v1.13.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Gabrote42]

What he described implies that something substantially in front of the other targets would hugely throw off the weighting.  It'd be fine if remaining shots reallocated but it sounds like they wont.

Another option is just triggering it in sequential increments (Jump point ambush: 1, TRAP, 3 ships FaW, click 5secs 2, 4 ships FaW, click 5sec, repeat). If I am misunderstanding it, then another option is having the lowest-graded ships FaW while the experienced ships hit targets that are less likely to be hit. If you are dying to JP ambush, overkilling is way better than killing no ships due to fire delay.

[QuakeIV]

What he described implies that something substantially in front of the other targets would hugely throw off the weighting.  It'd be fine if remaining shots reallocated but it sounds like they wont.

But all shots are fired simultaneously in any 5s increment, at least in an abstract sense. It would make no sense that you should be able to re-target once a target is decided for each fire-control in that time frame, that decision is based by the crews judgement. I also saw not indication for how the weighting system would work... I got the impression that it would become fairly random with a preference for any fire-control to target that which it are most likely to do most damage to.

In my opinion PD should work the same way... even if that would make PD less effective in general. But then again I think that the howl missile salvo mechanic need to be overhauled at some point anyway as full sized launchers versus box launched salvos is an anaemic issue in my opinion.

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that a degree of computer control is involved and the delay is purely down to the crew trying to make sense of the sensor data and pick out particular targets.  So in other words both PD (and maybe free fire mode) could fire in a very rapid sequence in a coordinated fashion that doesn't involve humans but also doesn't involve human decision making as to target priority.

What he described implies that something substantially in front of the other targets would hugely throw off the weighting.  It'd be fine if remaining shots reallocated but it sounds like they wont.

Another option is just triggering it in sequential increments (Jump point ambush: 1, TRAP, 3 ships FaW, click 5secs 2, 4 ships FaW, click 5sec, repeat). If I am misunderstanding it, then another option is having the lowest-graded ships FaW while the experienced ships hit targets that are less likely to be hit. If you are dying to JP ambush, overkilling is way better than killing no ships due to fire delay.

Thats kindof an edge case for me since my general understanding is it doesn't actually bypass jump shock, just the delay related to a lack of training.

[Jorgen_CAB]

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that a degree of computer control is involved and the delay is purely down to the crew trying to make sense of the sensor data and pick out particular targets.  So in other words both PD (and maybe free fire mode) could fire in a very rapid sequence in a coordinated fashion that doesn't involve humans but also doesn't involve human decision making as to target priority.

I don't even thing that an advanced AI would be able to shoot... assess battle damage and then assign an new target all in a five second time frame... that would require some sort of advanced knowledge of the outcome in advance.

It is more realistic that fire are done per five second increment... even being able to asses battle damage in just five seconds to know if something is destroyed/damages and how much is asking allot to be honest.

It is a game and I understand that some measure of abstraction need to be done. I guess this is more to do with wanting efficiency not really being realistic. Personally I like the issues with simulation so I'm in favor of more obstruction to picking targets in general.

[nuclearslurpee]

It is a game and I understand that some measure of abstraction need to be done. I guess this is more to do with wanting efficiency not really being realistic. Personally I like the issues with simulation so I'm in favor of more obstruction to picking targets in general.

It's also sensible that an automation feature (which this is) should be less effective than human micromanagement. If the automation can perform perfectly, there is no reason for the human to ever play that part of the game. It sounds like the feature as implemented will be simple and good enough that players shouldn't have to micromanage too much to avoid blindingly stupid outcomes, which I think is the goal.

[QuakeIV]

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that a degree of computer control is involved and the delay is purely down to the crew trying to make sense of the sensor data and pick out particular targets.  So in other words both PD (and maybe free fire mode) could fire in a very rapid sequence in a coordinated fashion that doesn't involve humans but also doesn't involve human decision making as to target priority.

I don't even thing that an advanced AI would be able to shoot... assess battle damage and then assign an new target all in a five second time frame... that would require some sort of advanced knowledge of the outcome in advance.

It is more realistic that fire are done per five second increment... even being able to asses battle damage in just five seconds to know if something is destroyed/damages and how much is asking allot to be honest.

It is a game and I understand that some measure of abstraction need to be done. I guess this is more to do with wanting efficiency not really being realistic. Personally I like the issues with simulation so I'm in favor of more obstruction to picking targets in general.

