Turret Dogfighting (Hitting X to Kill Throttle ) Needs a Penalty

[Hanak]

2: Boost past him hit X and turn to fire then boost behind

 

I wanted to highlight this.

[Kuciwalker]

There is no air/friction so so this can be accomplished much more quickly than in an atmosphere, theoretically it could be accomplished instantly.

 

Dude, air resistance absolute does not make it harder to stop. Your thing about it being easy to instantly stop in space because there's no air is ridiculous.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Zoom_VI]

although I appreciate your attempt at trolling, space is friction-less meaning that if you want to slow down or stop all you have to do is provide appropriate opposite thrust from the direction your heading. If your power source is sufficiently large (such as the engines in star wars) then you would be able to provide ample energy to slow yourself down quickly if not instantly. (what did you think they were using air brakes / brake pads? LOL)

 

There is no air/friction so so this can be accomplished much more quickly than in an atmosphere, theoretically it could be accomplished instantly.

Air makes it easier to stop b/c unlike intertia air resistance is always trying to decelerate objects. Space is hard b/c you have to generate all the nesessary counterforce instead of using air resistance to provide some of the nesessary force.

 

Also retro thrusters should instantly kill the pilot btw.

[DamascusAdontise]

Air makes it easier to stop b/c unlike intertia air resistance is always trying to decelerate objects. Space is hard b/c you have to generate all the nesessary counterforce instead of using air resistance to provide some of the nesessary force.

 

Also retro thrusters should instantly kill the pilot btw.

 

if there was gravity then yes BUT YOUR IN SPACE, and there ARE retro thrusters in the game under engineering currently (and you dont die when you use them)

 

its not up to me to teach you about the universe and how things work but... in a friction-less environment speeding up and slowing down is easier because you dont have to worry about aerodynamics or the stresses the elements put on the airframe. Trying to pull a dead stop from mach 6 in a jet would kill you in an atmosphere (and likely disintegrate the plane). Going from a high speed to a stop in space is perfectly healthy, assuming your not too near a massive object in which case the force of gravity is pulling you down towards the epicenter of the mass. If thats the case better hope you have inertial dampeners!

 

In an atmosphere "air braking" can help you stop faster than you would otherwise, though IMO retro rockets in space could still reduce your speed faster than that even.

 

Also you can continue to ignore my advice and just qq about people slowing down, or you could learn something about how to deal with them. Your choice I guess (ive wasted enough time arguing semantics with you people ill be happy to demonstrate in game for you)

[Itkovian]

if there was gravity then yes BUT YOUR IN SPACE, and there ARE retro thrusters in the game under engineering currently (and you dont die when you use them)

 

its not up to me to teach you about the universe and how things work but... in a friction-less environment speeding up and slowing down is easier because you dont have to worry about aerodynamics or the stresses the elements put on the airframe. Trying to pull a dead stop from mach 6 in a jet would kill you in an atmosphere (and likely disintegrate the plane). Going from a high speed to a stop in space is perfectly healthy, assuming your not too near a massive object in which case the force of gravity is pulling you down towards the epicenter of the mass. If thats the case better hope you have inertial dampeners!

 

In an atmosphere "air braking" can help you stop faster than you would otherwise, though IMO retro rockets in space could still reduce your speed faster than that even.

 

No, seriously, no.

 

It is easier to stop in atmosphere because the air resistance, or drag, reduces the kinetic energy of the object in motion. It acts as a force acting in opposition to its direction of motion. In space drag does not exist, and so 100% of the energy to stop must come from thrusters. Whereas in atmosphere less energy would be required from trusters as drag will contribute to slow down the fighter. We just don't bother to have "retro thrusters" on most things in RL because, well, drag and friction works great as is (though airplanes do have thrust reverses for braking on landing *grin*).

 

Furthemore, being in 0 G does not negate the effects of momentum and newtonian physics. To go from a speed of Mach 6 to a dead stop is just as dangerous in space as in the air, and generate the same G forces (which is basically a measure of acceleration... and when you slow down and stop you actually accelerate in the direction opposite to the one you are currently moving in) on the fighter and its pilot. That's SW has inertial dampeners or what have you, to handwave away the effects of G forces.

