Forums » Suggestions
Well, the AI would be if your crew is all asleep. After all, how is a team supposed to muster a pilot, a co-pilot and 6 gunners, plus fighter escorts? I mean, it's a lot of people.
Well I never said that the fighter class weapons would be used in cap to cap combat. The ranges would be to much for them. But they can be used as a fighter screen. Though even I would be remis to think that having two 750 meter long caps with in range of standard energy weapons might be cool...streams of tychions flowing back and forth...I could just imaging a fighter running between them length wise...talk about running a gauntlet.
Any way...even if fighter weapons were not allowed...they would still nead some form of small and fast tracking point defence system. Something like the Phalanx anti missle system on moderm US combat craft.
Any way...even if fighter weapons were not allowed...they would still nead some form of small and fast tracking point defence system. Something like the Phalanx anti missle system on moderm US combat craft.
I think what Syber means is basically a turret-mounted flak gun to drive off or kill enemy fighters...
SyberSmoke/Spellcast/Roguelazer: How this for a first. I agree with all of you.
Yes, I am familiar with Battlespace, Aerotech, and the whole Btech family of games.
I agree with SyberSmoke's philosophy of splitting weapons into main and secondary batteries. It very much reminds me of the armanments of WWII era capital ships - and that's a good thing.
Spellcast, I agree with basically all of your post, except that I agree with roguelazer that it would be frustrating to all the time be trying to find crew for larger ships. I think the ideal situation is that you have the option of leaving the turrets in AI control. That way if you need 8 to crew your frigate, but you only have 7, you don't have to leave a gun unmanned. Plus the more people you have the more problems you will have with people having to leave in the middle of battle, people having connection difficulties, etc. Moreover, I'm not sure how fun it would be setting in a turret for however long waiting for the battle to start.
The armor set up you describe is interesting and seems viable, but I'd have to be convinced that a complex set up like that would really contribute something before I'd be whole heartedly behind it. Just displaying a system of that complexity is difficult and hinders configurability. With a straight forward linear system its just a matter of figuring out how much money you want to spend on armor plating gizmos to put in your 'armor slots' and how many weapon slots by installing armor in them. I suppose it could all scale up from the bottom number though.
Yes, I am familiar with Battlespace, Aerotech, and the whole Btech family of games.
I agree with SyberSmoke's philosophy of splitting weapons into main and secondary batteries. It very much reminds me of the armanments of WWII era capital ships - and that's a good thing.
Spellcast, I agree with basically all of your post, except that I agree with roguelazer that it would be frustrating to all the time be trying to find crew for larger ships. I think the ideal situation is that you have the option of leaving the turrets in AI control. That way if you need 8 to crew your frigate, but you only have 7, you don't have to leave a gun unmanned. Plus the more people you have the more problems you will have with people having to leave in the middle of battle, people having connection difficulties, etc. Moreover, I'm not sure how fun it would be setting in a turret for however long waiting for the battle to start.
The armor set up you describe is interesting and seems viable, but I'd have to be convinced that a complex set up like that would really contribute something before I'd be whole heartedly behind it. Just displaying a system of that complexity is difficult and hinders configurability. With a straight forward linear system its just a matter of figuring out how much money you want to spend on armor plating gizmos to put in your 'armor slots' and how many weapon slots by installing armor in them. I suppose it could all scale up from the bottom number though.
thats basically how i would have it set up celebrim, leave the percentages the same for each type of armor, and simply up the amount of damage that is reduced as you go up the scale of armor.
for a light armor, the 100% blockage might end at 300 damage,
for medium armor, 600 damage
for heavy armor, 900 damage
for extra heavy armor 1200, the rest of the values would go up accordingly.
I also agree that a ship needs primary and secondary weapons batteries, and i can agree to leaving the turrets under AI control as an OPTION. However, I think that finding people to crew the turrets might not be as hard as some people might expect. It offeres a fairly safe way to get into a major firefight, without having to expend a large amount of cash, or risk your ship, you dock at a cap ship that needs gunners, get assigned a turret, and blaze away. If it looks like the cap ship is gonna be destroyed, you "abandon ship" by hopping back into your fighter, undocking and turboing like a bat out of uhh the sun...
besides, the only ships i can see as needing 8 people to crew them are gonna be the really big ships, for something the size of a frigate, or even the light destroyer mentioned farther up in this thread, I envision maybe
1 pilot/main gunner (give the pilot the option of disabling "ship" controls and activating the "gun" contols. this way you point your ship and set speed, flip to guns, bring your weapons to bear, fire, then flip back and alter course.)
and 2 fighter defense turrets ( 1 dorsal 1 ventral, each with a hemisphere firing arc, for those of you who have played Battlefield 1942, hop into a b-17 to get a rough idea of what i mean as far as gun placement)
As for the really large cap ships.. those are probably only going to be ownable by a LARGE guild, individual people simply should not be able to gather enough money to buy their own Battlecruiser hull. Thus there will already be a large "labor pool" to draw from to man the turrets, provide fighter support, maybe even give them a frigate or 2 for "screen" work.
ramble over
for a light armor, the 100% blockage might end at 300 damage,
for medium armor, 600 damage
for heavy armor, 900 damage
for extra heavy armor 1200, the rest of the values would go up accordingly.
