Currently we have a problem with Capships being overrused. They are also underpowered against bombers. However, if you buff the capships, the capship spam gets worse. Make them capships worse and there is no point to them. From what I've seen, capships are being buffed. But in return, they are being SEVERELY restricted to certain places in space. BHG Capships restricted to Omicrons and such I believe? Well the problem with that is there is a lot of prey that are too powerful for fighters and bombers, and that prey is in the core systems. Also, the Bounty Hunters would have more of their warships in the core systems where its a bit easier to ensure their safety. Matter of cost, they don't want to risk losing such expensive equipment.
And right now, 1 bomber with Inferno + SN or shield busters + SN can take out most Gunboats solo if skilled enough (exception is the BHG GS which I take it is getting an agility nerf this coming version). 2 bombers can take a cruiser easily and a battleship if one has an Inferno as well as Supernova. 3 bombers can destroy anything. Meanwhile, VHFs can't kill bombers as easily as they should be able to, and LFs don't have the firepower to hurt a bomber without fighting a 1v1 for an hour. I've done it in a Liberator. 2 Adv. Debs and 2 Vengeance Mk Vs took an hour to take a Taiiden's bots from 100 to 1. And after that, the bomber simply thrusted some 50km to a JH to Colorado, easily escaping. I think everyone already agreed that 4.84 bombers were simply too good. Too good of an agility, a few could SN fighters easier than the fighter could shoot the bomber (Praetorian specifically, BD Bomber was more of a too-much-agility problem, same as Taiiden). The problem is that the huge numbers of capships have forced people into bombers. Heck, my VHF piloting skills have actually gotten worse because I'm in my bomber so much. There are a lot of other people who would rather fly a fighter, but if they do, three or four times a day they have to retreat when an enemy capship shows up.
The reason VHFs aren't ever used is that they simply don't have the firepower to hurt a capship. You'd need 2 fighters with infernos and/or mini razors, or 3 fighters without them to take out a Gunboat. 3-4 for cruisers, and 5+ for battleships.
Well we were thinking of a way to reduce the amount of capships without having them gimped to uselessness, while also taking bombers down a notch, but not making them vape-bait for fighters and capships, while increasing the use of VHFs. The core of class balance..
Battleships: Slight (15%) hull increase. Shields increased by 30%. Shield Regeneration decreased to nearly nothing. This idea we had gotten from Nexus, TJI. There is a ship called the Support ship that has a shield called a Fort Shield. An enormous shield that other ships can sit in. Unfortunately we can't use that part. But we had the idea of nerfing the regeneration severely. That way you don't need bomber firepower just to keep it down long enough to hurt the hull. 1 VHF could keep a cruiser shield steady while still maintaining evasive excersizing. 2 VHFs could keep a BS shield steady. Meaning 2 VHFs could slowly (and I emphasize SLOWLY) drain a cruiser shield. VHFs are meant to play an endurance game, while the capital ship is meant to try taking them out in any way possible, as quickly as possible. Since capships have a range advantage, a VHF or bomber can't just sit out at distance and shoot till shield falls. That way the capships will always be able to fight back. The regenerations will be about 15% of the current regen, so 100 regen would now be 15 regen per second. And if it can be done, the time period between when the shield is down and when it gets restored should be doubled. More time when its not protected by shield. So we're increasing capacity, while reducing regeneration.
This would increase VHF usage and lower bomber. In this way the VHF can still help contribute to a fight. Also with the shield decrease but hull increase, shooting off a capship's turrets with fighters would be a useful tactic, rather than who can do the most damage the quickest. It adds to the tactical choices available.
In return, I'd suggest Battleship impulse changed to 100, Cruiser impulse changed to 90, with thrust allowing 150. Gunboats impulse at 100 as well, and thrust to 180. Not 200 though.
Bombers get an agility reduction. With thrusters they can stay at range from a capship, though its difficult to do so with a gunboat, and they have to be close to hit with a Supernova anyway because of a GB's agility. However, with Cruisers and Battleships, you could have 2 bombers paired with 3 VHFs. The 3 VHFs go in and start dropping the battleship's shielding while the bombers stay out of range. Once the shield falls, the bombers can fly in, shoot their Supernovas, then fly off again. It gives VHFs a purpose of their own in anti-capship battles. Since they have the agility to dodge the Battleship's fire, and they would now have the ability to drop the shield after a long period. However, the bombers would have 75% of their current agility. Quite a big decrease, you'll notice. But as outlined above, they are NOT meant for close combat, but to wait for fighters to reduce the defenses, swoop in, do their damage, and retreat to range again.
