Forums » Suggestions
forrestmc4:
"When this occurs we are effectively back to where we began, a universe with a near uniform load out. A change, yielding little actual change."
A very excellent point, thank you.
The reason I suggested for VO what I did above, was that the game has taken a different approach entirely to power. It appears that there is always enough power to “run” things, at full capacity, and that the battery output and bank are “extra”. Only turbo and guns actually consume this extra, with the exception of the bite that warping takes. Therefore on the fly adjustment of power needs to be approached somewhat differently, if only to keep development work and time down. Use the things that are already there, so to speak.
The reason this is in this thread, it that on the fly boosting of power to the engines, would allow for higher base/turbo top speeds, without needing to change the fundamentals of the physics of the game. I think everything I suggested already look like variables that are played with for different ship classes etc. From my experience with programming, I would guess that it should take the least amount of work to add something to adjust these already existing parameters, as opposed to messing with the entire physics framework for the game.
Note:
Perhaps for getting rid of the feeling of the rubber band always holding you back, all that is needed is for a cut back in the strength of that band, so that it takes longer to loose the momentum gained from a boost. Say five to ten times longer than current values. Of course the cost of the boosts should go up to compensate for a change like this, but not a 1:1 ratio.
"When this occurs we are effectively back to where we began, a universe with a near uniform load out. A change, yielding little actual change."
A very excellent point, thank you.
The reason I suggested for VO what I did above, was that the game has taken a different approach entirely to power. It appears that there is always enough power to “run” things, at full capacity, and that the battery output and bank are “extra”. Only turbo and guns actually consume this extra, with the exception of the bite that warping takes. Therefore on the fly adjustment of power needs to be approached somewhat differently, if only to keep development work and time down. Use the things that are already there, so to speak.
The reason this is in this thread, it that on the fly boosting of power to the engines, would allow for higher base/turbo top speeds, without needing to change the fundamentals of the physics of the game. I think everything I suggested already look like variables that are played with for different ship classes etc. From my experience with programming, I would guess that it should take the least amount of work to add something to adjust these already existing parameters, as opposed to messing with the entire physics framework for the game.
Note:
Perhaps for getting rid of the feeling of the rubber band always holding you back, all that is needed is for a cut back in the strength of that band, so that it takes longer to loose the momentum gained from a boost. Say five to ten times longer than current values. Of course the cost of the boosts should go up to compensate for a change like this, but not a 1:1 ratio.
Since this is tied into the power consumption and generation I'd like to mention this: The thing I allways found strange is that a big bomber like the Ragnarog has exactly the same power output as a tiny fighter like a Centurion.
I'd think a Ragnarok should have at least double the power generation as a centurion, and also double the power usage when turboing.
A Hog should have about 1.5 that of a cent.
This would mean the heavy ships can actually deal out more damage then the light ones, as it should be. (imho)
I'd think a Ragnarok should have at least double the power generation as a centurion, and also double the power usage when turboing.
A Hog should have about 1.5 that of a cent.
This would mean the heavy ships can actually deal out more damage then the light ones, as it should be. (imho)
I agree Noid.
Okay, I will chime in. Probably as the voice of dissent but I don't like the proposed system, or the current in game system either.
Turbo top speed and energy consumption should be tied to the ship's engines itself. Not the battery, but an entirely seperate number that represents the engines capacity to maintain turbo. There should be an acceleration arc, and that should be tied directly to that top turbo speed, but not in a 1:1 ratio, but an arc as well.
In context, this re-introduces "turbo tapping", or as it is called by those not whining about it, a "controlled burn".
The premise, the faster you go, the faster the drain on the engines, the shoter time you can sustain that speed. By releasing turbo intermitenly, you can maintian a slower speed, and moderate engine "cooling". This allows ships, such as intercepting light fighters to be able to "cruise" at speeds higher than thier non-turbo speed, and then rocket off for sprint runs in an attempt to close ground with thier targts.
In theory, the drain arc for all ships should be set so that a median line is essentially approximate (with some mild variance) across the boards, thus a "controlled burn" freighter can cruise about the same as "turbo tapping" interceptor. The same freighter can push his engines to try and keep distance between himself and the interceptor, the same as the interceptor can push engines to close that gap.
