PhD Engineer, programmer and gamer here, I recently learned of Avenger_One's observations on the Geometric Problem in dogfight mechanics and I have only seen one real discussion of the issue on Spectrum. I want to move discussion of the Geometric Problem (GP) forward as, like Avenger, I identify this as a critical gameplay issue and it should be addressed. The good news is, there are many ways to address the problem, the first step is just properly identifying the issue. Thank you for engaging with this issue. This post will be a long one... If you are unfamiliar with the GP, watch Avenger's video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdri1euRk2Y Just a slight caveat, not all of Avenger's language and mathematical reasoning are 100% correct, but his core conclusions are absolutely correct. I'll nip and tuck descriptions of the issues below but we don't need to burden the core issues here with excessive analysis as the takeaways are simple. Problem Statement: Larger ships accelerate more slowly, yet have defensive weapon speeds and ranges similar to small fighters. The result of this is that small fighters can effectively dodge turret fire from multicrew ships and deliver damage to those larger ships while affectively taking no damage themselves. "The slower you are, the easier you are to hit. It's just that simple" - Avenger_One Problem Description: Consider a range of ships as shown in the figure. The smallest ship shown is a Fury, the largest ship shown is a Corsair. In one second, given each ship's maximum forward acceleration, they will move approximately (*see my Addendum below) the distances shown by the red lines. The result is smaller, faster accelerating ships can move more than one ship width during this 1 second. Larger ships cannot. For a typical ship weapon such as CF-337 Panther, the round velocity is 1800 m/s (as an example). So the displacements in the figure represent constant accelerated displacement of the ship during the time it takes one CF-337 Panther round to traverse an 1800 m/s range. This is the core of the GP: that smaller, more agile ships can "dodge" incoming fire in examples like this. Avenger_One goes into some detail outlining how this mechanic produces light fighter attack tactics on larger, multicrew ships and I'll not repeat any of that. The core takeaway is that this issue exists and the result is that small, agile ships (ATTACKER) can asymmetrically engage larger multicrew ships (DEFENDER) with impunity and with no real threat of damage. It does not matter how good DEFENDER's gunners are, if they faithfully track PIPs or correctly lead circling ATTACKER approaches. ATTACKER can always adjust their motion to avoid the incoming fire. Problem Impact - Why Should you Care? This mechanic, as it exists today, means multicrew ships are helpless in the face of a light fighter or interceptor attack. They fundamentally can not fill the role they are intended to fill in defending themselves from fighter attacks. Solutions Let's get to solutions. To restate the core issue: small ships (ATTACKERs) can dodge incoming fire during the time it takes for the DEFENDER's (a multicrew or large ship) fire to traverse the target range. Solution 1: Increase DEFENDER projectile speed. Avenger_One and Enforcer are among those who suggest this. Problem is mitigated if DEFENDERs rounds travel faster than ATTACKER's rounds. Larger ships will include Engineering gameplay. One justification for Engineering gameplay may be if Eng. tasks are performed effectively, DEFENDER's projectiles will travel faster. Other justifications may work including turreted versions of standard weapons that have faster projective speed, etc. One result of increased round velocity will be server-side calculation rate, which must be able to handle round strike events at rates 3-4 times higher than exist now. If this is untenable, then see additional solutions below. Solution 2: DEFENDERs fire rounds with increased cross-section (e.g. Flak rounds) If DEFENDERs rounds traverse in cylindrical tubes of a given radius, or explode in vicinity of ATTACKER thereby applying area-of-effect damage, the asymmetry can be mitigated. Can be used in conjunction with Solution 1 to reduce required server side calculation rates. Solution 3: Combination tuning of DEFENDER fire rate and dispersion An effective defensive solution can be created with a combination of increased fire rate AND increased dispersion of DEFENDER weaponry. This is the "shotgun approach" in that at the end of the day, the solution will mimic the spread coverage of a shotgun, but will rely on dispersion of rapidly fired rounds instead of a true "shotgun" mechanic. This is a combination solution used with