Forums » Suggestions
See, I think it shouldn't be possible to launch a serious attack on a capital ship without bombers. Fighters SHOULD die. Fighters kill other fighters, and try and take out the enemy bombers. Bombers attack the big ships with their payloads and evade fighter combat.
So we need:
1) Bigger bombs for the bombers.
2) Bombers that can't dogfight but can deliver serious hurt.
3) Corvette/frigate-class vessels, like the mini-cap ship, which can actually get CLOSE to the big ships and hurt them stupidly.
To do this, a rethink of the ports system would be the fastest way round it.
S: fighter combat. Short range, reasonably strong and fast damage output. (Common)
L: bombs. Bigger guns that can't track as well (YES I'm looking at you, AGT) longer range, more damage, suited for attacking big ships. (Common)
XL: BIG bombs. Stuff that can't do squat against fighters, but if allowed close to a big ship, its gonna feel PAIN. (Corvette up)
M: Huge mounted guns that can do everything, are uber-strong, can be used for just about everything. (BIG ships only.)
To fully incorporate capital ships in the game, fighters need to be made obsolete when it comes to actually hitting the bigger ships. Otherwise we will FOREVER be stuck with bombers that fight better than the fighters, but don't really have much else to do.
Come to think of it, fighters die fast to the beam cannons, right? So up the armor on dedicated bomber-variants (MkII prom, Aggresso, Rag MkIII) and send their agility down the crapper.
Hell, give the Skycommand a single XL port instead of its current loadout. That'd be damn cool.
So we need:
1) Bigger bombs for the bombers.
2) Bombers that can't dogfight but can deliver serious hurt.
3) Corvette/frigate-class vessels, like the mini-cap ship, which can actually get CLOSE to the big ships and hurt them stupidly.
To do this, a rethink of the ports system would be the fastest way round it.
S: fighter combat. Short range, reasonably strong and fast damage output. (Common)
L: bombs. Bigger guns that can't track as well (YES I'm looking at you, AGT) longer range, more damage, suited for attacking big ships. (Common)
XL: BIG bombs. Stuff that can't do squat against fighters, but if allowed close to a big ship, its gonna feel PAIN. (Corvette up)
M: Huge mounted guns that can do everything, are uber-strong, can be used for just about everything. (BIG ships only.)
To fully incorporate capital ships in the game, fighters need to be made obsolete when it comes to actually hitting the bigger ships. Otherwise we will FOREVER be stuck with bombers that fight better than the fighters, but don't really have much else to do.
Come to think of it, fighters die fast to the beam cannons, right? So up the armor on dedicated bomber-variants (MkII prom, Aggresso, Rag MkIII) and send their agility down the crapper.
Hell, give the Skycommand a single XL port instead of its current loadout. That'd be damn cool.
Phaserlight,
if you noticed i said their maximum range should be 8-10km (11-14 shiplenths). but that their optimum broadside range should be around 2km. a ship with good gunners could easily fighte at 4-6km range, but your average engagment would see them manuvering within a 1.5- 3km range trying to gain positional adcantage and bring as many of their own guns to bare a possable while avoiding as manny of their oponent's as possable.
here are a couple of was to eliminate the most common specific complaints that i have heard:
1. "Fighters are usless within 1km of the cap ship"
this is because all the turrets are beem cannons. additionaly beem cannons are a new weapon and people haven't had time to learn evasive patters that would enhance their odds.
my solution, would be to replace some of the beem cannons with the old AGTs. this will create blinde spots in the beem cannon defence grid that will make survinvig easier.
Also i would like to sugest that pilots concider this: the beem cannons have weekneses, it's very hard to hit something close to the hull, with any accuracy. So if you can get in close and stay close you may have a better chance. Of coase sugestion 1 may be nesesary before this tactic can be effective.
2. "Docking is too hard"
First off carier landing are suposed to be hard. Real US Navy pilots call their carier landings "controled crashes". Secondly the problem with being picked off by enemy beem cannon fire will not be so if the cap ships are oputfitted with long range perjectile or missile weapons, and have their ai changed so that the try to maintain a 2km gap between each other. You will be 1km out of range of the enemy cap. ship's point deffence grid and within your own cap. ships deffence grid (a reasonably safe place from enemy fighters)
3. "Cap Ships have too much armor"
well the problem with this is, they need to be tough, but their weapons can only be so deadly or they become too powerfull against fighters. Adding a series of Super railguns may help with this. With no auto-aim, and perjectile based weapon, hitting a manuvering fighter from a manuvering cap ship will be difficult. So the railguns could have much better damage ratings. Also their fireing ark could be restricted so that a fighter could easily escape, but a cap ship would need some work to manuver out of the way.
Also some heavy bomb or torpedo like weapons that can be caried by fighters would be a step in the right direction.
4. "it will be too hard to see your target at 10km"
Zoom bindes. enough said
5. "The ai is unbelivably stupid"
Well honestly i expect this one will take lots of tedious algoritham work by the devs to fix.
