Forums » Suggestions
First, explaining the acronyms' letters:
C - Capital.
v - Versus, of course.
F - Fighter.
And with that, I launch into yet another harangue on capital-class vessels- this time on weapon systems.
[The brackets denote a personal comment]
'Lamprey' Shaped Charge Launcher
Class: Anti-Personnel Fighter Weapon (FvC)
Port: Large
1Armor Damage: 2,500
1Structural Damage: 5,000
Refire Rate: 3 Seconds
Ammo: 2
Mass: 2,500kg
Velocity: 70m/s
Range: 5km
Description: The 'Lamprey' series of shaped charges, designed by Aeolus to protect their trade convoys from pirate fleets, are one of the most effective ship to ship anti-personnel weapons on the market today. Once the charge detonates and breaches the ship's hull, numerous bomblets are deposited inside the ship itself. The bomblets are designed to explode on impact with the opposing bulkheads, sending shrapnel in all directions into the corridor and those beyond. However, due to space limitations, Lampreys must be detonated by a special small-port device that is keyed identically to the mine launcher.
Special Effect: Kills 7%~15% of a capital-ship's 2crew, depending on the location the mine is detonated(Hitting the mess hall kills more crew) and a random number generator. Injures 1.5 to 2.5 times that, reducing efficiency of those crew members by 10%~90%.
[Granted, this requires crew members on a ship to be effective]
'Lamprey' Shaped Charge Detonator
Class: Detonator (FvC)
Port: Small
Armor Damage: N/A
Structural Damage: N/a
Refire Rate: .025 seconds
Ammo: N/A
Mass: 750kg
Velocity: Instant
Range: Sector
Description: A must-have when purchasing any Lamprey mine system, this device is the missing piece needed to detonate Lamprey mines. Once the detonator is keyed, it's ready to set off all Lamprey mines in a sector that share the same key. [Requires a dialog window or a command to key the launcher and the detonator- seperately and together]
'Kettle' Limpet Mine
Class: Anti-Capital Fighter Weapon (FvC)
Port: Large
Armor Damage: 5,000
Structural Damage: 15,000
Refire Rate: 3 Seconds
Ammo: 1
Mass: 3,500kg
Velocity: 75m/s
Range: 4.5km
Description: Nobody truly knows where the Kettle mines originated, but it is rumored that the Corvus Syndicate pressured Xang-Xi into developing them in response to Aeolus' Lampreys. Kettles, unlike Lampreys, are designed to specifically deal damage to the internal structure of a capital ship by ejecting superheated plasma directly into the ship via a shaped charge. [This weapon explodes on contact, attributing to its increased mass over Lampreys]
'Cauldron' Limpet Mines
Class: Anti-Capital Capital Weapon (CvC)
Port: Small Capital Port
Armor Damage: 5,000
Structural Damage: 35,000
Refire Rate: 8
Ammo: 6
3Mass: Medium
Velocity: 80m/s
Range: 10km
Decription: The big brother of the Kettle, the Cauldron packs a serious punch to the internal structure of a ship. However, due to its relatively slow velocity, it is difficult to use on fighters and even small capital vessels.
4Excalibur Beam Cannon
Class: Anti-Capital Capital Weapon (CvC)
Port: Large Capital Port
5Armor Damage: 19,000/second
Structural Damage: 1,000/second
Refire Rate: At least 10 seconds[Explained below]
Ammo: N/A
Mass: Heavy
Velocity: 1,500m/s
6Max Range: 2,500m
6Optimal Range: 2,000m
Description: The Excalibur is arguably the most powerful capital-class weapon in existance and the one with the least range at the same time. Firing an extremely unstable beam of plasma the Excalibur is designed to literally bake off a ship's armor at close range. Due to the high heat generated by the Excalibur it takes ten seconds, once fired, to restabilize the containment fields preventing the firing ship from melting. This weapon may only be mounted in a forward or rear facing port in the longest of ships because of the real estate required for its generation and projection systems.
Special Effects: When fired, the Excalibur will drain all of the rest of the Capital Ship's battery and will continue to be projected from the front of a based on the quantity of energy consumed, rather than the percentage. The beam must be hitting the ship in question to do any damage, of course. A top-of-the-line battery at full charge should be able to keep the Excalibur running for five seconds, dealing at most 95,000 armor damage and 5,000 structureal damage. Realistically, this damage will be reduced based on the maneuverability of the two ships, the captain's/gunner's ability to aim the bow/stern of the ship, and the distance the ships are from each other. See 1 and 4 for more details.
'Beehive' Flak Missiles
Class: Anti-Fighter Capital Weapon (CvF)
Port: Small Capital Turret
Damage: 200
Splash: 100m
Refire Rate: .25 seconds
Ammo: 150
Mass: Light
Maneuverability: High
Velocity: 160m/s
Range: 1km
Description: The Beehive is an effective ammo-based amti-fighter missile. Simple friend or foe missiles, they'll attack any ship that has already damaged the capital ship or its allies(Fighter escort, group, guild, etc.) a goodly amount. Once the missile reaches the edge of its range, it explodes- providing an anti-fighter coverage similar to age-old flak cannons of terrestrial warfare.
I'll spare you from other weapon designs for now- if only because I'm afraid there's a post-size limit and I'm going to hit it.
1 Armor and structural damage numbers are based on a HAC having 750k armor and 250k structure- a million hit points. [ADDED 08/25] Example HAC now clocks in at 1,200,000 kilos. (1.2kt)
2 For this weapon to be effective, crewmembers would need to be assigned certain jobs and be in certain locations. For example, if you manage to attach a Lamprey right outside the engineering section- the ship's crew is going to have to either improvise on who can do what in the affected section(reducing all capabilities across the board) or write off nost of the engineering section, leading to less engineering-related abilities(No more damage control, engines might overheat and stop working, ventilation might go b0rk and some other crewmembers die because of carbon monoxide poisoning, etc.)
