Bumping ships

[Thralket Frostbane 7]

the bump is to simulate the 3d conversion to a 2d interface. so is a loss of action, is not loss of ship. until we can get a 3d holographic table; possibly mad expensive; then this may be the best way to simulate the collision avoidance; sudden dive or pull up to pre-occupy the pilot with a chance to shoot at others beyond the touching bases. also with the friendly bumps. if you get blocked by a low ps enemy, and your formation break relies on a clear path... if you cannot see my points then maybe you should stick to video games. 

[AngryAngel 407]

This just sounds like you don't like the game rules. Is bumping realistic ? No, but then it isn't real, it's a game. Why wouldn't you be able to go up and down side to side do without turning if we were really battling in space ? I'd imagine the space battles would end up a lot more like battle star galactica ( At least the new one ) battles, then star wars space battles ( Which is earth planes in space ). As well isn't it more then a little un realistic you can't just hold position and full stop with every ship ? There isn't really a gravity or need to maintain forward momentum.

 

So yeah, two small ships wouldn't stop a large one, but then a lot that happens in game isn't a complete press to realism. Is the concept of bumping for advantage funny ? I think it is, and honestly doing it properly is a real use of the shuttle, I can't imagine that wasn't thought of as game design and work arounds, especially with advanced sensors which came from the same ship that seemingly benefits best from friendly bumps. Which I think is why they didn't allow it for huge ships, they didn't wish such things done with such huge ships. Which is why they placed the ability to ram in the Decimator, it is a part of game mechanics.

 

It doesn't smack of realism, but then we are talking about space ship battles set in a space opera with the force and planet destroying super space stations, is reality really what we are doing ?

[Krynn007 2,445]

There's one point that may be getting overlooked in this conversation that might help explain why overlaps work the way they do. Having played both of the flight sims from the 90s, the 3d environment was not always totally "3d". While yes, you could fly in all directions, more engagements than not were still spread across more of a single plane than in all directions.

You had some "vertical" up and down to the engagement area, but the "horizontal" area was generally much more expansive. In a vertical sense, the combat zones were more generally more oval than spherical. The only time you were guaranteed to have ships in all directions was when you were in the middle of the action, not when you on the periphery.

What I'm seeing in the overlap mechanic is the effect of a near miss; hence "overlap" as opposed to "collision". I've had more times playing Tie Fighter and X-Wing than I can count where I've instinctively flinched away from the direction of another fighter zipping past, or as I dodge one that I've approached to closely from the side or rear. You don't have your entire ability to fight impaired for an extended period of time, but it does get you out of things for a few seconds as you react to the immediate threat, then reassess your situation. That's what the loss of your action represents. The inability to fire upon the ship your overlapping is more representing the fact that the vertical spread is more likely much less than the horizontal one. You're simply not at an angle that can bring your weapons to bear.

Hope this point of view helps.

I never argued that two ships should be able to shoot each other. But, why would the friendly ship who bumps behind another friendly ship still be allowed to attack? Wasn't his bearing thrown off as well? Was his angle not changed, theoretically?

P.s. Screw all this. LETS PLAY SOME XWING! Haha

You could say he had to make a reflex decision and reacted, and manged to redirect back to his original heading in a matter of seconds maybe.

Just like driving a car and you swerve to avoid running over a dog.

It's just during that time he was focus entirely on not running into his buddy so he was not able to Target lock or focus on his target, but was able to take a shot.

In all honesty I know what your trying to get at but it's a good system it works as intended.

So I have to ask if ffg had no intentions on it becoming a strategy, or didn't think it would be used as much as it is, why would they have the awing pilot who can still shoot while bases are touching, or why would they have anti pursuitv lasers?

It's all part of the game. That's why.

Blocking an opponent, denying them their actions is just as much of a viable strategy as is sitting back with hlc sniping targets.

Nothing will ever be perfect. And you can never please everyone. But in this case I think the majority agree that the system is fine the way it is

Like it or not it's hear to say, and I don't think your going to change anyone opinion. I know that's probably not your goal, but just saying

Edited August 4, 2014 by Krynn007

[AngryAngel 407]

Frankly, I love bumping, I'm the bumping number 1 fan, if I'm not bumping, its not me playing X wing.

 

I lead a squad of bumpers called, Those who bump in the night, our squad insignia is a Tie, being bumped by a shuttle, bump on my friends, bump on.