 

There's lots of reading available on the topic, though wikipedia tends to be rather dry so I suggest this excellent website, which serves as a sort of guide to writing realistic science fiction. It's also pretty cool (with fun topics such as what nukes actually would behave in space *grin*).

 

http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

 

Enjoy.

 

You may now resume the debate on turret dogfighting.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Itkovian

[SpeckV]

 

its not up to me to teach you about the universe and how things work

 

And thank the stars for that! Inertia only exists in the presence of a massive object? That's a new one to me.

[Zoom_VI]

. Your choice I guess (ive wasted enough time arguing semantics with you people ill be happy to demonstrate in game for you)

 

Becuase this game is such a realistic demonstration of space pyhsics.

No, its not, hence retro thrusters will kill a pilot.

[DroidDreamer]

"Stationary jousting" makes dogfighting in this game a joke.

[Pingonaut]

It's a difficult and inefficient way of fighting. "Turret fighting" is sometimes the only option, though.

 

Is fly forward > shoot > fly past target > turn around > repeat any better? When that happens you cant get into a dogfight because neither side wants to be the first to turn around, giving their opponent an advantage.

[SpeckV]

"Stationary jousting" makes dogfighting in this game a joke.

 

Agreed, but I can also say that after trying it out the past couple of days it's extremely effective, unfortunately.

[DroidDreamer]

Agreed, but I can also say that after trying it out the past couple of days it's extremely effective, unfortunately.

 

That's actually my point. Why bother dogfighting when you can just hit 'X'?

 

But there is a big difference between (1) use it because it's effective and (2) it needs to be changed because it's too effective and obviates dogfighting.

[Pingonaut]

I'm not sure what game you're playing, but fighting stationary is not effective unless you're fighting against a surprised stationary gunship.

 

2. The fighter not moving should have dramatically slower turn times to make turret dogfighting too slow and unresponsive to be useful.

 

This is already in the game.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Pingonaut

[DroidDreamer]

I'm not sure what game you're playing, but fighting stationary is not effective unless you're fighting against a surprised stationary gunship.

 

You haven't encountered this enough to know that you're wrong.

 

This is already in the game.

 

The reduced-turning-speed-while-stationary is still fast enough to allow you to line up a shot when your enemy zooms out and turns back to hit you. In other words, turning speed while stationary needs to be slower.

[Armonddd]

You haven't encountered this enough to know that you're wrong.

 

The reduced-turning-speed-while-stationary is still fast enough to allow you to line up a shot when your enemy zooms out and turns back to hit you. In other words, turning speed while stationary needs to be slower.

 

I have literally hundreds of kills on players who've used this tactic. It's ineffective and dumb. The only time it's possible to die to it is when you are equally ineffective and dumb in your flight pattern to the guy. If you fly straight up to him without using any cooldowns, he's going to blow you up because his ship isn't rocking due to movement. If you're at all evasive, he won't get a bead on you because he can't turn worth a damn, and you can come at him from any angle you like.

[DroidDreamer]

I have literally hundreds of kills on players who've used this tactic. It's ineffective and dumb. The only time it's possible to die to it is when you are equally ineffective and dumb in your flight pattern to the guy. If you fly straight up to him without using any cooldowns, he's going to blow you up because his ship isn't rocking due to movement. If you're at all evasive, he won't get a bead on you because he can't turn worth a damn, and you can come at him from any angle you like.

 

Exactly.

 

There are lots of counters. Hitting 'X' is one. Being evasive and flying around all crazy, you know, to avoid the guy who is standing still, is another. Zooming out and butting back in is not as good of a counter because -- as you note -- the guy can just turn to face you and his aim doesn't need to account for his own movement.

 

It's a race to the bottom and needs to be fixed. And, yeah, I get plenty of kills off of scrubs and "pros" using their X Skill Button. Several a match. But I'd rather not be spending my time stationary in a space PvP game or targeting stationary targets (unless they are gunships or turrets). It's just not fun.

