Okay, correction: The Avalon torpedo SHOULD be big.

Is that better?

Cunjo,
>Also, I don't know if you've noticed, but in almost every movie, game, show,
>ANYTHING so far, featuring large capitol ships, they do not fire on eachother from
>long range. Why? the logical reason: It's not effective, and the real reason: It's not
>fun.

let's see, in star trek, they refer to distances in the thousands of kilometers, in EVE range is mesured in tens to hundreds of kiloneters (this is second hand from a friend who plays), in star wars the capitle ships appear to be several ship lengths apart and that translates to esily 10-20km... and in real life, it is prefered to engage your oponents from long range in naval and air combat.

>Have you even seen a Trident? they're not that big...

yes, i saw the trident when it was first put on the main server to show off the artwork shortly after Waylon (i'm fairly certain that is spelled wrong) left the dev team.

a 700m long ship (the HAC is roughly that size i believe) should be able to fire it's weapons a lot further than 2km (that's just under 3 ship lengths). i'll agree that for scinamatic effect it is best if the battles be at close range but 3 ship lengths is prety darn close. the trident while smaller than the HAC needs comprable range capabilities. obviously the trident should tend to be armed with lower range weapons that are better for engaging fighters, but the KEP gun and Avalon Torpedo should have a maximum range of 8-10km, with an optimum range around 1.5-4km.

now as for the drasticly more inportant point of flexability:

my original coment:
>it may be the idea that certain weapons can only be placed in forward facing fixed
>mounts while others can only be placed in turrets (if i understand the sugestion
>corectly). personaly i'd rather they be interchangable. or perhaps have the wepon
>itself determing whether the mounting point is a rurret or a fixed position.

if you will read that you will see i sugested that the weapon determine what is and isn't feasable to put in a turret. However placment on the ship is open for custimisation. basicly it's the same as mounting a gattling turret verses a mega-posi. they take up an L port but the GT behaves differently because it's a turret while the mega-posi is a fixed gun.

and now for the size of weapons:
how big do you think an avalon torpedo should be?

when i think torpedo i think something about 2-4m long. that's hardly the length of a trident. in all hoesty you should be able to mount them on a turret if you wanted (i see only minimal practicle benefit to that, so i don't care if you can or not).

the KEP gun could concivably be 20-30m long (i'd personaly rather see it around 5m or so in length).

Any weapon of apriciable range should have its drawbacks. Long-range energy weapons have power requirements of expodential magnitude dependent on range so that the particle beam or packet does not dissapate.

Unguided Ammo-Based weapons require large aperatuses to propel projectiles through stellar dust at sufficient velocities to pierce standard ship hulls. Magnetic acceleration is the prefered method, because it eliminates the need for physical propellants. Standard railguns necesitate only a small amount of space because the projectile has so little mass, but in a captial-class railgun or coilgun, the apatatus must be considerably larger as the projectile must be of significant size. In a true 1-shot, 'capbuster' accelerator, the weapon would be nearly the entire length of an HAC, and require gargantuan amounts of power.

Missles, and other guided weapons, can travel farther than other weapons because they carry their own propellant. However, this same propellant increases the mass of the missle--making it comparitivly slower than conventional weaponry. When empolyed by capital ships, guided warheads like Avalon Torpedos are fired in the opening volly, but once the capships close to turret range such artillary becomes unviable as an effective weapon system.

(*Note: I'm a big fan of acronyms and all, but a 'KEP' gun just sounds cheesy. Perhaps you could use a fancier term like 'Kinetic Warhead'?)

vIsitor,
while i agree with the general points of your post. i have to point out that todays naval artilery can fire several kilomiters through earth's atmosphere which is drasticly denser than even the densest interplanitary space dust. on the scales we are talking about i don't think space dust is a signifigant sorce of drag.

anyway, the donside to long range capitle ships weapons should be a low rate of fire and the fact that you have to have a cap ship to carry them. and like i said, the KEP gun could concevably be large enough to warent the need of a spinal mount if it does a lot of damage and has a nice 10km maximum range. but i had envisioned something comprable to the main turrets on a WW-2 era warship as far as relative size goes.

