Forums » Suggestions
Celebrim:
10) I prefer that not every ship have the same agility, which is ultimately where all the requests for lightening the ships seems to be headed.
Nope, I was more thinking in the lines of:
centurion ; 1 small slot --> very very high agility
vulture : 2 small slots --> very high agility
valk: 3 small slots --> high agility
hornet: 4 small slots --> medium - high agility = very very medium high agility
You will sacrifice agility for more firepower, so in the ned all will be good. PS: dont forget the vuluture is stil a very nice ship, it is a lot harder to hit then a valk. And the added agility will make it pretty dominant. ps: The wing bug shold be fixed :D
Dont forget, the centurion was supposed to be very agile, but also the most agile fighter. Thats why I gave it that high of an agility.
19) maybe you are right celebrim, But 2k isnt that much of of an extra addition. It is downed fast.
The marauder, should get a cut of 2 k in the hull. It willl still be a nice ship, but you dont have a large slot,n which at times can safe your ass. ;)
19) You are right about that, but what I was stating was this: now everybody in a warthog uses either : gauss/jackhammer or sunnie/gemini - advanced gatling. I was now thinking more in the lines of decreasing the effectiveness slightly "5- 10%" and seeing what its effect is. And you cant say thatt he tach is a weak weapon, it is pretty dominant in the game. It is only not used on medium agility ships because they have a large port in which they can stick an advanced gatling. My thought was juust so people would even consider using the tachyon or graviton or phased blaster or whatever in stead of an advanced gatling.
Kid:
yes you are right, in a vulture you can dodge homers easilly, gemini also, but swarms are a little bit trickier. It is manageable, but very very hard. And when people shoot them from about 100m you can say goodbye to this beautifull world. Besides it is even more so from 50m AND you dont have to expect splash because of its low proximity, the swarml is the perfect rammingweapon, its only drawback is that you have to hit with all of them, and that you sometimes dont have enough shots to kill it in the end. Mostyl the reason why they are so hard to dodge is because of the 10m prox, I would like to decrease it to 5, just so we can see if it is better. Not contact, because it would render it completely useless.
PS: yes, I now turbo makes you very powerfull, and renders the swarms utterly useless. But i was speaking for non turbo. You should be able to stay and dodge those swarms to, if you are lucky. Untill know, I can dodge 2 sets of swarms, only any more will kill me in the end. Mostly because of its insane prox and because it lags my ass :(
cheers
10) I prefer that not every ship have the same agility, which is ultimately where all the requests for lightening the ships seems to be headed.
Nope, I was more thinking in the lines of:
centurion ; 1 small slot --> very very high agility
vulture : 2 small slots --> very high agility
valk: 3 small slots --> high agility
hornet: 4 small slots --> medium - high agility = very very medium high agility
You will sacrifice agility for more firepower, so in the ned all will be good. PS: dont forget the vuluture is stil a very nice ship, it is a lot harder to hit then a valk. And the added agility will make it pretty dominant. ps: The wing bug shold be fixed :D
Dont forget, the centurion was supposed to be very agile, but also the most agile fighter. Thats why I gave it that high of an agility.
19) maybe you are right celebrim, But 2k isnt that much of of an extra addition. It is downed fast.
The marauder, should get a cut of 2 k in the hull. It willl still be a nice ship, but you dont have a large slot,n which at times can safe your ass. ;)
19) You are right about that, but what I was stating was this: now everybody in a warthog uses either : gauss/jackhammer or sunnie/gemini - advanced gatling. I was now thinking more in the lines of decreasing the effectiveness slightly "5- 10%" and seeing what its effect is. And you cant say thatt he tach is a weak weapon, it is pretty dominant in the game. It is only not used on medium agility ships because they have a large port in which they can stick an advanced gatling. My thought was juust so people would even consider using the tachyon or graviton or phased blaster or whatever in stead of an advanced gatling.
