This is a thread to make suggestions about large capship battles, we all did some fun research earlier today which I will now outline before I get into it:

Scenario: A group of pirates aimed to interrupt trade at around 4:30GMT seizing Latos H-2 and holding the UIT/Greyspace border to ransom. Tipped off by an early alert from Phaserlight, the VPR calls on its allies in the alliance of ITAN/TGFT/ONE (you fought together, you're an alliance, accept it) to defend the trade route and restore order to the galaxy.

CHRN's Mr. Chaos lead the contingent consisting of a FAMY Strike Force with a Trident Type M and a representative from the Bractus Liberation Front to Latos H-2 to begin the trade ransom.

Pirates:
[CHRN] Mr. Chaos
[FAMY] Aton Clavan
[FAMY] Savet Hegar
[FAMY] TheRedSpy
[FAMY] YT-1300
[FAMY] Litestar
[BLF] Priest King

Antipirates/Alliance:
[Itan] CrazySpence
[VPR] Phaserlight
[VPR] Strat
[VPR] Ishathis Bessuni
[TGFT] Shna
Xandar Tol
[TGFT] Easy_Eddie
StewTool
[ONE] Star Buck

(sorry if i missed anyone)

All of these people will have different perspectives so hopefully will get a chance to comment on how they thought the battle went, personally, from the perspective of the trident driver, I wanted to offer my thoughts on reforms. Some of these I know are already probably planned, but I wanted to list them here anyway to formalise some of the discussion I've seen around VO. It's entirely constructive criticism, Trident driving is pretty boring at the moment, but at the same time its fulfilling because you're able to bring all these people together in a group activity. My comments are in the interests of making it more fun and ultimately having more awesome battles like the one today.

1. Sector Lag

I know we had quite a few complaints about shots not registering so I wanted to flag that, it was frustrating for many of the players I think, we're not sure exactly what causes it but it seems to be related to some of the issues Inc. raised in the general forum re:scalability.

2. Third person flight mode with mouselook

We already have some third person views, I've tried them both and I didnt like either. I currently fly my trident the same way I fly all ships, which is annoying because the field of view is silly and you can see the hull. If there were a third person zoomed out view where mouselook still functioned it would be far superior in my view for flying tridents with a mouse/keyboard. I cant stand not using mouselook so this is a problem for flying it effectively. I would suggest using the current third-person view and just having mouselook function as per normal, but with the ship model also on the screen.

3. A note on shields, turrets and other general trident bits

I've heard that there is an intention to bring shields to player owned tridents, in addition to capital gauss and all that. Quite a few other players I've talked to in-game have taken the view that they are unnecessary. I firmly disagree with this. In our exercise, the trident was more of a burden than a benefit without shields, the enemy was able to dedicate one player to attacking the trident taking it out of action and we had at least another two people to chase the attacker unsuccessfully. We eventually overcame this obstacle as a matter of tactics, but in this regard its still a burden. I would have been better off taking a ship capable of fighting back than the trident because of the limited numbers of players available to us. Ultimately, its far more useful to park in an empty sector for quick repairs, and that IS boring.

Capital turrets would also help solve this problem, hopefully controllable by the pilot because its extremely boring just sitting in the sector flashing red and frustrating trying to get teammates to come to your aid, it just doesn't work/needs self help to be a fulfilling role. If you could fire your own turrets with swarms and capital gauss there is no doubt it would be entertaining for a number of player types, especially myself in Australia with a 300ping. I think its needless to say that the current turrets are essentially useless in the scale of battle we were trying to have even if we had the extra 4 players to man them.

We also had to dedicate players to repairing the trident which was a completely hopeless venture and a waste of someone's combat ability, I guess this is another justification for shields.

4. Auto-refill on trident slots

I guess having turrets usable fixes this, but in addition, it makes sense to have the heavy slots automatically refill themselves on a trident with ammunition. Kinda like a drip refill or just an interval refresh. Doesn't make sense that a trident cant carry unlimited ammo for itself but it can for 100,000 other ships. I did equip chaos swarms and actually manage to score a few hits, but that got old quickly :(

That's probably all I have to say. I don't mean to criticise the busy developer schedule, I know you probably have every intention of implementing some of these features, but I was only motivated to write this thread post-battle.