For the VHFs. Powerplant increase would be crucial. I'd say a 20% increase to total, with 5-10% increase to regeneration. However, agility, weapon count, weapon damage, all that can remain the same. The only change would be powerplant.
LFs would not need a change. With the increasing use of VHFs, the LF job and abilities would become crucial for capship protection. They can either harass any VHFs trying to drop a capship's shields, or they can go after the bombers. Though they would take longer to kill a bomber hull than VHF, the bombers wouldn't be able to dodge as effectively, and its a way for a capship to damage them even though it can't keep up with their speed to reach them. That way a capship can focus on its defense until the LFs take care of the more dangerous bombers. After that, the LFs can group back up with the capship and work at disabling the VHFs.
The whole idea behind this is that it will encourage and give the opportunity (both of which we currently lack) for the different ship classes to work together. Each plays a role in a fleet fight, and that role is very useful, and the absence of a ship of that class can be costly. So you'd see escorted capital ships, rather than solo battlecruisers and battleships going off to find lone pirates to kill them. And it gives tactical choices to a currently tactic-less game. Tactics now range to 'keep capships back for awhile' or 'send capships in immediately.' Not much else but that. Also, all loadouts are meant to do the most damage in the shortest time possible. In this, some capital ships may focus on anti-fighter or anti-bomber weaponry, with less towards anti-cap firepower. They prefer to sit at distance and pick off fighters while their own fighters deal with the other capship, or to wait until the enemy loses its shield, so it can swoop in and gain the upper hand. Some capships would turn into more of a carrier role, with massive anti-fighter weaponry escorted by bombers and fighters. It protects the bombers while the fighters drops the enemy's shield.
In terms of bomber/VHF fights, the bombers would end up being nearly sitting ducks if they are attacked by enemy VHFs. That makes it crucial for them to have escorts. Be real, a bunch of lone bombers flying about is a big risk, and should be.. They shouldn't be able to have a 50/50 chance against a VHF as they do now. The agility decrease would also result in a reduced ability to SN enemy VHFs, an ability they shouldn't have.
I'd also suggest a slight increase to battlerazors and infernos, that or decrease the energy usage. That way they are better to use against an enemy capship like they used to be, rather than lots and lots of normal turrets. Normal turrets are effective against fighters and bombers right now. They should continue to be. But Battlerazors and Infernos should be stronger against capships. That way loadout becomes more diversified depending on role. Carrier role; More normal turrets and less razors and infernos. Not hopeless against another capship, but more of a zone defense ship that goes in after its escorts have hurt the enemy ship sufficiently for it to gain a victory in straight-fights. Warship role; More razors and infernos, but also more susceptible to attacks by enemy fighters and bombers. This ship would go straight for another capship's throat while it must rely on its own fighter escorts for defense. Mixed; These would go for a bit either way. It would be ready for anything, but not as good as either role as its more specialized counterpart. It has the ability to fend off fighters and bombers on its own, but wouldn't be as effective at it as a carrier role ship. It could also fight another capship, but if that capship is designed to defeat others (Warship role), the mixed ship would not be able to win unless it received reinforcements. This is the type of loadout you'd use when you don't know what your going to encounter.
And there is another purpose this could serve. The much-despised shield running rule about cruising. With this fort shield concept, a BS would take about 15-20 minutes to fully recharge shields instead of 3-5 minutes. They would dock after a fight to recharge most often. So if they were to cruise away. Either they'd be gone for 15-20 minutes. Way to long for it to return with full shield and be able to tip the power back in its favor efficiently. By then the fight could be over, or one side is winning so much its presence wouldn't change anything. If it fled as its shield fell, it could wait and return once the enemy has switched targets. If the enemy doesn't notice the return, it could be very dangerous. If they do notice its return, they attack it again and it has accomplished nothing, but the enemy has gained a few moments where it was not there that they could use to reorganize and get a feel for the other ships present. This adds that tactical retreating idea, without making it unfair. However a ship could dock and return, which would be problematic, so perhaps require the ship to stay within scanner range. If it leaves scanner range, its fled for good. If its within 15km its still in. (Or 10km if that works better.) Since we have the clock in-game now, proving this rule would be only too easy.