Kid:
yes you are right, in a vulture you can dodge homers easilly, gemini also, but swarms are a little bit trickier. It is manageable, but very very hard. And when people shoot them from about 100m you can say goodbye to this beautifull world. Besides it is even more so from 50m AND you dont have to expect splash because of its low proximity, the swarml is the perfect rammingweapon, its only drawback is that you have to hit with all of them, and that you sometimes dont have enough shots to kill it in the end. Mostyl the reason why they are so hard to dodge is because of the 10m prox, I would like to decrease it to 5, just so we can see if it is better. Not contact, because it would render it completely useless.
PS: yes, I now turbo makes you very powerfull, and renders the swarms utterly useless. But i was speaking for non turbo. You should be able to stay and dodge those swarms to, if you are lucky. Untill know, I can dodge 2 sets of swarms, only any more will kill me in the end. Mostly because of its insane prox and because it lags my ass :(
cheers
Celebrim, can you PLEASE repost your thing about engines not having anything to do with anything because of future tech, or whatever your 2 paragraph explaination was... And Arolte? Can you forget about the engines? You're the only one that cares. Yesterday, I used all four engines for 45+ minutes each. the ONLY useless one was the light. The heavy was the most commonly used by everyone, followed by the medium with efficient at a far third.
As unpopular as my opinions may be regarding the engines, no I will not drop it just because you say so. Everyone has the freedom of opinion on these boards, and we should all exercise that right regardless of whether the majority agree or not. After all, some of the greatest ideas are sparked by two-sided debates. These boards would be awefully boring if everything was one-sided and we had a bunch of "yes people" nodding their heads incessantly, agreeing on each other's comments (which would ironically lead to a lot of contradicted statements in the long run) without careful consideration to the topic and on one's own true beliefs.
swarms are not impossible to be "dodged"... you take 1 or 2% damage if you do it right, if not dodge. it has medium maneu you know.
kid,
if you do it right, you will take 0% damage ;). Like I stated before, you can outdodge them, but only a max of 2 sets and you have to be very lucky.
But beyond the 2, you are dead "when you dont use the turbo , I mean".
cheers
if you do it right, you will take 0% damage ;). Like I stated before, you can outdodge them, but only a max of 2 sets and you have to be very lucky.
But beyond the 2, you are dead "when you dont use the turbo , I mean".
cheers
They are death to a flag-carrier...
It really depends on the size and agility of your ship. Dodging swarms is not purely skill based. I personally like to use asteroids and other objects (my own teammates, heh) as cover. It's less work for me.
=b
=b
nope, you don't have to dodge them, you just take 1 to 2 % per set, so 5 x 2 is 10% damage.
roguelazer: I have no idea where that post is. I remember posting it into some random thread that had gone off topic and become yet another thread about 'rocket ramming'. The basic jist of the post was that those things that people call engines cannot possibly or logically be engines.
But more to the point, basing an arguement regarding balance on the happenstances of the model's art is utterly spurious and ridiculous. For one thing, you are terribly limiting the artist for no good reason if you require that the art fulfill some exacting engineering requirements. For another, thoses standards aren't based on any sort of real engineering or physics anyway. As I explained in the post roguelazer refered to, any kind of scientific appraisal of the ships would conclude that those shiny things on the back aren't engines or at least aren't responcible for most if any of the ordinary motion of the vessels. Rather, those standards are completely arbitrary assessments based on how people visually respond to the art. If it looks fast, well, then it ought to be fast. Never mind that aerodynamic streamlining has nothing to do with speed of objects in space - people are relying on thier intuition. Not only is it arbitrary, but different people will come to different conclusions regarding the art. Not only that, but peoples conclusions regarding the art will be biased by thier own desires and affection for a particular peice of art. If a person likes the way a peice of art intended to represent a ship looks, he will tend to argue that the ship ought to be better to reflect what he fantasies in his head when he sees the art. If you don't like the art, then you'll tend to denigrate the capabilities of the ship it represents.