True, but we want the game to be fun. The game will most certainly not be fun if Capships can PK you from the other side of a sector, even if it does reload slowly or have other prohibitive drawbacks.

Really, things only get interesting at close range where the HAC's exchange pretty broadsides. Besides, even once cappies are player-owned they will be prohibitively expensive, and it would be a terrible shame if one required their own cappie to take one down.

Well all turrets that are meant to kill cap ships should have a real turret graphic (not just the platter thing) so that pilots can see where the big guns are pointed, and should have slow tracking speeds, so long range fighter kills are possible, but only if the players aren't looking at where the cap ship is aiming.

But otherwise, it would be immediately visible that cap ship guns are swinging in their direction, and they should get the hell out of the way!

all the ranges i've sugested are for the anti-cap ship weapons, which should have slow enough tracking to make following a fighter difficult if not inposable.

the anti fighter range should max out at aroind 1km, with optimum range at around 500m.

LQ:
"let's see, in star trek, they refer to distances in the thousands of kilometers, in EVE range is mesured in tens to hundreds of kiloneters (this is second hand from a friend who plays), in star wars the capitle ships appear to be several ship lengths apart and that translates to esily 10-20km... "

In Star Trek, have you ever seen phasers fired at a ship 1000k away? NO!
I don't give a flying fuck how EVE does it - this is not EVE, and there must be a REASON players choose VO over EVE; let's not make this EVE, ok?
Ever notice that all the determining Star Wars capship exchanges occur at extremely close ranges? If not, you need to work on your observation skills.
We also talk about airstrike deployment radiuses in hundreds of miles, but that doesn't mean our bombs travel that far once released.

"and in real life, it is prefered to engage your oponents from long range in naval and air combat."

Of course!! Because then you can eliminate them without ever really having to engage them! How much fun is that? NONE! Especially if you're on the recieving end!

I don't know how new you are to MMOGs, but unlike real life, or all those single-player games you love to have great advantage or cheat in, when you're playing multiplayer, people WILL complain if you're continually shooting them down at long range without ever giving them the chance to fight back! THIS IS NOT YOUR OWN PERSONAL VIDEOGAME.

"while i agree with the general points of your post. i have to point out that todays naval artilery can fire several kilomiters through earth's atmosphere which is drasticly denser than even the densest interplanitary space dust. on the scales we are talking about i don't think space dust is a signifigant sorce of drag."

Since I disagree with your stupidity, I have to point out that today's naval artillery does not fire ion, phased plasma, neutron, antimatter or energy packets, which aren't stable, even in a vacuum. Furthermore, they use ballistic technologies that while very efficient in grounded positions at atmospheric pressure and normal gravity, do not WORK particularily well in space for various reasons (inertia, anyone?).

"all the ranges i've sugested are for the anti-cap ship weapons, which should have slow enough tracking to make following a fighter difficult if not inposable.

the anti fighter range should max out at aroind 1km, with optimum range at around 500m."

So what you're saying, is that capships should be able to duke it out from distances that make their fighter escorts not only obsolete but incapable of finding worthwhile action?

No. Shut up, and/or get a bloody spellchecker already.

Crip:
The idea for the heavy turrets is that they would be too inaccurate to stand a good chance of actually hitting a fighter at anything other than point-blank anyway, though having real turret graphics would definately help (and look cool besides)

vIsitor:
You're right on the ball.
Don't like KEP Gun? Kinetic Energy Penetration... KEP Cannon perhaps?

You know, in my experience people who have to resort to shouting and swearing to make themselves heard most often have the least to say. Just a subtle tip.