And thinking about this all has given me an idea for a new ship class. Torpedo cruisers. Make a mortar-like weapon (or use the Mortar itself). It has a range of 5,000-7,000. Extremely long-range. Well out of BR and Inferno range. Decent speed. ~600m/s. An enemy battleship is being attacked by 4 friendly VHFs.. They drop the shield. Immediately the torpedo cruiser lets out a full salvo (~5-6Mortar rounds). If they hit, lots of damage. If they miss, the torpedo cruiser lost a lot of energy, but it is out of the BS' range, so it has lost no shield or hull, and is relatively safe. Its a ship you would use against extremely-heavily defended targets (RH BS, Zoner Jugg) that are too slow to dodge the torpedoes. The mortars would take about 15% of the cruiser's energy (some cruisers would have more energy or less energy, with advantages/disadvantages in other fields for diversity). So it could fire 6 at a time and use all its energy. Or 4 and it can fire more often. Not sure what sort of damage we'd need to make the Mortar have for this though. And if we were not to use the Mortar, I'd suggest renaming the cruiser to 'Siege Cruiser' and use Lasers rather than torpedo effects for the weaponry. That way its siege lasers used against fort shields and heavy armor. I'd prefer the 2nd. That way Mortars are still available for normal ships, and it just sounds better for a siege cruiser rather than torpedo, since the cruiser isn't really using torpedos, but antimatter cannons.
' Wrote:Also there will be useful flaks in 4.85 so bombers won't be so powerful against caps any more.
This is actually not true, the flaks are make specifically to keep bombers at range, but not really to rape them. Right now (in 4.84) bombers have 2 options against BS, 1. Go really close - BS player can't move that fast in turret view or even simply keep up with the cursor when the bomber flies circles around him.
2. Bombard from farther away.
At medium range (300-500ms) they mostly get blasted by the BS.
So flak is there to remove or suppress option 1. keeping the spirit of defensive rather than offensive weapon.
Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.
' Wrote:.... Go really close - BS player can't move that fast in turret view or even simply keep up with the cursor when the bomber flies circles around him...
Wrong... and wrong again. At close range, it`s the easiest (now) to get hits on everything (fighter, bomber, you name it).
Sorry for i cannot justify my answer later, I had to go.
Now why i said "NO" ?
Quote:Currently we have a problem with Capships being overrused. They are also underpowered against bombers. However, if you buff the capships, the capship spam gets worse. Make them capships worse and there is no point to them. From what I've seen, capships are being buffed. But in return, they are being SEVERELY restricted to certain places in space. BHG Capships restricted to Omicrons and such I believe? Well the problem with that is there is a lot of prey that are too powerful for fighters and bombers, and that prey is in the core systems. Also, the Bounty Hunters would have more of their warships in the core systems where its a bit easier to ensure their safety. Matter of cost, they don't want to risk losing such expensive equipment.
Here I agree to space restriction. Why isn't it working like the corsairs do ?
As corsairs, all destroyers and higher ships have to stay in corsair (O-5, O-41, O-Gamma, O-Kappa, O-Delta)/order (O-Minor only) space.
The only thing i disagree is the example you gave. Do you know how much capital ship are attacking Gamma every day ?
They die every time they attack ! The hunters may then give up their battleship due to the fact they are useless.
3 core bombers deal us more damages than an entire fleet of battlecruisers (and god know how much they are around gamma).
Quote:And right now, 1 bomber with Inferno + SN or shield busters + SN can take out most Gunboats solo if skilled enough (exception is the BHG GS which I take it is getting an agility nerf this coming version). 2 bombers can take a cruiser easily and a battleship if one has an Inferno as well as Supernova. 3 bombers can destroy anything. Meanwhile, VHFs can't kill bombers as easily as they should be able to, and LFs don't have the firepower to hurt a bomber without fighting a 1v1 for an hour. I've done it in a Liberator. 2 Adv. Debs and 2 Vengeance Mk Vs took an hour to take a Taiiden's bots from 100 to 1. And after that, the bomber simply thrusted some 50km to a JH to Colorado, easily escaping. I think everyone already agreed that 4.84 bombers were simply too good. Too good of an agility, a few could SN fighters easier than the fighter could shoot the bomber (Praetorian specifically, BD Bomber was more of a too-much-agility problem, same as Taiiden). The problem is that the huge numbers of capships have forced people into bombers. Heck, my VHF piloting skills have actually gotten worse because I'm in my bomber so much. There are a lot of other people who would rather fly a fighter, but if they do, three or four times a day they have to retreat when an enemy capship shows up.
The BHG GS is right enough nerfed as it is. Just look at his hull ! A single SN shot can kill one if they do not have a CAU mark 8. The only thing it may be fixed might be his hitbox and design (too small for his class) as well as the nomad destroyer's one (try it on an other server, you will understand really fast).
I'll correct it : 1 bomber can destroy a single destroyer if this last one do not have any missiles.
