Big ships, small ships

[Qweesdy]

I do not believe that movement is critical to this. It is projection of power. The three primary fighting platforms in ocean warfare are each limited in movement, but all have the ability to project power into the other environments. A surface ship is limited to the surface of the water, but can project power to the air above it (anti-air missles; CIWS, 57mm gun, etc) and into the sea below it (torpedo; depth charge, etc.). Aircraft can only operate in the air above the ocean, but can move virtically within it. However, it can project power to the ocean's surface (missles, bombs, etc) and into the sea below it (depth charge, torpedo, etc.). Submarines are limited to movement under the water and on its surface (though the latter location provides it with severe disadvantages), and it can move virtically within it. However, it can project power to the ocean's surface (torpedos; missles; guns) and to the air above the ocean (missles; AA guns; etc.). Note that I am lumping modern warfare and the past 100 yrs of naval warfare with regard to weapon systems.

We're essentially saying the similar things here (except your description is far more accurate/descriptive).

Basically; different vehicles are designed for different mediums (under water, water surface, air, on land, in space) which lead to different design constraints and different advantages/disadvantages (e.g. heavy guns aren't much problem for naval vessels but are a significant design challenge for air-craft where weight is more problematic; super-sonic speeds aren't much problem for air-craft but is a problem for naval vessels due to higher drag in water; etc). Pairing up different vehicles with different advantages/disadvantages (due to different design constraints, due to different mediums) gives you a massive improvement in flexibility.

Space ships carrying space ships DOES NOT give any "vehicles designed for different mediums" improvement in flexibility.

Let's look a the various mediums...

Can you think of any naval vessels that carry naval vessels? There is one - most larger naval vessels do carry life boats.

Can you think of any submarines that carry submarines? I can't.

Can you think of any air-craft that carry air-craft? The only case I can think of is for transport (not warfare).

Can you think of any land vehicles that carry land vehicles? The only cases I can think of is for transport (not warfare).

I fully support the idea of having escape pods on larger space ships (for the same reason naval vessels have life boats); and I fully support the idea of having large carge space ships for transport (not warfare). In addition to this, I also support the idea of having scout ships (e.g. with cloaking and plenty of thrusters but with little or no weapons/shields) and shuttles (for convenience/personal transport but possibly as an alternative to escape pods). I'd also support the idea of space ships that carry vehicles designed for different mediums (e.g. naval vessels, submarines, cars/trucks, air-craft) because that would make sense; but StarMade currently doesn't provide much reason for anyone to bother with vehicles designed for water/land/atmosphere.

That being said, I believe that comparing starmade to limited naval warfare is appropriate.

Lots of people believe lots of things. This doesn't make them right. What you're mostly doing is saying "solution for problem A must be a good solution for completely different problem B for no reason whatsoever". It's both idiotic and illogical.

I agree with others in that a cost to opperate (gas, crewing, whatever) needs to apply. There needs to be a cost of doing business...of flying a huge ship. The maritime nations of the world have this issue and it drives their decisions on what type of naval assets they opperate. Just like buying a big truck that you have the money for....it is only good if you have the income to pay for gas, insurance, and repairs. Otherwise, it will quickly become a lawn ornament.

Exactly - that's (part of) what we need to fix the "big ship vs. small ship" problem and give people a reason to use small (cheaper) ships, instead of (e.g.) using a massive dreadnought just to run to the shop to buy milk (and everything else).

I want to see large factions using (unarmed) shuttles and cargo ships to reduce costs, and having special support ships for refuelling, and positioning their largest war-ships at stategic locations to avoid the expense of flying them around all the time. None of this is going to happen without running costs.

 

[Mikisew01]

I will try to refrain from making inflammatory statements about your points. They are your points, and they are not idiotic or anything else.
I trust you can eventually do the same with the points of others as well.

You asked the question "Can you think of any naval vessels that carry naval vessels? There is one - most larger naval vessels do carry life boats." Every warship in the Canadian Navy does (and most do in the US Navy as well). On most, they are what are called "RIBs", and are used for boarding actions in the Caribbean and the Arabian Sea. Many also carry larger craft. Examples are the La Fayette-class frigate of the French Navy which carries ETN 90 boats. They also have an assault carrier which carries a variety of assault craft and hovercraft.

