Now that I'm sort of "back" from a lot of the business stuff that's come up over the last 2 months.. I'm looking at the new Trident variants again.

I have my own notes and goals for them and the like, but I am curious for player feedback specifically on the subject of their possible specification numbers.

This does not include graphics, model, turret locations (I understand that issue), or anything else. Just potential spec numbers with an eye towards roles the player-base sees for two "differentiated" Trident variants that are more difficult to acquire than the Type M.

I know there are some previous threads on this as well, feel free to link to them if appropriate. But now that we've had shields for a few months, and some rudimentary persistency, I thought it was worth getting a little updated feedback.

I was discussing this with some other serco the other day on our mumble. We couldn't really see how you could differentiate the tridents in a meaningful way without the use of varying weapon systems.

I presume you're talking at the moment about things like weight, thrust etc.. etc.. While improving those things will make them less of a chore to travel in, they won't really improve the utility to the extent that people will bother with them over the M, with the exception of those who just want it for the sake of wanting new stuff.

MAYBE additional shield strength would be a good selling point, but it would have to be fairly substantial. Resistance to drain weapons perhaps could be a selling point?

It's a personal station that provides free reloads and eliminates basically all but the one credit sink in the game. It's kind of overpowered already. If you want my honest opinion; you need to abandon the ownership/building dichotomy before its too late. If everyone has tridents the game will break down and as it stands builds are getting faster and faster.

Flying tridents instead needs to be something that happens because you're on a specific mission or because you're currently running a military campaign. Just having them 24/7 is getting a little silly. I know that it's star citizens model to run with the insurance thing and it's made them 42 million and all that, but that's not what we do here.

Shield strength, armor, top speed and cargo capacity all seem like points of interest, although the degree to which one can buff them without creating something ridiculous is another issue.

That's kind of my point, they are already ridiculous. I know that might seem hypocritical or odd coming from me, but we couldn't know until they were implemented. At this stage, it undercuts too much gameplay.

I had a fairly good idea at what the specs should be around. The M would be basically an "averaged out" trident. The P would be closer to a "combat trident" and the S would be a hauler with better engines to cope with that.

In General --
Type P:
Stronger Shield Regeneration (10,000 / s)
Stronger Shield Strength (50,000)
Higher Thrust
Lower Turbo Thrust
Lower Armor (750k)
Lower Top Speed (30m/s)
Lower Turbo Speed (130m/s)
Lower Cargo Capacity (400-500 cu)
Immune to PCB through shields, PCB still works when shields down.

Type M:
Change the Shield Regen to 9,000 / s
Otherwise, as is.

Type S:
Weaker Shield Regeneration (8,000 / s)
Weaker Shield Strength (30,000)
Higher Armor (1.2 million)
Higher Top Speed (45m/s)
Higher Turbo Speed (150m/s)
PCB Works through Shield
More Mass
More Turbo Thrust
Less Nominal Thrust
Higher Cargo Capacity (1,000cu)

--

Thoughts? Variant are supposed to bridge the gap between ship models, I think this is what it should do with the connie.

According to raybondo on 100, all shields are supposed to block PCB power drain, that they don't is an unintended side effect.

I don't agree with the idea of making the variant that you obtain in one nation space better at combat than the one you obtain in another space. It looks like nationalist favouritism because its substantially harder for say a serco character to obtain a Prosus Aggregator or an Itani to obtain a Siepos Aggregator.

Also regarding Kierky's suggestion, you should note that shield strength and regeneration are much more valued than other attributes. Also because tridents can currently be overloaded, the reduction in cu value by 100cu is virtually meaningless in terms of no. of ships you can store.

In those variants, the prosus is absurdly superior to the siepos variant and the siepos variant is even worse than the current milanar.

Heh, well, I did throw it together really quickly.

Another way of thinking of it is a game of rock paper scissors, Rock beats scissors, you know the drill. Same with the tridents, they should each have something over one other. What I have suggested is not consistent with that.

I believe for the Shield Strength for both new variants need to raise more ...for more combat Trident i believe is better to be in 90.000 and for cargo dent to 50.000....anyway is new ships in game and its supposed /not right to have lower of any combat /Strength stats from existence variant!!!

Also need to have in build some Ship Scanners and Countermeasures....

Cheers....

I dont like the idea of raising the shields any further, they're fine. Faceof just wants more shields cause he gets chased and killed all the time (make friends have them save you instead)

Make the P lighter armor, lighter shields, significantly increased cargo capacity (double perhaps?) no l port.

Hell if you want to go balls deep, no shields and triple the cargo. Trident XC heh but if not, the first way is good.

Make the S heavy armor, (1.5 mil? 1.25?) 3 l ports, 6 turrets, heavier to handle at maneuvering speeds but with those fancy engines from that pic we all saw way back (if those are staying) it can get to turbo speed pretty decently. Making it sort of a strike carrier

and them the M is in between as it is now

Really u guys ....continue to suggest so much negative ....CS u r ghost and im not sure if u have and any lite subscription ....

VO need more new things (ships /more powerful Capships/weapons and new ideas ...)...soon maybe is dead and only me i play here why i have pay for another 16 months ....im NOT have any problem with that anyway ...

U r not so smart and the others is more idiots.....VO is pretty cool game ....but is so VINTAGE...

Nothing new ...nothing to give more interesting like conquerable stations in Deneb ....not even a quick way for Deneb ...not even a new ship or new weapons ....why someone want to stay here ???

Maybe if u like vintage 80'/90's.....

Also if u want a nothingless/Capship (EASY TARGETS FOR RAGNAROK ...AND NOT EVER 2ond stacking shot try from same setup ....Tridents M Shields needs to fire only 2chaos missiles and 2Geminis missiles right stacking to shut down...) ...yes i agreed ....and if u not pay to play (and i really not care!!) is very easy to get on Forums and u say any idiocy u want to say ....

VO devs u have some months last chance to create something fresh in VO before Star Citizen released...act before is too late....

Cheers....

PS: never can i say a Combat Trident with 50k Shield ....not even say it no where.....u can feel rediculus....when ...how much Shield have NPC's TLF?????

PS 2: I have lost only 2 times my Trident (both from Boda..) ...1 time was 1hour before devs gives Shields for Tridents ...and 2ond time was my fault and trust someone and wait to see (Desario)....

PS3: and Devs so much cool ideas to work on them in forums....and many of them with many positive votes....please...

I think we need to work out how capital class weapons and powercells are going to function so that we aren't trying to balance capship variants with small ship turrets duck-taped to them.

Also, I still believe all Tridents really need a rear-facing turret. Including NPC variants.

If we want to talk for Combat Trident ....then we talk for a Capship with Shield Strength to stand against the best player Ragnarok stacking full all missiles....and need assistance a 2ond bomber for can drops the shields...

Thats a Combat Capship....

My thoughts are that the Type P should have less armor and mass than the Type S, but stronger shields. Also give it greater resistance to energy weapons. The Type S would in turn have greater resistance to explosive damage. Both new models should obviously have less cargo capacity than the Type M (duh, it's the UIT variant), in exchange for having thrust/mass and torque/mass ratios higher than the Type M's. Both the Type P and Type S should probably have integrated addon scanners, because why not? If they could also both have two L-ports (or maybe 2-L for the Type S and 1-L 2-S for the Type P) that would also be good.

whoa whoa whoa... what the hell is going on here.

There is absolutely zero point to this "specs" conversation until clear definitions of what future variants are for are stated. Cart before the horse.

Preliminary questions and things that need to be addressed before ANY consideration to new trident variants would be considered are as follows:

1) We need more capship stations. Where they are and what the offer would play a significant role in what new trident variants should consist of.

2) What is the purpose of tieing Trident Variants to the various levi aggregators? I think it's an interesting idea, but it really needs more thought. Why would a Prosus Master Computer enable a trident to have different configurations than a Seipos? All hive levis behave and look exactly the same. If the new trident variants are intended to be "upgrades" to the current one (i.e. better in various respects), then I think that the hive AI should be altered to relfect whatever characteristics the various aggregators are bringing to the table. Personally I think tieing the new tridents to Prosus or Seipos specifically is a stupid idea. If anything, I think the new variants should be considered to require BOTH a seipos and a prosus, or even all three master computers. Or new drops should be introduced.

3) The ability to sell ships to eachother needs to be implimented, as it will also play a huge role in what tridents are used for and what their configurations should be.

4) Tied to number 3 is this.... The hangar concept. The amount of ships you can store in a trident relevant to it's cargo space needs to be clearly addressed. As it stands now, it seems that the devs haven't been 100% clear on whether or not they intend to keep the current hangar concept or not. All trident captains love the fact that you can load up 6 ECs and then switch them out for 6 XCs, but it also makes zero sense physically. Changes in the hangar concept could play a huge role in what new variants could offer (i.e. if hangar space was separated from cargo space).

And last but not least: 5) Capital Class Weaponry. If the devs EVER plan on introducing these - they need to be introduced before new variants so we can see how they function. Large port weapons and turrets.

HD mining turrets with a built in super roid scanner.. 1400m range.

I realize this is somewhat off-topic, but vskye's comment kind of begs the reply. I think that built-in components, especially on trident's should be done away with. Designing the tridents with a variable number of hardpoints and systems slots strikes me as the better approach.

More difficult should mean more benefit. So the idea of balancing the S & P against the M is absurd. They should be balanced against one another assuming that they are equally 'more' difficult to aquire.

I've killed your Trident three times Faceof.

And my suggestion for the new tridents is to make them purchasable. This whole building thing is insane!

I'd say keep the differences to:

1. Cargo space
2. Number and placement of turrets
3. Number of Large ports
4. Forward thrust, if adding engines like the picture

All of them should get a small port or a utility port so things like scanners can be mounted.

Also Greenwall makes some good points. Can you reveal your plans for capship stations, even if vague?

All of them should get a small port or a utility port so things like scanners can be mounted.

This is a good idea. Then we might be able to put some of those largely unused scanner blockers and spoofers to work.