Space battles should be more epic
- Thread starter Saria
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 1,714
- Reaction score
- 650
There was a prebuild a little while back that moved the IFF diamond away from the core the further away you were; while it was discovered to be a bug, it was very well received by the community.
It could also be argued that hull is almost always a cosmetic choice right now. Hardened hull isn\'t very useful when most ships\' weapons do enough damage to remove them in one shot (furthermore, it isn\'t very difficult to get weapons powerful enough to tear through hard hull). Probably some form of buff to hull would be a good idea.
It could also be argued that hull is almost always a cosmetic choice right now. Hardened hull isn\'t very useful when most ships\' weapons do enough damage to remove them in one shot (furthermore, it isn\'t very difficult to get weapons powerful enough to tear through hard hull). Probably some form of buff to hull would be a good idea.
Ithirahad
Arana'Aethi
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,150
- Reaction score
- 1,330
I already said the hull buff thing. Also, replying to Furb, perhaps the ship\'s geometric center could also be its pivot point, making core drilling even harder... (If pilot\'s chairs like I always ask for are ever implemented, this would be a quite logical tweak)
Hi,
I agree - placing the diamond at the ship\'s geometric center makes a lot more sense (and should be a simple change to StarMade\'s code given it already knows length/width/height).
I\'d also use the ship\'s geometric center for ship docking (but not turret docking), and as the pivot point for rotations/turning (for ships, not turrets).
Hulls need a boost (I think everyone agrees with that).
For big ships acceleration vs. small ship acceleration; there\'s no way I\'ll ever agree that (e.g.) \"20 million blocks of thrusters, power generators and nothing else\" should accelerate like a dead turtle. This is exactly why I\'ve been saying the game needs fuel and fuel consumption for the last few months - if you want a big ship to accelerate fast, then that\'s fine as long as you\'re willing to accept massive running costs/fuel expenses (and fuel tanks). My bet is that most people won\'t like to see their wallet draining out of their thrusters, and small ships would suddenly have a sane practical purpose.
I agree - placing the diamond at the ship\'s geometric center makes a lot more sense (and should be a simple change to StarMade\'s code given it already knows length/width/height).
I\'d also use the ship\'s geometric center for ship docking (but not turret docking), and as the pivot point for rotations/turning (for ships, not turrets).
Hulls need a boost (I think everyone agrees with that).
For big ships acceleration vs. small ship acceleration; there\'s no way I\'ll ever agree that (e.g.) \"20 million blocks of thrusters, power generators and nothing else\" should accelerate like a dead turtle. This is exactly why I\'ve been saying the game needs fuel and fuel consumption for the last few months - if you want a big ship to accelerate fast, then that\'s fine as long as you\'re willing to accept massive running costs/fuel expenses (and fuel tanks). My bet is that most people won\'t like to see their wallet draining out of their thrusters, and small ships would suddenly have a sane practical purpose.
Zyrr
Chronic Troublemaker
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 847
- Reaction score
- 363
People are arguing carriers are utterly useless in space and my head is now in my hands.
How does that make sense on any level? Carrying multiple ships to a location at the same time is somehow less efficient than everyone flying in at random moments?
Furthermore, carriers with internal docks shield the defensively weaker fighters, and also serve as a mobile hangar when people log off.
Carriers are useless how?
How does that make sense on any level? Carrying multiple ships to a location at the same time is somehow less efficient than everyone flying in at random moments?
Furthermore, carriers with internal docks shield the defensively weaker fighters, and also serve as a mobile hangar when people log off.
Carriers are useless how?
Another use for carriers is having a lot of firepower that is not restricted to being in one place and one configuration.
I think a carrier could take out a capital with fighters IF all its fighters were piloted by players. Mainly because with the way shielding works it only takes the tiniest weapon to keep shields from recovering. In a support role a cloud of fighters could pester a large ship to death if the pilots were to fight with that goal in mind, unlike dumb AI does. The carrier could hammer the capital ship with larger weaponry while the fighters distract turrets and keep those shields down.
I think a carrier could take out a capital with fighters IF all its fighters were piloted by players. Mainly because with the way shielding works it only takes the tiniest weapon to keep shields from recovering. In a support role a cloud of fighters could pester a large ship to death if the pilots were to fight with that goal in mind, unlike dumb AI does. The carrier could hammer the capital ship with larger weaponry while the fighters distract turrets and keep those shields down.
there\'s absolutely no legitimate purpose to have a carrier in real pvp. why bother wasting all the space to keep a bunch of useless fighters safe when everyone could just hop in a giant 1mil DPS AMC shotgun cube and disintigrate everything with lasers in 2 seconds?
FlyingDebris
Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,458
- Reaction score
- 1,312
A good sized supercarrier can hold two manned larger ships. The DFN currently has an initiative to develop such a ship, and we may have it in progress soon. Carriers could have smaller repair drones docked inside to repair the cruisers when their raid is complete. This carrier would be heavily shielded, to allow the cruisers to prepare for another attack, while defending them from enemy ships. When they are repaired and ready to go, the cruisers could go back out, and defend the carrier from attackers.
