I like the idea of role specific engine types a lot better. But it seems like putting a fighter engine in a bomber would be suicide anyway. The common-sense factor should play in here. Maybe the heavy ships can just have engines that focus on torque, while fighter engines focus on top speeds and energy efficiency.

But I also agree with what Renegade (Edit: Okay, it was Roguelazer. All you Itani look the same to me anyhow. Except that one frog guy.) said. I may not know what went on in 3.1, but it just seems to me like the reason the non-fighters seem imbalanced is because fighting is really the only thing there is to do right now. Right now the game may be spacequake with trading added, but that doesn't mean that is how it will always be. The heavy bombers don't have a role right now. We don't have that concept of combined arms and organized battles. I think the biggest step towards bringing the heavies into balance would be bringing a system of squadron-specific command into the game to allow bomber support to be a viable part of any fight.

euhm did I say something ???

looks whizzically and goes back to his dormant state :D

cheers

Magus, I think you're shooting at the right target, but missing it. Arolte's right about the engine stuff. But the devs have it mixed up.

What is a fighter if it isn't fast? What is a heavy bomber if it's not slow? :-\

The problems with the different ships are, like Celebrim said, problems with agility and armor. A valk (multi-purpose fighter) needs only to fire one second longer to take out a rag (heavy gunship) than another valk.

We need:

1) Batteries with much larger capacities for heavy ships (think a rag firing dual gats for 30 seconds before going dry).

2) Much better weapons for heavier ships (why do they have the same range? increased power should be mean increased range). This would make lone fighters wary of approaching a heavy ship if they knew that they'd be receiving the brunt of the enemy's power.

3) A revision in the engine system. We have fighters using the same engines that heavy ships do. I would prefer to see fighters have higher cruise speeds but only be able to boost at short intervals for about 30 m/s above them (say like 90 and then 120), whereas freighters would have lower cruise speeds but due to their battery and engine allow for long boosts (say 45 and 160 for 50 seconds).

Even better. Keep up the great ideas!

/me prods a dev

Depending what happens if they release bigger ships I think the easiest way is modify the weapons and not the engine/battery. Large scale weapons like Guass and Flares should be restricted to capital ships and turrets. Fighters should get rapid fire weapons that do little damage per shot. Bombers get weapons to take out large ships.

That would let ships have a job. Fighters would have to protect bombers long enough for the bomber to take out a capital ship/turret and turrets/capital ships would need fighters to hold off the high agility fighters so the large slow weapons can take out the bombers etc.

engines/battery might still have to be tweaked and of course weapons would be...oh and we would need capital ships:P

yeah yeah yeah, I hear you... BUT...

\\\\\Large scale weapons like Guass and Flares should be restricted to capital ships and turrets. \\\\\\

Riiiight. The slower the weapon, the faster the weapon delivery platform has to be. That is why I think large weapons such as adv gat, plasma, and the like should be blinding fast, to keep distance between large and slow ships.

Gauss is not turreted, it's a straight LOS weapon, explain how it will benefit a rag.

A rag can't hit with sunflares if it wanted to (or if the fighter was being stupid), these are both definitely "fighter class weapons."

I want L-slot weapons faster and more deadly (specifically, the large homing missile; it should be a 5000 dmg weapon), with fighter weapons staying where they are now (although the flare needs to go down a bit, maybe -5 prox and -500 dmg)

The blast maybe would be better faster...but reload time should be slower for large capital ship style weapons. Think of current day weapons...the big guns on warships cannot blast huge shells 5 times a second...but the shell itself can move blinding fast and do a lot of damage.

Actually no, the shells moved rather slow on battleships. Look at the 40mm flak. It had a respectable rate of fire and was very devastating. If a cap ship gets slow anti-fighter weapons, it's done for.

