Forums » Suggestions
Boda my Trident u kill it only 2 times, u imagine it... and yes u shutdown my shields only another 3 times more.....(2ond time was my fault (Desario) ....).....
You have kill my XC's few times or (that never and noone can answer episode http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/28456....) and my Centaur...
Cheers.....
You have kill my XC's few times or (that never and noone can answer episode http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/2/28456....) and my Centaur...
Cheers.....
FaceOf, please use google translator. I am able to understand, but it's super hard.
Oh god no, google translator is terrible, it looks like he's already using google translator. Trust me you don't want that!
The question regarding trident variants, I believe, is what niches the tridents need to fill. The 3 categories I can think up are cargo, combat, and fighter support. Cargo would have increased speed and cargo space, combat would have increased shields and extra turrets, fighter support would have large cargo bays, and extra capitol ports to provide cover from a distance. By the way, are the new tridents going to include capitol ports?
Only 2 times u have kill my Trident Boda...but agree for to make them AND purchasable....and this can gives very good reasons to many players to stay in game and trading or kill bots and trading loots or pirating traders...ect...a big cycle of gaming actions opens for the game and attract old players back and more new players....
And can be purchasable with mission from Capital stations and take it from Latos M-7 like now u have access when u have build the Reactor....
Cheers...
And can be purchasable with mission from Capital stations and take it from Latos M-7 like now u have access when u have build the Reactor....
Cheers...
*in summary*
Snake can't read previous posts and Faceof can't stay on topic.
Snake can't read previous posts and Faceof can't stay on topic.
Also, Kim Jon Un plays VO
Whoa! Someone killed someone else's trident! Faceof isn't native to English!
We had a decent discussion going for almost a page there. At least, people were throwing ideas at eachother. They were even related.
Get it back on track, guys?
We had a decent discussion going for almost a page there. At least, people were throwing ideas at eachother. They were even related.
Get it back on track, guys?
Yeah, isn't it funny? The community has been (A) crying for improvements to capship/endgame content for years and (B) complaining that all good ideas go down the memory hole because the devs aren't paying attention ... and then we get a thread from a dev asking specifically for capship feedback and the thread derails within a page to namecalling and OT rambling.
Don't we all love this community? :)
Don't we all love this community? :)
Eh... To bring stuff back to topic...
The specs Kierky suggested make good sense. Maybe they need some fine-tuning but I think that idea is a good way to go with the new variants.
I dislike the idea of the Type M being a low class capship all of a sudden. A Type M is already hard to destroy, why make even more powerful capships... We can do that when VO has a large enough playerbase so that an exploding Trident is a daily thing.
My Point:
+1 to what Kierky said. Make the Type M the average model which is a medium combat capship and a medium hauler and then make the other 2 types specialized variants; a hauler and a combat capship.
The specs Kierky suggested make good sense. Maybe they need some fine-tuning but I think that idea is a good way to go with the new variants.
I dislike the idea of the Type M being a low class capship all of a sudden. A Type M is already hard to destroy, why make even more powerful capships... We can do that when VO has a large enough playerbase so that an exploding Trident is a daily thing.
My Point:
+1 to what Kierky said. Make the Type M the average model which is a medium combat capship and a medium hauler and then make the other 2 types specialized variants; a hauler and a combat capship.
Make the Type M the average model which is a medium combat capship and a medium hauler
If this is the middle of the road for combat capability, how is it going to get worse? 2 turrets on the engine pods and no L-port? :P
If this is the middle of the road for combat capability, how is it going to get worse? 2 turrets on the engine pods and no L-port? :P
Unless the build requirements are going to be the same or equivalent, which in Inc's OP, they are not.
"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."
Why would I want to put out extra effort for something that isn't better overall? Mind you, I don't have any objection to the three models being balanced or equivalent for roughly the same amount of work, but that is not the scenario that Inc put forth.
I think the root question here is what roles should these variants fill? Or is there any variation that can be given that would be meaningful? Also, the implication should be that the S & P will be, perhaps not exclusively, but strongly Serco and Itani variants based on the 'assumed' inability or difficulty involved in getting a hold of necessary enemy components.
Frankly, I would be looking for more usable weapons ports as well as the ability to engage in sustained fire for much longer periods than current assortment of sub capital combat ships. Arf's powercell would be a good start towards this.
Again, I think based on the implications given in the OP, that the class M should be the base that the S & P are improved from, not the average they are pared down to.
"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."
Why would I want to put out extra effort for something that isn't better overall? Mind you, I don't have any objection to the three models being balanced or equivalent for roughly the same amount of work, but that is not the scenario that Inc put forth.
I think the root question here is what roles should these variants fill? Or is there any variation that can be given that would be meaningful? Also, the implication should be that the S & P will be, perhaps not exclusively, but strongly Serco and Itani variants based on the 'assumed' inability or difficulty involved in getting a hold of necessary enemy components.
