Forums » Suggestions
Loadout of a wraith the hog is 1l1s
Now the hornet is the hornet because it has 4s you can't change that, then it will be a wraith or a prom with a hull cut. You say you love the hornet but you don't realy love it! You like her body but you wanna change whats underneath and make it like your girlfriend the wraith (or is she a prom?)
Now the hornet is the hornet because it has 4s you can't change that, then it will be a wraith or a prom with a hull cut. You say you love the hornet but you don't realy love it! You like her body but you wanna change whats underneath and make it like your girlfriend the wraith (or is she a prom?)
I have nothing to add to this conversation. I'm just testing the reported forum bug regarding this thread.
Where'd 5k come from? I didn't mention any numbers.
I gave a fictive number, based on the hull of the cent and your comment of making it very very weak. In my opinion that is a hul beneath the one fo a cent/bus. so 10k - 5k = 5k. Like I said, its fictive and just a thought.
But joe schmoe is an individual. And like I stated, its the majority of the in game community that thinks that the hornet is good enough and at best should get an increase of 1k hull. But since the community is vast, you can think about joe schmoe as not a person with 1 opinion but with the condensed opinion of a group. and as you know, for a group you just cant say that it is because the person likes to keep this or that. Because a group consists of different opinions and they have reached a consensus. This consensus was: hornet layout is good, but it could use something extra. and a hullincrease could have been an option.
The problem with you altering the hornet is that if you dont add the other ship, youll just decrease the diversity of the test and in stead of balancing different combination of weaponports against each other, you are trying to homogenize them and only change some of the other attributes while one of the challenges is to balance ships with as well a different loadout as a different agility, ...
/snip
There's no mention of whether you're for or against allowing players to defend themselves, regardless of what ship they fly. Another thing about MMORPGs is that you're often given a chance to avoid fighting or killing anyone altogether. It's supposed to encourage a variety of roles. When any single ship can't defend itself properly, it's failing this task and thus discouraging that certain role.
/end snip
a normal rpg works on a pointbase. And if you want to exit a fight then your diplomatic skills need to be high. But because we arent in a typical rpg, you could consider a prerequisite of a different aproach of not the points, but using a diplomatic ship or investing in some gizmo.
And since the hornet is a strikeship, that means get in, hit and get out before the enemy noticed that you were there and killed the target, you are already back at the station.
Another reason why an attack fighter is worse at defending then a standard advanced fighter is:
compare the attack fighter with a kensai, easier to hit but if it hits it packs a mean punch. Same for the hornet, its harder to defend, but if 1 shot lands then he can be on the road to RIPland "in stead of graceland :D"
Another analogy, a 2 handed sword: is bad at defending because you lose the shieldbonus, but if it hits then the enemy feels it sting.
/snip
Okay so let me get this straight. You labeled the Hornet as a hit-and-run ship. I pointed out that it clearly can't "run" away from the enemy if they have a faster ship. So that leaves us with only the "hit" part, which is really questionable considering the crazy wobble it has. So what exactly is it supposed to do besides die when it encounters a Vulture or Valkyrie with gauss cannons or sunflares?
/end snip
It can run away, but not from the fighters. It would be annoying as hell if your fighters couldnt catch a supportship. But if a prom or any other medium agility ship, maybe even the warthog, didnt try it yet chases it then the hornet can run, easilly.
/snip
Because my view is in the minority its wrong? Gee, you should tell Martin Luther King Jr. that his views were wrong too. That's wonderful reasoning there. The only reason I'm more vocal about it is because I actually FLY it more than once.
/end snip
no because your view is the one of the minority you should adapt to the majority in stead of the majority adapting to the minority. Majority decides, so either you get more support for your ideas or you just leave it as it is and follow the rest of the majority. It doesnt mean that you cant phrase your points, but dont expect the devs to listen to it. If they thik that the hornet is still not balanced then unrelated to the peoples opinion, they will change it. But if they think tha tit is correct, then they wont change it and if you stay nagging about the same thing over and over, theyll just shut their ears for every one of your proposals even if they are so good that it could be so feasable to do them.
???
I was the first person that used a gauss in stead of an advanced gatling, they considered me mad, but you can see a lot of people flying one now :D
/snip
How do you figure? Not everyone likes rockets. I personally like gravitons and geminis. We each have our own taste. And with that there will always be a majority favorable weapon loadout. I don't see how that strengthens your argument though.
/end snip
How I figure: we eah ahve our own tastes yes, but if you have access to an advanced gatling, then you would be mad putting in a tach. As you yourselve said, a heavy isnt anything with a non aimadded weapon. It needs this weapon to be succesfull, your exact own words
EDIT if there is more that I can think off then I will add it tommorow , euhm today. puts on his sleep hat, 5am :(
I gave a fictive number, based on the hull of the cent and your comment of making it very very weak. In my opinion that is a hul beneath the one fo a cent/bus. so 10k - 5k = 5k. Like I said, its fictive and just a thought.
But joe schmoe is an individual. And like I stated, its the majority of the in game community that thinks that the hornet is good enough and at best should get an increase of 1k hull. But since the community is vast, you can think about joe schmoe as not a person with 1 opinion but with the condensed opinion of a group. and as you know, for a group you just cant say that it is because the person likes to keep this or that. Because a group consists of different opinions and they have reached a consensus. This consensus was: hornet layout is good, but it could use something extra. and a hullincrease could have been an option.
The problem with you altering the hornet is that if you dont add the other ship, youll just decrease the diversity of the test and in stead of balancing different combination of weaponports against each other, you are trying to homogenize them and only change some of the other attributes while one of the challenges is to balance ships with as well a different loadout as a different agility, ...
/snip
There's no mention of whether you're for or against allowing players to defend themselves, regardless of what ship they fly. Another thing about MMORPGs is that you're often given a chance to avoid fighting or killing anyone altogether. It's supposed to encourage a variety of roles. When any single ship can't defend itself properly, it's failing this task and thus discouraging that certain role.
/end snip
a normal rpg works on a pointbase. And if you want to exit a fight then your diplomatic skills need to be high. But because we arent in a typical rpg, you could consider a prerequisite of a different aproach of not the points, but using a diplomatic ship or investing in some gizmo.
And since the hornet is a strikeship, that means get in, hit and get out before the enemy noticed that you were there and killed the target, you are already back at the station.
Another reason why an attack fighter is worse at defending then a standard advanced fighter is:
compare the attack fighter with a kensai, easier to hit but if it hits it packs a mean punch. Same for the hornet, its harder to defend, but if 1 shot lands then he can be on the road to RIPland "in stead of graceland :D"
Another analogy, a 2 handed sword: is bad at defending because you lose the shieldbonus, but if it hits then the enemy feels it sting.
/snip
Okay so let me get this straight. You labeled the Hornet as a hit-and-run ship. I pointed out that it clearly can't "run" away from the enemy if they have a faster ship. So that leaves us with only the "hit" part, which is really questionable considering the crazy wobble it has. So what exactly is it supposed to do besides die when it encounters a Vulture or Valkyrie with gauss cannons or sunflares?
/end snip
It can run away, but not from the fighters. It would be annoying as hell if your fighters couldnt catch a supportship. But if a prom or any other medium agility ship, maybe even the warthog, didnt try it yet chases it then the hornet can run, easilly.
/snip
Because my view is in the minority its wrong? Gee, you should tell Martin Luther King Jr. that his views were wrong too. That's wonderful reasoning there. The only reason I'm more vocal about it is because I actually FLY it more than once.
/end snip
no because your view is the one of the minority you should adapt to the majority in stead of the majority adapting to the minority. Majority decides, so either you get more support for your ideas or you just leave it as it is and follow the rest of the majority. It doesnt mean that you cant phrase your points, but dont expect the devs to listen to it. If they thik that the hornet is still not balanced then unrelated to the peoples opinion, they will change it. But if they think tha tit is correct, then they wont change it and if you stay nagging about the same thing over and over, theyll just shut their ears for every one of your proposals even if they are so good that it could be so feasable to do them.
???
