Forums » Suggestions
its not rediculus and also pays the players whos try to build them!!!
-1.000.000.000.000 and goes on
-1.000.000.000.000 and goes on
Smart people can be stupid, as evidenced by the appearance of this thread.
http://images.vendetta-online.com/screenshots/relative.scale.jpg
While we have this image showing the relative scale of the ships, how much of the space on a trident is taken up with crew (20) quarters, engineering, maintenance, corridors, ductwork and other non-cargo uses? Not mention the fact that just because a ship might be literally X cu in size, its effective footprint can actually be larger, as Incarnate already pointed out. I still think 600 is too big for a trident.
While we have this image showing the relative scale of the ships, how much of the space on a trident is taken up with crew (20) quarters, engineering, maintenance, corridors, ductwork and other non-cargo uses? Not mention the fact that just because a ship might be literally X cu in size, its effective footprint can actually be larger, as Incarnate already pointed out. I still think 600 is too big for a trident.
It's 20 "souls" in the Border Skirmishes. The majority of the souls are trapped in soul crystals used to power the shield generator.
I dont think that image is correct at all, the svg is larger on the trident. Even if you take into account all the draugath related things the height is what is problematic, ships do not fit past the central part of the ship. But sure whatever, 800cu tridents.
Draugath, you know debating this from a realism perspective is weak. Trident's cargo size should be relevant to gameplay first and foremost. I would argue that if you put the effort in to building one of these fuckers, you should be vastly rewarded... and one aspect of that is a huge cargo hold.
Ship sizes and how they function with docking in a trident is a completely separate issue.
Tridents should be able to carry at LEAST 800cu of cargo. That's commodities/addons/etc. How many ships they can carry is a different debate, and I think a valid one. I think it's important to make that distinction.
Ship sizes and how they function with docking in a trident is a completely separate issue.
Tridents should be able to carry at LEAST 800cu of cargo. That's commodities/addons/etc. How many ships they can carry is a different debate, and I think a valid one. I think it's important to make that distinction.
"Trident's cargo size should be relevant to gameplay first and foremost. I would argue that if you put the effort in to building one of these fuckers, you should be vastly rewarded..."
...with a constellation. The trident mission is more what i'd expect someone to have to do in order to build a constellation, so is having 800cu in a single ship. Why can't the current trident build become a constellation and then the trident remains something lower key, but also easier to construct.
...with a constellation. The trident mission is more what i'd expect someone to have to do in order to build a constellation, so is having 800cu in a single ship. Why can't the current trident build become a constellation and then the trident remains something lower key, but also easier to construct.
Tridents should be able to carry at LEAST 800cu of cargo. That's commodities/addons/etc. How many ships they can carry is a different debate, and I think a valid one. I think it's important to make that distinction.
Yes. A different debate. So why are we debating the cargo limitations of the Trident, instead of the cargo requirements of each fighter ship? There seems to be some cart-before-the-horse type thinking going on here.
The fighter usage numbers are just as easy to change. If I need to bump sizes a little to make things seem a bit more sane, that's not the end of the world. Valks could be 150cu, whatever.
I changed the Trident cargo based on trade-commodity-plus-one-ship type usage. To make it a bit more trade-useful while carrying a captain's runabout type thing. None of that forgoes tweaking ship sizes.
Yes. A different debate. So why are we debating the cargo limitations of the Trident, instead of the cargo requirements of each fighter ship? There seems to be some cart-before-the-horse type thinking going on here.
The fighter usage numbers are just as easy to change. If I need to bump sizes a little to make things seem a bit more sane, that's not the end of the world. Valks could be 150cu, whatever.
I changed the Trident cargo based on trade-commodity-plus-one-ship type usage. To make it a bit more trade-useful while carrying a captain's runabout type thing. None of that forgoes tweaking ship sizes.
try to see it in a good way pinata party!
Let make a gang of fifteen scallywag swarmrags yarr!
Let make a gang of fifteen scallywag swarmrags yarr!
yarrrrr!
"So why are we debating the cargo limitations of the Trident, instead of the cargo requirements of each fighter ship?"
Because we don't look at the capship components and say "a trident should be able to carry 8 internal bulkhead assemblies, so lets make IBH 100cu each". By the same token, Meridian already proposed decent numbers for the ship sizes needing only a few changes, valks are 150cu for my money, but the ships are relative to each other and other ships.
The odd man out is the trident that carries too many ships for its model. There's nothing wrong with an 800cu ship, but there was also nothing wrong with a 600cu ship either, there will be other ships capable of ferrying loader behemoths and bucket loads of cargo at the same time, they're called constellations.
