Combat Turning Arcs - Good or Bad?

As an offshoot to the combat camera discussion, I posed the idea that having a free analog 360° turning arc in SCR changes the nature of combat. A free analog turning arc means that your ship turns smoothly rather than turning in jumps.

 

In my opinion, this has a larger effect on combat than any camera angle modification.

 

Is it a good change, or is it a bad change? I am uncertain.

 

Background:

The original game limited the firing arcs to 22.5° or 16-points. This meant that your ship only turned in 22.5° increments. This was a limitation of the sprite-based engine because it couldn't handle true 3D turning. Each position of the ship needed a different sprite. 

http://spritedatabase.net/files/pc/1672/Sprite/SC2_EarthlingCruiser.png

(Some ship weapons, such as the Orz cannon, had 5.6° / 64-point firing arcs, and I believe this was achieved by overlaying the cannon sprite over the ship sprite.)

 

Why it matters - Long Range Sniping:

Long-range non-homing direct-fire weapons were difficult to aim with a 16-point turning arc. You had a smaller window of when you could fire since you couldn't fire between points in the arc. Skilled players were able to get past this limitation and became masters of deflection shooting. (It was very rewarding to score a sniping hit.)

If the turning arc were smoother, the difficulty of making these long-ranged shots would diminish. I could track an enemy ship better and have more opportunities to fire and hit.

Why it matters - Close Range Piloting:

Short-ranged non-homing direct-fire weapons also had a limitation that could be exploited by ships like the Supox Blade and Arilou Skiff. You could use these ships to navigate between the firing points of the enemy ships and score hits without being hit by the enemy. A Blade vs Avatar Awesome AI battle was interesting to watch. The AI was great at placing the Blade between the turning points of the Avatar, making it impossible for the Blade to be hit by the Avatar's main laser. (If the zap-sats were still alive, the Avatar would always win. If the zap-sats were destroyed, the Supox would frequently win.)

If the turning arc were smoother, a good pilot would have more trouble in short-ranged battles. The Blade could never dance between the Avatar's turning arcs and would die very quickly to the Avatar's direct-fire laser. (In order to compensate, the Blade would need to be tweaked to make it strafe faster than the Avatar's turning speed in order to stay ahead of the Avatar's laser.)

24,766 views 20 replies
Reply #1 Top

I don't think you will miss the 16-point turning.  Subspace had smooth turning and I played that for over ten years.  A month or so ago I played the that HD version of SC2 twice and the 16-point turning was the one thing that stood out too me as feeling "primitive" and at times downright annoying.  I think you will take to the smooth turning an a matter of minutes.  It is SO much better.

On top of this, considering that the foundation of my interest/knowledge in this genre is Star Fleet Battles... I would probably be more likely than most others to prefer the more SFB-like 16-point turning, and I definitely would not want to go back to that.

Reply #2 Top

I'd agree with smooth turning - though I feel this is probably a moot discussion as the videos looked like SD is going in that direction anyway.

Reply #3 Top

Quoting GnarlyFurtardo, reply 2

I'd agree with smooth turning - though I feel this is probably a moot discussion as the videos looked like SD is going in that direction anyway.

It is not too late to do the right thing. (I'm not saying fixed point turning is the right thing, though!) If there are people out there who feel that combat isn't being taken a direction that matches SC/SC2, this is one place to speak up.

Reply #4 Top

Well i've already spoken about my feelings about combat (don't like where it's going atm) but smooth turning is one thing i can get behind.

Reply #5 Top

Quoting n0vast0rm, reply 4

Well i've already spoken about my feelings about combat (don't like where it's going atm) but smooth turning is one thing i can get behind.

Why are you are more concerned with the addition of new camera control modes than with smooth turning? They aren't getting rid of top-down, but they are getting rid of points.

Reply #6 Top

Smooth turning is the "right" choice for me. 

Reply #7 Top

Smooth turning all the way. 

Reply #8 Top

Quoting IBNobody, reply 5
Why are you are more concerned with the addition of new camera control modes than with smooth turning? They aren't getting rid of top-down, but they are getting rid of points.

Simple: The core gameplay is top down, changing the camera changes way more than getting rid of 16-point-turning.

You say they aren't getting rid of top-down, but i'm going to bet that when you go top-down only you will be limiting yourself vs players who use the camera to look around and be able to spot you before you can spot them.

Even with whatever zoom mechanic that is going to be used, me being in top-down and still being able to see the enemy ship would probably mean i'm more zoomed out than my opponent who has a camera focussed on me, meaning he can aim for a larger target than i can.

SC3 tried moving away from top-down, and i'm not saying it was the only bad thing about it, but it was in the top 3 of "things that ruined SC3" for most people i think, and certainly for me.

 

Reply #9 Top

I am not certain of this, but I think the action may actually be too fast paced for "looking around" with the camera to do much for you other than getting you killed.  You may be correct, it might provide an advantage to those who use it (which would make the ability to manually rotate the camera even worse than just removing the fun and addicting quality this genre is known for for those who make the mistake of playing in 3D Iso) but I suspect trying to use a manual view will most often result in you getting killed.