Solution 1 (increased fire rate) and can also be coupled with other solutions for LOCALIZED mitigation of the problem at hand. Solution 4: Retune ATTACKER weapon effectiveness against DEFENDER This is another solution put forth by Avenger_One. Essentially, make ATTACKER weapons ineffective against DEFENDER. I will add that this tuning could also involve effective ranges of ATTACKER weapons against DEFENDER shields/armor in the current asymmetric attack ranges. In other words, round energy drop-off over range matters more for multicrew DEFENDING ships than for fighter/fighter engagements. This approach LOCALIZES the mitigation to the issue in question and leaves other combat mechanics alone. The solution will force ATTACKER to reduce attack range. Solution 5: Increase Armor for DEFENDER This is not a great solution. The effect will be to extend engagement times while leaving the underlying GP mechanic untouched. The result will be to drag out fighter vs. multicrew engagements with the fighter(s) always winning in the end. However, used in conjunction with other solutions that increase accessible DEFENDER damage-per-second, it could be a viable approach by bringing Time To Kill on parity for ATTACKER and DEFENDER, although not as clean and as easily retunable than other solutions such as Solutions 1-4. Solution 6: Disabling mechanics for DEFENDER I hesitate to mention this solution as I feel, as I'm sure Avenger would agree, that it subverts player skill. The proposal is that DEFENDER can disable, or otherwise reduce effective ship acceleration of ATTACKER. I would place this Solution in the "solutions to avoid" category unless others feel it is justified. Indeed, in principle it is no different than current fighter/fighter disabling mechanics. Solution 7: Make DEFENDER faster than ATTACKER Also a solution in the "please don't do this" category. If DEFENDER can actually outrun fighters it can push to reduce engagement distances. The problem is it is unsatisfying and somewhat ridiculous to have larger multicrew ships that are faster than fighters. Again, I recommend LOCALIZING the solution to the GP and tuning the overall FLIGHT MODEL per other criteria. Conclusion Thank you for reading and considering this long post. I am certain this problem is simply solvable using one or a combination of the solutions given above and with solutions that others may offer below. I don't think persistence of the Geometric Problem across game versions is from negligence or any other nefarious reason, it's just that the issue is not fully digested by CIG, the solution is awaiting other implementations such as Maelstrom or some other mechanic before final tuning, the CIG "boots on the ground" folks are unaware of the issue, and/or solutions to the problem seem complex either from the technical perspective or the community management perspective as several good solutions involve retuning of ships that backers have bought with their own money. To those concerns, I advise using the solutions above and fixing the Geometric Problem using the simplest solutions available and regardless of "social karma" cost. Technical concerns (server side required calculation rate, development time for round mechanics and animations, disruptions to flight model) are mitigated by combining approaches and choosing approaches that are LOCALIZED to the problem at hand, avoiding coupling of the solution with the overall FLIGHT MODEL. Community management concerns are mitigated by melt/rebuy store mechanics and the understanding that overall game quality and maturity of combat mechanics are a loftier goal, with bigger long-term benefit than dealing with the initial fallout regarding some weapon retuning. Indeed, weapon tuning is ongoing anyway! Thank you again for reading. *Addendum I have not confirmed Avenger_One's method in generating the red lines in the provided figure, but the correct treatment of the problem is to consider ship displacement under uniformly accelerated motion. The equation for displacement (s) at start velocity (u) in time (t) under constant acceleration (a) is given by: s=ut+(1/2)a*t^2 For a ship travelling at constant start velocity (let's define u=0) and with acceleration of 10 Gs (98 m/s2) that ship will displace 49m in 1 second. Clearly, 49m is larger than a small ship such as the Fury (length = 7 m) or the MkII Hornet (length = 22.5 m). The arithmetic of how individual fighters top accelerations and ship size impact effective engagement range against a defending ship's weapon systems will occur on a per-case basis. Thus for the solutions above, a LOCALIZED treatment of the issue that covers all cases is simplest, cleanest and easiest. (KISS method = keep it simple, stupid!)