Edited August 4, 2014 by AngryAngel

[negative9 231]

I want you to fully think out what you are suggesting.  

 

If you bump into another ship, you take damage.

 

For the sake of making the game work consistently across all rules, this would apply to friendly and enemy ships alike.

 

Now picture a tie swarm full of academy blockers and imagine how much fun the game would be.

 

As a side effect of the "loose your action" mechanic, yes, you can bump your own ships for positioning purposes.  But that is by far more desirable than most of the damage done in the game being caused by collisions and not lasers.  

 

Just my 2 cents.  Also.....I have played a lot of games in my life......there has never been one where I like ALL the rules.  This one comes close.

 

fly casual.  =]

[TezzasGames 1,014]

Fortunately, this thread is Kaudia's opinion and it will never be implemented by FFG.

 

Nothing to see here, move along, move along... 

[KCDodger 10,596]

I find the concept of flying a TIE swarm into the enemy fairly fun. Just a swarm of suicidal pilots.

"WHAT ARE THEY DOING!?"

[Kaudia 26]

Too many points to counter...

I like this game.

Thanks for reading the posts now, s1n. I didn't say I knew exactly what FFG was thinking. I don't think they understood how much friendly ships would be bumping as a tactic. Others in these posts agreed with that point, so I am not alone. It's a perfectly viable opinion. I don't think you misunderstood. I think you sniped. Now that you read the whole thing and replied with an educated response, I see your side.

The A wing creation was a reaction by FFG to voluntarily bumping. Same thing as anti-pursuit lasers. Negative9, no auto damage. Just 38 percent chance when it happens, but I understand you disagree.

I like this game. I had some thoughts. Sorry for sharing. Thanks for the input everyone.

I like this game. Not complaining.

[StevenO 2,996]

I see the point being made here. I agree, and I don't agree.

The ultimate example of bumping used in a cheap and arguably cheating way that we ALL can agree on is the Millennium Fortress.

....

 

YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.

 

To put is simply you've got some ways to go before ALL would agree that the Falcon Fortress is "cheap and arguably cheating" although I guess there is plenty of "arguably" about it.  If I were to use it I'd actually think about it as doing EXACTLY what it does; having ships team up to deal with opponents in what could be, but rarely is, the most effective method.

 

 

 

For argument's sake, how would you feel if each ship rolled a die and took only a hit (no crits allowed) if you bumped friendly ships? That's a 3/8 chance, 38% right? Not enough to sink you, but enough to make you think twice about using the tactic?

 

 

Nope to the first question and the last becomes irrelevant.

 

What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  If bumping your friends can cause damage then bumping your opponents should work EXACTLY the same way.

[voidreturn 816]

If they plan 2 or 3 waves ahead, you get Howlrunner followed by Assault Missiles and Anti-pursuit lasers.

People have been doing this since release weekend. If they didn't predict it and they didn't like friendly bumping, they've had multiple waves and multiple FAQs to fix it. Just because you think they didn't think it out doesn't make it true.

[voidreturn 816]

Also note how they changed those rules for epic. There is no maneuvering around; you simply explode.

In real life, you wouldn't just take damage. Real life flight collisions are fatal to both sides. If you want this to be more realistic, destroy the smaller ship (both if the same size). Seems fair...

[StevenO 2,996]

Also note how they changed those rules for epic. There is no maneuvering around; you simply explode.

In real life, you wouldn't just take damage. Real life flight collisions are fatal to both sides. If you want this to be more realistic, destroy the smaller ship (both if the same size). Seems fair...

 

And have the larger ship suffer how much damage?  Just because the little guy may usually come out of a collision in worse shape that the big guy doesn't mean the big guy will actually survive either.

 

You want to say if two ships collide the smaller ship, or both if the same size, are destroyed I'd guess you should say a larger ship take damage equal to half of its starting shield + hull totals.  Now that Falcon should REALLY feat the Academy pilots where two of them could eliminate it pretty easily at half the value.

[macar 408]

if there was damage or ships destroyed for ramming then tie swarms would dominate with suicide dive runs to avoid this I feel the current system is the most correct one. Plus there is a critical effect that does just this.

[Kaudia 26]

If they plan 2 or 3 waves ahead, you get Howlrunner followed by Assault Missiles and Anti-pursuit lasers.

