Shield vulnerabilities to encourage 3D movement

from Sins Forums

Right now there seems to be a lack of any reason to move three-dimensionally with your ships. What in the world does it gain you to have ships above or below your opponent? I think that shields should be changed to encourage attacks from above and below. A few possible ideas:

  • Increased damage from above/below.
  • Shields "leak" slightly from above or below
  • Shields will only operate in one ship half (Fore or aft, I would imagine) so the opposite will be vulnerable (frigates only)
  • Shields attacked from an area not at their front will protect differently
  • Shield mitigation does not take effect from attacks either above or below that ship (for non-cap ships)

Please note that considering cap ships' size and power that most (if not all) of these should not affect them. I would expect a capital ship to have multiple banks of shield generators that would likely nullify these weaknesses.

Also, if these were implemented it would necessitate the ability to change a ship's facing in 360 degrees. If a ship is now more vulnerable from certain directions you'll want the ability to position your ships to defend against that. Additionally you would need the ability to place structures in 3D (perhaps you already can...).

As it stands 3D movement is just an afterthought, a kind of curious oddity of the game and has no real use. I think this would give players BIG reasons to use it. Thoughts?

50,206 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from Sins Forums Top
its a nice idea but that would become a shit load of micromanagement, especialy if u have 2 or 3 simultanious battles at different fronts.
Reply #2 from Sins Forums Top
Terrible idea, just awful. It goes against the spirit of the game. Go back to homeworld is the most civil thing I can say to this.
ObjectDock - Access shortcuts and frequently used applications from an animated dock.
Reply #3 from Sins Forums Top
3d movement would not work well with this game the way phase jumps are situated, and i don't really see any easy solution to it.

If you want 3d movement, play homeworld 2.
I love that game.

Edit: Astax beat me to it.
Reply #4 from Sins Forums Top
its a nice idea but that would become a shit load of micromanagement, especialy if u have 2 or 3 simultanious battles at different fronts.
End of quote


Which is why location-based hit detection, sub-system targetting, etc were not implemented. They were all considered, but would lean too heavily to micromanagement.
Reply #5 from Sins Forums Top
once some1 has made some good shipmovements it could be nice though
Reply #6 from Sins Forums Top
Well, I agree with everyone one else, it would delve too far into micromanagement.

It would be good looking, but it would also lead into the tedious task of always having to control individual ships, and what about if you have a massive fleet or multiple massive fleets all engaged into combat?

You have to think about the possibilities.
Reply #7 from Sins Forums Top
Yep. Didn't even read the post. Just read the title.

Saw the word "MICROMANAGEMENT" in big red flashing letters.

Any player playing against AI could just pause the game to issue precise fleet movement orders to any ships that weren't presently under attack, and annihilate the enemy.

I'm not an MP player, but I'd bet there are scenarios that are even worse in those games' case.

-- Retro
Reply #8 from Sins Forums Top
I don't even think the engine knows what top and bottom is. Gun locations only have f/b/l/r but will fire when things are above/below.

I don't think ships having less shields in the rear would be horrible but.. not saying it's a needed feature either.
Reply #9 from Sins Forums Top
I can understand problems with micromanagement but why in the world is 3d movement even a feature in the game? I don't see any advantage to it.
Reply #10 from Sins Forums Top
Would there have been any advantage to it in HW2 if not for the z-axis variations in resource asteroids, and the sensor system? :P Nope.
Reply #11 from Sins Forums Top
All I can say is "No" there are more then enough things to worry about while playing this game and have to Micro all my ships while keeping and eye on other things will just make this game nutso to play. Dont get me wrong I love HW2 but in that game I didnt have to manage anything more then my fleet. Where as in this game I have to manage planet defenense expansion, research, ship building and heaven forbid I get attacked by more then one person at the same time which often happens.
Reply #12 from Sins Forums Top
Congratulations, you just got yourself 5 seconds of attacking the hull, before they turn to face you again. Now you get both shield AND hull regen to deal with!
Reply #13 from Sins Forums Top
IMHO, if the maps were more 3D (i.e. planets not all on the same plane), then ship movement would be more 3D.
Reply #14 from Sins Forums Top
Planets do have a Z axis. If you put 2 very close together, one will be placed above the other. However, you can not directly control it in game.
Reply #15 from Sins Forums Top
Would there have been any advantage to it in HW2 if not for the z-axis variations in resource asteroids, and the sensor system? Nope.
End of quote


If you think about it a hiigaran BC is f***ed if attacked from above or below - it can only use half its weapons and it wont turn to face the enemy.
Reply #16 from Sins Forums Top
I like the idea and personally anything which introduces more 3D strategy and realism is something I would like to see happen.

You didn't have to micro manage in Homeworld, but you would suffer vs. an opponent who did unless you significantly out numbered them. I can also recall large battles in HW2 being fought on several fronts, you had to decide where to concentrate your efforts you didn't micro manage all units on all fronts it really wasn't a problem.
Reply #17 from Sins Forums Top
I like the idea and personally anything which introduces more 3D strategy and realism is something I would like to see happen.
End of quote


What about the Homeworld 2 system was realistic? You do realize there is no advantage of being higher on z axis in real space as a ship can face any direction right? Coincidentally, no military would create a ship with such easily exploitable weaknesses.

