Forums » Suggestions
2 fundamentally different classes of ships:
Light ships: fast (300m/s), tougher than the current bus, multiple lightweight weapons ports. very small cargo. Like gnats, but can still duel other lights well.
Heavy ships: faster top speed than lights (400m/s), but sluggish, like the current blue heavy. 50x the current HP. About double current model size. A couple heavy weapons ports, whose weapons are shorter range, but more accurate. And this ship shouldn't cost very much. Maybe the weapons do, but new players should be able to buy a durable freighter to trade in.
Why these two SERIOUSLY different classes of ships?
The game needs _targets_. And people who chose to play as a target should get a worthy defensive vehicle. It should take teams of people working together to take down a freighter, but a freighter shouldn't be a good offensive ship, again because of the short range weapons and poor manuverability.
The game also needs to do more to force "agressive" players to work together if they want to be agressive (which is fine, I think spectacular brawls play great.)
Light ships: fast (300m/s), tougher than the current bus, multiple lightweight weapons ports. very small cargo. Like gnats, but can still duel other lights well.
Heavy ships: faster top speed than lights (400m/s), but sluggish, like the current blue heavy. 50x the current HP. About double current model size. A couple heavy weapons ports, whose weapons are shorter range, but more accurate. And this ship shouldn't cost very much. Maybe the weapons do, but new players should be able to buy a durable freighter to trade in.
Why these two SERIOUSLY different classes of ships?
The game needs _targets_. And people who chose to play as a target should get a worthy defensive vehicle. It should take teams of people working together to take down a freighter, but a freighter shouldn't be a good offensive ship, again because of the short range weapons and poor manuverability.
The game also needs to do more to force "agressive" players to work together if they want to be agressive (which is fine, I think spectacular brawls play great.)
Its a great ideer i think, there are a few things i don't like about the game, like how theres this ship i can't buy, but it seems every one else uses it?! i don't remember what its called but it starts with a V and its short and wide and is very curvy. I don't like how my lag is soo fricken laggy! And yeah, I think the ships do need more HP but maybe not 50x more maybe just 20x more, and maybe you should be able to buy diffrent shiled for your ship. So what the shileds would do is slow down your recharge rate, the more power full the shiled the more it slows down your recharge. Thats all from the Frog, see ya
I can't find the thread and I don't have a lot of time to look them over, but I remember someone saying that fighters (Centurion, Vulture, Valk, etc.) should have light engine (or efficient?), heavy fighters (Warthog, Hornet, Wraith, etc.) should have medium engine, and bombers (Prometheus, Ragnarok, Centaur, etc.) should have heavy engine. I've heard that this is what the very early version of Venetta TEST was like. I don't know why they scrapped the idea, but it seemed to be very logical to me.
I questioned a while back as to why Vendetta would allow a wide array of engines to be mounted on every single ship, when in reality a large 747 engine would NOT fit on an F-16 fighter for example. IMO the engines of Vendetta should be treated the same way. The designs of the ships are clearly varied enough to illustrate that not every engine should be able to fit into each of those ships.
Now, it's true that engines still need a lot of tweaking and stuff, so I can see how some people are going to start complaining about torque and speeds... but once those things are balanced out I think those ships need to be limited with what type of engine they could buy. Acceleration should also be factored in, so while those bombers or trade ships may have a higher max speed, they'll have one hell of a time making wide turns or getting an early boost of acceleration during the chase.
I questioned a while back as to why Vendetta would allow a wide array of engines to be mounted on every single ship, when in reality a large 747 engine would NOT fit on an F-16 fighter for example. IMO the engines of Vendetta should be treated the same way. The designs of the ships are clearly varied enough to illustrate that not every engine should be able to fit into each of those ships.
Now, it's true that engines still need a lot of tweaking and stuff, so I can see how some people are going to start complaining about torque and speeds... but once those things are balanced out I think those ships need to be limited with what type of engine they could buy. Acceleration should also be factored in, so while those bombers or trade ships may have a higher max speed, they'll have one hell of a time making wide turns or getting an early boost of acceleration during the chase.
