Thoughts on battleships

[Jinx]

i m really sorry to warm that post up again, but its one of the few posts about capital ships that had some very very good ideas in it.

so we had that post about cap ship users ( whoring or not ). and even if i don t think its such a problem - there are mechanics that can be done. if igiss might consider them. - there is only one thing that hits a player hard in her/his decissions - and that is money.
making battleships admin approved, restricted to factions will only increase their status symbol value. no way to go in my opinion. putting them to guard systems and making them available only to green faction status will only hold up the purchase a bit.

increasing difficulties and prices to actually GET the ship won t do much to it. what is needed is a progressive cost of big ships ( and smaller of course, but due to their size - its lower then )

so how does that sound :
- a capship that is destroyed will be respawned with 1hitpoint armor
- a capship that is destroyed will be respawned with all equipment, but at only 50% of all its hitpoints
- suicide, npc, player kills are treated the same in that case - so there is no suiciding to repair anymore ( do i hear people whine? - good, think again if you want to actually afford that ship then )
- remove the shield from teh capship, but double its armor, one of the best suggestions to capships - and i include gunboats, too. every shot, every little damage will go straight to the owners purse!
- remove NANOBOTS from capships ! - ships can make use of a repair ship. but they can t repair - or lets say only slightly by themselves ( maybe 100 bots for a BS ) - do i hear unfair? the majority wanted big ships restricted to big factions - there s a penalty to independant owners on a roleplay base. they just can t effectivly use those ships without proper support.
- increase collision damage by a lot. make moving through debris a major and difficult thing to do. BS are floating and mobile bases - but moving them through such difficult space like asteroids requires a good team of repair ships ( again, advantage when you have a good faction and teammates to assist you - something you can t really do alone )
- increase the cost of armor for all vessels. now its like 1$ for each armor point? - make it 10$ for each. a fighter would still be cheaper then - 15k armor lost = 150k - nothing a little mission can t fix. 500k armor lost = 5mio - now thats a lot more for a death -a nd you can t suicide!
- at the same time make it so that capships can defend themselves from others well - they are still major warmachines and in skilled hand should dominate any other vessel one vs. one at the very least. ( except other battleships )

what do we get when that would happen? -( and i know it won t ever... )

not the initial purchase cost will matter much - but the cost to RUN that ship. an independent player will think 5 times untill he runs his precious ship into trouble - cause in the end, you might win, but you might pay more than your victim. a nice quote from the FASA BattleTech Mechwarrior source "Commanders can t use superheavy units in combat situations properly, cause they can t afford to damage them" - but these units still show up - behind lines, as bases, to scare ppl, etc. they DO serve a purpose - they tell each any everyone "i won t engage, but i MIGHT do .. and when i do, i ll dominate you" - it makes sense in a roleplay way. you might win the battle, but it ll cost you a fortune - still a faction would take those costs in a MAJOR engagement - not in a minor little argument - and thats the point, isn t it?

and the impact on the individual battleship captain is greater, he ll spend more time trading to actually supply his precious BS with the needed repairs than spending time inside the ship - IF he runs into trouble too much with his ship.

high running costs of those ships will restict them to people that either don t care much for cash or factions that have the means to maintain those ships. there might be an increase of trading then - good for pirates - as long as routes like tau -31 get nerft.

any thoughts on that? - those are all not new thoughts - and i m sure they crop up every time. but anyway - try to think of it - in my opinion its the best way to lower capital ship appearings ( ppl can still buy them - but they might just sit in the dock ) - i made that after reading all the posts about capship abuse, yelling at independents, yelling at rediculous cap ship uses etc etc. cause after all - that matter troubles the players much

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[alance]

I really think a shield is needed just to keep the NPCs and collisions from draining your bank. Maybe a transport shield would be enough, slow recharge but not breakable by NPC fighters. I'm a pretty casual player, not much in-game time, but I'm a firm believer in keeping things RP-realistic.

Even so, I'd hate to be saddled with all of those maintenance issues; I'd like to fly something bigger than a GB now and then. Your plan puts those without a lot of time to play at a severe disadvantage, and the people who spend all day in Tau-31 will still have the money to keep their BS running.

---

"To gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence;
to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence."

[Unseelie]

im sorta shaky if not outright against most of those points, but, I do support getting rid of suicide and respawn as an option to repair.....oh...my poor SOLARI...:(

but, seriously, make people pay for the damages they take....stuff that bots repair really doesn't hit hard, costing, at most, on a fighter, $10k, while the hardpoint mounted stuff can cost upwards of $10million apeice (my inferno costs me 7 mill at half damage...)....

I don't believe in people who trade in tau 31...maybe they don't believe in me either...
I do believe in unicorns.

---

[Jinx]

yes, - agree about that. but i feel a lot of yelling at those casual, independent battleship captains at that time. especially the major factions/clans appear not to approve casuals to have those ships. maintaining a ship is an alternative way to keep the capital ship population at bay.

other than having admin approved capships, or battleships restricted only to major factions.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[pipsqueak]

Frankly Jinx.... If only the recharge rate of the cap ship shield was downgraded (to may be a transport) and the batt/Bot cap was incresed, I wouldnt mind attacking a capship in a bomber.

---

[DarkOddity]

I like Jinx's ideas... I think it would be very balanced and add a realism to things in regards to capital ships. Right now the only way a player is really going to have high costs on a BS is if someone intentionally targets their hardpoints or they go weeks without repairing anything.

I like the idea of the shield mount being on the outside of the ship so it can be destroyed when the shields are dropped. Very very good idea. Would definately increase maintenance cost having shields targetable.


On a side note, these are some traits (however unrelated to getting the population down) that I think would be nice and rather realistic for cap ships:

• All Cap Ship Weapons require projectile/power cell ammunition.
  
• Cap Ship Ammo Prices about $500 credits per shot. (10k shots = 5mil)
  
• Cap Ship Ammo hold roughly 10,000 shots per ammo type (Modifiable through ammo "size" type value, which is doable, I've done it before)
  
• Cap Ship Weapon Power Increased
  
• Cap Ship Projectile Weapons have 5k range
  
• Cap Ship Energy Weapons have 3k Range
  
• Repair Costs Raised
  
• Shields about 20k power, with 500-ish regen.
  
• Shields mounted externally
  
• Armor upgraded drastically
  

EDIT:
Just a side note on the ammunition, 5 Million Credits would buy 10k shots of ammo. Now assuming that each one of your guns has a seperate ammo type you could fire for 5,000 seconds. Now if you say have all 12 of the same turret you can only fire for 416 Seconds, which is just under 7 minutes of constant fire. What this would do is give capital ships an "effective lifespan" in battle before they would be required to either retreat, or have a support ship (such as a repair ship) come in with a new load of ammunition.

That would effectively make capital ships only a realistic investment for factions with the ability to support them, making it VERY unrealistic for a independent capital ship to wander around, especially PVP-Whoring.

EDIT2: Oh, and ammo requirements would help prevent suicide repairs, cuz when you die.. your ammo is floating in space waiting for anyone who wants it to snag it and make a quick buck!

---

My Website

[Jinx]

yes to anything that involves paying for upkeeping a capital ships efficiency. i m sure we d see a lot less battleships in combat - only when its really important to win a battle, - the way it SHOULD be.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC

[DarkOddity]

yes to anything that involves paying for upkeeping a capital ships efficiency. i m sure we d see a lot less battleships in combat - only when its really important to win a battle, - the way it SHOULD be.

Ah-frakkin-men brother. They should be the beasts of space... But should also be a beast on your wallet, which though they would kick butt, realisticly under our suggestions they wouldn't be fieldable by normal players solo without a couple helping hands.. which almost never happens unless you are in a faction.

---

My Website

[Jinx]

thats the point of it. and note - i AM not in a faction. but i still think a player should work his ass off for a battleship. not only to BUY it - but also to keep it. its still better than begging an admin to give you a permission. or only allow it to major factions point blank.

---

Shipdesigns made for DiscoveryGC