I would agree with you if battle damage assessment appeared to have anything to do with crew, but it does not it is instantaneous for all intents and purposes.  Also generally if the target separates into multiple pieces you don't need AI to figure out it was destroyed and modern radars are capable of figuring that out without human intervention.  What you are suggesting is fairly old fashioned and unlikely to really be a thing in the future, let alone in a fully space faring civilization.

[Jorgen_CAB]

It would be perfectly reasonable to say that a degree of computer control is involved and the delay is purely down to the crew trying to make sense of the sensor data and pick out particular targets.  So in other words both PD (and maybe free fire mode) could fire in a very rapid sequence in a coordinated fashion that doesn't involve humans but also doesn't involve human decision making as to target priority.

I don't even thing that an advanced AI would be able to shoot... assess battle damage and then assign an new target all in a five second time frame... that would require some sort of advanced knowledge of the outcome in advance.

It is more realistic that fire are done per five second increment... even being able to asses battle damage in just five seconds to know if something is destroyed/damages and how much is asking allot to be honest.

It is a game and I understand that some measure of abstraction need to be done. I guess this is more to do with wanting efficiency not really being realistic. Personally I like the issues with simulation so I'm in favor of more obstruction to picking targets in general.

I would agree with you if battle damage assessment appeared to have anything to do with crew, but it does not it is instantaneous for all intents and purposes.  Also generally if the target separates into multiple pieces you don't need AI to figure out it was destroyed and modern radars are capable of figuring that out without human intervention.  What you are suggesting is fairly old fashioned and unlikely to really be a thing in the future, let alone in a fully space faring civilization.

Battle damage assessment in the game is not realistic... it is a convenient abstraction for ease of play. It is physically impossible to get that accurate battle damage assessment within that time frame in reality no matter what technology you would be using.   

A ship does not have to actually explode to be a complete loss, so knowing a damaged ship from a lost one could be very difficult to know in real life, especially in space as they don't "sink" anywhere.

The fact that crew can get to the escape pods in a five second increment also is unrealistic and just an abstraction of the combat mechanic.

You could try and play games such as "Command: Modern Operations" which probably are as realistic you can get from that perspective on modern warfare. Battle damage is quite literally part of the game and it can take quite some time to know how much damage any type of attack did in many circumstances.

In real life target acquisition outside imminent threat usually have to go through some sort of command chain... if you need to coordinate ships in a fleet you need to respect the command chain to some degree as well to coordinate fire between ships their squadron or the entire task-force or even worse an entire fleet of dozens or more ships.

The fire at will rule... sort of abstract the chain of command away so each captain or weapons officer in charge of that targeting array make the decision on the fly, this is also an abstraction.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

The fire at will rule... sort of abstract the chain of command away so each captain or weapons officer in charge of that targeting array make the decision on the fly, this is also an abstraction.

Yes, this is the intention. The assumption is that each ship makes its own decision independent of the decisions of other ships. There will be overkill and if there are a lot of targets, it is likely that some won't be hit at all. However, you can issue a new fire at will order once a few enemy ships are destroyed. You can also use manual targeting for those ships with good training and only use fire-at-will for less experienced ships.

I've used it in action and it worked as intended; loss of precise control in exchange for speed of action.

[Jorgen_CAB]

The fire at will rule... sort of abstract the chain of command away so each captain or weapons officer in charge of that targeting array make the decision on the fly, this is also an abstraction.

Yes, this is the intention. The assumption is that each ship makes its own decision independent of the decisions of other ships. There will be overkill and if there are a lot of targets, it is likely that some won't be hit at all. However, you can issue a new fire at will order once a few enemy ships are destroyed. You can also use manual targeting for those ships with good training and only use fire-at-will for less experienced ships.

I've used it in action and it worked as intended; loss of precise control in exchange for speed of action.

With this new rule I also think that giving ships direct order should give a order delay of at minimum 5 second increment and only "Fire at Will" will enable weapons to retarget between two increments.

I have always been a proponent that fleet training should never reduce the reaction to zero to begin with though.

[captainwolfer]

The fire at will rule... sort of abstract the chain of command away so each captain or weapons officer in charge of that targeting array make the decision on the fly, this is also an abstraction.

Yes, this is the intention. The assumption is that each ship makes its own decision independent of the decisions of other ships. There will be overkill and if there are a lot of targets, it is likely that some won't be hit at all. However, you can issue a new fire at will order once a few enemy ships are destroyed. You can also use manual targeting for those ships with good training and only use fire-at-will for less experienced ships.

I've used it in action and it worked as intended; loss of precise control in exchange for speed of action.