I also agree that a ship needs primary and secondary weapons batteries, and i can agree to leaving the turrets under AI control as an OPTION. However, I think that finding people to crew the turrets might not be as hard as some people might expect. It offeres a fairly safe way to get into a major firefight, without having to expend a large amount of cash, or risk your ship, you dock at a cap ship that needs gunners, get assigned a turret, and blaze away. If it looks like the cap ship is gonna be destroyed, you "abandon ship" by hopping back into your fighter, undocking and turboing like a bat out of uhh the sun...
besides, the only ships i can see as needing 8 people to crew them are gonna be the really big ships, for something the size of a frigate, or even the light destroyer mentioned farther up in this thread, I envision maybe
1 pilot/main gunner (give the pilot the option of disabling "ship" controls and activating the "gun" contols. this way you point your ship and set speed, flip to guns, bring your weapons to bear, fire, then flip back and alter course.)
and 2 fighter defense turrets ( 1 dorsal 1 ventral, each with a hemisphere firing arc, for those of you who have played Battlefield 1942, hop into a b-17 to get a rough idea of what i mean as far as gun placement)
As for the really large cap ships.. those are probably only going to be ownable by a LARGE guild, individual people simply should not be able to gather enough money to buy their own Battlecruiser hull. Thus there will already be a large "labor pool" to draw from to man the turrets, provide fighter support, maybe even give them a frigate or 2 for "screen" work.
ramble over
Ok we are kinda on the same page. I was more thinking along the lines of (for example) a Frigate having 6 'armor slots'. The frigate owner could choose to drop various qualities of armor into each (say each offering 10-50 protection) and the total would be his armor number. (A more complex system would equate each slot to a certain ship facing, but lets not go there just yet.) The frigate owner could also forgo a secondary weapon slot (I envision a frigate with 6, but such numbers are of course arbitrary) to add more armor at the expense of firepower.
I think the place we are most differing on though is how big we envision a Capital Ship being. If you will look on the 'semi-capital ship' thread, I think we are still in a range not much bigger than bomber when we are talking only 2 anti-fighter turrets. I didn't even start counting them as capital ships until they get 4. And that's just the secondary armanment. I'd build a frigate with two centerline very large weapons (beam cannons or whatever), one very large turret, one large slot (probably used for homing missiles), and 6 turrets. That's 8 people right there, one flying and using the center line weapons, one manning the main gun, and six operating anti-fighter weapons. The most manpower intensive ships: heavy battlecruisers and dreadnoughts I'm thinking about 20-22 crew stations. Not that I think there will be alot of ships of that size in the game universe, but I wouldn't mind seeing ships of that size in the game universe.
Of course, I'm thinking of turrets roughly in the same way as the defensive turrets around flags. If capital ship turrets have 4 or 5 times that kind of firepower (even with 6 turrets I'm assuming at least twice a defense turrets firepower) you could get by with less, but even if a frigate is only 200-240m long 6 turrets (3 to a side) distrubuted around its surface leaves some pretty wide gaps. And the dev's at least at one time had planned the ship commonly referred to as 'the frigate' to be around 700m long.
I think the place we are most differing on though is how big we envision a Capital Ship being. If you will look on the 'semi-capital ship' thread, I think we are still in a range not much bigger than bomber when we are talking only 2 anti-fighter turrets. I didn't even start counting them as capital ships until they get 4. And that's just the secondary armanment. I'd build a frigate with two centerline very large weapons (beam cannons or whatever), one very large turret, one large slot (probably used for homing missiles), and 6 turrets. That's 8 people right there, one flying and using the center line weapons, one manning the main gun, and six operating anti-fighter weapons. The most manpower intensive ships: heavy battlecruisers and dreadnoughts I'm thinking about 20-22 crew stations. Not that I think there will be alot of ships of that size in the game universe, but I wouldn't mind seeing ships of that size in the game universe.
Of course, I'm thinking of turrets roughly in the same way as the defensive turrets around flags. If capital ship turrets have 4 or 5 times that kind of firepower (even with 6 turrets I'm assuming at least twice a defense turrets firepower) you could get by with less, but even if a frigate is only 200-240m long 6 turrets (3 to a side) distrubuted around its surface leaves some pretty wide gaps. And the dev's at least at one time had planned the ship commonly referred to as 'the frigate' to be around 700m long.