So yes...there are ships that carry other ships.

 

[NeonSturm]

Hovercraft are not exactly ships - more a ship/helicopter mix.

Life boats are boats, not ships :p
They have no own radar tower and can't be used in all weather conditions.
(Don't compare certain locations (near the sun) with weather - you wouldn't drive a ship into a coast either).

No, your examples don't proof they can carry _ships_

But if you count aircraft and hovers or helicopters (google Wale Wars) as naval fighting platform and ask if they can carry other naval fighting platforms, yes.

 

[starhaiden]

rockets have parts that push other parts then fell off. Big ships should be more powerful then small ships. the problem is large ships are too easy to get. the economy needs to be fixed. the economy is one of the main things in most games.

 

[Dandy]

I'm going to weigh in with my tuppence-worth in regard to the OP.

My opinion is that larger ships should be a tough nut to crack because they can afford the inclusion of more power capacity, generation, weapon hard points and the ability to carry and supply their own escorts. By their nature though, they're going to have weaknesses to smaller ships which are able to carry powerful weaponry as the smaller ships have more manoeuvrability and can literally blind spot the bigger fish.

This is why modern surface navies normally escort their larger ships such as aircraft carriers (even if it's just with their usual attendant air wing). The escorts are there to keep the enemy away from the vulnerable points on the larger ship. This is seen even in infantry warfare where infantrymen escort armoured vehicles through tight confines like streets. The armoured vehicles excel at attacking hard targets and infantry in the open but are easily out-manoeuvred in the enclosed space by enemy infantry armed with anti-armour weapons. The escorting infantry are there to engage that particular threat.

In a nutshell:
To destroy a bigger ship with a smaller one you should be forced to engage it with some degree of tactical flair. If it's adequately escorted; you're just going to need a bigger force and the same tactical flair. Charging a great big battleship with a little torpedo-bomber head-on will - in my opinion rightly - result in your atomisation.

Enjoy space!

Dan

 

[Mikisew01]

So what are the possible options when implementing a "cost for being big", as some have identified in this thread? Here are some initial ideas (and they are not exclusive of each other...just concepts)

Fule mechanic - similar to energy in that there would be a bar to show the"gas" in the tank, and that it needs to be filled periodicly...incurring a cost (would have to be not limited to a shop). Does this mean a ship needs fule tanks increase storage? It would be kinda need to see lumbering monstrosities out of "gas" in the middle of nowhere waiting for money enough for fule. Have the fule consumed be based on how many thrusters are on the ship.

General maintenance mechanic - basically just a regular charge to your account which is based on how many thrusters are on board the ship. Thus large ships naturally pay more, and small ships pay less. Something of a ship tax in a way, but it represents the entire cost of running a ship. This would also limit the number of large ships an individual retains...so it would lower the number on a server.

Other ideas of how to develop a mechanic to actually implement this type of large vs small balancing?

 

[whiterhino16]

The thing I want is if you have a bunch of fighters, they should be able to destroy your large ship. Also, nobody remembers the medium ships. As in, somewhat big but not SRBS (Super freaking big ships)

 

[MossyStone48]

I'm glad we're all staying civil. Just remember your arguments don't have to be a complete shut out of what the previous person said. Embrace the debate. There is no winning or losing an argument here. Each server will have their own settings and there might be a specialized naval warfare server some day. There may also be capship arenas, massive battle, on foot pvp and even minecraft nostalgia servers. It's gonna happen. The sandbox isn't just at the user level but also at the server level.

For a while there was a server that only had spawned in ships you could tour and nothing else. Starmade is only getting started.

 

[jorgekorke]

I'd just like to remember that currently, the turrets are very under powered. They rarely hits a target, specially with the slow ROF and projectile speed most weapons have, compared to what we had on the past. But I'm not sure if this will change or not...