However, in this model, the intercepting ship has the upper hand, as it is actually able to intercept!
This median line I mention is basically where your infini-turbo is. By controlling the burn manually, you can achive and sustain greater speeds than non-turbo, but only linearly, and not near your top speed.
Now we are dealign with 2 arcs. Engine "overheating", and engine "cooldown". Engine top speed and "overheating" are tied in an arc. Cooldown is the inverse fo the heating arc. It therefore would take longer to cooldown than to overheat at high speeds, preventing "turbo tapping" from being the end all and be all.
Hitting 100% "overheat" should have a penalty as well, such as engines kicking off until a predefined cooldown in reached. Say, 75%? Maybe even a little ship damge to go with it. There needs to be an incentive to not push a ship to hard, even though sometimes you may have to.
All of this is off the top of my head, but the mechaincs of VO's turbo are the main hangup I have with this game. And while we are on the topic, please replace the ability to steer while under turbo!
And no, these wouldn't unbalance the fighting, you *still* will have trouble hitting the moving ship, only now you would have more energy to shoot while you pursue. And overall pursuit and escape would actually slower than it is currently. It also opens the window for weapons that disable engines by addign arbitray heat to the ship, and thus forcing either an overheat, or a letting off of the "controlled burn" to compensate. Pirates could then ransom a ship, or just kill it with ease.
Turbo top speed and energy consumption should be tied to the ship's engines itself. Not the battery, but an entirely seperate number that represents the engines capacity to maintain turbo. There should be an acceleration arc, and that should be tied directly to that top turbo speed, but not in a 1:1 ratio, but an arc as well.
In context, this re-introduces "turbo tapping", or as it is called by those not whining about it, a "controlled burn".
The premise, the faster you go, the faster the drain on the engines, the shoter time you can sustain that speed. By releasing turbo intermitenly, you can maintian a slower speed, and moderate engine "cooling". This allows ships, such as intercepting light fighters to be able to "cruise" at speeds higher than thier non-turbo speed, and then rocket off for sprint runs in an attempt to close ground with thier targts.
In theory, the drain arc for all ships should be set so that a median line is essentially approximate (with some mild variance) across the boards, thus a "controlled burn" freighter can cruise about the same as "turbo tapping" interceptor. The same freighter can push his engines to try and keep distance between himself and the interceptor, the same as the interceptor can push engines to close that gap.
However, in this model, the intercepting ship has the upper hand, as it is actually able to intercept!
This median line I mention is basically where your infini-turbo is. By controlling the burn manually, you can achive and sustain greater speeds than non-turbo, but only linearly, and not near your top speed.
Now we are dealign with 2 arcs. Engine "overheating", and engine "cooldown". Engine top speed and "overheating" are tied in an arc. Cooldown is the inverse fo the heating arc. It therefore would take longer to cooldown than to overheat at high speeds, preventing "turbo tapping" from being the end all and be all.
Hitting 100% "overheat" should have a penalty as well, such as engines kicking off until a predefined cooldown in reached. Say, 75%? Maybe even a little ship damge to go with it. There needs to be an incentive to not push a ship to hard, even though sometimes you may have to.
All of this is off the top of my head, but the mechaincs of VO's turbo are the main hangup I have with this game. And while we are on the topic, please replace the ability to steer while under turbo!
And no, these wouldn't unbalance the fighting, you *still* will have trouble hitting the moving ship, only now you would have more energy to shoot while you pursue. And overall pursuit and escape would actually slower than it is currently. It also opens the window for weapons that disable engines by addign arbitray heat to the ship, and thus forcing either an overheat, or a letting off of the "controlled burn" to compensate. Pirates could then ransom a ship, or just kill it with ease.
Zyl, one of the problems that disable other ships is the part about being the ship that's disabled is just Not Fun. The devs have stated time and again that they would like to shy away from Things That Aren't Exactly Fun such as being able to have your ship disabled.