We've already got one example of that. The 'bus' used to be a heavy ship. But nobody liked it as a heavy ship _because they thought it was ugly_. Nevermind that attractiveness has nothing at all to do with a vessels performance in a zero g vacuum.
People that say 'Oh, its got six engines, it ought to be manueverable' are voicing opinions that have nothing to do with the game or with fact. An opinion like that is equivalent to a kid looking at a picture of a magic card and saying, "It _ought_ to have trample. Look how big the monster is in the picture!!! Since it ought to have trample, I'm going to rule that it does have trample and whine and throw a hissy fit when you tell me that if it had trample it would say so on the card."
The art is just flavor. You try to match the art to people intuitive understanding as best as you can, but that's hardly the most important consideration when assigning numbers.
But more to the point, basing an arguement regarding balance on the happenstances of the model's art is utterly spurious and ridiculous. For one thing, you are terribly limiting the artist for no good reason if you require that the art fulfill some exacting engineering requirements. For another, thoses standards aren't based on any sort of real engineering or physics anyway. As I explained in the post roguelazer refered to, any kind of scientific appraisal of the ships would conclude that those shiny things on the back aren't engines or at least aren't responcible for most if any of the ordinary motion of the vessels. Rather, those standards are completely arbitrary assessments based on how people visually respond to the art. If it looks fast, well, then it ought to be fast. Never mind that aerodynamic streamlining has nothing to do with speed of objects in space - people are relying on thier intuition. Not only is it arbitrary, but different people will come to different conclusions regarding the art. Not only that, but peoples conclusions regarding the art will be biased by thier own desires and affection for a particular peice of art. If a person likes the way a peice of art intended to represent a ship looks, he will tend to argue that the ship ought to be better to reflect what he fantasies in his head when he sees the art. If you don't like the art, then you'll tend to denigrate the capabilities of the ship it represents.
We've already got one example of that. The 'bus' used to be a heavy ship. But nobody liked it as a heavy ship _because they thought it was ugly_. Nevermind that attractiveness has nothing at all to do with a vessels performance in a zero g vacuum.
People that say 'Oh, its got six engines, it ought to be manueverable' are voicing opinions that have nothing to do with the game or with fact. An opinion like that is equivalent to a kid looking at a picture of a magic card and saying, "It _ought_ to have trample. Look how big the monster is in the picture!!! Since it ought to have trample, I'm going to rule that it does have trample and whine and throw a hissy fit when you tell me that if it had trample it would say so on the card."
The art is just flavor. You try to match the art to people intuitive understanding as best as you can, but that's hardly the most important consideration when assigning numbers.
Renegade:
10) There is nothing really wrong with that design. I wouldn't complain much if it was implemented. It does appear balanced. To a certain extent, the fact that the Centurian will get more manueverable is a given I think.
But balance isn't my only worry here. I feel that there is a need for a greater range of useful 'non-combat' ships, and the lack of weaponry on the small fighters greatly reduces the room you have to design new ships that are less combat useful than the fighters, but still manueverable enough to have a chance at running away. Also, I tend to feel that fewer weapon slots is enherently less interesting than more weapon slots. I like having two or more options in weapons. I miss the days of 3.1 when every ship was mounting 3 or 4 different kinds of weapons rather than triple gauss or triple flare. I never mount triple anything, not because I don't think its effective, but because I'd be more bored flying a ship with only one weapon option. So increasing the configuration options on the 'turian and the Vult is inherently attractive to me.
That of course, is just an opinion. YMMV
19) You'll note though that my change in the Tachyon was motivated (I admit) by more than mere balance. I do feel that the Tachyon is a good weapon and perhaps only the slightest bit weaker than the gauss. It might not be worth changing for balance alone accept for two things. First, I want to make it more attractive to a segment of the community to wean people away from the Gauss as the default energy weapon. To do that, I want to bump up something that some people are going to care a great deal about - speed and by extension accuracy. But to keep things balanced, I slightly bump down cycle rate with the hopes of only slightly improving the weapon, but greatly improving its attractiveness. Secondly, I want to differentiate the weapon more from other energy weapons - particularly the graviton which its almost identical to.