Thanks for everyone involved, I hope you had fun and look out for more evil pirate activity in your local area soon.

The sector lag was nuts. Savet and I laid Into each other with 30seconds sustained fire without either of us taking any damage

Not sure why this occurred 12 players isnt very many. In the Itan vs CoN war we had average battles of 15+ all the way upto 30 with less lagg

I do agree capital vessels need shields. It would give the trident an extra few min to hang around but not long.

I also agree all capital weapon slots should reload after a time. These aren't fighters they should have the resources to handle this

That battle was good fun and look forward to future encounters

It doesn't seem to me that the amount of time a Trident can hang around while under sustained attack by a large group is excessive. This is the smallest capship, after all and it can still linger for several minutes with a group of experienced pilots actively trying to destroy it.

Shields are more about what *kind* of attack is necessary. Against a shielded NPC Trident, all it takes is one good bombing run before that ship needs to leave or likely be destroyed. I'm not against the idea of player Tridents having shields, but they should be breakable by a single bomber, and the armor should be much lower.

Any requests for a capship with far superior capabilities should be addressed by other capship models. Sure, capships should get capital-class turret weapons, but if there's a need for a capship that can sit around in a sector while 9 people try to kill it, that's what the HAC is for.

From the perspective of a marauding fighter, it was nice feeling like every shot counted against the Trident. Shields would definitely change things; as zak pointed out it would change the nature of combat against player capships. Right now, the primary strength of the Type-M seems to be as a mobile repair/reload base. They grow very strong with fighter support, but are weak and vulnerable by themselves. I would be all for giving player cap ships some additional firepower, but leaving them without shields wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I have some general questions/comments/suggestions. The cap ship disappears if the owner logs off while in it, yes? Does taking fire prevent the owner from logging off, like in regular ships?

Even if it does, it seems like 10 seconds is more than enough time to make destroying these things nearly impossible if the owner decides to use that tactic. It would be very difficult for a group to keep a constant stream of fire going without leaving any 10-second gaps.

I think the cap ships should be persistent, as in they shouldn't disappear except when docked in the uber-dock. They can also be protected when you log out by going to an empty sector and flying off into oblivion so no one can find it, like monitoring bots used to do. This would prevent an owner from logging out to prevent being blown up, which I'm sure is a tactic that someone will eventually use, to the extreme frustration of the attackers. The only problem with this, as with regular ships as well, is if the cap ship owner loses their connection, leaving their ship totally vulnerable. Maybe other authorized players should be able to take control of the ship if the owner is not online? I'm assuming that currently only the owner can steer the ship, yes? I don't see why that needs to be the case.

I agree that the Trident armor seems appropriate, in that I don't think any experienced Trident pilot will ever really have to worry about getting blown up, given the current mechanics (no offense, Lisa). I can see TRS' point that it currently is more effective in an empty sector as a free repair station. However, I think the Trident should be somewhat of a burden when faced with a group of attackers. It shouldn't just be able to sit around giving free repairs/reloads and launching swarms without having to worry about getting blown up.

I'm also concerned with the ability of these Tridents to quickly jump through a few empty sectors in a row, losing pursuers just as easily as a regular ship can. Even with a greyhound, the time it takes for the pursuer to enter the next sector into their nav computer after the fleeing ship jumps gives the fleeing ship more than enough time to lose the pursuer. It seems to be a foolproof tactic. Again, I don't see how these Tridents are ever in any real danger with a tactic like this available. Attack groups big enough to take out a Trident in the time it takes for the Trident to get out to 3000m and escape with this tactic don't really exist in VO at this point.

These are my initial observations. As I gain more experience with Tridents in battle situations, my opinions may be amended. Also note that I'm not just coming from the attacker point-of-view. I also am in the opposite role, defending [TGFT]'s or whoever's Trident, so I'm on both sides of this gameplay, as most of us are. Anyway, more experimentation is surely needed.