Do ships only pick targets when you press the "fire at will" button? IE if my cruiser has fire at will enabled, and kills the ship it chose to target, will it not automatically choose a new target?

If that is the case, can you make it so ships automatically pick new targets when their original target dies? Maybe have it work like the defensive fire commands?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Do ships only pick targets when you press the "fire at will" button? IE if my cruiser has fire at will enabled, and kills the ship it chose to target, will it not automatically choose a new target?

If that is the case, can you make it so ships automatically pick new targets when their original target dies? Maybe have it work like the defensive fire commands?

No, they don't automatically pick targets. Because each fire control is targeting separately and changing targets resets fire delay for the ship, you wouldn't want one fire control changing and causing delay for the others.

Maybe I could add a new 'continuous fire' order for ships that did that, if they were happy to accept the delays.

[captainwolfer]

Do ships only pick targets when you press the "fire at will" button? IE if my cruiser has fire at will enabled, and kills the ship it chose to target, will it not automatically choose a new target?

If that is the case, can you make it so ships automatically pick new targets when their original target dies? Maybe have it work like the defensive fire commands?

No, they don't automatically pick targets. Because each fire control is targeting separately and changing targets resets fire delay for the ship, you wouldn't want one fire control changing and causing delay for the others.

Maybe I could add a new 'continuous fire' order for ships that did that, if they were happy to accept the delays.

Oh, fire delay isn't per fire control?

[Droll]

Maybe I could add a new 'continuous fire' order for ships that did that, if they were happy to accept the delays.

IIRC you had something similar in VB6, I would massively appreciated if you added a continuous fire command that would make beamers automatically switch to a fresh target after their original has been destroyed.

Bonus points if it's on an FC-wise basis as opposed to ship-wise but the latter would be good enough regardless.

[Malorn]

Do ships only pick targets when you press the "fire at will" button? IE if my cruiser has fire at will enabled, and kills the ship it chose to target, will it not automatically choose a new target?

If that is the case, can you make it so ships automatically pick new targets when their original target dies? Maybe have it work like the defensive fire commands?

No, they don't automatically pick targets. Because each fire control is targeting separately and changing targets resets fire delay for the ship, you wouldn't want one fire control changing and causing delay for the others.

Maybe I could add a new 'continuous fire' order for ships that did that, if they were happy to accept the delays.

Wow, I really thought that was what 'fire at will' did. I guess I was confused.

Yes, please, something like 'continuous fire' would be amazing. The extra cost would more than worth paying just to avoid the constant micro of target assignment.

[QuakeIV]

Battle damage assessment in the game is not realistic... it is a convenient abstraction for ease of play. It is physically impossible to get that accurate battle damage assessment within that time frame in reality no matter what technology you would be using.   

A ship does not have to actually explode to be a complete loss, so knowing a damaged ship from a lost one could be very difficult to know in real life, especially in space as they don't "sink" anywhere.

The fact that crew can get to the escape pods in a five second increment also is unrealistic and just an abstraction of the combat mechanic.

You could try and play games such as "Command: Modern Operations" which probably are as realistic you can get from that perspective on modern warfare. Battle damage is quite literally part of the game and it can take quite some time to know how much damage any type of attack did in many circumstances.

In real life target acquisition outside imminent threat usually have to go through some sort of command chain... if you need to coordinate ships in a fleet you need to respect the command chain to some degree as well to coordinate fire between ships their squadron or the entire task-force or even worse an entire fleet of dozens or more ships.

The fire at will rule... sort of abstract the chain of command away so each captain or weapons officer in charge of that targeting array make the decision on the fly, this is also an abstraction.

I aknowledge that Steve has basically stated that he is with you on this, but you will note that there is no protracted BDA phase for objects that are flying around in an open environment where radar can clearly see them, you know more or less immediately if they are dead or not.

I do also consider the escape pods to be pretty much reasonable as just a very high tech version of ejection seats that move people off of the ship as quickly as possible (again on an automated basis).

[Jorgen_CAB]

I aknowledge that Steve has basically stated that he is with you on this, but you will note that there is no protracted BDA phase for objects that are flying around in an open environment where radar can clearly see them, you know more or less immediately if they are dead or not.

I do also consider the escape pods to be pretty much reasonable as just a very high tech version of ejection seats that move people off of the ship as quickly as possible (again on an automated basis).

Well... I just don't agree that any of that is practically realistic in the slightest in general, ships in Aurora are not really fighter jets... but let's just leave it at that.