Forums » Suggestions
as mentioned in RP: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/14/26267#320805
We have now had player-owned tridents in game for one year. So whenever you can get around to it:
Please give them shields.
Please give them real turrets.
Please give them a real main gun.
Please give the pilot a way to interact with stations other than M7.
Please release Type P and Type S variants, I have Master Computers collecting dust.
Oh, and the cup holder broke. Can you fix that? There's a dear dev!
We have now had player-owned tridents in game for one year. So whenever you can get around to it:
Please give them shields.
Please give them real turrets.
Please give them a real main gun.
Please give the pilot a way to interact with stations other than M7.
Please release Type P and Type S variants, I have Master Computers collecting dust.
Oh, and the cup holder broke. Can you fix that? There's a dear dev!
Please nerf their ability to jump multiple times in quick succession. It makes killing one close to impossible already as they can escape anyone by jumping to 20 different empty sectors in a row, and with shields it would be that much harder to nail them. I have a feeling it's unintended gameplay that the best way to survive a fight as a capship is to do that, anyway.
If you nerf jumping all that will happen is your capital ship pilot will turbo in one direction at full speed to make it extremely hard to keep up and fire weapons at it. They could draw it out for 20 minutes in order for you to keep up and do enough damage to actually finish the trident off and if they have shields it's going to be even more frustrating to do this. They could also simply jump once to a station and sit inside the no-fire zone requiring you to tank your standing in order to kill the trident since they would be unable to escape they would have no other recourse but to also tank your standings too.
If you remove the ability to jump normally, you're essentially sentencing the pilot to death whenever their team makes a mistake and gets killed by the enemy team since it would have no way to escape, they would simply employ one of the above tactics or if they were alone they would just die in an NFZ.
Instead, buff their ability to kill each other in combat situations. In my opinion capital gauss would largely solve this problem, assuming you create a mechanism to fire automatically.
Capital ship combat is not space-quake. They are obviously intended to be an entirely different class of ship and while it should be a fairly equal fight 1v1 Tridents, you should require a team of regular vessel pilots to take one down if they don't have their own trident.
I am all for making it possible to pirate tridents, but if you're going to take down a capital vessel you should need another capital vessel on station to reasonably achieve it.
Oh yeah, and do everything CD said. :D
If you remove the ability to jump normally, you're essentially sentencing the pilot to death whenever their team makes a mistake and gets killed by the enemy team since it would have no way to escape, they would simply employ one of the above tactics or if they were alone they would just die in an NFZ.
Instead, buff their ability to kill each other in combat situations. In my opinion capital gauss would largely solve this problem, assuming you create a mechanism to fire automatically.
Capital ship combat is not space-quake. They are obviously intended to be an entirely different class of ship and while it should be a fairly equal fight 1v1 Tridents, you should require a team of regular vessel pilots to take one down if they don't have their own trident.
I am all for making it possible to pirate tridents, but if you're going to take down a capital vessel you should need another capital vessel on station to reasonably achieve it.
Oh yeah, and do everything CD said. :D
I'm okay with nerfing their jumping somewhat. Trident powercells are just rebranded Heavy Cells, so maybe just double their capacity (besides, as a trident it should have a large capacity anyway). I don't think it would be good to nerf it any more than that. Traveling with a Trident is ponderous enough as it is.
Better than nerfing its ability to jump is to give us a way to prevent jumps in the first place. It could be an addon that can be "fired" continuously, causing it to consume energy steadily (30-60 eps) as it emits an anti-jump field. This would not have any form of IFF, mind you, so you'd be affecting your allies too.
An anti-trident team would designate one or two people to pin down the trident while the rest attack. The Trident meanwhile would only need to identify and shoot down those one or two people and then it could hop away.
And before anybody brings up being able to destroy ship subsystems - yes, that would be awesome, but the subsystems should be beneath the shield. You'd still want an anti-jump field to pin down the Trident long enough to get the shields cracked. Then you could go after the jump drive and the engines as a more permanent solution to free up the anti-jump ships to join the combat.
A ship with an anti-jump field would not be able to solo a trident, because it wouldn't have enough energy to turbo along, maintain the anti-jump field, and fire weapons all at once. Ideally, a Warthog Mk II or so should be able to maintain a constant field while turboing ahead of the trident, recharging while it passes him, and then turboing ahead again, indefinitely. But there wouldn't be enough energy left over to do any real shooting, so he'd need at least a second ship, preferably several.
