[Chaser]

Sorry to get off topic on you Badger, its your thread and your right. The main game isnt likely to change much, but any help manuvering a heavy load to dock or help catch a roid will be appreciated.

[Badger]

Heh, no worries. I know it's completely unheard of for a game forum thread to stay on topic after the first three pages, but I'm always hoping there'll be a first time.

Here's a question for all you folks:

If there are maneuvering thrusters, would you want to see some kind of MODx or something that would increase their power, thereby allowing players the ability to execute maneuvers more quickly?

Personally, I think this could be interesting, though potentially very abusable (the image of an uncatchable high-level pilot terrifies me if you give them access to maneuvering thrusters which lower-level players simply couldn't match)

[Chaser]

well, any manuvering advantage must be for all...the top pilots dont need it, they've said already so it would be for us miners and frieghter pilots with big loads and of course new people who are just learning. Any help, better than none.

[Badger]

So the question is: would it worth it to miners and freighters to have improved maneuvering thrusters, or would they rather use their equipment slots for other things? Because if it's not going to be worth it to them, there's no point in putting them in the game at all.

I disagree that these modules would be helpful for new pilots. On the contrary, powerful vector thrusters or reverse engines would be an added confusion in the early game. I think they would really only be useful to pilots once they understood how to think in three dimensions.

[Jump]

Where did they hint at a "lite" style of piloting?

[Badger]

"There is a simplified version for the average player and an advanced engine for those who really want the full experience."

From the questionable warcry article. I know it's not a dev quote, but it is very specific. More so than just an author guessing, IMO.

[Jump]

And if you read all the other interviews, some good, some bad, then you know that this person is confusing the third person flight and first first person flight options that have been well discussed. And which may or may not be easier. You can't assume that the person knows anything about space sims or the genre at all. They will see it through their experience or lack of and no matter what they understand they will translate it into what their readership wants to see.

[Wild_Bill]

I'm not opposed to some AI piloting assistance. In fact, I think it could be a good thing. Wait, hear me out. Say it was similar to the Docking Computer. Yeah, it's pretty good, BUT...how many pilots using it have splashed the station? A gate-to-gate autopilot that petalled say..oh 1-in-10 jumps could be interesting. How about an aimbot that misses 3-of-4 shots (actually, 25% accuracy is pretty darn good, maybe missing 7-of-10 shots?)? How many pilots would be willing to settle for that kind of AI assistance?

For the slackers, impared pilots and multi-taskers (dilettantes), or even noobs, it could be a good thing. For anyone wanting to be a "Real" Hardcore Jumpgate Pilot, it would seldom get used any more than the auto-dock feature. Sure, a lot of us use it... TO STOP! If having some type of mediocre form of AI piloting assistance would attract and hold more players, it would be good for the rest of us as well. I mean, what's the most often heard complaint in Jumpgate Classic right now? Not enough people on line. If AI pilot assistance would improve the body count, I'm all for it!

[Badger]

Wild_Bill, what I'm about to say is meant with love.

How about an aimbot that misses 3-of-4 shots (actually, 25% accuracy is pretty darn good, maybe missing 7-of-10 shots?)?

Missing 7-of-10 shots would give you 30% accuracy...which is higher than 25%.

One way I might like to see flight AI implemented was, if you're trying to stabilize the ship (as I imagine you could get yourself into a 3-d roll pretty easily), there could be a button which just neutralizes roll/yaw/pitch, but it would require you to slow down (under half throttle) and would take 5 seconds to work. Therefore, not useful in combat, but still a potentially helpful thing, especially for noobs.

[vorlon31]

Originally Posted by Wild_Bill

How about an aimbot that misses 3-of-4 shots (actually, 25% accuracy is pretty darn good, maybe missing 7-of-10 shots?)? How many pilots would be willing to settle for that kind of AI assistance?

That would be ok provided that if I have the skill, I can make them miss me 10/10 through evasive flying or if it always hit 25% of the time.

[Jump]

this thread is about reverse thrusters and you guys are talking about EVE aimbots. Let's get focused here.

[netburnr]

I used to always drive the bumper cars backwards, does that make me weird?

[Badger]

I think the reason for the tangent was talking about the interface between pilot and maneuvering thrusters.

From what people are saying, it doesn't sound like there's much interest in actual reverse thrusters, which seems weird to me. I've never understood why space sims are still stuck in the atmospheric concept that your ship has to have a front and a back. I understand you only want to have a single major engine, but why not have the ability to go backwards. Seems like you're handicapping yourself for no good reason