I for one am strongly in favor of long range cap ship weapons because it opens up the playing field. If cap ship weapons are relegated to point blank range then combat becomes reduced to sidling up alongside another ship and slugging it out until the stronger ship wins, as evidenced in the B8 cap ship battles. Ideally positioning, maneuvering, and tactics would all come into play: a weaker ship might defeat a stronger ship through clever maneuvers, making use of a larger ship's blind spot etc. Long range cap ship weapons would hopefully be only effective against other cap ships, so the shooting people down without giving them a chance to fight back scenario wouldn't really apply.

This has all been thoroughly hashed out before of course. For more thoughts on the subject see this thread:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10619

Phaser:

Tactics will of course come into play, and long-range weapons should be available to to the capships. They should, however, be relatively ineffective when compared to the close-range weaponry. In order to use their arsenal to its maximum potential, a capital ship should need to get in for a close broadside of heavy slugging. This leaves open, of course, the potential for weaker ships that cannot risk a close-encounter with a capship to hit it from range, drawing out the battle and whittling it down (or delivering some highly tactical blows for a decisive victory)

There's no getting around the fact, however, that close-up battles like the capships in B8 are FUN that way (or, were... until they brought in the insta-kill mining beams)

>There's no getting around the fact, however, that close-up battles like the
>capships in B8 are FUN that way (or, were... until they brought in the insta-kill
>mining beams)

that's because the b-8 battles are fighter battles with the cap ships as a background. an actual cap ship battle is when 2 or more capitle ships engage one another while under the command of somone who derserves the position, not the adapted fighter ai the curent NPC cap ships use.

> they use ballistic technologies that while very efficient in grounded positions at
>atmospheric pressure and normal gravity, do not WORK particularily well in space
>for various reasons (inertia, anyone?)

um, actualy the balistics used for modern artilery are designed to combat gravity, and perhaps even the curvature of the earth and the courolis effect (depending on just how far you are actualy shooting).
in space where drag is neglegable, local effects of gravity are neglegable and there is no coriolis effect or global curvature to worry about, you would be able to shoot farther, and more acurately, with solid perjectiles.

and in fact enertia is the only thing that makes guns work at all.

A lot of ballistics tech in use today is guided, using the atmosphere to generate enough friction to efficiently change direction. Without an atmosphere, you have to counteract your own inertia to change directions, and as such, it requires more energy to do so.

Beyond that, I'm rather partial to the scenario with mostly ineffective long-range anti-cap weapons when compared to a full broadside of short-range anti-caps. I'd imagine that a full broadside of anti-HAC weaponry focused onto a Trident would drop the hull ~30%. Against a HAC, ~5%. Small numbers when one considers the reload rate needed to balance such weapons, as well as general fighter combat. However, if anti-HAC weaponry dropped 30% of a HAC's hull, then battles would be over in a few reloads, which might be as little as thirty seconds each, depending on what the devs set them as.

These are suppozsed to be expensive as mess ships, and losing yours in two minutes is Not Fun. Drop the damage of a full braodside of anti-HAC down to ~5% HAC hull and you have a 1v1 capship battle that lasts roughly ten minutes. Assuming that both ships carry fighter supplies for a battle of that length, you have a furball with two ships as the backdrop that lasts 10 minutes(excluding anti-capship fighter weaponry and repair beams).

Now, switch to a HAC vs. Trident scenario. The Trident has been specialized to take out HACs without much assistance. It's outfitted with an extreme range front-firing weapon and a minimal set of anti-fighter weaponry. The extra space gained from tossing most of the anti-fighter turrets is used to store extra fighters and bombers. The fighters are used for protection against the long-range(I use the term loosely, more on the scale of 5~10KM) bomber complement of the HAC, and the bombers are used to generally annoy the HAC and its fighter screen. Primarily, the Trident is going to stay as far away from the HAC as its weapon systems will allow, pegging it from 5~10KM. However, the long range systems, despite being specialized for usage against HACs, drop the hull of the HAC slowly.

