Shuttlecrafts
Post ideas and suggestions on new features or improvements here.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 7:09 pm
Redshirt wrote:It's not a good option; nobody will use them because they're useless. It's just more work for the Devs, who are overworked as it is. Personally, I would rather the Devs work on their own ideas, which tend to have promise.
A jacked up miss rate on beam weapons would not only remove their reason for existing, but in doing so would resurrect one of the show's greatest sins, and indeed, defining flaws.
If one phrase summarized my gut feeling here, it would be "HELL NO". That may just be me, but I don't mind playing the role of the vocal minority.
Your opinion that it's worthless, i disagree.
Shuttles/Runabouts can be used for raiding mining, a little more durable scouts, hunting enemy scouts and so forth.
A 100% hit rate is unrealistic at best, criminally unrealistic at worst. In one of your previous posts you state that it'd be impossible to dodge computer controlled beams, but it comes down to the computing power of the fire control system, distance to a target, size of a target, relative speed, ECM and I'm sure there are some factors which i haven't mentioned here.
A reduction of the hit rate for beam weapons is the logical thing to do and it opens the door for new strategies.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 7:35 pm
100% hit chance on beam and pulse weapons is odd, since their course is fixed after they fire. No matter how good the computer targetting them is, they can't make course corrections to account for anything done after firing.
Funny how Torpedoes, the only weapon-type that can track the target and change course after firing, are also the only ones that have a standard miss-chance.
Funny how Torpedoes, the only weapon-type that can track the target and change course after firing, are also the only ones that have a standard miss-chance.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 7:51 pm
Well, one option to make beam weapons look better when they miss is to fade out the beam at the point where it should have hit. Let it spread a little and fade out into nothing, then it might look good.
On the other hand: Missing chances are balanced right now. If we take everything new, we have to rebalance the whole game. It is also not very realistic, that battleships are getting hit by every torpedo, but this is how the game works.
On the other hand: Missing chances are balanced right now. If we take everything new, we have to rebalance the whole game. It is also not very realistic, that battleships are getting hit by every torpedo, but this is how the game works.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 8:33 pm
I'm pretty sure that might take a long little while to happen.
Honestly, the only game I can remember making beam misses not look fucking horrible was Freespace which gave them hilarious really long cutoff distances so you couldn't really spot the end of the thing from the middle of the furball the shoved you in.
So if the team could make a similar effect work, I'd be nice to have missing beams. Otherwise, they'd just be ghastly.
That's because you can't trick a beam into unnecessary course corrections.
Honestly, the only game I can remember making beam misses not look fucking horrible was Freespace which gave them hilarious really long cutoff distances so you couldn't really spot the end of the thing from the middle of the furball the shoved you in.
So if the team could make a similar effect work, I'd be nice to have missing beams. Otherwise, they'd just be ghastly.
Tyler wrote:Funny how Torpedoes, the only weapon-type that can track the target and change course after firing, are also the only ones that have a standard miss-chance.
That's because you can't trick a beam into unnecessary course corrections.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 8:36 pm
Don't need to trick what you can side-step.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 8:44 pm
Andre27 wrote:Your opinion that it's worthless, i disagree.
Shuttles/Runabouts can be used for raiding mining, a little more durable scouts, hunting enemy scouts and so forth.
A 100% hit rate is unrealistic at best, criminally unrealistic at worst. In one of your previous posts you state that it'd be impossible to dodge computer controlled beams, but it comes down to the computing power of the fire control system, distance to a target, size of a target, relative speed, ECM and I'm sure there are some factors which i haven't mentioned here.
A reduction of the hit rate for beam weapons is the logical thing to do and it opens the door for new strategies.
Scouts are useless for raiding. Shuttles and runabouts are even weaker. Do the math; why the hell would you occupy a yard with building these gnats when you could be that much closer to a real ship?
As for the beam 'miss' factors, I simply don't buy that the absurdly advanced computers of the future can be fooled as if they were merely human. ECM would work for a time, but countermeasures would be developed rapidly enough to keep this from becoming a surefire solution. Size of the target is irrelevant; if ships can scan individuals down the atom from orbit for their transporters to function, they can hit a damned shuttle.
"New strategies"? There's nothing new here! Only a k't'inga rush with even more crappy units! Why the hell is that worth a nerf to an entire weapons category?
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 9:23 pm
Tyler wrote:Don't need to trick what you can side-step.
You have to detect before it hits to sidesteps.
And that speed-of-light delay thing might be an issue with that.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 9:31 pm
Redshirt wrote:Scouts are useless for raiding. Shuttles and runabouts are even weaker. Do the math; why the hell would you occupy a yard with building these gnats when you could be that much closer to a real ship?
