• Home
  • Index
  • Search
  • Download
  • Server Rules
  • House Roleplay Laws
  • Player Utilities
  • Player Help
  • Forum Utilities
  • Returning Player?
  • Toggle Sidebar
Interactive Nav-Map
Tutorials
New Wiki
ID reference
Restart reference
Players Online
Player Activity
Faction Activity
Player Base Status
Discord Help Channel
DarkStat
Server public configs
POB Administration
Missing Powerplant
Stuck in Connecticut
Account Banned
Lost Ship/Account
POB Restoration
Disconnected
Member List
Forum Stats
Show Team
View New Posts
View Today's Posts
Calendar
Help
Archive Mode




Hi there Guest,  
Existing user?   Sign in    Create account
Login
Username:
Password: Lost Password?
 
  Discovery Gaming Community Discovery Development Discovery Mod General Discussion Discovery Mod Balance
« Previous 1 … 48 49 50 51 52 … 55 Next »
differentiating fighter classes more

Server Time (24h)

Players Online

Active Events - Scoreboard

Latest activity

Pages (3): « Previous 1 2 3
differentiating fighter classes more
Offline Dusty Lens
06-27-2008, 01:22 AM,
#21
Member
Posts: 6,664
Threads: 438
Joined: Dec 2007

If I'm not mistaken the situation is as it is because it was pushed to develop as such.

Battleships used to be exceptionally excellent, then they were overused.

Now they're slightly less than exceptionally excellent and their use has decreased.

Furthermore, I'm rather impressed with the ease two bombers apparently have downing a battleship. Given that a battleship's shield recharges the damage offered by a supernova in the amount of time it takes to fire a second shot, the amount of time required for two bombers to destroy a vessel of that size I always imagined the task would be somewhat daunting for any less than four bombers.
Reply  
Offline Jihadjoe
06-27-2008, 02:32 AM,
#22
Custom User Title
Posts: 6,598
Threads: 664
Joined: Nov 2007

A little note about you bomber idea Jinx.

Capships can hit non-strafing ships rather easily. If you take away it's ability to strafe, then you have a ship that can't do its designated task. I think that bombers need to be about the same kind of target to hit (through size/manueverability adjustments) as the Falcata through to the Praetorian.

LF's need better turn rate and strafe speed than their VHF counterparts, if they're light, then make them light. The Loki, although big, has the turn speed and strafe roughly how an LF should be. Of course there can be adjustments either side of that, and not all ships should be the same, however I think that the loki is about right for a middle of the line LF, the lib being at the top, and turn speed like the Scimmy is a tad too slow (not by a lot though).

VHF's are the compromise ship. I love my VHF's and you're right, they work (kinda) now.

[Image: DramaticExit.gif]
Reply  
Offline Armageddon
07-04-2008, 11:11 AM,
#23
Member
Posts: 429
Threads: 46
Joined: Jul 2007

Just a thought of mine that there seems to be a "standardisation" across the board LF (with few exceptions) have 4 guns, CD, Mine, CM

VHF (again almost all) have 5-6 guns 1 turret a Torp/CD, Mine and a CM

Thats all well and good but it lacks what i would consider the tastes of the houses, e.g.

Rhineland would focus mainly on more weapon ports? (i think) but sacrifice maneuverability for more weapons and extra power plant.

Bretonia would have heavily armoured ships sacrificing some turn rate

Liberty would probably go mid range best of all worlds but does not truly excel at any of the above.

Kusari Probably would have excellent turn rates and agility while sacrificing armour and some weapons power 4-5 forward guns VHF, 3 on the LF

Civvy ships would try to incorporate the best of all worlds so thier would be lighter ships (starflea, startracker ect.) which are more based around the kusari house and the heavy ships like falcon and eagle would probably be based around rhineland ship building.

Pirate might possibly sacrifice some agility for a second CD slot? So you could have that razor and a train CD equipped but would handle like dog?

Border World heavily armoured as you would expect. Decent firepower package, handling a bit... meh alright and some decent strafing tagged on.

Im just thinking the houses would have adapted to thier own situations rather than using a universal setup so to speak. However i think this may end up being a bit too much coding what i have suggested.
  Reply  
Zeltak
07-04-2008, 12:06 PM,
#24
Unregistered
 

Interesting idea Armageddon. But, it has shown many times before that the ones that have the "Speed/Agility Boost" usually are the best vessels in combat. A good example is to look at the current bombers, which one are considered best or even overpowered? The Catamaran and The Red Catamaran, why? Granted they have a bad hitbox but they are very very fast. And nobody cares if they got low armour , because what matters usually in combat is how fast they are, and how maneuverable.

What I'm trying to say is that in your suggestions, the Kusari vessels will have the best ships since they will be the most agile ones. We shouldn't change the VHF around so much, they are currently the most balanced class out there. Most Light Fighters (with the exception of some bugged ones and maybe some completely useless ones) are also very balanced, What we need to focuse on is the bombers first. But I'm not good with balancing, so I leave that stuff up to someone else.
Reply  
Offline Armageddon
07-04-2008, 04:17 PM,
#25
Member
Posts: 429
Threads: 46
Joined: Jul 2007

If you spent ages testing though you could make the heavier vessel win, muck about with the hardpoints on the fast ones to thier guns will not turn as many degrees as the heavy's then the lighter ship has to keep the enemy more central on the screen which means you cant dodge and shoot as well at the same time.
  Reply  
Pages (3): « Previous 1 2 3


  • View a Printable Version
  • Subscribe to this thread


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)



Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 MyBB Group. Theme © 2014 iAndrew & DiscoveryGC
  • Contact Us
  •  Lite mode
Linear Mode
Threaded Mode