>>>If you will look on the 'semi-capital ship' thread, I think we are still in a range not much bigger than bomber when we are talking only 2 anti-fighter turrets.
uhh sort of, I was thinking an anti-fighter turret would consist of 6-10 small and 2-4 large slots per turret. with a pan of 180 degrees and a full hemisphere firing arc for each, thats a fair amount of firepower. the guns themselves don't neccesarily have to be in the turret, they could be scattered across the hull, but as far as the "view" for the turret i was thinking one central observation/targeting station. Of course there could be a few forward firing anti-fighter slots that the pilot could use while in "ship" view,( say adv Gatlings )
The reason I'm viewing the number of turrets this way is partly due to the fact that if you have 6 turrets, and each of them can fire only in a small cone, tracking an enemy fighter from 1 players firing arc to the next becomes much harder, but also due to the fact that to the server, a capital ship that has a "crew" on it is probably going to look like X (number of crew) ships flying in formation. if you have 22 people on a heavy battlecruiser, everywhere it goes, the server has to track 22 people. not that this would neccesarrily be a bad thing, as a matter of fact, i'd kinda like it, tho with that many people you would have to have some form of innership chat that no-one not on the ship could see for crew coordination. once again i'm rambling off topic so i'll stop now
uhh sort of, I was thinking an anti-fighter turret would consist of 6-10 small and 2-4 large slots per turret. with a pan of 180 degrees and a full hemisphere firing arc for each, thats a fair amount of firepower. the guns themselves don't neccesarily have to be in the turret, they could be scattered across the hull, but as far as the "view" for the turret i was thinking one central observation/targeting station. Of course there could be a few forward firing anti-fighter slots that the pilot could use while in "ship" view,( say adv Gatlings )
The reason I'm viewing the number of turrets this way is partly due to the fact that if you have 6 turrets, and each of them can fire only in a small cone, tracking an enemy fighter from 1 players firing arc to the next becomes much harder, but also due to the fact that to the server, a capital ship that has a "crew" on it is probably going to look like X (number of crew) ships flying in formation. if you have 22 people on a heavy battlecruiser, everywhere it goes, the server has to track 22 people. not that this would neccesarrily be a bad thing, as a matter of fact, i'd kinda like it, tho with that many people you would have to have some form of innership chat that no-one not on the ship could see for crew coordination. once again i'm rambling off topic so i'll stop now
No, I don't think you are rambling. I think linking together multiple turrets might well be a good idea.
Here's my admittedly simple thoughts:
1) Frigates don't havethe same battery issues fighters do.
If they have a battery, that's it. They can fire energy weapons forever without draining dry, and they have infinite turbo, but perhaps they can only do one at a time. They can either fight, or they can run (and toss missiles, etc.). I think a frigate has enough to deal with (slow, handles like a corpse, etc., that making sure it's got juice is just silly. See below for caveats.
2) I don't think having players running a turret in someone else's ship is feasible (it doesn't sound very fun, either). If someone disconnects, is that turret just inactive for a full minute like fighters are now?
Just use limited numbers of VERY high (killer) accuracy short range anti-fighter turrets and longer range, fair-to-good accuracy flak turrets. A fighter that gets close, say, within 300m, dies. End of story.
2a) Turrrets auto-target. They can be set by the pilot to kill players from one team, both opposing teams, at any target that fires on them, or it can go offline.
2b) Turrets come standard, with weapons already installed, the number of turrets per ship (and perhaps the accuracy thereof) depending on the size and use of the ship. The player chooses his own engine, battery, and specialty weapons.
3) User-controlled weapons. These would be specific cap-level weapons. Guided, high-speed avalons. GattlingRailgun turrets (with no ammo limitation). Frigates would have no dumbfire weapons (ie Sunflares).
3a) perhaps user controlled energy weapons drain on main battery power, a la the Death Star; defensive auto-turrets as mentioned in 2 shouldn't (perhaps they're self powered, and drain their own batteries without dipping into the main battery, or simple fire forever without battery limitations).
3b) Of course, these auto-turrets are entirely ineffective against other capital ships.
4) With the single exception of railguns, no small port weapon should be able to do ANY damage to capital ships. Sunflares, though they do more than 1k damage, still are not exempt. This give the rails a use. Perhaps the Gauss could hurt frigates, if you can get close enough to hit with them.
4a) No heavy weapon that does less than 1k damage per impact would do damage either.
4b) the point is, there needs to be specific anti-frigate/capship weapons that will hurt a frigate but aren't very effective versus another fighter. We're talking economies of scale here. I can brush a fly away, but a bee can sting me and hurt me because he has a specific weapon that I have trouble defending against. Another human, however, can slap me upside the head.
The point I think some of you are missing is that you need to look at what's both possible AND what's plausible, and what works with an extreme minimum of fussing and setting and adjusting and tweaking. And what will work seamlessly amidst the vast range of connection speeds, processors and operating systems, and player mentalities!
1) Frigates don't havethe same battery issues fighters do.
If they have a battery, that's it. They can fire energy weapons forever without draining dry, and they have infinite turbo, but perhaps they can only do one at a time. They can either fight, or they can run (and toss missiles, etc.). I think a frigate has enough to deal with (slow, handles like a corpse, etc., that making sure it's got juice is just silly. See below for caveats.
2) I don't think having players running a turret in someone else's ship is feasible (it doesn't sound very fun, either). If someone disconnects, is that turret just inactive for a full minute like fighters are now?
Just use limited numbers of VERY high (killer) accuracy short range anti-fighter turrets and longer range, fair-to-good accuracy flak turrets. A fighter that gets close, say, within 300m, dies. End of story.
2a) Turrrets auto-target. They can be set by the pilot to kill players from one team, both opposing teams, at any target that fires on them, or it can go offline.
2b) Turrets come standard, with weapons already installed, the number of turrets per ship (and perhaps the accuracy thereof) depending on the size and use of the ship. The player chooses his own engine, battery, and specialty weapons.