But i think that Players could help with this if we could pilot the cap ships we could help develop usefull tactics (it will be easier for the devs if they can just watch how players manuver and model their actions rather than have to imagin how these ships would be most effective)
if you noticed i said their maximum range should be 8-10km (11-14 shiplenths). but that their optimum broadside range should be around 2km. a ship with good gunners could easily fighte at 4-6km range, but your average engagment would see them manuvering within a 1.5- 3km range trying to gain positional adcantage and bring as many of their own guns to bare a possable while avoiding as manny of their oponent's as possable.
here are a couple of was to eliminate the most common specific complaints that i have heard:
1. "Fighters are usless within 1km of the cap ship"
this is because all the turrets are beem cannons. additionaly beem cannons are a new weapon and people haven't had time to learn evasive patters that would enhance their odds.
my solution, would be to replace some of the beem cannons with the old AGTs. this will create blinde spots in the beem cannon defence grid that will make survinvig easier.
Also i would like to sugest that pilots concider this: the beem cannons have weekneses, it's very hard to hit something close to the hull, with any accuracy. So if you can get in close and stay close you may have a better chance. Of coase sugestion 1 may be nesesary before this tactic can be effective.
2. "Docking is too hard"
First off carier landing are suposed to be hard. Real US Navy pilots call their carier landings "controled crashes". Secondly the problem with being picked off by enemy beem cannon fire will not be so if the cap ships are oputfitted with long range perjectile or missile weapons, and have their ai changed so that the try to maintain a 2km gap between each other. You will be 1km out of range of the enemy cap. ship's point deffence grid and within your own cap. ships deffence grid (a reasonably safe place from enemy fighters)
3. "Cap Ships have too much armor"
well the problem with this is, they need to be tough, but their weapons can only be so deadly or they become too powerfull against fighters. Adding a series of Super railguns may help with this. With no auto-aim, and perjectile based weapon, hitting a manuvering fighter from a manuvering cap ship will be difficult. So the railguns could have much better damage ratings. Also their fireing ark could be restricted so that a fighter could easily escape, but a cap ship would need some work to manuver out of the way.
Also some heavy bomb or torpedo like weapons that can be caried by fighters would be a step in the right direction.
4. "it will be too hard to see your target at 10km"
Zoom bindes. enough said
5. "The ai is unbelivably stupid"
Well honestly i expect this one will take lots of tedious algoritham work by the devs to fix.
But i think that Players could help with this if we could pilot the cap ships we could help develop usefull tactics (it will be easier for the devs if they can just watch how players manuver and model their actions rather than have to imagin how these ships would be most effective)
I'm with UncleDave on this. "Fighters are usless within 1km of the cap ship" - that's as it should be. You should not be attacking a capital ship in a Centurion. That's like a house cat attacking a grizzly bear. House cats can (and do) fight each other & do a lot of damage, but they aren't a match for a grizzly bear. Fighters should be a match for other fighters, and better than (as in, able to kill) bombers, but shouldn't stand an ice cube's chance in a hot place against cap ships.
So "Fighters are usless within 1km of the cap ship" is not a problem, and does not need a solution.
What is a problem, is that there's no real bomber class ships or weapons. The Rags, Centaurs, & Proms are more heavy fighters than bombers. That's fine for some of them, but some of them should be changed to be bombers. An XL port w/ bomber weapons like UncleDave describes is probably the best way to do that.
So "Fighters are usless within 1km of the cap ship" is not a problem, and does not need a solution.
What is a problem, is that there's no real bomber class ships or weapons. The Rags, Centaurs, & Proms are more heavy fighters than bombers. That's fine for some of them, but some of them should be changed to be bombers. An XL port w/ bomber weapons like UncleDave describes is probably the best way to do that.
Rags & Proms are bombers, the centaur is designed to be a trading ship. they cant maneuver as well as a 'fighter' with such a payload.
About UncleDave's ideas about the port, it would be a good time to bring back the avalon torpedo. Have a prom or rag be equiped with an XL port and no other port so it can feel like a bomber with itself unable to defend against fighters and have the avalon as an XL port weapon, that is detonated on impact.
About UncleDave's ideas about the port, it would be a good time to bring back the avalon torpedo. Have a prom or rag be equiped with an XL port and no other port so it can feel like a bomber with itself unable to defend against fighters and have the avalon as an XL port weapon, that is detonated on impact.
Certainly, a fighter shouldn't hold a candle to a Cap ship. However, it should be able to last without much damage inside a cap ship's firing range simply because of it's speed and Maneuverability. So yes, fighters are useless, but they aren't neccicarily instantly dead. My solution to keep survivability of fighters up inside cap ship range?
1. Take away Auto-aim on beams
2. Make a flak weapon that does fairly light damage, but shakes around your ship because of the many bursts instead of AGT.
3. Give caps slow missiles instead of swarms.
4. Give Cap-launched Avalons a *long* arming time so that you can't spam down the length of the ship catching anything close to you.
5. Give turrets actual tracking speeds.
Bombers ought to be the ones dishing out (and taking) damage inside of this range, simply because they can't avoid it, and they have to line up for attack runs. One way to make sure that bombers simply can't drop their payload is to include a weapons lock on the bombs, whatever we decide to call them.