On note to the topic at hand however, the proposed system may give an overwhelming incentive to use ammo-based weaponry. During a fight, the typical energy specialist would have issue fighting rocketeers and the like, as rocketeers would not have a need to drop engine speed to recharge their weapons. Rockets are not exactly the hardest things in the world to hit someone with and they require no energy to fire(excluding screamers). A rocketeer would be able to operate at the 1:1 line indefinitely, and for brief periods of time -- above that line. However, energy users, no matter how well they conserve energy -cannot- keep at the 1:1 line for very long, lest they become essentially unarmed during their stay at 1:1.
In short, the proposed system would make energy vs. energy fights more interesting, due to the need to manage battery power; however, energy vs. rocket fights would not be made so.*
However, the proposed system would alleviate travel woes(if assumed implemented with the current stats) for those at lower levels -only-. A bus could sacrifice some speed for a less annoying "hold tab to travel, wait for battery, repeat" scenario. Beyond that, it would be useless for anything but keeping just in that sweet spot where infiniboost is(Something akin to /+turbo 700 back in the day, except at smaller top speeds).
If it were possible, I'd love to give the proposed system a try on the test server with completely retweaked stats. The stats themselves seem to be the hangup here, since they were created with the intent of fairness under the current system. But, it would be a bad idea to throw this in without previous and heavy testing along with a lot of user feedback. In other words, the system itself doesn't seem to be the issue here, the troubles seem (to myself, at least) to lay in exactly how the stats are retweaked and honestly, I'm not quite sure if something like this is worth devoting the time and effort it would take to rebalance -everything- to fit the new system, but I am willing to give it a try and give feedback on it if the opportunity is given to me.
*{Be noted that this is under the current workings and stats, as I have no idea how one would even start to go about in keeping rockets useful, and yet not completely having them own everything under the proposed system.}
On note to the topic at hand however, the proposed system may give an overwhelming incentive to use ammo-based weaponry. During a fight, the typical energy specialist would have issue fighting rocketeers and the like, as rocketeers would not have a need to drop engine speed to recharge their weapons. Rockets are not exactly the hardest things in the world to hit someone with and they require no energy to fire(excluding screamers). A rocketeer would be able to operate at the 1:1 line indefinitely, and for brief periods of time -- above that line. However, energy users, no matter how well they conserve energy -cannot- keep at the 1:1 line for very long, lest they become essentially unarmed during their stay at 1:1.
In short, the proposed system would make energy vs. energy fights more interesting, due to the need to manage battery power; however, energy vs. rocket fights would not be made so.*
However, the proposed system would alleviate travel woes(if assumed implemented with the current stats) for those at lower levels -only-. A bus could sacrifice some speed for a less annoying "hold tab to travel, wait for battery, repeat" scenario. Beyond that, it would be useless for anything but keeping just in that sweet spot where infiniboost is(Something akin to /+turbo 700 back in the day, except at smaller top speeds).
If it were possible, I'd love to give the proposed system a try on the test server with completely retweaked stats. The stats themselves seem to be the hangup here, since they were created with the intent of fairness under the current system. But, it would be a bad idea to throw this in without previous and heavy testing along with a lot of user feedback. In other words, the system itself doesn't seem to be the issue here, the troubles seem (to myself, at least) to lay in exactly how the stats are retweaked and honestly, I'm not quite sure if something like this is worth devoting the time and effort it would take to rebalance -everything- to fit the new system, but I am willing to give it a try and give feedback on it if the opportunity is given to me.
*{Be noted that this is under the current workings and stats, as I have no idea how one would even start to go about in keeping rockets useful, and yet not completely having them own everything under the proposed system.}
This topic seems really familiar...
I tried to dig up my old thread which suggested it, but I couldn't find it.
Needless to say I'm for it.
I wont speak for Incarnate, I don't know how accurate my assumptions are, but I always invisioned it as follows...
Keep the manuevering speed the same, but you now have multiple levels of turbo.
So your Corvus Vult will go 75m/s in any direction and full maneuverability.
Everything above 75m/s can only be achieved going forward, and it limits maneuvering up to the cruising speed point, say 140m/s.
So 140m/s would be infiniturbo for an FC batt on the vult. anything above that speed starts discharging the battery.
The effect on combat could be minimalized with harsh maneuvering cuts at the 75m/s mark, you could lose 25-50% maneuverability the second you go over it.