3 Since I have no idea what the mass of a capital ship would be, this is just to give a general idea.
4 I couldn't very well name a torpedo Excalibur, now could I? [Free points if you get the reference]
5 This is an instant kill to fighters in almost all cases, yes, but fighters really should be wise enough not to loiter around the front or rear of a capital ship- hence the limitation.
6 Ideally, beam weapons lose effectiveness over a certain distance due to scattering. In this case, the Excalibur will do full damage up to 2,000m and rapidly degrade to doing absolutely no damage at 2,501m.
C - Capital.
v - Versus, of course.
F - Fighter.
And with that, I launch into yet another harangue on capital-class vessels- this time on weapon systems.
[The brackets denote a personal comment]
'Lamprey' Shaped Charge Launcher
Class: Anti-Personnel Fighter Weapon (FvC)
Port: Large
1Armor Damage: 2,500
1Structural Damage: 5,000
Refire Rate: 3 Seconds
Ammo: 2
Mass: 2,500kg
Velocity: 70m/s
Range: 5km
Description: The 'Lamprey' series of shaped charges, designed by Aeolus to protect their trade convoys from pirate fleets, are one of the most effective ship to ship anti-personnel weapons on the market today. Once the charge detonates and breaches the ship's hull, numerous bomblets are deposited inside the ship itself. The bomblets are designed to explode on impact with the opposing bulkheads, sending shrapnel in all directions into the corridor and those beyond. However, due to space limitations, Lampreys must be detonated by a special small-port device that is keyed identically to the mine launcher.
Special Effect: Kills 7%~15% of a capital-ship's 2crew, depending on the location the mine is detonated(Hitting the mess hall kills more crew) and a random number generator. Injures 1.5 to 2.5 times that, reducing efficiency of those crew members by 10%~90%.
[Granted, this requires crew members on a ship to be effective]
'Lamprey' Shaped Charge Detonator
Class: Detonator (FvC)
Port: Small
Armor Damage: N/A
Structural Damage: N/a
Refire Rate: .025 seconds
Ammo: N/A
Mass: 750kg
Velocity: Instant
Range: Sector
Description: A must-have when purchasing any Lamprey mine system, this device is the missing piece needed to detonate Lamprey mines. Once the detonator is keyed, it's ready to set off all Lamprey mines in a sector that share the same key. [Requires a dialog window or a command to key the launcher and the detonator- seperately and together]
'Kettle' Limpet Mine
Class: Anti-Capital Fighter Weapon (FvC)
Port: Large
Armor Damage: 5,000
Structural Damage: 15,000
Refire Rate: 3 Seconds
Ammo: 1
Mass: 3,500kg
Velocity: 75m/s
Range: 4.5km
Description: Nobody truly knows where the Kettle mines originated, but it is rumored that the Corvus Syndicate pressured Xang-Xi into developing them in response to Aeolus' Lampreys. Kettles, unlike Lampreys, are designed to specifically deal damage to the internal structure of a capital ship by ejecting superheated plasma directly into the ship via a shaped charge. [This weapon explodes on contact, attributing to its increased mass over Lampreys]
'Cauldron' Limpet Mines
Class: Anti-Capital Capital Weapon (CvC)
Port: Small Capital Port
Armor Damage: 5,000
Structural Damage: 35,000
Refire Rate: 8
Ammo: 6
3Mass: Medium
Velocity: 80m/s
Range: 10km
Decription: The big brother of the Kettle, the Cauldron packs a serious punch to the internal structure of a ship. However, due to its relatively slow velocity, it is difficult to use on fighters and even small capital vessels.
4Excalibur Beam Cannon
Class: Anti-Capital Capital Weapon (CvC)
Port: Large Capital Port
5Armor Damage: 19,000/second
Structural Damage: 1,000/second
Refire Rate: At least 10 seconds[Explained below]
Ammo: N/A
Mass: Heavy
Velocity: 1,500m/s
6Max Range: 2,500m
6Optimal Range: 2,000m
Description: The Excalibur is arguably the most powerful capital-class weapon in existance and the one with the least range at the same time. Firing an extremely unstable beam of plasma the Excalibur is designed to literally bake off a ship's armor at close range. Due to the high heat generated by the Excalibur it takes ten seconds, once fired, to restabilize the containment fields preventing the firing ship from melting. This weapon may only be mounted in a forward or rear facing port in the longest of ships because of the real estate required for its generation and projection systems.
Special Effects: When fired, the Excalibur will drain all of the rest of the Capital Ship's battery and will continue to be projected from the front of a based on the quantity of energy consumed, rather than the percentage. The beam must be hitting the ship in question to do any damage, of course. A top-of-the-line battery at full charge should be able to keep the Excalibur running for five seconds, dealing at most 95,000 armor damage and 5,000 structureal damage. Realistically, this damage will be reduced based on the maneuverability of the two ships, the captain's/gunner's ability to aim the bow/stern of the ship, and the distance the ships are from each other. See 1 and 4 for more details.
'Beehive' Flak Missiles
Class: Anti-Fighter Capital Weapon (CvF)
Port: Small Capital Turret
Damage: 200
Splash: 100m
Refire Rate: .25 seconds
Ammo: 150
Mass: Light
Maneuverability: High
Velocity: 160m/s
Range: 1km
Description: The Beehive is an effective ammo-based amti-fighter missile. Simple friend or foe missiles, they'll attack any ship that has already damaged the capital ship or its allies(Fighter escort, group, guild, etc.) a goodly amount. Once the missile reaches the edge of its range, it explodes- providing an anti-fighter coverage similar to age-old flak cannons of terrestrial warfare.
I'll spare you from other weapon designs for now- if only because I'm afraid there's a post-size limit and I'm going to hit it.