Frankly, I would be looking for more usable weapons ports as well as the ability to engage in sustained fire for much longer periods than current assortment of sub capital combat ships. Arf's powercell would be a good start towards this.
Again, I think based on the implications given in the OP, that the class M should be the base that the S & P are improved from, not the average they are pared down to.
Thematically inspired variants based on serco/itani are interesting, actually.
You'd expect Serco to have access to the better "heavy firepower" trident, with less cargo space (=less docked fighters) but more heavy/capital class weaponry to blast other large ships. Itani would have a more 'carrier' style trident, which unfortunately mainly means increasing cargo I think?
[RP reasoning: because the hive is created from materials 'harvested' from the ships that it catches, it makes sense that the Serco hive has caught more proms, and hence has more access to heavy weaponry, while the Itani hive will have more access to equipment from nimble ships]
You'd expect Serco to have access to the better "heavy firepower" trident, with less cargo space (=less docked fighters) but more heavy/capital class weaponry to blast other large ships. Itani would have a more 'carrier' style trident, which unfortunately mainly means increasing cargo I think?
[RP reasoning: because the hive is created from materials 'harvested' from the ships that it catches, it makes sense that the Serco hive has caught more proms, and hence has more access to heavy weaponry, while the Itani hive will have more access to equipment from nimble ships]
I don't agree with nation based tridents.
My ideas for the tridents:
Trident type S: longer hull, more turrets (auto-turrets would be good actually) and 1 more large port. 300 cu cargo space.
Trident type M: leave as it is
Trident type P: longer hull, only 2 turrets, but 1200 cargo space. Could possibly transport more fighters to the place of the fight.
For the specs, type S:
Max speed = 55 m/s (4 engines)
Max turbo = 200 m/s (again, 4 engines)
Type P specs should be the same as trident type M, but it could only keep up with M (with that all cargo space) because of four engines (M has 2)
My ideas for the tridents:
Trident type S: longer hull, more turrets (auto-turrets would be good actually) and 1 more large port. 300 cu cargo space.
Trident type M: leave as it is
Trident type P: longer hull, only 2 turrets, but 1200 cargo space. Could possibly transport more fighters to the place of the fight.
For the specs, type S:
Max speed = 55 m/s (4 engines)
Max turbo = 200 m/s (again, 4 engines)
Type P specs should be the same as trident type M, but it could only keep up with M (with that all cargo space) because of four engines (M has 2)
My vote and voice is for some of the same things already mentioned. One type should be a hauler with increased cargo and maybe another 10m/s under turbo with 4 engines. The other should be more of fighter with less cargo and maybe 20m/s or 30m/s turbo faster than the M type. This should give us a nice variety to play with till the larger ships and stations become available.
As for the argument over having them being mainly Serco or Itani makes very little difference in my opinion. Anyone can always buy or have an alt that can retrieve any item that is dropped into enemy space during Hive Skirms. And we will probably have some of each of the new types in both Serco and Itani Guilds.
My thing is, LET"S GET THEM ALREADY. We have been hearing about the new types and it seemed that it has been hinted to by Dev that they are coming soon for months. Some have been busy building and are now at a standstill, waiting for the specs to be released to decide which type they want to make. If the release is still to be months away, let us know that and know what the proposed specs are (subject to some sight changes) so we can continue with the building on the type that we want to fly.
As for the argument over having them being mainly Serco or Itani makes very little difference in my opinion. Anyone can always buy or have an alt that can retrieve any item that is dropped into enemy space during Hive Skirms. And we will probably have some of each of the new types in both Serco and Itani Guilds.
My thing is, LET"S GET THEM ALREADY. We have been hearing about the new types and it seemed that it has been hinted to by Dev that they are coming soon for months. Some have been busy building and are now at a standstill, waiting for the specs to be released to decide which type they want to make. If the release is still to be months away, let us know that and know what the proposed specs are (subject to some sight changes) so we can continue with the building on the type that we want to fly.
Type P - Combat trident.
Higher shields, like how skirmish queens have 133%. Maybe even more if you want a team effort to break them.
Higher cruising speed of 50
Much faster spin, capable tighter maneuvers and better at evading fire.
Lower top speed of 130, takes longer than type M to get to that speed. We're built for maneuverability in tight spaces, not drag racing (see type-S below)
Weighs a lot more due to armor and cargo space, causing it to be slower.
Turrets: 1 middle top, 1 middle bottom, 1 port side rear facing possibly mounted at a slight angle on the rear edge to work a wider area, 1 starboard side rear facing similar to port side.
Weapon port(s): 2 large, 1 small OR 3 large (combat dent perhaps useful On Levi kills?)
