Libby Cruiser: " Those gunboats are too fast for our turrets!".
Now imagine how too fast fighters are..
A battleship should not even be able to hit a dodging fighter in my opinion, at least not with turrets.
In complete agreement here.
Now will you cap users please stop whining.
Your cap ships are designed for destroying other cap ships and such sized vessels not tiny little dodging fighters and bombers. All battleships have always had escorts and if you dont like that fact then tough dont fly a cap ship.
Or we could buff the Cap ships to be able to destroy fighters/bombers but then we have to buff fighters/bombers to have better weapons to make it fair. You agree yes.
afraid to say it - but that is the sort of comment that prevents constructive and objective discussions.
edit:
the comment "these gunboats are too fast for our turrests" were made by capital ships that were invulnerable to player fighters / player torpedos. - now we don t want that, do we?
again - especially @koolkervz ... we want to provide fun for ALL players, bombers, light fighters, transport and yes.. surprising as it might sound... capital ships.
' Wrote:afraid to say it - but that is the sort of comment that prevents constructive and objective discussions. -
the comment "these gunboats are too fast for our turrests" were made by capital ships that were invulnerable to player fighters / player torpedos. - now we don t want that, do we?
True.
However, Cap pilots need to accept that their vessels are not made to destroy fighters as well as capital ships. If they were then there would be no need to fly anything smaller than a capital ship.
I was merely stating a point.
I don't say that capital ships must be totally ineffective against fighters and bombers.
But the fact remains, especially for fighters, that they -should- be a huge nuisance for a large capital vessel, and that they should be too fast for it's turrets.
When it comes to bombers, I'd use the same argument, but realizing that it'd be unfair towards the capital ship players, I won't. I don't go all the way with my points, I hope you did not get the impression that I just want to improve my own interests.
Anyways, what my point is.. An unescorted battleship for instance, in my opinion, should mostly die to three bombers. I don't see why not. If you do, please explain.
<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">
<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
well - bombers don t accept the fact that their ship is not made to SN other VHF, do they? - players take ships out of their intended role... .
a capital ship is only that "capital" - that is larger. - everything about is is larger... the weapons, the armour, the price.
every encounter must provide fun for all parts in a fight that participate. - balance is not a state where everything is the same - balance is a state where no one feels totally helpless or unfairly treated by the game mechanics.
if those players that primarily roleplay capital ships ( and you should be GLAD that there are people ROLEPLAYING those ships ) feel that their ships are too weak - you must take it into account. not every complaint is whining, - sometimes there is more than a grain of truth in it.. that is also why i made the bomber experience thread - cause i am actually interested in the other sides point of view.
edit:
a capital ship that is a sitting duck - being sniped at from a long distance is as helpless as a light fighter chased by a battleship. - the light fighter can endure and retreat ( 4 hours ) - the battleship can endure and... retreat ( 4 hours ). only - we pitty the light fighter ( not like the battleship would have a chance to blow it up anyway if the fighter isn t asleep )
saying "well, why don t you have escorts" would be like telling the light fighter "well, why didn t you bring bombers". - it works.... both ways. and then... it doesn t work.
Well I do understand that this needs to be fun for everyone, I genuinely do. I never ask for ships to be nerfed or such.
And speaking as someone involved in a lot of fights against bombers ( Outcasts love their falcatas ), I can freely say that I have not been SNed in months. And I fight some of the best pilots there are.
I find it an overstatement that bombers can do too good against fighters. I used to be of the same opinion, until I started using my head and just being careful once in 20 seconds when a bomber fires their SN.
Also, keep in mind that I too have a capital ship, which I use heavily. And I have not found problems with it's weapon systems.
And had I seen some more people using genuine arguments except yourself and maybe one more, and not *points at Cam* that, I might be more in favour of these requests to buff anti-fighter/bomber weaponry.
And for those claims of yours exactly, that is why I do not want my puny little fighter to get regularly killed while in one of those huge fights with balanced fleets by a cap.
Send all the gunboats and smaller on me you wish, but I find it unnecessary for large ships with in RP slow turrets to have the speed to hit a fighter with anything except a flak, which does make sense.
And how about doing some actual tests then? I am sure that you can pick out similarly skilled players and try them out in fights with different logistical combinations.
Also, can you sum up for me exactly what you'd prefer?
<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">
<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
Swift, your idea is good in theory, however, flak are only for battleships and so far are laughable at best unless the guy is practically kissing the hull. anti fighter guns cant kill caps for anything, but they also cant kill the very things they are meant to specailise in. this is a problem. its the equivilent of a class10 sheildbuster doing 200 dmg to sheilds, its just too underpowered. currently our "anti fighter" guns have a smaller effective range than the supernova and nova can fire, which is a problem.
Well it should be lower in range than torpedos.. but a bit further away than now, I have no objection to that.
But I somehow feel that nerfing bombers so fighters can kill them easier ( makes sense ) shall render the caps too powerful against bombers ( does not make too much sense ).
I also remember in SP, that three rheinland bombers almost took out Station Willard, had there not been for the fighter escorts. Ring any bells?
<span style="font-familyalatino Linotype">
<span style="color:#000000">All morons hate it when you call them a moron.
The issue isn't that the AA turrets range is lower than the effective range of the Supernova, it's that it's too short to do anything at all...if you fly some kind of Battleship-any kind of Battleship-1300 meters isn't a hard shot. I used to do it to Osirises and Dreadnoughts more than occasionally back in my day (shakes cane) at 14 or 15, and I rarely missed unless I was being harassed by fighters (and, for the record, I am a HORRIBLE bomber pilot, even more so than I am a horrible fighter pilot). All we're really asking for is 3-400 more meters so we can actually make the bombers work for their lunch, and *gasp* shoot one of them down if they don't come in the requisite packs of three or four.
EDIT: And three Rheinland Bombers took out Willard in Vanilla because Vanilla sucked. Let's face it. The original Freelancer threw 'balance' to the wolves in favor of budgeted cinematic effect.
EDITII: Also, I hate the Falcatta. Just saying.
Quote:Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen
![[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)
alatino Linotype">
![[Image: lunasig2.png]](http://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii202/Mitraies/lunasig2.png)
