Micro Atomic Warheads

[TheSovereign]

As we all know the dev wants smalls ships to be able to take on bigs ships,his approach is to nerf larger ships,

mine is superpower small ships.

Basicaly have a one block missile launcher which has a radius of 40 ish blocks (like Planet Destroyers)

however these would be one use only, extremely expensive and require lots of power, this would make large ships need a fighter escort or point defence.

Example BSG a raider has the ability to destroy a battlestar but the vipers and flak prevent it from doing so.

This would also make for intrest ing stealth tacticts where you sneak up to a titan and unleash a volley of nukes.

These missile would not work on ships with 800+ blocks.

 

[Zyrr]

This would unbalance the game to a point where it\'s unplayable. The only thing people have to do is spam 15 tiny ships and they win the entire universe.



Yes, smaller ships should be able to take on larger ships, but only with numbers. If you take away the titan class\' most prominent benefit: superior firepower, you end the need to make large ships. And what fun is there to be had without large ships?

 

[schadavi]

I think the whole \"gigantism buhu\" will be dead when there actually is an economy in the game.

When it costs you an arm and a leg to build you star destroyer in 1:1 scale, and every thug in the universe will be after you to scavenge your ship, there will be significantly less giant ships around.



Just imagine you would have to earn all the blocks like blocks in minecraft: every missile hit to your ship would mean a few minutes of mining at least, and the loss of a capital ship would set your alliance back a week of game time.

 

[Riftmaster]

Assuming a semi-functional economy is set up, building a titan-class flagship would require massive cash/resource reserves and/or massive amounts of time to create.

And repairs would be tedious and potentially expensive, depending on the degree of damage...

Plus a titan is (to my understanding) really hard to manuver, not to mention likely requiring multiple crew to be most effective, and multiple supporting ships to fend off much more manuverable attackers.



I think all these factors will lead to fleets made up of smaller battleships or cruisers being the optimal choice for PvP factions. Or something like that.

 

[z1967]

tl;dr at bottom of rant...

This thread is a problem. A thermo nuclear device is incredibly powerful. The ability to level a city and leave it unusable for weeks, months, sometimes even years in the case of a \"dirty bomb\"

a fighter or missle picket taking down a Titan in one shot or just a few? Well, just make a few million credit fighters and pick and choose your targets. This would add a ridiculous buff to fighters and smaller ships. And I mean as ridiculous as willy wonka.

its majorly OP, and until there is a point defense laser, it ain\'t happening. He\'ll, it still won\'t happen because that is a down right crazy idea. A lone ship could take out the center of a fleet. It would be an embarrassment to star made and pvp as a whole.

tl;dr mega down vote

 

[Morrigi]

...Guys, nukes don\'t work that well in space. For all we know the missiles ARE micro-nukes.

In space, there is no atmosphere to create a shockwave. There is no convection to create the heat blast so deadly to living things. There is not enough plasma to create an EMP.

That said, this ain\'t happening unless we get one hell of a tech tree and this is at the very top.

 

[Zyrr]

Not sure where you\'re getting that information. Regardless of where you are, the nucleus still contains all the explosive power that happens when a nuclear bomb is set off. However, there wouldn\'t be really be a \"shock wave\" or a \"bang\".

That said, the release of heat is so incredibly large and powerful (over a million degrees Fahrenheit) that it would melt the hull around it. And in space, a single crack in a hull could be lethal.

To your EMP claim; that\'s incorrect. Refer to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

 

[Riftmaster]

A fighter should not be able to take out or even damage a heavy cap ship by itself - it should require numbers, or a really crappily designed cap ship, that has a weak spot or something.

 

[Zyrr]

Why is it that no one understands this?

 

[kalidroms]

For good reason, of course you\'re going to spend a lot of time and rescourses on such a large project. Thus in the end it will cost a lot to maintain it. Bring it out when you have sufficient cover from multiple ships around you to protect you as well as deal damage.

