I just had a random thought..... why not remove the ability to back-pedal in fighters? You never think of fighters being stuck in reverse. Perhaps only capital ships should have the ability to backpedal.

Think about it, when speed and mass are of the utmost importance would you waste mass about putting reverse boosters on a ship?

This would encourage more "dogfighting" instead of the boring backpedaling people sometimes do.

You do realize that eliminating the reverse button will only make agility an even more unbalanced attribute than it already is.
Not to mention make it ridiculously hard to dodge rocket rammers.

Obviously other things will have to be "fixed" such as the impotency of energy weapons (bad aim, no prox, or too slow), rocket damage (the rocket explodes closer to the firer, so they should take more damage), as well as hull strengths (heavy ships are too weak).

HOWEVER, these are all solved by fiddling with numbers, and wouldn't pose too much of a problem should the devs decide to limit backpedaling based on engine and/or ship. This is assuming that weapons and ships are balanced in the final game.

Totally against this. This is the only way to dodge rockets effectively. Eliminate backpeddling and I'm out.

Arolte, think beyond the simple moves and weapons. What would stop you from boosting and then turning off compensators and "floating" through space? What I was discussing was the ability to accelerate in the rearward direction.

Don't think of it in terms of countering a specific weapon. What, if the final game, rockets are generally short-range weapons and energy weapons are long-range? Weapon balance is out of the equation. Please think of it in that matter.

The problem is if you're outta energy you're f***ed. You can't go backwards and you can't boost. What now? Split into thousands of pixels and regroup until it's safe again? Maybe if weapons and engines had their own battery I wouldn't have a problem with this. But because it does it'll give rocket rammers a huge advantage.

I can't say that I understand your reasoning for not allowing backwards movement either. If you can strafe left, right, up, and down, then the assumption is that you've got maneuvering thrusters installed throughout each face of your ship's fuselage. Engineering a ship to have reverse thrusters is not something that's unheard of. Heck, we've even got 'em in some of our modern jets. Sorry, it just doesn't even seem logical to me.

So you mean that you want triflare rammers to be even stronger camps? Hmph, i'm with arolte. It's not like we can turbo backwards, so just use yer turboing advantage.

Sheesh people, enough on current weapons. For all you know, tachyons could be deadly accurate out to 1000 m and you need to be within 200m to make rocket weapons effective.

What I want to avoid is the fight where one person constantly backpedals and the other person must constantly boost to get close enough to do damage. How realistic is it to have a fighter that can go backwards as fast as it can go forwards (not counting afterburners)?

As realistic as it is for a ship in space to slow down at such speeds. As realistic as it is for a weapon such as rails not to blast straight through a hull, as realistic as it is for tachs not to go the speed of light, as realist as... the list goes on.

Moving backwards is a tactic. Some people shoot better when they're farther away. Others like the up close approach. It's just different styles of combat. I don't think that's something that should be taken away from the game. I know I get annoyed sometimes when my enemy keeps backpeddling, but there's an easy solution to that. Dock at a station and equip your ship with a heavy engine instead. You'll cruise a lot faster than your target and you'll keep gaining on him. The type of engine you use plays a huge role in this.

Camps, it sounds like your saying your idea will be good in some mythical version of Vendetta where the game mechanics and weapon balance are completely different.
If you want to introduce changes for the sake of balancing, you have to operate within the realm of reality. What you're calling for is a complete change in how Vendetta works because you're unable to hit someone who backpedals and dodges effectively in a valkyrie.

Damn you Magus you stole my point. :)

<SirCamps>"How realistic is it to have a fighter that can go backwards as fast as it can go forwards (not counting afterburners)?"
<Arolte>"If you can strafe left, right, up, and down, then the assumption is that you've got maneuvering thrusters installed throughout each face of your ship's fuselage.

SirCamps, Arolte answered your question befor you posed it. Maneuvering thrusters on each axis of a ship is used today on ALL spacecraft for obvious reasons. There is no way to avoid needing them unless you want to get out and push your ship out from between two buttresses on the station in 4!

The title of this thread appears to expose your desire to eliminate a defensive tactic that you can't overcome.

It would be cool tough if there where different forward:backward max speed ratios...

Like:

Bus:
forward:backward 1:1

Valk:
forward:backward 2:1

So the valk could go 2 twice as fast forwards as backwards. So if you had a heavy engine:

It normally goes at 65 m/s

Now multiply this with 2 = 130
And divide this trough 3 = 43,333 (there are 3 pieces: 2 forward, 1 backward)
So the max forward speed would become 2 * 43,33 = 86,666
And the max backward speed would become 1 * 43,33 = 43,333

You could even allow tweaking of the ratio when you are docked (ofcourse not when flying.)

You could even make it more complex:

Bus:
forward:backward:up:down 1:1:1:1

Valk:
forward:backward:up:down 2:1:1:1

This would give even more room for tweaking, you could then for example tweak your ship so it would go incredibly fast forward, but all the other vectors would be very weak (like a max of 1 m/s or something.)

I think Sheean stated it better than I did.

Take EV for instance, you can't backpedal, but you can accelerate.

Also, Relayer, today's ships aren't nearly as responsive and agile as Vendetta's fighters.

To build off of Sheean's point, think of the problem from a manufacturer's POV: Would you build a fighter that has backward boosters as powerful as the front ones?

Or, on a related idea, in the final game, could players tweak their ships by drawing potential power from their reverse boosters and add it to the forward ones?

Relayer, on the personal attack, I backpedal probably more than anyone, and fight best back-pedaling. Don't think I have a personal vendetta against it.

! make it so you have to BUY a engine that goes backwouds.

/me sighs

Sircamps wrote: Would you build a fighter that has backward boosters as powerful as the front ones?

Arolte writes: Vendetta's ships can't boost backwards. They can only boost forwards. Thus forward motion is much faster than backward. The maneuvering thrusters allows you to move the same cruising speed in ALL directions. Building a spaceship without maneuvering thrusters would be completely retarded and risky.

You're wrong camps, i backpedal the most:P anyway,
If we can divert energy to foward motion, allow it to have that done for backward motion, too:P In the long run you would only help backpedalers with that.

And camps, it seems backpedalers is something you CAN'T overcome, from my experience...

Hey, the heater/gauss/rail combo worked! :P

I am against this. But I am not surprised that it was suggested by SirCamps- he has a tendency to think of things like this. Devs, don't even bother with this thread...