A VHF CAN destroy a bomber easily. I'd say the bomber have to be really sure of him to engage a fighter.
I just was killed yesterday by a heavy fighter (crow). The fight was one of the hardest and best I've done (I thank him a lot for this fight !) but I lost it cause of the heavy fighter agility.
A LF is NOT a fast killer. But you may try to use only 1 shield buster, a cannonball and 2 hull busters. They are also unbeatable for most of player because NO-ONE know how to use them.
The mines + CD are also useful, or the torpedo for the nomad LF.
I don't know your problem with the praetorian. Did I killed you with my SNAC ? But be sure it's a hell to shot right the target with a praetorian. That's due to the fact the SNAC tube is NOT in the middle of the ship.
The praetorian is also one of the worst bomber of all the mod against the fighters and other bombers.
The dragon red catamaran IS also THE best bomber of the mod against all fighter class vessels due to his small size. All guns are like in the center and it's just enough to go right in the direction to the enemy for all guns (SNAC as well) have the same orientation. Then it's not this much useful for a catamaran to group the SNAC for a focused shot.
And about the capital ship ... I agree. But the problem is not the capital ship. It will be a lot of them regardless we restrict them or not (look at SOB for example, i counted almost as much capship as fighters).
The problem are the missile turrets !
Drop out all missile turrets and you will see less capships, more bomber, then after a week, more fighters.
I think everyone know I set a bounty on all missile launcher ? That's the reason. I want to lead them in HELL !
Quote:Battleships: Slight (15%) hull increase. Shields increased by 30%. Shield Regeneration decreased to nearly nothing. This idea we had gotten from Nexus, TJI. There is a ship called the Support ship that has a shield called a Fort Shield. An enormous shield that other ships can sit in. Unfortunately we can't use that part. But we had the idea of nerfing the regeneration severely. That way you don't need bomber firepower just to keep it down long enough to hurt the hull. 1 VHF could keep a cruiser shield steady while still maintaining evasive excersizing. 2 VHFs could keep a BS shield steady. Meaning 2 VHFs could slowly (and I emphasize SLOWLY) drain a cruiser shield. VHFs are meant to play an endurance game, while the capital ship is meant to try taking them out in any way possible, as quickly as possible. Since capships have a range advantage, a VHF or bomber can't just sit out at distance and shoot till shield falls. That way the capships will always be able to fight back. The regenerations will be about 15% of the current regen, so 100 regen would now be 15 regen per second. And if it can be done, the time period between when the shield is down and when it gets restored should be doubled. More time when its not protected by shield. So we're increasing capacity, while reducing regeneration.
A fighter is NOT done to kill a battleship.
Quote:This would increase VHF usage and lower bomber. In this way the VHF can still help contribute to a fight. Also with the shield decrease but hull increase, shooting off a capship's turrets with fighters would be a useful tactic, rather than who can do the most damage the quickest. It adds to the tactical choices available.
In return, I'd suggest Battleship impulse changed to 100, Cruiser impulse changed to 90, with thrust allowing 150. Gunboats impulse at 100 as well, and thrust to 180. Not 200 though.
Be sure if I'm fighting a capital ship, I'm happy if a VHF show up near me. I could also say I already killed with someone else, in 2 sabres, 2 gunboat and 1 destroyer without reloads in any station.
Impulse to 180 for GB is a NO !!! It's enough for a fighter can't escape a missile boat.
Quote:Bombers get an agility reduction. With thrusters they can stay at range from a capship, though its difficult to do so with a gunboat, and they have to be close to hit with a Supernova anyway because of a GB's agility. However, with Cruisers and Battleships, you could have 2 bombers paired with 3 VHFs. The 3 VHFs go in and start dropping the battleship's shielding while the bombers stay out of range. Once the shield falls, the bombers can fly in, shoot their Supernovas, then fly off again. It gives VHFs a purpose of their own in anti-capship battles. Since they have the agility to dodge the Battleship's fire, and they would now have the ability to drop the shield after a long period. However, the bombers would have 75% of their current agility. Quite a big decrease, you'll notice. But as outlined above, they are NOT meant for close combat, but to wait for fighters to reduce the defenses, swoop in, do their damage, and retreat to range again.
NO and NO.
Fighters are definitively NOT here to fight battleships.
And the bombers, specially the praetorian, are already enough nerved this way !
Quote:For the VHFs. Powerplant increase would be crucial. I'd say a 20% increase to total, with 5-10% increase to regeneration. However, agility, weapon count, weapon damage, all that can remain the same. The only change would be powerplant.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO AND NO !!!
Drop your sabre, get a titan, you will see there is an enough good power output.
