| Author |
New fighter loadouts? |
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
|  Posted: 2008-08-25 07:27
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-24 15:05, Crim {Pants?} wrote:
I've always wanted to see actual fighter-specific weapons, instead of just throwing Particle Cannons/Rails and Missles on them. While I guess it would take abit more work, I don't see how resizing the current weapon animations (and models) to fit fighters would be hard.
|
|
That's how it has been for, oh, three years now.
Mass Pulse Cannons, Ares Cannons, Anti-Ship Missiles, Amplified Coil Beams, Phoenix Missiles, Psiwave Seekers, .... and a couple other weapons were all made specifically for the fighters last patch. They probably just took the same art as the P cannons, etc for the sake of simplicity, but they're different so we can balance fighters without screwing up player ships.
So yeah, consider that checked off the todo list.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
The Master Debator
Cadet
Joined: July 03, 2008
Posts: 114
| Posted: 2008-08-25 08:19
needs more ICC carrier
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Sensation{DO A BARREL ROLL} on 2008-08-25 17:26 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Sensation{ILOVEROGUESPEAR} on 2008-08-27 07:47 ]
_________________
I'm not even angry.
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2008-08-25 15:58
Quote:
| On 2008-08-25 08:19, Fatal Sensation{DO A BARREL ROLL} wrote:
needs more gafien carrier |
|
Shhhhht!!!!
Don't give him the idea of building a Gaifen mothership that launches baby Gaifens.
_________________
DS Discordion
|
t500
Marshal
Joined: June 20, 2007
Posts: 188
From: vermont
| Posted: 2008-08-26 08:18
cool 
_________________
luna nobis providet
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2008-08-27 07:43
Quote:[/small]
| On 2008-08-25 08:19, Fatal Sensation{ILOVEROGUESPEAR} wrote:
needs more MiR carrier |
|
MI don't have Corvette's, Frigate's, Destroyer's and no fighters either.
So why should they have a carrier if the don't even have fighters?
Just a question.
[ This Message was edited by: Eledore[NL] on 2008-08-27 07:45 ]
_________________
DS Discordion
|
Deltabacon
Fleet Admiral
Joined: August 17, 2007
Posts: 395
From: Liverpool, Great Britain
| Posted: 2008-08-27 12:24
i think that the point, we wanna design some.
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-08-27 14:17
MI Carriers would launch Cruisers.
_________________
|
The Master Debator
Cadet
Joined: July 03, 2008
Posts: 114
| Posted: 2008-08-27 15:33
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-27 14:17, Fattierob wrote:
MI Carriers would launch Cruisers.
|
|
those things are fast enough to be one eitherway
_________________
I'm not even angry.
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2008-09-22 13:54
Sorry to raise things from the dead, but someone mentioned my name...
Quote:
|
On 2008-08-24 16:39, Eledore[NL] wrote:
- Missiles on fighters, agreed with "Gejaheline" should be dumb. (or short-range smart one's that won't increase the LAG experience.)
|
|
I don't recall saying that, although I wouldn't put it past my faulty memory to forget, but I think I agree with it anyway. Having lots of torpedoes flying around might look really exciting and shiny, but starfighters probably have a limited amount of payload, so unless torpedoes are small (what are they, anyway, considering that real torpedoes are basically underwater missiles, and there's no water in space? Obviously they're not missiles, but they seem to fill a somewhat ill-defined weapons category), they'd probably stick with anti-ship missiles/rockets.
Of course, then there's the whole thing about whether the strike craft that attack capital ships should be classed as fighters or bombers, since in half the games you see fighters that can hurt capital ships quite effectively, and in the other half they're just distractions so that the bombers can bomb/torpedo the capital ship's soft bits, so that's a bit of a vague area too, although given the resillience of DarkSpace capital ships, I'd be tempted to think the latter is the case.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Coeus
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: March 22, 2006
Posts: 2815
From: Philly
| Posted: 2008-09-27 08:38
Learn your Darkspace History!
From Darkspace History Galactica - Part 3: The Human Experience. "How did it come to this?"
Quote:
| Second, new Fusion Torpedo weapons were developed which allowed the projection of an active nuclear reaction suspended inside of a decaying magnetic field, which was maintained by a small control module. These torpedoes would have their warhead supplied by a cache of deuterium on board the vessel, which excited it to a state of fusion in a specialized reactor before containment in it’s field mere micro seconds before launch. While the low mass of this weapon allowed it to have great speed and ammo capacity, it’s limited range made it unsuitable for use by an Earth based weapon for attack on Ragnarock. |
|
I don't recall the specifics of Antimatter or Proton Torps, but while Fusion Torps used nuclear reactions (aka, Nuclear Fusion) I would imagine that AM torps use volumes of Anti-matter suspended in said magnetic field, which on contact with normal matter makes that nice big badda boom that Antimatter is known for, and Proton Torps would probably use a stash of charged protons that release tremendous energy when the field is broken.
_________________
Do I really look like a guy with a plan?
'I'm gonna go crazy, and I'm taking you with me!'
ICC Security Council Chief Enforcer
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2008-10-01 12:42
Ah, thanks for the background lesson, Coeus. I knew that the moment I professed ignorance, someone would happily show off their superior knowledge.