So, I suggest we separate L & S ports into S & L gun ports and S, M, & L rocket/missile ports, and increase the number of ports on ships (at least combat ships). For example, the Centurion mk 1 could have 1 S gun, and 1 S missile port, thereby limiting how much damage they can do up close, while simultaneously creating a bomber role, as well as medium ship. The roles for combat-capable non-capital class ships I envision as being:
Interceptor (Fast, light, maneuverable)
Space Superiority Fighter (all around good/decent)
Heavy Hitter (hitting power is shy of a bomber, while still having enough maneuverability to fight other ships)
Bomber (designed to be a true heavy hitter, gets slaughtered by fighters)
The ideas in the last paragraph or so I originally posted here, fyi:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10585
1. Take away Auto-aim on beams
2. Make a flak weapon that does fairly light damage, but shakes around your ship because of the many bursts instead of AGT.
3. Give caps slow missiles instead of swarms.
4. Give Cap-launched Avalons a *long* arming time so that you can't spam down the length of the ship catching anything close to you.
5. Give turrets actual tracking speeds.
Bombers ought to be the ones dishing out (and taking) damage inside of this range, simply because they can't avoid it, and they have to line up for attack runs. One way to make sure that bombers simply can't drop their payload is to include a weapons lock on the bombs, whatever we decide to call them.
So, I suggest we separate L & S ports into S & L gun ports and S, M, & L rocket/missile ports, and increase the number of ports on ships (at least combat ships). For example, the Centurion mk 1 could have 1 S gun, and 1 S missile port, thereby limiting how much damage they can do up close, while simultaneously creating a bomber role, as well as medium ship. The roles for combat-capable non-capital class ships I envision as being:
Interceptor (Fast, light, maneuverable)
Space Superiority Fighter (all around good/decent)
Heavy Hitter (hitting power is shy of a bomber, while still having enough maneuverability to fight other ships)
Bomber (designed to be a true heavy hitter, gets slaughtered by fighters)
The ideas in the last paragraph or so I originally posted here, fyi:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10585
> Rags & Proms are bombers, the centaur is designed to be a trading ship. they cant maneuver as well as a 'fighter' with such a payload.
For the Rags & Proms, they should be bombers, but they aren't. They're heavy fighters. For the Centaur, it used to be limited to a trade role, but actually for a while now it's been fairly effective as a heavy fighter (the Aggresso especially, but all Centaurs are currently fairly effective in combat).
> Certainly, a fighter shouldn't hold a candle to a Cap ship. However, it should be
> able to last without much damage inside a cap ship's firing range simply because of
> it's speed and Maneuverability.
I'd actually argue against that. IMO if a fighter gets too close to an enemy cap ship, it should go pop, it should keep its distance if it wants to live. The only question is how close is too close, 1000m might be too far, but not by much. I think 1000m is about right.
For the Rags & Proms, they should be bombers, but they aren't. They're heavy fighters. For the Centaur, it used to be limited to a trade role, but actually for a while now it's been fairly effective as a heavy fighter (the Aggresso especially, but all Centaurs are currently fairly effective in combat).
> Certainly, a fighter shouldn't hold a candle to a Cap ship. However, it should be
> able to last without much damage inside a cap ship's firing range simply because of
> it's speed and Maneuverability.
I'd actually argue against that. IMO if a fighter gets too close to an enemy cap ship, it should go pop, it should keep its distance if it wants to live. The only question is how close is too close, 1000m might be too far, but not by much. I think 1000m is about right.
I'd actually argue against that. IMO if a fighter gets too close to an enemy cap ship, it should go pop, it should keep its distance if it wants to live. The only question is how close is too close, 1000m might be too far, but not by much. I think 1000m is about right.
I guess I didn't really enumerate my points on why this ought to be the case. I'll try to do so now:
1. If fighters are insta-popped when they get within 1000m, that makes it possible for a single cap ship to squat on a wormhole and kill anyone who tries to "run the guantlet" or jump in.
2. How is effective fighter-bomber protection supposed to be possible with the insta-kill beams at 1000m? I'd say, make it possible for fighters to be escorts for the bombers.
3. Cap-ship weapons shouldn't be 100% hit, and ought to have tracking speeds, just like any turret would. Cap ships are supposed to be a cool addition that is challenging, but not a death wish.
4. I think it would be cool to be able to pilot a fighter in to attack certain subsystems of the enemy capital ships, such as engines, navigation, etc. This would add additional roles to the game.
Certainly, fighters shouldn't be invulnerable, and it would require a lot of skill to survive for more than a fairly short amount of time close to a cap, but it should be possible.
I guess I didn't really enumerate my points on why this ought to be the case. I'll try to do so now:
1. If fighters are insta-popped when they get within 1000m, that makes it possible for a single cap ship to squat on a wormhole and kill anyone who tries to "run the guantlet" or jump in.
2. How is effective fighter-bomber protection supposed to be possible with the insta-kill beams at 1000m? I'd say, make it possible for fighters to be escorts for the bombers.
3. Cap-ship weapons shouldn't be 100% hit, and ought to have tracking speeds, just like any turret would. Cap ships are supposed to be a cool addition that is challenging, but not a death wish.