 

[IsApro2000]

i think there 2 things that could make smaller ships and bigger ships balanced

1. the economy needs to be fixed, like a lot of people saying, big ships are too easy to get, you only have to make a small fighter that can kill a couple pirates who drop a LOT of resources, sell those resources and buy a big ship/or build one if you are a good enough builder (something what im not) and then you are pretty much invincible to smaller ships (if you dont get outnumber 1:100 you should be fine) and the only chalange you have then are other bigger ships, like it should be but i think getting a big ship should be WAY harder than i just discribed, kinda like titans in EVE online, you have to work together with your friends to get the resources for the big ship

2. there need to be trade-offs, the only trade-off i see right now is that the ship becoming harder to controll because of the slow turn time but thats a minor problem if you have enough turrets to defend yourself. Lets just say 2 destroyer-class ships are fighting, one well build corvette and one spacebox frigate, currently the spacebox can just spam his AMC at the corvette and the corvette will be destroyed in seconds because it has less shield and AMC, but what is there was a trade off that how more AMC you have, the less you can spam and the slower the projectile becomes, making their AMC more like a shotgun typpe weapon instead of a assault rifle (slow firing vs fast firing) an thus has less dps and gives the corvette more chance since he actually build his ship with this in mind and thus can do more dps and actually win the battle if he is skilled enough

these are just 2 ideas of mine to make it more balanced for both and it also encourages pilots of bigger ships to make their ship better than a unoriginal spacebox

 

[starhaiden]

changing the power we have now to fuel will cause problems a lot of people will have to redesign their ships.

Fuel could be added but the power we have your should still stay.
if fuel is added. the unlimited power system should produce less energy only enough for the thrust and other essential power using things and also a weak guns if you design the ship well and built your ship for this type of power.
Fuel should produce a lot of power and be able to power the most powerful weapons and turrets continuously until you run out of fuel.
fuel would be used for battles and fighting mostly.
mostly people that have built there ship for battle would have to change there ship

 

[OdraNoel]

i dont belive there is one clear solution for this at the moment. but its a combination of things that need to be changed, most of which you guys have already mentioned.

1: fuel, seems people are fairly split on this. i personally was a huge buildcraft fan in minecraft, so the idea of fuel is right up my ally. but as mentioned there are the issues for (A) micro management, (B) current power systems as well as all the already designed ships (C).

A: micromanagement. this all depends on your definition of micromanagement. and never forget this is the future! perhaps instead of having to refuel each ship individually you have to make a dedicated spacestation/refinery that either teleports fuel directly into all your own ships fuel tanks. (or maybe everything on the ship is electrical and the station beams you the energy as radiation, regardless of distance, cuz its the future...) thus you have one global fuel amount for all your ships and never have to refuel them individually, but if you run out of fuel, ALL your ships are then dead in the water. so to get around that, i liked the idea someone mentioned earlier of solar cells, for low energy production.

B: current power systems. perhaps this could be a middle point in power, between solar cells and fuel.

C: all the already made ships. i realize this is a touchy subject with many people and totally understandable for those who have spend countless hours designing some incredible ships. but i think it could in the long run hurt the game a lot if some things that would make the game overall better, are not implemented just so they wont break old builds. i think the best solution to this would be to simply concentrate on the best way of balancing the game, without worrying to much about older builds. BUT any changes that would break older builds can be configurable in the server config. say a "classic ship rules" option or something along those lines. that way the game can develop naturally and everyones hard work can still be retained.

*D: as a side note, i was poking around the sound effects in the game archive and there are actually a couple of sounds labeled as fuel refill and such. so maybe something along these lines is already (or perhaps was) on the drawing board.

2: Economy. this one i think is where we all agree. and we pretty much all know the economy is nowhere near its final state, so im not to worried about this one as i think its one of the things that is already on the drawing board. how they go about it tho is a different matter. beyond the price of things (shields should be very expensive IMO), shops should be greedier and buy things from you at a reduced cost for what they sell it as. because right now they sell and buy things from you at the same price. also i personally would like to see maybe some more advanced ship parts that cannot be purchased or created. but has to be looted and is very rare (pirates wouldn't drop it). like maybe some ancient alien technology that is far superior, but no one knows how to recreate it.