So I guess I must confess you caught me. While balance was a large part of the point of the suggested changes, in that I wouldn't think of making an already popular and dominating weapon better, it wasn't the only thing I was thinking of.
10) There is nothing really wrong with that design. I wouldn't complain much if it was implemented. It does appear balanced. To a certain extent, the fact that the Centurian will get more manueverable is a given I think.
But balance isn't my only worry here. I feel that there is a need for a greater range of useful 'non-combat' ships, and the lack of weaponry on the small fighters greatly reduces the room you have to design new ships that are less combat useful than the fighters, but still manueverable enough to have a chance at running away. Also, I tend to feel that fewer weapon slots is enherently less interesting than more weapon slots. I like having two or more options in weapons. I miss the days of 3.1 when every ship was mounting 3 or 4 different kinds of weapons rather than triple gauss or triple flare. I never mount triple anything, not because I don't think its effective, but because I'd be more bored flying a ship with only one weapon option. So increasing the configuration options on the 'turian and the Vult is inherently attractive to me.
That of course, is just an opinion. YMMV
19) You'll note though that my change in the Tachyon was motivated (I admit) by more than mere balance. I do feel that the Tachyon is a good weapon and perhaps only the slightest bit weaker than the gauss. It might not be worth changing for balance alone accept for two things. First, I want to make it more attractive to a segment of the community to wean people away from the Gauss as the default energy weapon. To do that, I want to bump up something that some people are going to care a great deal about - speed and by extension accuracy. But to keep things balanced, I slightly bump down cycle rate with the hopes of only slightly improving the weapon, but greatly improving its attractiveness. Secondly, I want to differentiate the weapon more from other energy weapons - particularly the graviton which its almost identical to.
So I guess I must confess you caught me. While balance was a large part of the point of the suggested changes, in that I wouldn't think of making an already popular and dominating weapon better, it wasn't the only thing I was thinking of.
Fancy words, Celebrim, but there's simply no logic to what you're saying. I'm not speaking only in terms of design, but also the role that the Marauder vessel is supposed to fulfill within the game. It has clearly been labeled as a trading vessel, correct? Businesses don't pay good money for cargo to be shipped at a slow pace. Overnight shipping, on the other hand, is where all the profits roll in. People pay good money to have goods delivered quickly, especially if the demand for those goods is high. There's also a little thing called competition between merchants. Wouldn't YOU want to have the fastest trading vessel to compete with other merchants? The price of the Marauder should reflect that. So as you can see this goes beyond just the visual design of the Marauder. It actually ties in more with the whole supply and demand part of the planned dynamic economy as well.
So when I put two and two together--the design of the Marauder and its intended function--it doesn't make much sense to me as to why people would want its agility to be lowered. Heck, even its current agility sucks. If you want to prevent people from using it as a fighter, simply reduce its hull significantly so people will be more reluctant to have one-on-one confrontations with pirates and the like. Why should a trading vessel have such thick armor if it's never going to engage in combat? Adding all that mass doesn't seem feasible if your goal as a trader is to get to your destination at the quickest speed.
So when I put two and two together--the design of the Marauder and its intended function--it doesn't make much sense to me as to why people would want its agility to be lowered. Heck, even its current agility sucks. If you want to prevent people from using it as a fighter, simply reduce its hull significantly so people will be more reluctant to have one-on-one confrontations with pirates and the like. Why should a trading vessel have such thick armor if it's never going to engage in combat? Adding all that mass doesn't seem feasible if your goal as a trader is to get to your destination at the quickest speed.