This is not a "all in eagles with no power cost nomad cannon" mod
If you allow the sabre to shot all the time, his agility and strength will make it the best of all the mod.
I'll also stay here for now.
And be sure the hunters already paid the cost of using only capital ships.
' Wrote:Wrong... and wrong again. At close range, it`s the easiest (now) to get hits on everything (fighter, bomber, you name it).
It kind of depends on what turret view the BS has.. some have very wide ones.. then bombers get hit yes... some have very narrow ones, so the bomber can fly circles joust around the edges making it pain to hit it.
Igiss says: Martin, you give them a finger, they bite off your arm.
One concept a see, here and there about caps is that they should stay in thier home systems is wrong.
Folks have it backwards here because they want to do some gundamn wing fly by the seat of thier pants action. The fact of the matter is battleships(which function as carriers as well) are supposed to be at the vanguard of a assault fleet.
Lets look at modern military uses of great ships. We do not patrol our boarder waters with carriers and send gunboats out into the deep sea. Ig anything I'd say the ships dont need so much changeing but the pilots do.
It seems that some want the balance to be adjusted so that they can have thier dog fights WWII style.
According to Trents journals it takes months to cross surius useing common routes and trade lanes. With that in mind fighters, bomber and similar strike craft should be the ones staying home. They simply do not have the resources and facilities to accomidate such long trips.
By resources I mean not enough food, no gallies, no latrines, no beds, no where to excercise to keep muscles from atrophy. I think for better RP and because many folks, when they arrive come here to try the things they could not before. IE: capital ships. Many are finished with fighters after beating SP 20 times. Now some folks fall in to that inverse E-Peen of smaller ships = better RP.
The fact of the matter is the bigger ships would be seen abroad MUCH more often the the fighters. Just as many more people in the world have seen a U.S. aircraft carrier than one of our missle frigates or patrol boats up close.
Now heres some blasphemy. It would not be terrible if the majority of the server were in capital ships. This would cause no problems at all. The only thing this may damage is if your bent on gundam wing style antics and cannot find an opponet. But if you have good RP for one of those strike craft then there should be no problem.
As for some of the practical uses of capitol ships besides real tactics and logistics. It's nice to be able to RP with out getting killed by NPCs. Capital ships can stay safe from most of them if they keep moveing.
Bottom line when an attack fleet moves in to do battle it is rather rediculous to see a all fighter bomber wing attack anywhere. Capital ships were ment to be the tip of the spear as it were.
In terms of numbers. We must consider the NPCs too. They are part of our universe. Thus there are already thousands of fighters out in space. Enough to justify everyone being in at least a gunboat. Yet not everyone will use capitol ships as fighters when supported by a cap make great recon ships, transport are superior for tradeing. You need bombers to multiply a fleets capabilities against another. I have found with some of my faction mates that 1 gunboat, 1 HF, and 1 Bomber is a very deadly combonation. Able to kill most threats of any size not number.
Right now the idea of fighters and bombers being the star of the show is the problem. They are only the star of any show thats about only fighters and bombers. Robotech, Gundam, and Macross. But one game that has an accurate idea of ship balance is the Homeworld series. There fighters are important but you dont just send a swarm and own everything. When it comes down to it the gunboat is the most used warship then the criuser, then the fighters/bombers, and finally the battleship.
Nerfing ZOIs is the wrong answer. We dont need to nerf those ZOIs only because noobs get capships. Noobs will be delt with by the rules and if a player is hell bent on being in a fighter or bomber then they must understand they cannot be top dog. The days of fighters getting brownie points for saying "look how little gear I can RP in" is over. It is harder to RP in a fighter an thier is less plausible RP to be done in one. If you nerf your self to strike craft only then accept it or get a capitol ship and show the noobs how to RP them.
But lets avoid these twisted rules and blurry reasoning for keeping capitol ships out of the game so folks can have thier flea fights with out being killed by a hostile cap when the fact is they simply werent prepared. If a house gets 10 of thier fighters owned by a couple caps thats thier own fault for not fielding the right compliment.
Capital ships were never designed to stay home. They were designed to bring the home of the war machine as close to the battle front as possible and survive while haveing the firepower to repel all but the most cordinated attacks.
![[Image: DFinal.png]](http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b328/Luciaden/DFinal.png)
![[Image: signature2b.png]](http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2982/signature2b.png)
![[Image: sigiw102.jpg]](http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff111/rytirm/sigiw102.jpg)
![[Image: Harvester00acopy.jpg]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a261/jc_lehner/Photoshop%20requests/Harvester00acopy.jpg)