Forums » Suggestions
Station conquest could be the ideal motivation for epic fur-balls. However, the current station capture mechanics require the attacking team to fly bombers at turbo speeds, limiting interaction with defenders. I suggest a few criteria new station capturing mechanics to make it much more fun:
• Attackers and defenders should fly fighters
• Defenders should be aided by turrets, but turrets should not do all the work
• Missiles should be ineffective
I'd like to see several ideas that fit these criteria. Here is one I have:
The capture object is a blast door at the end of a docking bay. It's a small door in the corner armored at about 100k. If a missile is fired at the door, it will crash harmlessly into the outside of the station unless it is perfectly lined up. Turrets defend the axis of the docking bay out beyond the range of swarms, making it impossible to effectively use bombers. Thus, to capture the station the attackers must control the vulnerable docking bay for several minutes and destroy the blast door with energy. The door is repaired on a ten minute time-scale, alleviating the problem of destroying your own door.
Turrets could have a weak spot vulnerable to energy so skilled fighters can engage them. Turret fire should be less damaging, and missile turrets should be eliminated so attackers will stand and fight defenders instead of constantly fleeing from the missiles.
I'm interested to see other Fighter based station capture ideas!
• Attackers and defenders should fly fighters
• Defenders should be aided by turrets, but turrets should not do all the work
• Missiles should be ineffective
I'd like to see several ideas that fit these criteria. Here is one I have:
The capture object is a blast door at the end of a docking bay. It's a small door in the corner armored at about 100k. If a missile is fired at the door, it will crash harmlessly into the outside of the station unless it is perfectly lined up. Turrets defend the axis of the docking bay out beyond the range of swarms, making it impossible to effectively use bombers. Thus, to capture the station the attackers must control the vulnerable docking bay for several minutes and destroy the blast door with energy. The door is repaired on a ten minute time-scale, alleviating the problem of destroying your own door.
Turrets could have a weak spot vulnerable to energy so skilled fighters can engage them. Turret fire should be less damaging, and missile turrets should be eliminated so attackers will stand and fight defenders instead of constantly fleeing from the missiles.
I'm interested to see other Fighter based station capture ideas!
I really like this concept. Station conquest should encourage PvP. Another thought along these lines would be to have specific time of day conquest windows: A 2 hour block every other day is scheduled to allow conquest, and players both defending and attacking can battle for the station. As it stands it belongs to whoever is online when everyone else isn't. It doesn't encourage interaction. Scenarios requiring player interaction would be much more exciting. Fighting turrets is more mind numbing than botting. Fighting players is what VO is all about. Creating game mechanics that encourage PVP interaction is the way to go.
its boring as hell being a fighter pilot also because all bomber ships have such high turbo speed thus they don't require a fighter escort
Also, the turrets should be able to destroy incoming ordinace, much like the capital Gatling. Should be able to neutralize, without weakening the bolt, any homing missiles and rockets. This would further discourage any missile use.
Also, the turrets should be able to destroy incoming ordinace (sic), much like the capital Gatling.
Were the old capital gats actually capable of taking out incoming projectiles? I was under the impression that missiles and rockets as currently implemented are indestructible.
Were the old capital gats actually capable of taking out incoming projectiles? I was under the impression that missiles and rockets as currently implemented are indestructible.
No, they were not capable of that, to my knowledge. At least, none of my flares were ever shot down by the frigate.
Having different defense setups for each station might be a way to do this. The Fighter station would not have turrets but a default fighter squadron instead....
Having different defense setups for each station might be a way to do this. The Fighter station would not have turrets but a default fighter squadron instead....
How about we do that for all of them? Bombing is boring, and takes all skill out of the equation. Anything we can do to replace bombing with furballing is a good thing.
How about we do that for all of them? Bombing is boring, and takes all skill out of the equation. Anything we can do to replace bombing with furballing is a good thing.
My repair bot idea is a much less radical articulation of the same sentiment. I don't have a strong vision of how I'd like to get there, but fighter oriented gameplay is very much what I want to see.
As ladron said, "bombing is boring, and takes all skill out of the equation."
As ladron said, "bombing is boring, and takes all skill out of the equation."
You still have to play it smart as a bomber. A skilled bomber can go into I-8 in a swarm/gem rag, drops its payload, and get out without being scratched. I think the main role should remain with the bombers.
Perhaps we can throw in 12 npc Raptor 2's mounting N2's and Heavy Cells? Each with a two minute respawn? (they would be optional to kill but would force bombers to bring fighter escorts)
Perhaps we can throw in 12 npc Raptor 2's mounting N2's and Heavy Cells? Each with a two minute respawn? (they would be optional to kill but would force bombers to bring fighter escorts)
You still have to play it smart as a bomber. A skilled bomber can go into I-8 in a swarm/gem rag, drops its payload, and get out without being scratched.
Yes, a skilled bomber pilot can do that. The problem is that a) so can an unskilled pilot, including random trader noobs, dullbot, and even some VPR, and b) whether or not one comes out of a bombing run unharmed is irrelevant as long as the munitions are delivered, since death is currently meaningless.
Even if there were a legitimate argument that the current turret bombing mechanic requires skill, that doesn't change the fact that it is a long and boring process with no real reward. I would be much happier with the bombing if it didn't take so damned long.
Yes, a skilled bomber pilot can do that. The problem is that a) so can an unskilled pilot, including random trader noobs, dullbot, and even some VPR, and b) whether or not one comes out of a bombing run unharmed is irrelevant as long as the munitions are delivered, since death is currently meaningless.