Arolte: I semi-agree, although in reality aircraft engines are more interchangable than you think. Most of the differences in shape don't necessarily translate to differences in available thrust. For instance the B-52 uses 8 pratt and whintney turbo fans each having 17,000 pounds of thrust. The Boeing 727 (the military version is the C-22) has 3 very similar turbo fan engines that produce 16,000 pounds of thrust. The much smaller F-16 has only one, but that inconspicious looking engine produces produces 29,000 pounds of thrust. You will never see a 727 stand on its tail and fly straight up but then again, it doesn't need to.
I've always thought that the engines should each take up a slightly different ammount of space and have a slightly different weight. Thus a light engine might add one (or two) too your available cargo space (effectively) and might slightly reduce your weight (effectively), where as a heavy might reduce your available cargo space by one or two and might slightly increase your weight. That might marginally increase the utility of a light engine, and weight penalties and cargo penalties would be a proportionally heavier penalty on a ship that was lighter and had less cargo.
You might say that cargo doesn't matter, which is true now, but imagine that the same was true of batteries and other gizmos also needed some extra space. Eventually light ships would run out of space for all the goodies that they wanted.
Note before anyone pounces on the idea, that this is very different than saying that you ought to be able to use cargo space for mounting extra weapons as some have suggested. I very much want to limit weapons to a certain number of slots, otherwise we are likely to have people running around with 11 sunflares and other insanity.
I've always thought that the engines should each take up a slightly different ammount of space and have a slightly different weight. Thus a light engine might add one (or two) too your available cargo space (effectively) and might slightly reduce your weight (effectively), where as a heavy might reduce your available cargo space by one or two and might slightly increase your weight. That might marginally increase the utility of a light engine, and weight penalties and cargo penalties would be a proportionally heavier penalty on a ship that was lighter and had less cargo.
You might say that cargo doesn't matter, which is true now, but imagine that the same was true of batteries and other gizmos also needed some extra space. Eventually light ships would run out of space for all the goodies that they wanted.
Note before anyone pounces on the idea, that this is very different than saying that you ought to be able to use cargo space for mounting extra weapons as some have suggested. I very much want to limit weapons to a certain number of slots, otherwise we are likely to have people running around with 11 sunflares and other insanity.
Off-Topic:
Just to point out a tidbit in the first post, "...but sluggish, like the current blue heavy...." Am I missing something here, or was this made back in 3.1?
On-Topic:
I believe the way we percieve engines in going to be radically different than what engine will; be in the long term, *I* think there will be certain engines with certain advantages, and as well, be suited for the job at hand. As well, the prices of *engines* as I percieve them are low, Engines should be extremely expensive, being a major part of your ship, as well as money being less scarce. I believe we will have to wait what the future has in store for Vendetta. In this I whole-heartedly suport Celebrim's last post.
thats all for now, dont wanna rant like on the other threaad
Just to point out a tidbit in the first post, "...but sluggish, like the current blue heavy...." Am I missing something here, or was this made back in 3.1?
On-Topic:
I believe the way we percieve engines in going to be radically different than what engine will; be in the long term, *I* think there will be certain engines with certain advantages, and as well, be suited for the job at hand. As well, the prices of *engines* as I percieve them are low, Engines should be extremely expensive, being a major part of your ship, as well as money being less scarce. I believe we will have to wait what the future has in store for Vendetta. In this I whole-heartedly suport Celebrim's last post.
thats all for now, dont wanna rant like on the other threaad
I can't find the thread and I don't have a lot of time to look them over, but I remember someone saying that fighters (Centurion, Vulture, Valk, etc.) should have light engine (or efficient?), heavy fighters (Warthog, Hornet, Wraith, etc.) should have medium engine, and bombers (Prometheus, Ragnarok, Centaur, etc.) should have heavy engine. I've heard that this is what the very early version of Venetta TEST was like. I don't know why they scrapped the idea, but it seemed to be very logical to me.
