Forums » Suggestions

Cap Ship Turrets

123»
Dec 14, 2005 LordofBlades link
Ok, so, nobody knows what the dev's are actually doing with the cap ships, but I'd like to make a few suggestions, just in case they haven't been thought of.

1) The current cap ship turrets:
Personally, I think they should remain, but not as standard equiptment on every cap ship. Their a little to powerful, so I also think that their price should be rammed all the was up to like 100K per turret. I'd also suggest that each turret emplacement be able to equipt 1 large or 1 small port weapon. Just one weapon in there, but you can stick in whatever you like basically. Since normal weapons would be a lot cheaper, I believe this would go a long way to balancing the cap ships. I'd also like to suggest that each turret have its own individual battery.

2) Fighters:
It would be completely awesome if you could buy, launch, and maintain fighter craft inside of a cap ship. Maybe like 2 itani border guardians or two serco vulture guardians inside a cap ship, that can be launched and ordered to attack so and so target.

And while I'm here, medium ships. We can have fighter and cap ships, but we're still missing the trade and transport and destroyer type vessels in between the two extremes. Ships about 1/4th the size of the major capital ships, filling the vital trade roles. Or combat support roles. Not to mention the more appealing availibility and cost, as well as the much less harsh lag caused by those ships, as opposed to capital ships.

Ok, I'm done, feel free to add stuffs.
Dec 14, 2005 Shapenaji link
You think they should remain and up the price? that's not going to deter anyone.

Beam weapons are (and the devs have said it a few times) a proxy. They're uninteresting, why would we want to promote their use at all?
Dec 14, 2005 Lord Q link
beam turets are fine, what is needed is longer range perjectile weapons, frankly the beam turets are prety much usless for real capiutle ship fights, just watch 2 HACs going at it and you will see what i mean. Beam cannons are soly anti-fighter weapons, and as such will not be usable except as support weaponry.
Dec 14, 2005 LordofBlades link
I think the price may deter people is they have to pay 1mil for 10 laser cannons. Especially since they could well end up broke. Think of it, their are 31 turret emplacments on a HAC, that's 3,100,000 for a full loadout of those laser cannons. I'm also going to have to agree with Lord Q, we do need turrets that are focused more towards large ship to ship combat.
Dec 14, 2005 Shapenaji link
exactly, but the turrets AREN'T focused to Large ship combat.

They're point defense. They're what the devs came up with because the original AGT's were pretty useless (but a lot more fun to fire).

A good design for a cap ship draws attention, right now, it just creates these gank fests, where everyone sits in a cap ship and blasts away at ANYONE who they can actually hit.

Why?

because the capship turrets are too powerful. There's no way to make them miss, and so they tend to disperse combat. Truly, the only way to fight them is with missiles, from FAR FAR away. Which is absurd.

Perhaps they should keep 2 of the beam weapons, which should be designed to focus strictly on taking out missiles etc.

But seriously, 1 mil isn't very much money.

there are many players who have over a hundred mil. And I could easily shell out for that right now. With them on, and the knowledge that I can dock and repair. I'll never lose it, so why am I worried about the cost?
Dec 14, 2005 Cunjo link
there are entire threads debating this...

LOB, you gotta just calm down and let the cappies come to you. They're not designing them soley for the purpose of letting you live your private capship fleet fantasies you know.

EDIT: on what shape said,
The beam turrets dont fit the role. they were designed for precisely that, but they're too unbalanced to counter... they just don't work the way they should to be practical.

.

I'm sure everyone loved the look of the AGT weapons... the only problem was that they posed no threat - they didn't hit anything.

I think any respectable capship (such as the HAC) should have a variety of weapons:

Heavy blaster batteries - poor auto aim and an aiming inaccuracy of 3 degrees or so. Big, fast, powerful and pretty bolts to light up the space between two capships and hammer eachother hard. They shouldn't be able to effectively hit light ships because of their somwhat slow refire (maybe 1.5 shots a second) and inaccuracy (they'd miss a target that small, except at point-blank), but they should have enough power to hurt capships, and vaporize a light if they hit it

Medium blaster turrets - decent auto-aim, highly accurate, and very fast-travelling energy fire, these should pack about as much punch as a neut or posi, and travel a fair bit faster to make them somewhat effective against medium to heavy player ships at ranges in excess of 700-1000 meters, and effective against lights within 500m. They would fire fast and in a wide arc, preventing ships from just 'parking' between heavy batteries and hammering the capship