I haven't engaged in any player conflicts involving the tridents, but as a player who prefers the smaller fighters, I'd like any changes to the trident's to be defensive in nature. I don't want to jump into a conflict only to be overwhelmed by larger ships firepower.

the time it takes for the pursuer to enter the next sector into their nav computer

Dude, that's what the auto-nav plugin from TCS is for. But I do agree: capital ships should require either 50% charge to jump, or a bigger cell that takes longer to reach 25%. HACs and Connies should be even worse than the Trident in that regard. The larger the ship, the more power jumping should take.

As for shields, I do feel they should have shields so that a random fighter can't just whittle it down without cracking the shields first. In a big fight it wouldn't make much difference - somebody would grab a rag and crack them, and then everything proceeds as usual. That isn't what shields are for in a small frigate like the Trident. The shields are for deterring lone fighters from latching on like a leach as the trident travels. If it had shields, the lone fighter would have to either call in backup, or else leave the scene to grab a bomber, giving the trident time to hide. If tridents were made slower at jumping, as I believe they should be, this would make shields more important as it would otherwise be harder to shake the pursuer, who could just keep nibbling at you. Shields also reduce the threat from random non-serious enemies, like hive bots, hostile convoys, etc.

But like I said, they wouldn't really impact a large fight, unless the armor were reduced to make up for the presence of shields. Unless the trident has a skilled shield turret operator anyway.

Also, I agree about weapon reloads recharging over time. Maybe the rate could be based on the cost of reloading, as a temporary measure to avoid having to add a new stat to each weapon. Then as it gets tested out and approved, proper numbers could be decided and implemented later.

In case anyone missed it here is a clip from the holdup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMzPffXklv4

@Pizzasgood "The shields are for deterring lone fighters from latching on like a leach as the trident travels."

Yes, exactly. They also provide a modifier for the way they work in combat you cant just grind away at the trident. I know Strat or phaser said this was something that they thought felt good, that the trident got ground down by every shot. But frankly this is not what is meant to happen with a capital vessel. These things are a BIG deal and should be a significant threat in a sector. They shouldn't be dislodged by any single fighter and should need a sustained powerful swarm attack to dislodge. I agree that the recharge rate of a standard NPC military trident is a good amount. I believe it only takes 1 rag gem/swarm volley to dislodge the shields. But none of the trident fighters yesterday were using them until the very end. Without shields, it destroys the entire capital bombing dynamic that VO has where the fighters must escort the bombers through the enemy fighters to successfully deliver the payload. Instead its just people grabbing razor hornets and shooting away, there is no teamwork involved, and it is a boring piece of gameplay. Its especially frustrating to the capital pilot who has no recourse but to sit there and wait until the ship hits the agreed safety health level and then retreat to get repped, creating all this additional boring gameplay.

@Phaserlight

I disagree that leaving them without shields wouldn't be a bad thing for the above reasons, it creates boring gameplay and prevents interesting gameplay from occuring.

@Deathfluffy: "I haven't engaged in any player conflicts involving the tridents, but as a player who prefers the smaller fighters, I'd like any changes to the trident's to be defensive in nature. I don't want to jump into a conflict only to be overwhelmed by larger ships firepower."

Well I'm so glad for you, but it takes dedicated hours to build these things. If you have no desire to build one thats fine, but they will remain a completely unused part of vendetta online if the pilots continue to have absolutely no fun in them whatsoever. They NEED to be offensive, they are honkin space ships. Please do not purport to tell me what they do or do not need until you have flown with one.

On that note, I'm glad everyone had fun yesterday with the trident battle, but it's an extremely frustrating and frankly boring role to play for someone like me who cant stand to miss out on good combat. If I was able to blow up attackers with capital turrets, and remain in the sector for 5 minutes without worrying about health, the experience would become enjoyable. I don't think we should be considering reforms that make capital vessels easier to kill. They seem hard to kill as a pilot flying against one, but that's because as a pilot flying one, I am cautious of its future use and don't want it to be destroyed so I take measures to ensure it wont happen. If we actually want to get to a point where people fly them into combat situations with confidence, and I'm assuming here that we do, they need to be the 100 pound gorilla that it feels like you're putting together when you haul around 33,000 XC loads.