I'd suggest having less maneuverable ships be less effected by it, so a centaur might stay reasonably responsive up to 100m/s but a fighter would lose quite a bit the second it goes over the 60-75m/s mark.
My original suggestion also included mass as a factor for cruising speed, so that a trade ship's engine would actually be balanced for an average load. meaning an empty trade ship might hit 200m/s cruising speed, but once it's full of cargo that could drop to 160 or lower ( A samoflange moth probably wouldn't even be able to turbo :P ).
I tried to dig up my old thread which suggested it, but I couldn't find it.
Needless to say I'm for it.
I wont speak for Incarnate, I don't know how accurate my assumptions are, but I always invisioned it as follows...
Keep the manuevering speed the same, but you now have multiple levels of turbo.
So your Corvus Vult will go 75m/s in any direction and full maneuverability.
Everything above 75m/s can only be achieved going forward, and it limits maneuvering up to the cruising speed point, say 140m/s.
So 140m/s would be infiniturbo for an FC batt on the vult. anything above that speed starts discharging the battery.
The effect on combat could be minimalized with harsh maneuvering cuts at the 75m/s mark, you could lose 25-50% maneuverability the second you go over it.
I'd suggest having less maneuverable ships be less effected by it, so a centaur might stay reasonably responsive up to 100m/s but a fighter would lose quite a bit the second it goes over the 60-75m/s mark.
My original suggestion also included mass as a factor for cruising speed, so that a trade ship's engine would actually be balanced for an average load. meaning an empty trade ship might hit 200m/s cruising speed, but once it's full of cargo that could drop to 160 or lower ( A samoflange moth probably wouldn't even be able to turbo :P ).
One way to deal with the light vs heavy ship energy output dilemma is to define a number of "power slots" for ships. What is it with a SkyCommand Promotheus that makes it convert 1 eps to 8.75 kN of thrust force, while a Rev C only does 3.34 kN. So an SCP should really have 2-3 times the power output of a Rev C, meaning more batteries or much larger batteries (for example an "heavy assault battery" taking 3 power slots). Just like more guns require more juice, bigger engines should too.
As the game gets more bigger ships, this seems like a good way to scale.
As the game gets more bigger ships, this seems like a good way to scale.
I never said to disable ships. I said it would "open the window" for weapons that can limit/disable turbo. A ship that can't turbo can still fight back and move at non-turbo speeds, and the idea was mroe or less a random side note anyway.
I did state "arbitrary" amount of heat, but what I meant to say was "insignificant". As in, not enough to disable a ship alone, but enough to throw the overheating/cooling arcs out of alignment and force the player to ease off his turbo. If implemented correctly, a ship under this "heat ray" would still be able to turbo and cool, but would have to slow his speed to compensate. Likewise, his pursuer would have to expend energy to keep him in this state. The game would still very much be cat and mouse.
Getting destroyed with a hauler full of cargo isn't exactly what everyone calls fun either, but this is in game currently and noone is complaing.
I did state "arbitrary" amount of heat, but what I meant to say was "insignificant". As in, not enough to disable a ship alone, but enough to throw the overheating/cooling arcs out of alignment and force the player to ease off his turbo. If implemented correctly, a ship under this "heat ray" would still be able to turbo and cool, but would have to slow his speed to compensate. Likewise, his pursuer would have to expend energy to keep him in this state. The game would still very much be cat and mouse.
Getting destroyed with a hauler full of cargo isn't exactly what everyone calls fun either, but this is in game currently and noone is complaing.
Cam:
I already dug it up for you, but from the two times I linked to it, it seems that nobody actually read it...
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
so here it is a third time.
forrestmc4:
I've never actually played X-Wing, but I understand the model you refer to; it's highly intuitive, however, I tend to disagree slightly with you on one point:
""When this occurs we are effectively back to where we began, a universe with a near uniform load out. A change, yielding little actual change.""