1 Armor and structural damage numbers are based on a HAC having 750k armor and 250k structure- a million hit points. [ADDED 08/25] Example HAC now clocks in at 1,200,000 kilos. (1.2kt)
2 For this weapon to be effective, crewmembers would need to be assigned certain jobs and be in certain locations. For example, if you manage to attach a Lamprey right outside the engineering section- the ship's crew is going to have to either improvise on who can do what in the affected section(reducing all capabilities across the board) or write off nost of the engineering section, leading to less engineering-related abilities(No more damage control, engines might overheat and stop working, ventilation might go b0rk and some other crewmembers die because of carbon monoxide poisoning, etc.)
3 Since I have no idea what the mass of a capital ship would be, this is just to give a general idea.
4 I couldn't very well name a torpedo Excalibur, now could I? [Free points if you get the reference]
5 This is an instant kill to fighters in almost all cases, yes, but fighters really should be wise enough not to loiter around the front or rear of a capital ship- hence the limitation.
6 Ideally, beam weapons lose effectiveness over a certain distance due to scattering. In this case, the Excalibur will do full damage up to 2,000m and rapidly degrade to doing absolutely no damage at 2,501m.
I like it. This is similar to my idea of an anti-capital ship weapon equipped on a fighter that would be very powerful but wasted on other fighters. The idea was shot down, of course, but I still like it. For the shaped charges (non-shaped/non-armor piercing warheads would be useless on a cap ship), what about a massive bomb that is unguided, unpowered, and when fired simply continues the direction and velocity of the ship when it was fired? This would also make it even more useless on other fighters.
Also, as an alternative (not instead of) to the Excalibur, what about a high-powered laser that generates heat and has unlimited range (but is more effective the closer you are, loses a bit at long range). Like a previous post of mine http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14626?page=2#184029 the ship would take damage when it overheats. Also a smaller version to be used against fighters. The big one would work against fighters, but would use so much energy that the payoff isn't much unless you REALLY have to get that fighter. Also, anti-fighter weapons could shoot down that unguided bomb, but the bomb would then have splash damage (since the shaped charge isn't pouring it's energy into the armor).
Also, as an alternative (not instead of) to the Excalibur, what about a high-powered laser that generates heat and has unlimited range (but is more effective the closer you are, loses a bit at long range). Like a previous post of mine http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/14626?page=2#184029 the ship would take damage when it overheats. Also a smaller version to be used against fighters. The big one would work against fighters, but would use so much energy that the payoff isn't much unless you REALLY have to get that fighter. Also, anti-fighter weapons could shoot down that unguided bomb, but the bomb would then have splash damage (since the shaped charge isn't pouring it's energy into the armor).
Being picky - the 'Beehive' should either have a manueverability rating and be missiles, or they need to be named/marked as rockets. Also, your 'Mine's need to either be named/marked as rockets or lose their velocity. Mines don't move; missiles change course/velocity.
Question - are you expecting armor damage to spill over to sturctural damage once the armor is gone?
Your 'Lamprey' suggestion is ineffective in terms of damage, and its detonation and special effect would likely be complicated and time-consuming to implement as well as usually be more annoying to the victim than it would be useful to the attacker. The other stuff is interesting though.
Question - are you expecting armor damage to spill over to sturctural damage once the armor is gone?
Your 'Lamprey' suggestion is ineffective in terms of damage, and its detonation and special effect would likely be complicated and time-consuming to implement as well as usually be more annoying to the victim than it would be useful to the attacker. The other stuff is interesting though.
Noted on the Beehives- I'll toss that in once I get around to it(probably later today).
I'll have to rework damage spillage entirely. Those numbers are up there to give a relative idea against the example ship at full health. Will do once I get to the Beehives.
The Lamprey is probably underpowered- but I had to put something up. The whole weapon itself hinges on NPC crewmembers being implemented at least and then implemented so that they have a purpose other than being a meaningless statistic and money sink.
{EDIT: Being counter-picky, there exists(or did) a weapon that the devs had available called a "Mine Ball Launcher". It fired lightning mines at, I think, 50m/s. I'll think of something else to call them, but i'm convinced they behave more like mines than anything else.}
{EDIT2: And on top of that, last I heard, DARPA is researching mines that jump around a minefield to fill in the gaps. Moreover, this does not state at all that mines have to be stationary.}
I'll have to rework damage spillage entirely. Those numbers are up there to give a relative idea against the example ship at full health. Will do once I get to the Beehives.
The Lamprey is probably underpowered- but I had to put something up. The whole weapon itself hinges on NPC crewmembers being implemented at least and then implemented so that they have a purpose other than being a meaningless statistic and money sink.
{EDIT: Being counter-picky, there exists(or did) a weapon that the devs had available called a "Mine Ball Launcher". It fired lightning mines at, I think, 50m/s. I'll think of something else to call them, but i'm convinced they behave more like mines than anything else.}
{EDIT2: And on top of that, last I heard, DARPA is researching mines that jump around a minefield to fill in the gaps. Moreover, this does not state at all that mines have to be stationary.}
- Touched Beehives, added crewmember(cucumber?) blurb, and upgraded the Lamprey.
I agree with LostCommander about the inconvenience of the weapon/detonator combo. I also had a thought about antipersonnel weapons for cap ships. I liked the idea before, but it would take a lot of work (if it's possible at all) to get NPC crew morale to work well. It's a good weapon for real life, if you're fighting your war on a political front as well as military (for example, terrorists target civilians directly instead of military targets, specifically to cause, well, terror). But in a game like this, I'm not sure how it would work. Better to attack what will get to the player who owns the cap ship: the possibility of losing his fancy expensive ship.