I was the first person that used a gauss in stead of an advanced gatling, they considered me mad, but you can see a lot of people flying one now :D
/snip
How do you figure? Not everyone likes rockets. I personally like gravitons and geminis. We each have our own taste. And with that there will always be a majority favorable weapon loadout. I don't see how that strengthens your argument though.
/end snip
How I figure: we eah ahve our own tastes yes, but if you have access to an advanced gatling, then you would be mad putting in a tach. As you yourselve said, a heavy isnt anything with a non aimadded weapon. It needs this weapon to be succesfull, your exact own words
EDIT if there is more that I can think off then I will add it tommorow , euhm today. puts on his sleep hat, 5am :(
Daon, can you explain to me why the Warthog has 1 L-port and 1 S-port? The Atlas has the very same weapon ports. Why is that? Like I said before, for the trillionth time, the roles between the two ships differ. That's why they're so close together, yet so far apart.
My proposal is the same idea. Make the Wraith have the same weapon ports as the Hornet. But since they're totally different roles they won't interfere with each other. I don't understand why people don't get this. They seem to dodge it rather than discussing it.
>This consensus was: hornet layout is good, but it could use something extra.
>and a hullincrease could have been an option.
Renegade, you're basing the opinion of a handful of individuals who probably only make up 2% of the total population of the game. And like I said before, what's popular isn't always what's right. Not everyone flies the Hornet much. Yet they continue to make judgements based on a five minute joyride, thinking that they're automatically qualified to argue. I would hardly consider such a person as a reliable source to base gameplay changes on.
>the test and in stead of balancing different combination of weaponports against
>each other, you are trying to homogenize them and only change some of the
>other attributes while one of the challenges is to balance ships with as well a
>different loadout as a different agility, ...
Homogenization is not necessarily a bad thing. The Warthog and Atlas is proof of this. I feel that one of the ways to balance the game is to think of each ship as a step up from each other. Each ship has their own role in the game right now, and each one of those roles require a unique weapon port configuration in order to be successful.
I'm not asking for every ship to have the same agility, hull points, and cargo space. I'm simply pointing out that we already have configurations which allow for that smooth transition between roles. It's a clear example that homogenization has worked so far. So why not take it further and make the Hornet and Wraith that next step?
>compare the attack fighter with a kensai, easier to hit but if it hits it packs a
>mean punch. Same for the hornet, its harder to defend, but if 1 shot lands then
>he can be on the road to RIPland "in stead of graceland :D"
I have no idea what kensai means. The main issue here, however, is that the Hornet doesn't land too many shots, if any, when it's up against a Vulture or Valkyrie. About 90% of the time I only manage to hit them once or twice with quad gravitons. As I said before, the wobble handicaps it to the point of being completely defenseless at close ranges.
>no because your view is the one of the minority you should adapt to the majority
>in stead of the majority adapting to the minority. Majority decides, so either you
>get more support for your ideas or you just leave it as it is and follow the rest of
>the majority. It doesnt mean that you cant phrase your points, but dont expect
This is by far the most absurd statement I've read from you. Because I don't agree with everyone, I should learn to conform and suck it up? LOL! Clearly you don't have a good understanding of the mechanics of this forum. I'm just as free to discuss my ideas as you are, whether you agree with them or not. I don't have to conform to ANYTHING.
As for my ideas not having any support, for some reason you continue to ignore some points that have backed up my ideas. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record because of it. Nevertheless, I still feel your argument is weak. You may think so about mine too. But that's okay, that's why we continue to post here.
>the devs to listen to it. If they thik that the hornet is still not balanced then
>unrelated to the peoples opinion, they will change it. But if they think tha tit is
>correct, then they wont change it and if you stay nagging about the same thing
>over and over, theyll just shut their ears for every one of your proposals even if
>they are so good that it could be so feasable to do them.
The devs haven't been very vocal about their goals regarding the current line of ships. So the truth is we really don't know what's on their minds. Just because we won't see a suggestion being implemented within the next release doesn't mean it won't be implemented at all. They have a strict schedule of getting bugs ironed out before they move on to gameplay changes.
However, it's unfortunate that the devs don't have the time to discuss most of the suggestions that are being present. I was hoping they'd participate more with suggestions and provide their own feedback. Many other games usually have devs which respond to suggestions on a regular basis, and even go so far as to have a sticky note disclaimer at the top of a forum explaining what topics were already raised and which suggestions they definitely will NOT be implementing.
If the devs completely disagree with what I'm saying, I'd like to know so I won't have to keep posting about it. I'm just as tired about debating this as you are of hearing it. I'm not having any more fun than you are. And believe me, I'm really not trying to whine your ears off to submission. But every time someone says the Hornet or whatever is fine, I have the urge to post about it and give my own two cents on the topic.
My proposal is the same idea. Make the Wraith have the same weapon ports as the Hornet. But since they're totally different roles they won't interfere with each other. I don't understand why people don't get this. They seem to dodge it rather than discussing it.
>This consensus was: hornet layout is good, but it could use something extra.
>and a hullincrease could have been an option.
Renegade, you're basing the opinion of a handful of individuals who probably only make up 2% of the total population of the game. And like I said before, what's popular isn't always what's right. Not everyone flies the Hornet much. Yet they continue to make judgements based on a five minute joyride, thinking that they're automatically qualified to argue. I would hardly consider such a person as a reliable source to base gameplay changes on.
>the test and in stead of balancing different combination of weaponports against
>each other, you are trying to homogenize them and only change some of the
>other attributes while one of the challenges is to balance ships with as well a
>different loadout as a different agility, ...
Homogenization is not necessarily a bad thing. The Warthog and Atlas is proof of this. I feel that one of the ways to balance the game is to think of each ship as a step up from each other. Each ship has their own role in the game right now, and each one of those roles require a unique weapon port configuration in order to be successful.
I'm not asking for every ship to have the same agility, hull points, and cargo space. I'm simply pointing out that we already have configurations which allow for that smooth transition between roles. It's a clear example that homogenization has worked so far. So why not take it further and make the Hornet and Wraith that next step?
>compare the attack fighter with a kensai, easier to hit but if it hits it packs a
>mean punch. Same for the hornet, its harder to defend, but if 1 shot lands then
>he can be on the road to RIPland "in stead of graceland :D"
I have no idea what kensai means. The main issue here, however, is that the Hornet doesn't land too many shots, if any, when it's up against a Vulture or Valkyrie. About 90% of the time I only manage to hit them once or twice with quad gravitons. As I said before, the wobble handicaps it to the point of being completely defenseless at close ranges.
>no because your view is the one of the minority you should adapt to the majority
>in stead of the majority adapting to the minority. Majority decides, so either you
>get more support for your ideas or you just leave it as it is and follow the rest of
>the majority. It doesnt mean that you cant phrase your points, but dont expect
This is by far the most absurd statement I've read from you. Because I don't agree with everyone, I should learn to conform and suck it up? LOL! Clearly you don't have a good understanding of the mechanics of this forum. I'm just as free to discuss my ideas as you are, whether you agree with them or not. I don't have to conform to ANYTHING.
As for my ideas not having any support, for some reason you continue to ignore some points that have backed up my ideas. I'm beginning to sound like a broken record because of it. Nevertheless, I still feel your argument is weak. You may think so about mine too. But that's okay, that's why we continue to post here.
>the devs to listen to it. If they thik that the hornet is still not balanced then
>unrelated to the peoples opinion, they will change it. But if they think tha tit is
>correct, then they wont change it and if you stay nagging about the same thing
>over and over, theyll just shut their ears for every one of your proposals even if
>they are so good that it could be so feasable to do them.
The devs haven't been very vocal about their goals regarding the current line of ships. So the truth is we really don't know what's on their minds. Just because we won't see a suggestion being implemented within the next release doesn't mean it won't be implemented at all. They have a strict schedule of getting bugs ironed out before they move on to gameplay changes.
However, it's unfortunate that the devs don't have the time to discuss most of the suggestions that are being present. I was hoping they'd participate more with suggestions and provide their own feedback. Many other games usually have devs which respond to suggestions on a regular basis, and even go so far as to have a sticky note disclaimer at the top of a forum explaining what topics were already raised and which suggestions they definitely will NOT be implementing.
