Star Conflict

I gave it a try yesterday and I liked what I saw. The controls ain't that hard and it's easy to catch up with MBs experience. The only problem is that it keeps crashing my computer if you don't restart the game every 30 minutes

I've played SC once, I personally didn't enjoy it. However, I feel that it would simulate a more 'realistic' space faring combat, compared to most other games.

My idea of a 'Deep Space' combat game stems from dealing with the lack of opposing forces on the inertia of a starship. Much of the combat would be very wide ranging in terms of distance and dealt with mostly with High Velocity Kenetic rounds and 'Smart' tracking missiles. I feel that the estimated Hitbox is very primitive in comparison to the technology that we would need to create Space combative platforms that aren't just gigantic 'Deathstars'. Personally, I believe that, if we ever survive to actually have space combat, the Doctrine that made air power superior to Super Battleships would be reversed in deep space.

But, this is a rant for a different thread, I play moonbreakers cause I can respawn more than once a game.

If you wanna talk about realistic space warfare then all the games with missiles or explosives of any kind are terribly wrong. Explosion's deadly power is based on the shockwave created by the detonation, and in space there is no matter where the shockwave could move. So, if the humankind would really be so stupid that they move the wars to the space, the advantage will be Kalashnikovs instead of homing missiles. Bullet still pierces the hull.

Starbuck wrote:If you wanna talk about realistic space warfare then all the games with missiles or explosives of any kind are terribly wrong. Explosion's deadly power is based on the shockwave created by the detonation, and in space there is no matter where the shockwave could move. So, if the humankind would really be so stupid that they move the wars to the space, the advantage will be Kalashnikovs instead of homing missiles. Bullet still pierces the hull.

Missiles in space can still work; you just need to make the warhead tip strong enough to pierce the hull, then shape the charge so it blasts forward. Think of it as a rocket-propelled shotgun with a bayonet. Might as well go for exploding rocket-propelled chainsaws

Traditional bullets are too slow for use in "realistic" space combat due to the high speeds of the parties involved. You'd need to increase slug speed by an order of magnitude (from meters per second to kilometers per second); railguns are viable for tactical combat, otherwise you end up with Moon Breakers combat using traditional chemical propulsion (very short ranges).

Loki wrote:

Starbuck wrote:If you wanna talk about realistic space warfare then all the games with missiles or explosives of any kind are terribly wrong. Explosion's deadly power is based on the shockwave created by the detonation, and in space there is no matter where the shockwave could move. So, if the humankind would really be so stupid that they move the wars to the space, the advantage will be Kalashnikovs instead of homing missiles. Bullet still pierces the hull.

Missiles in space can still work; you just need to make the warhead tip strong enough to pierce the hull, then shape the charge so it blasts forward. Think of it as a rocket-propelled shotgun with a bayonet. Might as well go for exploding rocket-propelled chainsaws

Traditional bullets are too slow for use in "realistic" space combat due to the high speeds of the parties involved. You'd need to increase slug speed by an order of magnitude (from meters per second to kilometers per second); railguns are viable for tactical combat, otherwise you end up with Moon Breakers combat using traditional chemical propulsion (very short ranges).

i once saw a documentary stating that one of the possible weapons at space combat would be a self propelled mine that seek its target and attach to them and blow itself

as for myself i think the best weapons for space warfare are going to be energy based weapons or railguns if it comes to projectile weapons

Starbuck wrote:If you wanna talk about realistic space warfare then all the games with missiles or explosives of any kind are terribly wrong. Explosion's deadly power is based on the shockwave created by the detonation, and in space there is no matter where the shockwave could move. So, if the humankind would really be so stupid that they move the wars to the space, the advantage will be Kalashnikovs instead of homing missiles. Bullet still pierces the hull.

If I remember right, the shock wave is only effective within a small sphere and it's the amount of shrapnel that is ejected from the device that murders the most people, at least in most explosives. This isn't quite as effective in aerial combat, seeing as how most craft dart about at great speeds. That lead early weapons that filled the air with explosive material timed to detonate about the expected altitude of most air craft, especially during the early wars when air craft could be, sort of, tracked by men instead of instruments. I would presume that this principal would take place in space too, except tracking by electronics and better rounds instead of Flak.