Though the main purpose of massive ships is to \'Deal damage-(AMC\'s/Missles)\' as well as \'Take damage-(Shielding/Hulls)\' as the cost of speed and turning radius. Small fighters with that much fire power and speed would absolutely devastate any large ship and would ultimately put them as shelving asthetics. Nothing more. There would be no need to build them other than to have fun doing so and even so, your goal is to make it a massive \'Power house.\'

It\'s not a matter of a \"Mass. Cap\" for a ship, because that again in and of itself is no fun; it\'s about the fact that you\'re suggesting a \'Small Ship\' should deal massive damage to penetrate a \'Massive Ship\' built to withstand such firepower in the first place, from other ships it\'s size. Not from, (unfortunately having to say this) broken smaller ship. All at the cost of energy consumption.

Stealth ships already require quite a power load/recharge, as well as radar jamming and Pulsators, especially for a small ship.

There answer is NO to this. More adjustments will be made in the future to damage and the like for various other mechanics. But this is something I have to disagree on.

It\'s all opinions though, we have to see what the developers think about it. Maybe they can refine the idea a lot more than we are looking into it.

-Commander Kali

 

[TheSovereign]

your right, perhaps then just a minor shield pearcing missile.

 

[Nootau]

Just a reason for larger ships to not just layer hardened hull to shrug off missiles while they fire off dozens on dozens of these same missiles at smaller ships which can\'t layer.

 

[Riftmaster]

a fighter vs. capital ship, IMO, it should take at least 10 fighters to kill a capital ship, and more than 20 if we\'re talking a titan-class ship.



Perhaps more.

At the same time, a fighter should be (and is?) able to dodge ~95% of the fire put out by that ship, because it is manuverable.

So really, unless someone screws up in the capital design, or the figher design, or the fighter pilot is bad, and flies into a main-gun shot, in a 1v1 duel between the two, it should basically be a stalemate.



Edit: And I\'m talking player-controlled fighters, not AI drones.

 

[Dragleones]

What about straight flying missiles with low range (150-200m max). No capital ship could ever hit a decent fighter pilot except he is a complete retard.

 

[Nootau]

No fighter could hit a capital like that either then. While turning is slower post 100-300 mass, side to side and up and down movements are purely thrust related. You could simply juke the missiles or out run them in a \'capital\' ship.

 

[TheSovereign]

Why dont which make turrets slower.

 

[Nootau]

???

 

[Morrigi]

The point is that the radius of destruction is greatly decreased. About EMP, that is the result of the nuclear event reacting directly with Earth\'s magnetosphere. Outside of the magnetosphere the EMP would be minimal.

 

[mumurees]

Large ships are designed to take and deal out a ton of damage, by making tiny ships have equal or greater damage output, that makes building a large ship useless for tanking damage, and the damage output part would also become useless as, if a tiny ship can explode your ship whether or not its massive - why bother making a big ship, or really anything with substantial armor/shielding at all. this would fix the problems of large ships by making them extinct. MAJOR downvote on the main thread idea. As for your second and 3rd ideas in this post, the shield piercing missle would ruin ships that are both small, or without 5 layers of hull - making the \"problem\" worse. As for slower turrets, i assume you mean slower turning speed, which would, in my eyes, only ever be viable if the turrets didnt already have awful accuracy. If you meant slower firing speed on the turrets, NO, as they would only go from a ship component with terrible accuracy - to a ship componenet with terrible accuracy and firing speed - a debuff to turrets is already in place in the fact that they dont share the main-ships shielding, if you want to take a capital ship in a fighter, aim at the places doing damage and stay away from the main guns - and if that main damage source towards you is the turrets, then shoot them off.

 

[FlyingDebris]

Some noob or troll shouldn\'t even try taking out a capital ship, built by somebody who\'s spent weeks on the server building it. No superweapons, and twenty fighters still shouldn\'t stand a chance against a well-constructed supercapital. In order to take down a big ship, get on par with it.