People have been doing this since release weekend. If they didn't predict it and they didn't like friendly bumping, they've had multiple waves and multiple FAQs to fix it. Just because you think they didn't think it out doesn't make it true.

Me and plenty others.

I'm not trying to ruin this game for anyone. I was suggesting there might be a better plan and I gave my reasons why, respectfully. Most disagree and that's fine. I already stated that I liked the game. I enjoy it, and it wasn't going to change.

Dude, everyone else on this thread actually discussed the idea in somewhat understanding tones until you butted in and acted like a d-bag. You can disagree all you like, but you brought the rudeness. Relax, bro. You can't anymore say they (FFG) anticipated it than others can say they didn't. All conjecture. Besides, you already said this convo was pointless. Then leave the discussion.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Kaudia

[pbpanchotest 226]

Sure other games model the 3D space of air combat with more precision and granularity.  And those games are not BLOCKBUSTER sellers played by THOUSANDS of players, young and old, all over the world.  One of the best selling points of X-Wing is it's simplicity.  That simplicity requires a certain level of abstraction.  This is just one example.  I'd argue that the games success compared to other, more complex air combat sims is a strong argument that FFG made the RIGHT choice.

 

If bumping was considered an "illegal" tactic by the games developers, they would have fixed it or nerfed it by now, full stop.  They certainly wouldn't continue to issue upgrades and ships to make it even more powerful.  Predator, Advanced Sensors, the new Decimator title, etc.  All these mitigate the effect of bumping, or in some cases even make it a better idea!

 

Ideas like auto damage for hitting anything are ridiculous.  Just bring 3x ORS and block the **** out of the enemy. If you can make 1 TIE hit you, it takes damage, so do you.  The next TIE hits the first, and the first takes a second damage, and the second takes one as well.  So if you guess right, the entire swarm is down to 1 HP and your FIRST ORS has what, 3 damage?  Yeah, great idea.  You have to realize that any rule like that WILL be taken advantage of like that.  No pilot can fly perfectly all the time, especially if the other guy is just trying to suicide a big ship into your way.  That's just one example of how terrible that'd be.

 

To the guy complaining about the Falcon Fortress, I'd happily fly against an opponent doing that, any day of the week.  Pretty much guarantees me a win.  It's a terrible strategy, only effective against someone that can't see the obvious way to break it. If that's you, play more X-Wing.  Have someone run the fortress and figure out how to beat it.

 

If anything, being able to bump intentionally adds an additional layer of depth to the game.  It's very possible to use a bump to get a position or arc that you would not have otherwise been able to.  Or to keep an ioned ship off an asteroid, or to deny the enemy shots on ship that's near death.  These are all GREAT things to be able to do.

 

*drops mic

[Kaudia 26]

Thanks for the input, pbpancho, but pick that mic up.

[voidreturn 816]

 

Also note how they changed those rules for epic. There is no maneuvering around; you simply explode.

In real life, you wouldn't just take damage. Real life flight collisions are fatal to both sides. If you want this to be more realistic, destroy the smaller ship (both if the same size). Seems fair...

 

And have the larger ship suffer how much damage?  Just because the little guy may usually come out of a collision in worse shape that the big guy doesn't mean the big guy will actually survive either.

 

You want to say if two ships collide the smaller ship, or both if the same size, are destroyed I'd guess you should say a larger ship take damage equal to half of its starting shield + hull totals.  Now that Falcon should REALLY feat the Academy pilots where two of them could eliminate it pretty easily at half the value.

 

I'm not actually in favor of this, I was just being coy. I think the system in place is fine as it is and needs no further changes.

[voidreturn 816]

 

If they plan 2 or 3 waves ahead, you get Howlrunner followed by Assault Missiles and Anti-pursuit lasers.

People have been doing this since release weekend. If they didn't predict it and they didn't like friendly bumping, they've had multiple waves and multiple FAQs to fix it. Just because you think they didn't think it out doesn't make it true.

Me and plenty others.

I'm not trying to ruin this game for anyone. I was suggesting there might be a better plan and I gave my reasons why, respectfully. Most disagree and that's fine. I already stated that I liked the game. I enjoy it, and it wasn't going to change.

Dude, everyone else on this thread actually discussed the idea in somewhat understanding tones until you butted in and acted like a d-bag. You can disagree all you like, but you brought the rudeness. Relax, bro. You can't anymore say they (FFG) anticipated it than others can say they didn't. All conjecture. Besides, you already said this convo was pointless. Then leave the discussion.

