Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
@archon, on Mar 1 2007, 12:48 AM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
Not every ship in the game needs to be designed specifically for player use.
I disagree - the goal of a designer should be to balance the ships such that every one of them is the most suited to at least some purpose of the player at some stage of the game.
@pac, on Mar 1 2007, 06:22 AM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
Let me put it another way then: no one has proposed anything in this thread which appears to me to represent an improvement on the status quo. In fact, many of them would make the game actively worse - or just be impossible in the first place.
People ask: how can we find a good balance between capital ships and fighters? Well, nothing radical is required, is my answer. Good balances have been achieved already in both EVC and EVO, in my opinion. What example are you taking here? My reference points for the 'status quo' are EVC and EVO. In these, capital ships can't be taken out by 'a fighter or two'! I would say it's pretty uncommon in EVN too. Nor was anyone proposing a system where they could be!
To have variations between ship classes is good - but they have to be ships that the player would want to use (otherwise it's pointless). If that gap's too big, then all players will ultimately converge on using the same type of ship. Look at the range of answers you get when you ask, "What's your favourite ship in EVC/O/N?". Clearly, they each got a few things right.
See, I kind of figured that since this is a Nova board, the status quo you mentioned was the balance of Nova, not EVC. I never really got into Override, so I can't really comment, but I do think that the balance in EV was better in Nova. The spectrum is just too narrow in Nova.
I still think that rEVisited is the best balanced plug I have come across and recommend everyone give it a shot.
Wait till you see what I, well, I guess you could say my team and I now, since I have a graphics guy for ships, do with Clavius and Beyond with our Clavius rEVisited project, erik.
@pac, on Mar 1 2007, 11:25 AM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
So what's your opinion on the Classic Hawk?
It has a benefit to the player - a vector for missiles in a fight, or to slow down an enemy while the player saves his own skin - available before any other fighters, and without having to commit to either major power - but clearly it wasn't meant as a player ship.
I think each plug-designer needs to sit down for a few minutes before starting their respective plugs and figure out how much they want their plug to resemble a Hollywood movie. If the emphasis is on showing the average player a rock 'em, sock 'em action movie of which they are the star at all moments, then I think the "balance fighters and cap ships" argument is fine. The status quo, i.e. the stock scenarios, is the best choice for wooing most players. Peope who want a space simulator instead of space adventure/arcade play other games. However, if the emphasis is on making the universe more believable, then you just can't have a single character within the game (the player's pilot) always be in the privileged position. If that means that he or she will be wildly ineffective in a fighter against a capship, then so be it. Keep in mind that this kind of game can still be very enjoyable, from my perspective, but it forces the designer to be a bit more creative in weapon and mission design.
Another point: I think for a believable universe, there should be a host of ships that a player will have no reason play. For example, I've created ships that are just to add depth to universe; not everything must fill a niche. Sailcraft racing between suns is a good example: no ability to jump on the ships, horrible acceleration, no weapons or shields, yet the ship proves that there is more to the universe than just whatever string the player happens to be in at the moment. Another idea: a "wrecker" type ship designed to simply haul scrap metal from old battles back to a refinery. Sure, it might be a good string idea, but compared to the strings where the player decides the fate of the world single-handed, it would be a rather boring string and the unique ships involved with it would simply be another way to add depth to the universe.
@captjosh, on Mar 1 2007, 01:02 PM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
Like what?
@eugene-chin, on Mar 2 2007, 01:10 AM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
Well, there you go: it is "suited to at least some purpose of the player at some stage of the game" without even being a player ship! A nifty piece of design then?
@werhner, on Mar 2 2007, 02:04 AM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
I think each plug-designer needs to sit down for a few minutes before starting their respective plugs and figure out how much they want their plug to resemble a Hollywood movie. If the emphasis is on showing the average player a rock 'em, sock 'em action movie of which they are the star at all moments, then I think the "balance fighters and cap ships" argument is fine. The status quo, i.e. the stock scenarios, is the best choice for wooing most players. Peope who want a space simulator instead of space adventure/arcade play other games. However, if the emphasis is on making the universe more believable, then you just can't have a single character within the game (the player's pilot) always be in the privileged position.
Hmm … Nice ideas but, as so often, the problem with it is two-fold: first, EV is, in essence, Asteroids++. It is an arcade game. As we're discussing in another thread, EV players get irritated if a hyperjump takes 30 seconds, while players of Oolite may not mind if it takes 30 minutes to travel from one world to another. Second, the player is always going to be in a privileged position (the centre of the screen, for one thing!). You can't get away from it. The AI is really dumb, and any even slightly capable player will always punch way above his weight.
Quote
Another point: I think for a believable universe, there should be a host of ships that a player will have no reason play. For example, I've created ships that are just to add depth to universe; not everything must fill a niche. Sailcraft racing between suns is a good example: no ability to jump on the ships, horrible acceleration, no weapons or shields…
But why are these people racing? Because there's money bet on it, probably! So it's only engine limitations stopping the player from participating too, because most players would want to, I think.
Actually, with a little creativity, you probably could add racing in some form - although it would have to be inter-system, rather than intra-system.
Another idea: a "wrecker" type ship designed to simply haul scrap metal from old battles back to a refinery. Sure, it might be a good string idea, but compared to the strings where the player decides the fate of the world single-handed, it would be a rather boring string and the unique ships involved with it would simply be another way to add depth to the universe.
Why go to the effort of hauling metal back from warzones? Because it must be an economically viable way of getting raw materials. If it's economically viable, there's money in it! So, again, this might well be something that the player would want to do at some stage of the game. In this case, unlike the racing, it would be something that was very easy to do with the current engine (using custom asteroids which look like battle debris).
From your posts, I wonder if you've played much aside from Nova. In EV terms, Nova - where you can't move for tripping over 'fate-of-the-galaxy' missions - is the exception rather than the rule. Most editions make you put a bit more work in before you can hope to get anything like that.
This post has been edited by pac : 02 March 2007 - 06:02 AM
@pac, on Mar 2 2007, 05:58 AM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
Hmm Nice ideas but, as so often, the problem with it is two-fold: first, EV is, in essence, Asteroids++. It is an arcade game. As we're discussing in another thread, EV players get irritated if a hyperjump takes 30 seconds, while players of Oolite may not mind if it takes 30 minutes to travel from one world to another. Second, the player is always going to be in a privileged position (the centre of the screen, for one thing!). You can't get away from it. The AI is really dumb, and any even slightly capable player will always punch way above his weight.
Actually, with a little creativity, you probably could add racing in some form - although it would have to be inter-system, rather than intra-system. Why go to the effort of hauling metal back from warzones? Because it must be an economically viable way of getting raw materials. If it's economically viable, there's money in it! So, again, this might well be something that the player would want to do at some stage of the game. In this case, unlike the racing, it would be something that was very easy to do with the current engine (using custom asteroids which look like battle debris). From your posts, I wonder if you've played much aside from Nova. In EV terms, Nova - where you can't move for tripping over 'fate-of-the-galaxy' missions - is the exception rather than the rule. Most editions make you put a bit more work in before you can hope to get anything like that.
I don't know about you guys, but I like capturing ships that I won't keep as escorts and selling them. Is that the same as hauling scrap?
This has already been done.
And no, selling captured escorts is not hauling scrap. You disable a ships engines, board it, neutralize the crew and hold them hostage (killing a few and putting some of your own crew onboard to keep control), repair the ship, then sell the ship and crew on the slave market. Not scrap at all.
@lnsu, on Mar 2 2007, 04:04 PM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
Wow, I didn't know I did all that...
I think that EVO got it about right, where they pose a danger, but can be killed with a turret pretty easily. In EVN, I think the fighters with beam weapons tend to be too strong, and the ones with only blaster too weak.
@phantom_phist, on Mar 2 2007, 07:06 PM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
EVN tends to be about as balanced as a fight between a ten-year-old kid and an Olympic wrestler .
Fortunately, I tend to be the Olympic wrestler, except with a shotgun too. IDK though, it does get boring being able to pwn everything in sight, maybe I should get/make a plug with super powerful ships to kill.
On topic: I think it would be interesting to have some plugs where fighters play a greater role, just so long as they aren't like uber-mantas or something.
You know, this topic has told me that small TCs are best. I'm glad I don't have to consider these ten tons of issues for CTC.
I have thought about a plug that puts you in charge of a squad of fighters flying various missions, such as launching raids on convoys, taking down lone destroyers, or providing fighter support in a fleet battle.
@derakon, on Feb 28 2007, 07:32 PM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
In general, it's pretty lame, I agree. In this specific case, though, he has a very good point. If your two goals in designing your universe's ships are 1) the player should be able to enjoy the game in any class of ship, and 2) you need many fightercraft to make a dent in capships, then you have a serious problem. Most people don't enjoy the game when they can't accomplish much in combat, so fightercraft are no longer available from that perspective. In other words, fightercraft must be, individually, a significant threat to capships or else nobody will want to play them. This is true regardless of what game system or universe you're talking about.
I think EVO did a pretty darned good job of doing 1) and 2). See, one thing you can take advantage of in this regard is that the AI doesn't know how to play fighters as well as the player does, so the player can do what the AI can't. You can set it up so that an AI UE fighter stands no chance against an AI UE destroyer, but stick the fighter in a good player's hands and he can give the destroyer a run for it's money. When you add in features like the Adzara's the average player's capabilities REALLY begin to separate from the AI's. By fiddling with the agility of the fighters you can give the player much of the advantage he needs to shine, and that's where it counts.
As a result, a fighter against a capital ship, for the player, should be nothing less than a really tough fight. A player with good/ok skills should be able to get somewhere with it, but not completely destroy a capital ship. To otherwise make "concessions" to the player, to make the universe more like EVN, removes the challenge which is open in EVC and EVO. No one who plays EVN cares if you can destroy a Fed Carrier in a PVIV, even though the PVIV is supposed to be smaller by orders of magnitude, because there is no challenge there. In order to get a challenge you have to actively seek it by purposely capturing inferior ships(who BUYS a ship in EVN outside of the start of the game or the Kestrel, really?).
The only problem with fighters was that if you got a cargo mission of any kind you were stuck and had to sell stuff, so if you were doing any of the mission lines you probably were doing it in a bigger ship. More fighter friendly missions and more carrier-friendly fighter costs (who wants to pay 1 million after a battle for two dead fighters? In a close firefight I want to be able to unload all the weapons I have feeling it was worth it!) are the two main things I'd add to EVO.
While I agree that a very, very skilled fighter pilot should be able to do much more to a capital ship than your run-of-the-mill type, there lies a problem in the EV universe that, being 2-D, being a skilled fighter pilot = hit the target, run away, recharge, hit target, run away, recharge etc etc. Not really skill so much as willingness to take much longer to complete a task than a larger ship would need. Take a game like TIE Fighter for example; a very skilled pilot could take out a small capital or even something as large as a Nebulon in a TIE Interceptor, but the skill there had to do with bobbing and weaving just right, targeting turrets so on so forth. Things that take actual skill, as opposed to the hit recharge hit recharge hit recharge method. Of course you can take this either to mean a) with no bobbing/weaving/vital targeting, fighters should be at a huge disadvantage or without these things, fighters should be boosted to be made viable.
One crazy idea I've been throwing around is one of fighter squadrons as specific ships, as has already been mentioned. But, what you me be able to to simulate a large number of fighters is this: have a squad of, say, 20 fighters as one ship. Each of these squads would be launchable (or maybe playable?) by a player. The squad has very little shields and armor, but obviously 20x whatever very light weapons such small ships would have. Then, give the ship an escape ship/pod that is a squad of 19 ships, effectively one ship is destroyed. This would then have an 18 ship escape pod, then 17 so on so forth. It would take a ton of time to program in and do graphics for, but if it's possible (I'm not sure on how/if the escape ship aspect would work), it would be a very unique way of handling fighters.
If you could figure out a way to keep those fighters from launching the destroyed phases until they get shot down, it'd work.
@archon, on Mar 3 2007, 05:51 PM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
There is the legend that someone took down the Voinian Dreadnaught in just a shuttle. Such a feat requires great skill and patience. The pilot must make no mistakes in the process of attempting it, and since a shuttle doesn't have godly regen even small errors can add up.
I'm not saying that it has to be that hard for the player, but that it's possible to balance things (through regeneration rates, fighter agility, and other things) such that the execution IS hard. Sure, if you have an Azdara that just makes everything easy, but who says we need to give the player Azdaras? And sure, if you have a Krait everything is hard, but who says we have to give the player Kraits? Many FPSes are just a matter of pointing at the head and shooting, right? Doing that can be HARD because the game variables, such as movement speed, can make it hard. You can make it just as hard or easy as you want.
Interesting, but I like the normal model better. I'm quite sure that with some testing and patience the proper difficulty bar for taking out a capital ship with a fighter can be set, and the normal model is more aesthetically pleasing to me. For ships supposedly carrying dozens of fighters, however, I can't see an alternative.
Maybe if you gave the ship, but not the bay, the fighters might not launch the next set but still use them as an escape ship anyways.
This post has been edited by Phyvo : 04 March 2007 - 02:00 PM
@phyvo, on Mar 4 2007, 07:57 PM, said in Should Fighters Be Able to Kill Capitol Ships?:
Hrm, I likie. I'll have to see if that works.