With that, I'm not sure I see a reason not to have strike craft armed with torpedoes, since it would offset the slow speed and short range of the projectile by putting it on a faster, long-range craft. If it were done so, though, I'd suggest having a "torpedo bomber" craft, with say one or two torpedoes in total (would have to fix that thing where craft with limited payloads won't return to reload on their own) and a bomber mesh, rather than replacing the current assault fighters. A big swarm of them would pack a stupid amount of punch though, which relates back to the argument about mines and whether you should be able to one-shot someone from a distance.
Thought: Restrict them to UGTO, since they seem to be the fighter specialists these days, and perhaps reduce the number you can field per bay, although with a supply ship on hand that might make it irrelevant. ICC have pulse waves to kill off hordes of strike craft, and K'luth can turn invisible to prevent them from being targeted for strikecraft stacking in the first place, so they have a reasonable defence against torpedo bomber spam.
Problem is, I suspect everyone would take torpedo bombers instead of normal fighters, since all strikecraft inevitably die, but torpedo bombers would loose all of their damage in one go, as opposed to assault fighters which slowly plink at the enemy over time. They'd be significantly less effective against small, fast ships, however, since they move relatively slowly and fire a slow, poorly-guided projectile. Perhaps if a strikecraft hitpoint system were implemented to allow fighters to survive more than one PD attack, assault fighters would have a better parity with torpedo bombers against larger targets.
So, provided that the technology could feasibly be mounted on a strikcraft, I would say that it's probably a workable concept. That, and I like the idea of watching a bomber wing weaving through point-defence fire to deliver a devastating series of torpedo detonations across the enemy's hull.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2008-10-02 08:25
Not that your suggestions are rubbish or anything, but we've decided to not put missiles or torpedoes on fighters. We learnt our lesson with 1.43 - fighters spewing out missiles (or any type of noun for that matter) is plain bad.
Missiles have AI behind them (a small program, but AI non-the-less), and this takes up time on the server. The more missiles, the more times the code is having the process those missiles, track them, change their course, etc. We don't like this - we don't want it. More time spent on that by the server means less time spent on processing other things. This can all build up until a point where we have fighter spam, with hundreds of missiles on screen. You know it, we've all been there, and it gets real jerky, real fast. I think we can all agree, this, is, BAD.
Hence why we're having 'dumb' nouns now (namely cannons). Each cannon shot is a noun, like a missile. This is how we're able to get each cannon shot to register a hit on a ship, and if the rest miss, they miss. They require minimal AI - the same amount as any other dumb-noun in the game.
The difference with cannons to torpedoes (as they are both dumb-nouns), is that torpedoes travel slower, and so last longer. Typically with fighters, we'd also have them firing faster, as they'd have a much smaller version of the current torpedoes. So you can imagine faster-firing, slow-moving, torpedoes littering space whilst a ton of fighters are flying about. This isn't exactly a huge leap from how cannons function at the moment, except that cannons travel faster, and so get removed from the universe that much quicker.
Why not make torpedoes act the same as cannons then? Whats the point - then it's basicly two cannons on a fighter, and we're calling one a torpedo... I don't see much sense in that. You might, but not here. Why not make dumb-missiles like sabots? I have a pet hate of having too many trails on screen at once. You can see it now in live, wherein someone gets a sabot-equipped missile dreadnaught. If they press spacebar, your framerate halfs, then halfs again, then halfs again. I really never like seeing any system being brought to its knees by anything, let alone rudimentary ship trails.
Anyway, the short version (and not the tl;dr ver.), is that we're quite comfortable with putting cannons on ships. Putting things on them that aren't really needed complicates the balancing of them, and puts more load on the servers (which is again, bad). We know some of you really like fighters (don't we all?), but adding more things to them isn't really the direction we want to take them (I'm pretty sure that we all agree'd missiles on fighters was a HUGE mistake - but I don't speak for everyone, and my memory isn't photographic, so take this word with a pinch of salt).
We want to add a fighter interface, but this would take a lot of time, and we're not going to implement it yet. It was originally slated for implementation after 1.483, but needed so much work it got pushed back. Drafell's done a stellar (incinerator?) job at adding the platforms, but that's an entirely different process to adding new AI routines, and adding another interface (where, how, etc).
Hope this has helped.
- Jack
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2008-10-02 08:28 ]
_________________
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2008-10-02 10:31
wow talk about some good info 
also i must point out that i realy like the Laser on the "interceptor" versions of the fighters. they should realy REALY be a pain for fast ships.
_________________
- Axi
|
Winters Rapture
Fleet Admiral
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 09, 2007
Posts: 355
| Posted: 2008-10-02 14:53
lol yea, lot of things have been added already, and i would like it if we had a lot less lag. so i really dont think we need anymore then cannons and lazorz or fighters.
_________________
Time for revenge. . .
|
Sens [R33]
Admiral
Joined: September 27, 2008
Posts: 1020
From: Edge of th...
| Posted: 2008-10-02 15:12
haha thanks for the reply jack, but will cannon damage be balanced?
_________________
Proud member of the Order of the Gaifen
Founder and former Club chair of the Shigernafy Fan Club
Co-founder of the Doran Judication Comittee
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
