Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Marcov on November 11, 2010, 08:32:15 am
-
Not sure if this should be in the FRED Discussion forum.
Anyway, I'm thinking on making a sort of deadly gunship/anti-fighter mobile platform to use in missions. For example, I tried arming a Satis with an AAAf and a few Kaysers, make a cruiser fully armed with AAAf's, etc.
So, in your opinion, which is the deadliest anti-fighter weapon that can be mounted on a capship/armed transport?
-
Gattling AAAf's. :drevil:
-
Ultra AAAf and mounted TAGs.
-
BP Burst Flak/PD Turret combo.
-
where's the flak-only option?
EDIT:
also note that the best anti fighter / bomber thing you can have mounted on a ship is a fast recharge jump drive.
-
Doesn't kill the fighters, unless you plan to collide them while jumping.
-
Of course not, but keeps you alive ;)
oh and... I voted for flak only, best anti fighter / bomber / bomb thingy ever.
-
Anti fighter beams. You can't dodge them, you can't guard against them with shields. You can only be out of range or out of the firing arch. Else you can only pray that the random dice is cast in your favor and most shots miss you.
-
In my opinion, it should be somekind of ultra AAAf. I did something like this for Shadow Genesis - the AAAb. White, single-shotting AAAf with big damage and long range. Anti bomber weapon. It's fearsome :).
-
gattling trebs with 0.5s refire rates, and goodsecondarytime.
-
Gotta be anti-fighter beams.
AAA beams can blow four of your subsystems in a single shot... :/
-
TerPulse :shaking:
in canon, probably AAA
in modding, probably a beam with infinite range and damage
-
Flak and Maxims is also a pretty good option, especially if you've got the AI using the real re-fire rate.
-
AAA slashers are especially good against bombers.
-
Flak would be the best, IMO, but only if it had longer range. So, AAAf's of a sort.
-
Am I the only one who recalls the horror called a cruiser armed with Morning Stars?
-
Am I the only one who recalls the horror called a cruiser armed with Morning Stars?
omg
-
Yeah, with canon weapons, definitely Morning Stars. Those things are downright unfair when used in turrets.
-
I like the Morning Star idea ;7
Though I was also contemplating an anti-fighter/bomb cruiser, mounted with Trebuchets and fast blobs, such as the Kayser or Maxim, and 2-4 light flaks.
-
Capship AI class is in a lot of ways more important the the loadout.
-
went kayses in the absence of a kayser & HL-7 option
-
Don't Kaysers have like an 800 meter range? Making them basically worthless on capships, where range is paramount?
Anyone voting for them is silly.
-
not that silly option if you're gonna have a swarm of fighters getting close, or any kind of boarding operation.
-
Don't Kaysers have like an 800 meter range? Making them basically worthless on capships, where range is paramount?
Anyone voting for them is silly.
Reading the title of the poll I went for that option. Anyway may marksmanship is poop at maxim range and i enjoy dodging AAAF beams
-
not that silly option if you're gonna have a swarm of fighters getting close, or any kind of boarding operation.
There are any number of weapons that will do just as well in Kayser range. Standard flak for one, which is god-tier with Fury AI.
-
not that silly option if you're gonna have a swarm of fighters getting close, or any kind of boarding operation.
There are any number of weapons that will do just as well in Kayser range. Standard flak for one, which is god-tier with Fury AI.
but you cant mount flak on your Erinyes
-
not that silly option if you're gonna have a swarm of fighters getting close, or any kind of boarding operation.
There are any number of weapons that will do just as well in Kayser range. Standard flak for one, which is god-tier with Fury AI.
but you cant mount flak on your Erinyes
This is a question of anti-fighter CAPITAL weapons...
-
fair enough
-
and i enjoy dodging AAAF beams
Teach me how T_T
-
Sit still and there's a chance the beam will graze you harmlessly, but that's about it.
-
I do that, which results in 1 of the 3 pulses hitting me. But on insane, that's not really good enough.
-
Long Range Flak, with or without custom AI. End of topic.
-
I do that, which results in 1 of the 3 pulses hitting me. But on insane, that's not really good enough.
just done a few test runs against a Fenris on insane, trying a mix of fighters, approaching the rear of the ship from the side so easily in clear line of sight of one of the beams but not the other and... ok the best I managed was 2 clear misses and a graze on the 3rd pulse while in a Zeus, anything heavier and you just don't have the agility to dodge anything except blobs and anything lighter than a Myrmadon gets chewed before you can do any notable damage to the beams with all the dodging, the only "cheat" I used was to pack 1 rack of torpedoes where the tables allowed, releasing 1 torp after the second set of pulses which had me pretty close and only carried HL-7 and if available a bank of Kaysers in the cannons so no maxim sniping. oh and helios cant lock fast enough to do it between dodges, Cyclops can with a little luck but I usually got hit by the first pulse waiting for lock to finish.
-
and i enjoy dodging AAAF beams
Teach me how T_T
You could go at a 90 deg angle from the beams and hit burners. That way, when you get hit, you'll be out of the beam before it ends shooting, and only take a very small amount of damage at the beginning of the shot.
Another method is to fire a bomb and move 20-30 meters away- especially when there's no blobs or flak on the enemy ship. Beams take time to hit bombs pretty often, and bombs are the #1 target for turrets.
Also- after making a few tests, the Standard Flak wins against AAAf in shooting down both bombs and bombers.
The test was made by arming one Deimos with all Flak, and one with all AAA. Both were attacked by waves of 6 bombers, armed with Shivan Megabombs in all bays. Only the Flak Corvette survived the first wave nearly every time. The AAA ship did that only once. There were some 10 tests.
Here's a screenshot:
(http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/6729/screen0585.jpg)
-
Cluster missiles, if they were competently designed. Which they are not.
Realistically, the best anti-fighter weapon for a capital is escorting fighters.
In the awesome world of completely impractical silliness: Cluster missiles firing submunitions that fire AAA beams when they explode!
-
Cluster missiles, if they were competently designed. Which they are not.
Realistically, the best anti-fighter weapon for a capital is escorting fighters.
In the awesome world of completely impractical silliness: Cluster missiles firing submunitions that fire AAA beams when they explode!
if you could miniturise anti fighter beams enough you would basicaly have a missile delivery system for a group of one shot cannons
-
if you could miniturise anti fighter beams enough you would basicaly have a missile delivery system for a group of one shot cannons
I was actually figuring something like take FS' more efficient use of explosives and make scaled-down X-ray lasers.
-
First choice is Anti-Fighter Beamz. Voted for FighterKillers tho as teh beam is obvious choice.
-
In canon, AAA beams.
Outside it, rapid-firing Phalanx-style CIWS (or a Morningstar with "same turret cooldown").
Uninterrupted, almost perfectly accurate stream of fire, which creates a disorienting flash and tears attacking fighters to shreds.
-
In canon, AAA beams.
Outside it, rapid-firing Phalanx-style CIWS (or a Morningstar with "same turret cooldown").
Uninterrupted, almost perfectly accurate stream of fire, which creates a disorienting flash and tears attacking fighters to shreds.
sentry guns with morningstars are fun to kill without using missiles
-
I put down beams, but something like a long-range, high RoF Harpoon would be an absolute nightmare to fly against.
-
AA missiles are difficult to set up right, they can easly turn into a nightmare or become completely pathetic (like FS missiles).
Also, difficulty wreaks havoc on missile effectveness, unless it's set up to be unaffected by it.
-
AAA, it's not dodgable (only avoidable by flying in outside the turrets FoV) and has the long range required.
Really though any cap ship is boned if you have a maxim or a treb available.
Or even stilettos if used properly.
-
A Maxim with the additional Circe and Morningstar properties.
Have you ANY idea what this weapon does to fighters?
-
IMO if we're talking about non-canon weapons here, I think I'd put my money on an "anti-fighter Helios" sort of thing. Well, what happens if you make the Helios travel 300 m/s, make it heat-seeking, and take out the ridicolously low shield-damage percentage? Wouldn't it be able to eliminate like a hundred fighters in a single blast? How about a refire rate of 0.1?
-
IMO if we're talking about non-canon weapons here, I think I'd put my money on an "anti-fighter Helios" sort of thing. Well, what happens if you make the Helios travel 300 m/s, make it heat-seeking, and take out the ridicolously low shield-damage percentage? Wouldn't it be able to eliminate like a hundred fighters in a single blast? How about a refire rate of 0.1?
