Forums » Suggestions
Ammunition. Light ships shouldnt carry as much as heavy ships.
don't hug me Arolte you might have cooties =P~~
Anyway, I still think that either different engine sizes or splitting the battery would require the addition of some form of mass system. Ammunition could be a mass limited option as well.
I had a post thread not long ago about this, but i was still working on the idea, I've worked out some of the problems it had and am hoping to be able to present a much more completed idea to the community here shortly.
Anyway, I still think that either different engine sizes or splitting the battery would require the addition of some form of mass system. Ammunition could be a mass limited option as well.
I had a post thread not long ago about this, but i was still working on the idea, I've worked out some of the problems it had and am hoping to be able to present a much more completed idea to the community here shortly.
I've said this before and I think it should be brought up again (that's what you get for letting me think): ships have cargo bays, these cargo bays take up a given amount of space in a ship. Along these same lines, ships also have weapon ports that take up a given amount of area.
It should be possible to replace cargo bays and/or weapon ports for engine ports and/or battery storage and even convertable vice versa.
Now, before I lose my license to post, I'm not suggesting a 1-1 switch out. Large weapons or medium-heavy engines/batteries would be 2-1 (2 cargo bays for 1 engine/large weapon port/battery). Conversely weapon ports can be traded off for extra cargo space or more engine/battery space.
--------------------------
Unlicensed.
It should be possible to replace cargo bays and/or weapon ports for engine ports and/or battery storage and even convertable vice versa.
Now, before I lose my license to post, I'm not suggesting a 1-1 switch out. Large weapons or medium-heavy engines/batteries would be 2-1 (2 cargo bays for 1 engine/large weapon port/battery). Conversely weapon ports can be traded off for extra cargo space or more engine/battery space.
--------------------------
Unlicensed.
And thus, the Marauder become some sort of uber-craft.
i agree that heavy ships need better point defense weaponry, but pumping them up too much means nerfing fighters.
i still think that fighting in packs with a variety of ships should be used more.
also, if you want to be a "lone wolf" type pilot, fine with me.
but, if you forgive me the allusion to ww2, a lone bomber was pretty surely done for if he encountered one or two fighters. freighter ships were accompanied by escorts to increase their chance of survival.
i really don't think heavy ships (bombers, freighters) should stand an acceptable chance when going up 1v1 against fighters. it's just not logical.
i still think that fighting in packs with a variety of ships should be used more.
also, if you want to be a "lone wolf" type pilot, fine with me.
but, if you forgive me the allusion to ww2, a lone bomber was pretty surely done for if he encountered one or two fighters. freighter ships were accompanied by escorts to increase their chance of survival.
i really don't think heavy ships (bombers, freighters) should stand an acceptable chance when going up 1v1 against fighters. it's just not logical.
I agree Tosh. But have you ever tried escorting a Rag or centaur when a pack os flare-valks is intent on hitting it?
A few shots is all it takes. Even with a fighter guard they're sitting ducks. Usually they'll survive, but they'll be hurt really bad. If you run into another you will be screwed.
A few shots is all it takes. Even with a fighter guard they're sitting ducks. Usually they'll survive, but they'll be hurt really bad. If you run into another you will be screwed.
Considering the large price difference between kitting out a ragnarok or a vulture, Arolte has a point. Bombers cost too much for what they can *actually* do.
hum.
a) @ Arolte: if you bring up star wars, let me bring up ww2. your analogy is just as flawed as mine (basically, every analogy is inherently flawed).
why? the y-wings (equivalent to our bombers, methinks) are sitting ducks to the tie fighters. same goes for tie bombers and x-wings or a-wings. plus, we are going to have manned turrets on capital ships (or so the devs said last time i heard).
on a side-note: i can bring up other analogies to other games: Wing Commander, Privateer, Star Control 2.
b) @ Magus: you are right, bombers don't last long enough.