@Strat

I disagree with most of your comments, only because you seem to be concerned that they will somehow escape you in a vult or a rag and thats somehow unacceptable. I hear that its frustrating gameplay, what you need to understand is that the ENTIRE process, I mean start-finish and the current gameplay of tridents is frustrating and often boring. If you want anyone to bother with it, it needs to be damn sure rewarding at the end, and it's just not.

If someone's using a trident they by definition need a team to achieve goals, which means they will be trying to achieve them, not run and hide. Also, if they want to run and hide, who really cares? If they build it for protection they should be able to use it, not be encased in a silksteel prison while you hack away at their armour through sector after sector while their buddies are all offline with nobody to help them.

However, the idea of persistence isn't a bad one, but not for the reasons you outlined in my view.

@Whoever suggested reduced jump time, I think that would make no sense, It doesnt fit with the dynamic and see my other comments above for more reasons..

@Zak.Wilson

I agree with most of your comments except the lowering of the armour. Its the same as an NPC trident now minus shields, It doesn't need to be lowered. This is not a ship like any other ship, its meant to be a resupply/attack frigate. Any lowering in armour should correspond with a speed increase and vice versa in addition to shields, my point here is that they are too easy to kill currently to be of any use. Also, the HAC suggestion in my view is silly. Nobody should be flying a HAC into Latos H2 for a fun skirmish, they're for all out war. Based on the amount of effort required to build a trident, NOBODY but NOBODY will bother to build a player owned HAC under the current regime, it would take a few years on average and if they did they would never be able to use it for anything fun. We have a LONG way to go before we consider player owned HAC's.

Anyway, keep the discussion going!

And where is CD's 2cents?

-I agree with larger insys jump energy but don't go nuts
-Deathfluffy: they can't dominate combat without fighter support, fighters are paramount to combat effectiveness
-TRS: you should have access to cap turrets but you are confused if you think they will save you, snow balls are slow and capswarm refire (without cheating) sucks

I'm glad this is spawning discussion all over the place

@CS: Nah i have no delusions about capital turrets, im very familiar with capgauss and capswarms, I know theyre just as useless at actually landing hits as normal swarms etc and im experienced at station conq so i know the capgauss wont do much either. The point is its important gameplay, it changes the dynamic for the better and it gives the pilot something to do.

if you could buy the teradons weapon then we're in business but in reality thats a large port weapon and not a capital turret heh

To be honest, I'm thinking in the short term the best reform here is to change the 7 day limit on insurance to 24 hours or even less.

Not because I think it should necessarily remain at 24 hours, though I don't see why its even in place at the moment. If losing a trident is meant to be as much of a big deal as losing any other ship, then pricing should be increased. In my view, however, unless you want to increase the prices of ships across the board, the current pricing of 500k is appropriate. There is a reason we have cheap ships in vendetta, because it allows casual players to buy ships, not have to grind, and makes the game fun. I think the real issue with pricing actually stems from gattling prices, a separate issue.

A time limit makes sense because in a big battle you don't want to be able to lose a capital vessel, and hey presto, come back with a new one two seconds later (even though thats EXACTLY what you can do under the current system). I think just a straight few hours on the rebuild starting from when the last one is destroyed, or no rebuild limit at all, makes more sense and would encourage more battle use of the tridents.

I think this, more than anything, needs to be changed quickly so we can have more battles. I'd actually really like to push the boundaries of the trident in combat but unless we all jump to the test server this isn't possible with the current setup, and I just don't see the reason why it exists at all frankly.

The capgauss would make a big difference. They have 2000m range. None of the current turret port energy weapons have >500m range.

We had a Trident at NW yesterday and quite a few more players in-sector than this and I didn't notice any lag problems. Did anyone else?

Months ago, when we'd have long bus wars after every nation war, sometimes the sector would just stop registering hits for anybody for a minute or so and then start up again. Maybe that's related.