If the devs completely disagree with what I'm saying, I'd like to know so I won't have to keep posting about it. I'm just as tired about debating this as you are of hearing it. I'm not having any more fun than you are. And believe me, I'm really not trying to whine your ears off to submission. But every time someone says the Hornet or whatever is fine, I have the urge to post about it and give my own two cents on the topic.
/snip
I have no idea what kensai means. The main issue here, however, is that the Hornet doesn't land too many shots, if any, when it's up against a Vulture or Valkyrie. About 90% of the time I only manage to hit them once or twice with quad gravitons. As I said before, the wobble handicaps it to the point of being completely defenseless at close ranges
/end snip
ack, every rpg freak knows what a kensai is :(. A kensai is the epithome of a fighter, it is a swordsaint that focusses more towards his wepaon then towards his defense. And because of this he does more damage with every hit then any other normal fighter. "PS: if you still dont know, then I suggest that you go and get BG2 :D"
So to reiterate my point, the hornet if it hits lands a destructive blow. The lack of you hitting someone, is just bad luck "or bad tactics, whatever fits best". And as a way to compensate for its high offense chance, it has a low defense chance.
/snip
Daon, can you explain to me why the Warthog has 1 L-port and 1 S-port? The Atlas has the very same weapon ports. Why is that? Like I said before, for the trillionth time, the roles between the two ships differ. That's why they're so close together, yet so far apart.
/end snip
ill try to answer it as you once asked me to do. The difference between an atlas in fighting regards is as big as the difference between a vult and a wraith. the atlas is very boxy, bigger and a lot easier to hit then the small strikeship called the warthog. I do admit that I never found the 1 large port on the warthog a good idea, but still, its all good because the ship is balanced. But in contradiction to the hornet, it started out as a 1 small and 1 large port, but a hornet started as a 4 small port ship, so retain its identity "4 small ports" and change another of its characteristics.
Because you dont choose a hornet because of its high hull, or medium hull or any other thing. No you choose it because you want to mount 4 small weaponpods in stead of only 3 or 2.
/snip
Renegade, you're basing the opinion of a handful of individuals who probably only make up 2% of the total population of the game. And like I said before, what's popular isn't always what's right. Not everyone flies the Hornet much. Yet they continue to make judgements based on a five minute joyride, thinking that they're automatically qualified to argue. I would hardly consider such a person as a reliable source to base gameplay changes on.
/end snip
I have flown the hornet a lot in the beginning. I flew it constantely. But I stepped over to a vult, because I liek to dodge more and stay alive in stead of hittig hard but have some moderat eproblems dodging. other people fly it regurlarly. And maybe I did only account for 2% of the total community. But I did ask it multiple times at the active community, and not at the community on a break.
/snip
Homogenization is not necessarily a bad thing.
/end snip
In my opinion, this is a test, and a test is used to test out things. These things are different weaponsetups, different positionings of weaponparts and so on. But the more you are homogenizing it, the lesser testing that you are doing.
The homogenization process is used when people make the final project, or when they are trying to polish the small things. But since this is a test, and if you are going to change the only 4 small port ship to a 3th version of a 2 small, 1 large port type of ship, that you are diversifying the test less and in the end will get a stale final project.
/snip
This is by far the most absurd statement I've read from you. Because I don't agree with everyone, I should learn to conform and suck it up? LOL! Clearly you don't have a good understanding of the mechanics of this forum. I'm just as free to discuss my ideas as you are, whether you agree with them or not. I don't have to conform to ANYTHING.
/end snip
Nope, actually this is the way that your esteemed mister bush has been elected. He got the majority of the votes. And even if he does stupid things, the minority "the people that didnt vote for him" still need to adapt to what he is saying.
Besides, as I said, you can discuss in here, but not 200 times the same thing over and over. Just discuss it once and when the devs altered the hornet and it is still not entirely to your liking or balanced then you can raise the problem again. But constantly raising the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over gets irritating just as this line is irritating to read.
/snip
The devs haven't been very vocal about their goals regarding the current line of ships. So the truth is we really don't know what's on their minds. Just because we won't see a suggestion being implemented within the next release doesn't mean it won't be implemented at all. They have a strict schedule of getting bugs ironed out before they move on to gameplay changes.
/end snip
or maybe they are just tired of seeing someone post things where they dont find a balancing issue in. Or they dont mind it and as long as not more people complain about the hornet it wont have a bigger priority.
/snip
However, it's unfortunate that the devs don't have the time to discuss most of the suggestions that are being present. I was hoping they'd participate more with suggestions and provide their own feedback. Many other games usually have devs which respond to suggestions on a regular basis, and even go so far as to have a sticky note disclaimer at the top of a forum explaining what topics were already raised and which suggestions they definitely will NOT be implementing.
/end snip
It doesnt mean that if devs dont respond that they dont listen. As they read these post, they are maybe even thinking, stupid people, complaing about a ship that isnt complete yet or something else. But you do have to not forget that guildsoftware needs all its time to iron out the bugs and to implement new content so that they can continue testing new things. In stead of testing the same over and over but with only different values for them.
cheers
I have no idea what kensai means. The main issue here, however, is that the Hornet doesn't land too many shots, if any, when it's up against a Vulture or Valkyrie. About 90% of the time I only manage to hit them once or twice with quad gravitons. As I said before, the wobble handicaps it to the point of being completely defenseless at close ranges
/end snip
ack, every rpg freak knows what a kensai is :(. A kensai is the epithome of a fighter, it is a swordsaint that focusses more towards his wepaon then towards his defense. And because of this he does more damage with every hit then any other normal fighter. "PS: if you still dont know, then I suggest that you go and get BG2 :D"
So to reiterate my point, the hornet if it hits lands a destructive blow. The lack of you hitting someone, is just bad luck "or bad tactics, whatever fits best". And as a way to compensate for its high offense chance, it has a low defense chance.
/snip
Daon, can you explain to me why the Warthog has 1 L-port and 1 S-port? The Atlas has the very same weapon ports. Why is that? Like I said before, for the trillionth time, the roles between the two ships differ. That's why they're so close together, yet so far apart.
/end snip
ill try to answer it as you once asked me to do. The difference between an atlas in fighting regards is as big as the difference between a vult and a wraith. the atlas is very boxy, bigger and a lot easier to hit then the small strikeship called the warthog. I do admit that I never found the 1 large port on the warthog a good idea, but still, its all good because the ship is balanced. But in contradiction to the hornet, it started out as a 1 small and 1 large port, but a hornet started as a 4 small port ship, so retain its identity "4 small ports" and change another of its characteristics.
Because you dont choose a hornet because of its high hull, or medium hull or any other thing. No you choose it because you want to mount 4 small weaponpods in stead of only 3 or 2.
/snip
Renegade, you're basing the opinion of a handful of individuals who probably only make up 2% of the total population of the game. And like I said before, what's popular isn't always what's right. Not everyone flies the Hornet much. Yet they continue to make judgements based on a five minute joyride, thinking that they're automatically qualified to argue. I would hardly consider such a person as a reliable source to base gameplay changes on.
/end snip
I have flown the hornet a lot in the beginning. I flew it constantely. But I stepped over to a vult, because I liek to dodge more and stay alive in stead of hittig hard but have some moderat eproblems dodging. other people fly it regurlarly. And maybe I did only account for 2% of the total community. But I did ask it multiple times at the active community, and not at the community on a break.
/snip
Homogenization is not necessarily a bad thing.
/end snip
In my opinion, this is a test, and a test is used to test out things. These things are different weaponsetups, different positionings of weaponparts and so on. But the more you are homogenizing it, the lesser testing that you are doing.
The homogenization process is used when people make the final project, or when they are trying to polish the small things. But since this is a test, and if you are going to change the only 4 small port ship to a 3th version of a 2 small, 1 large port type of ship, that you are diversifying the test less and in the end will get a stale final project.
/snip
This is by far the most absurd statement I've read from you. Because I don't agree with everyone, I should learn to conform and suck it up? LOL! Clearly you don't have a good understanding of the mechanics of this forum. I'm just as free to discuss my ideas as you are, whether you agree with them or not. I don't have to conform to ANYTHING.