A trident could still counter by maintaining a constant turbo, which as I said would prevent the anti-jump ships from engaging. Meanwhile, the trident would be moving farther and farther from the sector center, making returning to the fight increasingly time consuming. The trident's allies (if it had any) could get on the spot RR, while the attackers would be gradually thinned out until the Trident won free and warped away, without the need to play the stupid hop-until-lucky game. Wormholes of course could still be blockaded to try to catch it when it leaves the system, though it would likely be repaired by that time.
Better than nerfing its ability to jump is to give us a way to prevent jumps in the first place. It could be an addon that can be "fired" continuously, causing it to consume energy steadily (30-60 eps) as it emits an anti-jump field. This would not have any form of IFF, mind you, so you'd be affecting your allies too.
An anti-trident team would designate one or two people to pin down the trident while the rest attack. The Trident meanwhile would only need to identify and shoot down those one or two people and then it could hop away.
And before anybody brings up being able to destroy ship subsystems - yes, that would be awesome, but the subsystems should be beneath the shield. You'd still want an anti-jump field to pin down the Trident long enough to get the shields cracked. Then you could go after the jump drive and the engines as a more permanent solution to free up the anti-jump ships to join the combat.
A ship with an anti-jump field would not be able to solo a trident, because it wouldn't have enough energy to turbo along, maintain the anti-jump field, and fire weapons all at once. Ideally, a Warthog Mk II or so should be able to maintain a constant field while turboing ahead of the trident, recharging while it passes him, and then turboing ahead again, indefinitely. But there wouldn't be enough energy left over to do any real shooting, so he'd need at least a second ship, preferably several.
A trident could still counter by maintaining a constant turbo, which as I said would prevent the anti-jump ships from engaging. Meanwhile, the trident would be moving farther and farther from the sector center, making returning to the fight increasingly time consuming. The trident's allies (if it had any) could get on the spot RR, while the attackers would be gradually thinned out until the Trident won free and warped away, without the need to play the stupid hop-until-lucky game. Wormholes of course could still be blockaded to try to catch it when it leaves the system, though it would likely be repaired by that time.
There is absolutely nothing stopping you from putting a Fast Charge on a Trident.
I still maintain my stance on shields: No shields until we have a real anti-capship or anti-shield weapon. It's just too easy for a real player pilot to avoid a swarm or avalon stack. Pizzasgood: even being able to nullify the Trident's ability to jump wouldn't do much to address this problem.
+1 to more capital station docks. No they don't have to be ridiculous monstrosities like the one in Latos M-7, but some nation capitols and major barracks like Geira O-4 and Deneb O-3 should have them.
+1 to add the other variants.
Oh yeah: Please add some way for the pilot to let go of the helm and control one of the turrets. Often times a Trident's role in combat is to sit in one place and act as a reload base for fighters. This would help a hell of a lot with the "I'm bored!" complaint that some others have raised about flying the things. Do this even if it doesn't include a way to let someone else fly!
I still maintain my stance on shields: No shields until we have a real anti-capship or anti-shield weapon. It's just too easy for a real player pilot to avoid a swarm or avalon stack. Pizzasgood: even being able to nullify the Trident's ability to jump wouldn't do much to address this problem.
+1 to more capital station docks. No they don't have to be ridiculous monstrosities like the one in Latos M-7, but some nation capitols and major barracks like Geira O-4 and Deneb O-3 should have them.
+1 to add the other variants.
Oh yeah: Please add some way for the pilot to let go of the helm and control one of the turrets. Often times a Trident's role in combat is to sit in one place and act as a reload base for fighters. This would help a hell of a lot with the "I'm bored!" complaint that some others have raised about flying the things. Do this even if it doesn't include a way to let someone else fly!
My votes, in order of preference
+1. Allow pilot to use own turrets.
+2. Enable real capital-class guns, both main and turrets.
+3. Provide limited docking facilities on CAPITAL stations, as a start.
+4. give them shields, except for the freighter version.
+5. More variants, one as a real freighter, another as a carrier type, and existing one becomes "multirole"
+6. Easier access for every player
Comments:
1. too obvious to not be enabled so far. Same mechanism should extend to Atlas and Moths! No cons raised so far, no one against, not unbalancing as proven, and much more FUN!
2. no-brainer. Capships with same weapons as an Atlas? What a joke!