Point-defence beams - These should NOT be able to do significant damage to fighters. they should have a short range and be designed to destroy incoming ordinance before it reaches the hull. if/when ordinance becomes targetable, these would be the ideal defence against missile-spammers who unload tube after tube from outside range. Note, that if ordinance becomes targetable, it may also work to just have the medium blaster turrets fill both roles, eliminating the need for a beam weapon altogether

Homing missiles - think of them as badass gemenis... slower-maneuvering but harder-hitting, and with a simialr refire rate, they could be used against bombers, but would be relatively ineffective against fighters unless they make runs straight at the capship. They would be deterrent against the simple "run in really fast, unleash hell, and run out really fast before the blasters catch up to you" strategy.

Docking Bay - Critical to ships such as the HAC... there needs to be a way for crew to take to space to fend off fighters.

.

With each of the above, a fully-crewed capitol ship would be all but impervious to attack from smaller ships, and would require another capship to counter in combat (assuming the opposition doesn't greatly outnumber the crew) This is definately the direction I'd like to see the HAC take.

Although a smaller, player-controlled capship (such as TPG's project) might be without the missiles, and feature fewer and smaller heavy blaster batteries better suited to combat against other ships its own size... I still don't know how it would survive without a docking bay though... it would need a standby escort wing, which could be impractical on longer journeys.

.

Ultimately, I think the HAC should be player-controllable, though not in a conventional sense... subject to dev spawning or guild-endorsement (ie, costs an ABSURD amount of cash... up to 100 mil or so, and can only be purchased by guild committee vote), they should have a command deck which you could enter as you would a turret, allowing you to maneuver it (within reason - perhaps no intersector naviagtion clearance for the dev-spawned ones, or only allowed whennpiloted by guild members n the upper echelons)
Dec 14, 2005 LordofBlades link
Torpedo tubes. I really don't think capital ships would be using missiles, seeing as missiles are small and fast, designed to hit small and fast targets. Torpedo's on the other hand, are not small and fast, but large and powerful, perfect for cap ship to cap ship combat. Also, I strongly suggest that every cap ship be player purchisabl. Not all players are happy within a group, and denying them access to something such as a HAC just because they don't want to be part of a guild doesn't seem fair.

And I don't have dreams of capital ship fleets. I only want one, my own ship to sail the skys in. Not 100.
Dec 14, 2005 Person link
Yeah, I posted this a little while back:

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/12085#146827
Dec 15, 2005 toshiro link
@Shape:

As a matter of fact, long-range missile weaponry would logically be the best choice to fight capital ships if you are in a ship that has a minuscule fraction of the armor of the ship that you are going to attack.

I do see the problems with that, of course. Combat would degenerate to long-rage sniping with missiles and then closing in for the coup de grāce.

On torpedoes...

We once had the Avalon Torpedo, which was obviously intended as an anti-CapShip/station weapon. Due to excessive abuse of inherent flaws, it got pulled, but I guess the devs didn't throw away the code that is the avalon.
Dec 15, 2005 icbm1987 link
Dec 15, 2005 Lord Q link
>I do see the problems with that, of course. Combat would degenerate to long-rage
>sniping with missiles and then closing in for the coup de grāce.

that's prety much the alpha and omega of capitle ship battles. cap ships don't dogfight. they have fighter escorts for that.
Dec 15, 2005 icbm1987 link
Basic Capship Battle.
1) Raise Shields and bring ship to Combat Level alerts and speed.
2) Launch fighter Screen (Fighter SCREEN? How's that going to work in VO?)
3) Proceed to slug it out with the other capship
4) Have bombers try to take out weapon emplacements on other capship
5) Have a few anti-fighter/bomber turrets
6) Lose most of fighter screen, but emerge victorious.

Yes?
Dec 15, 2005 Cunjo link
@LOB

We want missiles for anti-bomber defence, not for anti-capship warfare. For anti-capship warfare, we have heavy blaster batteries (think Star Wars Turbolaser - same concept)

Having long-range torpedos like the avalon to fight capship-capship would discourage more intense close-encounters and side-by-side firefights... you wouldn't ever see the heavy blasters used. Capitol ships should be made to fly in for close side-passes in order to make use of their full arsenal of heavy weaponry. This brings capship and support tactics to the battles, and increases the intensity (aka. "Fun Factor") of fighting with caps.