/end snip
Nope, actually this is the way that your esteemed mister bush has been elected. He got the majority of the votes. And even if he does stupid things, the minority "the people that didnt vote for him" still need to adapt to what he is saying.
Besides, as I said, you can discuss in here, but not 200 times the same thing over and over. Just discuss it once and when the devs altered the hornet and it is still not entirely to your liking or balanced then you can raise the problem again. But constantly raising the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over gets irritating just as this line is irritating to read.
/snip
The devs haven't been very vocal about their goals regarding the current line of ships. So the truth is we really don't know what's on their minds. Just because we won't see a suggestion being implemented within the next release doesn't mean it won't be implemented at all. They have a strict schedule of getting bugs ironed out before they move on to gameplay changes.
/end snip
or maybe they are just tired of seeing someone post things where they dont find a balancing issue in. Or they dont mind it and as long as not more people complain about the hornet it wont have a bigger priority.
/snip
However, it's unfortunate that the devs don't have the time to discuss most of the suggestions that are being present. I was hoping they'd participate more with suggestions and provide their own feedback. Many other games usually have devs which respond to suggestions on a regular basis, and even go so far as to have a sticky note disclaimer at the top of a forum explaining what topics were already raised and which suggestions they definitely will NOT be implementing.
/end snip
It doesnt mean that if devs dont respond that they dont listen. As they read these post, they are maybe even thinking, stupid people, complaing about a ship that isnt complete yet or something else. But you do have to not forget that guildsoftware needs all its time to iron out the bugs and to implement new content so that they can continue testing new things. In stead of testing the same over and over but with only different values for them.
cheers
>So to reiterate my point, the hornet if it hits lands a destructive blow. The lack of
>you hitting someone, is just bad luck "or bad tactics, whatever fits best". And as
>a way to compensate for its high offense chance, it has a low defense chance.
The problem here, as I mentioned before, is the wobble. It's totally random and there's very little you can do to control it besides stand still. This will usually result in your death though. I don't see why the Hornet shouldn't be able to defend itself. Nowhere is it written that it should be a try-or-die ship. That's just your personal interpretation. I find your argument hard to swallow.
>Because you dont choose a hornet because of its high hull, or medium hull or
>any other thing. No you choose it because you want to mount 4 small
>weaponpods in stead of only 3 or 2.
That's not why I chose it. I chose it because I wanted to pilot a strike fighter that can have both the task of fighting fighters as well as "bombing" light targets. I also chose it for nostalgic reasons, as I wanted a fighter that was manufactured by Neutrals. Apparently they make crappy ones now. Anyway, you can argue that yes in fact it can kill bombers easily, but it lacks the ablity to fend off fighters by a long shot.
You don't identify ships by what ports they've had all along. You identify them by their intended role. You have to remember that 3.1.x gave the Hornet a lot less ports and customization than it has now. By your reasoning I could argue that the Hornet should be as it was in 3.1.x, not the 4 S-port ship that it is today. But guess what, it's a TEST game. Things will continue to change.
>And maybe I did only account for 2% of the total community. But I did ask it
>multiple times at the active community, and not at the community on a break.
I'm not on a break, first of all. I just started playing again. And since I left the Hornet was untouched. As for you asking the "community" multiple times, where is your proof? Do you have a formal petition readily made to state that everyone shares your views? Let me go down the list of people who posted on this thread...
Renegade, Roguelazer, Daon, and Magus. These are the people who addressed the Hornet topic specifically. Are you saying the majority is four people? Nevertheless, the point that you're trying to make about the majority winning is moot. Very few people fly the Hornet long enough to even get a good feel of it. What makes them so qualified to criticize it?
Because the Hornet isn't as popular as the Valk or Vulture, nobody really cares much about balancing it. That's why you don't hear a lot of discussion about it. People just throw off their views and say, "Yeah yeah... it's fine. Whatever!" That's because they don't care! For a ship that I like a lot, I'd much rather not see it go to waste by a "majority" who thinks they know what they're talking about.
>Nope, actually this is the way that your esteemed mister bush has been elected.
>He got the majority of the votes. And even if he does stupid things, the minority
>"the people that didnt vote for him" still need to adapt to what he is saying.
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Al Gore won the majority of popular votes, NOT Bush. The electoral college is NOT representative of the majority of the population. I suggest you look into studying American government before delving into such topics.
>you hitting someone, is just bad luck "or bad tactics, whatever fits best". And as
>a way to compensate for its high offense chance, it has a low defense chance.
The problem here, as I mentioned before, is the wobble. It's totally random and there's very little you can do to control it besides stand still. This will usually result in your death though. I don't see why the Hornet shouldn't be able to defend itself. Nowhere is it written that it should be a try-or-die ship. That's just your personal interpretation. I find your argument hard to swallow.
>Because you dont choose a hornet because of its high hull, or medium hull or
>any other thing. No you choose it because you want to mount 4 small
>weaponpods in stead of only 3 or 2.
That's not why I chose it. I chose it because I wanted to pilot a strike fighter that can have both the task of fighting fighters as well as "bombing" light targets. I also chose it for nostalgic reasons, as I wanted a fighter that was manufactured by Neutrals. Apparently they make crappy ones now. Anyway, you can argue that yes in fact it can kill bombers easily, but it lacks the ablity to fend off fighters by a long shot.
You don't identify ships by what ports they've had all along. You identify them by their intended role. You have to remember that 3.1.x gave the Hornet a lot less ports and customization than it has now. By your reasoning I could argue that the Hornet should be as it was in 3.1.x, not the 4 S-port ship that it is today. But guess what, it's a TEST game. Things will continue to change.
>And maybe I did only account for 2% of the total community. But I did ask it
>multiple times at the active community, and not at the community on a break.
I'm not on a break, first of all. I just started playing again. And since I left the Hornet was untouched. As for you asking the "community" multiple times, where is your proof? Do you have a formal petition readily made to state that everyone shares your views? Let me go down the list of people who posted on this thread...
Renegade, Roguelazer, Daon, and Magus. These are the people who addressed the Hornet topic specifically. Are you saying the majority is four people? Nevertheless, the point that you're trying to make about the majority winning is moot. Very few people fly the Hornet long enough to even get a good feel of it. What makes them so qualified to criticize it?
Because the Hornet isn't as popular as the Valk or Vulture, nobody really cares much about balancing it. That's why you don't hear a lot of discussion about it. People just throw off their views and say, "Yeah yeah... it's fine. Whatever!" That's because they don't care! For a ship that I like a lot, I'd much rather not see it go to waste by a "majority" who thinks they know what they're talking about.
>Nope, actually this is the way that your esteemed mister bush has been elected.
>He got the majority of the votes. And even if he does stupid things, the minority
>"the people that didnt vote for him" still need to adapt to what he is saying.
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Al Gore won the majority of popular votes, NOT Bush. The electoral college is NOT representative of the majority of the population. I suggest you look into studying American government before delving into such topics.
Arolte, we have NOTHING against balancing the net BUT the WEAPONS are what makes the net what it is, what makes it attractive. You choose a net for the ridiculus firepower! Not for the medium high hull, the WEAPONS. You change the weapons to match the prom then why not get the sturdier, more manuverable, higher cargo prom?
Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? Al Gore won the majority of popular votes, NOT Bush. The electoral college is NOT representative of the majority of the population. I suggest you look into studying American government before delving into such topics.
yes I do. He got the most votes in general, but bush got the most votes in the regions where it counted.
Like I said arolte, I asked in game. Not outside of the game.
cheers
PS: besides if only 5 of us care about posting in this threads and 4 of them are against it then that is still a majority that has reflected extensively upon it.
yes I do. He got the most votes in general, but bush got the most votes in the regions where it counted.
Like I said arolte, I asked in game. Not outside of the game.
cheers
PS: besides if only 5 of us care about posting in this threads and 4 of them are against it then that is still a majority that has reflected extensively upon it.
Seeing how this discussion is going nowhere, I'd like to close off by saying...