The guass as it is in the game is slow...but it is devestating against most craft. Cap ships would need fighters to hold off the main enemy attack while its gunners used a guass like weapon to destroy enemy bombers and such that could hurt the ship a lot. Maybe it would need a few fast firing weapons, but it would have to be weak in some area or people would complain like they do about the valk. Granted it would be slow and easy to hit...but if you put a armament of fast fire weapons fighters would never get close to it(without suiciding).
Puting slow reload weapons would make sure people used team work and escorted the cap ship. And attackers would need to be well co-ordinated.

OK, so you give your ragnarak 3 gauss cannons and see what happens.

1) your battery will go dry after a couple shots

2) you won't hit anything

3) you'll die


We need a tachyon-like cannon with the aimbot of the frig cannon that is accurate to over 500m for heavier ships to remain effective.

Rag is a bomber not a cap ship. So its not possible to compare

Yes it is.
"with the aimbot of the frig cannon"
-He said it needs weapons with the aimbot of a frig cannon. Meaning they track over a wide range. It holds especially true since most people (me included) can't aim energy weapons worth piss in any ship less agile than a hornet. Hell, it's hard enough in a hornet. The reticule is slow to turn and irresponsive and the ship wobbles instead of slowing down to a stop; trying to aim a low aimbot gun on a moving object is a nightmare. Even WWII bombers were armed with guns that could take out hapless fighters. Our Vendetta craft, however, do not. The Adv. Gat. is a step in the right direction, but we need more. Perhaps having certain weapon ports respond to the mouse in a more tactile fashion would solve the problem. Currently, weapon ports are fixed on a point in the ship, so the weapons fire where the ship points. The high aimbot weapons like Gauss and the Adv. Gat. may automatically aim over a certain radius of the gunport, but they are still generally shooting where the ships point. So what you get is bombers spinning around wildly spraying fire hoping to get some hits on the fast ships.
But there is another way. What if certain weapons could move independently of the ship? So when you swing your mouse to the left, the weapon reticule moves slightly faster than the ship position reticule does. Allowing the ship to bring its guns to bear before the ship actually finishes turing. (This would require the addition of a third reticule whenever a ship equips such a weapon.) That way, the bombers could actually aim their energy weapons without depending on a relatively crappy aimbot. Not only this, but heavy pilots will be able to rely on skill rather than rocket-ramming/seekers/mines to defend themselves since, currently, those are their only viable tactics when faced with a light fighter.
I know some people will say that a bomber shouldn't be able to kill a fighter, which I consider a crap argument. A bomber shouldn't have superiority over a fighter, but that doesn't mean fighters should be able to kill bombers by the dozens with nary a scratch. They should at least work for their kills. On the other side of the coin we also have to keep in mind it would have to be done in moderation. We can't have a Ragnarok aim with the accuraccy of a Centurion, but a slight boost will greatly help.

As far as network load is concerned, I have no idea how independantly moving weapons will affect the server's strain. If there are no visual cues (visibly rotating turrets) I don't think it will have to consistently send packets. The same reason the frigate turrets are orbs rather than rotating guns. Considering my knoweldge of networking and servers amounts to little more than a festering pile of doodoo, however, I could be wrong.

My personal opinion, (take it for what it's worth) is that the engines should be fully swapable, small/med/large/eff/whatever else the devs give us (thanks devs) in all ships. all the ships should have the same options for top speed and such. To me the best way to set the ships into their respective roles would be to adjust the batteries. A smaller ship should not have as much staying power as a large one. For instance, make the battery that a ship can mount dependent on the class.