..Also, 1 is directly related to 2
3. Best approach: Add another box containing the capship docks to Capital stations.
.. Simpler (and better): Create some docking pods, spots where a capship touches the nose and it is "captured" by station, becoming static, almost like a part of station, until pilot 'lauches'. Still visible and subject to attacks.
.. Later add decent docks to capital stations, and add the external docking ports to most stations
4. Add shields, except for the freighter version, that remains unarmed as a XC; It is already too easy crack a trident as solo player, no need more fighter/bomber guns for that!
5. Make 3 Versions, upgradable:
..Multirole becomes the existing version with decent guns and shields. All-average.
..Freighter version can be sold, since it remains unarmed and without shields, but with a decent cargo capacity and small docks. Slowest trident.
..Carrier gets no cargo, no main guns, but largest docking bays, up to 12 ships. Fastest one.
6. Easier access: SELL the Freighter, unarmed/unshielded version, to any player with decent TPG standing. That version can later be upgraded to Carrier or multirole by taking it to shipyards, taking a mission and provinding lost of credits and the required (TBD) list of items
+1. Allow pilot to use own turrets.
+2. Enable real capital-class guns, both main and turrets.
+3. Provide limited docking facilities on CAPITAL stations, as a start.
+4. give them shields, except for the freighter version.
+5. More variants, one as a real freighter, another as a carrier type, and existing one becomes "multirole"
+6. Easier access for every player
Comments:
1. too obvious to not be enabled so far. Same mechanism should extend to Atlas and Moths! No cons raised so far, no one against, not unbalancing as proven, and much more FUN!
2. no-brainer. Capships with same weapons as an Atlas? What a joke!
..Also, 1 is directly related to 2
3. Best approach: Add another box containing the capship docks to Capital stations.
.. Simpler (and better): Create some docking pods, spots where a capship touches the nose and it is "captured" by station, becoming static, almost like a part of station, until pilot 'lauches'. Still visible and subject to attacks.
.. Later add decent docks to capital stations, and add the external docking ports to most stations
4. Add shields, except for the freighter version, that remains unarmed as a XC; It is already too easy crack a trident as solo player, no need more fighter/bomber guns for that!
5. Make 3 Versions, upgradable:
..Multirole becomes the existing version with decent guns and shields. All-average.
..Freighter version can be sold, since it remains unarmed and without shields, but with a decent cargo capacity and small docks. Slowest trident.
..Carrier gets no cargo, no main guns, but largest docking bays, up to 12 ships. Fastest one.
6. Easier access: SELL the Freighter, unarmed/unshielded version, to any player with decent TPG standing. That version can later be upgraded to Carrier or multirole by taking it to shipyards, taking a mission and provinding lost of credits and the required (TBD) list of items
Didn't know that Arf, I'd assumed that since there was a Trident powercell, they'd restricted Tridents to require it. Anyway, like I said I'm more in favor of anti-jump weaponry, because I don't like the idea of making normal travel any more slow than it has to be.
As for shields, a stack isn't the only way to drop them, especially on something as small as a trident. They're just the only practical way to do it solo, and while it should definitely be possible to solo a stationary undefended Trident, there is no need to be able to solo one on the go. A group of warthogs with efficient energy weapons should be able to drop its shields, as long as it isn't constantly jumping away. If not, the shields should be weakened until that is feasible. It's only a light frigate, not a battleship.
As for shields, a stack isn't the only way to drop them, especially on something as small as a trident. They're just the only practical way to do it solo, and while it should definitely be possible to solo a stationary undefended Trident, there is no need to be able to solo one on the go. A group of warthogs with efficient energy weapons should be able to drop its shields, as long as it isn't constantly jumping away. If not, the shields should be weakened until that is feasible. It's only a light frigate, not a battleship.
+1 Pizzasgood, anti-capship / anti-jump weapons would be preferred.
No, even a group of warthogs with energy efficient weapons can't take out a -running- trident. The powercell is the limiting factor. We've dropped stationary skirmish Tridents in Deneb before. It takes a lot more fighters than you think.
Yeah the Trident Heavy Power Cell is just a normal Heavy Power Cell with the word Trident slapped onto it. It's really no different.
Yeah the Trident Heavy Power Cell is just a normal Heavy Power Cell with the word Trident slapped onto it. It's really no different.
Explaining better, we already have weapons capable of cracking Tridents' shields, so PC tridents can get shields before new weapons are created. I would like to see EMP missiles or gun, like Freespace have. After shields, as a escalation response!
I started to enjoy the jump inhibitor. What about make enough to fly a Moth full of Samoflange, a sort of "Slug Roid"? Any ship within 1 or 2KM from it cannot jump intra-sector - WH unaffected. The moth itself can jump only if using a Heavy Cell... Relate it to the 3KM free radius to jump.
maybe the 80cu produces 1KM radius, and 120cu results in 2KM radius... but can a moth with that much weight keep pace with a Trident?
I started to enjoy the jump inhibitor. What about make enough to fly a Moth full of Samoflange, a sort of "Slug Roid"? Any ship within 1 or 2KM from it cannot jump intra-sector - WH unaffected. The moth itself can jump only if using a Heavy Cell... Relate it to the 3KM free radius to jump.
maybe the 80cu produces 1KM radius, and 120cu results in 2KM radius... but can a moth with that much weight keep pace with a Trident?
Alloh, do you even play this game?
I do, ARF, frequently, using few alts... I've cracked many Deneb and War Voy tridents, they're usually easier than queens. Bu I never flown with Samo... but it makes sense to me that the most dense substance in game, when stacked enough, produces a gravitional effect similar to smallest roids, thus inhibiting jumps. Better than some hardware...
Alloh, non-player tridents sit still for you when you stack missiles / rockets to kill their shields. Player-owned tridents won't. Have you tried stacking missiles against a trident that's boosting away from you?
Yeah, the tendency to sit still is why they're easier than queens.
As for jump disruption, it should not require significant amounts of extremely rare and valuable items to be able to pin down a trident. If you had to actually re-manufacture the trident when it died, I might agree, but since they can just be respawned via insurance: no. I'm not even going to address how useless a samo laden moth would be.
As for jump disruption, it should not require significant amounts of extremely rare and valuable items to be able to pin down a trident. If you had to actually re-manufacture the trident when it died, I might agree, but since they can just be respawned via insurance: no. I'm not even going to address how useless a samo laden moth would be.
just like a turboing queen, you have to be heads on with it, intercepting its course ... if it cannot jump away due one ship inhibiting it, another bomber ship can overtake it and stack... much harder, of course., but quite feasible.
Then, as escalation, you add a response weapon. Like every military improvement eventually results in a response improvement, either as an equipament or tactics...
Capships should really not be easy to solo... or else they're not capships... is like destroying a castle hitting with a sword 32453 times, while on a better simulation game, swords are useless against a castle, what requires a catapult, cannon, or a siege...
Then, as escalation, you add a response weapon. Like every military improvement eventually results in a response improvement, either as an equipament or tactics...
Capships should really not be easy to solo... or else they're not capships... is like destroying a castle hitting with a sword 32453 times, while on a better simulation game, swords are useless against a castle, what requires a catapult, cannon, or a siege...
-1 to the idea of all encompassing anti-jump weapons. It's ridiculously easy to kill single player freight haulers now. This would give someone hauling freight absolutely no chance to escape without any danger to the attacker.
You want to stop a ship from jumping? Petition for the ability to shoot its engines independently. If you hit them and knock one out, cool, you can reduce or eliminate its ability to jump, otherwise asking for a mystical magic weapon that allows attackers to be lazy is unbalancing. There are other ways to balance capship usage.
You want to stop a ship from jumping? Petition for the ability to shoot its engines independently. If you hit them and knock one out, cool, you can reduce or eliminate its ability to jump, otherwise asking for a mystical magic weapon that allows attackers to be lazy is unbalancing. There are other ways to balance capship usage.
That would require the engines to protrude outside the shield, or weapons that penetrate through the shield. There is also the question of how long it should take to knock out the engines. If the ship can just jump away before you can take the engines out, that would be lame. It would also be lame if any random person could fly by and cripple your trident, then fly away to do other stuff while you wait for somebody to repair you.
With a jump suppressing field, there is no damage inflicted on the ship, so all one has to do to get away is kill the guy emitting the field. To emit the field he has to give up a weapon port and suffer a constant energy drain, so he won't be able to do much shooting with whatever ports are left. Or it could be high-grid, to prevent any other weapons being equipped at all. The idea is that the jump-suppresser shouldn't really be able to engage in combat himself, and he should have to maintain proximity to the target so that he can't just cripple them and then leave. He would have to have other people with him to do the actual fighting, while he tries not to let them get away from him.