but you might have missed this line in my post:
<snikt> i agree that heavy ships need better point defense weaponry, but pumping them up too much means nerfing fighters. <snikt>
c) @ Arolte (again): on the fuel capacity, i agree with you. but that hardly enters upon the subject of armor and armament. in a duke-it-out-1v1-style fight, the bomber still has to lose, in my opinion. not 10 times out of 10, but maybe 8.
a) @ Arolte: if you bring up star wars, let me bring up ww2. your analogy is just as flawed as mine (basically, every analogy is inherently flawed).
why? the y-wings (equivalent to our bombers, methinks) are sitting ducks to the tie fighters. same goes for tie bombers and x-wings or a-wings. plus, we are going to have manned turrets on capital ships (or so the devs said last time i heard).
on a side-note: i can bring up other analogies to other games: Wing Commander, Privateer, Star Control 2.
b) @ Magus: you are right, bombers don't last long enough.
but you might have missed this line in my post:
<snikt> i agree that heavy ships need better point defense weaponry, but pumping them up too much means nerfing fighters. <snikt>
c) @ Arolte (again): on the fuel capacity, i agree with you. but that hardly enters upon the subject of armor and armament. in a duke-it-out-1v1-style fight, the bomber still has to lose, in my opinion. not 10 times out of 10, but maybe 8.
Why exactly does the bomber still have to lose? I don't get it. It's like you're automatically marking it for death regardless of whatever argument anyone brings up. Just a reminder again, this isn't WWII. It's the 45th century for crying out out. You'd think mankind would've had 25 centuries to figure out that something was wrong with the design of the older bombers and how easily they'd gotten shot down. That's A LOT of time to improve on military tactics as well as technology, regardless of whether the medium is air or space.
Look, at the very least bombers should have a chance to escape. Let me point you towards the overview of proposed changes again:
Light ships--high acceleration, high agility, low top speed, low aimbot weapons
Heavy ships--low acceleration, low agility, high top speed, high aimbot weapons
With this model a fighter would initially catch up to a bomber that has been caught off guard, because of its higher acceleration. It'll be able to fire many shots at it and damage it. But gradually, if the bomber survives, it'll gain enough speed to outrun the fighter because of its bigger engines. So basically it'll still be possible to shoot down bombers, but at the very least they should have the advantage of top speed as they slowly get away.
As it has been mentioned before, I think part of the problem is that all the heavies use the same exact engine as the mediums and lights. Each ship class should have its own type of engine with different properties. Those that aren't good at dogfighting should have greater top speeds, but low acceleration. Those that are made specifically for the fighter role can have a high rate of accleration, but lower top speed. It's a fair tradeoff that'll help strengthen the roles of each ship class.
Look, at the very least bombers should have a chance to escape. Let me point you towards the overview of proposed changes again:
Light ships--high acceleration, high agility, low top speed, low aimbot weapons
Heavy ships--low acceleration, low agility, high top speed, high aimbot weapons
With this model a fighter would initially catch up to a bomber that has been caught off guard, because of its higher acceleration. It'll be able to fire many shots at it and damage it. But gradually, if the bomber survives, it'll gain enough speed to outrun the fighter because of its bigger engines. So basically it'll still be possible to shoot down bombers, but at the very least they should have the advantage of top speed as they slowly get away.
As it has been mentioned before, I think part of the problem is that all the heavies use the same exact engine as the mediums and lights. Each ship class should have its own type of engine with different properties. Those that aren't good at dogfighting should have greater top speeds, but low acceleration. Those that are made specifically for the fighter role can have a high rate of accleration, but lower top speed. It's a fair tradeoff that'll help strengthen the roles of each ship class.
i would like to point out that i agreed with you on the getaway capability. you are discussing a point i already conceded.
as for the "why do bombers have to lose":
they would not be bombers if they'd win a fight by agility. if they have armor like a flying bunker, fine. if they have weapons like a mini-dreadnought, fine.
but all that won't help against a fighter with superior agility. it's the whole point, in my not-so-humble-anymore opinion.
against fighters, the point defense weaponry (turrets and homing missiles) have to suffice. the rest has to be handled by fighter cover.
i agree on the fact that atm they do not provide that protection, but i'm sure the devs are going to balance it.
as for the "why do bombers have to lose":
they would not be bombers if they'd win a fight by agility. if they have armor like a flying bunker, fine. if they have weapons like a mini-dreadnought, fine.
but all that won't help against a fighter with superior agility. it's the whole point, in my not-so-humble-anymore opinion.
against fighters, the point defense weaponry (turrets and homing missiles) have to suffice. the rest has to be handled by fighter cover.
i agree on the fact that atm they do not provide that protection, but i'm sure the devs are going to balance it.