For the sake of disagreement, I could contend that the variations in fighting styles (heavy-hitter, rusher, sniper, dancer, etc.) combined with the variations in ship design and port configuration will encourage diversity in energy models, effectively giving everyone the opportunity to find their own personal niche away from the norm, especially if shielding is offered as another tradeoff for engine/weapon power, and armor with weight. In this case, making players tune their ships to specifications before taking flight will encourage them to refine a configuration of their own, whereas allowing them to change it on the fly puts the balance of ships foremost in any engagement, rather than configurations, which is precisely what we have now and are trying to fix.
Cygnus:
I agree that those sort of things could help with power consumption balancing, however, consider the fact that weapon systems require the same energy no matter the platform they're mounted on, and thus, giving a rag more energy capacity than a cent will make it overpowered in combat. Other balance issues arise as well that must be worked around.
As it is, while one assumes that a big ship should drain more, the fact that they do not is explicable by their engine design - larger ships can employ larger, more efficient engines that fighters could not. This becomes especially important in the making of excessivey large capital-class ships and the unavoidable development of alternate drive methods (gravatic drive anyone?) to make them practical in flight - methods that are only efficient in larger ships.
I already dug it up for you, but from the two times I linked to it, it seems that nobody actually read it...
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11481
so here it is a third time.
forrestmc4:
I've never actually played X-Wing, but I understand the model you refer to; it's highly intuitive, however, I tend to disagree slightly with you on one point:
""When this occurs we are effectively back to where we began, a universe with a near uniform load out. A change, yielding little actual change.""
For the sake of disagreement, I could contend that the variations in fighting styles (heavy-hitter, rusher, sniper, dancer, etc.) combined with the variations in ship design and port configuration will encourage diversity in energy models, effectively giving everyone the opportunity to find their own personal niche away from the norm, especially if shielding is offered as another tradeoff for engine/weapon power, and armor with weight. In this case, making players tune their ships to specifications before taking flight will encourage them to refine a configuration of their own, whereas allowing them to change it on the fly puts the balance of ships foremost in any engagement, rather than configurations, which is precisely what we have now and are trying to fix.
Cygnus:
I agree that those sort of things could help with power consumption balancing, however, consider the fact that weapon systems require the same energy no matter the platform they're mounted on, and thus, giving a rag more energy capacity than a cent will make it overpowered in combat. Other balance issues arise as well that must be worked around.
As it is, while one assumes that a big ship should drain more, the fact that they do not is explicable by their engine design - larger ships can employ larger, more efficient engines that fighters could not. This becomes especially important in the making of excessivey large capital-class ships and the unavoidable development of alternate drive methods (gravatic drive anyone?) to make them practical in flight - methods that are only efficient in larger ships.
A rather late reply this is, but grad school eats up time such that I almost cannot read the forums even!
I really like the ideas here, both more variation in speed control options and the power management stuff. Just wanted to weigh in...
I really like the ideas here, both more variation in speed control options and the power management stuff. Just wanted to weigh in...
..thanks for bumping this, LostCommander, I missed it the first time around
All I can really say is that everyone brings up valid points, but I just had a not-quite-worthy-of-its-own-thread brainfart reading this: what if turbo could apply to more than just forward thrust?
i.e. :
- apply extra energy to main thrust (like now) by holding TAB and W: go forward fast, but can't manuever or fire
- apply extra energy to manuevering thrusters by holding TAB and a strafe/pitch/bank (S/P/B) key: S/P/B faster, but can ONLY S/P/B on a single vector (or maybe two); no elaborate maneuvers, moving forward, or firing
- apply extra energy to weapons by holding TAB and firing: guns fire faster OR do more damage, but no manuevering and your ship coasts/slows/stops
??
All I can really say is that everyone brings up valid points, but I just had a not-quite-worthy-of-its-own-thread brainfart reading this: what if turbo could apply to more than just forward thrust?
i.e. :
- apply extra energy to main thrust (like now) by holding TAB and W: go forward fast, but can't manuever or fire
- apply extra energy to manuevering thrusters by holding TAB and a strafe/pitch/bank (S/P/B) key: S/P/B faster, but can ONLY S/P/B on a single vector (or maybe two); no elaborate maneuvers, moving forward, or firing
- apply extra energy to weapons by holding TAB and firing: guns fire faster OR do more damage, but no manuevering and your ship coasts/slows/stops
??