That's so underpowered. Why don' t you just make a beam with 100km width and about 900000000000000 damage? And a refire rate of .001? And hull, shield and subsystem multipliers of 50000000000? Also make the turret it's on invulnerable. And in fact make the whole ship invulnerable while you're at it. And make the beam invisible.
-
That would be like the Volition bravos. Even worse, perhaps.
-
Which is why it's so pointless. :rolleyes: Don't look for 'best' weapons, look for 'interesting', i.e. add to gameplay.
-
Well to be fair, this thread is about the deadliest anti-fighter capital weapons possible. I'm quite sure some kind of uberhelios would fit the bill. :D
-
Not hitscan. Also incredibly pointless. Please don't make this threat about incredibly pointless things; it was sort of going interesting directions until about six posts back.
As a rule any time you ask
what happens if you make the [canon weapon] travel [at arbitrarily high speed], make it [possessed of arbitrary targeting abilities], and take out the [disadvantage that makes it balanced]? Wouldn't it be able to [do anything]? How about a refire rate of [converge to 0]?
you're just going down the road towards the place where all ships move at infinite speed and are invulnerable and fire instantly propagating infinite damage shockwaves.
-
Actually, all I wanted to know was some ideas for effective anti-fighter canonical weapons that could be mounted on capships. I didn't want to start stuff like "uber-turret", or "uber-helios", etc.
This is getting too far. The point is, how deadly can a capital ship get anti-fighterwise, with the weapons available in the editor?
I might sound like contradicting my previous comment, though. Well, just feel free to express what you want, as long as it's ontopic (BTW, I didn't really like this issue about uber-weapons, since I personnally it would actually be boring to read in the first place. Well, I already gave the uber weapon theory out, so there's actually no sense at all anymore in discussing it again.)
-
Maxims with a high AI class are probably going to be pretty deadly.
-
Do Maxims have the shield damage to bring the hurt to a fighter or bomber though? Especially since the latter tend to have stronger shielding, in my memory.
Also, we should do some experimentation with multi-banked turrets, so you could perhaps fire something like a Prom with a Maxim from the one turret. The energy to power more than a few of turrets packing that sort of armament is beyond my thought bubble, however.
-
Please don't make this threat about incredibly pointless things
And I was just about to suggest a gun shooting flatulant cows at relativistic speeds too :(
-
Do Maxims have the shield damage to bring the hurt to a fighter or bomber though? Especially since the latter tend to have stronger shielding, in my memory.
Yes.
-
The Maxim has an incredibly long range. The Maxim has an incredibly high hull damage. The Maxim needs an incredibly high power output, which wouldn't really matter on capital ships.
On the other hand,
The Maxim has poor shield damage. The Maxim doesn't perform well on capships, since it's supposed to have an incredibly high firing rate which doesn't work on laser turrets. So, isn't the Kayser better on this aspect?
Please don't make this threat about incredibly pointless things
And I was just about to suggest a gun shooting flatulant cows at relativistic speeds too :(
Hey, that actually reminded me of Age of Empire's "jack be nimble" cheat, where catapults throw cows and naked super villagers :lol:.
-
Isn't the Kayser an even more aggressive energy hog than the Maxim?
-
The Maxim has poor shield damage. The Maxim doesn't perform well on capships, since it's supposed to have an incredibly high firing rate which doesn't work on laser turrets
Like I said, high AI class. Preferably high Fury AI class. Better yet, make a Maxim#turret with same-turret-cooldown. That flag is half the reason the warships in BP2 are so well defended.
-
It is, but it doesn't suffer as badly as the maxim does in the DPS dept when fire rates are capped arbitrarily low by the turret.
I think full morning stars (adjusted to fighter fire rate) is actually pretty deadly. It means nothing can get close to you while you juggle things to death. If the bombers had lock restrictions on their bombs, it also means that they'll never get aspect lock.
-
It is, but it doesn't suffer as badly as the maxim does in the DPS dept when fire rates are capped arbitrarily low by the turret.
this state of affairs should be rectified by any sane modder!
-
If the bombers had lock restrictions on their bombs, it also means that they'll never get aspect lock.
I believe the AI pilots don't require aspect lock on missiles.
Cheating bastards. :mad:
-
Hence, "if".
Then again, other game oddities like broken AI trebuchets make the game much more playable. Imagine if Maras and Basilisks spammed trebs as much as they spammed hornets every time they showed up? Note that they also don't need missile locks for their trebs.
-
Hence, "if".
Then again, other game oddities like broken AI trebuchets make the game much more playable. Imagine if Maras and Basilisks spammed trebs as much as they spammed hornets every time they showed up? Note that they also don't need missile locks for their trebs.
Again I think BP2 proves that this is frightening but not utterly game-breaking when aimed at the player. The real exasperation here is in what they'd do to capships; it'd be awesome if Trebs could be shot down.
-
Well, shouldn't be the Trebuchet already be considered as a "bomb"? :wtf:
-
Well, shouldn't be the Trebuchet already be considered as a "bomb"? :wtf:
It doesn't have the bomb flag.
-
Well, shouldn't be the Trebuchet already be considered as a "bomb"? :wtf:
Perhaps, fits the bill for something which should be destroyable, in my opinion (it's bloody huge!). Its high speed would make it a bit of a pain, however.
-
an interesting weapon? mmm.... I think it's been said before... I know I did metion it sometime ago:
black hole missile!, launch one of those to a formation of fighters and look from afar as they are sucked into a tiny little spot left behind by the explotion of your missile ;7
-
an interesting weapon? mmm.... I think it's been said before... I know I did metion it sometime ago:
black hole missile!, launch one of those to a formation of fighters and look from afar as they are sucked into a tiny little spot left behind by the explotion of your missile ;7
surly it would be an implosion?????
-
Attractor missiles do work, they're pretty cool.
-
not sure... probably a small explotion followed by an instantaneous and massive compression of all matter around it.
I'm not educated enough as to come up with a hole new technobable for this.
Attractor missiles do work, they're pretty cool.
They exist?, now I'm interested in where I can see this working!
-
The SWAT system.
-
not sure... probably a small explotion followed by an instantaneous and massive compression of all matter around it.
I'm not educated enough as to come up with a hole new technobable for this.
Attractor missiles do work, they're pretty cool.
They exist?, now I'm interested in where I can see this working!
Believe the Shrike in BP2 will do it to a degree.
-
Hence, "if".
Then again, other game oddities like broken AI trebuchets make the game much more playable. Imagine if Maras and Basilisks spammed trebs as much as they spammed hornets every time they showed up? Note that they also don't need missile locks for their trebs.
Then make them require missile lock. Balance restored!
I'd also reduce Treb range..but that's just me.
-
Attractors have been working for at least a couple of years since Nukemod wanted them.
-
BGreens that shoot at fighters
-
Snail, stop the sexp-based cruelty!
I still stand by my first answer that a wing of escorts is the best capital weapon against fighters. :P
-
EMP missiles swarms :p
-
Since we're going away from canon cannons, I'll suggest a Flak gun with high shield and subsystem damage, and nearly zero hull damage. This plus a few THT's would make a cool defensive barrier- if you get too close for too long, you'll get disarmed, disabled, dis-subsystemified, and finished of by Terran Huge Turret blobs- possibly the most embarrassing death in the FS universe.
EMP missiles disable bombs temporarily, so they'd also be useful.
Also- the Treb replaces the Phoenix V, which shares it's name with this monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-54_Phoenix), so it just needs long range, or it's not a worthy successor. Capships could use some area defence too, such as turret mounted Trebuchet instead of those crappy swarms or area effect weapons they normally use.
Reassuming- my ship would be armed with a mix of plentiful disabling flak guns, a few Treb launchers for area defence, a few EMP's to stop bombs, and a THT or two to do the dirty work up close.
Also- feature request: Capship countermeasures, to counter the Trebuchet snipers.
-
Capship countermeasures are done and in use by certain mods. They're not that great for capships that aren't able to maneuver rapidly because of the way FS countermeasures work.
-
EMP missiles swarms :p
bleah, I gave the AI these things once ... never again
I also put morning stars on a Lilith ... never again
Since we're going away from canon cannons, I'll suggest a Flak gun with high shield and subsystem damage, and nearly zero hull damage.
Lol I was planning to test something like this this w-e
Maxim work decently against GTVA fighters/bombers, especially if they fire as fast as they should. I prefer using prom s turrets when fighting shivans (if we stick to canon weaponery).