Ithirahad
Arana'Aethi
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2013
- Messages
- 4,150
- Reaction score
- 1,330
No fuel. I don\'t know what the solution might be, but... no fuel. Please. It doesn\'t sound like incentive to use smaller ships, it just sounds ANNOYING. Perhaps the drawback to megaton ships should be lack of practical access to jumpgates.
There\'s no use for it now sure but ideally if things were more balanced you won\'t have everyone in a death cube. Frankly I don\'t think even a faction should be able to afford to equip all its members with giant bricks of death. I think it should be so that you only end up with one or a couple large ships challenging a given sector unless you call in allies.
Hi,
That\'s not quite what I said. What I said was that I couldn\'t think of a sane reason for carriers *in warfare*; either in StarMade or in a (future) real/practical space battle.
Carriers that aren\'t used for warfare (e.g. shifting a faction\'s home base) make perfect sense.
So far the only person that\'s actually managed to find any reason for \"ships carrying ships\" in warfare was me (but only for scouting ships and escape pods, not fighters).
EDIT: I was wrong - FlyingDebris has also managed to think of a reason for \"ships carrying ships\" - repair ships. Still not a reason for fighters, but at least someone managed..
Furthermore, carriers with internal docks shield the defensively weaker fighters, and also serve as a mobile hangar when people log off.
With no fighters at all you don\'t need to worry about them being damaged, and you can fill the hanger with shields, power, weapons, etc. The need to keep fighters safe is a disadvantage in warfare, not an advantage.
That\'s not quite what I said. What I said was that I couldn\'t think of a sane reason for carriers *in warfare*; either in StarMade or in a (future) real/practical space battle.
Carriers that aren\'t used for warfare (e.g. shifting a faction\'s home base) make perfect sense.
So far the only person that\'s actually managed to find any reason for \"ships carrying ships\" in warfare was me (but only for scouting ships and escape pods, not fighters).
EDIT: I was wrong - FlyingDebris has also managed to think of a reason for \"ships carrying ships\" - repair ships. Still not a reason for fighters, but at least someone managed..
Furthermore, carriers with internal docks shield the defensively weaker fighters, and also serve as a mobile hangar when people log off.
With no fighters at all you don\'t need to worry about them being damaged, and you can fill the hanger with shields, power, weapons, etc. The need to keep fighters safe is a disadvantage in warfare, not an advantage.
Hi,
I\'ve tried repair ships - they\'re painful and it takes a lot of time to actually repair any damage (best bet is a wide array where you \"sweep\" each surface while moving very very slowly because the game misses blocks). Worse, bobbyAI can\'t control them (so having many bobby AI \"repair turrets\" to speed things up isn\'t an option) They don\'t replace destroyed blocks either, which (given the weak hulls and strong AMC we have now) makes them practically useless.
Ignoring all that; during a battle, if an enemy was attacking a ship and that ship goes in for repairs, the enemy isn\'t going to sit and wait - they\'re going to slap the daylights out of the repair ship. Of course if the carrier is strong enough to defend itself against the enemy but the smaller ships aren\'t, I\'d have to question why you bothered undocking the smaller ships to begin with.
After a battle it makes sense to return to a safe place for repairs (or it would if astrotechno beams were more capable); but then we\'re back to having carriers that aren\'t used in battle.
I\'ve tried repair ships - they\'re painful and it takes a lot of time to actually repair any damage (best bet is a wide array where you \"sweep\" each surface while moving very very slowly because the game misses blocks). Worse, bobbyAI can\'t control them (so having many bobby AI \"repair turrets\" to speed things up isn\'t an option) They don\'t replace destroyed blocks either, which (given the weak hulls and strong AMC we have now) makes them practically useless.
Ignoring all that; during a battle, if an enemy was attacking a ship and that ship goes in for repairs, the enemy isn\'t going to sit and wait - they\'re going to slap the daylights out of the repair ship. Of course if the carrier is strong enough to defend itself against the enemy but the smaller ships aren\'t, I\'d have to question why you bothered undocking the smaller ships to begin with.
After a battle it makes sense to return to a safe place for repairs (or it would if astrotechno beams were more capable); but then we\'re back to having carriers that aren\'t used in battle.
FlyingDebris
Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,458
- Reaction score
- 1,312
Usually around 250-300m long, and quite powerful. However, if a cruiser\'s shields were to drop, blocks would go missing. That ship could then return to the carrier-battleship, dock, and do self repairs with the blocks on hand. The carrier, if it works, will be able to defend itself quite adequately, while it is waiting for its escort to repair itself. Then, as the carrier\'s shields are taking hits, and about to drop, the cruisers will pop back out again, and become the immediate threat, forcing the enemy to deal with them, while the carrier pulls back and lets its own shields recharge. The process will continue until the battle is over. The objective of this initiative is to create a way to transport a small fleet inside of the fleet\'s flagship.
