"Hey, do you want a 1v1 ?"
"No Sorry man, I have to go to work in 3 hours, I don't have enough time"
This is what your suggestions sound like to me, to be completely honest. Battleship PvP is already slow enough, and there are very few things that need a change.
(08-19-2018, 10:00 AM)Sombra Hookier Wrote: or the fact that the Sci-Data codenames for snubs are generally better while the Sci-Data codenames for battleships don't break the Pulse/Primary+Hellbore meta and only work well for non-duel combat, but those are rather minor issues that sort of are acceptable.
I highly disagree with that, but that's not the topic of the thread, but generally speaking there is a reason why BAF ships are switching from Hellbores to Kinetic Turrets if they have access to them.
Last words are for fools who have not yet said enough.
(08-19-2018, 07:46 AM)Markam Wrote: 1) Increase health substantially
+Simple, blunt solution
-Significantly effects other balance, anti cap weaponry would need to be adjusted heavily
Ship health is fine no need to change them
(08-19-2018, 07:46 AM)Markam Wrote: 2) Decrease refire rates on Battleship weaponry; i.e Primaries Fire once every 20 seconds, like a volley; be nice if there would be a countdown too
+Even with current battleship stats, fights would be significantly slower
+Cements battleships role as anti-battleship, as their guns are ineffective against anything else
-Larger battleships are going to find it harder to hit anything at range, so something else must be changed to offset this disadvantage
20 second reload rate for energy based weapon is too much. Maybe add Ballistic and Energy based weapons to game
Energy weapons: faster refire, more accurate, less efficient , %100 damage to hull and shields, can be EMP weapon or hybrid weapon
Ballistic weapons: slow refire, more efficient, %200 damage to hull but %25 damage to shields, can be anti shield or hybrid weapon
after that change ship loadouts to Energy based or Ballistic Based or Energy/Ballistic based weaponary
that will work better as tactical gameplay
(08-19-2018, 07:46 AM)Markam Wrote: 3) Restrict firing arcs on guns/slow turret speed
+Less firepower can be used simultaneously, lowering dps, making fights slower
-+Makes combat more complex, with certain angles being favoured, more blind spots
Battleship fight ends fast if they ram eachother. I agree that capital ships all of them need more blind spots
(08-19-2018, 07:46 AM)Markam Wrote: 4) Decrease Battleship impulse speed/turning speed
+Being less able to maneuver/close in on opponents slows down combat, depending on the changes, a battleship will joust another battleship, and then have to spend time turning around to line up again
-Being so slow essentially makes battleships sitting ducks against most else, so increasing health may be a ideal trade off
tihs one requires lots of work and complete balance to weapons
(08-19-2018, 07:46 AM)Markam Wrote: 5) Removal of special weapons
Pulses, mortars, missiles etc, reducing battleships to mostly primaries/secondaries, removing the forward gun from the valor (say its inrp only anti-base gun)
+Goes without saying that combat is slower without pulses and mortars
-Arguably less variety, less interesting to some, and it is of course a little disrespectful for all the work done in relation to these weapons
seems boring I'd just add energy and ballistic based weapons to gunboats,cruiser,bc and battleships
Like you need to shoot with anti-shield weapons first then use anti-hull weapons like ballistics to kill the ship faster or use energy based weapons for long range combats and spam gunshots
Current BS combat not best but good enough. It doesnt need overhaul.
Buy a Dunkirk and return to ye olde BAF, and I'll show you all you need to know about battleships. There's so many pretty interesting details about battleship PvP currently, and I think that what you have proposed would rather simplify combat than diversify it. I'd prefer not to explain those details here and now, though, because explaining only one of them took a whole wall of text.
(08-19-2018, 08:14 AM)Markam Wrote: To the two who replied with "No.", I think its fair to say your posts are less than productive at best, at worst spam, and disrespectful of others viewpoints.
Quote:1) increasing health? a valor iwth cau8 has around 10mill suitability.
2) primary refire is 2.0, hellbore/monsmeg is 0.67. battleship guns are already one of the slowest refire weapons in the game
3) Many ships have restricted firing arcs already
4) battleships don't have thrusters and move around at the slowest speed of any ship
5) removing mortars, pulses and missles will make the combat boring and tiresome
6) battleships turn the slowest
i've seen a pattern in your ideas. 'Make combat slower"
a battleship 1v1 fight takes well over 20min.
a fleet fight takes significantly lower time because of muiltiple dmage sources.
gimping battleship damage will only make cruisers, battlecruisers and bombers that much more powerful.
Thank you for writing more than 2 letters, although I don't agree with your counter-arguments. Just because they are "already" the slowest in obvious comparison to others, does not prove anything.
On your point of length in 1v1 vs fleet engagements, perhaps this is the root of the issue, are Battleships really supposed to fight 1v1? Is freelancer discovery all about Conn? Isn't INRP fleet combat the main draw? It's supposed to be epic, but it feels quite flat to me.
edit:
Quote:I don't really see how these changes would benefit Battleship combat.
