I'll be as short as possible in favor of lazy readers. Seeing Sir Antonio's suggestion (which is creative) for a light support ship class (https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=161491), I'm proposing the following rework (which I had thought about a long time ago and didn't care to post):
Rename the "VHF" class to just "Heavy Fighter".
Rename the "HF" class to just "Light Fighter".
If necessary, make a new "Light Support Fighter" and a "Heavy Support Fighter" <-- integrate Antonio's idea, in variant form
Many of us agree that the classifier name "Very" is "Very stupid" and part of FL's miserable original development budget cuts, most likely.
As an additional suggestion, ships on the low end of Current_HF (Suggested_"LF") maneuverability could be reclassed to be Current_VHFs (Suggested_"HF").
Yours,
Skyelius
"It is a cold universe until you know God as your Father, and then it becomes a home. Even the next life simply becomes the Father's house, home."
—David Pawson
88flak had the most interesting approach to that.
In short, smaller fish would be hunting bigger ones.
LFs had several thrusters and crazy turn-rates, while were quite limited on gun slots.
HFs were jack-of-all-trades.
VHFs were sluggish and heavily-armored, mostly like Disco's bombers, could carry heavy torpedoes, and so on.
That won't be ever implemented here though as this mod is focusing on other things mostly.
(08-07-2018, 07:07 AM)LunaticOnTheGrass Wrote: Agreed here. It never made any sense to me why we've stuck with "VHF" as a designation in particular.
Because they're the most versatile class, that's why.
It gets more stupid when you start branding ship x or y as a Heavy Very Heavy Fighter, or a Light Heavy Fighter.
Just rebrand the classes to interceptor fighter (current lf), patrol fighter (hf), and assault fighter (vhf) or something. Then you can say this or that is a heavy assault or a light patrol fighter.
I think this might be a bit confusing, especially for people coming from vanilla.
I agree with Pere, just call LF's Interceptors, and HFs and VHFs Fighters. Personally, I think HFs and VHFs should be in the same class, and use the same shield type, but retain their current stats otherwise (with some HFs getting a closer review to ensure the shield buff doesn't make them ridiculous).
That 88flak approach could inform how things are balanced here. Multiple thrusters is definitely a no, but right now, there doesn't really seem to be a point of LFs and HFs. Rather, their weaknesses vastly outweigh their strengths, barring a few edge-case scenarios.
But as to the designations, I really do agree that "VHF" is a holdover from when there was only Eagle, Titan and Sabre, which were positioned as upgrades from the Falcon, Centurion and Stiletto respectively. But now, the roles are different, it's not a straight upgrade.
There was also HHead which had same ultra-fast turn-rate as Eaglu, but 800/8000 core and 8/9 class slots only, while Titan and Sabre shared the same ultra-sluggish turn-rate (sabre at least could compensate that with great strafe speed).
It's clear that devs didn't give a crap about end-game balancing really. Still I enjoy its simplicity and cruelty.
Well, I absolutely agree that we have a strange set of ships, a huge underclass of "under leveled" ships due to the game mechanics level progression of vanilla, and that has been something that disco has been long trying to work around.
Doing something to LF to make them less fringe would be great.
I just remembered one game in which i played when was small, and its mechanics. And now i have some thinkings about snubs.
While split on bombers and fighters seems absolutely okay, split inside fighters, based on core/armor and size seems slighty wrong, because it born barely usable lines of fighters.
I have think, why not separate fighters by making more big gap between boxing and turning fighters?
So maybe it would be good make kind of "space superiority/interceptor" fighters, with fast turn, fast speed, fast cruise, but with very bad strafe and with cutted arcs. Weapons for them should be kind alike of current LF, fast and burst damage dealing.
Boxing fighters should obviously have good strafe but bad turn, with big arcs but slower thrust, slower cruise. Weapons like current VHF, maybe some more things to rip small caps, freighters and transports.
Core/Size/Armor differences make inside class, but comparable between classes.
So in short, differ fighters by turning and boxing and preferable weapons/arcs, other characteristics just balance inside class.
I know, i dont have much experience in arcade combat models, just thinkings come from some sim, where fighters mostly was divided by preferable using of controlling thrust (boxing in freel mechanics), or aerodynamic (fast turning and speed in freel) mostly, while they all had light/heavy models.
![[+]](/forums/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
SIGNATURE![[Image: 5tZIDB3.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/5tZIDB3.jpg)
![[Image: Lythrilux.gif]](https://sig.grumpybumpers.com/host/Lythrilux.gif)