This is one of the reasons I suggested building the camera angle moves for IBNobody's sniper weapon into the weapon itself.  It is a way for that weapon to work without manual camera control, yes, but I was just as much suggesting that out of concern that a player would not have time to do all of that manually anyway.

 

Reply #10 Top

Quoting n0vast0rm, reply 8


Simple: The core gameplay is top down, changing the camera changes way more than getting rid of 16-point-turning.

You say they aren't getting rid of top-down, but i'm going to bet that when you go top-down only you will be limiting yourself vs players who use the camera to look around and be able to spot you before you can spot them.

Even with whatever zoom mechanic that is going to be used, me being in top-down and still being able to see the enemy ship would probably mean i'm more zoomed out than my opponent who has a camera focussed on me, meaning he can aim for a larger target than i can.

SC3 tried moving away from top-down, and i'm not saying it was the only bad thing about it, but it was in the top 3 of "things that ruined SC3" for most people i think, and certainly for me. 

 

So, you don't care that I can kill you easier short or long-range, regardless of my combat view setting?

Reply #11 Top

Is this a discussion about a non-issue-smooth-turning-arc or combat views?  <_<

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Hunam_, reply 11

Is this a discussion about a non-issue-smooth-turning-arc or combat views? 

It's more about pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the views people have.

 

My other favorite is the "iso sucks because it is hard to aim" vs "iso sucks because it gives a view advantage over top-down".

Reply #13 Top

^ Are you disagreeing that WIP combat vid view is strictly inferior to top-down aim-wise for the majority of SC2 ships?

 

I don't think there's much hypocrisy in people's posts. As it was mentioned before, majority of players don't know what they want. I tend to agree with it more than disagree.

Reply #14 Top

If I go just by what is shown in the video, I would be worried. But I'm not because I have prior knowledge of what is going on in the game. (I don't see any alt weapons, and yet I'm not questioning whether or not they are there.) 

Reply #15 Top

^ How come we don't have that prior knowledge?...  <_<

Reply #16 Top

You do have that prior knowledge.

https://forums.starcontrol.com/473546/page/1

That was the first thing I posted when I got founder access. It has the 2D/3D quote from Andrew in it, but it has more.

So... That's why I was not in full panic mode like everybody else when I saw the combat video. 

Reply #17 Top

Oh, that... The only problem is that their first combat video wasn't top-down. Then this: "One of the interesting side effects is that when you actually go to a top down view you lose the ability to tell the strength of the gravity field because you lose vertical depth, which makes it a less optimal way to play."

That tells me that the combat isn't being tailored to top-down view first and foremost.

Why gravity needs to be visualized? Are there some hidden combat mechanics dependent on it that weren't revealed yet?

Besides, just 'cause you were promised something during development, it doesn't mean it will be 100% implemented in the end product. You don't have to look far for an example. And so far we haven't seen top-down combat WIP.

I don't think anyone is panicking. It's just everyone was expected to see improved SC2 instead of SC3 type of dealio.

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Hunam_, reply 17

That tells me that the combat isn't being tailored to top-down view first and foremost.

The game is not being tailored to top-down view first and foremost and there has never been any promises that it would be. Even SC2 tried to fake depth perspective in multiple views. The game's combat is being tailored to what is going to make it fun to play. 

Reply #19 Top

Quoting Vaelzad, reply 18


The game is not being tailored to top-down view first and foremost and there has never been any promises that it would be. Even SC2 tried to fake depth perspective in multiple views. The game's combat is being tailored to what is going to make it fun to play. 

 

I don't think they were trying to fake depth perception, the 8 or whatever levels of zoom were necessary due to the screen resolution of the day.  It couldn't have worked without it back then because of the screen resolution, they had to use that many levels of zoom just to make it work.

Assuming it will default to 3D Iso, but still allow me to play combat in top down (I actually think 3D Iso everywhere but combat is a better idea than top down), and there are no really big advantages to be gained by rotating the camera (I actually think it will most often get a player killed, everything is happening very fast here), sounds great too me.  It's not my style, I would raise the camera to top down for combat only and keep it there for combat and design the combat specifically for that, but that is my style, not yours.  In the end it makes no difference too me what the other player does, It's just my belief that it is a better game with the combat in pure top down and I personally would force everyone to play it that way and have everyone experience the same game.  But as long as I can be in top down and they aren't getting any huge advantages from what they might be able to do with the camera, I'll be as happy as I would have been if it were locked in top down.  

When I talk about about those types of things I am thinking like a designer, as purely a player it doesn't actually matter too me how the other guy plays or what he sees.

 

Reply #20 Top

Quoting IBNobody, reply 12


Quoting Hunam_,

Is this a discussion about a non-issue-smooth-turning-arc or combat views? 



It's more about pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the views people have.

 

My other favorite is the "iso sucks because it is hard to aim" vs "iso sucks because it gives a view advantage over top-down".

 

So you ask a question, then any explanation/opinion that differs from your own way of seeing it is hypocrisy?....welp, i'm out, good day to you.