Improved New Ship Class Suggestion

[Zayne Carrick]

No

[lIceColon]

if Freelancer was to scale, those planets you see, the bases, and the stars, would be some tens, hundreds, or maybe even a thousand times bigger, and to the same effect, apart from each other.

your point being?

The law of conservation.

not in fl

Energy requirements.

not in fl unless you're doing cool stuff like cloaking

Just the same as you have the ability to thrust, you need the ability to not spiral out of control.

so how do regular fl ships do it?

Basically, if you have something that big, even in the vacuum of space, the faster such a thing goes, the harder it is to turn it.

therefore the increased propulsion systems and RCS etc. let's assume that future space RCS is able to compensate for the physics.

If your own arguments are to be taken seriously, the fact that your ship moves that fast means that it would take just as much just to SLOW DOWN, and then even more to turn it.

"would take as much to slow down"... somebody clearly hasnt emergency braked from a battleship's 300ms engine kill drift.

Let me assure you that the primary objective of this post is to suggest the idea of a BS-sized one-man fighter. As I am obviously not a dev everything in my OP are just extremely sandpaper-rough concepts, also the RP-explanation and the "scientific" explanations I have for it.

Therefore having more speed on a large, cumbersome ship (by this I mean it's a long/wide/whatever ship, so turning it is gonna take a while, for obvious reasons) just makes it even less agile.

Let's say we link 900 arrows together in parallel, remove 899 of the pilots, and make the cluster fly acrobatically. It wil still be almost as agile.

The faster it goes in one direction, the less -likely- is it that it will turn on a dime. Especially when speeding.

That is only under the assumption that it hasn't exceeded the turn-on-a-dime break-even point. You are assuming that albeit its increased mass, our car has the same amount of friction between it and the ground, and that our plane has the same surface area on its control surfaces, that our spaceship has maneuvering systems of the same capabilities as it did before.

Am I supposed to advocate we get maps that are so large that traders will never be truly safe and distances will be boring to cover due to scale?

Where. did. you. get. this. idea.

I'm okay with being proven wrong, however I am not okay with your floodish posts offering no constructive arguments whatsoever. I will now ask a dev to monitor this thread and delete any future floody posts.

---

No atmosphere? GTFO.
The propeller is the greatest invention of all time.

[Dratai]

I'm okay with being proven wrong, however I am not okay with your floodish posts offering no constructive arguments whatsoever. I will now ask a dev to monitor this thread and delete any future floody posts.

I tried treating this seriously enough.
However you're just taking offense that people don't automatically agree with you.
And frankly speaking, you're pulling your arguments out of your ass.

I was simply responding to the following
a) Your own arguments
b) building on already valid points made.

Unfortunately for me, you're a hypocrite, as shown with your response:

not in fl

So I guess attempts at civilized conversation on my behalf ends here.
Toodles.

Edit: tl;dr? I suggest you go read over your own posts a couple of times.

[Haste]

If there really was an extensive use of AIs, the average fighter would have automated chainfire.

Ignoring this entire topic, all I ask is: why?

The point of slow-refiring guns is that you can carefully aim to ensure a higher percentage of your "damage potential" actually gets to the target.

That, and the fact that you can maneuver inbetween shots more with a lower refire while giving up less of your damage output.

---

[lIceColon]

you're just taking offense that people don't automatically agree with you.

Not sure if you are serious or not to be honest...

Why is this not in Flood?

I loled.

1. This is stupid
   
2. Cool story, bro
   
3. I'm laughing
   
4. My sides just left orbit
   

No

So yeah, I guess I am taking a lil' bit of offense.

If there really was an extensive use of AIs, the average fighter would have automated chainfire.

...

The point I am trying to make, is that there isn't an extensive use of AIs in Freelancer. And chainfire is good in cases where it offers continuous fire keeping your enemy suppressed, among some other reasons, but that's really not the point.

[Haste]

I press F2 pretty often. It makes my ship fly to whatever the hell I happen to have selected, and it usually doesn't get me killed by collisions with rocks and/or stars and/or planets.

Sounds like autopilot, or AI.

The point I was making is that chainfire is not an "advantage" by definition. Not saying it doesn't have its uses, but an AI to automate something that is more a matter of taste than anything seems a little odd.

It's just as "suppressing" (if not more suppressing) to get a large chunk eaten out of your hull as it is to have someone peck away with chainfired Heimdalls.

Edit:

Oh, and you're basing your ship design on things like "In roleplay, caps have lots of crew. This is a disadvantage." while at the same time debasing other people's arguments about fuel, which is definitely used in roleplay, because your ship only consumes units of cargo to cloak.

Does your cap only fly with spaceship crew in the cargo hold?

---

[lIceColon]

extensive use, as in full use of the AI. So autopilot is a use for AI, so is an automated cup of coffee, or the use of AI to chainfire, or the use of AI to auto-target, or the use of AI to auto-trade, or even the use of AI for simple automatic communications. But obviously we can't have that much actual AI for gameplay reasons, and in many cases people would choose rather to roleplay human crew, especially in the context of most warships.
Of course you could in-rp-ly say that you are a ship controlled entirely by AI, but in reality there isn't any AI involved, if in your context of F2-goto. In the context of a player, you are one person. And battleships are ships that have up to hundreds of crew, and are only effective when its turrets and systems are manned by aforementioned hundreds of crew (or a replacement for the crew, eg. AI).
the whole idea of the OP is for the design of a cap-ship sized ship class that is both inrp- and oorp-ly designed to be flown by one person.

---

No atmosphere? GTFO.
The propeller is the greatest invention of all time.

[Zynth]

Cruisers already do fly at 300ms albeit in cruise.

Not about the speed really, it's the combination of speed and agility.

Trust me, it'll look stupid.

1. not unless the guns get to you first, 2. then buff the concept. buff it all the way to gb/transport shields, nerf its thrust to 200ms, the central concept still stands.

Absolutely not. Now it's something that will rape everything gunboat and under.

---

*Sigh*

Quite a few people have given valid reasons (and invalid) why the idea is quite unacceptable. It is unlikely that the devs will entertain the idea anyway.

Frankly, as I said.
Mix marmite with coffee and use it as pasta sauce. It's a wonderful idea no matter what other people say. If they say it doesn't taste good, perhaps a bit of salt will make it better.

Nope. Nope. Nadda.

---

[mayu20]

So, why make suicidal big ships that require massive amounts of fuel, energy, ammo AND the life of a "professional pilot" and not to speak of the crediys required credits and time to build that. Why noy mass ptoduce VHF and Bombers with AI instead of pilots. Ever thoug at that? Your arguments and ideeas are based on nothing.

[mayu20]

Oh and another cool thing came in my mind. Remote control. Yeah. Put all those crew members in a room to control the ship from safe distance if you care that much of the crew. And thete are at least 10 other ideeas that are light years better than you huge light fighter agile kamikaze one shot ship.