(01-15-2019, 03:24 AM)Tenacity Wrote: The problem is that fighters are now limited to a single missile launcher, at the exclusion of their cruise disruptor, and not a single fighter missile launcher in the game is worth using on its own. If they're going to remain this way, the missiles need to be buffed to the point where they're actually worth giving up a CD.
As it is, the Cruise Disruptor is too powerful. It doesnt just take you out of cruise; it stops engine kill (pretty much wrecking anyone's ability to maneuver, especially caps), it stops cloaking, it stops jump drives, it detonates mines (which can be used both defensively and offensively in a snub fight), and it destroys most heavy ordnance including nova torpedoes and most capship missiles.
The reason you dont see people using missiles is because giving up a CD is too big of a hindrance that the missile doesnt make up for, especially when missiles are countered by not only simple dodging but also countermeasures and CRUISE DISRUPTORS.
CDs need to be nerfed, they fill too many important roles in a fight. Missiles need to be buffed, they arent strong enough to warrant the loss of a CD.
Weapons like the mini razor and inferno cannon are largely useless on most fighters because they can no longer one-shot another snub (the hades in particular is stupid unless you're trying to snub swarm a cap). The only time you see mini razors in use are on SHFs that cant equip bomber weapons.
I would agree that in particular the Train Cruise Disruptor is in need of a nerf. The Mosquito is ostensibly more specialized for handling ordnance detonation (and not so great at actually disrupting other ships) but when the TCD does a good enough job with blowing somebody's missiles up and also lets you interdict any size ship with relative ease, there's no point in not using it if you're gonna have a CD at all.
I'm not inclined to think that because you find missiles to be unworthy of the trade-off that they necessarily are so. Missiles take a significant portion of a target's hull with them in exchange for not really having to aim them. Exhausting the massive supplies of countermeasures that the current line of droppers offers? That's another story. Both CDs and CMs are far too easily spammed, whereas other kinds of ordinance are too limited in capacity to compete with someone else's countermeasure supply, or too expensive to be carrying a full load of lest you lose and feed someone a few million credits in different kinds of high-end ammunition.
In a situation where you only have 20 or 30 cruise disruptors, you can't just spam them every time somebody fires a missile or drops a mine. As for CMs, I think they should number fewer for a full load as well. Basically the only utility there is in having a mine dropper is disrupting a trade lane behind you when you're getting chased down by the local boogeyman, since whenever anyone who's played this game for more than half an afternoon figures out you're trying to mine them you end up getting hit with a steaming fistful of your own explosives. Launching a cruise disruptor ought to feel like a decision not made lightly, rather than a mindless push-button routine. Same with dropping CMs.
Maybe it would be good to give CDs a bit of a failure rate too. Old-school real-life fighter missiles were commonly fired in pairs because they so commonly whiffed. The TCD basically never misses as long as your target is in range. Bad CM dropper placement on a lot of transports makes CMs more or less useless for countering them anyway.
Missiles are still useful for people like me, who fly fighters but aren't always so hot at aiming for other fast-moving targets, so getting a little extra boost is nice. I don't run them on pirate ships (because I need the cruise disruptor for that), but I usually mount one on a ship where I intend to be reacting than instigating. That being said, it might be cool if it were possible (and I have no honest-to-goodness idea whether it is or not) to remove the engine kill-cancelling effect of CDs and transplant it instead to missiles. This way a heavy hit from a missile causes a sort of "system shock" explained by the damage dealt.
I'm sure that would have some nasty unforeseen consequences (most well-intended ideas do), but I'm spitballing.
I think boosting the mini razor up to levels where you could one-shot the average de-shielded fighter or bomber would be a grave mistake -- like I said before, going down to a single blow from full hull is alienating and aggravating in a snub fight, especially to new players, of whom there seem to be rather few of these days. I think it's reasonable to hand a kill like that to someone piloting a capship where the guns are too powerful not to do that.