You didn't have to micro manage in Homeworld, but you would suffer vs. an opponent who did unless you significantly out numbered them.
End of quote


That sounds to me like you had to or you died.

I can also recall large battles in HW2 being fought on several fronts, you had to decide where to concentrate your efforts you didn't micro manage all units on all fronts it really wasn't a problem.
End of quote


Once again, that sounds like a problem to me. You are overwhelmed, there is too much to command, and it's no fun.

Reply #18 from Sins Forums Top
No military would create a ship that couldn't spin on its side to bring all of its weapons to bear on the enemy either. Was one of the "suspension of belief" things that goes with most gaming.

Astax, HW2 had limited AI driving your vessels when you brought them within range of your enemies. You *could* just drop a fleet off in an area and let it go, and it would win handily if the other player couldn't match its magnitude of forces. But you'd likely win at less cost if you watched that battle more closely... exactly like Sins.

-- Retro
Reply #19 from Sins Forums Top
Sometimes things sound fun and great on paper, but then the actual implementation turns out to be the opposite. What seperates a good game from a great game, is knowing when to sacrifice those "paper" ideas in favor of streamlined, solid gameplay. That is what has been done with Sins - and it works. The game may be effectively 2-dimensional, but it doesn't need to be more than that, because you are so involved with all other aspects of the gameplay that they work together cohesively.
Reply #20 from Sins Forums Top
I can understand problems with micromanagement but why in the world is 3d movement even a feature in the game? I don't see any advantage to it.
End of quote


It looks cool, isn't that good enough?

This is a wonderful strategy game but it walks the fine line between too much stuff and just the right amount.

This would qualify as 'too much stuff' if you had to get to that level of manipulation in a fight to get the maximum tactical advantage.
Reply #21 from Sins Forums Top
HW2 had truly great ship AI. Although like people have mentioned that if you microed you would lose fewer ships the ships could take care of themselves. Plus homeworld 2 "multiple fronts" were DRASTICALLY different from SoaSE multiple fronts. To get reinforcements from one to the other or move your attention from one to the other was faster in HW2. You could keep track of the "multiple fronts" such that it really was one front. Whereas in SoaSE you have distance between the two. LARGE distance. Without the phase lanes it would take FOREVER to move the ships to another planet and even with phase lanes it takes a large amount of time to gather your force and warp out. When you fight in a "Battle"(really just an engagement) in HW2 you can depend on different forces moving to other places fast enough. Whereas in SoaSE a fleet must be self sufficient enough.
Reply #22 from Sins Forums Top
What about the Homeworld 2 system was realistic? You do realize there is no advantage of being higher on z axis in real space as a ship can face any direction right? Coincidentally, no military would create a ship with such easily exploitable weaknesses.
End of quote


I couldn't agree less, we might as well have all races flying spheres with a full 360 fire arc if you follow that arguement through. An effective design perhaps just not for a computer game.

You didn't have to micro manage in Homeworld, but you would suffer vs. an opponent who did unless you significantly out numbered them.

That sounds to me like you had to or you died.
End of quote


No micromanagement had its place, it influenced the game in a small way which could turn the tide against players evenly matched in other areas. There were plenty of other methods to consider that were equally effective.

I can also recall large battles in HW2 being fought on several fronts, you had to decide where to concentrate your efforts you didn't micro manage all units on all fronts it really wasn't a problem.


Once again, that sounds like a problem to me. You are overwhelmed, there is too much to command, and it's no fun.
End of quote


It took practice and experience, mostly in deciding on what to focus on and how to play out complex scenario's. Quite often you would send small numbers of ships completely un-micromanaged to certain death as distraction tactics or to gain positional advantages elsewhere. It was no different from SoaSE in that respect, it wasn't a problem and it was a lot of fun. What it definately provided was a good reason to face similar battles and odds again, the fighting was less repetative as there was greater variety of gameplay open to the player.





Reply #23 from Sins Forums Top
I can understand problems with micromanagement but why in the world is 3d movement even a feature in the game? I don't see any advantage to it.
End of quote


Ever played a muti-star map and had two stars close together but spread far apart on the z-axis and your ships would not jump from one star to the other? You have to move you ships on the z-axis, above or below the originating star to make the jump.


Reply #24 from Sins Forums Top
Ever played a muti-star map and had two stars close together but spread far apart on the z-axis and your ships would not jump from one star to the other? You have to move you ships on the z-axis, above or below the originating star to make the jump.
End of quote


Yes, it's called a bug!

Reply #25 from Sins Forums Top
I don't know if any of you have any real idea of how much additional programming would go into the suggestions listed in this post. I can tell you know, considering the size of the game to begin with, the arrays are already staggering. You want to introduce a large number of new variables when they don't have the ones already in the game working properly.

I'm sorry, I know you're more or less "wish listing" but, when the first patch is for game balancing and not for fixing bugs - I have issues. Gone are the days of releasing a basically sound game. Ever since "online" became "standard" the attitude has been to make it "good enough" and then it will get patched along the way. I can understand why programming houses think this way, after all the manufacturer of the operating system they're programming on thinks that way. I just don't agree with it.

*end rant*
*gets off soap box*