4. I think it would be cool to be able to pilot a fighter in to attack certain subsystems of the enemy capital ships, such as engines, navigation, etc. This would add additional roles to the game.
Certainly, fighters shouldn't be invulnerable, and it would require a lot of skill to survive for more than a fairly short amount of time close to a cap, but it should be possible.
Re: Harry Seldon
1. I'll give you that, it shouldn't be insta-pop. But it's not insta-pop right now, with the current damage the cap ship beam weapons do, it takes at least 2 or 3 hits to kill any ship. There isn't enough of a delay on the beam weapons right now, it should be at least half a second to a second between shots, but IMO 2 or 3 hits to kill is fine. And a 1000m range isn't enough to effectively squat a WH, it would need to be at least 1500m. But that's a good enough arguement that I could see the range being lowered to 750m, or maybe 500m. Or better yet, have damage decrease with distance like I mentioned earlier, so at 1000m fighters would take several hits before dying, but as they get closer they take less hits to kill.
2. Bombers should have long range weapons, so they & their fighter escort can stay out of the 1000m kill range of the cap ship.
3. Again I'll agree with this, but IMO most people in this thread sound like they're calling for the cap ship turrets to be nerfed more than it should be. The turrets should have tracking speeds slower than they are now, but only the most powerful turrets should be so slow they can't track anything but another cap ship. Most turrets should be able to track fast enough to at least occasionally line up a shot against a fighter or bomber - not continiously follow a fighter, but keep close enough that enough shots will hit to kill it. As for being a "death wish," does the fact that an EC-88 can't match up against a SCP mean all n00bs have a death wish? If they do go up against SCPs, sure, but nobody says they have to, and nobody would say anyone has to go up against a cap ship in a fighter.
4. This could be done with long range bombers, unless you wanted to have some parts protected in such a way that in order to attack you would have to be up close at a certain angle. Which would be very cool, yes, but IMO should be insanely difficult. Like, 20-30 fighters all start an attack at the same time, and maybe 3 or 4 get through to the target. And if a single fighter tries to get in close, I'd say it should pop 100% of the time.
1. I'll give you that, it shouldn't be insta-pop. But it's not insta-pop right now, with the current damage the cap ship beam weapons do, it takes at least 2 or 3 hits to kill any ship. There isn't enough of a delay on the beam weapons right now, it should be at least half a second to a second between shots, but IMO 2 or 3 hits to kill is fine. And a 1000m range isn't enough to effectively squat a WH, it would need to be at least 1500m. But that's a good enough arguement that I could see the range being lowered to 750m, or maybe 500m. Or better yet, have damage decrease with distance like I mentioned earlier, so at 1000m fighters would take several hits before dying, but as they get closer they take less hits to kill.
2. Bombers should have long range weapons, so they & their fighter escort can stay out of the 1000m kill range of the cap ship.
3. Again I'll agree with this, but IMO most people in this thread sound like they're calling for the cap ship turrets to be nerfed more than it should be. The turrets should have tracking speeds slower than they are now, but only the most powerful turrets should be so slow they can't track anything but another cap ship. Most turrets should be able to track fast enough to at least occasionally line up a shot against a fighter or bomber - not continiously follow a fighter, but keep close enough that enough shots will hit to kill it. As for being a "death wish," does the fact that an EC-88 can't match up against a SCP mean all n00bs have a death wish? If they do go up against SCPs, sure, but nobody says they have to, and nobody would say anyone has to go up against a cap ship in a fighter.
4. This could be done with long range bombers, unless you wanted to have some parts protected in such a way that in order to attack you would have to be up close at a certain angle. Which would be very cool, yes, but IMO should be insanely difficult. Like, 20-30 fighters all start an attack at the same time, and maybe 3 or 4 get through to the target. And if a single fighter tries to get in close, I'd say it should pop 100% of the time.
Re: Beolach
1. I'll give you that, it shouldn't be insta-pop. But it's not insta-pop right now, with the current damage the cap ship beam weapons do, it takes at least 2 or 3 hits to kill any ship. There isn't enough of a delay on the beam weapons right now, it should be at least half a second to a second between shots, but IMO 2 or 3 hits to kill is fine.
I'm not so much against the power of beam cannons themselves, but with how plentiful they are right now, it might as well be insta-pop. Especially if the ship gets within 500-600 meters. Last saturday, I don't think I missed many kills that got within that range (that were still within my turret arc in the first place...), and that was just my one turret. Even while I was in the last remaining turret on the cap ship, I was still making hits and kills. There are *way* too many beam turrets right now. There should be 5-6 total, I think. Maybe a couple more. 2 or so large, anti-capital ones too.
2. Bombers should have long range weapons, so they & their fighter escort can stay out of the 1000m kill range of the cap ship.
Granted. However, which is cooler? Diving in to kill a cap ship in a bomber, or pegging it from long range? Besides, when bombs, rockets, and missiles become killable, you'll want to fire them much closer to the cap ship to ensure that they have a chance to make it the remaining distance.