Celebrim:
10) The problem with giving it more weaponslots is that a tiny fighter will be able to take out huge things. And like in every game/real life , I cant expect an ant to annoy a spider, but a spider will have a hard time fedning off a swarm of ants.
With this I try to explain, that a very high agility ship isnt supposed to have more weapons then a medium agility ship, even if that medium agility ship has more hull. We have had that example with the valk. And as everybody notices, we arze drifting away from that , more towards the thing I provoked.
Besides can you imagine a scout that has more firepower then a regular fighter. I cant, sorry to say it this blunt. If you want more firepower, then sacrifice agility, but dont expect to be able to outrun the smaller vessels.
19) I wasnt trying to catch you, "but I have to admit, it is sattisfying that I have been sharper then mister sharpness himself ;)". But my intention was just to get people away from the most obvious choices, like the advanced gatling if you have a big slot, and the smll slot, just use something. And in stead make the small slot count, and the big slot as a mean backup. Besides I liked the changes to the tach- grav , it improves differentiation on 1 ship ;)
Arolte:
on your point of that bussiness thingy.
1) can transport more cargo slowly, and more safely in stead of fast but with less cargo. for instance, difference between a 50 cargo vessel and a 3 cargo vessel. The traders will prefere to get that 50 cargo vessel to a foreign location in stead of that fast moving 3 cargo ship. Agreed , that slow moving one will need help defending itself, but still it will be used.
2) no other alternative. For instance a zone where only normal ships are allowed, or where only atlasses are allowed and so on ...
3) cheaper. Why would bussinesses transport by water if they can transport by air. The difference is in the cost. If you can do a job cheaper then someone else because he has that expensive ship, then they will take that offer.
Besides, like celebrim said, looks dont mean a thing. what matters is the thing under the hood. Even if that ship had 20 exhaust pipes. It still wouldnt make a difference if they arent ebing used or if they are only used for certain things. Even more, you could say that those 6 engines on the maud are necessary because otherwise it would be impossible to even move it a tiny bit. And now, with those 6 engines it can have the same excelleration as the ones with less engines. So you could see it as 6 engines that have the same total charecteristic of 1 normal engine. Or every part of the engine is used for another job, for instance 1 - 3 - 5 for normal cruising speed, 2 - 4 - 6 for turbo, 1 - 6 for left strafe, ... etc
cheers
10) The problem with giving it more weaponslots is that a tiny fighter will be able to take out huge things. And like in every game/real life , I cant expect an ant to annoy a spider, but a spider will have a hard time fedning off a swarm of ants.
With this I try to explain, that a very high agility ship isnt supposed to have more weapons then a medium agility ship, even if that medium agility ship has more hull. We have had that example with the valk. And as everybody notices, we arze drifting away from that , more towards the thing I provoked.
Besides can you imagine a scout that has more firepower then a regular fighter. I cant, sorry to say it this blunt. If you want more firepower, then sacrifice agility, but dont expect to be able to outrun the smaller vessels.
19) I wasnt trying to catch you, "but I have to admit, it is sattisfying that I have been sharper then mister sharpness himself ;)". But my intention was just to get people away from the most obvious choices, like the advanced gatling if you have a big slot, and the smll slot, just use something. And in stead make the small slot count, and the big slot as a mean backup. Besides I liked the changes to the tach- grav , it improves differentiation on 1 ship ;)
Arolte:
on your point of that bussiness thingy.
1) can transport more cargo slowly, and more safely in stead of fast but with less cargo. for instance, difference between a 50 cargo vessel and a 3 cargo vessel. The traders will prefere to get that 50 cargo vessel to a foreign location in stead of that fast moving 3 cargo ship. Agreed , that slow moving one will need help defending itself, but still it will be used.
2) no other alternative. For instance a zone where only normal ships are allowed, or where only atlasses are allowed and so on ...
3) cheaper. Why would bussinesses transport by water if they can transport by air. The difference is in the cost. If you can do a job cheaper then someone else because he has that expensive ship, then they will take that offer.