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2013
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 13
This seems like the current controversy, so I will use a historical reference. WW2 carriers vs. battleships. Need I say more? Even in the modern era, I would still back a carrier rather than a battleship or any other combat ship.
Right now, sure it\'s not as practical. However, if it became harder to build the larger ships or they became less efficient, then I think many would change their tune on carriers.
Right now, sure it\'s not as practical. However, if it became harder to build the larger ships or they became less efficient, then I think many would change their tune on carriers.
FlyingDebris
Vaygr loves my warhead bat.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,458
- Reaction score
- 1,312
Ah, but that\'s the thing. Carriers ARE larger ships. The one we have in mind is nearly a kilometer long. So, that is most certainly a bigger ship. If larger ships become hard to build, we\'re back to every single person complaining about the fact that everyone uses starfighters. Now, if the AI were improved, and some benefits to having a gigantic ship, then yes, I would.
Hi,
I think the key words there are \"if it works\". The way shields work (diminishing returns) and the time it takes to replace blocks (minutes rather than seconds, especially with \"battle induced lag\") makes me think the supercarrier will be dead before repairs are complete.
If the super-carrier isn\'t dead before the cruiser\'s repairs are completed, the enemy isn\'t going to switch targets - faced with both cruiser and carrier they\'re going to want to even the odds and the fastest way to do that is to focus on the (already worn down) supercarrier rather than switching to the (recharged and repaired) cruiser.
I think the key words there are \"if it works\". The way shields work (diminishing returns) and the time it takes to replace blocks (minutes rather than seconds, especially with \"battle induced lag\") makes me think the supercarrier will be dead before repairs are complete.
If the super-carrier isn\'t dead before the cruiser\'s repairs are completed, the enemy isn\'t going to switch targets - faced with both cruiser and carrier they\'re going to want to even the odds and the fastest way to do that is to focus on the (already worn down) supercarrier rather than switching to the (recharged and repaired) cruiser.
Zyrr
Chronic Troublemaker
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2013
- Messages
- 847
- Reaction score
- 363
In your mind, fleet diversity can go to hell, everyone should fly giant death sticks because reasons?
Of course carriers aren\'t going to have galactic super weapons. But fighters aren\'t useless, at all. You come off as someone who has never seen a good group of 4 to 7 fighter pilots go to work. I will promise you, they are effective. At the very least, the enemy now has a bunch of other targets that their turrets shoot.
I\'m not saying a hardcore PVP player needs a carrier. But it has a viable place in space, and space combat.
Of course carriers aren\'t going to have galactic super weapons. But fighters aren\'t useless, at all. You come off as someone who has never seen a good group of 4 to 7 fighter pilots go to work. I will promise you, they are effective. At the very least, the enemy now has a bunch of other targets that their turrets shoot.
I\'m not saying a hardcore PVP player needs a carrier. But it has a viable place in space, and space combat.
Hi,
Of course carriers aren\'t going to have galactic super weapons. But fighters aren\'t useless, at all. You come off as someone who has never seen a good group of 4 to 7 fighter pilots go to work. I will promise you, they are effective. At the very least, the enemy now has a bunch of other targets that their turrets shoot.
Should I add you to the list of people that would like to think fighters are useful against capital ships, and who doesn\'t realise this is a space game and not an aircraft or naval game, who fails to provide any logical explanation for why tiny fighters should be effective against ships thousands of times their size, cost and effort to build?
You\'re right - just like every single person on this planet, I\'ve never seen a group of 4 to 7 fighter pilots flying space ships in space (outside of frequently nonsensical fiction).I think you\'re getting spacecraft (where there is no gravity or drag) mixed up with aircraft (where both gravity and drag make large mass far less practical).
Of course carriers aren\'t going to have galactic super weapons. But fighters aren\'t useless, at all. You come off as someone who has never seen a good group of 4 to 7 fighter pilots go to work. I will promise you, they are effective. At the very least, the enemy now has a bunch of other targets that their turrets shoot.
Should I add you to the list of people that would like to think fighters are useful against capital ships, and who doesn\'t realise this is a space game and not an aircraft or naval game, who fails to provide any logical explanation for why tiny fighters should be effective against ships thousands of times their size, cost and effort to build?
You\'re right - just like every single person on this planet, I\'ve never seen a group of 4 to 7 fighter pilots flying space ships in space (outside of frequently nonsensical fiction).I think you\'re getting spacecraft (where there is no gravity or drag) mixed up with aircraft (where both gravity and drag make large mass far less practical).
Because any hit no matter how small stops shield regen, and more weapon platforms flying around means more things to shoot at and makes the area less safe in general.
Or put it this way: Take two equal ships and give only one of them a fighter escort. Which ship do you think is going to take more damage? The fighters might get destroyed in the process but they are cheap and if the ship they are guarding stays alive and beats the other ship, then they have done their job.
Or put it this way: Take two equal ships and give only one of them a fighter escort. Which ship do you think is going to take more damage? The fighters might get destroyed in the process but they are cheap and if the ship they are guarding stays alive and beats the other ship, then they have done their job.