To me this would drag out battles even longer and leave battleships defenseless against small and maneuverable ships.
Yeah, but think, 1) Should destroying a battleship be quick? 2) Are battleships really able to defend themselves that well now? Battleships were always the ship that smaller ships could simply swarm. 3) I feel that battleships should be purely anti-battleship, and fleet engagements, rather than 1v1 should be the basis for their balance.
this is not a simulator, cap fights already take an insane amount of time. You cannot take real world data on how navy fleet ships/ tanks are balanced(how they fight in real battles) and then try to apply it to freelancer. Freelancer quite simply doesn't have the playerbase and increasing the effort needed to fly battleships will furthermore decrease the playercount. Battleships are by far the most enjoyable class for new players to fly and the skill cap in battleship fleet battle doesnt matter much. Battleships in freelancer should never imitate their realworld counterparts just because
1) people currently like how battleships playout
2) this is not realworld and making the changes you imply means i would need at least 4~5 other players with me all the time just so i can kill a battleship in a considerable amount of time (which is already 20 mins long, this is the typical amount of time a match in csgo,battlefield,cod).
3) INRP decisions != actually playing the game, inrp there would be no direct confrontations between battleships just because they're incredibly hard to make and mostly act as glorified Tea Storage houses.
4) your decisions would be insanely bad for light battleships just because they can only fight by being dodgy against heavier caps and reducing turnrate and movement speed means they cant effectively annoy people, or heavy battleships would just be mini sized planets you can shoot from 8k away.
(08-19-2018, 10:57 AM)Thunderer Wrote: Buy a Dunkirk and return to ye olde BAF, and I'll show you all you need to know about battleships. There's so many pretty interesting details about battleship PvP currently, and I think that what you have proposed would rather simplify combat than diversify it. I'd prefer not to explain those details here and now, though, because explaining only one of them took a whole wall of text.
I bought a Dunkirk and you are right about it being good. The only thing I would change on it is its forward speed. Do to its mid size and less turrets I wish it had more of a BC speed level and agility.
Back to topic: Cap battles are long enough. Caps are slow enough as is. So, Mr. Markam, the only thing to do really is to get 2-3 others to join you in heavy snubs and practice working in unison to match or take down a Cap ship. No single snub or gunboat should ever be a threat to Battle Ships PvP. That would throw Freelancer way off balance and let criminal factions run amuck with the lack of players at some time zones.
Perhaps its best if I start with something that many people who replied to this thread have misunderstood.
The small list of changes I raised up in my OP, are not a list of demands, nor or they all changes I agree should be implemented.
I see people attacking them outright, which I am sure provided an easy target.
I thought this was clear, but perhaps the way I wrote it left too much room for interpretation.
Here is what my point was;
1) I think the way capital ship combat works in Freelancer is frantic, works poorly in group scenarios, and not something I am a fan of.
2) I think something should be done to make it slower, according to posters here, 20 minutes for a 1v1 is current speed, and I don't think this is too fast obviously, but fleet engagements I think are too fast, and I regard fleet engagements to be more important to 1v1's in Conn. If it were possible to remain the same for 1v1, but slow down fleet engagements, that would be ideal.
3) The list of changes, as specifically mentioned were not a set nor a demand, but ideas to be considered individually, and to be a basis of debate and other ideas to be suggested as a way to make fleet engagements more enjoyable. I was brainstorming what may help, I even provided downsides to each change as I was keenly aware that there are causes and effects to making such drastic changes.
To those that replied with what can be summarized as "get gud", I'm not sure that counts as an argument.
I will be honest, as mentioned in my OP I haven't played for 1 year, and what, 4~5 years before that? I don't have any characters, never mind battleships,
Perhaps that may warrant the comment that I am not qualified to make the argument that capital ships combat is not good as is, but I feel I have reasonable enough background experience and reasoning to suggest that the current system does not appeal to what I would deem as fun.
For the record I mostly played VHF/Bomber when I played, I obviously had caps, but in group fights it was not fun.
My dilemma is that now, having moved to Japan from the UK, my ping is far too high for enjoyable VHF combat!
I am glad that people enjoy the capital ship combat as is, and I sincerely hope that enough people do to keep this server alive for years more, the activity dropped sometime after the first time I quit, and I hope it was not related people losing enjoyment in the combat.
Also, I'm confused, is battleship combat hard or easy? Mixed messages from multiple posters.
Posts: 2,757
Threads: 166
Joined: Nov 2009
Staff roles: Systems Developer
Capital ships are easy to learn, hard(er) to master. For comparison snubs are harder to learn and much harder to master.
There is no much difference between learning how to become decent or average between different capital ships. It's basics of turret steering, strafing, weapon groups and loadout management.
Battleship combat indeed is a bit frantic and I would like if the turning and reaction speed of all ships was slowed down, but that would require a whole new balance, as it would have an impact on almost everything. I am against drastic changes to what is already relatively fine. Don't fix what's not broken.