Small Civilian--EC-88, Atlas
Free Battery
Light Battery
Medium Battery
Efficient Battery

Large Civilian--Centaur, Maurauder(<-- I don't think this classes as a warship)
All Batteries

Fighters--Centurion, Vulture, Valkyrie
Free Battery
Light Battery
Efficient Battery

Gunships/Strike Craft--Warthog, Wraith,
Light Battery
Medium Battery
Efficient Battery

Heavy Bombers/Assult Craft--Rangarok, Prometheus, Hornet
Medium Battery
Heavy Battery
Efficient Battery

Alternatively, (and I know this has been debated endlessly), give the larger ships the option of mounting extra batteries. Not all purpose batteries but battery slots. like a large/small port for weapons. large/med/small battery ports. also have one "MAIN" battery that links to the engine, and have that battery be the only one that can be used for turbo. Any other batteries will be used first for weapons fire, and then if they are drained, the MAIN battery will drain as well. (this still allows for limited amount of turbo)

Perhaps a setup like the following.
Small Civilian--EC-88, Atlas
MAIN battery only, can be up to size medium

Large Civilian--Centaur, Maurauder(<-- I don't think this classes as a warship)
MAIN Battery of up to size medium
1 spare battery of up to size medium

Fighters--Centurion, Vulture, Valkyrie
MAIN battery of any size

Gunships/Strike Craft--Warthog, Wraith, Hornet
MAIN battery of any size
1 spare battery of either size small or efficient (or free)

Heavy Bombers/Assult Craft--Rangarok, Prometheus,
MAIN battery of any size
1 spare battery, of any size
1 spare battery, either small or free
(yes I think the Heavy Bombers need 2 spare batteries, tho the agility of the prometheus would have to be lowered some(just a smidge) in my opinion)

In addition, because the MAIN battery will work the guns if the spare batteries are drained or there are no spare batteries, you don't HAVE to buy spare batteries if you dont want to. Maybe the slots could be used for extra cargo space if you don't want the battery power. Or perhaps they could be used for the "gadgets" celebrim is always talking about.

One other thought, before anyone says "but that would mean that you could turbo and fire" the only ships that have spare batteries are those that are not exactly the best pursuit craft.
as pursuit craft the "gunships" are by far the best equipped in either setup, but only for pursuit. the agility means that they loose to fighters in a dogfight where the staying power of the second battery (or extra battery power) is not as potent as being able to dodge. Fighters are going to be unable to catch the heavy bombers to kill them, except in an ambush situation or one where the bombers are coming to them. The bombers, with their extra battery size have a chance of escaping even the gunships, or alternatively, putting out so much larger of a volume of fire, combined with their heavier armor, that they have a chance in combat. Some things might need to be tweaked on the engines themselves to add further balance, but I feel that either one of these would add some definition to the ship types.

as always all comments and critiques of a polite sort are accepted.

A better aim-bot for capital ships IS a good idea and I never thought otherwise, and I think the Cap ships should be able to have a few rapid fire weapons, but not too many. Fighters should be able to beat a bomber most of the time. Not to say that a very skilled bomber pilot could not kick a fighters behind, but it would be much more difficult. I like the idea of the movable weapons that could turn independent of the ship. That would make bombers much much harder to kill.
I still think if fighters had less powerful weapons it would also be better. Bombers/cap ships should be able to have big payload weapons like guass or sunflare while fighters should have light weapons more like the tach. Thats just my opinion tho.

Durgia,

I think I could refine your point:

A single bomber will take a single fighter down 100% of the time. Why? Because the fighter has to get within the bomber's strike zone to use its weapons effectively. That is why it takes a group of fighters to draw the fire of the bomber.

no thats not my point at all. A single fighter should be able to take down a single bomber with out alot of trouble. The large payload weapons would be useless at close range..unless people suicide which I don't count. Fighters should be agile to dodge bombers weapons, but not so well that skill is not accounted for. Bombers should not be able to dog fight near as well as a fighter because thats not what they are for. Bombers should however be able to dodge and defend themselves against a fighter unlike now.

Bombers are meant to get large payload weapons to destroy large targets...like turrets/cap ships/ groups of enemies. So should suck at dog fighting...just not so much as they do now.

Camps: I think your idea for capacitors was a much better solution.

SpellCast, I've got mixed feelings about your post. But I certainly like the idea of giving larger ships a spare battery for weapons only. It seems like a fair compromise. I like it.