LostCommander: I'm not sure the armor damage should completely spill over when armor is gone. The ship would probably be a goner by then anyway. Since the warhead is designed to pierce the armor and damage the structure, if anything it would be less effective with no armor to pierce, depending on how many interior walls it hits. On small parts of the ship, it may even simply pass straight through the ship, wasting most of its energy. If anything, once the structure's gone, the damage should spill onto the armored hull, if that's all that's holding the ship together now. That has more hp under Scuba's suggestion, anyway, and most of his weapons do the bulk of their damage to the structure.
LostCommander: I'm not sure the armor damage should completely spill over when armor is gone. The ship would probably be a goner by then anyway. Since the warhead is designed to pierce the armor and damage the structure, if anything it would be less effective with no armor to pierce, depending on how many interior walls it hits. On small parts of the ship, it may even simply pass straight through the ship, wasting most of its energy. If anything, once the structure's gone, the damage should spill onto the armored hull, if that's all that's holding the ship together now. That has more hp under Scuba's suggestion, anyway, and most of his weapons do the bulk of their damage to the structure.
Splitting hares: If you so elaborately explain the terminology used in the title, why not continue to use it throughout the post? That would make it much easier to figure out at one glance what purpose the weapons are intended for.
The following goes for all weapons you classified as 'mines':
Steve, if you assign a fixed speed to the mines, they will only move at that speed, not inheriting the impulse from the parent object. Is that what you meant, or did you mean the opposite, i.e., a fighter can chase a capital ship at full blast, release the mines at its own speed (assuming 180 m/s) and then pull up, watching the mines crash into the capship?
Now, in medias res:
The Lamprey Shaped Charge is a bit difficult, I think. You define capital ships as having such things as areas where more or less crew reside. To date, such things are inexistent (in the game), and I think it would be less enjoyable for gunners to die because someone got a lucky hit with a lamprey. Also, how would this (killing the crew) apply to fighters? (Since you can't rule out the weapon hitting fighters as well as capital ships.)
Kettle and Cauldron are cool. Me likey.
The Excalibur is also a bit tricky (will we get a capship called Lady of the Lake? Or maybe Artus, to make it completely obvious). Doing full damage up to 2 km is a bit odd. Maybe a less 'jumpy' behaviour would be better, maybe 100% power up to 1km, 75% up to 1.5km, 50 % at 2km, and then a rapid degradation.
Also, you say that it drains the entire power cell. Are you suggesting that (energy weapon) turrets draw power from the same capacitor(s), or that they retain their semi-autonomous state (i.e., as they are now)?
The Beehive is nice, especially the simplified IFF system (pretty much the one we have on-board now). Allied fighters can't just blast away close to a capship (assuming FF to be out of the game by then). The problem with it being an ammunitionized weapon (yay for new words) would require a ship like the Teradon to either get docks (for transporters rearm the capship) or some other way (besides docking) to restock their supplies, or else the point of a capital ship would be defeated (moving stations).
The following goes for all weapons you classified as 'mines':
Steve, if you assign a fixed speed to the mines, they will only move at that speed, not inheriting the impulse from the parent object. Is that what you meant, or did you mean the opposite, i.e., a fighter can chase a capital ship at full blast, release the mines at its own speed (assuming 180 m/s) and then pull up, watching the mines crash into the capship?
Now, in medias res:
The Lamprey Shaped Charge is a bit difficult, I think. You define capital ships as having such things as areas where more or less crew reside. To date, such things are inexistent (in the game), and I think it would be less enjoyable for gunners to die because someone got a lucky hit with a lamprey. Also, how would this (killing the crew) apply to fighters? (Since you can't rule out the weapon hitting fighters as well as capital ships.)
Kettle and Cauldron are cool. Me likey.
The Excalibur is also a bit tricky (will we get a capship called Lady of the Lake? Or maybe Artus, to make it completely obvious). Doing full damage up to 2 km is a bit odd. Maybe a less 'jumpy' behaviour would be better, maybe 100% power up to 1km, 75% up to 1.5km, 50 % at 2km, and then a rapid degradation.
Also, you say that it drains the entire power cell. Are you suggesting that (energy weapon) turrets draw power from the same capacitor(s), or that they retain their semi-autonomous state (i.e., as they are now)?
The Beehive is nice, especially the simplified IFF system (pretty much the one we have on-board now). Allied fighters can't just blast away close to a capship (assuming FF to be out of the game by then). The problem with it being an ammunitionized weapon (yay for new words) would require a ship like the Teradon to either get docks (for transporters rearm the capship) or some other way (besides docking) to restock their supplies, or else the point of a capital ship would be defeated (moving stations).
Rabbits chopped, just for you Tosh.
Mines: That brings up an interesting idea. Perhaps if the mines themselves behaved like rockets with 0m/s base speed. Therefore, a fighter may be the better choice when trying to deploy the mines.
As far as the seperate detonator goes- I first envisioned the Lamprey/Kettle/Cauldron mines to attach directly to the capship to do damage. With the remote detonator on the Lampreys, an entire squadron could be built up for the purpose of deploying Lamprey mines on an enemy ship to reduce its effectiveness in a battle.
One person in the squadron would hold the detonator(ideally flying something like a Centurion and way out of range) and the others would place the mines on the capship. Once all the mines wanted were placed, the detonator guy detonates them. However, the opposing capital ship's fighter screen might be ordered to hunt down the detonating ship to prevent them from setting off the mines. (Perhaps making it so you have to have the launcher and detonator in the same sector to key them and then the sector generates a random key. This would make destroying the detonator ship actually worthwhile, since the mines already attached could not be set off.)
I thought Kettles/Cauldrons were a bit too strong for the same kind of detonation- since having all your structure vanish in one blast would, well, suck.
More specifically on Lampreys: Since they are designed to be anti-personnel, I'd imagine that fighters would only suffer minimal damage(100~750). Lampreys would only affect NPC crewmembers, since players would either be in their ships or in turrets(Assuming, for the sake of not ruining things). However, if a Lamprey hit a turret with a player inside- they're pretty much screwed if the random number generator doesn't like them that day. NPC fighterpilots would sit in their ships waiting to belaunched, and thus be safe from a Lamprey hit. Unless, of course, they docked with a heavily damaged ship.