3. <snip> As for being a "death wish," does the fact that an EC-88 can't match up against a SCP mean all n00bs have a death wish? If they do go up against SCPs, sure, but nobody says they have to, and nobody would say anyone has to go up against a cap ship in a fighter.
As I said before, as a skilled pilot, you should have a chance to avoid the enemies weaponry. My main point here was that it is simply too über right now.
As for tracking speed, Antifighter beams ought to have decent tracking speed, so they can continuously track a fighters that are 500m distant, and maybe a tad closer. But the removal of Autoaim would keep a lot of people from being able to tag a fighter at this distance anyways.
4. This could be done with long range bombers, unless you wanted to have some parts protected in such a way that in order to attack you would have to be up close at a certain angle. Which would be very cool, yes, but IMO should be insanely difficult. Like, 20-30 fighters all start an attack at the same time, and maybe 3 or 4 get through to the target. And if a single fighter tries to get in close, I'd say it should pop 100% of the time.
I'd like to once again point out the "wormhole squatting" issue that would become possible. The thing that I had in mind when I mentioned attacking certain subsystems, was a weapon that was designed to damage subsystems, which would be equipped as a small port, and would therfore be useful on a fighter (sorry, forgot to mention that. >.< ). But I really think that if 20-30 fighters (and that's a lot) swarmed a HAC, they would create confusion, though they would be vulnerable to flak*. This is part of the reason that I suggested Flak in the first place. It makes getting weapons lock with bombs difficult, and it shakes around and damages lighter craft very effectively because of a lack of precise aiming involved.
*what flak is for those of you who don't know, are small projectiles fired somewhat like a machine gun or modern day artillery that explode either on contact, or at a (somewhat) given range. IE, it won't always explode at 500m. It might go off at 550m, or 450 for that matter.
1. I'll give you that, it shouldn't be insta-pop. But it's not insta-pop right now, with the current damage the cap ship beam weapons do, it takes at least 2 or 3 hits to kill any ship. There isn't enough of a delay on the beam weapons right now, it should be at least half a second to a second between shots, but IMO 2 or 3 hits to kill is fine.
I'm not so much against the power of beam cannons themselves, but with how plentiful they are right now, it might as well be insta-pop. Especially if the ship gets within 500-600 meters. Last saturday, I don't think I missed many kills that got within that range (that were still within my turret arc in the first place...), and that was just my one turret. Even while I was in the last remaining turret on the cap ship, I was still making hits and kills. There are *way* too many beam turrets right now. There should be 5-6 total, I think. Maybe a couple more. 2 or so large, anti-capital ones too.
2. Bombers should have long range weapons, so they & their fighter escort can stay out of the 1000m kill range of the cap ship.
Granted. However, which is cooler? Diving in to kill a cap ship in a bomber, or pegging it from long range? Besides, when bombs, rockets, and missiles become killable, you'll want to fire them much closer to the cap ship to ensure that they have a chance to make it the remaining distance.
3. <snip> As for being a "death wish," does the fact that an EC-88 can't match up against a SCP mean all n00bs have a death wish? If they do go up against SCPs, sure, but nobody says they have to, and nobody would say anyone has to go up against a cap ship in a fighter.
As I said before, as a skilled pilot, you should have a chance to avoid the enemies weaponry. My main point here was that it is simply too über right now.
As for tracking speed, Antifighter beams ought to have decent tracking speed, so they can continuously track a fighters that are 500m distant, and maybe a tad closer. But the removal of Autoaim would keep a lot of people from being able to tag a fighter at this distance anyways.
4. This could be done with long range bombers, unless you wanted to have some parts protected in such a way that in order to attack you would have to be up close at a certain angle. Which would be very cool, yes, but IMO should be insanely difficult. Like, 20-30 fighters all start an attack at the same time, and maybe 3 or 4 get through to the target. And if a single fighter tries to get in close, I'd say it should pop 100% of the time.
I'd like to once again point out the "wormhole squatting" issue that would become possible. The thing that I had in mind when I mentioned attacking certain subsystems, was a weapon that was designed to damage subsystems, which would be equipped as a small port, and would therfore be useful on a fighter (sorry, forgot to mention that. >.< ). But I really think that if 20-30 fighters (and that's a lot) swarmed a HAC, they would create confusion, though they would be vulnerable to flak*. This is part of the reason that I suggested Flak in the first place. It makes getting weapons lock with bombs difficult, and it shakes around and damages lighter craft very effectively because of a lack of precise aiming involved.
*what flak is for those of you who don't know, are small projectiles fired somewhat like a machine gun or modern day artillery that explode either on contact, or at a (somewhat) given range. IE, it won't always explode at 500m. It might go off at 550m, or 450 for that matter.
Looks like I didn't edit my post fast enough, but I did address the WH camping issue a bit more in my response to point 1. It's true a cap ship could severely hamper traffic through a WH, but it couldn't cut it off completely. And actually, I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing, it'd be a pretty cool way to start a cap ship battle. "Oh no! A Serco cap ship attempting to block the Itani CtC route! We Itani should take a cap ship down & clear that out!"