--------------------------------------------- Arolte
I said that a couple times in different places, but am too lazy to go find the URL. I'll briefly re-state it here:
We should have multiple engine/battery sizes for the different ships:
Small:
Centurion
Vulture
Valkyrie (can take a medium at a performance hit)
Medium:
Wart Hog
Atlas
Hornet
Marauder
Wraith (can take a heavy at a performance hit)
Heavy:
Centuar
Ragnarok (option of having two at a performance hit)
Prometheus
Batteries:
Light
Recharge: 40-60
Capacity: 200 - 250
Medium
Recharge: 50 - 70
Capacity: 400 - 600
Heavy
Recharge: 55 - 75
Capacity: 1000 - 1500
Fast charge
Recharge: 60 - 80
Capacity: 75 - 125
The idea here is to give larger ships back their effectiveness. Right now, a Ragnarok with two gatling cannons will run out of energy very quickly, and due to the short range of the cannons, largely is a sitting duck. Here, short of changing weapons, gives the ship a fighting chance. Basically, gunships and bombers should be able to unleash much more ordnance than a fighter and still recover energy-wise just as quickly.
I'm not talking engines here, as I haven't thought on the matter yet. However, the concept is to give small ships the acceleration, yet lack the top speeds to catch a freighter. There you would need a large ship. Perhaps the idea would be such:
"Fighter engine" (i.e. small)
Top speed: 65
Max boost speed: 190
Boost power intake: 50 - 65 Eu/sec
*Special: Can maneuver while boosting
This would give a fighter at least a chance of catching a freighter, yet would require the use of non-energy weapons, as using primary weapons would drain the battery too quickly.
Heavy (i.e. freighter engine)
Top speed: 180
No boost.
Energy intake: 65 - 80
This would allow the freighter to continually accelerate throughout a straight run. It also would allow it to engage fighters at higher speeds. It only needs to stop accelerating and start firing. Since it isn't boosting, it's speed would not decrease at all. So if it stops accelerating at ~120 m/s, it could devote all its energy to weapons. This would require teamwork on the side of pirates or police to take down a trader or smuggler.
I kinda agree with Celebrim, I think. I skimmed his post. Has anyone seen Terminus? I like the gadget possibilities in that. You can totally customize your ship, since it has a "cargo bay" with access to space and only so much tonnage for adding a cargo scoop or ram scoop (fuel maker) or robot repair arm or whatever. It also had several electronic slots that could be upgraded for better/farther radar, etc.
--------------------------------------------- Arolte
I said that a couple times in different places, but am too lazy to go find the URL. I'll briefly re-state it here:
We should have multiple engine/battery sizes for the different ships:
Small:
Centurion
Vulture
Valkyrie (can take a medium at a performance hit)
Medium:
Wart Hog
Atlas
Hornet
Marauder
Wraith (can take a heavy at a performance hit)
Heavy:
Centuar
Ragnarok (option of having two at a performance hit)
Prometheus
Batteries:
Light
Recharge: 40-60
Capacity: 200 - 250
Medium
Recharge: 50 - 70
Capacity: 400 - 600
Heavy
Recharge: 55 - 75
Capacity: 1000 - 1500
Fast charge
Recharge: 60 - 80
Capacity: 75 - 125
The idea here is to give larger ships back their effectiveness. Right now, a Ragnarok with two gatling cannons will run out of energy very quickly, and due to the short range of the cannons, largely is a sitting duck. Here, short of changing weapons, gives the ship a fighting chance. Basically, gunships and bombers should be able to unleash much more ordnance than a fighter and still recover energy-wise just as quickly.
