Forums » Suggestions
I fail to see how a capship, sitting in B8, taking pot-shots at passers by, is "disrupting a sector".
this is essentially the same issue people complained about with the hound and its swarm and run tactic, except with a cap ship its infinite swarms
Or, why I should care that you can't easily solo a Trident in your fighter?...
I don't intend to make a Trident trivial to threaten or drive off by a single fighter. Possible, perhaps, but not trivial.
You've never been able to easily solo capships before, nor do I see why we would move in that direction.
even defeating a deshielded capship solo in a fighter is still a monumental task due to the ordnance they have at their disposal. If you removed player capship shields from the game I doubt there would hardly be a tick in the solo capship kills column but players would be able to actually try without having to leave sector and grab a different ship and allowing the capship to escape. I think the current level of invulnerability that tridents offer is more suited to player owned capellas and HACs
as far as a more on topic suggestion, I think capital turret weapons should have 3 times the ammo as their non capital class weapons ie 120 swarms vs 40. that way relentless spamming is discouraged while still offering a large boost in firepower and if they dump their ammo carelessly they can still undock in a fighter/bomber and use their capship for free reps/reloads.
this is essentially the same issue people complained about with the hound and its swarm and run tactic, except with a cap ship its infinite swarms
Or, why I should care that you can't easily solo a Trident in your fighter?...
I don't intend to make a Trident trivial to threaten or drive off by a single fighter. Possible, perhaps, but not trivial.
You've never been able to easily solo capships before, nor do I see why we would move in that direction.
even defeating a deshielded capship solo in a fighter is still a monumental task due to the ordnance they have at their disposal. If you removed player capship shields from the game I doubt there would hardly be a tick in the solo capship kills column but players would be able to actually try without having to leave sector and grab a different ship and allowing the capship to escape. I think the current level of invulnerability that tridents offer is more suited to player owned capellas and HACs
as far as a more on topic suggestion, I think capital turret weapons should have 3 times the ammo as their non capital class weapons ie 120 swarms vs 40. that way relentless spamming is discouraged while still offering a large boost in firepower and if they dump their ammo carelessly they can still undock in a fighter/bomber and use their capship for free reps/reloads.
yeah makes total sense to limit the ammo of capship weapons but still allow unlimited free reloads
not
not
this is essentially the same issue people complained about with the hound and its swarm and run tactic, except with a cap ship its infinite swarms
No.. it isn't. People can trivially chase and harass you in a fast ship like a Hound, and continue to be a pest far beyond a single sector.
If someone is sitting in B8 with a trident, you can just.. fly away? It's not like avoiding capital ships is some terrible burden. An EC-89 can avoid a pursuing trident.
even defeating a deshielded capship solo in a fighter is still a monumental task due to the ordnance they have at their disposal.
Yes.. that is as intended. It should be a monumental task, especially right now when there are no meaningful anti-capship specific weaponry.
As I've said, such weaponry will emerge, and will offer their own options that can be tweaked and adjusted for balanced gameplay of just that feature, without impacting all kinds of other content or ramifications (the way shield strength and weapon ammo do).
I'm not ruling out limited turret ammo, or limited turret energy, or anything else. But this notion that a solo fighter defeating a capship should be anything remotely "easy" is not aligned to my current gameplay goals. It should be extremely difficult, right now, which will make the specific use-case weaponry much more relevant and critical.
If that were not the case, no one will care about anti-capship weaponry, when it does emerge; this would then negate my ability to specifically adjust capship-assault gameplay balance, because other tactics would simply be used to take the place.
If the current Big Problem is "sometimes there's a guy in B8 that I can't blow up, by myself", I don't really see that as a Big Problem. It certainly isn't a new problem.
No.. it isn't. People can trivially chase and harass you in a fast ship like a Hound, and continue to be a pest far beyond a single sector.
If someone is sitting in B8 with a trident, you can just.. fly away? It's not like avoiding capital ships is some terrible burden. An EC-89 can avoid a pursuing trident.
even defeating a deshielded capship solo in a fighter is still a monumental task due to the ordnance they have at their disposal.