well incarnate, I was just thinking about a related issue today. In addition to the changes you are sugesting, I would like to see power consuption for all momentuim changes, based on weight. You should use power to strafe/brake and even to roll/yaw. Once your moving in a giving direction, no further energy should be required. but any change should require a preportion amount of energy to effect that change. causing 10,000kg to go from 0 to 50m/s (or 50 to 0), in any direction, should cost a certian amount of energy. Backrollers would need to balance their rolling-strafe and their foward/reverse speed to maintain their energy levels. maneuvuring would become more than just dodging or chasing, it would become a stratigy, not just to maneuver your self into position, or out of the way, but to force your opponent to maneuver and expend precious energy. small ships like vultures and centurians would no longer be depended on raw speed for advantage. they could rely on their greater energy efficiency in maneuvering/accelerating/braking. etc... I think you get the idea. think about it.
^^ refering to Incs post only
Well, I have chewed on this for ages, because I would have to learn to play all over again, and I only just got to the point where I consider myself anygood, heh
Well, anyways, sounds like a nicer flight system, overall, and you are right, it did need looking at.
Well, I have chewed on this for ages, because I would have to learn to play all over again, and I only just got to the point where I consider myself anygood, heh
Well, anyways, sounds like a nicer flight system, overall, and you are right, it did need looking at.
I just had an Idea, that ties to this discussion, as it relates to incarnates original message.
"Well, for one thing.. there's a tremendous amount of "space" that is currently unused, that I would like to make use of. Sectors tend to have one and only one point of interest (station, wormhole, etc). I have always wanted multiple stations spread out across a sector.."
The idea is this, a third type of jump, within a sector. Follows the same rule about the 3000 distance, but hitting it would jump the ship from 3000-30000 distance within the current sector, in the direction the ship is currently pointing.
Logically, there is no reason you should be able to jump sectors, but not jump larger distances within a sector. Would also make for some interesting chases from pirates etc.
"Well, for one thing.. there's a tremendous amount of "space" that is currently unused, that I would like to make use of. Sectors tend to have one and only one point of interest (station, wormhole, etc). I have always wanted multiple stations spread out across a sector.."
The idea is this, a third type of jump, within a sector. Follows the same rule about the 3000 distance, but hitting it would jump the ship from 3000-30000 distance within the current sector, in the direction the ship is currently pointing.
Logically, there is no reason you should be able to jump sectors, but not jump larger distances within a sector. Would also make for some interesting chases from pirates etc.
While the idea of multiple stations ( / point of interest ) in a same quadrant has already been on my list of suggestion (and many other's too), having an instant "micro-jump" of 3k or so would basically be the last nail in the pirate's coffin.
It's pretty much pointless to pirate now that we have unbots (every pirate I've ever known have actually turned scavengers by now, picking up unbot droppings) so adding this would make it utterly a waste of time.
Unless the 3000k distance also applied to other ships. Aka, if NOTHING is on your radar, then you can jump.
Other than that, I dont see the point.
It's pretty much pointless to pirate now that we have unbots (every pirate I've ever known have actually turned scavengers by now, picking up unbot droppings) so adding this would make it utterly a waste of time.
Unless the 3000k distance also applied to other ships. Aka, if NOTHING is on your radar, then you can jump.
Other than that, I dont see the point.
Humm
Good point but I do think the real problem is the UnBots, and not this feature. I don't think the current state of the UnBots is the final word, and as you said players have already moved from pirating, so this wouldn't really be the issue.
Besides, players at 3k would have already been able to jump out so I don't see the difference between hopping out of sector, or staying in the same one as long as the mechanics stay the same (Time to jump, vulnerable while jumping, etc). I've never pirated, so I don't really understand how this would differ than the current jump from a tactical pirate point of view.
I could see how a pack of pirates could use it to either bait the UnBots into nowhere land, enabling them to hunt while the Unbots fly back, of leaving one of their numbers near the WH, while the rest wait for the signal to jump in, using the visual of the jumps as a navigation aid.
Or am I missing something?
Good point but I do think the real problem is the UnBots, and not this feature. I don't think the current state of the UnBots is the final word, and as you said players have already moved from pirating, so this wouldn't really be the issue.
