Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 
Author Message
User avatar
Team: Rendition
Rank: Director
Main: Lazerus
Level: 1604

Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 10:58 pm
Posts: 70
Location: Australia
Post How Fighters should Be!
A Technological Reality with Fighters

A Space-Fighter. Ok Simple, here's how it should really be, which ofcourse show's how disjointed the games perceptions are and have become...

Firstly: A fighter would have its OWN energy and shield generators, this means that the mother-ship would only need to use a SMALL amount of ITS energy to LAUNCH the fighter via its Bay! And thus there would be no need to Charge or Power the fighter when its docked, because of the afore mentioned fact that they've got their own freaking gens!

Also, another reason why it wouldnt take much ship's energy is the obvious fact that a fighter has its OWN THRUST, and can Launch ITSELF!

Now if you wanted the fighter to re-charge both its banks quicker that its own capability to, a small amount of sacraficial motherships charge could be allocated for a short time!

But the big point here is that the mother would only need to use a SMALL amount of energy to LAUNCH the fighter! This amount would presumably increase due the technological advancement of the bay! Ie. the higher tech bay, the slightly more it takes to launch ANY fighter. But it needs to be realised that a higher tech bay is more efficient at launching, therefore wouldnt take as much more energy as you might think!

Secondly: A fighter fits in a hole, and launches out of one, the same bloody one, so this idea of a Multi-Slot fighter is rediculous; thus its the SIZE of the bay that should represent its capacity to launch LARGER fighters through each hole!!

Thirdly, as an Example: If a fighter has 1k energy and 2k shields, and its being launched out of a t10 bay, it should only take about 50 to 100 E to launch, or properly said, power the launch mechanism, and be IMMEDIATE, now as soon as ones launched, another should be ready for sequential release, as the bay has multiple "holes"!

Now conversly, if a lower tech smaller fighter weigh's less (and ofcourse presumably has smaller generators/banks) launching out of the medium tech bay, you could argue it takes a bit less energy to push it out, but remember, it flys out under its own engine thrust, so that would be taken into account.

Now this sort of reasoning is how FC almost used to be, and illustrates how it should be now, certainly not how it is (or has become ingame)!

The whole idea of making the fighters, holding onto them, launching them, perhaps loosing them - was one of the cornerstone attractions of S.S. originally; such attention to "realistic" detail has been thrown in the bin, it would seem, with the latest changes.

Suffice it to say - "You've kicked F.C.'s in the Gut's! Why? Was that just to annoy us all, or so 'You' can dominate with some other class at the moment?".

Typical small minded anti-development that the game seems to be perpetually suffering from these days!

Case in Point!

_________________
There wouldn't be a Knight if it wasn't for the Black-Smith!


Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:11 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Peon
Main: Masterful
Level: 3922

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:47 am
Posts: 1346
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Post Re: How Fighters should Be!
I think it's important to remember that the changes were made to be more new-player friendly, and that it was very expensive to lose fighters. In my playing around with FC I thought it was a bit weird, although I've never actually had my own FC so I can't really comment.

_________________
Image


Sun Apr 02, 2017 8:52 am
Profile
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Officer
Main: ShawnMcCall
Level: 2433

Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:42 am
Posts: 1932
Post Re: How Fighters should Be!
lazerus wrote:
A Technological Reality with Fighters

A Space-Fighter. Ok Simple, here's how it should really be, which ofcourse show's how disjointed the games perceptions are and have become...

Firstly: A fighter would have its OWN energy and shield generators, this means that the mother-ship would only need to use a SMALL amount of ITS energy to LAUNCH the fighter via its Bay! And thus there would be no need to Charge or Power the fighter when its docked, because of the afore mentioned fact that they've got their own freaking gens!

Also, another reason why it wouldnt take much ship's energy is the obvious fact that a fighter has its OWN THRUST, and can Launch ITSELF!

Now if you wanted the fighter to re-charge both its banks quicker that its own capability to, a small amount of sacraficial motherships charge could be allocated for a short time!

But the big point here is that the mother would only need to use a SMALL amount of energy to LAUNCH the fighter! This amount would presumably increase due the technological advancement of the bay! Ie. the higher tech bay, the slightly more it takes to launch ANY fighter. But it needs to be realised that a higher tech bay is more efficient at launching, therefore wouldnt take as much more energy as you might think!

Secondly: A fighter fits in a hole, and launches out of one, the same bloody one, so this idea of a Multi-Slot fighter is rediculous; thus its the SIZE of the bay that should represent its capacity to launch LARGER fighters through each hole!!

Thirdly, as an Example: If a fighter has 1k energy and 2k shields, and its being launched out of a t10 bay, it should only take about 50 to 100 E to launch, or properly said, power the launch mechanism, and be IMMEDIATE, now as soon as ones launched, another should be ready for sequential release, as the bay has multiple "holes"!

Now conversly, if a lower tech smaller fighter weigh's less (and ofcourse presumably has smaller generators/banks) launching out of the medium tech bay, you could argue it takes a bit less energy to push it out, but remember, it flys out under its own engine thrust, so that would be taken into account.

Now this sort of reasoning is how FC almost used to be, and illustrates how it should be now, certainly not how it is (or has become ingame)!

The whole idea of making the fighters, holding onto them, launching them, perhaps loosing them - was one of the cornerstone attractions of S.S. originally; such attention to "realistic" detail has been thrown in the bin, it would seem, with the latest changes.

Suffice it to say - "You've kicked F.C.'s in the Gut's! Why? Was that just to annoy us all, or so 'You' can dominate with some other class at the moment?".

Typical small minded anti-development that the game seems to be perpetually suffering from these days!

Case in Point!


Lazerus, you're as usual a fucking idiot, the change was made not to fuck FCs over, and actually is a huge buff to them... So yeah, just go ahead and fuck off.

And your idea of cornerstone attraction is pretty shit, because fighters were one of the least used and mathematically least effective items in the game prior to the change. Which is why the vast majority of FCs have been asking for this change for years.


Last edited by ShawnMcCall on Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:40 am
Profile
Content Dev
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Hober Mallow
Level: 3878

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:08 pm
Posts: 3124
Post Re: How Fighters should Be!
Fighter's went largely unused previously. The change has resulted in Fighters being used. Not only that, but the change has forced Fleet Commanders to make decisions just like any other class does and decide whether they want to gear up for Fighter spamming/use bots and amps/or do a bit of both. (Because you cannot constantly Amp your bots and constantly launch fighters from your main ship, or have bots that do constant DPS from their weapons and constantly launch fighters without making some tradeoffs). Most FC's can ignore fighters and things will be exactly as they were for them before the Fighters were reworked. It's totally an opt-in thing.

There are kinks and issues to iron out, and we're aware of them. But for right now this system promotes better gameplay than the old system (Where most people just ignored them and a whole Fleet Commander subskill was unused).

_________________
Image


Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:50 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Eminence Front
Rank: Councilor
Main: Blizzara
Level: 6414

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:25 pm
Posts: 1966
Location: Finland
Post Re: How Fighters should Be!
This is the first of your posts I have ever fully read. Thank you for using a single colour finally. Good job. :)

FC is pretty much the most powerful class right now because of new fighters. It is too early for me to have a clear opinion about fighters' energy cost. But I think something needs to be changed about new fc. I think it's quite silly how suddenly our support class is also best dps class.


Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:16 pm
Profile
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Peon
Main: Shantone02
Level: 2140

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:34 pm
Posts: 26
Post Re: How Fighters should Be!
In my personal opinion the fighter changes were best thing to happen to FC since 5 MF biggers.

Ye it may cost a lot of energy, but just means you have to work out new augs/gear to allow for more energy.


In a pax coronae with what I'd call a pretty crappy set up, I'm able to launch 12~ death of first born fighters iirc, which is pretty nice DPS. Can also set your slaves up to be bank whores also, never really noticed how much fighters my slaves launch but by the time we've launched all the fighters we kick ass for 3-5 minutes. Then we just regen and wait to go again.

So if FCs were to have same fighters with insanely low energy cost, would pretty much fuck the game.

When I tested using locusts with my main ship and slave did 100k damage in 3-4secs on test dummy. So let's leave fighters :D


Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:04 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.