-
:wtf:
The random turret refire delay is canon! That's how fast they really "should" shoot! Okay, maybe this doesn't apply so much to things like Maxim turrets that you never see, but for Standard Flak and Morning Stars yes.
Two Morning Stars and one Maxim (filling all three banks) looks promising. Under some configurations all three seem to be shooting simultaneously (no extra flags or anything). I gotta experiment more with this.
-
You see Morning Stars on turrets? Wheeeen?
Also I AM BETTER THAN CANON :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
Useful turrets are better than canon.
Missile launchers filled with Trebs are better then "useful turrets".
srsly I put them on a Lilith once and wtf
-
i never got the big fear of trebs. they are really easy to dodge
-
You see Morning Stars on turrets? Wheeeen?
But hate the traitor.
-
fo srsly!? :eek2:
-
Alastors 9-16 are armed with Morning Stars in one turret (1-8 have Akheton SDGs).
They're pretty damn annoying (cause they're hard to hit too)
-
Alastors 9-16 are armed with Morning Stars in one turret (1-8 have Akheton SDGs).
They're pretty damn annoying (cause they're hard to hit too)
Those things are also armed with Kaysers on the other turret.
-
/me has voted.
Any AAA weapon, hands down. Warships do nothing with mounted fighter weapons.
-
A SEXP that automatically kills all enemy fighters
-
/me has voted.
Any AAA weapon, hands down. Warships do nothing with mounted fighter weapons.
you are insane
-
FSO: flak, af beams
BSG: flak, af ballistic weaponry
TBP: af beams
-
Too bad Anti-Cap beam turrets aren't available. Isn't that instant death for any ship that gets in the way of one of those beams?
-
Too bad Anti-Cap beam turrets aren't available. Isn't that instant death for any ship that gets in the way of one of those beams?
Nominated for wrongest statement in the history of GenFS ever.
-
So far the deadliest anti-fighter weapon I have ever seen in space-sim was in Star Wars series games - and it was brillantly simple: VERY FAST moving, high-rate of fire, accurate and powerful projectile gun. It was literally impossible to get close to some ships without having your shields completely butchered.
Why bother with any random weapons like flak or beams? Just have the turret shoot something quick, exactly into the place where the fighter will be when the projectile travels the distance to the ship? To add insult to injury, give that weapon also some nasty effect like knockback...
-
There's something called the Morning Star that fires ridiculously fast and deals knockback. You do not want that mounted on capship turrets, especially if they use Fury's AI. :shaking:
-
There's something called the Morning Star that fires ridiculously fast and deals knockback. You do not want that mounted on capship turrets, especially if they use Fury's AI. :shaking:
Makes the pretty much immune to bombers (unless their bombs have much boosted HP), as they can't get close.
-
Why bother with any random weapons like flak or beams?
Why add beams? Because your shields won't work against them.
Just have the turret shoot something quick, exactly into the place where the fighter will be when the projectile travels the distance to the ship?
Make a turret fire a million projectiles per second, and make them an inch close to each other. Make each projectile deal like 0.0001 damage. You have the AAAf; in which case, AAAfs are good as turrets firing millions of projectiles per sec, and that's damn fast (but with each projectile inflicting a meager amount of damage). Oh, and to make it more precise, have the AAAf have a fire rate of 0.001, and an accuracy of 1000%. Now THAT fits the turret you're describing...except, that we call it a "beam".
There's something called the Morning Star that fires ridiculously fast and deals knockback. You do not want that mounted on capship turrets, especially if they use Fury's AI. :shaking:
...and there's the "turret firing rate" limit to make the Morning Star utterly useless.
-
The very best Warship defense would be some type of modified Morningstar/Flail(thinking real Phalanx or the Archangel's anti-missile turrets) type kinetic weapon that doesn't do significant damage on it's own, but stuns the incoming fighters and pushes them into flak or AAA beam fire.
Also, in BP, I found those close in rapid fire pulse cannons to be far more frustrating to fly against than beams, flak and missiles.
-
Uhm, no, that is not what I meant :D
It does not have to have such absurd rate of fire, 1 shot per second is perfectly enough - but the key is high accuracy and high damage here. Basically a blob turret with quick projectiles. It would be better than beam because the player in fact COULD avoid it if he really wanted, but that would require some skill and lots of determination - while avoiding beams is just hoping for random miss, really...
Or to make it even simplier - take a Shivan Light Laser from a Cain, and increase its damage to say, 80 dmg per shot. This weapon is already fast and accurate enough. It just lacks damage. Possible to avoid? Kinda hard but yes. Would you carelessly pound the Cain without actually thinking about its defences? I doubt. On the other hand, would it be possible to destroy it with a fighter? Yes, but it would require more time and more skill, and in the same time, less luck than you need when facing beams.
-
ere's the "turret firing rate" limit to make the Morning Star utterly useless.
Go play something with Fury AI. Come back and change this statement.
-
The Fury AI is non-canon.
-
It removes some issues that prevented turrets from firing at the speeds they were meant to, IIRC. So it's really restoring fire rates to what they canonically should've been. I think. Check with Fury. :P
-
The Fury AI is non-canon.
Not in MAH CANON
but srsly, so are ship turrets with Morningstars, this is obviously a place for the wisdom of those who know FreeSpace better than its creators! Like Dilmah said, arbitrary random fire delays are siiiiiiiiiiilly, and all that particular flag in the Fury AI does is remove this weird random delay applied to capship turrets.
also putting a ship's AI class up to General will get you closer, esp. if you are on insane
-
I always laugh when people use elements that are needed by gameplay as some sort of canon...
Does that mean that canonicly, ships work perfecty fine until lthey reach 0% hull integrity?
That they can operate normally with 1% hull left? That Apha 1 is immortal and the world re-sets itself to the start of the latest mission?
That there is a pre-programed limit into each missile (human and shivan) as to how many missiles can track a single target? That beam cannons magicly do only a fraction of their damage to friendly targets? That all capships vaporize (the Legion is a LIE!)?
Universe/setting is not equal to gameplay. You first create a setting for a game to take place in. Then you try to fit the game into that setting (approximately. Gameplay requirements take priority over setting)
Setting ALWAYS preceeds gameplay.
-
I always laugh when people use elements that are needed by gameplay as some sort of canon...
Does that mean that canonicly, ships work perfecty fine until lthey reach 0% hull integrity?
That they can operate normally with 1% hull left? That Apha 1 is immortal and the world re-sets itself to the start of the latest mission?
That there is a pre-programed limit into each missile (human and shivan) as to how many missiles can track a single target? That beam cannons magicly do only a fraction of their damage to friendly targets? That all capships vaporize (the Legion is a LIE!)?
Universe/setting is not equal to gameplay. You first create a setting for a game to take place in. Then you try to fit the game into that setting (approximately. Gameplay requirements take priority over setting)
Setting ALWAYS preceeds gameplay.
YES, it does. ;)
-
I'm not the one saying guns "should" fire faster. "Should" because why? Because a number's in a table? What's better about that number over that number plus the random refire wait? This has nothing to do with gameplay versus fluff, it's that someone picked an arbitrary number and said it's better than the number observed in-game.
Saying that flak turrets should have no random refire delay is on par with saying that BGreens should have a fire wait of 10s.
EDIT: I just realized I have no idea whether TrashMan was directing that at me or Battuta. :nervous:
-
I'm not the one saying guns "should" fire faster. "Should" because why? Because a number's in a table? What's better about that number over that number plus the random refire wait? This has nothing to do with gameplay versus fluff, it's that someone picked an arbitrary number and said it's better than the number observed in-game.
Saying that flak turrets should have no random refire delay is on par with saying that BGreens should have a fire wait of 10s.
No, no, it's on par with saying that a BGreen should have a refire delay of 30 seconds. :p
-
I'm not the one saying guns "should" fire faster. "Should" because why? Because a number's in a table? What's better about that number over that number plus the random refire wait? This has nothing to do with gameplay versus fluff, it's that someone picked an arbitrary number and said it's better than the number observed in-game.
Saying that flak turrets should have no random refire delay is on par with saying that BGreens should have a fire wait of 10s.
No, no, it's on par with saying that a BGreen should have a refire delay of 30 seconds. :p
No it's noooooooooooooooooooooot! :(
I mean it's both.
-
Getting hit by a heavy antiship beam seems to be pretty deadly. Perhaps not the most effective, but it certainly proves most adept at eliminating strikecraft that stray into the targeting solution.
The hull plating of a Sathanas that is jumping out also is pretty deadly to any craft malingering in front of it at the time...
-
Getting hit by a heavy antiship beam seems to be pretty deadly. Perhaps not the most effective, but it certainly proves most adept at eliminating strikecraft that stray into the targeting solution.
Heh, that 30-second delay will make you sad when there're multiple bomber wings closing in.
The hull plating of a Sathanas that is jumping out also is pretty deadly to any craft malingering in front of it at the time...
:shaking: I want my Sathanas-launcher turret now!
-
i dunno, most of the time the anti capship beam just whacked me away and took only 20% from me. What is really silly is when you fly a bombing run on a demon and the LRed fires to shoot down the warhead. That is damn hard to dodge xD
-
:shaking: I want my Sathanas-launcher turret now!
:drevil:
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/6813/screen0146.png)
-
:shaking: I want my Sathanas-launcher turret now!
:drevil:
Image
Yes!
-
I'm not the one saying guns "should" fire faster. "Should" because why? Because a number's in a table? What's better about that number over that number plus the random refire wait? This has nothing to do with gameplay versus fluff, it's that someone picked an arbitrary number and said it's better than the number observed in-game.
Saying that flak turrets should have no random refire delay is on par with saying that BGreens should have a fire wait of 10s.
EDIT: I just realized I have no idea whether TrashMan was directing that at me or Battuta. :nervous:
Because gameplay/balance/difficulty changes take second place over setting. (and it is directed at everyone)
You notice the AI, damage done and RoF can change with different difficutly setting. So which is canon?
Why should a weapon have a slower rate of fire if mounted on a ship? What possible sensible reason can there be? There isn't one. There is only balance/gameplay. And that reason doesn't exist in the setting.
I say this because it's self-evident. When someone wants to create a mod or a game, first he has to have an idea. He thinks of various ship, races, weapons..things to populate the world with. The setting exist in the creators head before it becomes a game. And when transitioning from one form (media) to another, changes must be made.
Say a dev had the idea of outfitting a Orion with rapid-fire turrets (look at the into cutscene to FS2 and look at how fast the Orions turrets fire). But, after implementing it like that and testing, it was found out that that made the game too difficult for your average gamer. And the game needs to sell. So, you have to make a change from your initial vision to fit the new format. And this format change affects everything. From how durable capships are to damage, rate of fire, etc..
Hence, the original idea - the setting itself - differs from the gameplay out of necessity to make the game fun and playable. However, cutscenes and background fluff do not fall to that restriction. Which is why in games there can be such difference between cutscenes and background descriptions of things and how these things actually feel in the game.
-
I vote for a phalanx of BP Slammers with pre-set detonation ranges at about 450m. A cruiser mounting four of these launchers should surprise buttsex any fighter or bomber formation you send at them. Given the size of cruisers and frigates, you could see that number creep up towards 6 or 8.
Enjoy your torment.
-
The greatest anti-fighter weapon...the greatest weapon of all... in the GTVAD Gigant(d)ick .. modeled after my own weapon of mass destruction naturally. ;7
Beaten to death by a giant steel wang...psychological warfare at it's best.
-
What possible sensible reason can there be?
That all turret-mounted fighter weapons are actually smaller variants of the weapons that you use, because they're designed to be mounted on the Alastor's teensy turrets with a tiny but long-lasting power supply. It's a reason, and it's relatively simple and consistent with gameplay.
My point however was that the fire wait of retail flak (e.g.) really is .15s+random. Sure, you can decide to reduce it four-fold because the table gives the illusion that the +random is a bug. Personally, I believe it was intentional.
EDIT: Typo.
-
Let's not forget that the same weapon are sometimes mounted on larger ships and have the same fire delay. And a large ship should have power to spare.
Let's also not forget that sentry guns have no need for large engines, cockpit or life support and all reactor output is for the guns (no engines and shields). So even if sentry guns are smaller than fighter, their weapons should be just as deadly, if not MORE deadly.
-
Let's not forget that the same weapon are sometimes mounted on larger ships and have the same fire delay. And a large ship should have power to spare.
Large non-warships like the Poseidon could be considered to have small turrets. The Mentu I dunno, but it's already weird given the tech description. I can't think of any other examples that would support that. Oh, Shivans maybe. But their primaries already have a pretty low ROF IIRC, so the random delay is less significant.
Let's also not forget that sentry guns have no need for large engines, cockpit or life support and all reactor output is for the guns (no engines and shields). So even if sentry guns are smaller than fighter, their weapons should be just as deadly, if not MORE deadly.
Sentry guns need to be cheap because they're disposable mines. Stronger weapons might give them enough survivability to be cost-effective, but I'm guessing not. I still think it's reasonable that sentry guns mount toned-down versions of standard fighter weapons.
-
My canon is better than V canon and supercedes it!
-
My canon is better than V canon and supercedes it!
Ban Battuta.
-
My canon is better than V canon and supercedes it!
Ban Battuta.
i AM the law
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/jack_bauer_torture.jpg)
-
My canon is better than V canon and supercedes it!
Ban Battuta.
i AM the law
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/jack_bauer_torture.jpg)
Nolikethis
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUWWWWWWWWW WWWWW
-
Bored now.
-
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUWWWWWWWWW WWWWW
you BETRAYED it! (http://dredlawwww.ytmnd.com/)
Bored now.
I don't think that's necessary.
-
:shaking: I want my Sathanas-launcher turret now!
:drevil:
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/6813/screen0146.png)
My cannon is bigger than your canon.
Dragging on-topic to avoid a lock and editing after the fact to kinda make sense: Morning Star + Maxim is okay. Morning Star + Maxim + Prom S doesn't work because the turret aims the Prom S and misses on the other two. I forget ATM whether I had to give the turret (empty) secondary banks to make the primaries fire simultaneously, but the Prom has to go in the first bank because it has the shortest range.
-
My cannon is bigger than your canon.
I mean, I know you're right, there's that position that what you see in the games IS the canon, but...I just don't buy the random turret refire delay, it's so eeeeeeeeh.
-
Loading ammunition into the weapons? Accounting for fluctuations in the ships' powergrid? The gunner texting his mate about the cricket?
Who knows?
/me bows to the canon.
-
My cannon is bigger than your canon.
I mean, I know you're right, there's that position that what you see in the games IS the canon, but...I just don't buy the random turret refire delay, it's so eeeeeeeeh.
Oh well as long as it's "Random delays are stupid" and not "It's supposed to be that 'cause that's how it looks in the table," I have no complaints. Except that IMBC beams look better when they're out of the sink.
-
Bored now.
Frankly that scene creeped the hell out of me when I first saw it long ago, so I bow to your Vampire-Willow-quoting skillz.
-
Let's not forget that the same weapon are sometimes mounted on larger ships and have the same fire delay. And a large ship should have power to spare.
Large non-warships like the Poseidon could be considered to have small turrets. The Mentu I dunno, but it's already weird given the tech description. I can't think of any other examples that would support that. Oh, Shivans maybe. But their primaries already have a pretty low ROF IIRC, so the random delay is less significant.
Faustus for example. I'm sure there's more if I check.
Fact-of-matter: doesn't matter on what capship you put a weapon..it will have a smaller fire delay. It's part of gameplay mechanics design for balance. Hence, it has little to do with the actual setting.
Let's also not forget that sentry guns have no need for large engines, cockpit or life support and all reactor output is for the guns (no engines and shields). So even if sentry guns are smaller than fighter, their weapons should be just as deadly, if not MORE deadly.
Sentry guns need to be cheap because they're disposable mines. Stronger weapons might give them enough survivability to be cost-effective, but I'm guessing not. I still think it's reasonable that sentry guns mount toned-down versions of standard fighter weapons.
The "standard" fighter weapon is the weakest weapon available..and then you want to put a even poorer version of that? It would be like the US deploying sentry guns with 9mm pistols.
Desposable is useless if it's ineffective.
-
Let's not forget that the same weapon are sometimes mounted on larger ships and have the same fire delay. And a large ship should have power to spare.
Large non-warships like the Poseidon could be considered to have small turrets. The Mentu I dunno, but it's already weird given the tech description. I can't think of any other examples that would support that. Oh, Shivans maybe. But their primaries already have a pretty low ROF IIRC, so the random delay is less significant.
Faustus for example. I'm sure there's more if I check.
Fact-of-matter: doesn't matter on what capship you put a weapon..it will have a smaller fire delay. It's part of gameplay mechanics design for balance. Hence, it has little to do with the actual setting.
In the actual setting, warships only rarely mount fighter weapons. It makes no sense to talk about capship-mounted Maxims in the Retail campaign, because there are none. You could FRED some in, but why would you put miniature fighter weapons on a warship turret?
Let's also not forget that sentry guns have no need for large engines, cockpit or life support and all reactor output is for the guns (no engines and shields). So even if sentry guns are smaller than fighter, their weapons should be just as deadly, if not MORE deadly.
Sentry guns need to be cheap because they're disposable mines. Stronger weapons might give them enough survivability to be cost-effective, but I'm guessing not. I still think it's reasonable that sentry guns mount toned-down versions of standard fighter weapons.
The "standard" fighter weapon is the weakest weapon available..and then you want to put a even poorer version of that? It would be like the US deploying sentry guns with 9mm pistols.
Desposable is useless if it's ineffective.
Fighter weapons are some of the most powerful "laser"-type weapons available. Compare the Subach to the Shivan Megafunk Laser. What's more, fighters fire 2-6 at a time, versus 1 for typical turrets.
Okay, so maybe one can write that off as "balance," and fighter weapons really are weak. We still know nothing about their cost or the hypothetical cost of a smaller version. It remains that sentry guns in FreeSpace can only be for deterring lightly- or unarmed enemies or distracting them while your own fighters attack. "Mini" Subachs can do both of these. So how much can you save by using small guns?
-
Where the heck does this 'mini' thing come from? Fighter weapon models are so tiny that you could easily put them on capship turrets.
-
"Mini" comes from TrashMan didn't think there was a plausible explanation for fighter weapons firing slower from turrets. "FREDding them onto turrets represents a related but different weapon" seems like a plausible explanation to me.
What possible sensible reason can there be?
That all turret-mounted fight weapons are actually smaller variants of the weapons that you use, because they're designed to be mounted on the Alastor's teensy turrets with a tiny but long-lasting power supply. It's a reason, and it's relatively simple and consistent with gameplay.
-
But then why do they put these crappy blobs on ships instead of the fighter guns that would do so much betterrrrrr
-
I don't knowwwwww but if the random delay is .5s on average (which I've been assuming forever I don't know why) then blobs do way more hull damage than fighter guns.
-
Well, right, but if the delay is a function of them using these, like, mini-fighter-guns, but the turrets have the room for the real guns, just put on the real guns darn it, and also if warships don't have the power/heatsinks/mojo whatever to mount the real fighter guns why even build them be
oh heck, we're just being silly at this point.
-
wat
the whole point is you don't put them on warships, you put them on sentry guns (because low cost), bomber turrets (because low power), and freighters, AWACSes and stuff (because low everything).
-
Oh, I thought the mini-fighterguns were explaining why the turret ROF was randomly lower than the fighter-issue versions, even on big ships, or the Ursa's turret, or whatever.
-
sentry guns with Trebs
-
Trebs suck against anyone who knows how to pilot for ****.
Can't hit anything at close range, so much time to dodge at long range.
They're only good against st00pid AI that fly in a straight-ish line.
I've never been hit by a Treb.
I've been drowned in flak and speared by AAAs more times than I can care to count.
-
sentry guns with morningstars and Trebs
-
Ok, that sounds annoying. :P
-
In the actual setting, warships only rarely mount fighter weapons. It makes no sense to talk about capship-mounted Maxims in the Retail campaign, because there are none. You could FRED some in, but why would you put miniature fighter weapons on a warship turret?
I'm not talking about Maxims (altough canonicly, they have been mounted on a few alastors IIRC). A few larger ship are armed with subacs (Faustus has both those and disruptors).
Again -why would you go with something so weak? A average fighter has 4-6 gun banks, missile banks AND shields.
So why the hell you you put 1 (ONE) gun that's even weaker than that on a sentry gun. Who the hell is it going to deter?
So yes - in stock campaign there have been fighter weapons mounted on capship turrets.
Fighter weapons are some of the most powerful "laser"-type weapons available. Compare the Subach to the Shivan Megafunk Laser. What's more, fighters fire 2-6 at a time, versus 1 for typical turrets.
Exactly..so why a lower ROF version when an enemy fighter already has the number of guns advantage? Why decrease your own firepower even more?
Okay, so maybe one can write that off as "balance," and fighter weapons really are weak. We still know nothing about their cost or the hypothetical cost of a smaller version. It remains that sentry guns in FreeSpace can only be for deterring lightly- or unarmed enemies or distracting them while your own fighters attack. "Mini" Subachs can do both of these. So how much can you save by using small guns?
Saving $$$ can only go up to point. The Army wants cheap and effective. Not cheap and utterly useless. Spending money on sentry guns is sensless if they're so pitiful that they might as well not be there.
-
the whole point is you don't put them on warships, you put them on sentry guns (because low cost), bomber turrets (because low power), and freighters, AWACSes and stuff (because low everything).
A Faustus is not a warship.
Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.
-
Fighter weapons are useless on capship turrets, because of the exclusion of the "same-turret-cooldown" flag.
Also, true, fighters have a tremendous amount of firepower for their size, compared to capitals. The only problem is if they are skilled enough to take down capships. Capitals have an immense amount of hitpoints, and even if they have a meager amount of anti-fighter guns, they can hold off themselves for a long time due to their said hitpoints. Fighter pilots who aren't skilled enough may either get bombarded to death by the capital's turrets, or they can run away with their hull integrity being 10%.
Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.
Anyway, I really think if the AI could use cluster missles, they could be pretty deadly if mounted on sentry guns.
Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.
Actually, the only thing I think the sentry guns are good at, is annoying Alpha 1; their lasers prevent you from moving everytime they hit you. They serve as a distraction, nothing else (unless you could put some good firepower into them, like said cluster missiles).
-
Fighter weapons are useless on capship turrets, because of the exclusion of the "same-turret-cooldown" flag.
wrong
or at least not the best way to solve it.
Also, true, fighters have a tremendous amount of firepower for their size, compared to capitals. The only problem is if they are skilled enough to take down capships. Capitals have an immense amount of hitpoints, and even if they have a meager amount of anti-fighter guns, they can hold off themselves for a long time due to their said hitpoints. Fighter pilots who aren't skilled enough may either get bombarded to death by the capital's turrets, or they can run away with their hull integrity being 10%.
Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.
Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).
-
Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.
Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).
wait wut? I assume the first statement doesn't apply to the second?
-
I never really got this thread. Are we talking about retail data or mods included? Mods allow for unlimited possibilities of equal destruction, anyway. So are we going back to retail? And if we are using retail as base (including AI), are we asking what can kill player fighters best or AI fighters?
-
Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.
Plus the actual fact that the real counter for fighters is other fighters, in FS.
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).
wait wut? I assume the first statement doesn't apply to the second?
QuantumDelta has taken down a pretty roided out Aeolus from a start position inside its flak envelope. I believe it can still be done.
-
the whole point is you don't put them on warships, you put them on sentry guns (because low cost), bomber turrets (because low power), and freighters, AWACSes and stuff (because low everything).
A Faustus is not a warship.
Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.
Precisely. Sentry guns already have many disadvantages compared to fighters. Hence, giving them weak guns makes little sense.
Why do people assume that balance decissions = game universe fluff.
That is just flawed thinking.
EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
-
wrong
or at least not the best way to solve it.
Yes. Put the "same turret cooldown" flag and watch yourself die by the might of Kaysers.
Any good multi pilot can single-handedly deturret any capship in the game, fast.
That's why I was talking about unskilled pilots. True, an experienced player can easily disable the most dangerous warship singlehandedly, but I was specifically referring to unskilled AI fighters.
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).
Look, Battuta. I'm not taking into consideration mod-based references on my point of argument. Hell, you could mod even the Training Laser and make a cruiser take down 50 hapless fighters in less than a minute if you made its firing rate to 0.001 and damage to 50,000 in the editor. You yourself said that it was useless arguing non-canonical, super lasers since it wouldn't be fun anymore.
-
I agree with Trashman's take on the gameplay versus fluff thing, but I disagree wiith Faustus being a warship. Science cruiser /= (battle) cruiser. That's like saying a transport's a warship 'cause it carries military personnel. That's like saying a transport's a warship 'cause it carries military personnel. Heck, if you gave TACs engines, they'd be warships, too.
I also agree that we should use retail as a base. Also, when talking about anti-fighter weapons, we should use AI as the variable rather than the player because AI behavior is more/less predictable. I'm not sure where to go from here, however. What difficulty should be set as the standard, and how many turrets and their AI levels can we tweak?
-
If it's AI vs AI I'm not sure difficulty really matters.
The answer is still probably AAA though, out of retail.
-
I'm going to try to be much clearer about what I am saying.
the whole point is you don't put them on warships, you put them on sentry guns (because low cost), bomber turrets (because low power), and freighters, AWACSes and stuff (because low everything).
A Faustus is not a warship.
Weak guns are not the only reason sentries are trash versus fighters. Even with nice weapons, they have no shields, maneuverability, or countermeasures, which means that they will be destroyed, probably by missiles. Like I said before, we don't know how much can be saved by downgrading the guns; it's just one possible reason for putting lame weapons (reactor, armor, etc.) on a sentry.
Precisely. Sentry guns already have many disadvantages compared to fighters.
Right.
Hence, giving them weak guns makes little sense.
No. If the cost of building sentry guns with more gun is greater than the benefit of doing so, then it should not be done. What is the benefit of equipping better weapons? The same number of sentries can defeat more fighters; easily testable in FRED. What is the cost? We have no idea. Is the cost greater than or less than the benefit? We have no idea. Does the GTVA have a good reason to mount fighter-grade weapons on sentry guns? We have no idea, but they didn't do it.
Why do people assume that balance decissions = game universe fluff.
That is just flawed thinking.
Of course I do not assume that balance decisions are always a subset(?) of fluff. But in the case of flak, Alastors, and bomber turrets, the game is perfectly consistent, so I am more open to the possibility that it is not only balance, but also canon in the fluff.
Remember that this whole "mini-laser" discussion is in response to your claim that there can be no plausible explanation for what is obverved in the game except that it is necessary for balance/gameplay reasons:
Why should a weapon have a slower rate of fire if mounted on a ship? What possible sensible reason can there be? There isn't one. There is only balance/gameplay. And that reason doesn't exist in the setting.
I responded with an explanation that is perfectly plausible for Alastor and bomber turrets, less so for large non-combat ships like the Faustus, and pretty flimsy for warships like the Mentu.
EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
Whatever you call it, it's built for "doing science" not killing things.
-
wrong
or at least not the best way to solve it.
Yes. Put the "same turret cooldown" flag and watch yourself die by the might of Kaysers.
Learn to read, learn to mod and figure out that simply altering AI profiles will do the same job without having to edit any weapons at all.
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).
Look, Battuta. I'm not taking into consideration mod-based references on my point of argument. Hell, you could mod even the Training Laser and make a cruiser take down 50 hapless fighters in less than a minute if you made its firing rate to 0.001 and damage to 50,000 in the editor. You yourself said that it was useless arguing non-canonical, super lasers since it wouldn't be fun anymore.
As far as I'm concerned AI modding to behave realistically is a whole different kettle of soup. Unless you're really going to argue there's a reason that fighters can't make vertical breaks in FS2?
My canon supercedes V canon because it's betterrrrrrrrrrrr
-
No. If the cost of building sentry guns with more gun is greater than the benefit of doing so, then it should not be done. What is the benefit of equipping better weapons? The same number of sentries can defeat more fighters; easily testable in FRED. What is the cost? We have no idea. Is the cost greater than or less than the benefit? We have no idea. Does the GTVA have a good reason to mount fighter-grade weapons on sentry guns? We have no idea, but they didn't do it.
Well, apparently such weapons aren't terribly expensive, as an average fighter has 4..some have 8..not counting other equipment. Some fighters even have advanced jump drives. And nothing of that is too expensive. Think.The cost of a fighter already outstrips that of any sentry gun by a huge margin (shield, missiles, jump drives, pilot training and pay, etc..) We go back to the issue of effectiveness.
FS2 - gameplay wise - already makes little strategic and economic sense because the player is a fighter pilot, and as such, all game balance is skewed in favor of a fighter.
Why do you try to paint what is obviously a gameplay balance decision as fluff? Sure, you can try and come up with some (however weak) justification for it, but it's ultimatively pointless.
Anything can be justified in one way or another.
EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
Whatever you call it, it's built for "doing science" not killing things.
Military things need to defend themselves.
Even a one of those inflatable speedboats is going ot be armed with a regular machinegun, and not some pea-shooter.
-
wrong
or at least not the best way to solve it.
Yes. Put the "same turret cooldown" flag and watch yourself die by the might of Kaysers.
Learn to read, learn to mod and figure out that simply altering AI profiles will do the same job without having to edit any weapons at all.
Aw, that's not fair. If Marcov's goal were to remove the random delay altogether then it's true, but if it's just for fighter weapons then AI profiles is the wrong way to go.
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).
Look, Battuta. I'm not taking into consideration mod-based references on my point of argument. Hell, you could mod even the Training Laser and make a cruiser take down 50 hapless fighters in less than a minute if you made its firing rate to 0.001 and damage to 50,000 in the editor. You yourself said that it was useless arguing non-canonical, super lasers since it wouldn't be fun anymore.
As far as I'm concerned AI modding to behave realistically is a whole different kettle of soup. Unless you're really going to argue there's a reason that fighters can't make vertical breaks in FS2?
My canon supercedes V canon because it's betterrrrrrrrrrrr
I'll use this as an excuse to mention that the original purpose of this thread was powerful turret configurations using only stock weapons. That should include stock values for AI settings that modify weapon usage.
No. If the cost of building sentry guns with more gun is greater than the benefit of doing so, then it should not be done. What is the benefit of equipping better weapons? The same number of sentries can defeat more fighters; easily testable in FRED. What is the cost? We have no idea. Is the cost greater than or less than the benefit? We have no idea. Does the GTVA have a good reason to mount fighter-grade weapons on sentry guns? We have no idea, but they didn't do it.
Well, apparently such weapons aren't terribly expensive, as an average fighter has 4..some have 8..not counting other equipment. Some fighters even have advanced jump drives. And nothing of that is too expensive. Think.The cost of a fighter already outstrips that of any sentry gun by a huge margin (shield, missiles, jump drives, pilot training and pay, etc..) We go back to the issue of effectiveness.
FS2 - gameplay wise - already makes little strategic and economic sense because the player is a fighter pilot, and as such, all game balance is skewed in favor of a fighter.
Yep, fighters are more expensive than sentry guns. That says nothing about whether it's more economical to arm sentries with better, more expensive guns or cheaper, less effective ones. Not to mention that if sentry guns were cheaper then you could deploy more of them.
Why do you try to paint what is obviously a gameplay balance decision as fluff?
It is not "obviously" a gameplay balance decision. In fact, I'll bet that the random delay actually screwed up balance, creating some extra work for :v:. My guess is that it is a visual effect, because all turrets firing in sync doesn't look too good. If it were a balance thing, it would have been easier to adjust the fire wait directly for capship weapons and the AI classes for turreted fighter weapons.
I paint it as fluff because that is how it is in the game, and I have not seen a convincing argument that it should be different in the universe.
Sure, you can try and come up with some (however weak) justification for it,
It's pretty strong. The same weapon should behave the same regardless of where it is mounted (in FreeSpace with sufficient power and the modular guns that you can put on different ships). The gun on an Alastor acts differently, so it's possible that it's a different weapon.
but it's ultimatively pointless.
Anything can be justified in one way or another.
You said there's no "possible sensible reason" for (e.g.) Alastor Subachs to fire slower than fighter Subachs, so I gave one.
EDIT: The Faustus is technicly a warship. It's a civilian cruiser designed, modified for military use. Not heavily armored, but it's stil la cruiser, with a cruiser-sized reactor for guns.
Whatever you call it, it's built for "doing science" not killing things.
Military things need to defend themselves.
Even a one of those inflatable speedboats is going ot be armed with a regular machinegun, and not some pea-shooter.
Yes, which is why in FreeSpace they're armed with machineguns (Subachs) instead of howitzers (Terran Turrets or other "big ship" guns).
-
I'll use this as an excuse to mention that the original purpose of this thread was powerful turret configurations using only stock weapons. That should include stock values for AI settings that modify weapon usage.
Yeah, that's definitely fair, but man, I just think the stock AI settings are stupid.
But like Dragon says in the very next post, play on Insane and you get something reasonable (and put a capship on General AI level on Insane and you'll get pretty good performance out of turret-mounted fighter primaries.)
-
To make AI act smarter (also applies to turrets), just play in "insane" difficulty.
It's the most "realistic" difficulty, as no nerfs are applied to AI, nor there are any buffs to player.
BP2 AI just tweaks values for greater realism, some values are closer to retail "insane" because of it (to compensate, other things were tweaked).
-
Yep, fighters are more expensive than sentry guns. That says nothing about whether it's more economical to arm sentries with better, more expensive guns or cheaper, less effective ones. Not to mention that if sentry guns were cheaper then you could deploy more of them.
Again effectiveness.
Sentry turrets as is are utter crap. As well as a lot of other stuff...BECAUSE THE PLAYER IS A FIGHTER PILOT AND DYING 100 TIMES IS NOT FUN.
The only difference between a weapon mounted on a capship/sentrygun or a fighter is Rate of Fire. So logicly, just how big a cost difference can there POSSIBLY be?
It is not "obviously" a gameplay balance decision. In fact, I'll bet that the random delay actually screwed up balance, creating some extra work for :v:. My guess is that it is a visual effect, because all turrets firing in sync doesn't look too good. If it were a balance thing, it would have been easier to adjust the fire wait directly for capship weapons and the AI classes for turreted fighter weapons.
It's quite obviously a mechanics and balance thing, as the underlying code quite clearly confirms this.
ANY weapon for a fighter will have a lower ROF when put on a capship...any capship...regardless of turret size, available power of logic of having such low ROF. Aditionally AI settings affect RoF, which is further proof that it's a mechanics and balance thing. And we have cutscenes, which feature capship weapons with greater RoF.
I paint it as fluff because that is how it is in the game, and I have not seen a convincing argument that it should be different in the universe.
So how can cruisers be cost effective, given how easily they are destroyed? How can capships be viable, when fighters have trebuches and can disarm and wreck a capship from afar? Half the gameplay decision make no sense.
and yes, it's clearly a gameplay decision as evidenced by...EVERYTHING.
It's pretty strong. The same weapon should behave the same regardless of where it is mounted (in FreeSpace with sufficient power and the modular guns that you can put on different ships). The gun on an Alastor acts differently, so it's possible that it's a different weapon.
Except the tables say it's not so. Wouldn't it be easier to just make a different weapon and equip that, instead of friggin coding the fire-delay? Making a copy of a weapon with a lower RoF is literaly a 10 second job.
So no, sorry. Not a strong.
Yes, which is why in FreeSpace they're armed with machineguns (Subachs) instead of howitzers (Terran Turrets or other "big ship" guns).
Subachs > Terran turrets. Bad example.
Mayhaps I should make another comparison? Soldier carried weapons are the same as those mounted on guard towers. soldier = fighter, guard tower = sentry gun. If the enemy is known to carry heavy machineguns, you will not put a musket on a guard tower, no matter how cheap it may be.
-
Increased velocities make sentry guns very unfun. ;)
-
Trash is right about it being a gameplay balance decision. I think it has to be.
-
Again effectiveness.
Sentry turrets as is are utter crap. As well as a lot of other stuff...BECAUSE THE PLAYER IS A FIGHTER PILOT AND DYING 100 TIMES IS NOT FUN.
Agreed.
The only difference between a weapon mounted on a capship/sentrygun or a fighter is Rate of Fire. So logicly, just how big a cost difference can there POSSIBLY be?
Logically, there is no way to know. Since according to my calculations (.5s average delay? Where did I get that??), a turreted Subach does <1/3 the damage of a regular one, Alastors don't have much armor, and there's the Subach fluff about shield-damaging weapons being expensive... 60%? But that's just an arbitrary figure. The important thing is that we don't know.
It's quite obviously a mechanics and balance thing, as the underlying code quite clearly confirms this.
Oh. What does it say?
ANY weapon for a fighter will have a lower ROF when put on a capship...any capship...regardless of turret size, available power of logic of having such low ROF.
No one is disputing that. If your point is that mini-Subachs on destroyer turrets are absurd, then recall that they do not actually exist.
Aditionally AI settings affect RoF, which is further proof that it's a mechanics and balance thing.
AI settings affect RoF even on fighters.
And we have cutscenes, which feature capship weapons with greater RoF.
But they do not compare weapons on fighters to the same weapons on turrets. Also they show blue blob salvo turrets, heh.
So how can cruisers be cost effective, given how easily they are destroyed? How can capships be viable, when fighters have trebuches and can disarm and wreck a capship from afar? Half the gameplay decision make no sense.
In that case, the second part of my statement has been violated.
and yes, it's clearly a gameplay decision as evidenced by...EVERYTHING.
Except the fact that you can do the same thing much easier with $Fire wait.
Except the tables say it's not so. Wouldn't it be easier to just make a different weapon and equip that, instead of friggin coding the fire-delay? Making a copy of a weapon with a lower RoF is literaly a 10 second job.
So no, sorry. Not a strong.
Yes it would, much easier (except for limits, but I guess they could bump those). That's part of the reason I don't believe the random delay was a balance mechanism.
Subachs > Terran turrets. Bad example.
if the random delay is .5s on average (which I've been assuming forever I don't know why) then blobs do way more hull damage than fighter guns.
How big is the random delay? My spreadsheet assumes it's a random number from .1-.9s inclusive.
If you insist, let it be flak. Any capship gun works.
Mayhaps I should make another comparison?
No, you would be making an analogy to prove that the case we're discussing must match the analogy. I'm sure that that has to be bad... somehow. Maybe it has a name or something.
I would instead say fighters are like... fighters. And sentry guns are like UAVs.
Trash is right about it being a gameplay balance decision. I think it has to be.
Whyzzat? :confused:
-
ugh this is just silly
-
^
I agree
Logically, there is no way to know. Since according to my calculations (.5s average delay? Where did I get that??), a turreted Subach does <1/3 the damage of a regular one, Alastors don't have much armor, and there's the Subach fluff about shield-damaging weapons being expensive... 60%? But that's just an arbitrary figure. The important thing is that we don't know.
You know, there's such a thing as estimated figures based on reason..insted of ass pulls. You make a direct connection between DPS and cost of weapon, which is redicolous. Real life weapons exist with lighter and heavier version (like a assault, carabine or squad support variants of a rifle) and the cost differences are minimal - because 90% of the parts used are the same.
Yes it would, much easier (except for limits, but I guess they could bump those). That's part of the reason I don't believe the random delay was a balance mechanism.
:wtf: What kind of messed-up logic is this?
Going to extra effort to code it so fighter weapons have lower RoF when mounted on warships is the perfect example for why it is a balance thing.
how can it be a fluff thing? It makes no logical sense to impose such a limit on a universe. NONE.
AI settings affect RoF even on fighters.
Exactly. Which makes no sense, since you being a better pilot doesn't magicly change the guns you use. A gun is a gun and fires at the same RoF regardless who uses it. I could justify this as a fluff thing, by making **** up - like saying guns are made out of psychotium and tied to the pilots psyche.
You're basicly arguing the same thing, since reduced RoF on capships makes NO friggin sense. NONE.
But they do not compare weapons on fighters to the same weapons on turrets. Also they show blue blob salvo turrets, heh.
Irrelevant. They do show capital ships have been invisioned to be more awesome in the setting - but for gameplay reasons you can't have that. Facing a capital ship with rapid-fire turrets would be too difficult for most players (also, processing more shots is more CPU intensive).
Games as a media have some specific requirements that means any story/world you want to translate into a game must be modified, sometimes even considerably. You initial vision will NEVER hold.
So..if you were to write a story set in the universe of Call of duty or Medal of Honor..would you write about how pvt. Johnson waited behind cover for his wounds to heal? Or would you be smart enough to realise that healing is a gameplay mechanic that is divorced from the setting itself?
-
:drevil:
(http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/6813/screen0146.png)
DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE! DIVE!...
-
ugh this is just silly
I sorry. :(
/me tries to bleed off momentum.
You know, there's such a thing as estimated figures based on reason..insted of ass pulls.
Not in this case, which is my point.
:wtf: What kind of messed-up logic is this?
Going to extra effort to code it so fighter weapons have lower RoF when mounted on warships is the perfect example for why it is a balance thing.
how can it be a fluff thing? It makes no logical sense to impose such a limit on a universe. NONE.
Not fluff, visual effects. It couldn't be balance because there was a better solution sitting right in front of their faces.
Exactly. Which makes no sense, since you being a better pilot doesn't magicly change the guns you use. A gun is a gun and fires at the same RoF regardless who uses it. I could justify this as a fluff thing, by making **** up - like saying guns are made out of psychotium and tied to the pilots psyche.
You're basicly arguing the same thing, since reduced RoF on capships makes NO friggin sense. NONE.
But it's not a difference between turrets and fighters.
Irrelevant. They do show capital ships have been invisioned to be more awesome in the setting - but for gameplay reasons you can't have that. Facing a capital ship with rapid-fire turrets would be too difficult for most players (also, processing more shots is more CPU intensive).
Agreed. That's why I prefer to use flak instead of blobs as an example of a big ship gun.
Games as a media have some specific requirements that means any story/world you want to translate into a game must be modified, sometimes even considerably. You initial vision will NEVER hold.
Of course I don't think :v: wrote the turret thing as fluff. I'm making it up. Sort of... retconning I guess.
So..if you were to write a story set in the universe of Call of duty or Medal of Honor..would you write about how pvt. Johnson waited behind cover for his wounds to heal? Or would you be smart enough to realise that healing is a gameplay mechanic that is divorced from the setting itself?
No, I would be stupid. :wtf: I broke the loaded question. :P
-
:wtf: What kind of messed-up logic is this?
Going to extra effort to code it so fighter weapons have lower RoF when mounted on warships is the perfect example for why it is a balance thing.
how can it be a fluff thing? It makes no logical sense to impose such a limit on a universe. NONE.
Not fluff, visual effects. It couldn't be balance because there was a better solution sitting right in front of their faces.
For a single weapon - yes. But coding it makes sure that when you experiment during mission-making, capships will always be weak enough no matter what weapon you put on. Also - visual effects have processing overheads. The more shots on screen, the more FPS drops - the engine has to render the shots and calculate collision for each. So it is both a balance and game performance optimization thing.
Exactly. Which makes no sense, since you being a better pilot doesn't magicly change the guns you use. A gun is a gun and fires at the same RoF regardless who uses it. I could justify this as a fluff thing, by making **** up - like saying guns are made out of psychotium and tied to the pilots psyche.
You're basicly arguing the same thing, since reduced RoF on capships makes NO friggin sense. NONE.
But it's not a difference between turrets and fighters.
You lost me.
-
If it's equally nonsensical for fighters and turrets, then it's not an argument that turrets should be more like fighters is all.
-
wrong
or at least not the best way to solve it.
Yes. Put the "same turret cooldown" flag and watch yourself die by the might of Kaysers.
Learn to read, learn to mod and figure out that simply altering AI profiles will do the same job without having to edit any weapons at all.
Or a warship with real, unhobbled AI (see BP2).
Look, Battuta. I'm not taking into consideration mod-based references on my point of argument. Hell, you could mod even the Training Laser and make a cruiser take down 50 hapless fighters in less than a minute if you made its firing rate to 0.001 and damage to 50,000 in the editor. You yourself said that it was useless arguing non-canonical, super lasers since it wouldn't be fun anymore.
As far as I'm concerned AI modding to behave realistically is a whole different kettle of soup. Unless you're really going to argue there's a reason that fighters can't make vertical breaks in FS2?
My canon supercedes V canon because it's betterrrrrrrrrrrr
Could you direct me to where this is changed? (I have never touched the AI table, out of fear of breaking it :P
-
$don't insert random turret fire delay: YES
That on its own isn't the only AI change you want to make if you're looking to make the AI behave realistically, though. I'd strongly recommend using the Fury AI from BP2 (the v8 public release doesn't include that feature as it was meant for backwards compatibility.)
-
Changing that one flag alone only makes turrets to fire as frequently as any fighter would. If AI fighters rate of fire is handicapped, turrets will still remain equally handicapped.
I DON'T recommend setting that flag to yes. Doing so will turn certain weapons into much more potent killers than what they should be. In retail this luckily only affects the standard flak, maybe even long range flak to some degree. Standard flak will simply munch everything that comes within range.
Hence the better way to go with it for most campaigns is to leave the above flag to default, but instead improve the AI in overall performance. Since this flag adds random 0.1 - 0.9 seconds of additional fire delay, it keeps high-ROF weapons in check while not severely affecting low-ROF weapons. So it's about perfect to keep standard flak reasonable.
But yes, if you want to remove all limitations from turrets, then you should set this flag to YES. Otherwise, don't.
-
I'm surprised so few people chose the circe-flak combo. If anyone wants to see just how dangerous it is just fire up renegade resurgence, that neo-terran destroyer was fitted with something like that. Once a fighter's shields go down flak will shred it in just a few seconds.
-
You'd think the Circe was way to energy hungry to be mounted on a large scale though, even on a capship.
-
I've never cared for the circe because of it's short effective range. The shots move so slowly that it can't hit much beyond point blank range. That's why don't usually use the circe/maxim combo. The difference in velocity, and thus where the shots actually land, is just too large for my liking.
-
You'd think the Circe was way to energy hungry to be mounted on a large scale though, even on a capship.
Most fighter-compatible weapons drain more energy than a beam cannon.
-
The circe is possibly the single weakest weapon in the game from a fighter pov, in combination with flak on a capital ship though...... interesting!
-
You'd think the Circe was way to energy hungry to be mounted on a large scale though, even on a capship.
Most fighter-compatible weapons drain more energy than a beam cannon.
Except... only because beams weren't meant to be placed on fighters in the first place, so there's no need for energy drain, or to a large extent.
-
Energy consumption and cargo size are completely irrelevant on weapons that are used in turrets only, turrets have neither.
It would make really interesting gameplay for large ships to have either global or per-turret energy reserve and ammo capacity. It would add another layer to tactics.
-
Energy consumption and cargo size are completely irrelevant on weapons that are used in turrets only, turrets have neither.
It would make really interesting gameplay for large ships to have either global or per-turret energy reserve and ammo capacity. It would add another layer to tactics.
For whom?
We're using theoretical maxims about power vs energy consumption vs cost to justify existing balance decisions - it's all just mild technobabble to give the turret gun system a little context. If the game processed actual ship energy values, the only one who would have to deal with it would be the fredder - and anything he/she does to the player in response to said energy system would sound like another gameplay conceit. Thus, any tactical depth would still be dependent on a fredder's ability to explain, in-game, why something is happening (Oh noes, our reactor control rods are fracturing under the stress yada yada).
Now, if There had been a lot of additional 'technical' information about capships and their weaponry from the very beginning (and it made any sense, as opposed to just being flavor text), then it might make sense to have the game keep track of such things, so as to provide more dynamic combat between caps, without a fredder's guiding hand. As it is, any interesting battles between fleets (fleets here meaning the FS1/2 style 2.5 ships-per-side and some fighters) always involve careful planning and creativity from the mission designer - a fact that would not change if the game were capable of monitoring some sort of power-consumption value.
Having said all that, I can see having ships that are all about the first volley, and then retreating, in an alt-universe context. But at the very least, it's the sort of idea that asks a developer to handle a variable that the fredder can already handle in a meta kind of way, and the player would never know the difference.
It would be a very different sort of game that makes use of a more complex capship platform, more like FS2 -> Windmills than FS2-> War in Heaven .... planning anything interesting, fury?
because then that idea would be a precursor to something awesome. I'm all for that.
-
FS2-> War in Heaven
War in Heaven did actually have a capship command mission in which there were not only various abilities but in which your turret ROF would vary based on how much power you put to guns.
-
You'd think the Circe was way to energy hungry to be mounted on a large scale though, even on a capship.
Most fighter-compatible weapons drain more energy than a beam cannon.
Since a capship's reactors are significantly larger than anything in a fighter I'm not so sure that's accurate. I doubt a BGreen uses less energy than even a Maxim.
-
If fighter weapons drain more energy than a beam cannon, then why aren't fighters equipped with friggin beam cannons?!
I want my frigging beam cannons on fighters.
Wait, I already did that.
-
/massages temples. Was there not already a discussion about "setting vs. gameplay?"
Capital-class weapons draw no power (from a coding perspective) because a) they were never really meant to be used on strikecraft, and b) capital ship energy reserves are invariably so much larger than strikecraft reserves, any in-universe energy use would not be apparent to an outside observer.
Consider the Maxim vs. the BFGreen in terms of energy use- ....awww, do we even need to go there? One is a mass-driver with a per-shot energy draw likely similar to a modern railgun; the other disgorges a house-wide scar of relativistic, incandescent death.