Lampreys really aren't something I'd imagine would come in any time soon- but if put in, they may add a great deal of depth and strategy to capital ship battles. What I would really enjoy is if Capital-level battles played out more like chess than Oversized Space Quake.
On the Excalibur: Actually, that would be a lot better Tosh.
The Excalibur isn't a turret- so it drains from the ship's main power cell(The one that does the turbo and other capital-level weapons). Turrets would drain from the main power cell as well, but the amount they drain should be trivial compared to the recharge rate. If we scaled everything to fighter size, I'm thinking that turrets would drain about 2e/s.
Ammunitionization: Usually, capital ships like the Teradon would need a drydock to repair and resupply(Or launch supply drones to dock with a station). In large-scale fleet maneuvers it would be wise for any commander to bring along a sort of mobile drydock(a capital ship in itself, no less).
Mines: That brings up an interesting idea. Perhaps if the mines themselves behaved like rockets with 0m/s base speed. Therefore, a fighter may be the better choice when trying to deploy the mines.
As far as the seperate detonator goes- I first envisioned the Lamprey/Kettle/Cauldron mines to attach directly to the capship to do damage. With the remote detonator on the Lampreys, an entire squadron could be built up for the purpose of deploying Lamprey mines on an enemy ship to reduce its effectiveness in a battle.
One person in the squadron would hold the detonator(ideally flying something like a Centurion and way out of range) and the others would place the mines on the capship. Once all the mines wanted were placed, the detonator guy detonates them. However, the opposing capital ship's fighter screen might be ordered to hunt down the detonating ship to prevent them from setting off the mines. (Perhaps making it so you have to have the launcher and detonator in the same sector to key them and then the sector generates a random key. This would make destroying the detonator ship actually worthwhile, since the mines already attached could not be set off.)
I thought Kettles/Cauldrons were a bit too strong for the same kind of detonation- since having all your structure vanish in one blast would, well, suck.
More specifically on Lampreys: Since they are designed to be anti-personnel, I'd imagine that fighters would only suffer minimal damage(100~750). Lampreys would only affect NPC crewmembers, since players would either be in their ships or in turrets(Assuming, for the sake of not ruining things). However, if a Lamprey hit a turret with a player inside- they're pretty much screwed if the random number generator doesn't like them that day. NPC fighterpilots would sit in their ships waiting to belaunched, and thus be safe from a Lamprey hit. Unless, of course, they docked with a heavily damaged ship.
Lampreys really aren't something I'd imagine would come in any time soon- but if put in, they may add a great deal of depth and strategy to capital ship battles. What I would really enjoy is if Capital-level battles played out more like chess than Oversized Space Quake.
On the Excalibur: Actually, that would be a lot better Tosh.
The Excalibur isn't a turret- so it drains from the ship's main power cell(The one that does the turbo and other capital-level weapons). Turrets would drain from the main power cell as well, but the amount they drain should be trivial compared to the recharge rate. If we scaled everything to fighter size, I'm thinking that turrets would drain about 2e/s.
Ammunitionization: Usually, capital ships like the Teradon would need a drydock to repair and resupply(Or launch supply drones to dock with a station). In large-scale fleet maneuvers it would be wise for any commander to bring along a sort of mobile drydock(a capital ship in itself, no less).
New weapon adding time! Yay!
Static Field Generator
Class: Anti-Fighter Turret (CvF)
Port: Medium Capital Turret
1Damage to Epicenter: 500 damage/second
Surrounding Damage: 1300 damage/second
Refire Rate: .87 seconds
Ammo: N/A
Mass: Light
Velocity: 190m/s
Range: 1,150m
Radius: 175m
Duration: 10 seconds
Description: A formidable anti-fighter weapon, the Static Field Generator generates and projects an enormous amount of energy onto a fightercraft. Once hit the fighter becomes, in essence, a mobile lightning mine. Bolts of energy leap from a charged ship to any ship in range dealing an enormous amount of damage to small fighters. However, the weapon does not discriminate between friend or foe.
[Clause regarding cumulation: If a ship is hit with the SFG while currently within 1the duration of the last one, 10 seconds will be added onto the lifetime of the static field. E.G.: Ship A is hit, becomes mobile lightning mine for ten seconds. Five seconds later, it's hit again- it's a mobile lightning mine for 15 seconds now. No extra damage applies.]
1 For all weapons in this thread, I will not consider fighters to have any seperation between structure and armor- since they don't at the moment. CvC weapons will still be seperated so that I can dream pretty dreams though.
2 More later, as I am starting classes tomorrow and am sure to be bored in them! Hooray!
Static Field Generator
Class: Anti-Fighter Turret (CvF)
Port: Medium Capital Turret
1Damage to Epicenter: 500 damage/second
Surrounding Damage: 1300 damage/second
Refire Rate: .87 seconds
Ammo: N/A
Mass: Light
Velocity: 190m/s
Range: 1,150m
Radius: 175m
Duration: 10 seconds
Description: A formidable anti-fighter weapon, the Static Field Generator generates and projects an enormous amount of energy onto a fightercraft. Once hit the fighter becomes, in essence, a mobile lightning mine. Bolts of energy leap from a charged ship to any ship in range dealing an enormous amount of damage to small fighters. However, the weapon does not discriminate between friend or foe.
[Clause regarding cumulation: If a ship is hit with the SFG while currently within 1the duration of the last one, 10 seconds will be added onto the lifetime of the static field. E.G.: Ship A is hit, becomes mobile lightning mine for ten seconds. Five seconds later, it's hit again- it's a mobile lightning mine for 15 seconds now. No extra damage applies.]