The question of how many turrets there should be is a valid one, but very tricky. Too many & you get multiple turrets covering the same region, which like you say can result in effectively instant kills. But, with too few (and IMO 5-6 would be too few), and you get blind spots, where no turret could hit a fighter. IMO it's better for gameplay to err on the side of too many turrets than too few. Ideally, I'd say there should be at least one or two turrets covering all the space around the cap ship, but nowhere should have more than 3 or 4 turrets covering the same region. But the shape of the cap ship makes that very difficult.
> Granted. However, which is cooler? Diving in to kill a cap ship in a bomber, or pegging it from long range?
That's an opinion, and everyone will have their own. Personally, it would depend on the mood I was in. Like with your argument concerning killable projectiles, sometimes I'd be in the mood to be the crazy bomber pilot who takes his loadout right up next to the cap ship before unloading, even though I know I'm not going to be coming back out, because I would be sure all my shots landed. Other times I'd prefer to play it safe from long range.
> As I said before, as a skilled pilot, you should have a chance to avoid the enemies
> weaponry. My main point here was that it is simply too über right now.
Sometimes the way to avoid the enemy's weaponry is to stay away. That's how an EC-88 pilot would avoid a SCP's weaponry.
Maybe you should go into more detail on how you think subsystems should be attackable, I don't think I'm understanding that. Why would it need a special weapon? The way I would see it would be somewhat similar to the turrets, where any weapon will take them out if I hit it. So say for the navigation system there would be a sensors array, that could be attacked & destroyed (or disabled).
The question of how many turrets there should be is a valid one, but very tricky. Too many & you get multiple turrets covering the same region, which like you say can result in effectively instant kills. But, with too few (and IMO 5-6 would be too few), and you get blind spots, where no turret could hit a fighter. IMO it's better for gameplay to err on the side of too many turrets than too few. Ideally, I'd say there should be at least one or two turrets covering all the space around the cap ship, but nowhere should have more than 3 or 4 turrets covering the same region. But the shape of the cap ship makes that very difficult.
> Granted. However, which is cooler? Diving in to kill a cap ship in a bomber, or pegging it from long range?
That's an opinion, and everyone will have their own. Personally, it would depend on the mood I was in. Like with your argument concerning killable projectiles, sometimes I'd be in the mood to be the crazy bomber pilot who takes his loadout right up next to the cap ship before unloading, even though I know I'm not going to be coming back out, because I would be sure all my shots landed. Other times I'd prefer to play it safe from long range.
> As I said before, as a skilled pilot, you should have a chance to avoid the enemies
> weaponry. My main point here was that it is simply too über right now.
Sometimes the way to avoid the enemy's weaponry is to stay away. That's how an EC-88 pilot would avoid a SCP's weaponry.
Maybe you should go into more detail on how you think subsystems should be attackable, I don't think I'm understanding that. Why would it need a special weapon? The way I would see it would be somewhat similar to the turrets, where any weapon will take them out if I hit it. So say for the navigation system there would be a sensors array, that could be attacked & destroyed (or disabled).
The question of how many turrets there should be is a valid one, but very tricky. Too many & you get multiple turrets covering the same region, which like you say can result in effectively instant kills. But, with too few (and IMO 5-6 would be too few), and you get blind spots, where no turret could hit a fighter. IMO it's better for gameplay to err on the side of too many turrets than too few. Ideally, I'd say there should be at least one or two turrets covering all the space around the cap ship, but nowhere should have more than 3 or 4 turrets covering the same region. But the shape of the cap ship makes that very difficult.
I don't think that Beams should be covering *all* the angles. Multiple weapon types, like having both beams, flak, and missiles make fighing more interesting anyways. It has occured to me (this is in terms of realism of gameplay) that in order to make a beam emitter, you would have to have something that extended into the ship some distance. Thus, placement of beam weapons should be limited to thicker parts of the ship. The large beams should only be in places where there is a lot of space behind the turret. Areas like the fins allow large coverage to shoot down incomming missiles/bombs, via flak and other missiles.
Perhaps because Beams are so uber right now, adding a slight bit of innacuracy along with taking away the Autoaim would be good?
Also, my Wormhole camping was just an example. What about stations?
As for attacking subsystems, I'll do that in another topic. Don't want to get too off topic here...that, and I'm gonna go get some food now...:P
(this is a great argument we're having so far though... :D )
I don't think that Beams should be covering *all* the angles. Multiple weapon types, like having both beams, flak, and missiles make fighing more interesting anyways. It has occured to me (this is in terms of realism of gameplay) that in order to make a beam emitter, you would have to have something that extended into the ship some distance. Thus, placement of beam weapons should be limited to thicker parts of the ship. The large beams should only be in places where there is a lot of space behind the turret. Areas like the fins allow large coverage to shoot down incomming missiles/bombs, via flak and other missiles.
Perhaps because Beams are so uber right now, adding a slight bit of innacuracy along with taking away the Autoaim would be good?
Also, my Wormhole camping was just an example. What about stations?
As for attacking subsystems, I'll do that in another topic. Don't want to get too off topic here...that, and I'm gonna go get some food now...:P
(this is a great argument we're having so far though... :D )
> I don't think that Beams should be covering *all* the angles. Multiple weapon types,
> like having both beams, flak, and missiles make fighing more interesting anyways.
