Forums » Suggestions
Here is the problem as I see it, put as simply as possible:
1) Fire-and-forget weapons (missles) don't require as much skill to use as guns.
2) If missiles are overpowered, then PvP turns into an arms race instead of a match of skill.
3) If missiles are underpowered (like they are now) this limits the types of tactics available in PvP.
Now I'm sure the devs want to make missiles work for everyone otherwise there would be no point of having them in the game, but everyone knows that right now missiles (with the exception of swarms and geminis) are essentially useless. They are slow moving, and most won't even hit a *stationary* target much less a maneuvering one. CrippledPidgeon made an excellent post http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/9080 outlining a drastically different vision for missiles, and it's worth a read. I also wanted to bring up a different possibility for balancing missiles that has been hotly contested for some time: Missiles vs. ECM.
Here is the heart of the issue as I see it: (accurate) Missiles would make a good PvE weapon for newbies, but would take the skill out of PvP.
My suggestion, and I believe that this is a new one, is to make missiles powerful (fast and accurate) once again *and* to give all ships a built-in ECM device. The ECM-device would not be something you would equip in a port, rather it would be specific to each purchaseable ship, like the engine.
The ECM would work by causing incoming missiles to detonate prematurely once they came within range. Every ECM would have two stats: probability and range. For example: the IBG centurion might have a built in ECM with a 50% chance of detonating all missiles within 100 meters, while the TPG Atlas type X might have a 75% chance of detonating missiles within 200 meters.
This would lead to two important consequences: first, some player controlled ships would be better against missiles than others. Perhaps there could even be some type of "aegis ragnarok" that was built specifically with a powerful ECM to provide a defensive umbrella to other ships. This would add another layer of strategy to choosing a ship to take into combat.
Second: missiles could become a viable weapon for newbs to use against low level bots. Perhaps collector bots have terrible ECMs, making missiles a good choice to use against them, while guardians have slightly better ECMs, and assaults are virtually untouchable with missiles (no more missile power levelling! ;).
The bottom line is this: I think we have become hung up on the issue of how powerful to make missiles all around, while a possible solution would be to make missiles useful against some ships, but not others. The way to do this would be to make missiles accurate once more, (either by using a1k0ns uber missile code or CrippledPidgeon's redesign) and by giving all ships a built-in ECM.
1) Fire-and-forget weapons (missles) don't require as much skill to use as guns.
2) If missiles are overpowered, then PvP turns into an arms race instead of a match of skill.
3) If missiles are underpowered (like they are now) this limits the types of tactics available in PvP.
Now I'm sure the devs want to make missiles work for everyone otherwise there would be no point of having them in the game, but everyone knows that right now missiles (with the exception of swarms and geminis) are essentially useless. They are slow moving, and most won't even hit a *stationary* target much less a maneuvering one. CrippledPidgeon made an excellent post http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/9080 outlining a drastically different vision for missiles, and it's worth a read. I also wanted to bring up a different possibility for balancing missiles that has been hotly contested for some time: Missiles vs. ECM.
Here is the heart of the issue as I see it: (accurate) Missiles would make a good PvE weapon for newbies, but would take the skill out of PvP.
My suggestion, and I believe that this is a new one, is to make missiles powerful (fast and accurate) once again *and* to give all ships a built-in ECM device. The ECM-device would not be something you would equip in a port, rather it would be specific to each purchaseable ship, like the engine.
The ECM would work by causing incoming missiles to detonate prematurely once they came within range. Every ECM would have two stats: probability and range. For example: the IBG centurion might have a built in ECM with a 50% chance of detonating all missiles within 100 meters, while the TPG Atlas type X might have a 75% chance of detonating missiles within 200 meters.
This would lead to two important consequences: first, some player controlled ships would be better against missiles than others. Perhaps there could even be some type of "aegis ragnarok" that was built specifically with a powerful ECM to provide a defensive umbrella to other ships. This would add another layer of strategy to choosing a ship to take into combat.
Second: missiles could become a viable weapon for newbs to use against low level bots. Perhaps collector bots have terrible ECMs, making missiles a good choice to use against them, while guardians have slightly better ECMs, and assaults are virtually untouchable with missiles (no more missile power levelling! ;).
The bottom line is this: I think we have become hung up on the issue of how powerful to make missiles all around, while a possible solution would be to make missiles useful against some ships, but not others. The way to do this would be to make missiles accurate once more, (either by using a1k0ns uber missile code or CrippledPidgeon's redesign) and by giving all ships a built-in ECM.
The way see it, there are two kinds of missile countermeasures. Passive and active countermeasures.
Within passive, there are two sub-categories:
-ECM - ie. Jammers. These use electronic signals to try to make the seeker head less accurate.
-decoys - ie. flares, chaff, little rubber duckies that float on the pond... These create "false signals" to try to draw the missile away.
Active countermeasures try to shoot missiles down before they hit their targets. There are several methods:
-Lots of unguided projectiles - ie. the modern Phalanx CIWS system is essentially a self-aiming gatling gun that shoots at missiles
-Anti-missile missiles - small missiles designed to intercept incoming missiles.
-Anti-missile lasers - beams, or whatever that shoot down incoming missiles.
Within passive, there are two sub-categories:
-ECM - ie. Jammers. These use electronic signals to try to make the seeker head less accurate.
-decoys - ie. flares, chaff, little rubber duckies that float on the pond... These create "false signals" to try to draw the missile away.
Active countermeasures try to shoot missiles down before they hit their targets. There are several methods:
-Lots of unguided projectiles - ie. the modern Phalanx CIWS system is essentially a self-aiming gatling gun that shoots at missiles
-Anti-missile missiles - small missiles designed to intercept incoming missiles.
-Anti-missile lasers - beams, or whatever that shoot down incoming missiles.
Adding a device that gives a % chance to keep you alive or dead is the same as removing skill from PvP. If the devs wanted missles to take a front seat role as weapons, everything would simply move twice as fast and have a larger radar range. This is more of an FPS than a flight sim, so guided missles necessarily take a back seat in combat.
I like the idea of having very efective missiles and countermesurs.
Starfisher,
Adding a percent based ecm system doesn't remove the skill from PVP it makes avoiding missiles easier with certain ships, which in turn allows missiles to be more powerfull. Also fighters may have limited ecm, that way the benafit is more for the larger less manuverable ships that would hve no chance at avoiding missiles. And because it only works at all some of the time if you rely on it you will end up dead.
besides the ecm only works against missiles so it will provide no protection at all aginst the more prevalent energy weapons
Starfisher,
Adding a percent based ecm system doesn't remove the skill from PVP it makes avoiding missiles easier with certain ships, which in turn allows missiles to be more powerfull. Also fighters may have limited ecm, that way the benafit is more for the larger less manuverable ships that would hve no chance at avoiding missiles. And because it only works at all some of the time if you rely on it you will end up dead.
besides the ecm only works against missiles so it will provide no protection at all aginst the more prevalent energy weapons
So how would that % detonation thing work? Is it a chance per second of it detonating prematurely, or is it a chance per missile?
A variation on that idea would be to give each missile a certain number of hit point (varies with the missile type). The ECM package does damage to the missiles at a certain rate to any missile in range. When the missile gets to 0 HP, it blows up.
You can then vary the damage rate per ECM unit, and the HP for various missile types. Some missiles might pack a small punch but be nearly impossible to detonate prematurely, others might be very prone to premature detonation, but they would do a lot of damage if they did.
Now personally I would like to see missiles and countermeasures (the chaff kind) take up cargo space and add mass. Powerful missiles are big and take up a lot of space.
A variation on that idea would be to give each missile a certain number of hit point (varies with the missile type). The ECM package does damage to the missiles at a certain rate to any missile in range. When the missile gets to 0 HP, it blows up.
You can then vary the damage rate per ECM unit, and the HP for various missile types. Some missiles might pack a small punch but be nearly impossible to detonate prematurely, others might be very prone to premature detonation, but they would do a lot of damage if they did.
Now personally I would like to see missiles and countermeasures (the chaff kind) take up cargo space and add mass. Powerful missiles are big and take up a lot of space.
Missles are hit or miss weapons. If you shoot something at me going 120m/s and I dodge it, the chanes of it turning around to get me are slim. Making missles so powerful that you require a device that gives you a *chance* of evading them means that sometime or other you're going to get hit no matter how good you are or how crappy the other pilot is.
Guided missles are supposed to counter fast moving fighter craft that you can't engage with guns. Since we don't move fast, and can engage with guns, why have guided missles at all? No matter what complex game devices you invent around them, the fact that they are *guided* means that they remove an element of skill from the game.
The flight model just doesn't incorporate guided weaponry very well. It's a first person shooter, not a flight sim. Fights don't take place at long range because our ships are designed for close combat - the thrust, boost, et al are all based on close range fights, and everything is based on player skill. Adding in something that basically gives you a 25% chance of getting hit by a missle unless you run away NO MATTER YOUR SKILL AT DODGING THEM, removes skill from the game.
Guided missles are supposed to counter fast moving fighter craft that you can't engage with guns. Since we don't move fast, and can engage with guns, why have guided missles at all? No matter what complex game devices you invent around them, the fact that they are *guided* means that they remove an element of skill from the game.
The flight model just doesn't incorporate guided weaponry very well. It's a first person shooter, not a flight sim. Fights don't take place at long range because our ships are designed for close combat - the thrust, boost, et al are all based on close range fights, and everything is based on player skill. Adding in something that basically gives you a 25% chance of getting hit by a missle unless you run away NO MATTER YOUR SKILL AT DODGING THEM, removes skill from the game.
To some extent I agree with your points, but they can be balanced somewhat.
Allow me to reword one of your comments to make a point.
"Guns are hit or miss weapons. If you shoot something at me and I dodge it, it won't do any damage. Making guns so powerful that you only have a chance of evading them means that sometime or other you're going to get hit no matter how good you are or how crappy the other pilot is."
So what's the difference? People get hit by powerful guns shot by bad pilots all the time. Are we going to take autoaim way because of that?
* Given the speed and agility of the small ships, I would say that most missiles are designed to pound large, slow moving targets. If a missile tracks well enough to catch and hit a fast fighter, it won't have a very big warhead.
* the ECM system should *improve* your chances to dodge. It shouldn't be impossible to dodge unless you are in a huge ship that can't maneuver. So that wouldn't remove skill at all.
* Missiles that track well enough to hit most of the time should not do much damage. It might give you a little edge against bigger ships that you wouldn't otherwise have. Missiles that do a lot of damage should be unguided.
* If you have a limited supply of them, and you can only fire them at a limited rate, it won't unbalance the game.
What it may do is force your opponent to maneuver more and fire at you less, giving you a chance to line up a better shot with your guns.
Bottom line is that the effectiveness of the missiles depends on how they are implemented, but having missiles without a way to defend against them is ... strange.
Allow me to reword one of your comments to make a point.
"Guns are hit or miss weapons. If you shoot something at me and I dodge it, it won't do any damage. Making guns so powerful that you only have a chance of evading them means that sometime or other you're going to get hit no matter how good you are or how crappy the other pilot is."
So what's the difference? People get hit by powerful guns shot by bad pilots all the time. Are we going to take autoaim way because of that?
* Given the speed and agility of the small ships, I would say that most missiles are designed to pound large, slow moving targets. If a missile tracks well enough to catch and hit a fast fighter, it won't have a very big warhead.
* the ECM system should *improve* your chances to dodge. It shouldn't be impossible to dodge unless you are in a huge ship that can't maneuver. So that wouldn't remove skill at all.
* Missiles that track well enough to hit most of the time should not do much damage. It might give you a little edge against bigger ships that you wouldn't otherwise have. Missiles that do a lot of damage should be unguided.
* If you have a limited supply of them, and you can only fire them at a limited rate, it won't unbalance the game.
What it may do is force your opponent to maneuver more and fire at you less, giving you a chance to line up a better shot with your guns.
Bottom line is that the effectiveness of the missiles depends on how they are implemented, but having missiles without a way to defend against them is ... strange.
I think LordQ more or less understands the idea I'm trying to convey here.
The direction I see this game moving in is a large number of ship variants, each with specific tradeoffs and suited to unique roles.
Missiles don't have to be an "all or nothing" weapon, they could provide yet another area in which ships have tradeoffs. Starfisher, I think one thing you are forgetting is that I am suggesting that *all ships* have a built in ECM. What this means is that you might pick a ship that is super fast and maneuverable which is excellent in a gunfight, but has poor defense against missiles... or you might pick a heavy ship that is a sitting duck against guns, but has an excellent missile defense. It's simply another tradeoff: and since ECM would be *ship specific* it would be easier to balance missiles without polarizing gameplay.
Furious: I imagined that when a warhead came within range of the ECM there would be a one-time chance at disarming it... if it failed then the missile would continue to track until it hit. Of course this is just one of many possible implementations. Perhaps instead of exploding, the missile would become innacurate, stop tracking, or even double back on the original firer.
Heh heh, I can just imagine two ships playing ping pong with a volley of swarms...
The direction I see this game moving in is a large number of ship variants, each with specific tradeoffs and suited to unique roles.
Missiles don't have to be an "all or nothing" weapon, they could provide yet another area in which ships have tradeoffs. Starfisher, I think one thing you are forgetting is that I am suggesting that *all ships* have a built in ECM. What this means is that you might pick a ship that is super fast and maneuverable which is excellent in a gunfight, but has poor defense against missiles... or you might pick a heavy ship that is a sitting duck against guns, but has an excellent missile defense. It's simply another tradeoff: and since ECM would be *ship specific* it would be easier to balance missiles without polarizing gameplay.
Furious: I imagined that when a warhead came within range of the ECM there would be a one-time chance at disarming it... if it failed then the missile would continue to track until it hit. Of course this is just one of many possible implementations. Perhaps instead of exploding, the missile would become innacurate, stop tracking, or even double back on the original firer.
Heh heh, I can just imagine two ships playing ping pong with a volley of swarms...
Furious, you can always dodge guns with skill. You cannot always dodge a missle that is so powerful it requires a device specifically engineered to make it miss. There is a clear difference there.
Right now missles are more or less balanced as support weapons. You don't fire a swarm and expect it to kill someone, you fire a swarm and expect it to distract them.
Right now, there is a relatively small disparity in the ships. No ship truly counters another one - every commonly used setup has plusses and minueses that more or less even out. Phaser, your suggestion would create a situation where combat itself would be hit or miss - you see an enemy, ask yourself, "can my current loadout do anything?" and then run or fight based on that. I like it better now, where you can fight just about anything with anything if you're good.
I don't like adding anything that has an element of chance into the game, or something that removes the basic elements of aiming. The AGT is bad enough.
Heh, and add this to the fact that the new missles would require several more balance passes... yeah. Well I guess you can dream.
Right now missles are more or less balanced as support weapons. You don't fire a swarm and expect it to kill someone, you fire a swarm and expect it to distract them.
Right now, there is a relatively small disparity in the ships. No ship truly counters another one - every commonly used setup has plusses and minueses that more or less even out. Phaser, your suggestion would create a situation where combat itself would be hit or miss - you see an enemy, ask yourself, "can my current loadout do anything?" and then run or fight based on that. I like it better now, where you can fight just about anything with anything if you're good.
I don't like adding anything that has an element of chance into the game, or something that removes the basic elements of aiming. The AGT is bad enough.
Heh, and add this to the fact that the new missles would require several more balance passes... yeah. Well I guess you can dream.
Well I'd just as soon not see countermeasures in Vendetta, even with the missile changes that I suggested. They're not intended to be uber weapons, and they're not designed to replace piloting skill with technology.
As I planned them out, basically each missile is designed to make a single pass on their target (with the exception of swarms, which can make two passes), so it's up to the pilot to dodge them only once. Their seekers are better than they are now so they can properly intercept their targets, but with their increased speed, the turning radius is accordingly enlarged, so the range at which they can be accurately used is beyond that of guns.
I'd rather not see countermeasures implemented because as it is, there's a definite amount of skill required for both the use and the evasion of missile weapons. An abrupt maneuver with the right timing would still fool the missiles, but too early (perhaps 4+ seconds before the calculated impact), and the missile corrects, and too late (maybe 2- seconds before the calculated impact), and you won't get out of the way in time. For the short range missiles, they can still be outrun on boost, but you have to do that early enough, and it will also disengage you from the fight. For the long range missiles, it's very difficult on the user's side to generate hits on a moving target, and as long as the target dodges, or exits the targeting cone, then the missile will miss.
The way I see it, it makes it more difficult to dodge missiles (rather than the absurdly easy job it is now), but not impossible. Countermeasures are not necessary as far as I'm concerned.
As I planned them out, basically each missile is designed to make a single pass on their target (with the exception of swarms, which can make two passes), so it's up to the pilot to dodge them only once. Their seekers are better than they are now so they can properly intercept their targets, but with their increased speed, the turning radius is accordingly enlarged, so the range at which they can be accurately used is beyond that of guns.
I'd rather not see countermeasures implemented because as it is, there's a definite amount of skill required for both the use and the evasion of missile weapons. An abrupt maneuver with the right timing would still fool the missiles, but too early (perhaps 4+ seconds before the calculated impact), and the missile corrects, and too late (maybe 2- seconds before the calculated impact), and you won't get out of the way in time. For the short range missiles, they can still be outrun on boost, but you have to do that early enough, and it will also disengage you from the fight. For the long range missiles, it's very difficult on the user's side to generate hits on a moving target, and as long as the target dodges, or exits the targeting cone, then the missile will miss.
The way I see it, it makes it more difficult to dodge missiles (rather than the absurdly easy job it is now), but not impossible. Countermeasures are not necessary as far as I'm concerned.
I concur with Starfisher and CrippledPidgeon.
I like the idea posted by Phaserlight.
ECM is a bad thing in that it changes Vendetta from being a game of skill where the outcome is modified slightly by equipment to being a game of equipment where the outcome is modified slightly by skill.
Right. Because an EC-88 with plasma cannon mk1 is only "slightly" different from an IBG with two Neut3s.
wyfling: what does that have to do with ECM? A govbus with a govplas has no business fighting anything other than collectors.
It's a fiction that equipment doesn't matter in VO. It does. (Which you just agreed with, CrippledPidgeon.) Therefore, objecting to ECM because it "makes equipment matter" has no weight.
[edit] I'm not making a comment one way or the other on ECM, although the way Phaserlight presented it sounds kind of fun with certain ships able to "project" anti-missile fields. [/edit]
[edit] I'm not making a comment one way or the other on ECM, although the way Phaserlight presented it sounds kind of fun with certain ships able to "project" anti-missile fields. [/edit]
It's not that ECM makes equipment matter, it's that it makes skill not matter. Rather than dodging, you get two players sitting there pressing buttons at each other. X-Wing suffered from ECM- it made almost all missiles a challenge of who could hit the ecm button first. We don't need that.
Okay, I definitely see CP's point, and I'm sure none of us want to see skill taken out of the game.
However, I don't buy the argument that ECM automatically means no-skill. I could be in the minority here but I think that loadout and ship type should play a big part in who/what you decide to engage. Forgive the real-world example, but an A-10 isn't going to go looking for MiGs to kill, it's going to go after tanks because that's what it was designed for.
In terms of gameplay, I think there should be some ship types that are specifically suited to certain tactics. Right now there is pretty much only one PvP tactic, the gunfight. Some ships are good at this, other ships are terrible.
Now, I do like CP's proposed missile redesign, but I don't think it would solve the problem of some ships being turkeys in PvP because dodging missiles would still be based purely on maneuverability.
Here is really the core of the matter: if a ship is not maneuverable, it doesn't matter how skillful the pilot is... therefore on a slow moving ship there *has* to be some arbitrary factor of randomness to its defense; whether a field of defensive fire, an auto-tracking missile swarm, or a powerful ECM field.
So, why not simply give heavy ships a ****load of HP, you say? Because HP stops guns and missiles alike, and I think ships should have specific strengths and weaknesses. A zippy ship like the Valk would rely on its guns, maneuverability and pilot's skill to stay alive, a sitting duck like the rag would rely on its heavy weaponry and automated defenses.
This principle extends to cap ships as well... are capital ships expected to out-maneuver incoming torpedoes and missiles? Of course not! There have to be some kind of automated defenses involved.
However, I don't buy the argument that ECM automatically means no-skill. I could be in the minority here but I think that loadout and ship type should play a big part in who/what you decide to engage. Forgive the real-world example, but an A-10 isn't going to go looking for MiGs to kill, it's going to go after tanks because that's what it was designed for.
In terms of gameplay, I think there should be some ship types that are specifically suited to certain tactics. Right now there is pretty much only one PvP tactic, the gunfight. Some ships are good at this, other ships are terrible.
Now, I do like CP's proposed missile redesign, but I don't think it would solve the problem of some ships being turkeys in PvP because dodging missiles would still be based purely on maneuverability.
Here is really the core of the matter: if a ship is not maneuverable, it doesn't matter how skillful the pilot is... therefore on a slow moving ship there *has* to be some arbitrary factor of randomness to its defense; whether a field of defensive fire, an auto-tracking missile swarm, or a powerful ECM field.
So, why not simply give heavy ships a ****load of HP, you say? Because HP stops guns and missiles alike, and I think ships should have specific strengths and weaknesses. A zippy ship like the Valk would rely on its guns, maneuverability and pilot's skill to stay alive, a sitting duck like the rag would rely on its heavy weaponry and automated defenses.
This principle extends to cap ships as well... are capital ships expected to out-maneuver incoming torpedoes and missiles? Of course not! There have to be some kind of automated defenses involved.
Well how I would to see this implemented isn't a passive ECM device..
It's much more fun, if you have to release decoy chaffs or whatever thay are called..
What I mean is that you would have to release the chaff right before the missile hits you, and dodge heavily right after, so that it takes some effort and SKILL(!) to fool the missile. Not just luck.
These chaffs ofcouse dont work everytime, maybe a percentage of the time..
And for missiles: I think they are way underpowered, they should have the payload, so that you can kill a light fighter in two shots or so... but to counter this missiles should cost ALOT more, maybe for good ones they should cost a few thousand creds, the amount of missiles should be lowered a bit too...
It's much more fun, if you have to release decoy chaffs or whatever thay are called..
What I mean is that you would have to release the chaff right before the missile hits you, and dodge heavily right after, so that it takes some effort and SKILL(!) to fool the missile. Not just luck.
These chaffs ofcouse dont work everytime, maybe a percentage of the time..
And for missiles: I think they are way underpowered, they should have the payload, so that you can kill a light fighter in two shots or so... but to counter this missiles should cost ALOT more, maybe for good ones they should cost a few thousand creds, the amount of missiles should be lowered a bit too...
To Phaserlight:
> Perhaps there could even be some type of "aegis ragnarok" that was built specifically with a powerful ECM to provide a defensive umbrella to other ships. This would add another layer of strategy to choosing a ship to take into combat.
Excellent idea, Phaserlight. This makes very good sense, since the Ragnarok seems mostly useful for firing large quantities of missiles, and designing it with an anti-missile ECM system would make it the Vendettaź Online equivalent of the contemporary AEGIS Combat System-equipped ship ( see "The United States Navy: Navy Fact File: AEGIS Combat System" at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navyfacts/blaegis.htm?terms=%22Aegis+ship%22 ).
Then it could team up with multiple Orion Centurion Rev. C fighters to guard transports in CtC. Following Spellcast's post in my thread "Ragnarok is useless and needs to be fixed" ( see http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/9104#104830 ), the Ragnarok could also be equipped with a Repair Module.
That way, the Ragnarok could use Chaos Swarms/Gemini Missiles to fend off attacking fighters, the AEGIS system to neutralize incoming missiles, and the Repair Module to repair any damage the transport(s) had sustained.
In the meantime, the escorting Rev. C('s) could intercept incoming fighters.
This would be an excellent example of cooperative player interaction.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier
> Perhaps there could even be some type of "aegis ragnarok" that was built specifically with a powerful ECM to provide a defensive umbrella to other ships. This would add another layer of strategy to choosing a ship to take into combat.
Excellent idea, Phaserlight. This makes very good sense, since the Ragnarok seems mostly useful for firing large quantities of missiles, and designing it with an anti-missile ECM system would make it the Vendettaź Online equivalent of the contemporary AEGIS Combat System-equipped ship ( see "The United States Navy: Navy Fact File: AEGIS Combat System" at http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navyfacts/blaegis.htm?terms=%22Aegis+ship%22 ).
Then it could team up with multiple Orion Centurion Rev. C fighters to guard transports in CtC. Following Spellcast's post in my thread "Ragnarok is useless and needs to be fixed" ( see http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/9104#104830 ), the Ragnarok could also be equipped with a Repair Module.
That way, the Ragnarok could use Chaos Swarms/Gemini Missiles to fend off attacking fighters, the AEGIS system to neutralize incoming missiles, and the Repair Module to repair any damage the transport(s) had sustained.
In the meantime, the escorting Rev. C('s) could intercept incoming fighters.
This would be an excellent example of cooperative player interaction.
-- DekuDekuplex Ornitier