Forums » Suggestions
me points at martin. Plus almost everytime a moth dies theres multiple people involved in the killing, so theres always someone handy to go grab a moth while the others guard. I dont think its top speed or its armor needs changing, it just needs to accelerate like a taur full of samo.
Beolach,
if the moth gets much slower no one will fly it. Why? Because a low top speed is the worst thing a moth can have. Additionaly it wouln't just give pirats more time to kill it but also bots in storm sectors. And it will make trade runs longer.
Also a 1 on 1 between a light fighter and a moth isn't piracy it's simple destruction. As has been mentioned before, it's only piracy if you can bring the good back home. And by the way if you lower the top speed of the moth the whole Kill moth, get moth, get cargo, profit, idea is more difficult too. You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face in a way.
If you don't believe me that the thing to do is lower the armor then i say we try it. Let's ask the devs to make a few variant moths (one with a low speed and one with low armor) and let us put them through their paces on the test server. I'd be willing to wajer that in order to make the moth as week as you want by slowing it down you'd have to make it too slow to be a usable trade ship. Or you'll have to reduce the armor anyway.
The moth needs less armor, not less thrust. Ask any pirat why a moth gets away, and he'll say "it's too fast" but ask him if he couldn't keep up with it and he'll answere "I could keep up, i just couldn't deal enough damage before i had to withdraw".
Pirates don't need more time, they need prey they can kill in the time they have.
And by the way, there will always be one ship/configurastion that is the best for a given job, i don't think that would be bad, as long as for pirating moths that ship is a merauder (and i think many people will agree with that opinion).
One additional side note, i still think a beam merauder (that's a maud with a single beam cannon) would be a good solution to the whole lack of good pirat ships problem.
if the moth gets much slower no one will fly it. Why? Because a low top speed is the worst thing a moth can have. Additionaly it wouln't just give pirats more time to kill it but also bots in storm sectors. And it will make trade runs longer.
Also a 1 on 1 between a light fighter and a moth isn't piracy it's simple destruction. As has been mentioned before, it's only piracy if you can bring the good back home. And by the way if you lower the top speed of the moth the whole Kill moth, get moth, get cargo, profit, idea is more difficult too. You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face in a way.
If you don't believe me that the thing to do is lower the armor then i say we try it. Let's ask the devs to make a few variant moths (one with a low speed and one with low armor) and let us put them through their paces on the test server. I'd be willing to wajer that in order to make the moth as week as you want by slowing it down you'd have to make it too slow to be a usable trade ship. Or you'll have to reduce the armor anyway.
The moth needs less armor, not less thrust. Ask any pirat why a moth gets away, and he'll say "it's too fast" but ask him if he couldn't keep up with it and he'll answere "I could keep up, i just couldn't deal enough damage before i had to withdraw".
Pirates don't need more time, they need prey they can kill in the time they have.
And by the way, there will always be one ship/configurastion that is the best for a given job, i don't think that would be bad, as long as for pirating moths that ship is a merauder (and i think many people will agree with that opinion).
One additional side note, i still think a beam merauder (that's a maud with a single beam cannon) would be a good solution to the whole lack of good pirat ships problem.
> if the moth gets much slower no one will fly it.
You want to bet, Lord Q? The speed of the Moth isn't why people fly it, people fly it because it has twice the cargo capacity of the next largest cargo ship. Personally, I'd still fly it if its turbo was 150m/s, like the EC-88.
Let's take a poll, who would still fly the Moth at 150m/s? 160m/s? 170m/s? 180m/s?
> Pirates don't need more time, they need prey they can kill in the time they have.
Either one is a valid solution, if all we care about is destroying the moth. But if the Moth has more armor, and the pirate has more time to kill it, then I think that means that the battle with the pirate will be more fun, because it lasts longer.
> Let's ask the devs to make a few variant moths (one with a low speed and one with
> low armor) and let us put them through their paces on the test server
I think that's an excellent suggestion. Maybe even have it like that on the actual production servers. /me likes variety.
You want to bet, Lord Q? The speed of the Moth isn't why people fly it, people fly it because it has twice the cargo capacity of the next largest cargo ship. Personally, I'd still fly it if its turbo was 150m/s, like the EC-88.
Let's take a poll, who would still fly the Moth at 150m/s? 160m/s? 170m/s? 180m/s?
> Pirates don't need more time, they need prey they can kill in the time they have.
Either one is a valid solution, if all we care about is destroying the moth. But if the Moth has more armor, and the pirate has more time to kill it, then I think that means that the battle with the pirate will be more fun, because it lasts longer.
> Let's ask the devs to make a few variant moths (one with a low speed and one with
> low armor) and let us put them through their paces on the test server
I think that's an excellent suggestion. Maybe even have it like that on the actual production servers. /me likes variety.
Ok, I havent really been paying much attention to this thread since I missed a bit, and now there's no way in hell that I'm gonna read through 4 pages right now. But in response to the variants suggestion of Lord Q's:
Excellent suggestion, but it only works if there is a faction system in place that inhibits people from simply gaining faction everywhere and having access to everything. (ie Itanis flying Proms, Sercos flying Valks, and UIT's flying anything they want). Without that kind of balance, then it would only be a week or two until everyone had access to the highest level Moth.
Unless of course you made a fast(ish, fast like it is now) moth that held, oh, say, 75 or 80 cu's, and a 120 cu's moth that was a dog (say 150). Then there would be a trade off as to what you wanted, speed, or capacity.
And if this is what you mentioned already, then I apologize for not taking the time to actually read you're post.
Excellent suggestion, but it only works if there is a faction system in place that inhibits people from simply gaining faction everywhere and having access to everything. (ie Itanis flying Proms, Sercos flying Valks, and UIT's flying anything they want). Without that kind of balance, then it would only be a week or two until everyone had access to the highest level Moth.
Unless of course you made a fast(ish, fast like it is now) moth that held, oh, say, 75 or 80 cu's, and a 120 cu's moth that was a dog (say 150). Then there would be a trade off as to what you wanted, speed, or capacity.
And if this is what you mentioned already, then I apologize for not taking the time to actually read you're post.
Beolach,
1. yes people fly the moth because it has a large capacity, but having 3 times the capacity is only worth it if the larger ship is fast enough to make the single trip take less time than multiple trips in the faster ship. I wouldn't fly a moth that was any slower than 160 personaly. some people might but how certain are you that even a 150m/s moth would be as killable as you think it should be. I figure it this way: if a moth can be taken down to 50% reliably enough (and in my expierence it can) then that means the moth is just under half as killable as it should be. So we can either make it more killable by giving the pirates twice as much time (cutting it's speed in half) or by making it able to be killed twice as fast (cutting it's armor by half). So if we choose cutting it's speed it should have a top speed of 90m/s (half of 180). Now this is admitedly a simplified thought experament, but a 90m/s moth is the direction we will be headed if we nerf the moth's speed without changing it's armor. After all my thought experament assumes that damage per time has no other limiting factor such as ammunition, or battery drain.
2. " think that means that the battle with the pirate will be more fun, because it lasts longer."
ok, you get a moth and let me "destroy" it with my mining beam valk, that battle would last indefinately, and therefore by your logic should be infanetly fun.
I'll agree that "Wham, bam thank you m'am" speed is less fun than an actual battle, but there is an upper limit to how long a trader can be expected to run from a pirat and still call it fun. And i expect that limit is lower than the threshold of where the moth is as killable as is generaly desired.
3. I also wouldn't minde varient moths on the actual server, but i was refering to the posability of actualy generating some test data for the perpus of moth balancing in general. I would tend to expect that to create a perfectly balance moth it will need a slight decrease in thrust (but only to an almost cosmetic level) and a signifigant drop in armor. I have adamently argued against reducing the moth's speed and thrust mainly because i think the armore should be reduced first, and then the last bit of fine tuning be done by adjusting speed.
1. yes people fly the moth because it has a large capacity, but having 3 times the capacity is only worth it if the larger ship is fast enough to make the single trip take less time than multiple trips in the faster ship. I wouldn't fly a moth that was any slower than 160 personaly. some people might but how certain are you that even a 150m/s moth would be as killable as you think it should be. I figure it this way: if a moth can be taken down to 50% reliably enough (and in my expierence it can) then that means the moth is just under half as killable as it should be. So we can either make it more killable by giving the pirates twice as much time (cutting it's speed in half) or by making it able to be killed twice as fast (cutting it's armor by half). So if we choose cutting it's speed it should have a top speed of 90m/s (half of 180). Now this is admitedly a simplified thought experament, but a 90m/s moth is the direction we will be headed if we nerf the moth's speed without changing it's armor. After all my thought experament assumes that damage per time has no other limiting factor such as ammunition, or battery drain.
2. " think that means that the battle with the pirate will be more fun, because it lasts longer."
ok, you get a moth and let me "destroy" it with my mining beam valk, that battle would last indefinately, and therefore by your logic should be infanetly fun.
I'll agree that "Wham, bam thank you m'am" speed is less fun than an actual battle, but there is an upper limit to how long a trader can be expected to run from a pirat and still call it fun. And i expect that limit is lower than the threshold of where the moth is as killable as is generaly desired.
3. I also wouldn't minde varient moths on the actual server, but i was refering to the posability of actualy generating some test data for the perpus of moth balancing in general. I would tend to expect that to create a perfectly balance moth it will need a slight decrease in thrust (but only to an almost cosmetic level) and a signifigant drop in armor. I have adamently argued against reducing the moth's speed and thrust mainly because i think the armore should be reduced first, and then the last bit of fine tuning be done by adjusting speed.
Actually, a ship that went at 150 m/s would still make the trip faster than 3 smaller loads.
if the distance between 2 points is d:
1 trip for one moth then is d.
3 trips for a smaller trade vessel is 5d
so unless the smaller ship makes the trip 5 times faster than the moth, you're still getting there LOOOONG before the other one does
if the distance between 2 points is d:
1 trip for one moth then is d.
3 trips for a smaller trade vessel is 5d
so unless the smaller ship makes the trip 5 times faster than the moth, you're still getting there LOOOONG before the other one does
Shape I bow to your math skillage.
But what if its not procurement?!?!?!??!!
WHAT IF ITS A DELIVERY!?!??!?!
Just kidding. Even though my math skills R teh suck, their not that bad......
But what if its not procurement?!?!?!??!!
WHAT IF ITS A DELIVERY!?!??!?!
Just kidding. Even though my math skills R teh suck, their not that bad......
Even assuming the pilot is homed at one side of the route, and /explodes & only has to go one way, the smaller ship is still going to have to make at least 2 or 3 times the trips that the moth has to make. If the entire route is within a single system, maybe the smaller, faster ship will be able to make it in less time that the Moth, but I doubt it; and as the route gets longer the Moth's larger capacity & fewer trips means it take less and less time compared with the smaller ships.
> I'll agree that "Wham, bam thank you m'am" speed is less fun than an actual battle, but there is an
> upper limit to how long a trader can be expected to run from a pirat and still call it fun. And i
> expect that limit is lower than the threshold of where the moth is as killable as is generaly desired.
Yes, I agree if it takes too long, it won't be fun any more. But, we can easily estimate how long it will take. The Behemoth has 45000 hull armor. Say the pirate is in a tri-sunflare Valk or Maud, that means the pirate will do a maximum of 4500 damage per second (each sunflare does 1500 damage, and has a 1 second delay). Due to the prox detonation, the flares will never do maximum damage, and it is possible the pirate will miss some shots. So lets say the pirate does 2500 damage per second (actually I think that's a good bit lower than would be the case, but it works for the estimate). That means it would take 18 seconds (probably less) for the pirate to deal enough damage to destroy the Moth. Add say 7 seconds from when the pirate first sees the Moth to when it starts firing. That gives us 25 seconds (probably less) from first contact to the end of the fight - less if the Moth gets out to jumping range & loses the pirate. Do you really think 25 seconds is going to be too long for the trader to still be having fun?
> I'll agree that "Wham, bam thank you m'am" speed is less fun than an actual battle, but there is an
> upper limit to how long a trader can be expected to run from a pirat and still call it fun. And i
> expect that limit is lower than the threshold of where the moth is as killable as is generaly desired.
Yes, I agree if it takes too long, it won't be fun any more. But, we can easily estimate how long it will take. The Behemoth has 45000 hull armor. Say the pirate is in a tri-sunflare Valk or Maud, that means the pirate will do a maximum of 4500 damage per second (each sunflare does 1500 damage, and has a 1 second delay). Due to the prox detonation, the flares will never do maximum damage, and it is possible the pirate will miss some shots. So lets say the pirate does 2500 damage per second (actually I think that's a good bit lower than would be the case, but it works for the estimate). That means it would take 18 seconds (probably less) for the pirate to deal enough damage to destroy the Moth. Add say 7 seconds from when the pirate first sees the Moth to when it starts firing. That gives us 25 seconds (probably less) from first contact to the end of the fight - less if the Moth gets out to jumping range & loses the pirate. Do you really think 25 seconds is going to be too long for the trader to still be having fun?
yes a moth with 150 top speed may be worth it to some pilots, i personly wouldn't use it. My intended point was this: There are 2 ways to posably balance the moth (making it slower or reducing it's armor). I think that given the fact that the moth is already relatively slow, and the fact that traders generaly want a fast ship, the current attempts at balancing the moth should focus on it's armor.
I mean how much does the moth have to be slowed down?
My understanding is a good pirat against an average moth is lucky to get the moth below 40%. So figuring that then the moth needs to spend 40% more time in the sector. Now i rely don't feal like calculating the acceleration and such so i'll assume the moth averages to 3/4 it's max speed while in the sector. That means the moth will have to have a max speed of: 108m/s by my estimates. That's barely over half the top speed of other trade ships. So is it still worth it to fly a moth? maybe, but i think a lot of pilots will change their mindes about that one. Also remember this assumes a pirat can get a moth down to 40% and that a moth averages 3/4 it's top speeds. Personaly i'd tend to think that a moth averages closer to half it's top speed when hauling a full load.
Now with the same assumptions reducing the moth's armor by 40% will also make the moth just as killable, but will not hav eall the secondary effects on the usability of the moth as a trade ship.
Additionaly:
I don't see reducing it's armor as reducing the posabilty of teamwork because as it is now moth pilots go it alone (and making the moth visably vulnerable will encourage hiring escorts). I also think that reducing the armor makes more sence than reducing the speed because it gives the pirats a better chance if they are using ammo based weapons (as more shots can miss and they will still have enough ammo to finish the job).
besides let's face it the moth has rediculous amounts of armor right now. I've heard that people were using them to bomb cap ships for a while b/c they were the only player ship that could survive the beam cannons long enough for an attack run and an escape. To me that sounds like a sign that the armor is the unbalancing factor, not the speed (which is already lower than any of the "lower end" trade ships).
And finaly, slowing the moth down will make trading in general more boring, and pirat attacks more frustrating for moth pilots (because the extera time it takes while they run futaly towards empty space). If the armor is reduced then, should the moth get attacked, there will be a gut wrenching (and quick) chace as the moth tries to get far enough away before it's destroied, but even if the pirat wins, the entire balttle will not last so long as to be tedious. Whereas if the moth remains the tank that it is the moth could spend half a minit holding turbo and hopping only to die and have to start the run over anyway.
As i think i have presented my argument in it's entierty you probably woun't heare from me again in this thread. But i have not seen any counter arguments to my position that IMO represent anything more substantal than a tendency to use the same tequniequ to fix every problem (adjust thrust and ot top speed).*
* no offence intended, that's just how it looks through my set of tinted glasses
I mean how much does the moth have to be slowed down?
My understanding is a good pirat against an average moth is lucky to get the moth below 40%. So figuring that then the moth needs to spend 40% more time in the sector. Now i rely don't feal like calculating the acceleration and such so i'll assume the moth averages to 3/4 it's max speed while in the sector. That means the moth will have to have a max speed of: 108m/s by my estimates. That's barely over half the top speed of other trade ships. So is it still worth it to fly a moth? maybe, but i think a lot of pilots will change their mindes about that one. Also remember this assumes a pirat can get a moth down to 40% and that a moth averages 3/4 it's top speeds. Personaly i'd tend to think that a moth averages closer to half it's top speed when hauling a full load.
Now with the same assumptions reducing the moth's armor by 40% will also make the moth just as killable, but will not hav eall the secondary effects on the usability of the moth as a trade ship.
Additionaly:
I don't see reducing it's armor as reducing the posabilty of teamwork because as it is now moth pilots go it alone (and making the moth visably vulnerable will encourage hiring escorts). I also think that reducing the armor makes more sence than reducing the speed because it gives the pirats a better chance if they are using ammo based weapons (as more shots can miss and they will still have enough ammo to finish the job).
besides let's face it the moth has rediculous amounts of armor right now. I've heard that people were using them to bomb cap ships for a while b/c they were the only player ship that could survive the beam cannons long enough for an attack run and an escape. To me that sounds like a sign that the armor is the unbalancing factor, not the speed (which is already lower than any of the "lower end" trade ships).
And finaly, slowing the moth down will make trading in general more boring, and pirat attacks more frustrating for moth pilots (because the extera time it takes while they run futaly towards empty space). If the armor is reduced then, should the moth get attacked, there will be a gut wrenching (and quick) chace as the moth tries to get far enough away before it's destroied, but even if the pirat wins, the entire balttle will not last so long as to be tedious. Whereas if the moth remains the tank that it is the moth could spend half a minit holding turbo and hopping only to die and have to start the run over anyway.
As i think i have presented my argument in it's entierty you probably woun't heare from me again in this thread. But i have not seen any counter arguments to my position that IMO represent anything more substantal than a tendency to use the same tequniequ to fix every problem (adjust thrust and ot top speed).*
* no offence intended, that's just how it looks through my set of tinted glasses
Sorry for the long post, but I feel that every point Lord Q makes deserves a response, so this is going to be a big post.
I disagree that traders want a fast ship. When I trade, I want a big ship. Yes, fast is good, but big is much, much more important to me. I don't understand why you wouldn't use a Moth w/ a top speed of 150m/s, it would still be the fastest way to move 61 or more cargo units. But whatever, to each their own.
I don't think the moth would have to max out at 108m/s in order to be destroyed, I think dropping its speed to 160m/s would probably work, because when you drop the top speed, you are also dropping the accelertion, because as the speed approaches its maximum, the acceleration approaches zero. Lower maximum speed means acceleration approaches zero faster. Because we have this variable acceleration, it is much more difficult to calculate the average speed, especially as the average speed depends on how far the Moth has to travel - the farther the Moth has to travel, the higher its average speed is going to be. And I disagree with you that an average of 3/4 its max speed would be higher than the actual average, usually I'd say a Moth would average at least 3/4 its max speed, sometimes even more, depending on how far it has to travel in a sector. But I'm too lazy to collect data & do math to actually test it.
But it is possible that dropping its top speed to 160m/s might still not be enough to give pirates a reasonable chance at destroying it. If that is the case, then I would agree with you that its top speed shouldn't be cut much more, IMO the lowest it should be dropped is 150m/s (the same as the EC-88). If at 150m/s the Moth is still too fast to be caught & killed by pirates, then I would say it's time to start dropping its armor.
> Now with the same assumptions reducing the moth's armor by 40% will also make the moth just as
> killable, but will not hav eall the secondary effects on the usability of the moth as a trade ship.
What secondary effects? Taking a little longer to get places? If speed is your only concern, you wouldn't be in a Moth in the first place, you're only going to be in a Moth if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, and if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, the Behemoth is still going to be much faster than anything else.
> I don't see reducing it's armor as reducing the posabilty of teamwork because as it is now moth
> pilots go it alone (and making the moth visably vulnerable will encourage hiring escorts).
Right, when you compare it to the way it is now, lowering the armor will not reduce the possibility of teamwork. But the way I see it, it doesn't increase the possibility of teamwork, at least not as much as lowering the speed would. Yes, making the Moth visibly vulnerable will encourage hiring escorts, but lowering the speed makes it just as visibly vulnerable as lowering its armor would. Also, in order for me to want to hire escorts, I need to be convinced that my escorts will be effective. This is the big reason I still think slowing the moth down encourages teamwork more than lowering its armor, because it gives any escorts the Moth has more time to defend it from the Pirates. If the Moth keeps its 190m/s turbo, but gets its armor dropped to the point where one pirate can kill an unescorted Moth, then I honestly think one pirate will be able to kill a Moth that has one escort. If we're making it so it takes less time for the pirate to kill the Moth, then we're also making it so the escorts have less time to save the Moth, so the Moth pilot has to hire more escorts in order for the escorts to be equally effective.
Now we get into economics: On the pirate side, how many pirates can split the cargo of one Moth, and still make a worthwhile profit? I'd say maybe 2 or 3. So assuming my Moth is going to be attacked by 2 or 3 pirates, how many escorts will I need to hire in order to have a chance of surviving? Will I still be able to make a profit after paying my escorts? As a trader, I would much rather have high armor and low speed, meaning it would take longer to get around but I can hire fewer escorts because they will be more effective, rather than low armor and high speed, meaning it would take less time to get around but I have to hire more escorts because they will be less effective.
> I also think that reducing the armor makes more sence than reducing the speed because it gives
> the pirats a better chance if they are using ammo based weapons (as more shots can miss and
> they will still have enough ammo to finish the job).
Here I don't have much experience (I don't use ammo weapons often), but I don't think ammo has really mattered much in Moth hunting. The thing is, time is far more the constraining factor than ammo is, and would be more so if the armor was reduced. If I'm a pirate in a tri-flare Maud hunting a Moth, and I miss a shot, I am going to be cursing myself more because I wasted a second or two, than because I wasted ammo.
> besides let's face it the moth has rediculous amounts of armor right now. I've heard that
> people were using them to bomb cap ships for a while b/c they were the only player ship
> that could survive the beam cannons long enough for an attack run and an escape.
Eh? Missiles have a longer range than the beam cannon, if I'm making a bombing run I don't even have to get close enough to be hit at all by the beam cannon. I'll take a Rag & do more damage than a Moth can.
> And finaly, slowing the moth down will make trading in general more boring, and pirat
> attacks more frustrating for moth pilots (because the extera time it takes while they run futaly
> towards empty space). If the armor is reduced then, should the moth get attacked, there will
> be a gut wrenching (and quick) chace as the moth tries to get far enough away before it's
> destroied, but even if the pirat wins, the entire balttle will not last so long as to be tedious.
> Whereas if the moth remains the tank that it is the moth could spend half a minit holding turbo
> and hopping only to die and have to start the run over anyway.
OK, if you made that argument in a debate class, and I was your teacher, I would dock your grade. You are using "Appeal to emotion", which is a logical fallacy where the argument tries to take advantage of emotion in order to gain support. Yes, if it was futile to run, then dragging it out would be frustrating. BUT IT WOULD NOT BE FUTILE. When you use the word futile, your argument draws pity towards the Moth, which it does not deserve, because it is not futile. If a Moth is attacked by a single pirate, the pirate might be able to destory it, but might not, as well. Therefore the Moth attempting to run cannot be said to be futile, because the attempt has a reasonable chance at success. Also, even if running was futile, as would (and should) be the case if an unescorted Moth was attacked by two or more pirates, running is not the only option available to the Moth's pilot: many pirates will accept money and let the pilot go on his way. And even if the pirates decide to destroy the moth rather than accepting the money, then the futile situation the Moth's pilot is in is a direct result of his choice not to hire any escorts, if he had, then running would not be futile. As for the battle taking so long as to be tedious, I addressed that previously. I made a estimate (that I actually think is high) of a maximum of 25 seconds for the entire battle, with the Moth having the 45000 armor it has now. Is 25 seconds really a tedious amount of time for you? It's not for me.
As for "using the same technique to solve every problem", I don't think that's what we're suggesting, I think we're suggesting "using the same technique to solve every instance of the same problem." If it works, why try something else? But even more than that, I am thinking about what results I can see each suggestion having, and basing my honest opinion off the conclusion of that thought process. And because I have put thought into it, I do consider my responses to be more substantial than just "a tendency to use the same technique".
Anyway, I'm definitely not offended by you seeing somethings differently than I do. Everyone who isn't me does that. I hope you aren't offended that I don't see everything the same way you do. :-)
I disagree that traders want a fast ship. When I trade, I want a big ship. Yes, fast is good, but big is much, much more important to me. I don't understand why you wouldn't use a Moth w/ a top speed of 150m/s, it would still be the fastest way to move 61 or more cargo units. But whatever, to each their own.
I don't think the moth would have to max out at 108m/s in order to be destroyed, I think dropping its speed to 160m/s would probably work, because when you drop the top speed, you are also dropping the accelertion, because as the speed approaches its maximum, the acceleration approaches zero. Lower maximum speed means acceleration approaches zero faster. Because we have this variable acceleration, it is much more difficult to calculate the average speed, especially as the average speed depends on how far the Moth has to travel - the farther the Moth has to travel, the higher its average speed is going to be. And I disagree with you that an average of 3/4 its max speed would be higher than the actual average, usually I'd say a Moth would average at least 3/4 its max speed, sometimes even more, depending on how far it has to travel in a sector. But I'm too lazy to collect data & do math to actually test it.
But it is possible that dropping its top speed to 160m/s might still not be enough to give pirates a reasonable chance at destroying it. If that is the case, then I would agree with you that its top speed shouldn't be cut much more, IMO the lowest it should be dropped is 150m/s (the same as the EC-88). If at 150m/s the Moth is still too fast to be caught & killed by pirates, then I would say it's time to start dropping its armor.
> Now with the same assumptions reducing the moth's armor by 40% will also make the moth just as
> killable, but will not hav eall the secondary effects on the usability of the moth as a trade ship.
What secondary effects? Taking a little longer to get places? If speed is your only concern, you wouldn't be in a Moth in the first place, you're only going to be in a Moth if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, and if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, the Behemoth is still going to be much faster than anything else.
> I don't see reducing it's armor as reducing the posabilty of teamwork because as it is now moth
> pilots go it alone (and making the moth visably vulnerable will encourage hiring escorts).
Right, when you compare it to the way it is now, lowering the armor will not reduce the possibility of teamwork. But the way I see it, it doesn't increase the possibility of teamwork, at least not as much as lowering the speed would. Yes, making the Moth visibly vulnerable will encourage hiring escorts, but lowering the speed makes it just as visibly vulnerable as lowering its armor would. Also, in order for me to want to hire escorts, I need to be convinced that my escorts will be effective. This is the big reason I still think slowing the moth down encourages teamwork more than lowering its armor, because it gives any escorts the Moth has more time to defend it from the Pirates. If the Moth keeps its 190m/s turbo, but gets its armor dropped to the point where one pirate can kill an unescorted Moth, then I honestly think one pirate will be able to kill a Moth that has one escort. If we're making it so it takes less time for the pirate to kill the Moth, then we're also making it so the escorts have less time to save the Moth, so the Moth pilot has to hire more escorts in order for the escorts to be equally effective.
Now we get into economics: On the pirate side, how many pirates can split the cargo of one Moth, and still make a worthwhile profit? I'd say maybe 2 or 3. So assuming my Moth is going to be attacked by 2 or 3 pirates, how many escorts will I need to hire in order to have a chance of surviving? Will I still be able to make a profit after paying my escorts? As a trader, I would much rather have high armor and low speed, meaning it would take longer to get around but I can hire fewer escorts because they will be more effective, rather than low armor and high speed, meaning it would take less time to get around but I have to hire more escorts because they will be less effective.
> I also think that reducing the armor makes more sence than reducing the speed because it gives
> the pirats a better chance if they are using ammo based weapons (as more shots can miss and
> they will still have enough ammo to finish the job).
Here I don't have much experience (I don't use ammo weapons often), but I don't think ammo has really mattered much in Moth hunting. The thing is, time is far more the constraining factor than ammo is, and would be more so if the armor was reduced. If I'm a pirate in a tri-flare Maud hunting a Moth, and I miss a shot, I am going to be cursing myself more because I wasted a second or two, than because I wasted ammo.
> besides let's face it the moth has rediculous amounts of armor right now. I've heard that
> people were using them to bomb cap ships for a while b/c they were the only player ship
> that could survive the beam cannons long enough for an attack run and an escape.
Eh? Missiles have a longer range than the beam cannon, if I'm making a bombing run I don't even have to get close enough to be hit at all by the beam cannon. I'll take a Rag & do more damage than a Moth can.
> And finaly, slowing the moth down will make trading in general more boring, and pirat
> attacks more frustrating for moth pilots (because the extera time it takes while they run futaly
> towards empty space). If the armor is reduced then, should the moth get attacked, there will
> be a gut wrenching (and quick) chace as the moth tries to get far enough away before it's
> destroied, but even if the pirat wins, the entire balttle will not last so long as to be tedious.
> Whereas if the moth remains the tank that it is the moth could spend half a minit holding turbo
> and hopping only to die and have to start the run over anyway.
OK, if you made that argument in a debate class, and I was your teacher, I would dock your grade. You are using "Appeal to emotion", which is a logical fallacy where the argument tries to take advantage of emotion in order to gain support. Yes, if it was futile to run, then dragging it out would be frustrating. BUT IT WOULD NOT BE FUTILE. When you use the word futile, your argument draws pity towards the Moth, which it does not deserve, because it is not futile. If a Moth is attacked by a single pirate, the pirate might be able to destory it, but might not, as well. Therefore the Moth attempting to run cannot be said to be futile, because the attempt has a reasonable chance at success. Also, even if running was futile, as would (and should) be the case if an unescorted Moth was attacked by two or more pirates, running is not the only option available to the Moth's pilot: many pirates will accept money and let the pilot go on his way. And even if the pirates decide to destroy the moth rather than accepting the money, then the futile situation the Moth's pilot is in is a direct result of his choice not to hire any escorts, if he had, then running would not be futile. As for the battle taking so long as to be tedious, I addressed that previously. I made a estimate (that I actually think is high) of a maximum of 25 seconds for the entire battle, with the Moth having the 45000 armor it has now. Is 25 seconds really a tedious amount of time for you? It's not for me.
As for "using the same technique to solve every problem", I don't think that's what we're suggesting, I think we're suggesting "using the same technique to solve every instance of the same problem." If it works, why try something else? But even more than that, I am thinking about what results I can see each suggestion having, and basing my honest opinion off the conclusion of that thought process. And because I have put thought into it, I do consider my responses to be more substantial than just "a tendency to use the same technique".
Anyway, I'm definitely not offended by you seeing somethings differently than I do. Everyone who isn't me does that. I hope you aren't offended that I don't see everything the same way you do. :-)
Logical fallacy, ohh dear lord, you have got to be joking. Here is an excersize for you Beolach. Why should pirates win? Now dont use "Appeal to emotion".
Ohh and by the way you voilated "Attacking the Person", "Appeal to Authority", and "Strawman" in just the paragraph about logical fallacies. Here is a clue stick. This entire topic is about emotion. About the feel of the game. The moral choice between pirate and trader and what side the balance tilts. So in the future could we please leave the logical fallacy arguments to the discustingly abusive examples? And as a note "Appeal to emotion" is not an offical logical fallacie, its considered informal, and you used it incorrectly. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html
Ohh and by the way you voilated "Attacking the Person", "Appeal to Authority", and "Strawman" in just the paragraph about logical fallacies. Here is a clue stick. This entire topic is about emotion. About the feel of the game. The moral choice between pirate and trader and what side the balance tilts. So in the future could we please leave the logical fallacy arguments to the discustingly abusive examples? And as a note "Appeal to emotion" is not an offical logical fallacie, its considered informal, and you used it incorrectly. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html
Why should pirates win? They should only win if the skill they have at killing traders exceeds the skill at escaping pirates that the trader has, and the skill at defending the trader that the trader's escorts have. The problem is that currently the pirate's skill has no effect on who wins, and the Moth pilot's skill has no effect, unless the Moth pilot is so unskilled as to make mistakes like not jumping empty sectors and not docking after being damaged. This is of course assuming all other things being equal for both the trader and the pirate, in the actual game varying circumstances will of course give some advantage to one or the other.
I could defend my arguments against those fallacies (and BTW, "Appeal to Authority" is not always fallacious - for example, the link in your post constitutes an "Appeal to Authority", but is not fallacious), but it would make this post rather long, and further discussion of logical fallacies is off-topic in this thread. I might (but probably won't) start a thread in the off-topic forum. If you want to start one before I do, I will reply. And as a note, both formal and informal fallacies are "official," they are just seperate catagories. And I did use it correctly, if you want me to expound on why it's correct, we'll have to take it to a thread in the off-topic forum.
I could defend my arguments against those fallacies (and BTW, "Appeal to Authority" is not always fallacious - for example, the link in your post constitutes an "Appeal to Authority", but is not fallacious), but it would make this post rather long, and further discussion of logical fallacies is off-topic in this thread. I might (but probably won't) start a thread in the off-topic forum. If you want to start one before I do, I will reply. And as a note, both formal and informal fallacies are "official," they are just seperate catagories. And I did use it correctly, if you want me to expound on why it's correct, we'll have to take it to a thread in the off-topic forum.
When I said why shoudl a pirate win. I should of been more specific. I was speaking of the moral reasons that a pirat would have a greater right to exist than the trader.
I am sill not convinced that your appeal to emotion fallacy was warrented. How the game makes you feel is more than a significant part of the argument, its the entire point. Entertainment is all about emotion. So an acusasion of Appeal to emotion, unless the fallacious argument is disgustingly so, just comes off as eliteist exclusion of another from the argument because you view your moderatly higher education makes you better.
Though you didn't answer my intended question. Your answer to; how should a pirate win. Was very good. I just cant see how slowing the moth would make any diffrence. There are no tricks or at least very few the trader has. The game just dosn't have the depth. For that reason I do not think nerfign the moth will sove any problems without creating others, possably even worse than the problem we have now. Increased options, differing quality of radar, ECM, ECCM, engine upgrades, manned turrets, and others will give the game so many more avinews of play that engine balance will be much much less important to all but the newbies.
I am sill not convinced that your appeal to emotion fallacy was warrented. How the game makes you feel is more than a significant part of the argument, its the entire point. Entertainment is all about emotion. So an acusasion of Appeal to emotion, unless the fallacious argument is disgustingly so, just comes off as eliteist exclusion of another from the argument because you view your moderatly higher education makes you better.
Though you didn't answer my intended question. Your answer to; how should a pirate win. Was very good. I just cant see how slowing the moth would make any diffrence. There are no tricks or at least very few the trader has. The game just dosn't have the depth. For that reason I do not think nerfign the moth will sove any problems without creating others, possably even worse than the problem we have now. Increased options, differing quality of radar, ECM, ECCM, engine upgrades, manned turrets, and others will give the game so many more avinews of play that engine balance will be much much less important to all but the newbies.
Morality does not apply to who should win a conflict. Morality may apply to whether or not a conflict should take place in the first place, or to which outcome would be preferable (although those are debatable, when the conflict is part of a game, and the moral judgment is being made outside the game's context), but once a conflict takes place, morality has no bearing on who should win.
If you want me to justify my logic, start a thread in the off-topic forum and I'll reply there. I might start a thread on logic there, but probably not right now. I shouldn't have brought it up, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Slowing the moth down will make it so the pirate's skill will have bearing on the outcome. It will also make the trader's escort's skill have bearing on the outcome. But you are correct that it would not make the trader's skill have as much bearing on the outcome as the pirate's or escort's skill. But I think solving 2/3 of the problem makes it a worthwhile solution.
If you want me to justify my logic, start a thread in the off-topic forum and I'll reply there. I might start a thread on logic there, but probably not right now. I shouldn't have brought it up, as it's off-topic for this thread.
Slowing the moth down will make it so the pirate's skill will have bearing on the outcome. It will also make the trader's escort's skill have bearing on the outcome. But you are correct that it would not make the trader's skill have as much bearing on the outcome as the pirate's or escort's skill. But I think solving 2/3 of the problem makes it a worthwhile solution.
It has very very little to do with skill. The trader cannot manuver when running. Once the pirates learn a method for destroying the moth unless the pirate makes a mistake sucess should be 100%. There is nothing a trader can do to change this. I don't see this solving 2/3 of a problem just tipping the scales the other way in favor of the antonist. There is no way I can see that balancing will reward both sides. And rewarding one is just punishing the other. Personally I feel its too early in the development cycle to be balacning the game in favor of pirates. But you think diffrently.
What makes any of you think one pirate SHOULD be able to take down a moth (which has 2-4 times the armor and just as much speed as some fighters) alone?
It seems to me that two or three pirates could take one down with relative ease and justifiably so. Adapt your strategy maybe?
(can I post a thread that's something along the lines of "nerf fighters because they're a lot better than that free ship you start with"?)
It seems to me that two or three pirates could take one down with relative ease and justifiably so. Adapt your strategy maybe?
(can I post a thread that's something along the lines of "nerf fighters because they're a lot better than that free ship you start with"?)
What makes any of you think one pirate SHOULD be able to take down a moth (which has 2-4 times the armor and just as much speed as some fighters) alone?
You shouldn't. Hence this 'nerf the moth' thread.
You shouldn't. Hence this 'nerf the moth' thread.
# It seems to me that two or three pirates could take one down
# with relative ease and justifiably so. Adapt your strategy
# maybe?
five very good pilots have tried on me a few times now, never succeded. they never get me under 50% going through grey. how about you try taking them down and then tell us how it's supposed to be done?
# It has very very little to do with skill. The trader cannot
# manuver when running. Once the pirates learn a method for
# destroying the moth unless the pirate makes a mistake sucess
# should be 100%.
very, *very*, wrong.
okay, trading skills that highly affect the outcome:
1) when you get into a sector, know where to get out as fast as possible. which direction gives 3K before any other? do you know your sector well?
2) how to you place mines? when? for what purpose?
3) how do you plot your trip? what WH access patterns do you use? why? when?
4) tap the turbo to turn as you turbo. when? how much do you turn? how long to do pause to get the turn?
5) how does the mass of your ship affect how you do 1-4?
this is stuff I deal with when I trade, well, sorta. its stuff I deal with when I'm not in a moth. in a moth, I don't really care that much, I fsck up and I'm fine anyway. the only thing is if I'm in a 67000kgs moth, at that point, I start to really care.
and, if a ship has *one* pilot, it should be possible to threaten it by *one* other pilot in this game. a moth with a top of 170 or 175 (which will also make it take longer to get to 170) would probably be a fine start, one good pirate can threaten a moth, but a good trader will probably be safe.
this is not about balancing towards pirate, this is balance. period. right now the moth is nowhere near balanced, trading is a laugh. when I started playing, I was a trader and a purely PvE type, the _reason_ I started doing PvP was that PvE was too easy, and compared to now, PvE was hard back then.
# with relative ease and justifiably so. Adapt your strategy
# maybe?
five very good pilots have tried on me a few times now, never succeded. they never get me under 50% going through grey. how about you try taking them down and then tell us how it's supposed to be done?
# It has very very little to do with skill. The trader cannot
# manuver when running. Once the pirates learn a method for
# destroying the moth unless the pirate makes a mistake sucess
# should be 100%.
very, *very*, wrong.
okay, trading skills that highly affect the outcome:
1) when you get into a sector, know where to get out as fast as possible. which direction gives 3K before any other? do you know your sector well?
2) how to you place mines? when? for what purpose?
3) how do you plot your trip? what WH access patterns do you use? why? when?
4) tap the turbo to turn as you turbo. when? how much do you turn? how long to do pause to get the turn?
5) how does the mass of your ship affect how you do 1-4?
this is stuff I deal with when I trade, well, sorta. its stuff I deal with when I'm not in a moth. in a moth, I don't really care that much, I fsck up and I'm fine anyway. the only thing is if I'm in a 67000kgs moth, at that point, I start to really care.
and, if a ship has *one* pilot, it should be possible to threaten it by *one* other pilot in this game. a moth with a top of 170 or 175 (which will also make it take longer to get to 170) would probably be a fine start, one good pirate can threaten a moth, but a good trader will probably be safe.
this is not about balancing towards pirate, this is balance. period. right now the moth is nowhere near balanced, trading is a laugh. when I started playing, I was a trader and a purely PvE type, the _reason_ I started doing PvP was that PvE was too easy, and compared to now, PvE was hard back then.
>"What secondary effects? Taking a little longer to get places? If speed
>is your only concern, you wouldn't be in a Moth in the first place, you're
>only going to be in a Moth if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, >and if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, the Behemoth is still
>going to be much faster than anything else."
Well here are the secondary effects of reducint thye speed and or thrust of the moth (personal;y i thouight they wwre self evedent but i will spell out the ones i finde easiest to identify and most prerssing"
1. Taking longer to get places: This is not especialy criticle so long as the moth remain above 1/3 the top speed of the Merauder, but is still a concern. And yes, traders want a fast ship, however they also want a big ship. Any trader will agree that a big fast ship is the best, now the moth trades speed for size and traders accept that trade-off because the gain of size outweighs the loss in speed. However reducing the speed will worsen the oppertunity cost of choosing a moth (and pleas no comments about the tenious use of the phrase opertunity cost, it was the closest word i could come up with at this time)
2. Duller trade missions: Let's face it trade missions get downright dull. And making them take longer only reduces the fun traders have. Yes at 150 the moth is still faster than a maud at moving a full load, but it is les so and that makes the moth lose some of it's perpus.
3. Reduced suspencion of disbelief: Who the heck builds a trade ship that can't run, but is armored like a Tank? I mean seriously, why would the moth have so much armor and such a week engin? Any engineer would look at it and say "Why not cut the armor to make the thing lighter and then beef up the engin? After all we aren't building a fortress here we're building a cargo hauler". Now even though this is a game and not reality, a criticle component of any game is suspencion of disbelief, and that becomes increasing;ly difficult when things in game defy real world loginc for no apparent reason other than "Game balance".
4. Making the moth pilot feal like a shooting galary: The rediced speed hinders the mot's ability to escape persuit, and therefor reduces the effectivness of escape tactics like jumping to empty sectors. Additonaly the moth has to absorb more damage while the pilot just guns it hopping the pirat runs out of ammo, forgets to turbo tap, or didn't get in firing range close enough.
>Here I don't have much experience (I don't use ammo weapons often),
> but I don't think ammo has really mattered much in Moth hunting. The
>thing is, time is far more the constraining factor than ammo is, and
>would be more so if the armor was reduced. If I'm a pirate in a tri-flare
>Maud hunting a Moth, and I miss a shot, I am going to be cursing
>myself more because I wasted a second or two, than because I wasted ammo.
Addmitedly the responce i am about to make is derived form a single incident, howerver:
I was once attacked by Dr. Lector when he was flying a tri flare valk, and i was flying a moth. I got away, not because of any fancy piloting or because i jumped out, but because i was able to turn at the last second and avoid enoug of his rockets that he ran out of ammo and i was still at 51%. I could have stopped dead in my tracks right then and all he could do was ram, me or go and reload. Ammo limitations are a serious concern when hunting moths, especialy as the weapons with the best damage/energy ratio are rockets, and therefor ammo dependent.
Now to pose a few questions to Beolach:
1. Why would escorts be less effective if the moth had less armor? Would it not make sence, that the escorts should have an easier time as they don't have to kill the pirats just keep them buisy long enough to let the moth escape?
2. What evedence do you have to support your claim that 108 is an unreasonable estemat for the designed speed of the "nerfed moth" you seem to want? My estemat was based on the following assumptions:
1. D=RT
2. the moth's average speed would be 3/4 it's top speed.
3. the moth needed to remain in the sector 40% longer than it currently does.
Based on this i reasoned that D was a constant (roughly 3,000m), and that as T aprached T+.4T (current time + 40% of current time). Then R must aporach R-.4R (so as to balance the increase in T). Thus i calculated the moths final average speed at 81m/s. Then i used that value to derive the 108m/s top speed based on my assumption that R was 3/4 the top speed.
Additionaly i determined the estamit of 3/4 the top speed as the average speed because i find that i usualy hit top speed less than 3 secondes before i jump when leaving a wormehole. That would make the average speed roughly half that of top speed, but i decided that i should build some padding into this calculation so as to reduce the chance of overestemating the nessesary reduction in speed, and in case i overlooked a variabe that would skew the average speed.
3. If an "Appeal to emotion" is a fallacy that what about your little "red herring" regarding debate classes?
And finaly:
I know i said i wasn't going to post further responces but this started as a responce to what i perceved as a direct question regarding my original argument. So i though it best to clerify with more detail.
>is your only concern, you wouldn't be in a Moth in the first place, you're
>only going to be in a Moth if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, >and if you need to move 61 or more cargo units, the Behemoth is still
>going to be much faster than anything else."
Well here are the secondary effects of reducint thye speed and or thrust of the moth (personal;y i thouight they wwre self evedent but i will spell out the ones i finde easiest to identify and most prerssing"
1. Taking longer to get places: This is not especialy criticle so long as the moth remain above 1/3 the top speed of the Merauder, but is still a concern. And yes, traders want a fast ship, however they also want a big ship. Any trader will agree that a big fast ship is the best, now the moth trades speed for size and traders accept that trade-off because the gain of size outweighs the loss in speed. However reducing the speed will worsen the oppertunity cost of choosing a moth (and pleas no comments about the tenious use of the phrase opertunity cost, it was the closest word i could come up with at this time)
2. Duller trade missions: Let's face it trade missions get downright dull. And making them take longer only reduces the fun traders have. Yes at 150 the moth is still faster than a maud at moving a full load, but it is les so and that makes the moth lose some of it's perpus.
3. Reduced suspencion of disbelief: Who the heck builds a trade ship that can't run, but is armored like a Tank? I mean seriously, why would the moth have so much armor and such a week engin? Any engineer would look at it and say "Why not cut the armor to make the thing lighter and then beef up the engin? After all we aren't building a fortress here we're building a cargo hauler". Now even though this is a game and not reality, a criticle component of any game is suspencion of disbelief, and that becomes increasing;ly difficult when things in game defy real world loginc for no apparent reason other than "Game balance".
4. Making the moth pilot feal like a shooting galary: The rediced speed hinders the mot's ability to escape persuit, and therefor reduces the effectivness of escape tactics like jumping to empty sectors. Additonaly the moth has to absorb more damage while the pilot just guns it hopping the pirat runs out of ammo, forgets to turbo tap, or didn't get in firing range close enough.
>Here I don't have much experience (I don't use ammo weapons often),
> but I don't think ammo has really mattered much in Moth hunting. The
>thing is, time is far more the constraining factor than ammo is, and
>would be more so if the armor was reduced. If I'm a pirate in a tri-flare
>Maud hunting a Moth, and I miss a shot, I am going to be cursing
>myself more because I wasted a second or two, than because I wasted ammo.
Addmitedly the responce i am about to make is derived form a single incident, howerver:
I was once attacked by Dr. Lector when he was flying a tri flare valk, and i was flying a moth. I got away, not because of any fancy piloting or because i jumped out, but because i was able to turn at the last second and avoid enoug of his rockets that he ran out of ammo and i was still at 51%. I could have stopped dead in my tracks right then and all he could do was ram, me or go and reload. Ammo limitations are a serious concern when hunting moths, especialy as the weapons with the best damage/energy ratio are rockets, and therefor ammo dependent.
Now to pose a few questions to Beolach:
1. Why would escorts be less effective if the moth had less armor? Would it not make sence, that the escorts should have an easier time as they don't have to kill the pirats just keep them buisy long enough to let the moth escape?
2. What evedence do you have to support your claim that 108 is an unreasonable estemat for the designed speed of the "nerfed moth" you seem to want? My estemat was based on the following assumptions:
1. D=RT
2. the moth's average speed would be 3/4 it's top speed.
3. the moth needed to remain in the sector 40% longer than it currently does.
Based on this i reasoned that D was a constant (roughly 3,000m), and that as T aprached T+.4T (current time + 40% of current time). Then R must aporach R-.4R (so as to balance the increase in T). Thus i calculated the moths final average speed at 81m/s. Then i used that value to derive the 108m/s top speed based on my assumption that R was 3/4 the top speed.
Additionaly i determined the estamit of 3/4 the top speed as the average speed because i find that i usualy hit top speed less than 3 secondes before i jump when leaving a wormehole. That would make the average speed roughly half that of top speed, but i decided that i should build some padding into this calculation so as to reduce the chance of overestemating the nessesary reduction in speed, and in case i overlooked a variabe that would skew the average speed.
3. If an "Appeal to emotion" is a fallacy that what about your little "red herring" regarding debate classes?
And finaly:
I know i said i wasn't going to post further responces but this started as a responce to what i perceved as a direct question regarding my original argument. So i though it best to clerify with more detail.
"# It seems to me that two or three pirates could take one down
# with relative ease and justifiably so. Adapt your strategy
# maybe?
five very good pilots have tried on me a few times now, never succeded. they never get me under 50% going through grey. how about you try taking them down and then tell us how it's supposed to be done?"
To which I would say those "very good pilots" are not very good. They probably had the damage output, probably had the speed, and might even have had ability to take down a moth. But obviously they didn't have the ability to coordinate any of that on a target.
Here is a clear example where an additional two pilots that could coordinate with the first would have guarenteed a kill:
"I was once attacked by Dr. Lector when he was flying a tri flare valk, and i was flying a moth. I got away, not because of any fancy piloting or because i jumped out, but because i was able to turn at the last second and avoid enoug of his rockets that he ran out of ammo and i was still at 51%. I could have stopped dead in my tracks right then and all he could do was ram, me or go and reload. Ammo limitations are a serious concern when hunting moths, especialy as the weapons with the best damage/energy ratio are rockets, and therefor ammo dependent."
and finally I will respond to this idiocy:
"and, if a ship has *one* pilot, it should be possible to threaten it by *one* other pilot in this game. a moth with a top of 170 or 175 (which will also make it take longer to get to 170) would probably be a fine start, one good pirate can threaten a moth, but a good trader will probably be safe."
one pirate cannot threaten anyone in an equally fast ship of any type -should they choose to run at the outset-. By what critical thinking do you presume to say that ONE type of ship of all the others should NOT have this ability?
# with relative ease and justifiably so. Adapt your strategy
# maybe?
five very good pilots have tried on me a few times now, never succeded. they never get me under 50% going through grey. how about you try taking them down and then tell us how it's supposed to be done?"
To which I would say those "very good pilots" are not very good. They probably had the damage output, probably had the speed, and might even have had ability to take down a moth. But obviously they didn't have the ability to coordinate any of that on a target.
Here is a clear example where an additional two pilots that could coordinate with the first would have guarenteed a kill:
"I was once attacked by Dr. Lector when he was flying a tri flare valk, and i was flying a moth. I got away, not because of any fancy piloting or because i jumped out, but because i was able to turn at the last second and avoid enoug of his rockets that he ran out of ammo and i was still at 51%. I could have stopped dead in my tracks right then and all he could do was ram, me or go and reload. Ammo limitations are a serious concern when hunting moths, especialy as the weapons with the best damage/energy ratio are rockets, and therefor ammo dependent."
and finally I will respond to this idiocy:
"and, if a ship has *one* pilot, it should be possible to threaten it by *one* other pilot in this game. a moth with a top of 170 or 175 (which will also make it take longer to get to 170) would probably be a fine start, one good pirate can threaten a moth, but a good trader will probably be safe."
one pirate cannot threaten anyone in an equally fast ship of any type -should they choose to run at the outset-. By what critical thinking do you presume to say that ONE type of ship of all the others should NOT have this ability?