[Grayseven]

Disagree. I just tested this last night. If you are dogfighting with someone and they hit 'X', by the time you've flown out far enough to turn around, even if you use Koiogran Turn to turn back around really quickly, the X-hitting scrub has already turned to face you. And that's with a DPS scout with full turning thrusters AND the 10% turning bonus from Koiogran turn.

 

Bioware needs to reduce turning speed while stationary even further or add an evasion penalty to standing still.

 

Uh...you don't seem to get it.

 

If you are chasing someone, and they hit X and you overshoot and then do a 180 back at them with K-turn...they haven't had to change their facing at all because that was the facing (or close to it) that they were at already. He hasn't "turned to face you" he simply hasn't had to turn at all because you made the mistake of staying in front of him.

 

If someone hits X and you overshoot, you should pull a boost loop up and over so that you are forcing him to move to rotate to you, otherwise he won't have completed his turn before you line back up on him.

 

Going straight away from someone you overshoot and K-turning back only gets you shot by the guy that stopped.

[Armonddd]

There are lots of counters. Hitting 'X' is one. Being evasive and flying around all crazy, you know, to avoid the guy who is standing still, is another. Zooming out and butting back in is not as good of a counter because -- as you note -- the guy can just turn to face you and his aim doesn't need to account for his own movement.

 

If you're going to quote mine my posts and back up said mining with comments that are a hat trick of showing your complete lack of experience, are just objectively false, and claim that I said things that I did not, I'm not going to hold a discussion with you. Good day, sir.

[DroidDreamer]

Uh...you don't seem to get it.

 

If you are chasing someone, and they hit X and you overshoot and then do a 180 back at them with K-turn...they haven't had to change their facing at all because that was the facing (or close to it) that they were at already. He hasn't "turned to face you" he simply hasn't had to turn at all because you made the mistake of staying in front of him.

 

If someone hits X and you overshoot, you should pull a boost loop up and over so that you are forcing him to move to rotate to you, otherwise he won't have completed his turn before you line back up on him.

 

Going straight away from someone you overshoot and K-turning back only gets you shot by the guy that stopped.

 

I get that. Stationary turn speed means that the opponent can turn fast enough to face you even if it was not just an overshoot issue.

[DroidDreamer]

If you're going to quote mine my posts and back up said mining with comments that are a hat trick of showing your complete lack of experience, are just objectively false, and claim that I said things that I did not, I'm not going to hold a discussion with you. Good day, sir.

 

Let's take the temperature down a bit, man. We're just talking. I appreciate your perspective. And welcome it.

 

I also get your point. As you were making it, you highlighted one of the points I have been trying to make: that turret dogfighting allows the guy that hits X to participate without having to account for his own movement. I wasn't trying to mischaracterize your position. I was noting how one of your points supported mine.

[Armonddd]

Let's take the temperature down a bit, man. We're just talking. I appreciate your perspective. And welcome it.

 

I also get your point. As you were making it, you highlighted one of the points I have been trying to make: that turret dogfighting allows the guy that hits X to participate without having to account for his own movement. I wasn't trying to mischaracterize your position. I was noting how one of your points supported mine.

 

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt because you don't seem like an ******, but I have a hard time believing that you could accidentally pick out the one part of my post that supported your argument (which I surrounded with proof that it didn't actually support your argument), ignore the rest of my post, and continue to argue your point (in ways that I had already addressed). It's like you conveniently forgot that I'd written things that didn't support your point. Combine that with the fact that you're completely overestimating how effective turning is when you're full stopped... I mean, I dunno about you, but I have over five hundred games played and I've never seen a scout or strike fighter effectively "turret" on a satellite. It just doesn't work, unless the other team just runs like lemmings into your lasers, but in that case they'd do it anyway.