3) User-controlled weapons. These would be specific cap-level weapons. Guided, high-speed avalons. GattlingRailgun turrets (with no ammo limitation). Frigates would have no dumbfire weapons (ie Sunflares).
3a) perhaps user controlled energy weapons drain on main battery power, a la the Death Star; defensive auto-turrets as mentioned in 2 shouldn't (perhaps they're self powered, and drain their own batteries without dipping into the main battery, or simple fire forever without battery limitations).
3b) Of course, these auto-turrets are entirely ineffective against other capital ships.
4) With the single exception of railguns, no small port weapon should be able to do ANY damage to capital ships. Sunflares, though they do more than 1k damage, still are not exempt. This give the rails a use. Perhaps the Gauss could hurt frigates, if you can get close enough to hit with them.
4a) No heavy weapon that does less than 1k damage per impact would do damage either.
4b) the point is, there needs to be specific anti-frigate/capship weapons that will hurt a frigate but aren't very effective versus another fighter. We're talking economies of scale here. I can brush a fly away, but a bee can sting me and hurt me because he has a specific weapon that I have trouble defending against. Another human, however, can slap me upside the head.
The point I think some of you are missing is that you need to look at what's both possible AND what's plausible, and what works with an extreme minimum of fussing and setting and adjusting and tweaking. And what will work seamlessly amidst the vast range of connection speeds, processors and operating systems, and player mentalities!
Lotsa really cool ideas have been thrown around in here, and I like a lot of them, but there is one area I haven't seen brought up too much. The fighteres on the larger ships.
Will one be able to configure these themselves, or will they just be standard fighters?
Another "interesting" way of doing things would be to let other players in smaller fighters be able to dock into these things for later deparcher. If the carrier is truely going to be a carrier, I think droping 10 real players in the system you are attacking, blockading, etc. would be much more effective.
~The Penguin
Will one be able to configure these themselves, or will they just be standard fighters?
Another "interesting" way of doing things would be to let other players in smaller fighters be able to dock into these things for later deparcher. If the carrier is truely going to be a carrier, I think droping 10 real players in the system you are attacking, blockading, etc. would be much more effective.
~The Penguin
taumuaddib: My view of fighters in the docking bays was twofold. You could have regular players dock there to repair and whatnot, or to be carried perhaps through some kind of uberwarp gate. You could also but AI fighters like the defense ships from 3.1.xx to have them in your docking bay, able to be launched and used against any target that
xochiluvr: No human controlled turrets? You think that ONE PERSON should be able, nay, be forced to control something like my Battlecruiser all by him/herself? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of all this teamwork and paying for it and etc? Hmm... Well, I g2g right now but I'll finish this post when I get back.
xochiluvr: No human controlled turrets? You think that ONE PERSON should be able, nay, be forced to control something like my Battlecruiser all by him/herself? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of all this teamwork and paying for it and etc? Hmm... Well, I g2g right now but I'll finish this post when I get back.
xochiluvr:
1) If there isn't some large but finite resource to allocate then there isn't any skill (or for me fun) to piloting a capital ship. In fighters, that resourse is thier motion. Capital ships don't have enough motion to make moving them entirely engrossing in and of itself (though they should have more than is often suggested). Virtually every capital ship simulation I'm aware of approaches this problem by giving capital ships finite power resources. "I need more power, Scotty! I'm giving her all she got Captain, but the engines can't take much more!"
2) It is feasible enough that the developers have on several occasions mentioned it as something that exists in the planned feature set - including the Gamespy interview. So its really not a question of doing it or not (programming time permitting), but how it should be implemented. I think its a fine idea, but I want an AI option.
2a) Yes, though there are of course various interface issues there. On the plus side of the infinite battery issue, you wouldn't have to worry about interface and AI issues like 'minimum range' and 'agressiveness' and maybe not even 'preferred target'.
2b) But that's not fun. ;) Maybe I want to set up my ship with dual railguns in the turrets to maximize my anti-ship firepower, or maybe I want to use advanced gatlings to maximize my fighter screening capability.
3) I have no particular problem with giving a capital ship dumb Avalon torpedoes. I have lots of ideas for such weapons as I'm sure you do too. Obviously though, capital ship level weapons must be balanced just like non-capital ship weapons.
3a) That's a possible comprimise.
3b) Even ones loaded with guass or railguns?
4) I don't know why rail guns should be so special. I prefer the 'armor' concept if only because it seems less arbitrary.
4a) Then its not much of a heavy weapon.
4b) Agreed, but I don't think it has to be so cut and dried.
What can be implemented always trumps what you would like to see implemented.
1) If there isn't some large but finite resource to allocate then there isn't any skill (or for me fun) to piloting a capital ship. In fighters, that resourse is thier motion. Capital ships don't have enough motion to make moving them entirely engrossing in and of itself (though they should have more than is often suggested). Virtually every capital ship simulation I'm aware of approaches this problem by giving capital ships finite power resources. "I need more power, Scotty! I'm giving her all she got Captain, but the engines can't take much more!"