Even if there were a legitimate argument that the current turret bombing mechanic requires skill, that doesn't change the fact that it is a long and boring process with no real reward. I would be much happier with the bombing if it didn't take so damned long.
What if there were a turret control system that when disabled, temporarily deactivates the turrets. The catch: it can not be targeted by missiles. This would require smaller energy based fighters to go disable it. It would, of course, be heavily protected.
Either that or make some of the turrets untrackable by missiles.
Either that or make some of the turrets untrackable by missiles.
Either that or make some of the turrets untrackable by missiles.
That would be unacceptable. First of all, nothing should be untrackable by missiles, especially stationary objects. Also, the only way to effectively attack the turrets right now is with missiles. Taking those away is like trying to fix a sinking boat by pulling out the entire bottom.
That would be unacceptable. First of all, nothing should be untrackable by missiles, especially stationary objects. Also, the only way to effectively attack the turrets right now is with missiles. Taking those away is like trying to fix a sinking boat by pulling out the entire bottom.
I said some, not all. It could be just one or two of them. The only way to attack the missile turrets is with missiles. Once the missile turrets are down, using energy weapons to disable the other turrets is quite possible. Certain turrets could have a sort of jamming system that prevents missile lock, that's not far fetched at all. It would, however, require smaller fighters to disable these specific turrets (which is what this thread is about) and add another dimension to station conquest other than jumping in, dumping your missiles and jumping out, which is pretty boring IMHO. Also, removing missiles as a viable option even in one small area encourages PvP.
Once the missile turrets are down, using energy weapons to disable the other turrets is quite possible.
You haven't actually played with the station, have you? Due to the respawn time on the turrets, the only way you have even a snowball's chance in hell is to grind them all down to about 6% and then finally kill them all simultaneously.
And I stand by argument that nothing should be untrackable by missiles. That's just silly.
You haven't actually played with the station, have you? Due to the respawn time on the turrets, the only way you have even a snowball's chance in hell is to grind them all down to about 6% and then finally kill them all simultaneously.
And I stand by argument that nothing should be untrackable by missiles. That's just silly.
its boring as hell being a fighter pilot also because all bomber ships have such high turbo speed thus they don't require a fighter escort
Are you telling me no one is donning rails to pick off bombers? And I feel like a good defender could position himself well enough to throw some flares or something at an incoming bomber.
Maybe the playerbase isn't big enough for there to be both a bomber and fighter contingent in an attack... but I find that doubtful.
Also, I'll throw my vote in with ladron (gasp!) on the "nothing should be untrackable by missiles" thing. Unless there is some kind of anti-missle-addon... but who the hell knows.
If we're really looking for a way to have more fighter/fighter action in station conquest, I like the idea of a small target (with limited HP) which may incapacitate the turret for a short period of time. Maybe the structure of the target's enclosure would prevent missiles from being able to hit it (like, it has a blast shield with a small hole or some shit)? I'm just spitballing here.
But here's the rub: if you're introducing more fighters into station conquest... then don't you just further the problem that everyone is going at turbo speeds and no one can catch anything? At which point there is still no furballing, but rather players turboing around?
Are you telling me no one is donning rails to pick off bombers? And I feel like a good defender could position himself well enough to throw some flares or something at an incoming bomber.
Maybe the playerbase isn't big enough for there to be both a bomber and fighter contingent in an attack... but I find that doubtful.
Also, I'll throw my vote in with ladron (gasp!) on the "nothing should be untrackable by missiles" thing. Unless there is some kind of anti-missle-addon... but who the hell knows.
If we're really looking for a way to have more fighter/fighter action in station conquest, I like the idea of a small target (with limited HP) which may incapacitate the turret for a short period of time. Maybe the structure of the target's enclosure would prevent missiles from being able to hit it (like, it has a blast shield with a small hole or some shit)? I'm just spitballing here.
But here's the rub: if you're introducing more fighters into station conquest... then don't you just further the problem that everyone is going at turbo speeds and no one can catch anything? At which point there is still no furballing, but rather players turboing around?
But here's the rub: if you're introducing more fighters into station conquest... then don't you just further the problem that everyone is going at turbo speeds and no one can catch anything? At which point there is still no furballing, but rather players turboing around?
I think the point is that you have to actually destroy something to meet your objective, not just turbo around until the other teams destroy each other like people do in nationwar.
I think the point is that you have to actually destroy something to meet your objective, not just turbo around until the other teams destroy each other like people do in nationwar.
I hear that, but destroying with fire-and-forget missiles isn't really conducive to slowing down.
The problem here is the turrets - as long as they are the primary (and only) defense then turbo-bombing is going to be the only practical means to attack a station.
I for one would rather see a tiered approach where first the turrets would be taken out for a few hours during which several fighter squadrons would become the primary defense....
Counter bombing and so on should also be added to put some depth to the over all defense.
I for one would rather see a tiered approach where first the turrets would be taken out for a few hours during which several fighter squadrons would become the primary defense....
Counter bombing and so on should also be added to put some depth to the over all defense.
PaKettle... you've lost me. Counter-bombing... is that fighters countering bombers or is that the defensive team taking out bombers and bombing something? If it's the latter, what the hell would the defensive team be bombing?
I agree, however, that there should be some non-turreted station defenses (aka special forces). But I've already outlined how that would work in an earlier post.
I agree, however, that there should be some non-turreted station defenses (aka special forces). But I've already outlined how that would work in an earlier post.