What is popular?
Poll: Ship Scaling (31 member(s) have cast votes)
What is the best way to present ships of different sizes?
Accurately scaled, with tiny fighters
(11 votes [35.48%])
Percentage of vote: 35.48%
Accurately scaled, with 'normal-sized' fighters (massive CapShips)
(5 votes [16.13%])
Percentage of vote: 16.13%
Different sizes, like Nova did it
(15 votes [48.39%])
Percentage of vote: 48.39%
Roughly equal sizes for all
(0 votes [0.00%])
Percentage of vote: 0.00%
Ships I have been toying with over the past few months have been at either extreme in terms of size. This can lead to the interesting situation of a massive starship firing its weapons at a pipsqueak fighter. I know how I feel about this, but what is the overall consensus on the issue of scaling in EV Nova?
For example, is it reasonable for a carrier only be 2-4 times bigger than its fighters? Is it too difficult to shoot an accurately scaled fighter? Is accurate scaling worth the loss in perfomance (from massive images) or the loss in fidelity (due to tiny images)? Should missiles fired by a fighter be smaller than the fighter, or is it acceptable to have them about the same size in order to preserve accuracy?
Furthermore, what are some reflections on size and its relation with damage? Should an anti-fighter missile mounted on a fighter inflict the same level of magnitude of damage as a capital ship's torpedos? Should a direct hit from a carrier's large blaster battery destroy a fighter in a single shot, with the corollary that the fighter does minimal damage to the carrierwith its micro-cannons?
Personally, I like accurate scaling of ships with the fighters still visible, making the capital ships huge. I like missiles to be large enough to see, but I am working on a way to make this practical and accurate. I don't like single fighters being a threat to capital ships with their limited payloads.
a noted rocket scientist