Yes.. that is as intended. It should be a monumental task, especially right now when there are no meaningful anti-capship specific weaponry.
As I've said, such weaponry will emerge, and will offer their own options that can be tweaked and adjusted for balanced gameplay of just that feature, without impacting all kinds of other content or ramifications (the way shield strength and weapon ammo do).
I'm not ruling out limited turret ammo, or limited turret energy, or anything else. But this notion that a solo fighter defeating a capship should be anything remotely "easy" is not aligned to my current gameplay goals. It should be extremely difficult, right now, which will make the specific use-case weaponry much more relevant and critical.
If that were not the case, no one will care about anti-capship weaponry, when it does emerge; this would then negate my ability to specifically adjust capship-assault gameplay balance, because other tactics would simply be used to take the place.
If the current Big Problem is "sometimes there's a guy in B8 that I can't blow up, by myself", I don't really see that as a Big Problem. It certainly isn't a new problem.
"If the current Big Problem is "sometimes there's a guy in B8 that I can't blow up, by myself", I don't really see that as a Big Problem. It certainly isn't a new problem."
Remember the FoV nerf of Cap Rails, that was mostly a single player and yet it still has been nerfed.
And I don't see how balance and consistency isn't a good reason. Isn't this something every MMO wants? All ships, except cap ships, use resources to shoot. So why would cap ships simply ignore this fundamental mechanic of the game? It's inconsistent and overpowered compared to all other ships in the game. There is a difference between making a ship stronger than others because it takes an unreasonably amount of time to build and making it overpowered and break fundamental game mechanics. And since the turrets mention energy costs I assume it was planned that way anyways, so why isn't this in the game already and needs to be discussed now? You had plenty of time to make turrets work the way they were intended or at least fix the description if you for some reason decided to change it. Instead you did nothing and just went with how things were and ignored this obvious issue. If you implement something and say this is how it works, we expect that it works like you described it. It's either a bug you never fixed or you released unfinished content. We know how the turrets should behave, what amount of energy they're supposed to consume or how much ammo they should carry because you wrote the description and didn't change it over this long period of time but now we are here and are discussing if things should work the way they were supposed to work. And I don't think any development could be so important that it would stop you from deleting a few words in case you actually changed your mind. You even changed the Goliath description and deleted the Freighter part recently. It really seems like you have just been ignoring this issue and hoped we would never find out. You can take the easy way and simply change the description or you can actually make it work like you intended when implementing turrets.
I'm sorry if this sounds offensive but the truth may hurt and just because someone is a developer doesn't mean we should ignore problems. It's quite the opposite, it's expected of a game developer to make things work like advertised. If a turret's description says it costs 1000 energy to shoot, it should use 1000 energy to shoot. We wouldn't be here and discuss this if you did a proper job from the beginning and made things work like you told us it should work. Instead we are here and argue about whether or not we should fix a bug.
Remember the FoV nerf of Cap Rails, that was mostly a single player and yet it still has been nerfed.
And I don't see how balance and consistency isn't a good reason. Isn't this something every MMO wants? All ships, except cap ships, use resources to shoot. So why would cap ships simply ignore this fundamental mechanic of the game? It's inconsistent and overpowered compared to all other ships in the game. There is a difference between making a ship stronger than others because it takes an unreasonably amount of time to build and making it overpowered and break fundamental game mechanics. And since the turrets mention energy costs I assume it was planned that way anyways, so why isn't this in the game already and needs to be discussed now? You had plenty of time to make turrets work the way they were intended or at least fix the description if you for some reason decided to change it. Instead you did nothing and just went with how things were and ignored this obvious issue. If you implement something and say this is how it works, we expect that it works like you described it. It's either a bug you never fixed or you released unfinished content. We know how the turrets should behave, what amount of energy they're supposed to consume or how much ammo they should carry because you wrote the description and didn't change it over this long period of time but now we are here and are discussing if things should work the way they were supposed to work. And I don't think any development could be so important that it would stop you from deleting a few words in case you actually changed your mind. You even changed the Goliath description and deleted the Freighter part recently. It really seems like you have just been ignoring this issue and hoped we would never find out. You can take the easy way and simply change the description or you can actually make it work like you intended when implementing turrets.