3: ship speed/movement. i think this one is handling it self (no pun intended :p ) as a small ship can already do quite a bit of damage to a large ship if it manages to stay in a blind spot long enough.

4: ship health. i have heard that there is a ship HP system that has yet to be implemented and perhaps this will solve this issue. because as is, even on a very large ship if you can get to the core quickly enough you can kill any sized ship. perhaps to solve this issue a ship core could only have so many blocks. once a ship cores limit has been reached you have to add another ship core to continue to build. so a large ship could have many cores, and in order to fully kill it you have to destroy them all.

or maybe the ship HP system will be something like. depending on how many blocks, and what kind of blocks (as they will have different HP's) you have on your ship, they would all increase your cores max HP. so a large ship with a lot of blocks would have to take a lot of damage before the core overloads. so say for instance every hull block apart from haveing its own personal HP, would increase the ship cores HP by say 5 or 10 points. and each kind of block giving its own small contribution to the cores total HP.

well thats pretty much all i can think of for the moment. but im enjoying this debate very much

 

[Dave586]

This thread here: http://starmadedock.net/threads/a-manifesto-on-the-relationship-between-fighters-and-ai.1686/ makes some decent points and seems so far to be the most widely agreed upon take of the 'gigantism' issue. That's partially due to it talking to both sides of the argument instead of past one of them, like most debates tend to do. "I want tiny ships to destroy big ones" isn't really what one side of the debate is saying. Same with the other side saying "I have more blocks thus I automatically win."
The above mentioned thread clearly understands that and speaks to both sides of the issue, which is my advice to you; Speak to both sides of the issue and automatically assume that people mean the best they possibly can instead of the worst. We all want this game to do well.

In my opinion the larger the mass difference between two vessels, the less direct interaction the two should have in combat. If a 15,000 mass vessel attempts to fight a 10,000 mass vessel, it'll naturally have a distinct advantage being that it can field more statistical firepower while the difference in maneuverability between the two is negligible. However, if the 15,000 mass vessel attempts to fight a 150 mass opponent then it should have extreme difficulty in getting it's weapons on target. That doesn't mean that the 150 mass vessel wins. It doesn't have the firepower to break through the shielding of the opponent in any reasonable amount of time.
The offensive power of heavy vessels is directly countered by the defensive speed of smaller ones, and vice versa. Neither small nor big wins... They just sorta 'dance' for awhile, unable to make a massive impact on each other due to the massive... Mass difference.
Well, all that assumes that a turret's turn rate is also affected the same way a ship's would be, which would necessitate point defenses against smaller ships, and hey, who doesn't like point defense turrets?

A good example of this method is in the popular sci-fi MMO Eve Online, where a dreadnought couldn't possibly imagine hitting a frigate, and a frigate couldn't possibly imagine chewing through the shield-tanking of a dreadnought. Both sides would require either reinforcements or some way of disabling the other's advantages in order to actually do some damage. Now imagine all that but in first person, with the frigate's pilot attempting to weave through firing arcs to survive and the dreadnought cursing his AI's poor gunnery.

I don't play StarMade to be reminded of EVE-Online. EVE-Online can sit and spin and die for all I care. I play StarMade to have fun - without the complexities of a MMO. Please don't make Starmade as complicated as EVE - you will just be re-inventing the wheel. if someone wants a block version of eve-online then let them create a mod for it.

 

[Cudgeon Kurosaki]

Let's see here. I'm going to think of a few combat solutions about how each overpowered scenario can be countered. It recaps a few things, but it is strictly combat. Note (I talk a lot about fighter and small turrets shooting each other, but it doesn't matter if friendly fire is ever turned off). Ships combat should be more than statistics, but rather ship design.

Staring down the dragon

Large ships should be statistically better than small ships, but statistics don't help much here. Obviously, large ships have the problem of dealing massive damage and taking it in turn. How to take them down? Large amounts of fighters to help you of course! AI ships are a very much wanted feature for Starmade, since it is practically impossible to have people who want to play red-shirt. But this feature does not exist yet and is likely fairly unfair due to being able to hit through lag. A lone fighter simply has no way around taking down the large ship. I'm fairly certain they'll kill each other though, so large ships need not worry too much, they'll either be to spread out and out of range to deal much damage, or they'll be forced to shoot each other and prone to some of my anti-fighter swarm ideas.