Because we don't look at the capship components and say "a trident should be able to carry 8 internal bulkhead assemblies, so lets make IBH 100cu each". By the same token, Meridian already proposed decent numbers for the ship sizes needing only a few changes, valks are 150cu for my money, but the ships are relative to each other and other ships.
The odd man out is the trident that carries too many ships for its model. There's nothing wrong with an 800cu ship, but there was also nothing wrong with a 600cu ship either, there will be other ships capable of ferrying loader behemoths and bucket loads of cargo at the same time, they're called constellations.
That was another thread
Changing the ship sizes also affects station rental and lots of us already have lots of ships stockpiled all over the 'verse.
Anyway, Inc. Can you double-check those sizes you said you implemented? I could have sworn Centaurs are still 300cu.
Changing the ship sizes also affects station rental and lots of us already have lots of ships stockpiled all over the 'verse.
Anyway, Inc. Can you double-check those sizes you said you implemented? I could have sworn Centaurs are still 300cu.
The odd man out is the trident that carries too many ships for its model
I had to re-read this one a few times before I realized how ridiculous it is... The odd man out? It's the only player ship that's really supposed to carry other ships at all. Two vultures fitting in a XC doesn't seem stupid?
I had to re-read this one a few times before I realized how ridiculous it is... The odd man out? It's the only player ship that's really supposed to carry other ships at all. Two vultures fitting in a XC doesn't seem stupid?
I don't see why you're complaining TRS, there isn't enough RED on to fill a trident anyways
Didn't someone with orange text once say to leave politics out of gameplay discussion?
"Two vultures fitting in a XC doesn't seem stupid?"
It doesn't because they are not fly-in/fly-out, but it's a valid point. It begs the question whether or not we want to have two sizes for loading ships as cargo, one where they are truly "as cargo" and can't be flown in or out of a capital ship even if they happen to be loaded into one, and then a separate set of values for when they are aboard a ship and fully capable of flight on-the-fly.
This would actually solve a couple of issues, because it gives a trade-off as to how you plan your voyage if you're just moving ships in a capship or you're coming with a fighter wing or intending to launch as an assault.
We could also have the ships in their cargo form as 'tradeable' ships where they can be jettisoned and picked up by other pilots, but when you take them back to the station, it's up to the local faction as to whether or not they permit you to use them as a regular ship. So if you seize a SkyCommand Prometheus in cargo form and cart it back to Jallik, you won't be permitted to fly it by the Itani military and they will confiscate it for research purposes or whatever. Whereas if you cart it to corvus, they won't give a crap and you can reload it up with whatever and off you go.
Food for thought
It doesn't because they are not fly-in/fly-out, but it's a valid point. It begs the question whether or not we want to have two sizes for loading ships as cargo, one where they are truly "as cargo" and can't be flown in or out of a capital ship even if they happen to be loaded into one, and then a separate set of values for when they are aboard a ship and fully capable of flight on-the-fly.
This would actually solve a couple of issues, because it gives a trade-off as to how you plan your voyage if you're just moving ships in a capship or you're coming with a fighter wing or intending to launch as an assault.
We could also have the ships in their cargo form as 'tradeable' ships where they can be jettisoned and picked up by other pilots, but when you take them back to the station, it's up to the local faction as to whether or not they permit you to use them as a regular ship. So if you seize a SkyCommand Prometheus in cargo form and cart it back to Jallik, you won't be permitted to fly it by the Itani military and they will confiscate it for research purposes or whatever. Whereas if you cart it to corvus, they won't give a crap and you can reload it up with whatever and off you go.
Food for thought
Yes. A different debate. So why are we debating the cargo limitations of the Trident, instead of the cargo requirements of each fighter ship? There seems to be some cart-before-the-horse type thinking going on here.
I still think that total cargo capacity should not be available as hangar capacity. Remember, Inc, you reduced the recipe's hangar bay assemblies from 6 to 4 on the logic that 1 bay assembly per docked ship. Personally I would love to see that logic remain, as a docked ship requires service equipment, lock-downs, etc, and room for repair personnel/droids. Sure you could drop a cargo container in the bay, but ANY cargo there would render that bay unavailable. Make moths undockable on tridents (they need a connie!), and only the captain's launch is moth-sized.
(oh, and remember the Compass Rose and the Rocinante are prototypes made with 6 bays ;)
I still think that total cargo capacity should not be available as hangar capacity. Remember, Inc, you reduced the recipe's hangar bay assemblies from 6 to 4 on the logic that 1 bay assembly per docked ship. Personally I would love to see that logic remain, as a docked ship requires service equipment, lock-downs, etc, and room for repair personnel/droids. Sure you could drop a cargo container in the bay, but ANY cargo there would render that bay unavailable. Make moths undockable on tridents (they need a connie!), and only the captain's launch is moth-sized.
(oh, and remember the Compass Rose and the Rocinante are prototypes made with 6 bays ;)
Remember, Inc, you reduced the recipe's hangar bay assemblies from 6 to 4 on the logic that 1 bay assembly per docked ship.
Not.. really? I reduced the requirements to manufacture a Trident. I think other people projected their own explanations onto my actions. I didn't have pre-conceived notions of what a "hangar bay assembly" meant exactly, or how they were utilized.
Anyway, Inc. Can you double-check those sizes you said you implemented? I could have sworn Centaurs are still 300cu.
It says 250cu in the editor. On the off-chance that it hadn't been properly committed, I re-saved and re-committed the ship to production. If you're still finding it uses 300cu, please submit a Support Ticket about it so Ray knows right away.
Anyway, I've changed all the fighters to 150cu, with the exception of the EC series which I made 125cu. So you can still have six ships, if they're ECs, which I think is an interesting trade-off. Maybe somewhere down the road we'll make super folding-winglet version of the Raptor that's only 100cu. Makes for another interesting tuneable parameter, in my opinion.
If anyone finds any ships that are still 100cu, please let me know. It's unlikely, but possible, and time-consuming for me to hunt through them all right now.
Not.. really? I reduced the requirements to manufacture a Trident. I think other people projected their own explanations onto my actions. I didn't have pre-conceived notions of what a "hangar bay assembly" meant exactly, or how they were utilized.
Anyway, Inc. Can you double-check those sizes you said you implemented? I could have sworn Centaurs are still 300cu.
It says 250cu in the editor. On the off-chance that it hadn't been properly committed, I re-saved and re-committed the ship to production. If you're still finding it uses 300cu, please submit a Support Ticket about it so Ray knows right away.
Anyway, I've changed all the fighters to 150cu, with the exception of the EC series which I made 125cu. So you can still have six ships, if they're ECs, which I think is an interesting trade-off. Maybe somewhere down the road we'll make super folding-winglet version of the Raptor that's only 100cu. Makes for another interesting tuneable parameter, in my opinion.
If anyone finds any ships that are still 100cu, please let me know. It's unlikely, but possible, and time-consuming for me to hunt through them all right now.
I reduced the requirements to manufacture a Trident. I think other people projected their own explanations onto my actions.
ok, let me be more clear: you asked me for suggestions on what to reduce and I said that 6 bays had been a killer grind and making it 1 bay assembly per docked ship made sense [for similar reasons as I just restated] and you agreed.
Do what you will to balance it, but it simply makes no sense to me that there aren't places to put cargo on a capital ship that can't be used to dock ships, and that the number of ships that can be serviced at once (docked, repaired, and ready to scramble) are no longer a fixed amount, no matter the cu required to carry a given ship. Also, the number of docked ships could be something that sets apart variants, independent of total cargo capacity.
Just an opinion.
ok, let me be more clear: you asked me for suggestions on what to reduce and I said that 6 bays had been a killer grind and making it 1 bay assembly per docked ship made sense [for similar reasons as I just restated] and you agreed.
Do what you will to balance it, but it simply makes no sense to me that there aren't places to put cargo on a capital ship that can't be used to dock ships, and that the number of ships that can be serviced at once (docked, repaired, and ready to scramble) are no longer a fixed amount, no matter the cu required to carry a given ship. Also, the number of docked ships could be something that sets apart variants, independent of total cargo capacity.
Just an opinion.
ok, let me be more clear: you asked me for suggestions on what to reduce and I said that 6 bays had been a killer grind and making it 1 bay assembly per docked ship made sense [for similar reasons as I just restated] and you agreed.
Yeah, I was mostly just agreeing with adjusting the killer-grind aspect. I was never invested in the number-of-bays theory.
Anyway, I'm not against adding more parameters down the road, to limit the number of dockable ships within the given amount of cargo space, kind of like "grid power". But, I don't think that's a huge priority right now.
Yeah, I was mostly just agreeing with adjusting the killer-grind aspect. I was never invested in the number-of-bays theory.
Anyway, I'm not against adding more parameters down the road, to limit the number of dockable ships within the given amount of cargo space, kind of like "grid power". But, I don't think that's a huge priority right now.