I'm sorry if this sounds offensive but the truth may hurt and just because someone is a developer doesn't mean we should ignore problems. It's quite the opposite, it's expected of a game developer to make things work like advertised. If a turret's description says it costs 1000 energy to shoot, it should use 1000 energy to shoot. We wouldn't be here and discuss this if you did a proper job from the beginning and made things work like you told us it should work. Instead we are here and argue about whether or not we should fix a bug.
Remember the FoV nerf of Cap Rails, that was mostly a single player and yet it still has been nerfed.
No, I explained exactly why that was changed. It completely unbalanced the ability of players to take on challenging NPCs (capships), and threw off a lot of future gameplay plans in development.
A trident sitting in B8 can't really do anything to you. I mean, you can just "leave". It's only as threatening as you want to make it.
There is a difference between making a ship stronger than others because it takes an unreasonably amount of time to build and making it overpowered and break fundamental game mechanics.
You haven't actually cited any "fundamental game mechanics" that are being broken here. You keep trying to paint this as a terrible problem, but the biggest issue you can raise is that.. someone was in B8 and you couldn't kill them solo. Seriously?
You had plenty of time to make turrets work the way they were intended or at least fix the description if you for some reason decided to change it. Instead you did nothing and just went with how things were and ignored this obvious issue.
Okay, now you're just being a dick. Ray and I are working a zillion hours a week, every week, through the holidays, non-freaking-stop. If we "don't change things" it's usually because we're having to fix some OTHER thing, or do some task to keep the (Servers | Game | Company) operating.
We don't sit around going "WHAT ON EARTH WILL WE DO WITH ALL OUR TIME?!", it's usually planned out for us by dire freaking need, or catastrophic development delay, or contractual time requirement, or whatever else. We don't "have plenty of time" EVER, it doesn't matter how many goddamn decades have occurred in the interim, you clearly have zero clue what our reality is actually like.
So, yes, in-game descriptions are wrong, "Help" data is missing for half the ****ing game, lots of things aren't quite how we would like them to be.. and opinionated people like you get self-righteous about your personal pet peeves. And yet even after I'm exceedingly patient and attentive to your cause, on this thread.. you're still unable to marshal a reasonable argument, or do anything other than "keep repeating your opinion" of how terrible things are.. without supporting evidence.
Anyway, whatever dubious value this thread ever had is now clearly over, and it's locked.
Heini, learn how to elevate the value of your contributions to Suggestions, or you may be removed (okay, due to your further edited additions of bad attitude, you've now.. been removed).
EDIT Jesus, it's like you went back and edited your post just to make yourself into more of a dick? You're seriously bitching about "un-finished content"? Newsflash, dumbass: THE WHOLE GAME IS UN-FINISHED CONTENT, everyone freaking knows that. It's a hard-indie title, for ****'s sake.
If a turret's description says it costs 1000 energy to shoot, it should use 1000 energy to shoot.
Ironically, I think it may actually use 1000 energy to shoot. It just uses it from an invisible powercell that turrets have, because they're effectively little "micro-ships" attached to the hull, because turrets were a hack-job.. along with capships that were a hack-job that we vastly accelerated by several years at player REQUEST. That's right, if you search, you can find the thread where I told our users "You realize, making playable capships will be a total hack and a wreck if we try doing this right away?" and everyone said "Please do it anyway! We want them even if they're flawed!". God forbid you ever do what people ask.
It really seems like you have just been ignoring this issue and hoped we would never find out.
HAHAHA, WHAT?!@? It's not like it isn't SUPER FREAKING OBVIOUS that a ton of stuff has been left un-done. Have you ever talked to any other player about this.. ever? It's pretty clear we aren't "hiding" anything in that regard. But yeah, I'll be honest, a "wrong description" is pretty goddamn low on my priority list, compared to everything else we've been doing. And no, I didn't even remotely recollect that that description was "wrong" anyway.
But the whole point of THIS FORUM is so we can discuss how to change things, and be patient and optimistic about it, which you are totally not-doing. Thus, you are no longer welcome on this forum.
No, I explained exactly why that was changed. It completely unbalanced the ability of players to take on challenging NPCs (capships), and threw off a lot of future gameplay plans in development.
A trident sitting in B8 can't really do anything to you. I mean, you can just "leave". It's only as threatening as you want to make it.
There is a difference between making a ship stronger than others because it takes an unreasonably amount of time to build and making it overpowered and break fundamental game mechanics.
You haven't actually cited any "fundamental game mechanics" that are being broken here. You keep trying to paint this as a terrible problem, but the biggest issue you can raise is that.. someone was in B8 and you couldn't kill them solo. Seriously?
You had plenty of time to make turrets work the way they were intended or at least fix the description if you for some reason decided to change it. Instead you did nothing and just went with how things were and ignored this obvious issue.
Okay, now you're just being a dick. Ray and I are working a zillion hours a week, every week, through the holidays, non-freaking-stop. If we "don't change things" it's usually because we're having to fix some OTHER thing, or do some task to keep the (Servers | Game | Company) operating.
We don't sit around going "WHAT ON EARTH WILL WE DO WITH ALL OUR TIME?!", it's usually planned out for us by dire freaking need, or catastrophic development delay, or contractual time requirement, or whatever else. We don't "have plenty of time" EVER, it doesn't matter how many goddamn decades have occurred in the interim, you clearly have zero clue what our reality is actually like.
So, yes, in-game descriptions are wrong, "Help" data is missing for half the ****ing game, lots of things aren't quite how we would like them to be.. and opinionated people like you get self-righteous about your personal pet peeves. And yet even after I'm exceedingly patient and attentive to your cause, on this thread.. you're still unable to marshal a reasonable argument, or do anything other than "keep repeating your opinion" of how terrible things are.. without supporting evidence.
Anyway, whatever dubious value this thread ever had is now clearly over, and it's locked.
Heini, learn how to elevate the value of your contributions to Suggestions, or you may be removed (okay, due to your further edited additions of bad attitude, you've now.. been removed).
EDIT Jesus, it's like you went back and edited your post just to make yourself into more of a dick? You're seriously bitching about "un-finished content"? Newsflash, dumbass: THE WHOLE GAME IS UN-FINISHED CONTENT, everyone freaking knows that. It's a hard-indie title, for ****'s sake.
If a turret's description says it costs 1000 energy to shoot, it should use 1000 energy to shoot.
Ironically, I think it may actually use 1000 energy to shoot. It just uses it from an invisible powercell that turrets have, because they're effectively little "micro-ships" attached to the hull, because turrets were a hack-job.. along with capships that were a hack-job that we vastly accelerated by several years at player REQUEST. That's right, if you search, you can find the thread where I told our users "You realize, making playable capships will be a total hack and a wreck if we try doing this right away?" and everyone said "Please do it anyway! We want them even if they're flawed!". God forbid you ever do what people ask.
It really seems like you have just been ignoring this issue and hoped we would never find out.
HAHAHA, WHAT?!@? It's not like it isn't SUPER FREAKING OBVIOUS that a ton of stuff has been left un-done. Have you ever talked to any other player about this.. ever? It's pretty clear we aren't "hiding" anything in that regard. But yeah, I'll be honest, a "wrong description" is pretty goddamn low on my priority list, compared to everything else we've been doing. And no, I didn't even remotely recollect that that description was "wrong" anyway.
But the whole point of THIS FORUM is so we can discuss how to change things, and be patient and optimistic about it, which you are totally not-doing. Thus, you are no longer welcome on this forum.