Daon, you obviously haven't read my posts. The proposal includes a revision to the Prometheus as well. The two won't be the same. Go back through my posts to refresh your memory and then ponder what you've done wrong. Chop-chop!
Renegade, this is steering more towards a pissing contest than an actual debate. I think it's clear that we'll never agree in our views. Nevertheless, we've both had a chance to offer our own opinions and we shall leave it at that. I think the devs have a pretty good idea of what they're aiming for, so whether they choose one or the other (or neither) is up to them. There's no use fighting over who has the last word.
To the devs, if you've read this far, I am truly thankful for your patience and willingness to read what I've been whining about for so long. I trust that you know what's best for the community with all your wisdom and experience. I hope that with each new release we'll be inching closer and closer to balanced ships to make gameplay fun again. That way you'll put an end to this debate and shut me up for good, once and for all.
=)
Daon, you obviously haven't read my posts. The proposal includes a revision to the Prometheus as well. The two won't be the same. Go back through my posts to refresh your memory and then ponder what you've done wrong. Chop-chop!
Renegade, this is steering more towards a pissing contest than an actual debate. I think it's clear that we'll never agree in our views. Nevertheless, we've both had a chance to offer our own opinions and we shall leave it at that. I think the devs have a pretty good idea of what they're aiming for, so whether they choose one or the other (or neither) is up to them. There's no use fighting over who has the last word.
To the devs, if you've read this far, I am truly thankful for your patience and willingness to read what I've been whining about for so long. I trust that you know what's best for the community with all your wisdom and experience. I hope that with each new release we'll be inching closer and closer to balanced ships to make gameplay fun again. That way you'll put an end to this debate and shut me up for good, once and for all.
=)
Please delete 'em, FM. I'd rather not have this thread be locked or cluttered up by useless flamebait. Thanks.
Arolte the FM already told everyone he knows what his job is.
Secondly, ppl can use the "because I like it now" as a reason to keep things because that is the majority and thus is what the ppl want. YOU cannot use your opinion as a reason because noone seems to agree with it. The net could use an upgrade but the weapons are fine the way they are! The weapons make the ships what they are for better or for worse!
Secondly, ppl can use the "because I like it now" as a reason to keep things because that is the majority and thus is what the ppl want. YOU cannot use your opinion as a reason because noone seems to agree with it. The net could use an upgrade but the weapons are fine the way they are! The weapons make the ships what they are for better or for worse!
What? Yeah, his job is to delete flame posts. Right above is a flame post. I kindly requested that it be deleted. I didn't make demands nor did I flame the FM for not doing so.
People can use the excuse of liking it now, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it's the "right" way to go about balancing ships. You need to carefully consider everyone's viewpoint and determine whether they have a legitimate complaint or suggestion. Sometimes the majority isn't right. Sometimes the best way to find out whether something is good or not is to experiment by temporarily changing stuff around, rather than assuming or misinterpreting ideas.
In addition to that, if you disagree with something I say, I'd like to hear alternative solutions rather than just saying, "No. Your suggestion sucks!" Because that's just a waste of space. And for all I know half of the people who claim it's good now probably don't even fly the Hornet much and aren't as dedicated to it as I am. I have a reason to be concerned, much like you have a reason to be concerned with your favorite ship(s). Unfortunately I happened to pick a ship that's unpopular.
And yes, I can use my opinion as a reason regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not. It's called free speech. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And again, there is no "what they are" in a TEST game. Things are constantly changing around. If something can be better with change, why not change it? That's the reality of beta testing. I'm not going to get pissed if things don't go my way. I just try my best at suggesting and defending what I feel is right.
People can use the excuse of liking it now, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it's the "right" way to go about balancing ships. You need to carefully consider everyone's viewpoint and determine whether they have a legitimate complaint or suggestion. Sometimes the majority isn't right. Sometimes the best way to find out whether something is good or not is to experiment by temporarily changing stuff around, rather than assuming or misinterpreting ideas.
In addition to that, if you disagree with something I say, I'd like to hear alternative solutions rather than just saying, "No. Your suggestion sucks!" Because that's just a waste of space. And for all I know half of the people who claim it's good now probably don't even fly the Hornet much and aren't as dedicated to it as I am. I have a reason to be concerned, much like you have a reason to be concerned with your favorite ship(s). Unfortunately I happened to pick a ship that's unpopular.
And yes, I can use my opinion as a reason regardless of whether anyone agrees with it or not. It's called free speech. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And again, there is no "what they are" in a TEST game. Things are constantly changing around. If something can be better with change, why not change it? That's the reality of beta testing. I'm not going to get pissed if things don't go my way. I just try my best at suggesting and defending what I feel is right.
Here's an alternate suggestion- Leave the Hornet alone. Like I said before.
That's great ... Do you have a reason behind it or did you just feel like saying that?
As I said before, avoid cluttering up this thread with one-line opinions on whether my idea is good or not. It doesn't provide any additional content to the discussion, nor does it provide a strong argument towards your personal ideas. If you have nothing else to say, you're probably better off not posting at all.
As I said before, avoid cluttering up this thread with one-line opinions on whether my idea is good or not. It doesn't provide any additional content to the discussion, nor does it provide a strong argument towards your personal ideas. If you have nothing else to say, you're probably better off not posting at all.
arolte,
for the trillionth time.
the hornet has 4 small slots. I then say to you that if you change it you will get another 2 gauss - 1 swarm loadout and you answer that if you alter the hornet to have to what you proposed, there still would be place for another 4 small ports ship.
But why dont you understand that we know have a 4 small port ship and that we want to keep its presence without altering the ship. So without adding or changing weaponports.
If you so want a ship with the loadout you stated, lets then just make a new ship with that loadout.
We and the devs already invested a lot of time in balancing the hornet. And to a lot of us "majority?" the hornet is adequate. Who cares that it cant defend itself. Its a strikeship. Its meant to come in hit and flee. Not come in, hit, dodge 20 minutes and hope to stay alive against a full fledged fighter ship like a valk.
So to compromise:
a hornet is a 4 small port weapon ship. Dont alter the only 4 small port weapon ship that we have, just do some other things to it. Like adding 1 k hull or ... . There are so many different ways of balancing a ship in stead of making it more homogeneus "celebrim, written correct ?? it means all the same"
Besides if you alter the ship now, and add the 4 weapon ports ship later, then we will have this entire discussion again, and again and again. So please just keep it as it is with another small adjustement to any of its other stats besides weaponparts.
cheers
for the trillionth time.
the hornet has 4 small slots. I then say to you that if you change it you will get another 2 gauss - 1 swarm loadout and you answer that if you alter the hornet to have to what you proposed, there still would be place for another 4 small ports ship.
But why dont you understand that we know have a 4 small port ship and that we want to keep its presence without altering the ship. So without adding or changing weaponports.
If you so want a ship with the loadout you stated, lets then just make a new ship with that loadout.
We and the devs already invested a lot of time in balancing the hornet. And to a lot of us "majority?" the hornet is adequate. Who cares that it cant defend itself. Its a strikeship. Its meant to come in hit and flee. Not come in, hit, dodge 20 minutes and hope to stay alive against a full fledged fighter ship like a valk.
So to compromise:
a hornet is a 4 small port weapon ship. Dont alter the only 4 small port weapon ship that we have, just do some other things to it. Like adding 1 k hull or ... . There are so many different ways of balancing a ship in stead of making it more homogeneus "celebrim, written correct ?? it means all the same"
Besides if you alter the ship now, and add the 4 weapon ports ship later, then we will have this entire discussion again, and again and again. So please just keep it as it is with another small adjustement to any of its other stats besides weaponparts.
cheers
"celebrim, written correct ?? it means all the same"
LOL. Indeed it does.
Your pretty close. I wouldn't have noticed unless you said something, but the word is actually spelled: 'homogeneous'.
Somethings you would much rather have homogenized - milk, for instance, is fairly yucky when its chunky. But, I agree that the units in a war game are not something that benifit from uniformity.
LOL. Indeed it does.
Your pretty close. I wouldn't have noticed unless you said something, but the word is actually spelled: 'homogeneous'.
Somethings you would much rather have homogenized - milk, for instance, is fairly yucky when its chunky. But, I agree that the units in a war game are not something that benifit from uniformity.
>the hornet has 4 small slots. I then say to you that if you change it you
>will get another 2 gauss - 1 swarm loadout and you answer that if you
>alter the hornet to have to what you proposed, there still would be
>place for another 4 small ports ship.
Not if the gauss would be moved over to the L-port class, which was what I proposed. And no, you misunderstood me about what I said with the non-existant 4 S-port ship. I said another ship (brand new) in the future could be made to have that weapon port configuration. IMO the Hornet's role doesn't fit very well with the current configuration. That's what i'm trying to debate here.
>But why dont you understand that we know have a 4 small port ship
>and that we want to keep its presence without altering the ship. So
>without adding or changing weaponports.
You have to ask yourself whether it's balanced though. It's not a matter of what Joe Schmoe wants. It's a matter of whether it's a fair ship that can defend itself. Right now it's failing in that task.
>We and the devs already invested a lot of time in balancing the hornet.
How do you figure? The Hornet only got tweaked once since 3.2.0. That's it. The agility was bumped up by a tiny amount, and it has been left alone since.
>And to a lot of us "majority?" the hornet is adequate. Who cares that it
>cant defend itself. Its a strikeship. Its meant to come in hit and flee.
I care! Because I want to be able to use the ship without constantly getting raped by Valkyrie and Vulture ships. Again, you have to realize that this game is partially aiming to be an MMORPG. It won't remain as a deathmatch space combat sim forever. People will want to do other things besides fight, and you need to respect that. That being said, every ship needs to have some way to defend itself in order to accomplish this.
I should also mention that if the Hornet is a hit-and-run ship, it's a very crappy one at that. The Valkyrie and Vulture has more than twice the acceleration rate of a Hornet, allowing it to catch up AND outrun it regardless of what engine and battery combo you use. I see the hit part, but I don't see the run part. Your example doesn't seem convincing at all.
>Not come in, hit, dodge 20 minutes and hope to stay alive against a full
>fledged fighter ship like a valk.
You're right. That's why it needs an L-port; to shoo away fighters so it can fight from a safer distance. It's not meant to go toe to toe with an advanced fighter at all. The same applies for bombers and transports, which too have L-ports btw.
>Besides if you alter the ship now, and add the 4 weapon ports ship
>later, then we will have this entire discussion again, and again and
>again. So please just keep it as it is with another small adjustement to
>any of its other stats besides weaponparts.
>cheers
The Hornet already has a given role right now. It's meant to be a strike fighter or heavy attack ship. Note the "heavy" part. On the other hand, the non-existant new ship I speak of can have a variety of other roles that would be totally different from the Hornet. There really isn't enough dimension to the current gameplay to really conceptualize such different role. But for the sake of argument I'll provide one possible example.
Think of a ship that's one step above the Valk. Not necessarily faster, but in terms of power. It would be as agile as the Warthog, have 4 S-ports, BUT a very weak hull. I'm not sure what such a ship would be classified as, but clearly it's some form of fighter. Nevertheless, I've given you a fairly balanced alternative to the Hornet, which actually fits its role quite well.
>will get another 2 gauss - 1 swarm loadout and you answer that if you
>alter the hornet to have to what you proposed, there still would be
>place for another 4 small ports ship.
Not if the gauss would be moved over to the L-port class, which was what I proposed. And no, you misunderstood me about what I said with the non-existant 4 S-port ship. I said another ship (brand new) in the future could be made to have that weapon port configuration. IMO the Hornet's role doesn't fit very well with the current configuration. That's what i'm trying to debate here.
>But why dont you understand that we know have a 4 small port ship
>and that we want to keep its presence without altering the ship. So
>without adding or changing weaponports.
You have to ask yourself whether it's balanced though. It's not a matter of what Joe Schmoe wants. It's a matter of whether it's a fair ship that can defend itself. Right now it's failing in that task.
>We and the devs already invested a lot of time in balancing the hornet.
How do you figure? The Hornet only got tweaked once since 3.2.0. That's it. The agility was bumped up by a tiny amount, and it has been left alone since.
>And to a lot of us "majority?" the hornet is adequate. Who cares that it
>cant defend itself. Its a strikeship. Its meant to come in hit and flee.
I care! Because I want to be able to use the ship without constantly getting raped by Valkyrie and Vulture ships. Again, you have to realize that this game is partially aiming to be an MMORPG. It won't remain as a deathmatch space combat sim forever. People will want to do other things besides fight, and you need to respect that. That being said, every ship needs to have some way to defend itself in order to accomplish this.
I should also mention that if the Hornet is a hit-and-run ship, it's a very crappy one at that. The Valkyrie and Vulture has more than twice the acceleration rate of a Hornet, allowing it to catch up AND outrun it regardless of what engine and battery combo you use. I see the hit part, but I don't see the run part. Your example doesn't seem convincing at all.
>Not come in, hit, dodge 20 minutes and hope to stay alive against a full
>fledged fighter ship like a valk.
You're right. That's why it needs an L-port; to shoo away fighters so it can fight from a safer distance. It's not meant to go toe to toe with an advanced fighter at all. The same applies for bombers and transports, which too have L-ports btw.
>Besides if you alter the ship now, and add the 4 weapon ports ship
>later, then we will have this entire discussion again, and again and
>again. So please just keep it as it is with another small adjustement to
>any of its other stats besides weaponparts.
>cheers
The Hornet already has a given role right now. It's meant to be a strike fighter or heavy attack ship. Note the "heavy" part. On the other hand, the non-existant new ship I speak of can have a variety of other roles that would be totally different from the Hornet. There really isn't enough dimension to the current gameplay to really conceptualize such different role. But for the sake of argument I'll provide one possible example.
Think of a ship that's one step above the Valk. Not necessarily faster, but in terms of power. It would be as agile as the Warthog, have 4 S-ports, BUT a very weak hull. I'm not sure what such a ship would be classified as, but clearly it's some form of fighter. Nevertheless, I've given you a fairly balanced alternative to the Hornet, which actually fits its role quite well.
so in reality you are just creating a hornet with a hullcut of 5k for instance and no wobble.
You have to ask yourself whether it's balanced though. It's not a matter of what Joe Schmoe wants. It's a matter of whether it's a fair ship that can defend itself. Right now it's failing in that task.
Joe schmoe = the consumer, every company tries to listen to the needs of the consumer. Naturally they dont listen to 1 person but the entire group. So if 1 person says, hell no, over my death body. Then I hope he has a very high lifeinsurance :D. For the moment, I only hear people IN-GAME say that the hornet is balanced. It has a mean punch. It even outpunches a rag, but as disadvantage has that it is a lot harder to keep alive. For the rest, ever tried out using a cent to take out a hornet. Doesnt work, because the hornet shreds it. A vult, if the hornet is lucky or good then he has a chance of 50% , against a valk : none.
But the valk is the most advanced fighter up to date, if any normal ship would just be able to kill a valk, why would you then even consider using a valk.
Besides a mmorpg = a game where your character stays the same but your equipment improves and adjusts towards your enemy. I dont see you using blades against a construct. The ships = your equipment, your character = your account. And as you as well as me know, in an rpg the weapons improve and somebody flying a hornet isnt making a statement or acting in character. But just expressing a love for a particular ship, not because it is the most effective or the best , but because he feels it is closely related to himself or because he likes the exterior.
So if you wanna fly in a hornet, then expect to have the disadvantage of not flying "la crème de la crème", french for the best of the best. If you fly a hornet then that shows to me, watch out I pack a heavy punch so leave me alone or else be prepared to meet some heavy firepower.
about the time that the devs and we invested in it: The how maniest thread of the hornet isnt this already. I bet it are more then I have fingers. to clarify, i have 10 ;). And since I am responding to it, I am investing my time in it, what I do gladly. But still, seeing these threads pop up by the same person every time, makes me believe that it isnt the ship that is unbalanced but someones elses view tha tis biased because of his idea how his preferred ship should be in stead of using it as it is.
if you changer the gauss to the large slot, thgen you will only get the advanced gatling double rockets set up. Its only because I started using the double gausses and a swarm on my ship that some other people started using the same set up :(.
So in the end, people wont even customize their small slots because the rocket will be preevalent above all.
You're right. That's why it needs an L-port; to shoo away fighters so it can fight from a safer distance. It's not meant to go toe to toe with an advanced fighter at all. The same applies for bombers and transports, which too have L-ports btw.
no it needs a l port so you can defend yourselve, the l port like you so clearly want is only so you can position a advanced gatling in it or swarms. But as you know, they are only succesfull at short range, and I cant envision you killing a vulture/valk from long range in such a set up. The advanced gatling or swarms are used at close range, so the oposer cant flee nor dodge.
Besides who said that you had to hit and run the valks or vult? I see doing a hit and run attack on a rag to be more effective then something else. And a hornet is a supportship and as it is now, it does it job extremely well. BECAUSE if it is lucky, then it can kill a valk or a vult, but generally it wont. If it is lucky then it will kill a rag or a prom. Actually, it has more chance against a rag then a prom.
So all in all, it doesnt excel in attacking any ship or in defending from every ship, and as this it is a very versatile ship.
cheers
You have to ask yourself whether it's balanced though. It's not a matter of what Joe Schmoe wants. It's a matter of whether it's a fair ship that can defend itself. Right now it's failing in that task.
Joe schmoe = the consumer, every company tries to listen to the needs of the consumer. Naturally they dont listen to 1 person but the entire group. So if 1 person says, hell no, over my death body. Then I hope he has a very high lifeinsurance :D. For the moment, I only hear people IN-GAME say that the hornet is balanced. It has a mean punch. It even outpunches a rag, but as disadvantage has that it is a lot harder to keep alive. For the rest, ever tried out using a cent to take out a hornet. Doesnt work, because the hornet shreds it. A vult, if the hornet is lucky or good then he has a chance of 50% , against a valk : none.
But the valk is the most advanced fighter up to date, if any normal ship would just be able to kill a valk, why would you then even consider using a valk.
Besides a mmorpg = a game where your character stays the same but your equipment improves and adjusts towards your enemy. I dont see you using blades against a construct. The ships = your equipment, your character = your account. And as you as well as me know, in an rpg the weapons improve and somebody flying a hornet isnt making a statement or acting in character. But just expressing a love for a particular ship, not because it is the most effective or the best , but because he feels it is closely related to himself or because he likes the exterior.
So if you wanna fly in a hornet, then expect to have the disadvantage of not flying "la crème de la crème", french for the best of the best. If you fly a hornet then that shows to me, watch out I pack a heavy punch so leave me alone or else be prepared to meet some heavy firepower.
about the time that the devs and we invested in it: The how maniest thread of the hornet isnt this already. I bet it are more then I have fingers. to clarify, i have 10 ;). And since I am responding to it, I am investing my time in it, what I do gladly. But still, seeing these threads pop up by the same person every time, makes me believe that it isnt the ship that is unbalanced but someones elses view tha tis biased because of his idea how his preferred ship should be in stead of using it as it is.
if you changer the gauss to the large slot, thgen you will only get the advanced gatling double rockets set up. Its only because I started using the double gausses and a swarm on my ship that some other people started using the same set up :(.
So in the end, people wont even customize their small slots because the rocket will be preevalent above all.
You're right. That's why it needs an L-port; to shoo away fighters so it can fight from a safer distance. It's not meant to go toe to toe with an advanced fighter at all. The same applies for bombers and transports, which too have L-ports btw.
no it needs a l port so you can defend yourselve, the l port like you so clearly want is only so you can position a advanced gatling in it or swarms. But as you know, they are only succesfull at short range, and I cant envision you killing a vulture/valk from long range in such a set up. The advanced gatling or swarms are used at close range, so the oposer cant flee nor dodge.
Besides who said that you had to hit and run the valks or vult? I see doing a hit and run attack on a rag to be more effective then something else. And a hornet is a supportship and as it is now, it does it job extremely well. BECAUSE if it is lucky, then it can kill a valk or a vult, but generally it wont. If it is lucky then it will kill a rag or a prom. Actually, it has more chance against a rag then a prom.
So all in all, it doesnt excel in attacking any ship or in defending from every ship, and as this it is a very versatile ship.
cheers
Why make another ship that has 4s ports? Why not just make/use another ship with 2S 1L. Wait, I know. Because you want the Warthog's layout to use a slightly smaller Hornet model and the Hornet's layout to use a Warthog model. You just want the model of the hornet with the capabilities of the warthog. I don't get it.
Roguelazer, you'd get it if you'd actually READ my posts. Stop being a smartass.
>so in reality you are just creating a hornet with a hullcut of 5k for instance and
>no wobble.
Where'd 5k come from? I didn't mention any numbers.
>Joe schmoe = the consumer, every company tries to listen to the needs of the
>consumer. Naturally they dont listen to 1 person but the entire group. So if 1
>person says, hell no, over my death body. Then I hope he has a very high
>lifeinsurance :D. For the moment, I only hear people IN-GAME say that the
>hornet is balanced. It has a mean punch. It even outpunches a rag, but as
>disadvantage has that it is a lot harder to keep alive. For the rest, ever tried out
>using a cent to take out a hornet. Doesnt work, because the hornet shreds it. A
>vult, if the hornet is lucky or good then he has a chance of 50% , against a valk
>: none.
Sometimes Joe Schmoe doesn't know what he wants. Sometimes Joe Schmoe doesn't thoroughly test the ship by flying around in it longer than they should. Sometimes Joe Schmoe doesn't understand the suggestions that are being made and how it can in fact be beneficial to us as a whole. Sometimes Joe Schmoe wants to keep the ship easily killable for their own advantages. Or sometimes Joe Schmoe wants to have things his/her own way without considering balance. Need I continue?
I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm just saying that some people are ignorant of the fact that something needs to change, and they automatically excuse possible changes just because they had a good experience with the Hornet with the three minutes of total time they had with it! Don't you think someone who has more experience with it would be more credible? I'd think so.
>But the valk is the most advanced fighter up to date, if any normal ship would
>just be able to kill a valk, why would you then even consider using a valk.
Who said this new ship wouldn't be an advanced fighter also? Also, more weapon ports doesn't necessarily mean a Valk killer automatically. The downside to this ship may be its large size and its low hull. I really didn't want to get into making a fictional ship though, because as I said the game right now doesn't have a place for it. It will eventually when more roles are available. Right now we're focusing on balancing everything between fighters to bombers.
>Besides a mmorpg = a game where your character stays the same but your
>equipment improves and adjusts towards your enemy. I dont see you using
>blades against a construct. The ships = your equipment, your character = your
>account. And as you as well as me know, in an rpg the weapons improve and
>somebody flying a hornet isnt making a statement or acting in character. But just
>expressing a love for a particular ship, not because it is the most effective or the
>best , but because he feels it is closely related to himself or because he likes
>the exterior.
There's no mention of whether you're for or against allowing players to defend themselves, regardless of what ship they fly. Another thing about MMORPGs is that you're often given a chance to avoid fighting or killing anyone altogether. It's supposed to encourage a variety of roles. When any single ship can't defend itself properly, it's failing this task and thus discouraging that certain role.
>So if you wanna fly in a hornet, then expect to have the disadvantage of not
>flying "la crème de la crème", french for the best of the best. If you fly a hornet
>then that shows to me, watch out I pack a heavy punch so leave me alone or else
>be prepared to meet some heavy firepower.
Okay so let me get this straight. You labeled the Hornet as a hit-and-run ship. I pointed out that it clearly can't "run" away from the enemy if they have a faster ship. So that leaves us with only the "hit" part, which is really questionable considering the crazy wobble it has. So what exactly is it supposed to do besides die when it encounters a Vulture or Valkyrie with gauss cannons or sunflares?
>about the time that the devs and we invested in it: The how maniest thread of
>the hornet isnt this already. I bet it are more then I have fingers. to clarify, i have
>10 ;). And since I am responding to it, I am investing my time in it, what I do
>gladly. But still, seeing these threads pop up by the same person every time,
>makes me believe that it isnt the ship that is unbalanced but someones elses
>view tha tis biased because of his idea how his preferred ship should be in stead
>of using it as it is.
Because my view is in the minority its wrong? Gee, you should tell Martin Luther King Jr. that his views were wrong too. That's wonderful reasoning there. The only reason I'm more vocal about it is because I actually FLY it more than once.
>if you changer the gauss to the large slot, thgen you will only get the advanced
>gatling double rockets set up. Its only because I started using the double
>gausses and a swarm on my ship that some other people started using the same
>set up :(.
???
>So in the end, people wont even customize their small slots because the rocket
>will be preevalent above all.
How do you figure? Not everyone likes rockets. I personally like gravitons and geminis. We each have our own taste. And with that there will always be a majority favorable weapon loadout. I don't see how that strengthens your argument though.
>no it needs a l port so you can defend yourselve, the l port like you so clearly
>want is only so you can position a advanced gatling in it or swarms. But as you
>know, they are only succesfull at short range, and I cant envision you killing a
>vulture/valk from long range in such a set up. The advanced gatling or swarms
>are used at close range, so the oposer cant flee nor dodge.
It's not supposed to kill fighters at a long range. That's the point I'm trying to bring up here. The Hornet is NOT a Vulture and Valkyrie killer. The reason these weapons are short range is because it will make up for the fact that the reticule wobbles a lot and its turn rate is slower than most other fighters. That's why it needs short range weapons--to keep them away from your ship so you can survive better.
>Besides who said that you had to hit and run the valks or vult? I see doing a hit
>and run attack on a rag to be more effective then something else. And a hornet
>is a supportship and as it is now, it does it job extremely well. BECAUSE if it is
>lucky, then it can kill a valk or a vult, but generally it wont. If it is lucky then it
>will kill a rag or a prom. Actually, it has more chance against a rag then a prom.
You didn't mention anything about what type of ships it was supposed to hit and run, so I gave you an example and pointed out your errors. But now that you mention it, I'll have to change my response.
You do realize that practically every ship can kill a Ragnarok. You don't need to hop into a Hornet the moment you see a Ragnarok just to kill it. So I don't see your idea of it being a support ship as a strong argument either. Its placement in the tier system, as well as its name description of "heavy attack ship", rather seems to imply that it's a strike fighter--a combination of heavy fighter and light bomber.
>so in reality you are just creating a hornet with a hullcut of 5k for instance and
>no wobble.
Where'd 5k come from? I didn't mention any numbers.
>Joe schmoe = the consumer, every company tries to listen to the needs of the
>consumer. Naturally they dont listen to 1 person but the entire group. So if 1
>person says, hell no, over my death body. Then I hope he has a very high
>lifeinsurance :D. For the moment, I only hear people IN-GAME say that the
>hornet is balanced. It has a mean punch. It even outpunches a rag, but as
>disadvantage has that it is a lot harder to keep alive. For the rest, ever tried out
>using a cent to take out a hornet. Doesnt work, because the hornet shreds it. A
>vult, if the hornet is lucky or good then he has a chance of 50% , against a valk
>: none.
Sometimes Joe Schmoe doesn't know what he wants. Sometimes Joe Schmoe doesn't thoroughly test the ship by flying around in it longer than they should. Sometimes Joe Schmoe doesn't understand the suggestions that are being made and how it can in fact be beneficial to us as a whole. Sometimes Joe Schmoe wants to keep the ship easily killable for their own advantages. Or sometimes Joe Schmoe wants to have things his/her own way without considering balance. Need I continue?
I'm not talking about you specifically. I'm just saying that some people are ignorant of the fact that something needs to change, and they automatically excuse possible changes just because they had a good experience with the Hornet with the three minutes of total time they had with it! Don't you think someone who has more experience with it would be more credible? I'd think so.
>But the valk is the most advanced fighter up to date, if any normal ship would
>just be able to kill a valk, why would you then even consider using a valk.
Who said this new ship wouldn't be an advanced fighter also? Also, more weapon ports doesn't necessarily mean a Valk killer automatically. The downside to this ship may be its large size and its low hull. I really didn't want to get into making a fictional ship though, because as I said the game right now doesn't have a place for it. It will eventually when more roles are available. Right now we're focusing on balancing everything between fighters to bombers.
>Besides a mmorpg = a game where your character stays the same but your
>equipment improves and adjusts towards your enemy. I dont see you using
>blades against a construct. The ships = your equipment, your character = your
>account. And as you as well as me know, in an rpg the weapons improve and
>somebody flying a hornet isnt making a statement or acting in character. But just
>expressing a love for a particular ship, not because it is the most effective or the
>best , but because he feels it is closely related to himself or because he likes
>the exterior.
There's no mention of whether you're for or against allowing players to defend themselves, regardless of what ship they fly. Another thing about MMORPGs is that you're often given a chance to avoid fighting or killing anyone altogether. It's supposed to encourage a variety of roles. When any single ship can't defend itself properly, it's failing this task and thus discouraging that certain role.
>So if you wanna fly in a hornet, then expect to have the disadvantage of not
>flying "la crème de la crème", french for the best of the best. If you fly a hornet
>then that shows to me, watch out I pack a heavy punch so leave me alone or else
>be prepared to meet some heavy firepower.
Okay so let me get this straight. You labeled the Hornet as a hit-and-run ship. I pointed out that it clearly can't "run" away from the enemy if they have a faster ship. So that leaves us with only the "hit" part, which is really questionable considering the crazy wobble it has. So what exactly is it supposed to do besides die when it encounters a Vulture or Valkyrie with gauss cannons or sunflares?
>about the time that the devs and we invested in it: The how maniest thread of
>the hornet isnt this already. I bet it are more then I have fingers. to clarify, i have
>10 ;). And since I am responding to it, I am investing my time in it, what I do
>gladly. But still, seeing these threads pop up by the same person every time,
>makes me believe that it isnt the ship that is unbalanced but someones elses
>view tha tis biased because of his idea how his preferred ship should be in stead
>of using it as it is.
Because my view is in the minority its wrong? Gee, you should tell Martin Luther King Jr. that his views were wrong too. That's wonderful reasoning there. The only reason I'm more vocal about it is because I actually FLY it more than once.
>if you changer the gauss to the large slot, thgen you will only get the advanced
>gatling double rockets set up. Its only because I started using the double
>gausses and a swarm on my ship that some other people started using the same
>set up :(.
???
>So in the end, people wont even customize their small slots because the rocket
>will be preevalent above all.
How do you figure? Not everyone likes rockets. I personally like gravitons and geminis. We each have our own taste. And with that there will always be a majority favorable weapon loadout. I don't see how that strengthens your argument though.
>no it needs a l port so you can defend yourselve, the l port like you so clearly
>want is only so you can position a advanced gatling in it or swarms. But as you
>know, they are only succesfull at short range, and I cant envision you killing a
>vulture/valk from long range in such a set up. The advanced gatling or swarms
>are used at close range, so the oposer cant flee nor dodge.
It's not supposed to kill fighters at a long range. That's the point I'm trying to bring up here. The Hornet is NOT a Vulture and Valkyrie killer. The reason these weapons are short range is because it will make up for the fact that the reticule wobbles a lot and its turn rate is slower than most other fighters. That's why it needs short range weapons--to keep them away from your ship so you can survive better.
>Besides who said that you had to hit and run the valks or vult? I see doing a hit
>and run attack on a rag to be more effective then something else. And a hornet
>is a supportship and as it is now, it does it job extremely well. BECAUSE if it is
>lucky, then it can kill a valk or a vult, but generally it wont. If it is lucky then it
>will kill a rag or a prom. Actually, it has more chance against a rag then a prom.
You didn't mention anything about what type of ships it was supposed to hit and run, so I gave you an example and pointed out your errors. But now that you mention it, I'll have to change my response.
You do realize that practically every ship can kill a Ragnarok. You don't need to hop into a Hornet the moment you see a Ragnarok just to kill it. So I don't see your idea of it being a support ship as a strong argument either. Its placement in the tier system, as well as its name description of "heavy attack ship", rather seems to imply that it's a strike fighter--a combination of heavy fighter and light bomber.