2) It is feasible enough that the developers have on several occasions mentioned it as something that exists in the planned feature set - including the Gamespy interview. So its really not a question of doing it or not (programming time permitting), but how it should be implemented. I think its a fine idea, but I want an AI option.
2a) Yes, though there are of course various interface issues there. On the plus side of the infinite battery issue, you wouldn't have to worry about interface and AI issues like 'minimum range' and 'agressiveness' and maybe not even 'preferred target'.
2b) But that's not fun. ;) Maybe I want to set up my ship with dual railguns in the turrets to maximize my anti-ship firepower, or maybe I want to use advanced gatlings to maximize my fighter screening capability.
3) I have no particular problem with giving a capital ship dumb Avalon torpedoes. I have lots of ideas for such weapons as I'm sure you do too. Obviously though, capital ship level weapons must be balanced just like non-capital ship weapons.
3a) That's a possible comprimise.
3b) Even ones loaded with guass or railguns?
4) I don't know why rail guns should be so special. I prefer the 'armor' concept if only because it seems less arbitrary.
4a) Then its not much of a heavy weapon.
4b) Agreed, but I don't think it has to be so cut and dried.
What can be implemented always trumps what you would like to see implemented.
xochiluvr:
in response
1) frigates and cap ships NEED to have energy drain. now fighter size energy weapons would make almost no impact on a battery of large enough size to power a frigate, say one with a recharge rate of 500/s or better, with a max power of 4000 or more., the drain from a pair of gatling guns is going to be minimal.
however capital ship size weapons NEED to drain the batteries, otherwise, everyone is just going to equip the fastest firing anti-cap ship weapon for their cap ship duels, there will be no way to balance this weapon does more damage but eats power.. this one does a little less, but you fire more often cause you have the power.
2)
>>I don't think having players running a turret in someone else's ship is feasible (it doesn't sound very fun, either). If someone disconnects, is that turret just inactive for a full minute like fighters are now?
Battlefield 1942 allows multiple players to work together to crew vehicles.. in combat it's quite fun, and for when you aren't in combat, if you are a turret gunner, YOUR personal ship is in the cargo bay, take it out for a spin, just come back in a hurrry if we /msg you saying we're under attack
>>Just use limited numbers of VERY high (killer) accuracy short range anti-fighter turrets and longer range, fair-to-good accuracy flak turrets. A fighter that gets close, say, within 300m, dies. End of story.
bad idea, first of all, the only way to give an AI controlled turret that kind of accuracy, is to allow it to alter it's aim in ways that no human ever could, or to allow it to "cheat" giving it an automatic "hit" even if there is no way that the AI can predict where your ship is actually going to be, and what directional changes you are going to make, thus changing this from a game of skill to a game of luck.
2a) I don't have too much of a problem with this one, as long as it's a OPTION you can asign a turret you dont have a player for, and as the AI is NOT an auto kill defense system.
2b) uhhh then the dev's have to come up with all the ship designes and weapons loadouts. besides, what if i want MY frigate to be rigged out as a fighter defense ship <aka> all gatling guns, and trade the cap ship weapons in for extra armor/batteries so i can go provide defense against enemy fighters.
3) no particular comments on this point at this time.
3a) please see response to point #1
3b) umm not quite sure how to respond to this, maybe i'll edit this post at a later date when i have a chance to sort my thoughts on weapons being excluded from affecting a target without suitable in game explination.
4) please refer to discussion about armor earlier in this thread, and the thread entitled "Temp Shields" it is currently on page 4 of this suggestions forum.
4a) please refer to point 4, also small weapons that do MORE than 1k damage/impact get to harm cap ships as well if you are going to have large weapons that do more than 1k damage harm the cap ship. damage is damge.
(what about the charged cannon? it has the potential to do 2800, but with your setup, it would do no damage since it's small and not a railgun, while a plasma cannon that only does 1450 would hurt a cap ship),
4b) no one is arguing this, a cap ship weapon is going to be ineffective against fighters simply because it can't aim fast enough, (perhaps a 1.5 second firing delay on cap ship size weapons, you press the trigger, the controls stop accepting imputs, and 1.5 seconds later the guns fire, not gonna make a difference against a cap ship, but a fighter is gonna be hard to anticipate)
>>>>The point I think some of you are missing is that you need to look at what's both possible AND what's plausible, and what works with an extreme minimum of fussing and setting and adjusting and tweaking. And what will work seamlessly amidst the vast range of connection speeds, processors and operating systems, and player mentalities!
this is just BAD game design. if you only think about what you KNOW can be done, you never try anything new. The whole point of this vendetta test is to give the devs a place where they can try things that no-one has done before, and see if they can do them.
"a mans vision should exceed his grasp"
"reach for the stars"
"tis better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all"
the point being that in order to succeed you have to try new things, take some risks, and not be so afraid of failure that you don't even try.
hmm how did i go from game design into philosophy <shudder>
in response
1) frigates and cap ships NEED to have energy drain. now fighter size energy weapons would make almost no impact on a battery of large enough size to power a frigate, say one with a recharge rate of 500/s or better, with a max power of 4000 or more., the drain from a pair of gatling guns is going to be minimal.
however capital ship size weapons NEED to drain the batteries, otherwise, everyone is just going to equip the fastest firing anti-cap ship weapon for their cap ship duels, there will be no way to balance this weapon does more damage but eats power.. this one does a little less, but you fire more often cause you have the power.