But should large ships even be able to move so fast? Well, the problem with large ships is that even with diminishing returns, the surface area of a ship doesn't increase much. Directional thrusters, easy enough fix, you probably already know it, but at the same time, there should be no cap for turn speed reduction.

How about surviving taking down the large ship? The biggest death threat to small ships at the moment is Lock-On Missiles. People often forget radar jamming as a useful tool, like exploiting a ship's blind spot, inability to judge distances, and no lock on. Turrets are unfortunately still a problem, and large turrets should have obvious problems taking down small fighters. Too many anti-fighter turrets will be prone to bombing and will start shooting each other if positioned improperly, which takes care of the crap-tons-a small turret superiority. Design is an important ship element.

Turrets? Good luck. You'll likely be screwed unless they change that tracking speed. Bombers (hull eaters) and ions/overdrives (shield eaters) could make a large difference.

The only way to win as a fighter is to have help, but your supposed to be helping a larger ship or cause in the first place! Personally I have no problem with being a red shirt/cannon fodder, as long as there is a way to get into the action (Plex Undeathinator, or rather a different one for ships)

Swatting the mosquito

There are many ways to deal with fighters and fighter swarm. I even have an anti-fighter ships concept (too lazy to build it). Even though lock-on missiles are like God's gift to mankind, they are unable to hit jammed fighters. I personally feel that lock-on missiles move ridiculously fast and hard, but they are only good against small ships and hull.

In this case, swarm missiles may work. I haven't tested it, but most of the time, swarm missiles are not reliable, do not deal as much damage as a dedicated AMC or Beam. They also do not deal with eating away hull, but it will definitely impair smaller ships. They are, however, going to be reliable against large swarms, likely to lock on to a random AI ship. Might kill your own turrets though.

Whether dealing with a small ship zipping around you, or a million, long range pulse will be you best friend. As in Pulse Master with Beam and Explosive Slaves. However, it will only go so far. The size of small to large is only relative, so it likely will not work for really large ships. The effectiveness of this depends on where they are placed (don't forget that you can place multiple). Remember, this has a maximum range, but so does your enemy's weapons. The con is that you might kill you own turrets.

Turrets should be appropriately sized, if they make it that tracking speed reduces with size. But as usual, use the pull or stop beams if you really want to. Be cautious, because I'm certain there will be fighter specifically to counter this (passive explosive effect). Don't have to many small turrets, they might shoot each other.

In the end, life comes down to time and money (a bunch of reasons for me to rant why that is unfair). In Starmade, people who have more money win. But in this case, this money was fairly earned or fairly pirated. Economy fix needed.

Roundup

There are many other problems with small vs big (i.e. economy), but mainly this deals with combat itself. It's more than just statistics and sizes. It's about design. And a ship should be good at what it's design for. Cloaking is OP, but doesn't allow you to shoot as far as I can remember, and you wouldn't be able to deal much damage anyways. There is so much that goes into balancing a game with so many aspects to it like Starmade. I might even have to make a large guide about countering things and countering your enemy's counter. One day. So here's to another year of building awesome ships.

 

[Keptick]

Why do people keep comparing to real life??? The longest naval vessel ever built is the now decommissioned USS Enterprise (actual name, I'm not joking) aircraft carrier at 342 meters long.

Carriers in this game can be over 1km long and could carry multiple 100-200 meters long ships!!! Seriously, it doesn't even come close to comparing.

Stop comparing freaking space ships with boats!!! Space carriers don't have to cope with the same structural stress as naval vessels since there isn't the effect of gravity felt by boats. Besides, there is any stress int this game... There is also a lack of energy shields irl, unfortunately, which also completely throws real life missile strikes out of the window (as in a single missile can potentially sink an entire ship).

So yea, the arguments of "a vessel shouldn't carry an other one" because not many examples exist in real life (which is also false) is completely unjustified or "but in real life blablablabla", this is space, 1m thick walls, deal with it.