I don't think the devs should bring back the avalon... at least not until capitol ships are much further along in development.
Dec 16, 2005 Lord Q link
the problem with discussing capitles ships in VO is there is nothing even remotely like them in game now. the HACs are basicly mobile scenery with weapons, the don't fight and aren't aremed anything like a cap ship should be.

capitle ships need:
long range anti- capitle ship perjectile, and missile weaponry (i'm talking a max engagment range of 10km+)
anti-fighter and missile point deffence weaponry (beam cannons)
heavy, but shorter range weaponry (max range 5ish km, but much more deadly than longer range weaponry)

the result will be this:
because missiles can be shot down, capitle ship mounted missiles and torpedos will have limited effectivness (the enemy can see them comming and shoot the down kiloniters before impact).
long range weponry can be used to engage from across a sector, but like curent combat will be less effective at long range because the enemy can make exasive manuvers.
Combat between cap ships will be about bringing the most deadly array of weapons to bare on your oponrnt fist. (ie getting them in range of a devestating broadside from those 5km range guns [probably within 2-3 km to get any accuracy]).
Fighters in cap ship battles will provide launch platforms for additional missiles (a rag could get a lot closer to an HAC than another HAC) and as deffence against enemy missile and fighter attacks (to keep the fighter spam to a minimum).

the reason cap ships are spam bait now, is because WE ARE FLYING FIGHTERS AGAINST THEM, a fignter gainst a cap ship is by nesesity a spam fight.

[edit] fighting with capitle ships will; be more fun when and only when the cap ships keep a reasonable distance (2km+) from one aother
Dec 16, 2005 icbm1987 link
Yes... I agree...

Either that... or they need to make baby HACs when they start doing that thing in B8...
Dec 17, 2005 fooz2916 link
My ideal of a HAC battle would have the HAC's as a base with numerous difficult (but not impossible) defenses. Most of the battle would depend on the skill and straetgy of the fighters and mini-cappies.
Dec 17, 2005 BoxCarRacer link
Does anyone remember the fun capitol ship battles?
The ones with the AGT where even though the AGT was easy to dodge it just looked friggin cool when you had 200 shots fired at you at once.

I say increase the speed of the AGT to 600-800 increasing the effective range beyond the range of light fighter weapons (600m). Then disperse these AGT's evenly accross the ship. Leave the Uberized Mining Beam Turrets but please for the love of god change the animation so that it looks somewhat believable. I'm thinkin Homeworld 2 ion beams.

Also slow down the tracking speed of the Ion Turrets so that they are really only effective when tracking an object at 1000m+ and even then are only good at killing bombers. This way each turret has its role and is dependent on the other. Rock, Paper, Scissor's combat enabled and now we have objectives for each class of ships.

But most importantly bring back the fun.
Capships fun died way too fast cause of the ppl who said:
"O it's too easy to kill that's not realistic! Capitol ships should kill you instantly and require guilds upon guilds to take down!"
Dec 18, 2005 roguelazer link
I do agree that caps die way too fast, although that wasn't your point. :P
Dec 18, 2005 Cunjo link
LordQ:
"the problem with discussing capitles ships in VO is there is nothing even remotely like them in game now. the HACs are basicly mobile scenery with weapons, the don't fight and aren't aremed anything like a cap ship should be.

Yes, but the HAC COULD be outfited as we're describing to bring us that much closer. Yes, the HAC pilot AI needs a lot of work, but that's just a piece of the bigger picture - we could at least use them as a platform to test and demonstrate the loadouts which will hopefully one day be the basis of capitol ship warfare.

I agree 100% with what BoxCar is saying. My proposal is basically the same, only I'd like to eliminate the beams entirely, and make the AGT into something else for the sake of not having it just be a "uber AGT". I'd rather have a slower-firing, more powerful version (with different graphics of course) for anti-cap warfare (when it comes) and a lighter, faster version for the current state of affairs (the fighters).

and WHO CARES if they're easy to kill? we're not at the point yet where it makes any difference. As LordQ said, they're just scenery; it won't hurt to toy with their weaponry, and make them EASIER TO KILL TEMPORARILY with the long-term goal of having a balanced and FUN capship in the future.
Dec 18, 2005 Shapenaji link
I feel like flare-like turrets make more sense, slower moving, but inescapeable at close range. with a few tri-rail turrets for people hanging out at long range.

you could keep the autoaim specs the same as what these weps are now, and I think you'd get a nice result