Arolte, thank you, however I've been thinking about it and come up with a better way yet. change the name of what we now have as "batteries" to "powerplant" since a battery doesn't actually produce power, then give the larger ships slots for a device that functions as an actual battery. That is, it would store up power based on size, but not actually add any power gain. SirCamps, i belive this is very similar to your capacitors, but a capacitor is designed to store up energy then discharge it all at once.. the terminology just needs modified a bit.
the modules could be as follows.

POWERPLANTS (what we now call batteries)
Free - generates 30 power/second, stores 300
Light - Generates 35 power/second, stores 400
Medium - generates 40 power/second stores 450
Heavy - Generates 45 power/second stores 500
efficient - generates 50 power/second stores 250

then anywhere up above where I have "spare battery" listed, install one of these.

"BATTERIES" <-actuall battery)
auxillary - stores an additional 100 power (takes the place of free, minimal cost)
small - stores an additional 300 power
medium - stores an additional 400 power
Large - stores an additional 500 power

this would give a rangarok with a heavy engine, a heavy POWERPLANT, a large battery and a small battery, 1300 availible power. It would be able to turbo through the full 1300 power giving it the chance to get away, or it could power energy weapons with it. this is offset by the fact that it is slow, has no agility, and to get a full charge from a completely empty power reserve would take almost a full 30 seconds. since the batteries dont add to the charging speed, just the max power availible, the balance is a little better.

to me a fighter is a fast strike weapon, where a bomber should have more staying power. Normally a bomber has the advantage of range, however since range implies fuel, and there is no fuel in vendetta, range can not be the balancing issue here. To me, availible power for weapons/turbo should be, hence the extra energy storage. that is the advantage you get in a bomber. the advantage you get for flying a fighter is speed, agility, and the chance to bring precision weapons to bear, get behind a bomber, get close before the bomber has a chance to start to turbo away, and it's dead. get in front of a bomber, or shoot too soon and let it get a head start, either you are dead or it is long gone.

(edit- this post edited for spelling and grammer. )
also, one more quick point, a fighter can accelerate faster than a bomber, so even if it might get away, it'll probably be damaged. one of the biggest problems i see right now is that since both fighters and bombers have the same amount of energy, if a bomber tries to run, it's going to run out of power at the same time the fighter does, at that point you have a bomber out of power, with a fighter right with it, also out of power. the problem is that in the ensuing dogfight, the fighter has a tremendous advantage of maneuverability. if the fighter runs out of turbo long before the bomber does, the bomber has gotten away, taking out a bomber(or for that matter a large civillian trader like the centaur) now requires some teamwork, you need 2 or three players to do enough damage to it to kill it before it gets away.

thoughts, ideas?

Since they don't generate any energy, there is nothing wrong with the extra 'batteries'. You only break the system if you allow a ship to generate alot of extra power, without proportionately increasing its mass (and thus required thrust). In general, a ship with two 'generators' should need two 'engines'. Unless we totally rework the system, the power to thrust ratio should never be higher than it is in a fighter. One way to rework the system would be making maximum speed inversely proportional to thrust, and it was this way in 3.1 I think, but that could be kinda weird.

Ideally, rather than having 'battery slots', you could exchange cargo space for 'batteries' - perhaps at a rate of 3-6 cargo spaces per battery depending on the batteries efficiency. Also ideally, batteries should have a small mass cost.

But then I also think that if you mount a heavy battery or heavy engine that it should reduce your cargo (by for example two each) or increase your weight. In this way, larger ships would be able (if they wanted to) to turn thier cargo advantage into a slight combat advantage. Of course, some slight mass/thrust adjustments would be necessary if we fiddled with the assumptions of the base mass of a ship, but I don't think this would present an enormous balancing issue if we were careful.

Now if only the devs would finally debug the inertia system such that a ship with X mass and Y thrust moved more or less the same as a ship with 2X mass and 2Y thrust, we'd be all good to go. I'm still kinda mystified by why the physics engine breaks down for low and high masses.