 

The damage rules in Wings of War work fine because you have the concept of altitude as you fly over the Earth. From what focal point in space should we consider altitude for X-Wing? After 2 years, can we stop complaining about this "problem" already?

 

I'm a d-bag because I was sarcastic? Lighten up. We're talking about toy ships moving in 2D simulating 3D space combat set in a galaxy far far away. Let's not take anything too serious here.

 

All of this talk of friendly bumping makes me want to go out and do it that much more. I'll have all of my TIE fighters fist bump right before my opponent bumps into them. Sure hope it's a Falcon that bumps me, because turrets are cheating and I want to auto-win against those rebel scum.

 

(see what I did there? that too was sarcasm, sort of)

Edited August 4, 2014 by s1n

[ScottieATF 2,864]

 

You can't anymore say they (FFG) anticipated it than others can say they didn't. All conjecture.

 

One point of conjecture (that they didn't see it coming) operates on the premise that FFG is very inattentive in their playtesting and design.  The other (that they did) operates on the premise that FFG is relatively diligent in their playtesting and design.  Given that FFG has a general reputation for diligent playtesting and design, and that the overall functionality of the game support that reputation, the premise that they didn't conceive of "bumping" ships purposefully is very much baseless conjecture, bro-migo.

[Kaudia 26]

 

You can't anymore say they (FFG) anticipated it than others can say they didn't. All conjecture.

 

One point of conjecture (that they didn't see it coming) operates on the premise that FFG is very inattentive in their playtesting and design.  The other (that they did) operates on the premise that FFG is relatively diligent in their playtesting and design.  Given that FFG has a general reputation for diligent playtesting and design, and that the overall functionality of the game support that reputation, the premise that they didn't conceive of "bumping" ships purposefully is very much baseless conjecture, bro-migo.

And on it goes.

It is not baseless. Only your opinion.

It is possible that even the mighty FFG did not see the EXTENT of friendly bumping that is used as a tactic, Bro-seppi.

It doesn't mean they were "very inattentive," it just means maybe they didn't see it for what it has become. There are plenty of FAQ's that have fixed things they didn't see coming, so it's possible they might have not seen everything. I think it's an amazing game, anyway, but (sigh) wish that part was tweaked.

I recognize that they don't feel like this is something that needs tweaking. I just disagree.

[Krynn007 2,445]

For a company that makes strategy games, I would think they know how people like to use and abuse things.

When flying Imps during play testing you don't think the guy who had all the academy pilots didn't block his opponent?

I'm sure he would have given the opportunity, and from there they would recognize how huge of a strategy it could be.

Especially for a game a lot of people are going to play.

They knew well enough that it was going to be a fairly common thing.

If they didn't, and or didn't like it, they would have tweaked it by now

Instead the only thing I've seen is more ships and abilities and gets use out of blocking, so again it was Intentional in their part, and they knew people would use it.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Krynn007

[Kaudia 26]

So you don't think the game evolved in terms of friendly bumping? Interesting.

Krynn, maybe they did see all this coming, but it's at least possible they didn't. They didn't see everything from the beginning, otherwise we wouldn't see ANY rule changes or tweaks.

Edited August 4, 2014 by Kaudia

[Tiltowait 99]

Going back a few posts...I've never heard of the Millennium Fortress. Intriguing idea...I'm not sure if being a static target is the best idea. It is very predictable...would it not allow a skilled player to just keep at RB3 of one of the ships and snipe away? 

 

If it is truly abusive...then I feel FFG may make it go the way of the Kaufman Retrograde. (Starfleet Battles tactic)

Edited August 4, 2014 by Tiltowait

[YwingAce 2,546]

However, we must remember that FFG DID intend to capitalize on bumping, as we have everyone's favorite pilot: Arvel Crynyd, and we also have the upcoming Enhanced Scopes upgrade. 

[Krynn007 2,445]

So you don't think the game evolved in terms of friendly bumping? Interesting.

Krynn, maybe they did see all this coming, but it's at least possible they didn't. They didn't see everything from the beginning, otherwise we wouldn't see ANY rule changes or tweaks.

No they don't see everything, but the mechanic of movement is obvious.

If ships A can move before ship B it won't take long to see the benefits.