Besides, players at 3k would have already been able to jump out so I don't see the difference between hopping out of sector, or staying in the same one as long as the mechanics stay the same (Time to jump, vulnerable while jumping, etc). I've never pirated, so I don't really understand how this would differ than the current jump from a tactical pirate point of view.
I could see how a pack of pirates could use it to either bait the UnBots into nowhere land, enabling them to hunt while the Unbots fly back, of leaving one of their numbers near the WH, while the rest wait for the signal to jump in, using the visual of the jumps as a navigation aid.
Or am I missing something?
Actually, I think minijump capabilities would be welcome... of course, the 3000m rule would still apply, and moreover, you'd be pulled back out of the jump if you came within 3000m of an object while in the jump.
In the interest of fair game for pirates, convoys and escorts, make it so that you can engage an identical minijump to anyone else who makes a jump within 1000m of you (pirates, escorts, convoys, or fleets could follow the lead vessel in the jump - this would also apply for intersector jumps) and finally, give the pirates an Interdictor module already (3500kg, L-port, 10/sec drain, stops all other ships within 3000m from jumping)
In the interest of fair game for pirates, convoys and escorts, make it so that you can engage an identical minijump to anyone else who makes a jump within 1000m of you (pirates, escorts, convoys, or fleets could follow the lead vessel in the jump - this would also apply for intersector jumps) and finally, give the pirates an Interdictor module already (3500kg, L-port, 10/sec drain, stops all other ships within 3000m from jumping)
I just read through this thread and like a bunch of the ideas. I think the thrust and boost systems could use an overhaul and most of the ideas I've heard here would be an improvement over the current system. Even just reducing the rate at which you decelerate after releasing a boost would be a massive improvement (the rubberband feeling is the worst part of the VO physics model IMHO).
I really like the x-wing power management system suggested. I suggested a similar system in another thread that I saw in Freespace 2. Being able to divert power to different systems would be uber-cool.
I also like Zyl's passing comment on being able to disable an opponent's boost system. I don't thnik ships should just work, work, work, work, EXPLODE! Your ship's systems should fail depending on where you're hit. Your ship should slowly become crippled, then explode. Even if this would be harder to take intentional advantage of with smaller fighters, it'd work nicely with larger ships, especially Capital ships. This would mean a big change for PvP combat, I know, but change is good.
I really like the x-wing power management system suggested. I suggested a similar system in another thread that I saw in Freespace 2. Being able to divert power to different systems would be uber-cool.
I also like Zyl's passing comment on being able to disable an opponent's boost system. I don't thnik ships should just work, work, work, work, EXPLODE! Your ship's systems should fail depending on where you're hit. Your ship should slowly become crippled, then explode. Even if this would be harder to take intentional advantage of with smaller fighters, it'd work nicely with larger ships, especially Capital ships. This would mean a big change for PvP combat, I know, but change is good.
"
I also like Zyl's passing comment on being able to disable an opponent's boost system. I don't thnik ships should just work, work, work, work, EXPLODE! Your ship's systems should fail depending on where you're hit. Your ship should slowly become crippled, then explode. Even if this would be harder to take intentional advantage of with smaller fighters, it'd work nicely with larger ships, especially Capital ships. This would mean a big change for PvP combat, I know, but change is good."
No, it has merit for capital class ships, but as was already mentioned more times than I care to count, having your ship disabled in combat is not fun, and as the whole point of the game is to have fun, it is not something that should be in the game.
I also like Zyl's passing comment on being able to disable an opponent's boost system. I don't thnik ships should just work, work, work, work, EXPLODE! Your ship's systems should fail depending on where you're hit. Your ship should slowly become crippled, then explode. Even if this would be harder to take intentional advantage of with smaller fighters, it'd work nicely with larger ships, especially Capital ships. This would mean a big change for PvP combat, I know, but change is good."
No, it has merit for capital class ships, but as was already mentioned more times than I care to count, having your ship disabled in combat is not fun, and as the whole point of the game is to have fun, it is not something that should be in the game.
Watch the openning episode of the new Battlestar Galactica series and vote NO for allowing fighter craft to be disabled!