In this scenario, the Trident needs to keep at a decent range from the HAC or it's toast. If it can do that, it will be able to while away at the HAC until the HAC is destroyed. The HAC, if the Trident maneuvers right, will have trouble pegging it with its own long-range weaponry(Which is much much much more powerful than the Trident's) due to its slow turn rate. To win the battle, the HAC will have to rely on effective deployment of its fighter screen, and effective usage of its bombers. If the Trident's fighter screen falls asleep and most of the munitions sent along by the HAC bombers gets through, the Trident is toast.

LQ:
"um, actualy the balistics used for modern artilery are designed to combat gravity, and perhaps even the curvature of the earth and the courolis effect (depending on just how far you are actualy shooting).
in space where drag is neglegable, local effects of gravity are neglegable and there is no coriolis effect or global curvature to worry about, you would be able to shoot farther, and more acurately, with solid perjectiles.

and in fact enertia is the only thing that makes guns work at all."

Think about this for a minute, LQ, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. On the ground, artillery fires by using the inertia of the earth or a very large vessel's water displacement area to counteract the inertia of the projectile, which must be fired with an extremely high velocity. The heavier and faster the projectile, the more potential for damage and range it has, while the more solid the anchorage for the gun must be. What do you think would happen if you fired a traditional artillery gun in space? Your ship is propelled in the opposite direction of the projectile. This makes traditional, high-speed, distance-spanning projectiles extremely inefficient, because not only do you distance yourself from your target with each shot, but you decrease the power of each shot because of your backwards motion.

Why else do you think that new technologies would resort to energy-based weapons? The fact that the damage is dealt using exothermic reactions rather than kinetic impact makes them far more practical, in spite of the long-distance stability issues of the packets (they will always decay with distance)

Additionally, ScubaSteve is right about the aerodynamics of traditional ballistics.

As for your commend regarding the role of NPC vs PC CAPITOL ships, it really doesn't change anythying other than altering the survival of the HAC to be dependant on more than JUST the fighter pilots. Even a HAC captain is nothing without his crew - HACs should not be a standalone assault ship, even when player-controlled.... ESPECIALLY when player-controlled. The performance of every fighter pilot in the engagement should be just as paramount to the HAC's survival as the person flying the HAC.

Furthermore, you're wrong about the HACs just being a background - even now, they're the main event, and this will become even more true once the insta-kill mining beams are eliminated and consequences placed on their loss. The action is best if it takes place AROUND the capitol ships, not between them. You invoilve more players that way, and bring in more fun, intense and complex firefights and tactics. In the case of Cap-v-Cap, it is far better to slug it out up close than to simply fire off munitions from range - to say it is not is your 'missile-centered-warfare' mentality speaking again; this mentality is bad for the game.

ScubaSteve:
Right-On!

I am however thinking that rather than carrying its own compliment of fighters (it's too small to carry enough to really protect it) the Trident should have an independent, supplementary escort in those situations, and still preserve its other defenseive armamanets.

The point of the KEP cannon is to give the trident that advantage at range, as that is definately the role it fits into best.

Cunjo,
ScubaSteve and i described virtualy identicle models for cap ship combat. his focus was more on how long battles should take, rather than at what range they should occure.

now as for physics:
i personaly concider perjectiles that change their terjectory after launch to be more in the arena of guided perjectiles as opposed to purely balistic perjectiles (there are of coarse boarder cases such as boomerangs). and besides, it's better for the game that most perjectiles not change coarse during flight, as a steady coarse would make them easier to dodge and thus help with the whole-PKing somone from acrosse a sector issue.

and with regards to enertia:
the larger factor is the difference in mass between the perjectile and the ship.

and finaly:
as i keep saying: anti-fighter weaponry should be effective to around 1km. optimum range for a "broadside" styal attack, should be 2km or so where as the maximum range for weapons designed to be used soly against other cap ships should extent to an upper limit of 10 km. now even a HAC should be able to dodge an attack from 10km. but under certain circumstances (a Trident against a HAC) it would be beneficial to engage from outside of broadside range, but you'd still have to remain within siginfigantly less than 10km, in order for your weapons to be effective (say 4-6km).