I'm not talking engines here, as I haven't thought on the matter yet. However, the concept is to give small ships the acceleration, yet lack the top speeds to catch a freighter. There you would need a large ship. Perhaps the idea would be such:
"Fighter engine" (i.e. small)
Top speed: 65
Max boost speed: 190
Boost power intake: 50 - 65 Eu/sec
*Special: Can maneuver while boosting
This would give a fighter at least a chance of catching a freighter, yet would require the use of non-energy weapons, as using primary weapons would drain the battery too quickly.
Heavy (i.e. freighter engine)
Top speed: 180
No boost.
Energy intake: 65 - 80
This would allow the freighter to continually accelerate throughout a straight run. It also would allow it to engage fighters at higher speeds. It only needs to stop accelerating and start firing. Since it isn't boosting, it's speed would not decrease at all. So if it stops accelerating at ~120 m/s, it could devote all its energy to weapons. This would require teamwork on the side of pirates or police to take down a trader or smuggler.
I kinda agree with Celebrim, I think. I skimmed his post. Has anyone seen Terminus? I like the gadget possibilities in that. You can totally customize your ship, since it has a "cargo bay" with access to space and only so much tonnage for adding a cargo scoop or ram scoop (fuel maker) or robot repair arm or whatever. It also had several electronic slots that could be upgraded for better/farther radar, etc.
as it has been said in-game "...Bombers should not be able to go toe to toe with fighters..." Ive never seen a B-52 be able to hold its own against an F-16, Bombers are good at bombing, fighters are good at fighting other fighters and escorting other bombers. What you are aiming for is to have bombers be able to hold their own against a fighter. Like the rag, A valk, centurion, or Vulture chould be able to nimble dance circles around it and blow it up easily. But thats where escorts come in: you have other fighters to occupy the enemy fighters so that the bombers can take out a strategic target i.e. a frigate. there is a reason the ragnorak's description is "Heavy Bomber" and not "Heavy Fighter"
Yet a Junker could not take out a B-17.
An considering the lack of effective homing weapons, I'd say that the analogy fits better with bombers that have defensive weapons than bombers that have a little automated cannon in the back.
Also realize that one or two missiles do in aircraft nowadays, and they have to drop everything they're doing to avoid the missiles.
An considering the lack of effective homing weapons, I'd say that the analogy fits better with bombers that have defensive weapons than bombers that have a little automated cannon in the back.
Also realize that one or two missiles do in aircraft nowadays, and they have to drop everything they're doing to avoid the missiles.
You all are going into too much detail, and missed the point of my suggestion.
The game would be more fun if there were some "bigger" ships that were commonly seen that you couldn't take down completely on your own.
The current light style ships can stay, but I'd make them _all_ lighter and faster.
Then have this monster ship that's double the current model size, and 50x the HP. Have the hull be cheap, and carry tons of cargo. It's a newbie tanker truck, but it can only be taken down with teamwork.
And don't make it a total cripple to drive. Make it something like the current blue heavy bomber. All the light ships should get agility hikes per above too, so they maintain this relationship of gnats or wasps to a porcupine.
The game would be more fun if there were some "bigger" ships that were commonly seen that you couldn't take down completely on your own.
The current light style ships can stay, but I'd make them _all_ lighter and faster.
Then have this monster ship that's double the current model size, and 50x the HP. Have the hull be cheap, and carry tons of cargo. It's a newbie tanker truck, but it can only be taken down with teamwork.
And don't make it a total cripple to drive. Make it something like the current blue heavy bomber. All the light ships should get agility hikes per above too, so they maintain this relationship of gnats or wasps to a porcupine.
jm,
come on every ship is already to bloody agile.
I mostly overturn in a valk or a vult when im flying in physics. And know you are trying to make it even more agile ?
Please dont. And that ship with 50x the hp is going to be the frigate, and if you are going to put in the ship like you stateed, then you are going to so nerve the frigate.
cheers
come on every ship is already to bloody agile.
I mostly overturn in a valk or a vult when im flying in physics. And know you are trying to make it even more agile ?