 

[Johnathan Dahmnation]

Random thoughts on the matter in response to some posts here.

@OdraNoel

I don't think all of the ramifications of a fuel system are being fully realized. While it can incentivize smaller ship use it can backfire when the multiplayer aspect is factored in. IE: Factions with enough members can more easily divide up fuel production and/or gather resources faster to fuel fleets of large ships while smaller groups would have issues matching them. Granted a larger group can already produce faster, but this could exasperate the issue. It leads to some groups having significant advantages in what they can field in addition to the numbers they can field it with.

It also does nothing to make smaller ships more significant in battle, thus shifting fielding the biggest ships you can make to fielding the largest ships you can afford to fuel. It may cap gigantism on the individual or faction level, but doesn't make it any less desirable.

On the general topic of ship health, if it's implemented in a way that allows the deteriorating performance that destroying functional blocks does now I'm all for it.

@IsApro2000

The idea of penalizing large ships like that is a poor one in my opinion. In a strait 1v1 a significantly smaller ship, assuming they are both built of relatively equal quality for their sizes and flown effectively, should lose. Mechanics of a ship shouldn't magically change to favor the smaller. Furthermore purpose in design should be left in the hands of the ship's creator, allowing for things like larger "flyswatting" ships to be purpose built rather than classing them out of the role for using larger guns.

What does make sense in more systems with diminishing returns like power, so that adding more does provide a positive effect, but after a certain point each one does less until a minimum increase it reached, which for larger ships will be inconsequential, leading to greater and greater mass and the need to support it for even incremental performance increases.

 

[NeonSturm]

A smaller ship should be able to win if the large ship:

1. is a station-siege ship (front weapons mostly vs faction bases) and they can stay behind
   
2. has mostly ions, but the small ships rely on a thick frontal hull.
3. has a huge factory and other non-combat stuff and thus is effectively smaller or has a thinner hull.
4. has a blind spot big enough for a destroyer strong enough to keep down the shields.
   
5. is able to hit&run, taking out turrets 1by1
6. ...

We just need a list of what-should-be and what-is + use these lists for balance decisions.

And we need a reason for big non-destroyers to have more non-combat stuff and being built on non-RP servers too.


I think everybody should be able to do damage (even fighters) and do about 50% of their ship's value in damage to any size of ship by ramming it.

To win without a scratch on your ship you should need a REALLY HUGE scale difference.

Mine field mines should be fast + intelligent (cooping with others) enough to make 100x their value in damage on big ships if none get shot.

• But vs a ship with turrets, they should do only 10x their value in damage (maybe because they need shields for the short travel time or a valuable permanent jamming block which only supports a few others)
• Mine fields should not be invincible, but delay trespassing and discourage from taking a route without clearing it first.
• They could remain stationary until an enemy comes close (2000 range) then try to ram this ship (would require missile-beam) :D and would be effective to attack somebody hunting you.

 

[Mikisew01]

The reason it is compaired to RL, Keptick, is because that is what SciFi has been doing as well, and that is what we just automaticly do when presented with something new. We naturally compair new concepts to old concepts to get our heads around it. Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, SG 1, Robotech, etc. all used similar old concepts to envision the new worlds they created.

Even the use of naval terms and classifications to describe classes of starships goes to this. (Cruiser, Frigate, Destroyer, etc.) However, this does not mean it is wrong to make the comparison...or apply the old terms to the new vehicles. For example, a "Cruiser" was used to describe a class of warship in the 19th century, based on a perminant role of "cruising" that had previously been a type of tasking given to frigates and sloops during the age of sail.

It was later applied to a class of tanks used by the british military during the inter-war period. Whereas tanks were initially invisioned in WWI as landships (even in how they were mounted with weapons), the cruiser classification was invisioned to have a similar role in land combat as the cruisers had in naval combat. They had no other concept to compare them to...so they took the closest concept they could invision and used it initially. Over time the division between infantry tanks and cruiser tanks dimished in the British military as the Main Battle Tank concept was developed, but the British and other militaries persistantly identified their tanks in naval terms even throughout WWII.

