I have a hankering to try this new BC out. I had one in the previous mod for about two weeks, but then decided to sell it.
I bought one in SP, to check out the turrets' firing arcs. I ended up getting wedged in Rostock, but I was able to watch the firing spread of the top 7 turrets.
Now, I realize the dev team will have a explanation as to why most of the turrets do not fire beyond a 180-degree arc: It's an assault ship, meant for head-on fighting. Get escorts, etc.
The cynic in me suspects the firing arcs were restricted in order to prevent ship spam - "Heaven forbid that a BH player, in his/her free time, could actually have some fun in the ship of his/her choice. So let's make it very vulnerable to bombers. Even more so than the previous model". The best way to prevent ship spam has its roots in RP. Imho. Failing that, send in the bomber swarms.
As it has been pointed out in some other threads, escorts are often hard-pressed to kill the bombers before they kill the cap ship they're protecting. The idea that a large, expensive vessel would have so many firing-arcs restricted is very odd indeed. Makes you wonder if the Order has its men in the Guild ship design facility at Alabama.
I would humbly suggest that the BC's turrets hardpoints would be altered in this fashion:
o = turret with 180-degree arc
x = turret with 360-degree arc
(x) = side turrets with 360-degree arc
o o (top view)
(x) x x x (x)
x x
o o (bottom view)
x
This suggestion would make the BC a bit more capable of defending itself, without making it too tough a target for bombers. The bottom half is still quite vulnerable.
in pvp tests - it turned out that the BHG BC is equal to the other battlecruisers ( and the order carrier BEFORE the buff )
its tactic however is different. - it charges the enemy - all the other battlecruisers are rather employing a kiting technique. - ( the other BC for that matter were LABC / IMG BC )
for that, the BHG BC has 12 weapons facing forward - but a minimum of weapons facing backwards. to support it - it has a thruster.
now - yes.... things have changed. the order light carrier got a buff that doubled its intended efficiency - and the nomad cruiser got fixed, which rivels a battlecruiser in firepower. - that is two variables that were not tested in most of the closed beta pvps.
but the greatest problem it appears are bombers. - bombers have been and are still the most popular ships on the server - getting 2 bombers is no problem, even for a casual player it is easy to team up with another bomber - and for bomber defense, the ship is ill suited, no doubt.
i hate to say "if you had escorts, things were better" cause it turns out that this term is lacking. - there are many people that hate ( not hate as a faction, but hate in RL as players ) bounty hunters for wahtever reason.
buffing a BHG ship the same the order carrier was buffed up is about as likely as having a nice singsong with the nomads for christmas.
the concept of the BHG BC is sound. it worked and it works. - always provided that its part of a fleet operation. all alone, the only BHG ships that is really barely average is the gunship / gunboat.
but lets look at other factions.
is the IMG BC so much better at the defense against bombers when it has no escorts? - what about the lib BC... and the order carrier doesn t really shine much against a bunch of bombers, too. the question is - how much are they better ... if they are.
personally, i wouldn t mind to do the same we did to the necrosis....
- give destroyer 2 lvl8 turret options
- give cruisers 4 lvl8 turret options
- give battlecruisers 6 lvl8 turret options
- give battleships up to 10 lvl8 turret options
( not additional turrets - but the option to mount a gunboat turret INSTEAD of a class defining turret )
but then - what prevents a battlecruiser from spamming GB missiles ( necrosis ) - in this case... if we trust dreygon, even a missile spam doesn t do much but only increases the defense a tiny bit - so that wouldn t be a problem........ unless you get two of them at once - or three etc.
maybe its easier to only use the ships for what they are meant for. - charging ships of the same size and totally overpowering them. - before the buff, the BHG BC used a different tactic to the order carrier, and a 1 vs. 1 was a 50/50 deal - perfect balance. - two BHG BC would be able to overpower the small and agile osiris as it is meant to be.
but they would fail against 3 hathor class gunboats that would outmanouver them and outgun them if they had anti-cap weapons.
edit:
relaxing turret arc restrictions - we haven t really restricted them too much cause we dislike the BHG or rather ... are afraid of the spam. ( every faction, no matter if nomads, corrsairs, liberty, bretonia, zoners, BHG or order etc. spams their ships and all factions complain when others spam them - there s no difference ) .... we mostly limited them cause we wanted to avoid turrets firing through the hull.
so yes - on many ships, the model itself limits the arcs. - the model itself was meant to allow all weapons to fire forward - and less weapons to fire backwards. - i gotto admit, i don t know about the agility atm, but i guess its as agile as any other BC.
Quote:- give destroyer 2 lvl8 turret options
- give cruisers 4 lvl8 turret options
- give battlecruisers 6 lvl8 turret options
- give battleships up to 10 lvl8 turret options
I agree with everything else you said... but this...