"the y-wings (equivalent to our bombers, methinks) are sitting ducks to the tie fighters. same goes for tie bombers and x-wings or a-wings."
-Have you ever played Rogue Leader? It's not as easy as an X-Wing or a Naboo Starfighter, but I've taken down many a Tie Fighter in my Y-Wing.
-Have you ever played Rogue Leader? It's not as easy as an X-Wing or a Naboo Starfighter, but I've taken down many a Tie Fighter in my Y-Wing.
Rogue Leader is an "arcade" version. It says so on the box.
Is Vendetta's combat system not "arcade?"
What I'm saying is that it doesn't actually have anything to do with Star Wars besides the models of the ships and weapons...
I'm gonna combine some suggestions here:
All of the current ships get lumped into a small-ship category. While the armor should be beefed up for the heavy end of the small ships, they should not get much more in the way of defensive weaponry. The way I see it, these small-class heavies will continue to keep the same grade of weapons and engines and batteries and the armor ratings will match the performance hit that these ships see currently see. RCS thrusters should be upgradable for worse or better manuverability and have a slight or very slight energy usage. Yes, the heavy ships in the Small class will still be less popular for fighting, but they'll still work for a lone, fairly poor trader.
Next, let's add a new medium set of ships designed to be flown by 1-3 crew members. The ships will have the ability to have any weapons from the small ships plus additional locations for defense or bombadier positions or additional cargo space. These ships should come with slots for 2-6 battery banks that are configurable and 2-4 engine/generator slots. The owner of the ship would outfit the medium weapon positions with cargo bays, bomb bays, personed turrets, or computerized turrets (at a much higher cost range than personed turrets). The turrets would range in effectiveness and power consumption for both personed and automatic turrets; weapons should be able to be powered on and off to alternate stand-by power consumption on the fly. Generators and engines would have better or worse performance for a difference in initial purchase cost and the battery situation would be similar to the current battery situation, but with more batteries per ship. See above for RCS thrusters and go up in scale. Weapon positions would take damage that would contribute only slightly to the over damage of the vessel; if both weapon positions were destroyed with direct energy hits with no damage splash, the the medium vessels should still be at 50%-85% integrety, depending on the ship.
Now we come to the large ships: I haven't thought them out much but I'm thinking of something along the lines of large ships falling in the 1-10 player/auto-weapon range. These ships would range from fragile large cargo ship to highly armed warship. These ships would probably have docking bays capable of handling 1-2 Small class vessels.
Finally, there could also be Gargantuan ships that could be flying fortresses, fighter carriers, mobile mining stations, or mobile trading stations; these ships should be slow, barely manueverable, and tough as nails on armor. Gargantuans should be able to carry a fleet of smaller ships. Gargs would be armed to the tooth with automatic weapons that could be set to manual when a player wanted to jump in and play as a Garg crew member.
---
This post dreams on a large scale; there currently aren't enough players to be able to build up shared wealth for a Large (unless you've capped so many times that you an 100 millionare), much less a Gargantuan. These would also require guilds/nations (or a combination of guilds and nations) that would pool resources to build such a ship as a Garg. I'm idealizing that a Large should be barely affordable for a very rich player, and that parts have to be aquired from multiple locations. A Garg should be expensive enough that players have to play for years to build one for themselves or force the cooperation in guilds/nations to build one quickly. Gargs should also require the gathering of raw materials such as iron ore.
---
You, know, while we're at it, let's apply some similar concepts to the space stations that would allow a nation, trading guild, or manufacturing company to build a module onto their space station that would allow for weapons or computer manufacturing, or the like...but that's for a different thread.
All of the current ships get lumped into a small-ship category. While the armor should be beefed up for the heavy end of the small ships, they should not get much more in the way of defensive weaponry. The way I see it, these small-class heavies will continue to keep the same grade of weapons and engines and batteries and the armor ratings will match the performance hit that these ships see currently see. RCS thrusters should be upgradable for worse or better manuverability and have a slight or very slight energy usage. Yes, the heavy ships in the Small class will still be less popular for fighting, but they'll still work for a lone, fairly poor trader.
Next, let's add a new medium set of ships designed to be flown by 1-3 crew members. The ships will have the ability to have any weapons from the small ships plus additional locations for defense or bombadier positions or additional cargo space. These ships should come with slots for 2-6 battery banks that are configurable and 2-4 engine/generator slots. The owner of the ship would outfit the medium weapon positions with cargo bays, bomb bays, personed turrets, or computerized turrets (at a much higher cost range than personed turrets). The turrets would range in effectiveness and power consumption for both personed and automatic turrets; weapons should be able to be powered on and off to alternate stand-by power consumption on the fly. Generators and engines would have better or worse performance for a difference in initial purchase cost and the battery situation would be similar to the current battery situation, but with more batteries per ship. See above for RCS thrusters and go up in scale. Weapon positions would take damage that would contribute only slightly to the over damage of the vessel; if both weapon positions were destroyed with direct energy hits with no damage splash, the the medium vessels should still be at 50%-85% integrety, depending on the ship.
Now we come to the large ships: I haven't thought them out much but I'm thinking of something along the lines of large ships falling in the 1-10 player/auto-weapon range. These ships would range from fragile large cargo ship to highly armed warship. These ships would probably have docking bays capable of handling 1-2 Small class vessels.
Finally, there could also be Gargantuan ships that could be flying fortresses, fighter carriers, mobile mining stations, or mobile trading stations; these ships should be slow, barely manueverable, and tough as nails on armor. Gargantuans should be able to carry a fleet of smaller ships. Gargs would be armed to the tooth with automatic weapons that could be set to manual when a player wanted to jump in and play as a Garg crew member.
---
This post dreams on a large scale; there currently aren't enough players to be able to build up shared wealth for a Large (unless you've capped so many times that you an 100 millionare), much less a Gargantuan. These would also require guilds/nations (or a combination of guilds and nations) that would pool resources to build such a ship as a Garg. I'm idealizing that a Large should be barely affordable for a very rich player, and that parts have to be aquired from multiple locations. A Garg should be expensive enough that players have to play for years to build one for themselves or force the cooperation in guilds/nations to build one quickly. Gargs should also require the gathering of raw materials such as iron ore.
---
You, know, while we're at it, let's apply some similar concepts to the space stations that would allow a nation, trading guild, or manufacturing company to build a module onto their space station that would allow for weapons or computer manufacturing, or the like...but that's for a different thread.
Most of the stuff you suggest is already in the works dygitul.
"The way I see it, these small-class heavies will continue to keep the weapons and engines on the same power and the armor will match the performance hit that these ships see."
We have been trying to balance it that way for a long time, but it seems that no matter what we try, we just end up with a ship that's too beefy to reasonably take down, too agile for the amount of firepower it has, too weak to make up for its lack of agility, or lacking in firepower in some area. My suggestion about engines and batts is an attempt to go around this problem of balancing heavily armored ships in a game that still greatly favores agility over firepower and hull.
"The way I see it, these small-class heavies will continue to keep the weapons and engines on the same power and the armor will match the performance hit that these ships see."
We have been trying to balance it that way for a long time, but it seems that no matter what we try, we just end up with a ship that's too beefy to reasonably take down, too agile for the amount of firepower it has, too weak to make up for its lack of agility, or lacking in firepower in some area. My suggestion about engines and batts is an attempt to go around this problem of balancing heavily armored ships in a game that still greatly favores agility over firepower and hull.