Besides, like celebrim said, looks dont mean a thing. what matters is the thing under the hood. Even if that ship had 20 exhaust pipes. It still wouldnt make a difference if they arent ebing used or if they are only used for certain things. Even more, you could say that those 6 engines on the maud are necessary because otherwise it would be impossible to even move it a tiny bit. And now, with those 6 engines it can have the same excelleration as the ones with less engines. So you could see it as 6 engines that have the same total charecteristic of 1 normal engine. Or every part of the engine is used for another job, for instance 1 - 3 - 5 for normal cruising speed, 2 - 4 - 6 for turbo, 1 - 6 for left strafe, ... etc
cheers
I strongly disagree, Renegade. Speed equals safety; not more hull. Of course if you had both it would be best, but for the sake of argument speed and agility seems to be the better factors of surviving in Vendetta. Why is it that the Centurion is harder to kill than a Prometheus (without rocket ramming of course)? Hull means nothing if your enemy can hit you so easily, because either way you'll be dead. So no, I wouldn't consider hull a better form of insurance than speed. Avoiding the enemy completely is A LOT safer than facing one. Always!
Faster Marauder = quicker delivery of goods + increased reliability = $$$
Faster Marauder = quicker delivery of goods + increased reliability = $$$
Euhm arolte
You are copmparing a fly with an aeroplain. I want to see you hit a fly with tweezers and then see you do the same with a aeroplain. I bet that it is easier to hit the aeroplain, right ?
Now are we going to say that that is because a fly is more agile or because the aeroplain is a lot bigger and therefore easier to hit. I think the answer is the latter.
And if you meant the centaur, then I think you never really fought in both of them, because the prom is able to defend itself a lot better then the centaur.
Besides, my point was that a marauder can be a snail if you take in account the size and cargocapacity. Like I stated in my previous post, it can have 6 engines, yes. But it could have need for them to attain a slow speed. Everything is possible. So just judging by the looks of a ship is superficiel.
Now on your point of a quicker marauder, a quicker atlas= quicker delivery of goods + increased reliability = +$$$ So therefore, you have to make the atlas quicker too because why would people choose a slow ship to trade. The same I can say for the prom and the centaur. So just leave it as it is and reduce the hull from the marauder with 2k.
cheers
You are copmparing a fly with an aeroplain. I want to see you hit a fly with tweezers and then see you do the same with a aeroplain. I bet that it is easier to hit the aeroplain, right ?
Now are we going to say that that is because a fly is more agile or because the aeroplain is a lot bigger and therefore easier to hit. I think the answer is the latter.
And if you meant the centaur, then I think you never really fought in both of them, because the prom is able to defend itself a lot better then the centaur.
Besides, my point was that a marauder can be a snail if you take in account the size and cargocapacity. Like I stated in my previous post, it can have 6 engines, yes. But it could have need for them to attain a slow speed. Everything is possible. So just judging by the looks of a ship is superficiel.
Now on your point of a quicker marauder, a quicker atlas= quicker delivery of goods + increased reliability = +$$$ So therefore, you have to make the atlas quicker too because why would people choose a slow ship to trade. The same I can say for the prom and the centaur. So just leave it as it is and reduce the hull from the marauder with 2k.
cheers
I'll say it again--avoiding the enemy completely through speed and agility will always be safer than confronting one. A good trader will NOT stand behind and fight*, but rather learn how to avoid the enemy completely. Fighting will only delay their delivery, thus causing them to lose money and allowing competitors to beat them. By giving the marauder such a high number of hull points (even if the current one is going to be reduced slightly), there's implication that it should be used in combat. I think what everyone's trying to avoid here is a trading vessel that can be used as a fighter. After all, the Prometheus is regarded as one of the main bombers and the Valk is regarded as one of the main fighters. ALL the special ships have high hull points. So why not break that boring repetition and give the Marauder below 10k hull points and a high speed?