2)
>>I don't think having players running a turret in someone else's ship is feasible (it doesn't sound very fun, either). If someone disconnects, is that turret just inactive for a full minute like fighters are now?
Battlefield 1942 allows multiple players to work together to crew vehicles.. in combat it's quite fun, and for when you aren't in combat, if you are a turret gunner, YOUR personal ship is in the cargo bay, take it out for a spin, just come back in a hurrry if we /msg you saying we're under attack
>>Just use limited numbers of VERY high (killer) accuracy short range anti-fighter turrets and longer range, fair-to-good accuracy flak turrets. A fighter that gets close, say, within 300m, dies. End of story.
bad idea, first of all, the only way to give an AI controlled turret that kind of accuracy, is to allow it to alter it's aim in ways that no human ever could, or to allow it to "cheat" giving it an automatic "hit" even if there is no way that the AI can predict where your ship is actually going to be, and what directional changes you are going to make, thus changing this from a game of skill to a game of luck.
2a) I don't have too much of a problem with this one, as long as it's a OPTION you can asign a turret you dont have a player for, and as the AI is NOT an auto kill defense system.
2b) uhhh then the dev's have to come up with all the ship designes and weapons loadouts. besides, what if i want MY frigate to be rigged out as a fighter defense ship <aka> all gatling guns, and trade the cap ship weapons in for extra armor/batteries so i can go provide defense against enemy fighters.
3) no particular comments on this point at this time.
3a) please see response to point #1
3b) umm not quite sure how to respond to this, maybe i'll edit this post at a later date when i have a chance to sort my thoughts on weapons being excluded from affecting a target without suitable in game explination.
4) please refer to discussion about armor earlier in this thread, and the thread entitled "Temp Shields" it is currently on page 4 of this suggestions forum.
4a) please refer to point 4, also small weapons that do MORE than 1k damage/impact get to harm cap ships as well if you are going to have large weapons that do more than 1k damage harm the cap ship. damage is damge.
(what about the charged cannon? it has the potential to do 2800, but with your setup, it would do no damage since it's small and not a railgun, while a plasma cannon that only does 1450 would hurt a cap ship),
4b) no one is arguing this, a cap ship weapon is going to be ineffective against fighters simply because it can't aim fast enough, (perhaps a 1.5 second firing delay on cap ship size weapons, you press the trigger, the controls stop accepting imputs, and 1.5 seconds later the guns fire, not gonna make a difference against a cap ship, but a fighter is gonna be hard to anticipate)
>>>>The point I think some of you are missing is that you need to look at what's both possible AND what's plausible, and what works with an extreme minimum of fussing and setting and adjusting and tweaking. And what will work seamlessly amidst the vast range of connection speeds, processors and operating systems, and player mentalities!
this is just BAD game design. if you only think about what you KNOW can be done, you never try anything new. The whole point of this vendetta test is to give the devs a place where they can try things that no-one has done before, and see if they can do them.
"a mans vision should exceed his grasp"
"reach for the stars"
"tis better to have loved and lost, then never to have loved at all"
the point being that in order to succeed you have to try new things, take some risks, and not be so afraid of failure that you don't even try.
hmm how did i go from game design into philosophy <shudder>
spellcast you are right, but there also exist counterphilosophic statements like:
better to have 1 bird in the hand then 10 in the sky
and so on,
PS: This surved no purpose then just to let spellcast see that there are other alternatives then always keep making new things. I know that that is good, new things but like always don't exagerate , because people buy things because they know they will be good gameplaywise not because it consists of new thoughts.
cheers
better to have 1 bird in the hand then 10 in the sky
and so on,
PS: This surved no purpose then just to let spellcast see that there are other alternatives then always keep making new things. I know that that is good, new things but like always don't exagerate , because people buy things because they know they will be good gameplaywise not because it consists of new thoughts.
cheers
Personally, I am MUCH more likely to buy a game that seems completely different than i am to buy a game that reminds me of something I've already played.
Point taken tho, there have to be some familiar elements in a game to make it marketable. On the other hand, I view Game design as follows, you get a whole bunch of ideas, including some that are WAY outside the realm of possible, and you try to get as close to those as you can with current techniques, maybe even invent a few, the rest of the way to the WOW GEEE WHIZ ideas you save and try to use for the sequel (any plans for a vendetta 2 yet incarnate :) lol j/k)
egad ok before i drag this entire thread any farther off topic, I've been thinking about the placement of anti-fighter defense turrets, and had a thought.
what if the number of player supported positions was partially up to the owner of the ship, give the ship say.. 20 possible turrets, (the number of possible turrets varying depending ont he size of the hull), and then be able to link the turrets together into different "fire groups", each group having a "view" linked to one of the turrets. this way, if you only have a small team, you link 4 groups of 5 turrets, or 2 groups of 10 or whatever, but if you want to get 20 people into the ship, you make each turret a seperate "group". the total firepower of the ship remains the same, since the possible number of weapons doesn't change, just the amount of firepower each person has control over. As a balance to this added firepower however, each person now has to defend that much more of the ships hull.