Please dont. And that ship with 50x the hp is going to be the frigate, and if you are going to put in the ship like you stateed, then you are going to so nerve the frigate.
cheers
PMB, there will be *bigger* ships, i.e. Frigates and Battlecruisers. You ever seen the frigate in sector 16? If the bots didnt ram it to death, you wouldnt be able to take it out on your on. But right now the mass formula for the ships is a bit screwy and will not allow shipsthat big, this will be changed in the future so that players can control these ships. And when THAT happens, the bombers will have a true role.
Yes! There we go, SirCamps, so it was you. I like your list over there. Make it so, devs! Eheheh...
As far as overturning and too much agility, I agree that maybe the Valk is probably as high as it'll go. I'm not sure, maybe a1k0n's flying saucer is probably higher in agility. But anyway, anything over that is probably too excessive. I mean I'm having trouble keeping my mouse steady at such a high sensitivity when controlling the more agile ships.
That's part of the reason why I don't use the Valk much--it's all the hideous overturning and oversensitivity of the controls that screws up my aim. A ship should move smoothly and gracefully like a sweet, sexy woman... like our friend the Hornet! But then again it does have the tendency to wobble a lot due to the "dampers" being offset or whatever. So maybe one could actually compare the Hornet's wobbling reticule to a woman's breasts. You think maybe I need to get out more often?
Maybe if we're really lucky the devs could implement some sort of mouse scaling feature for all the ships to prevent such problems. But I don't even know where to start on how to suggest such a technical solution. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Humpy, while it's true that bombers should not be able to go "toe-to-toe" in a 1-v-1 dogfight with fighters, they still need to have some defensive capabilities to make 'em harder to take down. B-17s had turrets with nearly 360 degrees of coverage to take down enemy fighters. Obviously it'll be a while until we see turreted bombers, but until then the defensive line of weapons need to be upgraded for that very same reason. While their role isn't specifically to take down fighters, it should do a good job of keeping them at bay in order to survive.
As far as overturning and too much agility, I agree that maybe the Valk is probably as high as it'll go. I'm not sure, maybe a1k0n's flying saucer is probably higher in agility. But anyway, anything over that is probably too excessive. I mean I'm having trouble keeping my mouse steady at such a high sensitivity when controlling the more agile ships.
That's part of the reason why I don't use the Valk much--it's all the hideous overturning and oversensitivity of the controls that screws up my aim. A ship should move smoothly and gracefully like a sweet, sexy woman... like our friend the Hornet! But then again it does have the tendency to wobble a lot due to the "dampers" being offset or whatever. So maybe one could actually compare the Hornet's wobbling reticule to a woman's breasts. You think maybe I need to get out more often?
Maybe if we're really lucky the devs could implement some sort of mouse scaling feature for all the ships to prevent such problems. But I don't even know where to start on how to suggest such a technical solution. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Humpy, while it's true that bombers should not be able to go "toe-to-toe" in a 1-v-1 dogfight with fighters, they still need to have some defensive capabilities to make 'em harder to take down. B-17s had turrets with nearly 360 degrees of coverage to take down enemy fighters. Obviously it'll be a while until we see turreted bombers, but until then the defensive line of weapons need to be upgraded for that very same reason. While their role isn't specifically to take down fighters, it should do a good job of keeping them at bay in order to survive.
The problem with defensive weapons now, is that they all fire forward as offense OR can be used as an offensive weapon. If you want some defensive weapons, get an escort of fighters for your bomber, thats what supposed to defend bombers, not the bomber itself.
and we have the equivelant of the turrets, its made to NOT be 360 degrees to that it isnt super-uber
and we have the equivelant of the turrets, its made to NOT be 360 degrees to that it isnt super-uber
Um... escorts aren't the only thing that defend bombers. Not even for today's military. Why would someone want to manufacture bombers that can't defend themselves? I'm not saying escorts shouldn't be used, but bombers shouldn't be the flying targets that they are now.
