, both can and should effect how you ship handles when moving through them.

Nebulas come in different sizes and danger, along with asteroids and their sizes and numbers.

Loekii

02-21-2009, 10:08 AM

There's nothiong more unrealistic than the rubber ball 'effect'. (lack of effect, really)

I agree. I dont want to have rubber tires strapped to my BoP.

It was fun when you plane crashed while trying a difficult maneuver. It is not fun to be coddled and have your plane unrealistically bounce, in flight sims.

I want:

glancing collision doing minor damage and course change
sold collision resulting in massive damage -- possible destruction
'ramming' should be negated by emergency maneuvers and tractor beam course correction

I am glad there is CD.[The only thing worse than a bad cd, is no cd at all.

Awarkle

02-21-2009, 10:26 AM

i think for any offensive tactic such as ramming you need a defensive tactic such as tractor beams. or divert power to the shiels.

I mean there are several examples in the dominion war when the dominion use ramming as a perfectly viable attack method. When they run into those klingonships. i really cant see the federation using it as a last ditch option.

But i want to be able to collide even if i get a warning alarm going off that im about to hit somthing. HOWEVER i would say make your speed reflect the damage, if your ship is totally shattered with no armour the chances are its engines are going to be knackered as wel so its doubtful that it would get up much speed.

Then again i dont want to be pvping at super high levels see some noob in a runabout come charging at me sounding "highway to the dangerzone" and run into me destroying my ship.

Defence and counter thats whats needed if a warning klaxon goes off on your ship saying someone is attempting to ram you then its all weapons to that target OR an evasive manover that puts you out of harms way.

Its all good, BUT rubber banding and bouncing off things as if its bumpercars in space is not realistic and would totally destroy it for me.

wingnutf22

02-21-2009, 12:03 PM

I play a lot of console aircraft games, with those I hate it when they do the rubber ball thing. I mean it sucks when you try to evade by doing some variety of loop and you don't pay attention to your altimeter and hit the ground, but so long as the death penalties are minor I will come back. Where as it gets really old going down hitting the ground and just taking damage. If you pay attention to where you're going you won't hit asteroids meteors and the like. I like the idea that has been proposed for making ramming an ability versus a tactic maybe make it have a long recharge time or make it so it can only be used under a certain amount of health.

OrabIbo

02-21-2009, 12:19 PM

Collisions with asteroids I think should have some impact. I would like to think that if I am being pursued by a larger opponent that I would be able to get away if I managed to get to a asteroid field and use my better maneuverability against them. Either to get away or attack.

I would like the size of the asteroid to matter a little bit as well. For the bigger it is or the speed it is traveling may cause more damage than normal. Doesn't have to be elaborate, but maybe they can make 3 rough asteroid sizes that do different degree's of damage. And deflect off the ship fairly realistically.

Don't need elaborate physics here unless they are going to support physic's cards.

I think ramming should be a technique reserved for a combat action that will have a global cooldown. This way you can make it so it's not a viable action for some races, or have much longer global cooldowns for it.

Such as, Federation may only be able to Ram ppl in very rare instances, or 1-2 hour intervals. where as Klingons will get the option do it every 30mins. They may even have ships that are specialized for such a function.

But this is where counter-attacks need to be developed to stop prevent such devastating actions. Such as Federation may have a tractor beam repel that will either soften the blow or prevent it altogether. It's just a matter of timing.

OrabIbo

02-21-2009, 12:38 PM

usually pvp does not have death penalties attached to it. Soooo....

/cloak

/collide

game over.

We also know NPC's ram you. One of the devs Tweeted that there was a bug that made a Klingon boss instantly cloak and ram you as soon as you engaged him, destroying you both.

you know, I wouldn't really consider this a bug, if they could get it under control and have it only happen under certain instances.

This seems like a very valid reaction from a Klingon. While no one wants it to happen everytime. It does reinforce the mentality of Klingons even more if it does happen sometimes. Even if it is done by NPC's.

But special measures need to be put in place to keep PC's from using it as a griefing tactic. I'm sure Cryptic realizes this.

loyaltrekie

02-21-2009, 12:52 PM

you know, I wouldn't really consider this a bug, if they could get it under control and have it only happen under certain instances.

This seems like a very valid reaction from a Klingon. While no one wants it to happen everytime. It does reinforce the mentality of Klingons even more if it does happen sometimes. Even if it is done by NPC's.

But special measures need to be put in place to keep PC's from using it as a griefing tactic. I'm sure Cryptic realizes this.

It is a bug, in the sense it happens right when you "trigger" him. He decloaks, rams, and blows up both ships, even the klingons wouldn't waste a perfectly good ship in that manner for no reason lol

OrabIbo

02-21-2009, 04:05 PM

It is a bug, in the sense it happens right when you "trigger" him. He decloaks, rams, and blows up both ships, even the klingons wouldn't waste a perfectly good ship in that manner for no reason lol

Eh-hem! I did mention IF they could get it under control. In it's current state? No.

But, as a viable option that would happen when you encounter an NPC. Yes! As long as it doesn't happen everytime. It would be a great addition to the mentality of the Klingon Empire!