[DroidDreamer]

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt because you don't seem like an ******, but I have a hard time believing that you could accidentally pick out the one part of my post that supported your argument (which I surrounded with proof that it didn't actually support your argument), ignore the rest of my post, and continue to argue your point (in ways that I had already addressed). It's like you conveniently forgot that I'd written things that didn't support your point. Combine that with the fact that you're completely overestimating how effective turning is when you're full stopped... I mean, I dunno about you, but I have over five hundred games played and I've never seen a scout or strike fighter effectively "turret" on a satellite. It just doesn't work, unless the other team just runs like lemmings into your lasers, but in that case they'd do it anyway.

 

You're make your point. All good. I am making mine. To the extent something you believe supports my point, it's cool for me to point that out. I disagree on your other points for the reasons I've posted in this thread and the aces thread.

 

As for the experience matter, I've been playing since the early beta though I took a break right after GSF launched to level an alt (double exp!). I am pretty pleased that Bioware incorporated feedback that I and other beta testers provided, particularly on some specific UI elements. I have pages and pages of notes from beta that I took so I could provide feedback. Since launch, I also have one mastered ship. If you don't think that qualifies to me to have an educated opinion on the matter, let me know.

 

Ultimately, I don't feel it's been refuted that 'X' (killing throttle) is overused and no fun, despite the counters. It really kills my dogfight buzz -- and it has been exhilarating to play this game! -- when it goes from dogfight to turret fight. I think being stationary needs at least a further turning speed reduction. Evasion penalties or accuracy bonuses are other potential solutions, though those are more drastic. That's my constructive feedback about how I think the game should be not how to best cope with or react to how the game is. Hitting 'X' is a legit tool that lots of people use. I just think it makes dogfights kinda lame. Hope that's clearer. And I respect that you feel otherwise.

[Armonddd]

You're make your point. All good. I am making mine. To the extent something you believe supports my point, it's cool for me to point that out. I disagree on your other points for the reasons I've posted in this thread and the aces thread.

 

You don't get why you're wrong and you certainly don't get why what I said doesn't support your point, but it's ok, because I just recognized the names in your signature. I've flown with and against you a few times. Suffice it to say you're not the best pilot I've ever seen - and given that I helped found what's now the world's best GSF guild, I think I can safely say I've seen some pretty good pilots.

 

Like I said before, you're either willfully ignoring my arguments and quote mining while pretending you're not, or you're just completely ignorant of how the game works. Feel free to ask anyone in Death Squadron what they think about fullstopping under a satellite and/or in a turret - you'll find that the best players on the server all agree that it's an awful tactic. Everyone I play with knows to look out for it on the way to the satellite and instinctively checks which way you're facing (by looking at the target window) and within half a second figures out an appropriate angle of attack that leaves you unable to turn and defend yourself - and if you somehow do manage to turn around in time, we just pop any of a number of cooldowns and blow you up either before you can react (two burst laser crits will do that) or before you can do any damage (distortion field and/or retro thrusters will do that).

 

If you think I'm wrong, give me a ts or vent server to sync queues with you. If you have a pub alt that can GSF worth a damn, use that to guarantee you're fighting against me. If not, I'll get on my pub alt who's barely touched GSF and hand you your *** every time you stop under a turret.

 

If you don't want to back up your argument with actual in-game evidence, I'm just done. As Shakespeare once wrote, "The Foole doth thinke he is wise, but the wiseman knowes himselfe to be a Foole."

Edited January 6, 2014 by Armonddd

[Vulfey]

Sitting under a sat is a surefire way to earn a Darwin award. As has been pointed out, all you have to do is dive under and come up to get a bead. Since they're not going anywhere you can pound them with rockts and cannons or even get a cluster lock while you pound them with cannons and obliterate them before they know what's hit them. That said, I have to concur with the evasion thng. If something's just s iting theke a brick, you have to have failed even basic stormtrooper marksmanship to miss it....

[DroidDreamer]

Tested it again tonight. It's pretty OP. You can just hit X and track a target as he moves about with blasters and missiles. It needs a change.

[Zharik]

So it does take a few seconds to go from full speed to zero by hitting X. I eat those people up so by all means keep doing it. My complaint is when a gunship can right click and go from full boost to zero instantly...