Looks like there was some lag. http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/25938

Come to think of it, I do remember one time I tried switching turrets on Ipslet's trident and it just hung on me, then when I got back in the Tactical tab was empty and no turrets appeared to select. I had to undock/dock for them to reappear.

My 2c are the same as already posted. We built with the understanding they would have shields at some point, and as soon as Inc can make the weaponry that NPC cappies use un-equipable by non-cappies, we should get those. If shared piloting can be achieved more readily than shared ownership, do it. If there's a way for the pilot to launch to transfer cargo, take missions, or otherwise interact with stations out & about the verse, PLEASE do it.

-1 to lag. Lag is bad. please remove all lag from vo ;)

+1 to 3rd person mouselook, and add to that, as previously suggested, adjustable camera angle in 3rd person follow mode.

+1 (x1,000,000) to adding shields.

+1 to better turret/main gun options. give us what the NPC's have.

+1 to refill of ammo based weapons. be it a timer, or reload from cargo, or whatever. My personal choice would be a timer specific to each weapon, so the devs can balance how much ordinance the ship can deliver. I'm imagining a trident capable of planting the 67 TU mines needed to kill another trident might be a bit unreasonable, but who knows... that could be fun too :)

Persistence/Logging: Tho I've long since pledged never to log under attack, I have suffered disconnect under fire from bots. But, yeah: something needs to be in place to prevent escape thru logging. If full persistence is in the plan, then full shared ownership or transfer of command needs to be as well. Until then, if you see a cappie log, mark it's position, call in another cappie and a minelayer, and put down and maintain those 67 TU mines to obliterate it when it logs back in. (just requires a potentially LONG wait) So far as I've experimented, the trident logs back in exactly where it logged out.

A trident fleeing an encounter should be able to hop sectors to lose pursuers just as any other ship. If you change the charge % required to jump them, then all cappies need to be treated similarly. If a trident successfully hides, your *team* needs to cover all the wormholes out of that system and either wait or flush it out of hiding.

These ships should be hard to kill. It should require team hunting and ambush to bag one while it travels, and a sustained assault when it turns to fight with a full crew aboard/escorting. IMHO it needs better survivability and attack in sustained combat than they have currently. Try taking even a small hive skirmish in one and see if you can win without launching fighters or fleeing the sector for repair. IMHO a 5 player trident should be able to handle hive skirmishes much better than current implementation. They should also be the most customizable ships in the game and currently they are among the least. 7 turret types, all useable on a moth or atlas (and only 4 of those deal damage) and one large port is just sad.

As far as the insurance mission and being immediately able to replace a ship that has survived 7 days already: we could RP the bureaucracy with the addition of an "Insurance Claim Submission" mission that starts the timer for the replacement mission to become available however many hours or days later the devs want the loss of a trident to "hurt".

However, I think changes to the insurance mission mechanics and pricing, and indeed any nerfing, need to wait until the devs can say "we've now delivered this ship as intended" and not the "here's what we can get in game using existing assets to appease the ravenous hoard". We as a community said "give us your first draft" knowing full well the patience needed to await the Soon(TM) refinement pass amidst support for a new OS and a sooner-than-Soon(TM) faction redux that has put all other suggestions on hold. Much has been improved in the 9 months since our maiden voyage, but (correct me if I'm wrong, Inc) the shakedown is not over.

I am amused and/or annoyed that so many people and guilds saw these ships as too much work for the payoff, or not sharable enough to entrust a group effort to one player's inventory, until they saw the payoff leveled against them. Before anyone cries "nerf", go build one or help build one and tell me if that solo or team effort deserves a downgraded half-finished ship.

In an open-ended RP game like this, I believe players should have a path, however arduous, secret, and/or convoluted, to any resource the game world has in play. If the devs make a Connie, or HAC, or even player station craft-able in-game, we WILL build them.

ok, maybe that was 10c. keep the change.

*Rin stalks over, looks around, snatches the change, and slips away into the shadows*

+1 to cd's suggestions.

what about mounting some sector turret weapons on 'em like the nice missile turret.
If ye damage the ship they target ye automatically : p