Cargo: 1,000
Armor: 1.3mil
Weakness: Front attacks from the side just out of reach of main weapons and turret vision. Attacker needs to pay attention as this dent can turn faster and could pop in a few shots.
Passive addon: Capital class storm/fog radar group extender (3000m). Group stays in range of the dent, they can see as far as it can, unless player has their own equipped, which will extend it for just that player as usual.
Type S - Cruiser type. It's like the Greyhound of Tridents, built to haul ass but not the wisest choice for combat.
Slightly lower shields than type M, about 80%
Higher cruising speed of 60
Higher top speed of 170
Much higher thrust, almost equal the XC unloaded.
Spin speed comparable to type-M. After all, this is for speed and evasion, not for direct combat.
Armor: 700k
Cargo: 600
Weapon port(s): 1 large, 1 small OR 2 small OR 1 small OR 1 large
Turrets: 1 rear, 1 port, 1 starboard
Weighs less due to decreased cargo, armor, and turret count. All of which was sacrificed in the name of speed.
Weakness: Top and bottom attacks. Lowered shields means 2 players equipped enough could break shields with just lasers. Suggestion for captain is to just floor it as intended.
Passive addon: Capital class mineral scanner that can scan up to 2000m with zero time delay between selecting roids.
Type M - Hauling trident
Increase cargo to 1,000
Else, keep as-is
Higher shields, like how skirmish queens have 133%. Maybe even more if you want a team effort to break them.
Higher cruising speed of 50
Much faster spin, capable tighter maneuvers and better at evading fire.
Lower top speed of 130, takes longer than type M to get to that speed. We're built for maneuverability in tight spaces, not drag racing (see type-S below)
Weighs a lot more due to armor and cargo space, causing it to be slower.
Turrets: 1 middle top, 1 middle bottom, 1 port side rear facing possibly mounted at a slight angle on the rear edge to work a wider area, 1 starboard side rear facing similar to port side.
Weapon port(s): 2 large, 1 small OR 3 large (combat dent perhaps useful On Levi kills?)
Cargo: 1,000
Armor: 1.3mil
Weakness: Front attacks from the side just out of reach of main weapons and turret vision. Attacker needs to pay attention as this dent can turn faster and could pop in a few shots.
Passive addon: Capital class storm/fog radar group extender (3000m). Group stays in range of the dent, they can see as far as it can, unless player has their own equipped, which will extend it for just that player as usual.
Type S - Cruiser type. It's like the Greyhound of Tridents, built to haul ass but not the wisest choice for combat.
Slightly lower shields than type M, about 80%
Higher cruising speed of 60
Higher top speed of 170
Much higher thrust, almost equal the XC unloaded.
Spin speed comparable to type-M. After all, this is for speed and evasion, not for direct combat.
Armor: 700k
Cargo: 600
Weapon port(s): 1 large, 1 small OR 2 small OR 1 small OR 1 large
Turrets: 1 rear, 1 port, 1 starboard
Weighs less due to decreased cargo, armor, and turret count. All of which was sacrificed in the name of speed.
Weakness: Top and bottom attacks. Lowered shields means 2 players equipped enough could break shields with just lasers. Suggestion for captain is to just floor it as intended.
Passive addon: Capital class mineral scanner that can scan up to 2000m with zero time delay between selecting roids.
Type M - Hauling trident
Increase cargo to 1,000
Else, keep as-is
Ok if the Type S and P are going to be advanced models anyway...
+1 to mitchness point. Good specs.
+1 to mitchness point. Good specs.
Now that the AWACS and radar occlusion stuff is working more or less as intended, why not have one model with greatly increased radar range?
A capship with a 5000m storm range and 10000m in the clear with AWACS to all group members within 5000m could be really useful, especially if/when the devs start rolling out more fogged sectors or entire systems.
That and if they can figure out some way to get the radar features to work even when the pilot undocks...
A capship with a 5000m storm range and 10000m in the clear with AWACS to all group members within 5000m could be really useful, especially if/when the devs start rolling out more fogged sectors or entire systems.
That and if they can figure out some way to get the radar features to work even when the pilot undocks...
+1 For making them available for purchase, regaurdless of differences. I for one have always wanted one for combat, and am completely uninterested in mining or flying nuts and bolts from one side of the universe to the other 1000 times. On top of this I have amassed huge amounts of credits that for the most part are worthless after you get padding. I'm not saying building them should go away. But if it was a combo, where you could build them from scratch or sell parts back to conq stations for large amounts of creds then purchase one with a mission for like a bil: people wouldn't have to change their roleplay or playstyle, and therefore more people would have them and devs would get better feed back on suggestions for changes. Right now you have to play the game in dull building mode too much when there should be a variety of ways to get to a goal. If major changes like this aren't made, face is right and next gen games will kill you.