Although the Marauder is packed with hull to increase reliability, as some people think ;-) , it loses its overall effectiveness as a truly profitable transport vessel from its reduced speed. And you're right, people have a demand for safe shipping, but they're actually willing to pay more for getting those items shipped quicker. Time equals money. Speed is necessary to achieve the lowest time. Common sense. You'd think that with the money you pay for the Marauder, you'd have some kind of advantage over the other merchants that are competing with you. Speed should be the advantage for the Marauder, not hull points.
And realistically, of all the times I've traded in a cheap Atlas, I've never really had the need for high hull points. The point of the efficient and medium engine is to allow you to avoid your enemy completely. I'd just zoom past pirates and bots and deliver my goods to the destination, no problem. But let's say a competing Marauder was alongside with my cheap Atlas, running the same trade run or whatever. Who really has the advantage here? Since we can both easily avoid pirates and bots, the only thing left is speed. Since the speeds are nearly identical, I have a good chance of beating or tieing that Marauder to my destination at a much cheaper price, albeit with the expense of -4 cargo. If the Marauder were to have a higher rate of acceleration, it would outrun the Atlas next to it, get the cargo delivered quicker, get MORE cargo delievered, and therefore get you to earn a higher profit. That's how a trader would get his/her money's worth. That's what should make it "special" apart from all the other trading vessels.
*note from first paragraph: The demand for a mine port on the Marauder has been high. Because as experienced traders they know not to stand behind and fight, but rather shake the enemies off their back and move on to their destination ASAP.
Although the Marauder is packed with hull to increase reliability, as some people think ;-) , it loses its overall effectiveness as a truly profitable transport vessel from its reduced speed. And you're right, people have a demand for safe shipping, but they're actually willing to pay more for getting those items shipped quicker. Time equals money. Speed is necessary to achieve the lowest time. Common sense. You'd think that with the money you pay for the Marauder, you'd have some kind of advantage over the other merchants that are competing with you. Speed should be the advantage for the Marauder, not hull points.
And realistically, of all the times I've traded in a cheap Atlas, I've never really had the need for high hull points. The point of the efficient and medium engine is to allow you to avoid your enemy completely. I'd just zoom past pirates and bots and deliver my goods to the destination, no problem. But let's say a competing Marauder was alongside with my cheap Atlas, running the same trade run or whatever. Who really has the advantage here? Since we can both easily avoid pirates and bots, the only thing left is speed. Since the speeds are nearly identical, I have a good chance of beating or tieing that Marauder to my destination at a much cheaper price, albeit with the expense of -4 cargo. If the Marauder were to have a higher rate of acceleration, it would outrun the Atlas next to it, get the cargo delivered quicker, get MORE cargo delievered, and therefore get you to earn a higher profit. That's how a trader would get his/her money's worth. That's what should make it "special" apart from all the other trading vessels.
*note from first paragraph: The demand for a mine port on the Marauder has been high. Because as experienced traders they know not to stand behind and fight, but rather shake the enemies off their back and move on to their destination ASAP.
Nice one, Arolte...
(btw i'd really like alittle agility boost on the vulture - it really needs that)
(btw i'd really like alittle agility boost on the vulture - it really needs that)
Arolte: Because if it is "high speed", it'll be used as a fighter, high hp or no high hp.
Without getting too deeply involved in this debate, I've always supported moving the Prox mine to the small port.
Ok, I can't completely stay out. I agree with certain points of both sides, but I haven't made up my mind entirely. I will toss some fuel on the fire to say that I don't _only_ worry about the Marauder being too good of a fighter. I'm also worried about its ability to obselete vessels larger than itself without creating vessels with ridiculously large ammounts of cargo space. I think everyone generally agrees that ships much bigger than those we have now have to be less agile (and maybe even slower) than those we have now otherwise everyone is going to be using the bigger ships and the game will move from 'star fighter simulation' towards 'capital ship simulation' with the accompaning probably unsupportable load on bandwidth. If the Marauder can complete runs in 1/2 the time of a ship with 36 cargo, its clearly much better. The advantages of small size (cost?), faster transit, and better ability to evade attackers (via acceleration) make even a ship with 40-50 cargo less desirable if the Marauder can make the run in half the time or twice the safety.