As for "single player freight haulers", by which I assume you mean Behemoths since Tridents aren't really single player ships, yes this would make it easier to catch them, but it would require an additional pilot since the supresser wouldn't be able to fight. So I don't see that as being imbalanced. Kill the one with the suppresser, or (more likely) make him lose his proximity on you, and you're free. If you can't manage that before the second one kills you, you probably also would have died if the first one had guns instead.
With a jump suppressing field, there is no damage inflicted on the ship, so all one has to do to get away is kill the guy emitting the field. To emit the field he has to give up a weapon port and suffer a constant energy drain, so he won't be able to do much shooting with whatever ports are left. Or it could be high-grid, to prevent any other weapons being equipped at all. The idea is that the jump-suppresser shouldn't really be able to engage in combat himself, and he should have to maintain proximity to the target so that he can't just cripple them and then leave. He would have to have other people with him to do the actual fighting, while he tries not to let them get away from him.
As for "single player freight haulers", by which I assume you mean Behemoths since Tridents aren't really single player ships, yes this would make it easier to catch them, but it would require an additional pilot since the supresser wouldn't be able to fight. So I don't see that as being imbalanced. Kill the one with the suppresser, or (more likely) make him lose his proximity on you, and you're free. If you can't manage that before the second one kills you, you probably also would have died if the first one had guns instead.
I understand you to mean then that the suppressor would require the mounting ship to be unmoving then? That if it were to move, the field would become null?
Nevertheless, there needs to be a counter to this. It's still too easy to get a "second person in a fighter" as you stated. I like the idea of balance, and I don't consider a game balanced if one group of people get to define what's fun for them entirely at the expense of others.
Explain to me what downside's there are, and it'll make more sense. Otherwise, I just see it as another "gimme" for attackers.
Nevertheless, there needs to be a counter to this. It's still too easy to get a "second person in a fighter" as you stated. I like the idea of balance, and I don't consider a game balanced if one group of people get to define what's fun for them entirely at the expense of others.
Explain to me what downside's there are, and it'll make more sense. Otherwise, I just see it as another "gimme" for attackers.
I think the idea is that attackers need a sort of "gimme," albeit one with downsides. How many times have you known a player-controlled capship to die when legitimately trying to run? Have you tried to kill one yourself (with other people aiding you)?
Considering players can buy a new one almost for free every week, they should be dying much more often than they are right now.
Considering players can buy a new one almost for free every week, they should be dying much more often than they are right now.
500k is not almost for free, it's the most expensive ship in the game. What's wrong with you.
And the problem is not the price, the problem is precisely the restriction that they can only be built every 7 days and they are far more useful for hauling cargo than they are for combat operations.
Pilots are not incentivised to risk them in combat operations because theres no reward and in most trident combat situations you're either going to take a tiny bit of damage and survive, or you're going to take a ton of damage really quickly and die without being much use towards the objective you're trying to achieve
They are ineffective mobile repair bases without shields, and they are even more ineffective weapons platforms without capgauss/swarms. Make trident actually able to achieve an end and people will risk their trident's hulls to try and achieve it.
Many of you still suffer from 'space-quake' mentality where people bring a ship in and it should have a simple counter to defeat it. Capital ships shouldn't work like that. The devs need to balance their offensive and defensive capabilities around what they are able to achieve. Currently, they are able to achieve only a fraction of what they could with shields/gauss. So get that up and running then start talking about effective anticap weapons.
And the problem is not the price, the problem is precisely the restriction that they can only be built every 7 days and they are far more useful for hauling cargo than they are for combat operations.
Pilots are not incentivised to risk them in combat operations because theres no reward and in most trident combat situations you're either going to take a tiny bit of damage and survive, or you're going to take a ton of damage really quickly and die without being much use towards the objective you're trying to achieve
They are ineffective mobile repair bases without shields, and they are even more ineffective weapons platforms without capgauss/swarms. Make trident actually able to achieve an end and people will risk their trident's hulls to try and achieve it.
Many of you still suffer from 'space-quake' mentality where people bring a ship in and it should have a simple counter to defeat it. Capital ships shouldn't work like that. The devs need to balance their offensive and defensive capabilities around what they are able to achieve. Currently, they are able to achieve only a fraction of what they could with shields/gauss. So get that up and running then start talking about effective anticap weapons.