[IPAndrews]

Another poll. This time a personally annoyance of mine. I'm of the opinion that when a destroyer fires a huge gun at you, if whatever it fires hits you, it should really, really hurt. If not destroy you outright. TBP's capship turrets on the other hand seem to be more of an irritation than anything else. Standing completely still firing at them and taking the hits from them is currently a perfectly viable option in most cases. Does anyone else agree with me here?

[stargate2008]

I agree with u IP, but not too much. I wouldnt want to play a game where i have to go up against a cap ship and it destroys me with one shot. You know what I mean?

[starbug]

i think its pretty balanced.

[Col. Fishguts]

more power

[NGTM-1R]

It depends. The EA's little fighter defense turrets seem pretty balanced at the moment, but stuff like the Nova's heavy guns just isn't cutting it.

[Azrael15]

My main problem with many of the weapons is that they never seem to hit anything. I know B5 seems pretty incapable of defending itself, and same with many other ships. If they can't be made more accurate, I'd increase their power.

[NGTM-1R]

Actually one of the things that always struck me about TBP was the weapon accuracy. If you flew strait and level holding a speed FS caps sometimes still missed you. If you do that in TBP you go 'splodie very quickly.

[Col. Fishguts]

He probably means the swarming turret weapons, which still are not very accurate (although they are better nowadays than they used to be)

[IPAndrews]

This seems to be a pretty one sided poll. The interesting thing is that I don't think it's possible to just make capship weapons more powerful against fighters. If I do that then capship weapons become more powerful against other capships too, resulting in shorter capship battles. I could counter that by giving the capships more hitpoints but then fighters would be less effective against capships.

[brandx0]

It's possible to change this using armour and damage types.  This could be done via giving two types of armour, capship and fighter.  Following this, each weapon would be split into the same two categories, anti ship and anti fighter.  Anti ship weapons vs. fighter armour could double damage or even higher if needed, while leaving all other damage values the same.

Though I've never played TBP so I probably can't comment

[IceFire]

It's possible to change this using armour and damage types.  This could be done via giving two types of armour, capship and fighter.  Following this, each weapon would be split into the same two categories, anti ship and anti fighter.  Anti ship weapons vs. fighter armour could double damage or even higher if needed, while leaving all other damage values the same.

Though I've never played TBP so I probably can't comment

Thats assuming FreeSpace had such a system in place.  I don't think the SCP guys have done that yet.

[Wanderer]

Armor.tbl from FSwiki...

[Tain]

I'd be careful with this. While some ships may seem pretty weak from a fighter's view, many of the capships slaughter other capships very quickly, and in some cases i would say TOO quickly. (and i am not counting firstone ships here)

I would say currently capships may be a bit weak in the point defense department, but just fine in ship to ship. Another problem is that if you make capships too good at defending themselves, fighters become pointless.

[IPAndrews]

The armour solution isn't one I particularly like. The moment you need special armour classes for when a ship is attacked by a fighter as opposed to being attacked by another capship is the moment your universe do longer adds up. I agree with Tain too. I am quite happy with the ship vs ship balance and don't want to change that. It's just the sit infront of a capship and soak up anti-fighter fire whilst stripping it of turrets gameplay I want to remove. I am going to try removing shields for small ships and see what effect that has.

[Slasher]

I guess it would depend on which ships and which weapons.  Guns like the EA Interceptor and EA Phalanx I could see getting a damage boost but not a big one.  If anti-fighter weapons on non 1st-1 ships start killing an undamaged fighter in one hit then I don't think it's unreasonable to call that too unforgiving. 

Also some ships are more vulnerable to fighter attack than others.  Someone mentioned the EA Nova; that ship is geared towards long range fighting against space/planetary targets.  I don't think it's big guns can even target fighters as defined by the tables (?) and the smaller turrets ones I think were put there by EA designers more as an afterthought than anything. 

[aipz]

The beam AAA weapons are fine- very deadly and able to destroy a fighter in several hits
Single plasma/pulse  AAA turrets also work correctly 
But the phalanx ones like those on Omega and B5 are somewheat weird - they don't seem to be able to hit fighters effectively when the burst ends the fighter is already in another position and the burst misses ...

The phalanxes of ISA Victory seem more balanced...

Is there any tbl. difference between these weapons?

[IPAndrews]

Single plasma/pulse  AAA turrets also work correctly 

You think? Those are the ones that irritate me the most. They seem very ineffective. If a pulse from a capship hits you square in the face it seems to do 10% damage tops.

But the phalanx ones like those on Omega and B5 are somewheat weird - they don't seem to be able to hit fighters effectively when the burst ends the fighter is already in another position and the burst misses ...

Should be addressed - somewhat - in the 3.4 beta.

The phalanxes of ISA Victory seem more balanced...

Is there any tbl. difference between these weapons?

Not really no. I think it's just a case of the Victory putting more firepower in the air from more different directions than an enemy can effectively avoid.

[EAD_Agamemnon]

If you want it to be like it really is in Babylon 5...sure they are weak when they fire at you. But do you really want to die just from a single glancing hit from a capital ship every time they fire at you? Even BABYLON 5: I've Found Her which operates a little closer to the real deal isnt quite a 1 hit-kill ordeal. That reminds me....its been a long while since I checked up on that game.

[Sktich]

Well, first of all they should be more accurate. Some of the weapons could be a little stronger, or should have at least a greater range (Phalanx!!!).
That brings me to another question:
Why are there no muzzle flashs (is this the correct word anyway? )?? I dont know if its possible anyway because in FS2 were no muzzle flashs, but the beam weapons have at least a "glow" at the firing point of the turret. It would be a great boost for the atmosphere.
And why are the pulseweapons (for example EA_Heavy Pulse) look like "balls" and not like "pulses"?? I mean EA Heavy Fusion looks right (like in the show) and some of the other weapons do, but most of them are "spheric".
thx in advance^^

[jr2]

The armour solution isn't one I particularly like. The moment you need special armour classes for when a ship is attacked by a fighter as opposed to being attacked by another capship is the moment your universe do longer adds up. I agree with Tain too. I am quite happy with the ship vs ship balance and don't want to change that. It's just the sit infront of a capship and soak up anti-fighter fire whilst stripping it of turrets gameplay I want to remove. I am going to try removing shields for small ships and see what effect that has.

I thought there were not shields in B5...
First thing I do when playing is drop the shields to zero on the power distribution grid.
Any shots seem to go straight to the hull.
If this is correct, you should add "no shields" flags to your missions/ships/whatever; this will remove the shield column from the energy distribution control panel.

EDIT: someone welcome our new friend...  If no-one does, I'll do it!