Point taken tho, there have to be some familiar elements in a game to make it marketable. On the other hand, I view Game design as follows, you get a whole bunch of ideas, including some that are WAY outside the realm of possible, and you try to get as close to those as you can with current techniques, maybe even invent a few, the rest of the way to the WOW GEEE WHIZ ideas you save and try to use for the sequel (any plans for a vendetta 2 yet incarnate :) lol j/k)
egad ok before i drag this entire thread any farther off topic, I've been thinking about the placement of anti-fighter defense turrets, and had a thought.
what if the number of player supported positions was partially up to the owner of the ship, give the ship say.. 20 possible turrets, (the number of possible turrets varying depending ont he size of the hull), and then be able to link the turrets together into different "fire groups", each group having a "view" linked to one of the turrets. this way, if you only have a small team, you link 4 groups of 5 turrets, or 2 groups of 10 or whatever, but if you want to get 20 people into the ship, you make each turret a seperate "group". the total firepower of the ship remains the same, since the possible number of weapons doesn't change, just the amount of firepower each person has control over. As a balance to this added firepower however, each person now has to defend that much more of the ships hull.
Youre not going to like what I say now, but I think cap ships may be unworkable. Can you imagine trekking through, say, the roids in 10 with them? ATM, ships who hit roids get bounced away. Can you honestly see that happening with the bigger ships? No. But if the rocks were to be fully moveable, wouldnt that create serious problems?
As for the weapons control issue, I honestly doubt that there would be any way for a larger ship to target a half-decent dodger. Turrets are useless if a ship doesnt get in close. Larger weapons are useless if the ship moves at a good speed. It must be IMPOSSIBLE for a single, or a couple of fighters to take down a frigate. It needs to take a whole fleet of ships or the enemy equivalent cap ship or better to do it. Otherwise, those that stick to fighters would prevent other players from obtaining and keeping these larger ships.
Thirdly, controlling these ships would be a chore. Too large to evade, too slow to cargo-run, too sluggish to shake off any pursuers. Whats the point of controlling such a behemoth if it cant hit anything.
As for the weapons control issue, I honestly doubt that there would be any way for a larger ship to target a half-decent dodger. Turrets are useless if a ship doesnt get in close. Larger weapons are useless if the ship moves at a good speed. It must be IMPOSSIBLE for a single, or a couple of fighters to take down a frigate. It needs to take a whole fleet of ships or the enemy equivalent cap ship or better to do it. Otherwise, those that stick to fighters would prevent other players from obtaining and keeping these larger ships.
Thirdly, controlling these ships would be a chore. Too large to evade, too slow to cargo-run, too sluggish to shake off any pursuers. Whats the point of controlling such a behemoth if it cant hit anything.
UncleDave: I was going to post a cautionary post, but seeing how you had decided to take over the 'prophet of doom and gloom' position, I won't.
"You're not going to like what I say now, but I think cap ships may be unworkable."
And how many games have thier been that had gameplay centered around capital ships?
"Can you imagine trekking through, say, the roids in 10 with them? ATM, ships who hit roids get bounced away."
Ever seen Star Wars II: The Empire Strikes Back? I imagine any ship's captain stupid enough to take a capital ship into an asteroid field deserves what he gets.
"As for the weapons control issue, I honestly doubt that there would be any way for a larger ship to target a half-decent dodger."
I suppose that the advanced gatling hasn't taught you anything.
"Turrets are useless if a ship doesnt get in close."
Depends on what is in that turret. If the weapon travels at 3000 m/s, you don't have to be that close to the turret to be hit.
"Larger weapons are useless if the ship moves at a good speed."
That is a design decision, not an absolute fact. You might want larger weapons to be useless against targets moving at good speed to create a classic starcraft style 'rock-paper-scissors' situation, but its not essential to do so. If a1k0n's beam cannon in a hemispherical arc autotracking turret is your definition of heavy weapon, then any ship with a few of those is going to be a serious problem to get even within 3km of.
"It must be IMPOSSIBLE for a single, or a couple of fighters to take down a frigate."
Well that's easily enough done. Just give this ship 3,000 'armor' and 3,000,000 hull points, and fighter weapons short of avalons bounce off and it takes a good 333 Avalons (41 loaded Ragnarok's worth) hitting to kill a frigate. If you add further the ability to regenerate 1,000 hull points a minute and other defences, you would meet at least your design goal. I'm not saying those numbers represent an interesting design, but they would certainly make it impossible for a just a couple of ordinary fighters to take down a frigate, and clearly if we wanted to make it absolutely impossible we could.
"Otherwise, those that stick to fighters would prevent other players from obtaining and keeping these larger ships."
Well, to a certain extent, I don't think that is a bad thing. Think about it, if once you get a capital ship you become immune to 99% of the players in the game, and can take on dozens at a time is that really fair to the other 99% of the player's in the game. I'll be happy if a capital ship that costs 50 or 100 times that of a fighter can marginally defend itself from 8-10 attackers.
"Thirdly, controlling these ships would be a chore. Too large to evade, too slow to cargo-run, too sluggish to shake off any pursuers. Whats the point of controlling such a behemoth if it cant hit anything."