I'm going by the assumption that you missed the proposal to give said attack shuttles/ runabouts stats somewhere between a scout and rhien/saber. Going by DS9 a runabout would have photon torpedoes. Runabouts can be used for raiding enemy mining while conserving resources to level up.
A runabout could hunt enemy scouts so more powerful/expensive ships don't have to.
Depending on what multi mission capacity they'll get they can influence strategy.
As for the beam 'miss' factors, I simply don't buy that the absurdly advanced computers of the future can be fooled as if they were merely human. ECM would work for a time, but countermeasures would be developed rapidly enough to keep this from becoming a surefire solution. Size of the target is irrelevant; if ships can scan individuals down the atom from orbit for their transporters to function, they can hit a damned shuttle.
"New strategies"? There's nothing new here! Only a k't'inga rush with even more crappy units! Why the hell is that worth a nerf to an entire weapons category?
More advanced computers, but higher velocities and more advanced ECM as well. There is no such thing as a perfect firing solution so there should also be a less than 100% hit rate.
Right now a long range phaser can hit a tiny scout at maximum range. That may be possible if the scout is a stationary target, but the first thing you learn in the military is that the opponent will not sit still waiting for you to put a bullet in him/her. A bit more realism through a decreased hit rate for beam weapons would definitely improve the game.
Some of the new strategies can be compared to the old Topmey/K't'inga rush, but in addition it is also proposed to give shuttles/runabouts a looting role. They have a cargo hold and transporters so put those two together and created magic.
It all comes down to options and the possibility to create new strategies.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 10:24 pm
Andre27 wrote:I'm going by the assumption that you missed the proposal to give said attack shuttles/ runabouts stats somewhere between a scout and rhien/saber. Going by DS9 a runabout would have photon torpedoes. Runabouts can be used for raiding enemy mining while conserving resources to level up.
A runabout could hunt enemy scouts so more powerful/expensive ships don't have to.
Depending on what multi mission capacity they'll get they can influence strategy.
More advanced computers, but higher velocities and more advanced ECM as well. There is no such thing as a perfect firing solution so there should also be a less than 100% hit rate.
Right now a long range phaser can hit a tiny scout at maximum range. That may be possible if the scout is a stationary target, but the first thing you learn in the military is that the opponent will not sit still waiting for you to put a bullet in him/her. A bit more realism through a decreased hit rate for beam weapons would definitely improve the game.
Some of the new strategies can be compared to the old Topmey/K't'inga rush, but in addition it is also proposed to give shuttles/runabouts a looting role. They have a cargo hold and transporters so put those two together and created magic.
It all comes down to options and the possibility to create new strategies.
I ignored the idea because it's rubbish. If you arm small ships and make them hard to hit and semi-durable, you end up with bloody Lambda shuttles. If you want small ships, play FOC. If you want combat between starships, play Fleet Operations.
Even today, we have a space program that depends on the ability to exploit "perfect firing solutions" though a cloud of millions of minuscule pieces of debris in orbit. With 21st century technology, we're already able to do what you say can't be done. Space travel relies on precision, and it's nothing short of ludicrous to assert that we will forget how to be precise when we need to.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 10:28 pm
I think he means the compters aren't infallible. No matter how advanced they are, they can still be tricked.
The Space Debris NASA meets doesn't have ECM...
The Space Debris NASA meets doesn't have ECM...
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 10:30 pm
Last edited by Redshirt on January 3rd, 2012, 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't think a three-millimeter fleck of lead needs ECM to qualify as 'tough to track'. The point is that in 350 years, the technology to do so will be exponentially better. It's literally beyond belief that it would be as easy to fool as current technology, let alone WWII-era radar.
To expound on a previous point, I like Star Wars. Nevertheless, if I wanted to enjoy Star-Wars-y combat, I would play a Star Wars game, not try and godmod the concepts into a universe where they simply don't fit.
To expound on a previous point, I like Star Wars. Nevertheless, if I wanted to enjoy Star-Wars-y combat, I would play a Star Wars game, not try and godmod the concepts into a universe where they simply don't fit.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 11:36 pm
So you ignored a proposed idea which addressed an argument you brought up (being shuttle/runabouts have too little firepower to be useful) because you do not want star wars like combat in FO.
If you propose to remove the carriers i will be right beside you on the barricades.
The proposed shuttle/runabout however is a small craft which can be adapted for a mission.
Several possibilities have been written down in previous posts. You don't want a Star War like gameplay for FO, but the shuttle/runabout proposal is interesting because it adds possible new dimensions.
Early game utility vessels: raiding miners, looting resources, scouting, hunting scouts and so forth.