1 For all weapons in this thread, I will not consider fighters to have any seperation between structure and armor- since they don't at the moment. CvC weapons will still be seperated so that I can dream pretty dreams though.
2 More later, as I am starting classes tomorrow and am sure to be bored in them! Hooray!
Regarding why the Excalibur shouldn't be a torpedo... it already was in Freelancer.
Mmm, minced bunnies!
The rearm/repair/resupply for ships without docks having to resort to dry docks is interesting, because it adds another tactical/strategic nuance. However, since they have no (own) docks, they should be able to use the space to store more (of everything), so as to be able to stay out longer.
That would make ships like the Teradon ideal for planetary or station defense as well as operations behind enemy lines, whereas ships like the HAC maintain blockades, being resupplied by steady streams of Behemoths and Centaurs. Me likey!
The rearm/repair/resupply for ships without docks having to resort to dry docks is interesting, because it adds another tactical/strategic nuance. However, since they have no (own) docks, they should be able to use the space to store more (of everything), so as to be able to stay out longer.
That would make ships like the Teradon ideal for planetary or station defense as well as operations behind enemy lines, whereas ships like the HAC maintain blockades, being resupplied by steady streams of Behemoths and Centaurs. Me likey!
>Regarding why the Excalibur shouldn't be a torpedo... it already
>was in Freelancer.
i believe that was a Babylon 5 refrence. (The Excaliber had a huge beam weapon that required it to commit all it's power generation to a single shot leaving the ship adrift for a short time after firing while power was restored)
regarding the sugestion as a whole:
i think some of the new mechanics for capitle ships are a bit too complicated. for example what exactly should the effects of losing crew be? and what exactly is the difference between Armor and Structural damage?
>was in Freelancer.
i believe that was a Babylon 5 refrence. (The Excaliber had a huge beam weapon that required it to commit all it's power generation to a single shot leaving the ship adrift for a short time after firing while power was restored)
regarding the sugestion as a whole:
i think some of the new mechanics for capitle ships are a bit too complicated. for example what exactly should the effects of losing crew be? and what exactly is the difference between Armor and Structural damage?
I don't think we should "lose" NPC crew members. Instead, turrets should (I think maybe they already do?) have their own armor and can be destroyed independently of the ship. If this happens, and a real player is manning the turret, that player is killed.
Armor is there to protect the structural integrity of the ship itself. Once armor is gone, all damage is dealt to the structure, and when the structure is gone, the ship explodes. Piercing weapons damage the structure even when there is still armor.
I think it may be simpler to, rather than assign armor/structure damage to a weapon, instead give it a "piercing" rating that splits the damage. A rating of 1 delivers 20% damage to the structure, 80% to the armor. A rating of 2: 35%/65%. 3: 45%/55%. Upgraded armor could modify this. Say, if you had a second layer, it would take 25% of the damage that would have gone to the structure. The numbers would need to be played around with
The mechanics would all be done by the computer, you don't have to think about it except strategically.
Armor is there to protect the structural integrity of the ship itself. Once armor is gone, all damage is dealt to the structure, and when the structure is gone, the ship explodes. Piercing weapons damage the structure even when there is still armor.
I think it may be simpler to, rather than assign armor/structure damage to a weapon, instead give it a "piercing" rating that splits the damage. A rating of 1 delivers 20% damage to the structure, 80% to the armor. A rating of 2: 35%/65%. 3: 45%/55%. Upgraded armor could modify this. Say, if you had a second layer, it would take 25% of the damage that would have gone to the structure. The numbers would need to be played around with
The mechanics would all be done by the computer, you don't have to think about it except strategically.
I don't think there should be any weapons that specifically affect the crew; besides, no ship is going to have even 100 crew...
Note: Ships are NEVER destroyed by receiving sufficient stuctural damage -- hull breaches and systems damage permanently disable a ship long before the structure gives out. I do not think there should be structural damage at all.
Also, Professor Chaos (and others) - Warning! :: Although it is true that a computer will be handling all calculations of whatever system(s) may be suggested, it will be nigh-impossible to balance any system that is too complicated.
Note: Ships are NEVER destroyed by receiving sufficient stuctural damage -- hull breaches and systems damage permanently disable a ship long before the structure gives out. I do not think there should be structural damage at all.
Also, Professor Chaos (and others) - Warning! :: Although it is true that a computer will be handling all calculations of whatever system(s) may be suggested, it will be nigh-impossible to balance any system that is too complicated.
Wow, you guys fail and lose. We can't have an Excalibur torpedo because we already have an Avalon torpedo. Har har.
LostCommander: This is why I'm including the structural statistic on capital ships. Fighters themselves are way too small for the direct damage to the structure to be any problem; however, capital ships may have critical sections of structure that goes out before the ship itself is disabled. While this would be a lot cooler if it was reflected by specific subsection/subsystem damage, I sometimes try to work with what wouldn't be a pain in the rear end to implement. For now- consider the structural hitpoints to be only a fraction of the total structure and just representative of the critical structural sections.
As for crewmembers, recall that I'm mentioning NPC crewmembers- there's no way you're going to fill up a capital ship's complement with player characters. Let's consider this:
This USS Missouri(decommissioned WWII Battleship), was 271 meters long. A HAC is roughly 750m(I haven't counted recently) long and the Teradon clocks in, according to the picture, at about 250m long. The Missouri had a crew count of well over a thousand minimum, with its WWII capacity boosted to over 2,500. A Teradon is similar in size, if not purpose, and a HAC is much, much, much bigger. While a lot of the crew tasks can be automated, I very much doubt that any capital ship will have crew counts of less than a few hundred and am most certain that they would come up to be several thousand for the larger ships.
I was thinking about percentages, Prof., though I think that they should shift -slightly- towards structural damage when the armor is gone.
Capital ships are big, huge, expensive, and not for new players. While they may end up being a nightmare to balance that's probably better than making them too simple as to be not much fun for the players that are able and willing to use them.
Clarification on armor and structure damages.
As far as losing crew- your ship would become less effective. If you lost a major portion of the crew keeping your warp drive flux relay operation, you'd have a lot harder time warping. Or if those in charge of monitoring your engine's heat died- your engine might overheat and generally cause bad things to happen, such as explodification.
LostCommander: This is why I'm including the structural statistic on capital ships. Fighters themselves are way too small for the direct damage to the structure to be any problem; however, capital ships may have critical sections of structure that goes out before the ship itself is disabled. While this would be a lot cooler if it was reflected by specific subsection/subsystem damage, I sometimes try to work with what wouldn't be a pain in the rear end to implement. For now- consider the structural hitpoints to be only a fraction of the total structure and just representative of the critical structural sections.
As for crewmembers, recall that I'm mentioning NPC crewmembers- there's no way you're going to fill up a capital ship's complement with player characters. Let's consider this:
This USS Missouri(decommissioned WWII Battleship), was 271 meters long. A HAC is roughly 750m(I haven't counted recently) long and the Teradon clocks in, according to the picture, at about 250m long. The Missouri had a crew count of well over a thousand minimum, with its WWII capacity boosted to over 2,500. A Teradon is similar in size, if not purpose, and a HAC is much, much, much bigger. While a lot of the crew tasks can be automated, I very much doubt that any capital ship will have crew counts of less than a few hundred and am most certain that they would come up to be several thousand for the larger ships.
I was thinking about percentages, Prof., though I think that they should shift -slightly- towards structural damage when the armor is gone.
Capital ships are big, huge, expensive, and not for new players. While they may end up being a nightmare to balance that's probably better than making them too simple as to be not much fun for the players that are able and willing to use them.
Clarification on armor and structure damages.
As far as losing crew- your ship would become less effective. If you lost a major portion of the crew keeping your warp drive flux relay operation, you'd have a lot harder time warping. Or if those in charge of monitoring your engine's heat died- your engine might overheat and generally cause bad things to happen, such as explodification.
And from my secret laboratory, more weapon designs:
[Well, they aren't quite weapons, but who cares?]
Radar Scrambler Array
Class: Capital ECM (CvC, CvF)
Port: Large Capital Port/High-Power Electronics Port
Range: 2km
Mass: Medium
Energy Consumption: 5% max powercell energy per second
Description: In the words of a certain deep space miner, the modern RS array will "make scramblage on e'ryone". Less concisely, it disrupts targeting and lockons for all ships within range, including the ship fielding the equipment and all allies. This essentially renders any guided weapons and autoaim systems useless within its sphere of influence.
Interdictor Array
Class: Capital ECM (CvC, CvF)
Port: Large Capital Port/High Power Electronics Port
Range: 10km
Mass: Heavy
Energy Consumption: 18% max powercell charge per second
Description: The Interdictor Array is the Corvus Syndicate's pride and joy. Spawned just a few years after the last major corporation war, vessels equipped with interdictors because a must-have for any pirate fleet. The array was designed specifically to mimic the effects of ion storms, pulling any unwary travelers out of their jump paths and into their personal flight to Yarr Hotel.
[Once 10km from an active interdictor, ships may warp out under normal rules. Interdictors should not be able to be activated in a storm sector- especially when such activation would block the only escape route for a ship.]
Power Transfer Array
Class: Capital to Capital Support (CvC, CvF)
Port: Large Capital Port/High Power Electronics Port
Range: 1.5km
Mass: Medium
Energy Consumption: 12.5% max powercell per second
Transfer Rate: 30% of consumption
Description: Always quick to respond to the Corvus Syndicate, Aeolus scientists worked long and hard to devise a way to overcome the massive power consumption of interdictor arrays. Failing that, they invented a method to transfer energy across short distances so that multiple ships could share the power load. While not very efficient, it did insure that Aeolus could await a Syndicate fleet to pass by at their leisure- and then destroy it at their leisure.
[Well, they aren't quite weapons, but who cares?]
Radar Scrambler Array
Class: Capital ECM (CvC, CvF)
Port: Large Capital Port/High-Power Electronics Port
Range: 2km
Mass: Medium
Energy Consumption: 5% max powercell energy per second
Description: In the words of a certain deep space miner, the modern RS array will "make scramblage on e'ryone". Less concisely, it disrupts targeting and lockons for all ships within range, including the ship fielding the equipment and all allies. This essentially renders any guided weapons and autoaim systems useless within its sphere of influence.
Interdictor Array
Class: Capital ECM (CvC, CvF)
Port: Large Capital Port/High Power Electronics Port
Range: 10km
Mass: Heavy
Energy Consumption: 18% max powercell charge per second
Description: The Interdictor Array is the Corvus Syndicate's pride and joy. Spawned just a few years after the last major corporation war, vessels equipped with interdictors because a must-have for any pirate fleet. The array was designed specifically to mimic the effects of ion storms, pulling any unwary travelers out of their jump paths and into their personal flight to Yarr Hotel.
[Once 10km from an active interdictor, ships may warp out under normal rules. Interdictors should not be able to be activated in a storm sector- especially when such activation would block the only escape route for a ship.]
Power Transfer Array
Class: Capital to Capital Support (CvC, CvF)
Port: Large Capital Port/High Power Electronics Port
Range: 1.5km
Mass: Medium
Energy Consumption: 12.5% max powercell per second
Transfer Rate: 30% of consumption
Description: Always quick to respond to the Corvus Syndicate, Aeolus scientists worked long and hard to devise a way to overcome the massive power consumption of interdictor arrays. Failing that, they invented a method to transfer energy across short distances so that multiple ships could share the power load. While not very efficient, it did insure that Aeolus could await a Syndicate fleet to pass by at their leisure- and then destroy it at their leisure.
"I was thinking about percentages, Prof., though I think that they should shift -slightly- towards structural damage when the armor is gone."
Good point, Scuba. Piercing ammo would pierce more interior bulkhead than armor, and wast a lot of energy.
"Capital ships are big, huge, expensive, and not for new players. While they may end up being a nightmare to balance that's probably better than making them too simple as to be not much fun for the players that are able and willing to use them."
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS! People, don't be afraid of a suggestion because it's hard, just accept that it might take awhile to implement. "This game is never 'finished'." The point is to make the game an immersive MMORPG. I always wanted to be a space pirate and captain my own ship (like in Firefly), and I want the illusion of realism. Realism/complexity doesn't have to be prohibitively difficult. As long as there are levels of complexity, it's fine. Simple options for new people and those who don't care, more nitpicky options for more nitpicky players. I think the devs understood when they started this that their job was the hardest, that they can't please everyone, and that they had their work cut out for them. Let them decide what's too hard to be worthwhile, they know what's involved in changing the code since they do it every day. I like this suggestion. I want options!
As for crew sizes, again, good point, Scuba. But, the purpose of the ship should be kept in mind. I hope there will be more kinds of capital ships, from cargo transports to troop/passenger transports, to gunships. It would take a very small crew to simply fly a ship under normal conditions. A large passenger ship may have 2000 passengers but only 150 crew or less. A warship would probably have a small amount of command-level personnel, and lots of teams with specific tasks that tend to stay in specific sections of ship related to their tasks. With that in mind, I think a location-specific damage system would be sufficient for a crew casualty system. The engine crew would probably be hard at work maintaining the engine, so engine hits would kill engine crew. In most cases, a hit hard enough to kill a critical amount of engine crew would destroy the engine. This applies, of course to all systems. It wouldn't mean much to kill the command crew (assuming an NPC cap ship, command crew would be a player otherwise), since a chain of command would be in place and I'm not sure how to simulate a breakdown of command other than make the ship respond more slowly. Besides, if I built a large ship, I'd put the command center in the very center of the ship. It's amazing that more Star Trek ships weren't crippled by a single hit to the very vulnerable exposed "bridge" on the top of the ship.
Good point, Scuba. Piercing ammo would pierce more interior bulkhead than armor, and wast a lot of energy.
"Capital ships are big, huge, expensive, and not for new players. While they may end up being a nightmare to balance that's probably better than making them too simple as to be not much fun for the players that are able and willing to use them."
THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS! People, don't be afraid of a suggestion because it's hard, just accept that it might take awhile to implement. "This game is never 'finished'." The point is to make the game an immersive MMORPG. I always wanted to be a space pirate and captain my own ship (like in Firefly), and I want the illusion of realism. Realism/complexity doesn't have to be prohibitively difficult. As long as there are levels of complexity, it's fine. Simple options for new people and those who don't care, more nitpicky options for more nitpicky players. I think the devs understood when they started this that their job was the hardest, that they can't please everyone, and that they had their work cut out for them. Let them decide what's too hard to be worthwhile, they know what's involved in changing the code since they do it every day. I like this suggestion. I want options!
As for crew sizes, again, good point, Scuba. But, the purpose of the ship should be kept in mind. I hope there will be more kinds of capital ships, from cargo transports to troop/passenger transports, to gunships. It would take a very small crew to simply fly a ship under normal conditions. A large passenger ship may have 2000 passengers but only 150 crew or less. A warship would probably have a small amount of command-level personnel, and lots of teams with specific tasks that tend to stay in specific sections of ship related to their tasks. With that in mind, I think a location-specific damage system would be sufficient for a crew casualty system. The engine crew would probably be hard at work maintaining the engine, so engine hits would kill engine crew. In most cases, a hit hard enough to kill a critical amount of engine crew would destroy the engine. This applies, of course to all systems. It wouldn't mean much to kill the command crew (assuming an NPC cap ship, command crew would be a player otherwise), since a chain of command would be in place and I'm not sure how to simulate a breakdown of command other than make the ship respond more slowly. Besides, if I built a large ship, I'd put the command center in the very center of the ship. It's amazing that more Star Trek ships weren't crippled by a single hit to the very vulnerable exposed "bridge" on the top of the ship.
About crew sizes: Keep in mind that if you want to keep things realistic, crews in the hundreds will take up most of the space in ships. Of course, there's battleworthiness to consider, but I shouldn't think that a Teradon would need more than a hundred standing crewmembers to be operative, perhaps it could be extended to two hundred (Space Marines, anyone?). Your point still stands Steve, there is no way players will fill those ranks.
I picture spaceships to be very much akin to present-day submarine vessels, space for crew is reduced to the minimum.
As for large passenger ships, they are an entirely different story. Let's take Prof. Chaos' number of 2000, then I'd say the 150 crew are not far off, but maybe a bit more would be needed (250-300). Also, don't forget that crew members could have multiple roles (steward, mechanic, marine, all rolled into one, etc).
Then, the devices:
All good, in my opinion.
I picture spaceships to be very much akin to present-day submarine vessels, space for crew is reduced to the minimum.
As for large passenger ships, they are an entirely different story. Let's take Prof. Chaos' number of 2000, then I'd say the 150 crew are not far off, but maybe a bit more would be needed (250-300). Also, don't forget that crew members could have multiple roles (steward, mechanic, marine, all rolled into one, etc).
Then, the devices:
All good, in my opinion.
The more you refer to on the passenger ship could be staff, maybe. Crew to fly the ship, staff to run it like a hotel or cruise ship. Oh, and live entertainment. If the auditorium gets hit with a torpedo, the passengers mutiny.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. The staff could fill multiple roles, then, but would add to the total crew (crew, as in, people needed to run the ship plus people needed to tend to people).