The problem is that bombers are using engines and batteries available to fighters. Weapons are a problem too
*goes off to create a separate thread*
*goes off to create a separate thread*
me finds a nice defensive weapon against a light ship : a swarm. just stop when they come at 200 -300 m shoot 2 swarms, then run to get your fighter ship or until cover arrives. Rinse and repeat untill :
a) cover arrived
b) out of swarms
c) dead
Only problem is that I run way to fast out of swarms, but upping the swarms would make it to hard. maybe putting an exta large slot on all the heavys ?? that could maybe be a nice thought?
me imagines a prom with 2 heavy slots or a rag with 3 or ow ow a centaur with 3 large slots. me wants, me wants :D. Think about the havoc 1 minelayer like that could cause :D
cheers
a) cover arrived
b) out of swarms
c) dead
Only problem is that I run way to fast out of swarms, but upping the swarms would make it to hard. maybe putting an exta large slot on all the heavys ?? that could maybe be a nice thought?
me imagines a prom with 2 heavy slots or a rag with 3 or ow ow a centaur with 3 large slots. me wants, me wants :D. Think about the havoc 1 minelayer like that could cause :D
cheers
Maybe there could be a limited number of swarms that can be launched due to limitations of on-board computers. That way you can up the swarm ammo capacity by a lot without having to worry about spamming the weapon.
and think of the balancing issues rene.
either you would have to knock those ack down OR knock everything up
either you would have to knock those ack down OR knock everything up
Balancing issues ?
The heavys are easy prey for a fighter. The 3 large will make them a little more effective and a little less of a sitting duck. But it wont make them uber. a bomber is very easy to kill with a gaussconfig on a ship. Or any other energyweapon at that.
The reason behind this is that bombers can still quite easy dodge rockets/torpedoes but due to their big size, they are a big target for an energyweapon.
The frigate will be kinda vice versa, easy to shoot with torpedoes because it practically cant avoide them, but it can suck up loads and loads of gausshits "energybased". The reason for this is that rockets are still effective from 1km while every energyweapon that we have know are pretty useless at 500m. So if you made it so that if a fighter came in the proximity of a frigate that the fighter wouldnt be able to shoot. Like a no fire zone round a station? I dont know, just tossing around ideas just to make every ship usable and not only the high agility ones. Because the rag or prom or centaur or wraith arent flown a lot. Not to say nearly never.
cheers
The heavys are easy prey for a fighter. The 3 large will make them a little more effective and a little less of a sitting duck. But it wont make them uber. a bomber is very easy to kill with a gaussconfig on a ship. Or any other energyweapon at that.
The reason behind this is that bombers can still quite easy dodge rockets/torpedoes but due to their big size, they are a big target for an energyweapon.
The frigate will be kinda vice versa, easy to shoot with torpedoes because it practically cant avoide them, but it can suck up loads and loads of gausshits "energybased". The reason for this is that rockets are still effective from 1km while every energyweapon that we have know are pretty useless at 500m. So if you made it so that if a fighter came in the proximity of a frigate that the fighter wouldnt be able to shoot. Like a no fire zone round a station? I dont know, just tossing around ideas just to make every ship usable and not only the high agility ones. Because the rag or prom or centaur or wraith arent flown a lot. Not to say nearly never.
cheers
woah, wraith not flown a lot? rag not flown a lot? and your on?
anyway your still expecting a bomber to be able to go toe to toe to a fighter, bombers currently have no real use in this game, right now we dont have anything that needs bombing, but with the advent of mission and player usable frigates we will have uses for them, but only if you work together, being a bomber is supposed to mean you have to rely HEAVILY on escorts and be able to do lots of damage to a large, nearly stationary target.
anyway your still expecting a bomber to be able to go toe to toe to a fighter, bombers currently have no real use in this game, right now we dont have anything that needs bombing, but with the advent of mission and player usable frigates we will have uses for them, but only if you work together, being a bomber is supposed to mean you have to rely HEAVILY on escorts and be able to do lots of damage to a large, nearly stationary target.