With the exception of looting resources all these things can be done by sabers/ rhiens/ bugs but the idea is to have a small cheap vessel to do the job so you don't have to spend resources on sabers or bugs. Resources to invest in higher end vessels and/or research.
Those runabout style vessels would give options to explore different tactics/strategies and that is why IMO adding them to FO is an idea worth exploring.
If you propose to remove the carriers i will be right beside you on the barricades.
The proposed shuttle/runabout however is a small craft which can be adapted for a mission.
Several possibilities have been written down in previous posts. You don't want a Star War like gameplay for FO, but the shuttle/runabout proposal is interesting because it adds possible new dimensions.
Early game utility vessels: raiding miners, looting resources, scouting, hunting scouts and so forth.
With the exception of looting resources all these things can be done by sabers/ rhiens/ bugs but the idea is to have a small cheap vessel to do the job so you don't have to spend resources on sabers or bugs. Resources to invest in higher end vessels and/or research.
Those runabout style vessels would give options to explore different tactics/strategies and that is why IMO adding them to FO is an idea worth exploring.
posted on January 3rd, 2012, 11:59 pm
Andre27 wrote:So you ignored a proposed idea which addressed an argument you brought up (being shuttle/runabouts have too little firepower to be useful) because you do not want star wars like combat in FO.
If you propose to remove the carriers i will be right beside you on the barricades.
The proposed shuttle/runabout however is a small craft which can be adapted for a mission.
Several possibilities have been written down in previous posts. You don't want a Star War like gameplay for FO, but the shuttle/runabout proposal is interesting because it adds possible new dimensions.
Early game utility vessels: raiding miners, looting resources, scouting, hunting scouts and so forth.
With the exception of looting resources all these things can be done by sabers/ rhiens/ bugs but the idea is to have a small cheap vessel to do the job so you don't have to spend resources on sabers or bugs. Resources to invest in higher end vessels and/or research.
Those runabout style vessels would give options to explore different tactics/strategies and that is why IMO adding them to FO is an idea worth exploring.
Ignored? No, in canon, they aren't useful. You could change this, but that's like saying that triple-decker buses are a great way to spice up public transportation. Sure, you can build them, but why the hell would you? They lack any vital importance, they're ugly, and the balance is way off. It's lunacy, and virtually any other solution is a better solution, if the problem is indeed a pressing one.
Looting resources hasn't been implemented or even officially commented on, but I can't see a small ship carrying much. You acknowledge that early game destroyers already fill all the other roles you suggested. Still, you seem to want them as a crutch to skip over the early game and jump to higher tech. I can understand that, at least, even if I find it distasteful and will protest it to the last; the early game dynamic is the best part of any match, and worth savoring like a fine wine.
If you really want interesting new dimensions, why not go on about minefields? They've graced the game in the past (though only as a shadow of what they could be), and better yet, they actually do something useful and even unique.
posted on January 4th, 2012, 1:21 am
You make a good point Redshirt, minefields would be amazing, all we have now are single dropped mines. They are nice and all...But a buildable FIELD of mines would be amazing and useful beyond belief.
posted on January 4th, 2012, 1:25 am
Last edited by Andre27 on January 4th, 2012, 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Redshirt wrote:Ignored? No, in canon, they aren't useful. You could change this, but that's like saying that triple-decker buses are a great way to spice up public transportation. Sure, you can build them, but why the hell would you? They lack any vital importance, they're ugly, and the balance is way off. It's lunacy, and virtually any other solution is a better solution, if the problem is indeed a pressing one.
Looting resources hasn't been implemented or even officially commented on, but I can't see a small ship carrying much. You acknowledge that early game destroyers already fill all the other roles you suggested. Still, you seem to want them as a crutch to skip over the early game and jump to higher tech. I can understand that, at least, even if I find it distasteful and will protest it to the last; the early game dynamic is the best part of any match, and worth savoring like a fine wine.
If you really want interesting new dimensions, why not go on about minefields? They've graced the game in the past (though only as a shadow of what they could be), and better yet, they actually do something useful and even unique.
Runabouts were useful in DS9 so i disagree with your analyses that they not useful in canon.
I'm not sure if there has been an official comment about looting resources, but looting was simply one of the examples of possible use of a runabout size vessel. The idea is multi functionality.
That concept can be dropping sensors/ jammers or mines (though that is going to be a Romulan trait), raiding mining etc. Especially with the new system which is coming with the new patch (offensive/defensive profiles) an all-round vessel which can be adapted to serve different roles can be a worthwhile addition. It brings flexibility and with it options for alternate tactics/strategies.
Edit: an option can also be to hack into the sensors of a station (like the romulan spy) to temporary give access to the sensors. Not instant access, but e.g. 10-15 second delay.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests