Accually as a trader longer runs, very rairly anoy me. Part of the fun is the travel. Longer you are out greater chance on an enounter. I would not be opposed to longer travel. In fact I think it would help make the universe seeme larger. Just increase the (or keep the same because its a little to easy to make money) the pay for trading runs and problem solved.

Look at all the time it takes to get from one place to another in WoW. But the thing is, the distances there don't discourage people, because there are things to do along the way.

Perhaps the reason why the game feels like it doesn't have much content, is that you don't ever have to work to get to where you want to be.

Ill second that.

i'd agree with that sediment if we hade more in game characters. As it is there aren't enough PCs to populate the univers, and the NPCs aren't very interesting. The reason i'm against long travel times rightnow is that with our current player base it isn't unreasonable to have to fly halfway across the galaxy to get to where the action is (it usualy seems to alternate between the BP mission and B-8)

If there were enough people to make the univers feal alive (as opposed to the ocasional other player i see once on my way to drop off some cargo) then longer travel times would be more reasonable as you don't have to go as far to make conections.

So, I think that with a combination of more NPC traders, NPC pirates, and NPC Millitia forces patrolling (as well as the slower speeds. :P), things would be much more interesting and fun, nevermind having the universe come to life. :)

And yes, I think Shape is right when he says said that "Perhaps the reason why the game feels like it doesn't have much content, is that you don't ever have to work to get to where you want to be."

I don't think slower speeds are the answer, our ships move at about the speed of WWII aircraft as it is... I would hate to see them get any slower.

I agree the real issue is that travel oughta be more interesting... i.e. more dangerous with more random events happening along the way.

Ion storms, for example, are not a threat under the current system. If a jump countdown timer were re-instituted it would force you to fight off at least some of the bots once you reached the jump point.

But as far as turbo speeds across the board, I think they are fine as they are.

I don't think slower speeds are the answer, our ships move at about the speed of WWII aircraft as it is... I would hate to see them get any slower.

Ship speeds in this game are entirely relative. Heck, we could say our ships go up to 1.3km/s, and not have it make a difference. The real problem is that our ships go 3 times as fast as they normally fly under turbo. How the heck are we supposed to shoot something moving that fast, nevermind protect something moving that fast. Turbo speeds don't neccecarily need to come down, but normal flight and turbo speeds need to be more similar.

I agree the real issue is that travel oughta be more interesting... i.e. more dangerous with more random events happening along the way.

The only reason that stuff like Ion storms aren't dangerous, is because of our incredible speed. Bots can't catch us, and bots haven't figured out how to shoot at a rapidly approaching target. BUT, try flying through an ion storm with Aputech in a stock EC-88. THEN tell me it's not dangerous.

Ion storms, for example, are not a threat under the current system. If a jump countdown timer were re-instituted it would force you to fight off at least some of the bots once you reached the jump point.

I very rarely have any bots on me when I reach the jump point anyways. Bots aren't that persistent, and the ones that are, get left in the dust quickly anyways.

Having thought about this a fair deal, I think that my annoyances with the flight system mainly come down to issues with how fast ships travel. It's always hit-and-catch-back-up-and-repeat. It just isn't interesting.

It's not purely relative.... you also have to take into consideration ship size vs. velocity. Flying a 45th century fighter class ship through an asteroid field, the sensation of speed should be incredible.

Which brings me to one thing I don't understand about your proposal. If the issue is catching up to each other, how would reducing turbo speeds across the board help? You still aren't going to gain any ground on your quarry because you also will be moving that much slower. Isn't what you really want a greater differential in speed? Or what about an increase in weapon velocity across the board thereby extending the range of engagement? I'm sure there's a good reason for what you suggest, but a little clarification would be helpful.

Reducing turbo speeds will increase the amount of time that ships have to travel before they can jump, and increase the amount of time faster ships have to catch them. Granted, slower ships, with a proper head start, could very well be uncatchable, at least within one system. So, for the sake of argument, let's say that weapon ranges are about 500m, the average fighter can turbo at 140m/s, and a 'moth can turbo at 110m/s.

Thus, the fighter would have a 30m/s advantage over the moth, which is nearly 1/3 of the moth's speed. So, over an entire system, it would be perfectly feasable to catch a moth and attack it. Once the fighter dropped out of turbo, it would only be going 40m/s slower than the Moth anyways (assuming that it's normal flight is 70m/s), so having to recharge the battery would no longer be a fatal problem.

So, over a 3000m stretch, the fighter could travel the entire distance in 21.5 seconds, whereas the moth would take about 27 seconds, effectively giving the fighter a 5.5 second window of attack (The moth would currently do it in just over 14 seconds or so, and the fighter would do it in about 12.5, assuming both start from full turbo. That's only a 1.5 second window.)

Yes, a greater differential in speed would also help, but I don't think that that alone would solve the problem. And as for weapon velocity, I wouldn't particularly mind seeing that bumped up a little, but I don't see how it would help this situation.

I actually love what Momerath pointed out.

I think the ships should be slowed down (turbo wise), and the universe should be cut in half.

like 3-4 systems per nation, etc.

The universe currently is for an active player base 100% bigger than ours. I see one human pilot every 10 minutes while I am traveling... kinda dull, I find.

just my thoughts.

bump for smittens

If anything, I want to see cruising speeds INCREASED across the board, rather than turbo decreased. It would help raise the excitement of battle and hazard of roids. In my opinion, the spacecraft are just way too slow to begin with, which makes the turbo seem way too fast.

I also think the turbo-maneuvering gimmik is a bad idea. Allowing that would negate the purpose of having a turbo in the first place -- the trade-off of speed for maneuverability. Perhaps a more feasible option would be to have some slower transports with the ability to move targeting independently of drive, in order to fire in different directions while turboing in one.

If anything, I want to see cruising speeds INCREASED across the board, rather than turbo decreased. It would help raise the excitement of battle and hazard of roids. In my opinion, the spacecraft are just way too slow to begin with, which makes the turbo seem way too fast.

Riiiight....what about weapon speeds then? Turns impractical pretty quickly, methinks.

As for excitement in roid battles, systems with roids that are closer together, or abandoned stations would prove perfectly feasable.

I think we need a bigger difference in heavy ships and light ships cruising speeds.

The light ships don't stand much of a chance at the moment because there is no outmaneuvering. You can outsrafe the heavies, but you can't catch them. I hate trying to catch up to a heavy ship backing up, while I'm in a light ship because its pointless. You hit turbo, they fire flares or lasers or what not.... It's pretty pointless. The light ships should have a higher cruising speed and a higher turbo thrust than they have now. That would make the moth easily caught.

/givemoney Devs 2c

eh, unless the heavy wants to run, catching it isn't that hard. and I *get* a Ragnarok backing away from a Rev C. what I find more annoying is a Rev C backing away from pretty much whatever. :-)

Well that's why ALL ships need to have less backwards thrust than forward.

A 10-20% reduction would be all that's needed too.

I think we need a bigger difference in heavy ships and light ships cruising speeds.

Agreed. However, it's not the only thing that needs to change.

Well that's why ALL ships need to have less backwards thrust than forward.

A 10-20% reduction would be all that's needed too.

Also agreed. That also isn't the only thing that needs to change... :P