However, in reference towards missile and torpedo devices, yes, the mechanics would function like that. Just like in underwater combat, detonating weapons 'close' was scary as hell and but damage would be negelable considering the plating on those ships. That is why most submersible weapons attempt to function to 'dig' into the armor as far as they can before detonation. Those torps in MB? They wouldn't be allowed to Ret-Det, and the resulting explosion wouldn't be as spectacular as the mini-suns they portray cause the weapon would attempt to burrow into the armor before exploding. That's not to say that the resulting explosion wouldn't be devastating, just focused.

pssst... we do have a 'realism in space combat' thread... that said...

in space any 'explosion' that we're used to on earth can be better treated like fragmenting napalm - being next to the explosion matter without being within it, should be quite harmless due to a lack of medium for a shockwave to form or heat to propagate across (radiation is another story).

otherwise, if you make contact with the hot explosion 'mass' (physically a hot fluid if anything) there is thermal damage and the force of it leaving the center constituting the physical force. in a medium, the heat and force would affect the medium (most likely anyway) resulting in secondary effects like a shockwave propagating through the medium.

im liking the thought of 'space napalm fragmentation rocket'

You don't need matter to propagate heat, it radiates perfectly in a vacuum.

yes and no... a vacuum perfectly insulates heat being conducted, while heat being radiated can permeate just fine. however not all heat energy is radiated away (eg blackbody radiation) meaning the vacuum insulates a portion of it, and often a larger portion of it.

Well, SC has been one of my favorite games. However, just as Jiel said, it simplifies it a bit too much. However, sometimes I do pray for it to slow down; especially while piloting an interceptor with 10 ships firing at you XD.

as i play this game i'm wondering...

there are a squadrons, or corporations, if you wish so. i have an idea to create one called "moon breakers".

not even it is a great name to squad, it will also honor our favorite game in the way none can resist. but - the creating of squad costs 3000 galactic standards, its about 10€, i dont want to pay it for my own if there will be none to join me (its not about that 10€, i can work for it ) any other upgrade of the squad will cost another standards as well... its a money-sucking machine...

is there anyone who will join me in this squad?

Always ready for action, sir!

Dogs of War would like to invite any MB players in star conflict to join us.We currently rank 70 of the top 100 corps with just 13 of us in game.We have 7 spots leftover.So join us here.
http://thedogsofwar.shivtr.com/
Or look me up in game as BitesBack

I've tried really hard to like this game, but each time have ended up uninstalling. Just can't help comparing it (unfavourably) with MB.

I must admit I prefer MB flight to SCON but for tactics SCON is better.no matter how good a player you are if the rest of your team play crap you die.Its more of team game and not fun at all solo.Also picking the right ship at the start of a match is important to counter what the enemy have.

BitesBack wrote:I must admit I prefer MB flight to SCON but for tactics SCON is better.no matter how good a player you are if the rest of your team play crap you die.Its more of team game and not fun at all solo.Also picking the right ship at the start of a match is important to counter what the enemy have.

this sounds like rock paper scissors in space. flash mob style.

I didn't want to like it either but I got hooked. Some modes are significantly more fun than others and having the right ship fit for your style of play makes it worth it. once you reach Tier 3 battles you start to see veterans and more teamwork.

I actually wanted to like it, but the ship flight physics and controls just felt weird when I played in 2012 - and even weirder still when I last tried it in December 13. Some kind of strange inertia that stops a ship turning in space at high speed? Very odd.

I actually played star conflict before Moon breakers and did think alot of it then. But haveing taken the time get the hang of it I am finding the team aspect fun.

Not to mention we kick ass!

longshot wrote:I actually wanted to like it, but the ship flight physics and controls just felt weird when I played in 2012 - and even weirder still when I last tried it in December 13.  Some kind of strange inertia that stops a ship turning in space at high speed?  Very odd.

The weird control feeling has to do with heavy lag, ive experienced it sometimes...

minimizing lag is the highest priority of any networked game. if lag makes it unplayable, that's flushing money down the toilet for all involved. (even for F2P games, internet bandwidth isn't free)

Mate you are in Australia, you will have lots of lag. For me a good game in SCon rounds around 150ms, but im usually at 250ms... Some less than memorable games at 500, thats when youre ship is travelling back in spacetime...

It all comes down to how the game handles latency.  For a fast-moving game, the host state rewind concept seems best though only MWO's implemented it so far.  It provides the appearance of client-side ship movement & hit detection while keeping everything on the server where its safe from hacking.  MB worked so well because everything was client-side, though obviously if the game had taken off that would have made it vulnerable to all sorts of exploits.

Putting everything on the server as SC does, and SWTOR Galactic Starfighter as well, seriously handicaps 100+ ping players versus others with ultra-low pings, and makes the game unplayable if you're on the other side of the world.

Pejota wrote:Mate you are in Australia, you will have lots of lag. For me a good game in SCon rounds around 150ms, but im usually at 250ms... Some less than memorable games at 500, thats when youre ship is travelling back in spacetime...

here, the typical 'online' ping for gaming is 200-400 ping depending on the game. for me it's usually in the 250-300 area. however, i have played a lot of games on local servers as well, and can tell you for a fact that 40 ping vs 80 ping makes a world of difference you can't even imagine without experiencing it.

<50 ping = game feels natural, tend not to notice artifacts.
<100 ping = aim has to be compensated, sometimes hard to tell during spikes because you switch from having to compensate and not having to compensate.
<200 ping = most 'laggy' game sessions fit in here.
>200 ping = pray the game's network code is done well.