If its done, shouldnt the smaller things (destroyers etc) have more class 8 capeable weapons than the battleships? I mean, battleships already have a superpower to destroy stuff with their flaks, defense turrets, etc. Cruisers have nothing (well solaris... but it doesnt really work atm.)
ahh - thats just an idea that came to me while writing. - you can also replace every number with an "X".
the fact is that large ships have a much lower survivability than small ships. - many players of the community say that FL is a fighterbased dogfighting game and they WANT it to stay that way. - large ships will never be the ships that are less vulnerable than fighters.
weapons in FL are MUCH more powerful than passive defenses ( shield / armour ) - that is our balance. by far the greatest defense against weaponfire and incoming damage is to "not take it" - meaning to dodge it.
large ships do not have this option for the most part.
one could say that freelancer has balanced its weapon and armour power to something like a 20% hit ratio ( meaning only every 5th shot hits ) - other games balance towards a 80% hit ratio - usually with easier to aim weapons or much slower ships ( like descent freespace )
this works with fighters - but it does not work with capital warships. ( freespace gives capital warships a counter to that. - they are hit a lot more, but they got instant beam flaks - which literally rip fighters apart ... in seconds ) - but that only works cause its a single-player based game.
warships give up the main defense against incoming weaponfire - and they don t get an appropriate compensation - that is a fact. - but it is also a fact that ... to give them the appropriate compensation would be detrimental for the gameplay.
Battlecruisers seem to give up their defensive capability against bombers in exchange for great anti-capital firepower. Cruisers, which are smaller, are better at dodging and their weaponry is more concentrated on the ship, are better against bombers, compared with battlecruisers which are typically long (reduces effectivness of solaris turrets) and unagile (can't dodge well).
' Wrote:Battlecruisers seem to give up their defensive capability against bombers in exchange for great anti-capital firepower. Cruisers, which are smaller, are better at dodging and their weaponry is more concentrated on the ship, are better against bombers, compared with battlecruisers which are typically long (reduces effectivness of solaris turrets) and unagile (can't dodge well).
Yes, nice observation.
BHG BC is the only one with thruster. So it simply could not have great firing arcs backwards else it would be able to defeat BS alone by itself by firing backwards. Now it can still do that but it's much harder. It also shouldn't just be a "better cruiser", so that all you see all day long is BCs (like in 4.84) so it was made different from the Dessie.
2 BHG Destroyers can kill a BS by firing backwards and dodging.
2 BHG BCs can defeat up to medium BS (OC BC, Hacker Spyglass etc) by simply charging at it with all guns firing, they will overpower it before one of them dies (tested).
so BHG Dessie - kills GBs, in groups BS, is a bit weaker vs cruisers.
BHG BC - kills Cruisers (rather easily) and can ovepower BS in groups.
Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.
Quote:personally, i wouldn t mind to do the same we did to the necrosis....
- give destroyer 2 lvl8 turret options
- give cruisers 4 lvl8 turret options
- give battlecruisers 6 lvl8 turret options
- give battleships up to 10 lvl8 turret options
A simpler solution would be my proposal. Less headaches and bad blood all around.
Quote:relaxing turret arc restrictions .... we mostly limited them cause we wanted to avoid turrets firing through the hull.
so yes - on many ships, the model itself limits the arcs. - the model itself was meant to allow all weapons to fire forward - and less weapons to fire backwards. - i gotto admit, i don t know about the agility atm, but i guess its as agile as any other BC.
If we look at the BC model, I'm guessing you could fire 7-9 turrets in a 360 arc without shots hitting your own ship. The BH BC is agile enough for its class.
I think the real reason for the arc restriction lies here:
Quote:BHG BC is the only one with thruster. So it simply could not have great firing arcs backwards else it would be able to defeat BS alone by itself by firing backwards. Now it can still do that but it's much harder. It also shouldn't just be a "better cruiser", so that all you see all day long is BCs (like in 4.84) so it was made different from the Dessie.
We fear the spam. Cap spam in particular, if not exclusively. Point of interest: The BH BC was popular in 4.84 because it was the poor man's BS in a faction lacking any form of cap control - not because it was a "better cruiser". As for them being seen "all day long", the same thing can be said for many factions' cap ships, which can be seen "all day long" if you know where to look.
Just how decisive the thruster is in battle, I'll have to see for myself.
Thanks for all the posters keeping this thread civil and mild-mannered thus far.
Quote:Battlecruisers seem to give up their defensive capability against bombers in exchange for great anti-capital firepower.
Quote:BHG BC is the only one with thruster. So it simply could not have great firing arcs backwards else it would be able to defeat BS alone by itself by firing backwards.
These seem to be the reasons why the turrets are restrictive. If it had better firing arcs, it'd be better against battlecruisers and bombers which would lead to more "spam".
The Bounty Hunter battlecruiser was not only chosen because it was unrestricted - but because it was very powerful as well. If "pvpwhores" wanted to get a Battlecruiser to hunt pirates across Sirius, they could have gotten the IMG battlecruiser which wasn't restricted and IMG can attack pirates. The Bounty Hunter Battlecruiser was better at the task of murdering pirates (due to the thruster, size, etc), so it was "spammed" more.
Taking the thruster into the equation makes the choice more logical.
if the bc gets ahead of the target and fires backward and thrusts as well, is nigh impossible to hit.
how it works in practice I don`t know, but it seems logical things would happen that way if the BC can fire backward as well. still, the bomber issue isn`t resolved then...
but I still have my doubts about the whole "overpower" tactic.
rushing in with a ship with weaker turrets that its adversaries as well as less hull is not a tactic, it`s a death wish.
![[Image: serpentlol.gif]](http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff152/Dashien/Freelancer/serpentlol.gif)
![[Image: just_a_signature_by_sjrarj-d63yjsx.png]](https://img00.deviantart.net/ca73/i/2013/123/e/a/just_a_signature_by_sjrarj-d63yjsx.png)
![[Image: GatewaySig.png]](http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk32/beander2/GatewaySig.png)
![[Image: sigiw102.jpg]](http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/rytirm/sigiw102.jpg)