These are all design decisions, not absolute facts. It is possible for a single person to control a capital ship in great detail from a single interface without it seeming more of a chore than manuevering a fighter in a furball. The slowness of capital ships is entirely relative, and since they might well have cargo several times that of fighters that a fighter can make several trips in the time it takes to move a frigate from 14 to 15 (about 12-15 minutes if frigates move at the speed I would like to see) will partially balance out. (Of course, it might take a friendly fighter to load and unload the capital ship, but that's a different story.) And again, whether or not it can hit anything is entirely a design decision.
What's the point in controlling a capital ship? Prestige largely. Relative invunerability to single opponents. Role playing immersiveness. A chance to do something different. To get high on a feeling of power - even if such power is largely illusionary. To oppose other large vessels. If fuel and storable ammo is implemented, to be a source of provision for fighters in hostile sectors. If fuel is implemented, the ability to travel very long distances (in terms of number of jumps) without refueling.
"You're not going to like what I say now, but I think cap ships may be unworkable."
And how many games have thier been that had gameplay centered around capital ships?
"Can you imagine trekking through, say, the roids in 10 with them? ATM, ships who hit roids get bounced away."
Ever seen Star Wars II: The Empire Strikes Back? I imagine any ship's captain stupid enough to take a capital ship into an asteroid field deserves what he gets.
"As for the weapons control issue, I honestly doubt that there would be any way for a larger ship to target a half-decent dodger."
I suppose that the advanced gatling hasn't taught you anything.
"Turrets are useless if a ship doesnt get in close."
Depends on what is in that turret. If the weapon travels at 3000 m/s, you don't have to be that close to the turret to be hit.
"Larger weapons are useless if the ship moves at a good speed."
That is a design decision, not an absolute fact. You might want larger weapons to be useless against targets moving at good speed to create a classic starcraft style 'rock-paper-scissors' situation, but its not essential to do so. If a1k0n's beam cannon in a hemispherical arc autotracking turret is your definition of heavy weapon, then any ship with a few of those is going to be a serious problem to get even within 3km of.
"It must be IMPOSSIBLE for a single, or a couple of fighters to take down a frigate."
Well that's easily enough done. Just give this ship 3,000 'armor' and 3,000,000 hull points, and fighter weapons short of avalons bounce off and it takes a good 333 Avalons (41 loaded Ragnarok's worth) hitting to kill a frigate. If you add further the ability to regenerate 1,000 hull points a minute and other defences, you would meet at least your design goal. I'm not saying those numbers represent an interesting design, but they would certainly make it impossible for a just a couple of ordinary fighters to take down a frigate, and clearly if we wanted to make it absolutely impossible we could.
"Otherwise, those that stick to fighters would prevent other players from obtaining and keeping these larger ships."
Well, to a certain extent, I don't think that is a bad thing. Think about it, if once you get a capital ship you become immune to 99% of the players in the game, and can take on dozens at a time is that really fair to the other 99% of the player's in the game. I'll be happy if a capital ship that costs 50 or 100 times that of a fighter can marginally defend itself from 8-10 attackers.
"Thirdly, controlling these ships would be a chore. Too large to evade, too slow to cargo-run, too sluggish to shake off any pursuers. Whats the point of controlling such a behemoth if it cant hit anything."
These are all design decisions, not absolute facts. It is possible for a single person to control a capital ship in great detail from a single interface without it seeming more of a chore than manuevering a fighter in a furball. The slowness of capital ships is entirely relative, and since they might well have cargo several times that of fighters that a fighter can make several trips in the time it takes to move a frigate from 14 to 15 (about 12-15 minutes if frigates move at the speed I would like to see) will partially balance out. (Of course, it might take a friendly fighter to load and unload the capital ship, but that's a different story.) And again, whether or not it can hit anything is entirely a design decision.
What's the point in controlling a capital ship? Prestige largely. Relative invunerability to single opponents. Role playing immersiveness. A chance to do something different. To get high on a feeling of power - even if such power is largely illusionary. To oppose other large vessels. If fuel and storable ammo is implemented, to be a source of provision for fighters in hostile sectors. If fuel is implemented, the ability to travel very long distances (in terms of number of jumps) without refueling.
The advanced gatling cannon is nice, yes. But if a ship is much more than 500m away, its useless.
UncleDave: Well, that's a fighter weapon. I imagine a frigate would have turrets with range of ~2km. Also, if it has the armour that Celebrim and I actually agree on (that's a first!), it would fairly useless for a dodging ship to get within 300m. The fighter weapons could do 0 damage! Only heavier weapons could do damage, and if you want to tell me that a Rag can dodge adv-gatling-style AI, then you're loony. As for the cargo thing, well, say it takes 20 minutes each way from 14 to 15 in a frigate (not unlikely, since turning alone would be a couple of minutes), well, if you're carrying 200 cargo, you're still making MANY times what any other ship could make per hour.
Celebrim: I don't know what you think, but I think a beam cannon in a turret would be SCARY!
Celebrim: I don't know what you think, but I think a beam cannon in a turret would be SCARY!
what about a quad....
*drool*
*drool*