I think we are all in agreement that there should be some long range capital ship weaponry, but that it would in most cases be far less devastating than a full point blank broadside. I like Scuba Steve's description, good to see you around again b.t.w.

LQ:

I can't believe I'm wasting potential game time to argue with your dumb ideas still, but here goes...

"ScubaSteve and i described virtualy identicle models for cap ship combat. his focus was more on how long battles should take, rather than at what range they should occure."

what ScubaSteve described was the POLAR OPPOSITE of what you have been suggesting throughout the course of this ENTIRE THREAD. If you don't think so, either you have serious difficulty comprehending what he suggested, or you seriously need to learn how to communicate.

Whatever the fuck you are trying to say about PROJECTILES this time around has absolutely nothing to do with their INERTIA. I don't give a damn if they can alter their TRAJECTORY in flight or not, they STILL HAVE INERTIA. Yes! the projectiles have a relatively small mass compared to the ship, however you're firing them at VERY HIGH VELOCITIES, and you're firing A LOT OF THEM.

A HAC DOES NOT DODGE ATTACKS. It ABSORBS THEM. EVEN AT 10km!!

That is not to say that anything should be able to SHOOT the Hac from 10km away. Furthermore, 2km is TOO FAR for an effective broadside!! Optimally, it would be WITHIN 500 METERS!

Now, I WILL NOT read any more of your posts until you start CHECKING YOUR SPELLING.

Get fucking GOOGLE TOOLBAR or SOMETHING and CHECK YOUR GODDAMN SPELLING BEFORE YOU POST.

If you're TOO FUCKING LAZY TO SPELL CORRECTLY (and yes, it is a matter of LAZINESS - There is no excuse for that level of language genocide given the technology you have available) Then STOP FUCKING POSTING.

This area is meant to be a positive place for constructive discussion of the game. Flames and other rude behaviour will not be tolerated. Offenders may have their accounts deleted. If you have a suggestion about the game, we would love to hear it. If you disagree with someone, please keep it good-natured. Thanks.

Cunjo, please take it down a notch, there is no need for cursing...

I do apologize for the profanity, but reading that garbage time and time again is really agitating, and is rapidly pushing me to my limit... I feel like I lose 10 IQ points every time I read one of his posts.

Then don't read them. They give you the poster's name BEFORE the post.

frankly cunjo i don't think you actualy read my posts now. either that or you have enough trouble comprehending them that you would be beter off not reading them.

one quick example:
>the Trident is going to stay as far away from the HAC as its weapon systems will
>allow, pegging it from 5~10KM.
- Scuba Steve 9.0

>the KEP gun and Avalon Torpedo should have a maximum range of 8-10km, with
>an optimum range around 1.5-4km.
-Me

>what ScubaSteve described was the POLAR OPPOSITE of what you have been
>suggesting throughout the course of this ENTIRE THREAD.
-Cunjo

now, unless i missed something the first 2 quotes are functionaly the same as far as their implications about the maximum range of the longest range weapons of the Trident. I also finde them to be representative of my and Scuba Steve 9.0's statments regarding the engagment range of the Trident. so unless the third quote is using some deffinition of "POLAR OPPOSITE" that i am unaware of........

now, that said. i would like to take this opertunity to extend a olive brance to you Cunjo. you clearly care about the direction the game is heading and you do have valueable input. but in the end it isn't either of us that decide who's right. it's the devs. and from the perspective of who's arguments are better presented, you would have the upper hand (due to my poor spelling) if you would refrain from using insults and harsh language. and we both could be more productive if we didn't spend so much time yelling at one another. please, try to keep discussion to realavent issues, and how they will affect VO, and i will do the same (i mean to do this whether you do or not, but it will be easier for me if you do as well).

and finaly with regard to my spelling, spell checkers are rarely effective at correcting my spelling. something to regarding the mistakes i make most often are the sort that the spell-checking algorythem is least able to extrapolate my intended word. you probably wouldn't believe how many times i end up looking at a window with a word i typed and an empty list of sugestions.