Perhaps a solution here would be to eliminate the shieldbuster fighter energy torps (tartarus, inferno, etc.) and merge that with the Mini Razor -- give it the same hull damage as shield damage (about 17k), to make it a more useful weapon (provided there isn't some engine limitation forbidding this). Raise the projectile speed a bit to 500m/s or 550m/s. (Still just spitballing.) Slightly better for harassing freighters and transports, and much better for getting another snub pilot to brown their pants without taking them out of the fight too quickly without the projectile being so fast that it syncs with common fighter guns.
You have a good point pertaining to the SHF class, which is really more like two classes, Very Very Heavy Fighter and Bomber That Can Mount Fighter Guns. For the sake of consistency (and perhaps also balance) it would be better to make all of them of the Bomber That Can Mount Fighter Guns variety, to give them a broad appeal as utilitarian multi-role ships. They're all too big and heavy to properly evolve into a space superiority fighter, but it would be handy for players who like to fly solo and need to contend with potentially many different kinds of encounters.
The only problem with this would be that then the Rogues and Mollys would have three ships in their line that could use a SNAC -- Hyena, Barghest, and Werewolf. Of course, this could be remedied by shrinking the Werewolf down and calling it a heavy fighter instead (although I bet about half the devs would read this idea and snort coffee out their nose from laughter).
To give Heavy Fighters an extra edge (and make their role more distinct from VHFs), perhaps they could boast fewer guns (4-5) in exchange for getting both a CD/Torp and a CD slot, in more the tradition of the Jackdaw and the Gladiator. This gives them the ability to play gunner and interceptor, but without the interceptor speed and agility of a light fighter, and without the boosted powercore of a VHF. Boost HF cruise speed from 375 to 380, reduce VHF cruise speed from 375 to 370, to keep the classes more distinct in that regard.
I rather like the roles the ships currently seem to be aiming to fill, but there are ways they could be molded to better fit within those parameters.
I had offered a solution to the fighter type issue before, and it fell on deaf ears:
Light fighters -> Renamed to Interceptors:
Very fast (400+ cruise speed, possibly more than they have now)
No lethal weaponry (remove all hullbusters)
Variety of effective anti-shield and anti-powercore weapons
Primarily, they should have a weapon type that not only reduces shields/powercore, but also can slow down the enemy (if possible, drain thruster 'fuel')
No Mine Droppers
Can carry cruise disruptors
Heavy fighters -> Renamed to Superiority Fighters:
Uses no energy weapons / Is entirely reliant on ammunition-based weapons
That means Ballistic guns that use up ammo (like current chainguns), as well as missiles
Carries more than one missile hardpoint (possibly 2-4), allowing the use of several guided munitions at a time
Cannot carry a cruise disruptor
Has no Anti-Shield weapons (other than EMP missiles)
Single Mine Dropper
Slightly slower than light fighters in cruise speed (say 380 cruise, or 375, instead of the normal 350)
Very Heavy Fighters -> *insert name here* (forgot what I was calling these, its late and I'm tired)
Uses no missiles or ammo-based weapons (no ballistics)
Uses entirely energy-based weapons
Has a mixture of shield and hull busters
More hull strength/toughness than the other fighters
Variety of gun types, from 'burst' weapons like plasma guns to sustained damage lasers and pulse weapons
Cannot equip cruise disruptors or missiles
Single Mine Dropper
standard cruise speed (350)
Bombers:
No longer have bomber 'guns' (no energy, scatter, chaingun, etc. weapons)
Can equip dual mine droppers
Can equip a cruise disruptor
Has 3-5 (based on size) Bomber/Fighter Torpedo hardpoints (this means it can use either bomber weapons like novas, snac, neutralizers, scorchers, etc. OR mini razor / inferno cannon / etc)
Standard Cruise Speed (350)
Super Heavy Fighters / Combat Freighters -> Gunships:
Slowest of the fighter types
Heaviest armor/shielding
Has an assorted weapon loadout, with 1 or 2 mounts that can use weapons from each of the other fighter types, including bomber weapons
Can equip a cruise disruptor and 1 Bomber Torpedo
Lower than normal cruise speed (300 or 325 instead of 350)
So what you end up with is:
Light fighters (Interceptors) are a necessity for pirates, group pvp, and police factions, as they can literally shut down another ship and hinder it for allies, but on their own are incapable of killing anything. Their higher cruise speed and having a cruise disruptor slot gives them the utility to run down and hinder fleeing targets, or stick around larger fights to act as ordnance interceptors (destroying missiles/torpedoes and hindering enemies)
Heavy Fighters (Superiority Fighters) are very powerful and easy to use, but have a low skill ceiling (meaning a vet wont really be any better in one than a newer player) because they rely mostly on missiles and ammo-based guns. They would have very high damage potential going into a fight, but would 'burn out' their ammo reserves quite quickly. This would relegate them to short-duration fights, and they would lose endurance fights. These would be less effective in large group fights because their ammo storage wouldnt allow them to keep up with other ships, they'd end up useless several minutes into battle.
Very Heavy Fighters (Yet Unnamed) would have lower burst/dps potential than heavy fighters, but would have staying power because they dont rely on ammunition. They would easily outlast heavy fighters as long as they're able to stay alive until the heavies are out of missiles/ammo, and would be better for long-duration group fights. They would no longer have the same utility, however, as they lose the cruise disruptor and missile options.
Bombers would become pure anti-cap vessels, with no notable anti-fighter defense (barring being able to hit fighters with their heavy weapons). The availability of 3-5 torpedo hardpoints would allow them to run nova torpedoes, a supernova cannon, shield busters like neutralizers or incapacitator torpedoes, and anti-gunboat/fighter weapons like mini razors/inferno cannons (some kind of feature would have to be included to prevent the use of 5 mini razors, obviously, or they'd become an anti-fighter meta, but that can be done through hardpoint restrictions by only allowing 1-2 hardpoints to equip fighter-type torpedoes). On their own, bombers would be vulnerable to other fighters of all types, but would be much more effective in an anti-capital role.
Super heavy fighters (gunships) would be a jack of all trades, not excelling in any of the above fields but being able to dabble in a little of everything. They might have, for example, 2 energy guns, 2 missile launchers, 2 pulse guns, a cruise disruptor, and a nova torpedo or mini razor, but that versatility comes at the cost of not being focused on one role.
Perhaps under your naming convention, VHFs could be termed "Endurance Fighters".
I'm curious to know if you would lower the cruise speeds for freighters, transports, gunboats, and up. (Name-wise, I would even go so far as to term SHFs gunboats or gunships, and call the things we call "gunboats" and "gunships" currently "frigates").
Limiting LFs to shieldbusters-only seems a bit extreme to me; if I were following a plan like yours, I would like to give them the ability to mount up to two hullbusters (seeing as most LFs are 4-5 gun ships), that way you can still bounty hunt or deal with meddlesome NPCs without needing a service dog SF following you around all the time. Additionally, I would reduce the cost of ammunition if Superiority Fighters were so reliant on it, either that or (like my idea for adjusting interceptors) let them have two weapon slots that can mount energy weapons, just so they're not totally hosed. Trying to play an all-ammo ship (or at least, an as-much-ammo-as-your-weapon-slots-will-allow ship) with the current equipment costs would be very expensive if you died and restocked completely.
Interceptors, 450m/s.
Superiority fighters, 395m/s.
I might also give "Endurance Fighters" a 360 cruise speed, keep bombers at 350, and give "gunships" 325. Extending from there:
Freighters would keep their 395 or 400 cruise speed because I like the idea of them being little blockade runners. Give them a CD-only slot, no missiles or torpedoes, to ensure piracy is still possible with them.
"Frigates" (currently "gunboats") would get 315m/s cruise. Probably put most light and medium transports in the same box.
Heavy transports and cruisers, 300m/s.
Battlecruisers, battleships, and carriers, 280m/s.
This is a cool idea, and I think it's worth iterating on.
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
The term "Frigate" is already in use though, albeit by only one current ship (and one upcoming ship). Frigates are transports that have low to medium cargo space and can use gunboat equipment. Currently the junker salvage frigate is the one available (3350 cargo and 7 gunboat turrets with a light gunboat power core and transport shield). The upcoming borderworlds frigate is supposed to be similar, with gunboat weaponry (and a gunboat shield, I believe) but some cargo space as well to make it a better escort on trade routes (or a better pirate).
I think it's a bad idea to reduce the cruise speed on any transports, as it would require a huge overhaul of the trade/mining system to maintain profit per second on routes that dont include trade lanes.
I'm generally ok with reducing cruise speed on caps, but it should not be the same for cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, and carriers - there are absolutely massive size differences between these ships, and I already have a bone to pick with battleships that cruise up on smaller ships in combat to negate their speed weakness. If we were going this route, transports would all have to stay at 350 speed, and I'd leave gunboats at 350 as well since they're often used for piracy (or used to be, when piracy even existed). Cruisers might drop to 300-325, possibly based on the individual ship (with light/medium/heavy cruisers possibly having different speeds, say 325, 315, and 305 respectively). Battlecruisers would be slightly lower, possibly 300-305, with battleships dropping down to 275-280.
The real issue when it comes to varying cruise speeds is formation flight. It becomes very difficult to keep a group of ships together when they're all moving at different speeds - this is already more than evident when using freighters or light fighters in formation with other ships. If you form up on a faster ship (say a freighter or LF, while you're in a VHF), you'll speed up slightly but not enough to actually keep up, and the formation leader will slowly pull away until formation breaks due to distance. If you're in a faster ship like a light fighter and form up on a slower ship, you'll constantly be overshooting and then having your cruise engine shut off and recharge again to try and keep the pace.
(01-15-2019, 06:34 AM)Tenacity Wrote: The term "Frigate" is already in use though, albeit by only one current ship (and one upcoming ship). Frigates are transports that have low to medium cargo space and can use gunboat equipment. Currently the junker salvage frigate is the one available (3350 cargo and 7 gunboat turrets with a light gunboat power core and transport shield). The upcoming borderworlds frigate is supposed to be similar, with gunboat weaponry (and a gunboat shield, I believe) but some cargo space as well to make it a better escort on trade routes (or a better pirate).
I think it's a bad idea to reduce the cruise speed on any transports, as it would require a huge overhaul of the trade/mining system to maintain profit per second on routes that dont include trade lanes.
I'm generally ok with reducing cruise speed on caps, but it should not be the same for cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, and carriers - there are absolutely massive size differences between these ships, and I already have a bone to pick with battleships that cruise up on smaller ships in combat to negate their speed weakness. If we were going this route, transports would all have to stay at 350 speed, and I'd leave gunboats at 350 as well since they're often used for piracy (or used to be, when piracy even existed). Cruisers might drop to 300-325, possibly based on the individual ship (with light/medium/heavy cruisers possibly having different speeds, say 325, 315, and 305 respectively). Battlecruisers would be slightly lower, possibly 300-305, with battleships dropping down to 275-280.
The real issue when it comes to varying cruise speeds is formation flight. It becomes very difficult to keep a group of ships together when they're all moving at different speeds - this is already more than evident when using freighters or light fighters in formation with other ships. If you form up on a faster ship (say a freighter or LF, while you're in a VHF), you'll speed up slightly but not enough to actually keep up, and the formation leader will slowly pull away until formation breaks due to distance. If you're in a faster ship like a light fighter and form up on a slower ship, you'll constantly be overshooting and then having your cruise engine shut off and recharge again to try and keep the pace.
I consider the Junker Salvage Frigate to be something of a misnomer but naming conventions aren't terribly important in the grand scheme of things. I think "Corvette" is a term Discovery has yet to use for ship classification, but that's beside the point.
Good point, though. Xoria has enough work to do regarding trade balance as it is, and I certainly don't want to wait an extra 5 minutes to cross the large, laneless swaths of deepest Omicron in a transport. I think it'd be weird to give your idea of gunships a cruise speed slower than gunboats, although I think it would make sense to give your rebalanced SHF "gunships" a reduced thrust speed. Put them at 180m/s for max thrust instead of 200m/s like the rest of the snubs.
Formation flight speeds are already a problem, although all the times I've ever used formation in anything other than a VHF I've had people chew me out for how wonky it gets. Half the time when you try to form up two or more of anything larger than a bomber you end up bumping into people in the formation anyway, so I would surmise for that reason a lot of people avoid using it anyway.
The challenge that this presents for fleet coordination might be worthy of consideration as a feature anyway. Send a vanguard of snubs ahead to scout the area and (assuming your whole fleet left at the same time) progressively larger ships drop into the fray as time goes on. Maybe it would be worth exploring more varied impulse and thrust speeds for capital ships as well.
A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.
(01-15-2019, 03:50 AM)Markam Wrote: While we are throwing around random ideas, I also had this quirky idea regarding war-zone systems, though I have no idea regarding feasibility.
Basically, Battleships would launch waves of super-powered NPC's at regular intervals towards enemy positions, at the same time the rival Battleship would launch a similarly super-powered NPC wave, both groups of NPCs would meet in the middle somewhere, and provided there is zero player interaction, they would likely destroy each-other, or one would win out. The winning NPC's then proceed to the enemy battleship, perform an "attack" action, then return to base.
There would be a number count for each super NPC that was destroyed, and a number count for each "attack" action made (each engagement that was won). The theory being, is that players would join either NPC side in order to A) Make their NPC side win the "attack", and B) Reduce losses to friendly NPCs (let them make it back to base), rival player factions would compete over this area via pvp. As an added incentive npc ships could drop some valuables, whatever is deemed appropriate.
The desired effect is two-fold;
①Players would be encouraged to join these NPC fights in order that the count favors their faction. If players join the NPC fight on both sides, well, then PVP happens.
②The count could factor into story decisions as a contributing but perhaps not deciding factor, or as a precondition for a decider event, i.e, side A won the count, so they get to fight an event to determine side B's base.
The reason I suggest something such as this is simple, it provides the first trigger for people to log into the game. People tend to shout on discord if xyz faction is logged in, and react to this. The problem being, if neither side logs in first...
Few years ago , in systems like Dundee , we had something like this,in lighter form.
Galic and Bretonian Heavy patrol (Battleship + 4 Gunboats) wuld randomly spam araund middle of system , and all you have to do is join one side in their partol, and as soon enemy spawn near you , you wuld have one heck of a pew with NPC.
Used to do that quite often with my HMS-Conqueror Carrier , lots of fun against Valors in low server time.
(01-12-2019, 01:10 PM)Thunderer Wrote: if I had a cat.
2. We (me and your sister) actually planned to sell you next week and buy a cat. A fat one. And puffy too.
1. Any game with decent match-maker would be much more playable than Disco now and have much much more players. There is no perfect match-making, but leaving that part to players would kill any game. We spent tons of hours/efforts on balancing and other less relevant features. Some admin could've be referee instead and keep battles as fair as possible, whenever he sees ships are gathering to some system.
Average player can live with crappy guns, but being humiliated repeatedly pushes him away.
Completely nothing at this point, have played fl disco for over an decade and in that time the game got developed to an point where i am unable to do anything else then trade or mining. The last straw was the ruining of code hunting. It makes no sense to stay around in a game with so much todo but made to an unplayable point. They can pull the plug for all i care *laughs*