But... beam weapons are just so *cool*! Well, beam weapons are cool (they've been on my wishlist for a while now, thanks devs!), but actually I would agree with you on this. Note that I said "at least one or two turrets covering all the space around the cap ship", not "at least one or two beams covering all the space around the cap ship". I think I've said that I like variety once or twice before now; a variety of weapon types is good.
> Perhaps because Beams are so uber right now, adding a slight bit of innacuracy along with
> taking away the Autoaim would be good?
Another way to add variety! Some (weaker) beam cannons could keep auto-aim (although it should be a very small angle), other more powerful beams would have no auto-aim, and there could be beams that do a lot of damage, but have erratic aiming.
> Also, my Wormhole camping was just an example. What about stations?
This is actually another tricky question, because eventually the plan is for (at least some) stations to be capturable by other nations. In my opinion capturing a station should involve at least one cap ship, so a station whose ownership is being contested should not be given such uber defences that imbalance the battle over the station. In the meantime (disregarding capturable stations), I'd say stations should be given sufficient defences to repel a cap ship handily. Have an even more powerful than normal SF launch if an enemy cap ship jumps into the station sector, and give stations some turrets of their own.
> like having both beams, flak, and missiles make fighing more interesting anyways.
But... beam weapons are just so *cool*! Well, beam weapons are cool (they've been on my wishlist for a while now, thanks devs!), but actually I would agree with you on this. Note that I said "at least one or two turrets covering all the space around the cap ship", not "at least one or two beams covering all the space around the cap ship". I think I've said that I like variety once or twice before now; a variety of weapon types is good.
> Perhaps because Beams are so uber right now, adding a slight bit of innacuracy along with
> taking away the Autoaim would be good?
Another way to add variety! Some (weaker) beam cannons could keep auto-aim (although it should be a very small angle), other more powerful beams would have no auto-aim, and there could be beams that do a lot of damage, but have erratic aiming.
> Also, my Wormhole camping was just an example. What about stations?
This is actually another tricky question, because eventually the plan is for (at least some) stations to be capturable by other nations. In my opinion capturing a station should involve at least one cap ship, so a station whose ownership is being contested should not be given such uber defences that imbalance the battle over the station. In the meantime (disregarding capturable stations), I'd say stations should be given sufficient defences to repel a cap ship handily. Have an even more powerful than normal SF launch if an enemy cap ship jumps into the station sector, and give stations some turrets of their own.
Discussion on subsystems here: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10649
Hehe, for once, I agree with your entire post. Beams are very cool, but they aren't the replacement for all weaponry (or so I would hope...¬_¬)
On the topic of having a variety of beams, I think you're right on, but I would also caution against having *too many* varieties, and I would also ask that the different varieties be given distinctly different colors.
And yes, capturable stations will happen, so I won't worry too much about the camping deal for now. However, it's something to keep in mind when making really long range instant damage weapons.
Hehe, for once, I agree with your entire post. Beams are very cool, but they aren't the replacement for all weaponry (or so I would hope...¬_¬)
On the topic of having a variety of beams, I think you're right on, but I would also caution against having *too many* varieties, and I would also ask that the different varieties be given distinctly different colors.
And yes, capturable stations will happen, so I won't worry too much about the camping deal for now. However, it's something to keep in mind when making really long range instant damage weapons.
It's been mentioned earlyer, but the best way to make sure capships can't be wiped out by light fighters is damage reduction.
You can shoot all day at a tank with a 9mm pistol, but you won't even make a dent. In the same way, all small guns should be allmost useless against a capship. Just a few of the stronger guns, like the gauss should do any damage at all.
A damage reduction of about 900 will do just that. All anti-fighter rapid-fire weapons (including swarms) would be useless against capships, only the heavy hitting, slow firing energy weapons and the bigger rockets and missiles will be usefull.
That would give the bombers a real purpose.
You can shoot all day at a tank with a 9mm pistol, but you won't even make a dent. In the same way, all small guns should be allmost useless against a capship. Just a few of the stronger guns, like the gauss should do any damage at all.
A damage reduction of about 900 will do just that. All anti-fighter rapid-fire weapons (including swarms) would be useless against capships, only the heavy hitting, slow firing energy weapons and the bigger rockets and missiles will be usefull.
That would give the bombers a real purpose.
Noid that's all fine and dandy against the HAC's armor, but not against the turrets, light fighters that can get in under the defenses should be able to peck away with neut or any other small port weapon on a turret. Turrets have become extremely well armored now, almost too good IMO, They have to have over 100k in points now. Sure light fighters are not ment to take down the Cap Ships, but they are suppost to help with defending the bombers and a great way to do that is by disabling the guns that will take them out on there bombing runs, as well as fighting off the other light fighters trying to kill the bombers.
Well, a low damage reduction on the turrets, like 400 or 500, would allow a neutron or positron blaster to do damage. It would still favour the heavy weapons and make the gatling turret and lighter blasters useless.
That, or those who want to kill turrets will just have to pack Gauss Cannons, as those do fit in a small port.
Offcourse adding damage reduction would also mean the total armour of the capships needs to be reduced.
That, or those who want to kill turrets will just have to pack Gauss Cannons, as those do fit in a small port.
Offcourse adding damage reduction would also mean the total armour of the capships needs to be reduced.
I believe that all cap ships should have surface shields that absorb the damage caused by missles. Since the Itani have been involved with shields for centuries, the Itani cap ships could have a bubble shield that encircles the cap ship and it would have the same principals of the exit dock shield.
Copying the rules about shields from Halo, I would like to suggest that energy weapons break/overload the shields faster that if hit by a guass cannon of a missle.
A cheeky thing that could be done is if plasma weapons and phase cannons bring down shields the fastest. In fact that gives me an idea....
Introducing the anti-plasma cannon. A weak device that has little effect on armour but smashes through shields and battery energy like King Kong on a bad hair day. It would be the perfect piracy weapon and great for killing anything with a shield. It would also be fun to use in a race becuase you would posess the power to overcome those wqho are infront of you.
Although, there is a down side to everything and I now just what to do to balance this weapon out! The cannon requires a huge amount of juice to fire and it would drain 10 energy from you battery to take away 20 energy from the victim.
Of course there would be better models and perhaps have the gun in BEAM form for close up fast drains and energy drain mines to protect you from pirates.
Now that I have yaked for enough time let me return to the subject of shields!
The shields on all cap ships would recharge with time but theat amount of time would be emense so the shield(s) just are like another plating of amour for protection.
~Cpt. Overkill~
Copying the rules about shields from Halo, I would like to suggest that energy weapons break/overload the shields faster that if hit by a guass cannon of a missle.
A cheeky thing that could be done is if plasma weapons and phase cannons bring down shields the fastest. In fact that gives me an idea....
Introducing the anti-plasma cannon. A weak device that has little effect on armour but smashes through shields and battery energy like King Kong on a bad hair day. It would be the perfect piracy weapon and great for killing anything with a shield. It would also be fun to use in a race becuase you would posess the power to overcome those wqho are infront of you.
Although, there is a down side to everything and I now just what to do to balance this weapon out! The cannon requires a huge amount of juice to fire and it would drain 10 energy from you battery to take away 20 energy from the victim.
Of course there would be better models and perhaps have the gun in BEAM form for close up fast drains and energy drain mines to protect you from pirates.
Now that I have yaked for enough time let me return to the subject of shields!
The shields on all cap ships would recharge with time but theat amount of time would be emense so the shield(s) just are like another plating of amour for protection.
~Cpt. Overkill~
Sure it is hard to land on a modern carrier, not because they want it to be hard, but rather in spite of all efforts to make it easier to land. No matter how well you position the dock, docking in combat will still feel like a crash landing (and very well may be one in fact). Add a docking port right behind the fin and use the one in front of the fin for exit. That way landings and takeoffs don't collide.
I would like the cap to be a complete station. We wouldn't need a capture the station mission, just move in a cap.
I don't like the caps closing to withing 2000m of each other.
Otherwise, while almost nobody thinks the armor/defences are perfect, I think that the current version creates a number of interresting problems for players to solve, and is worth further review.
I would like the cap to be a complete station. We wouldn't need a capture the station mission, just move in a cap.
I don't like the caps closing to withing 2000m of each other.
Otherwise, while almost nobody thinks the armor/defences are perfect, I think that the current version creates a number of interresting problems for players to solve, and is worth further review.
A note about the Cap ship docks: I think that they are *way* harder to land in than they need to be, simply because it isn't possible to fly straight into them (because they're tilted). This is because the cap ship is often moving while we try to dock. While it is possible, it's far more risky than it need be. I'd like to see a dock that you can enter straight on.
Note: The mini cap ship has a dock that is almost exactly the same. :(
Note: The mini cap ship has a dock that is almost exactly the same. :(
I'd be OK with the cap ship armor having a damage reduction, but I don't think that by itself is enough. The thing is, I would want other cap ships & bombers to (usually) be the only real threat to cap ships, but bombers should not be effective against fighters. If damage reduction for cap ships is the only thing that's implemented, then sure, you need a high damage weapon to be effective, but the problem is that those same high damage weapons that are effective against cap ships are also effective against fighters.
What I think would be best, is to have damage reduction so only high damage weapons (including Gauss & Positron) would do anything, but they should also have high armor on top of the damage reduction, so even though they will do damage, you can't kill a cap ship w/ Gauss or Positron blasters in a reasonable amount of time. And there needs to be extremely high damage weapons for bombers, which would be the real threat to cap ships, but these weapons would have slow velocity and/or long reload times, so that they wouldn't be effective against fighters.
What I think would be best, is to have damage reduction so only high damage weapons (including Gauss & Positron) would do anything, but they should also have high armor on top of the damage reduction, so even though they will do damage, you can't kill a cap ship w/ Gauss or Positron blasters in a reasonable amount of time. And there needs to be extremely high damage weapons for bombers, which would be the real threat to cap ships, but these weapons would have slow velocity and/or long reload times, so that they wouldn't be effective against fighters.