How much time does the already fast Marauder already gain on a run if its racing an Atlas or Centaur?
Eldrad pointed out to me that as the sectors become larger, the acceleration advantage decreases. Do you think this is a solution in and of itself? Do you think that the sectors getting larger is a good idea given the fact that in general the longer the travel time the more time players have to get bored and frustrated?
Perhaps some indication of what you would consider a favorable and balanced design for some medium sized (sub capital ship but bigger than fighter) freighters would help me make up my mind on a fast but fragile Marauder design.
Lastly, the agility differences between ships keep getting smaller and smaller. I really would like to resist pressure towards making all the ships have nearly the same agility.
Ok, I can't completely stay out. I agree with certain points of both sides, but I haven't made up my mind entirely. I will toss some fuel on the fire to say that I don't _only_ worry about the Marauder being too good of a fighter. I'm also worried about its ability to obselete vessels larger than itself without creating vessels with ridiculously large ammounts of cargo space. I think everyone generally agrees that ships much bigger than those we have now have to be less agile (and maybe even slower) than those we have now otherwise everyone is going to be using the bigger ships and the game will move from 'star fighter simulation' towards 'capital ship simulation' with the accompaning probably unsupportable load on bandwidth. If the Marauder can complete runs in 1/2 the time of a ship with 36 cargo, its clearly much better. The advantages of small size (cost?), faster transit, and better ability to evade attackers (via acceleration) make even a ship with 40-50 cargo less desirable if the Marauder can make the run in half the time or twice the safety.
How much time does the already fast Marauder already gain on a run if its racing an Atlas or Centaur?
Eldrad pointed out to me that as the sectors become larger, the acceleration advantage decreases. Do you think this is a solution in and of itself? Do you think that the sectors getting larger is a good idea given the fact that in general the longer the travel time the more time players have to get bored and frustrated?
Perhaps some indication of what you would consider a favorable and balanced design for some medium sized (sub capital ship but bigger than fighter) freighters would help me make up my mind on a fast but fragile Marauder design.
Lastly, the agility differences between ships keep getting smaller and smaller. I really would like to resist pressure towards making all the ships have nearly the same agility.
I would suggest this for medium freighters:
-low agility (somewhere around or below that of the Centaur)
-low acceleration (again, something like the Centaur)
-high speed (the ship should be able to mount engines which are faster than the engines most other ships can mount)
-few weapons ports (2 or 3 max)
-several times more cargo than the Marauder
The idea here is that the freighter would steer and accelerate very poorly, but would be able to travel rather quickly once it got going. The ship would be essentially useless for dogfighting, but might still hold mines or something.
-low agility (somewhere around or below that of the Centaur)
-low acceleration (again, something like the Centaur)
-high speed (the ship should be able to mount engines which are faster than the engines most other ships can mount)
-few weapons ports (2 or 3 max)
-several times more cargo than the Marauder
The idea here is that the freighter would steer and accelerate very poorly, but would be able to travel rather quickly once it got going. The ship would be essentially useless for dogfighting, but might still hold mines or something.
Roguelazer, people will avoid using a highly agile Marauder as a fighter because of its size. The size of it makes it an easy target, as opposed to a Centurion which is tiny. So still, it would be balanced out if its hull points gets reduced and its agility is increased. I'm not even talking 10k HP, but actually somewhere around 8k HP. Any fighter (even non-special) that confronts a Marauder will get an easy kill. They'll have to run 'em down first, though, which'll be one hell of a chase.