Without there being real life examples to point to with regard to space combat, we are left with comparisons to things we have today...just as our predecessors have for hundreds of years...and just as our SciFi writers have done for decades.

 

[xlxvr4xlx]

Hello,

Longtime player, first time poster here. I would like to start off by saying I love this game. People can be so creative with ship designs and there are epic looking builds out there.

I don't think a smaller ship should be able to destroy ships of reasonable size or larger then them. It just makes no sense. This is Starmade not Star Wars. Not every large ship has a vent hole left wide open leading directly to the reactor/core for a small fighter to fire one missile into and destroy the entire ship.

With that being said I do think a large GROUP of fighters should be very annoying and do some damage to make it realistic in terms of what Sci-fi has depicted for us. An example would be in Battle Star Galactica you see large ships vs large ships with squadrons of support fighters defending the large ships against the other squadrons of enemy fighters. Even after taking a hit from a nuke fired by a fighter the Galactica was still standing.

The point I'm trying to make is the people using small fighters or ships need to stop complaining they cant solo a big ship. They need to make friends form squadrons then give it a go. You should be making a carrier ship with a large hangar that your squadron can sneak out of and even if the carrier goes down you can hide behind it to use as cover while you target large enemy ships.

If any changes should be made it should be to encourage fighters to group up to increase chances not cry for nerfs so they can down a big ship solo.

1: Increase the Dummy Missile damage against shields. Make it so that it is like a nuke for fighters to use but only be effective in large numbers. Put a very hefty cool down on them so in order to be most effective you need a squadron of fighters so multiple can be fired quickly. This would be balanced since a large ship with its slow turn radius and maneuverability would never be able to hit a small fighter with a missile that fires in a straight line from where it was fired. A fighter would easily be able to dodge. (If they did get hit by it that took some serious skill or luck)

2: Decrease accuracy or lock on time for turrets based on size. Smaller would be harder to hit or to lock onto. This would give them a chance to get in deliver payload and get out more often with reduced risk.

3: Increased stealth capability or time based on size. Smaller = better.

These are just some things I can think of to buff small fighters so in a group they can be effective. I'm sure other things could be done as well. People need to accept that if they use small ships they need greater numbers of those small ships to be effective against a large ship. Even if this get nerfed and that gets nerfed a bigger ship can come out on top. Say shields were nerfed badly for large ships to the point a fighter can come along and break them easily. Guess what? the massive Borg cube designs will make a come back. Then you have to break through say 500 meters of blocks and you are still in the same spot as before. The more blocks you have the more you can design to defeat a small fighter. This will always hold true no matter how many nerfs are done.

This is actually what fears me the most though. That the game gets nerfed to the point it takes away our creativity on design. As I said above there are some epic ships out there. These ships are not only functional but beautiful. I want to build a ship to have a look to reflect what I think looks good and that is something everyone should want and enjoy. I for one do not want to see those cubes all over the place again. I'm sure a lot of people who like small fighters will disagree with this and possibly flame on me but I don't care. I put how I feel about this game here just like they do.

Now if you'll excuse me I am going to retire to my deep dark sector and get back to building.

 

[NeonSturm]

It seems you want an anti-shield nuke, but please not in a way which adds some anti-everything weapon which one-shots a fighter every 15 seconds even easier than now.

I am fine with ion-missiles dealing much more damage but less damage per second to shields compared to other weapons.

        <IonEffect>
                <BasicValues>
                        <MissileBasePowerConsumption>0</MissileBasePowerConsumption> <!-- power/shot cost additionally added (normalCost+(normalCost*thisValue*effectRatio)) -->
                        <MissileBlockDamageBonus>-1</MissileBlockDamageBonus>
                        <MissileShieldDamageBonus>r*r*dmg</MissileShieldDamageBonus>
                        <MissilePowerDamageBonus>0</MissilePowerDamageBonus>
                        <MissileExplosiveRadius>=0</MissileExplosiveRadius>
                        <MissileArmorEfficiency>0</MissileArmorEfficiency>
                        <MissilePullEffect>0</MissilePullEffect>
                        <MissilePushEffect>0</MissilePushEffect>
                        <MissileGrabEffect>0</MissileGrabEffect>