Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: Cobra on July 26, 2005, 11:07:12 pm
-
yes, you've all seen it in Transcend. The GTSC Plato
AKA Silent Eye
(http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3812/plato0ma.jpg)
Availabe here (http://freespace.evilones.net/plato.rar), and at Hades Combine.
*prepares for the worst*
-
Huh. Lots of differences from the Faustus that weren't apparent ingame...
-
care to explain, please?
-
The color changes, for example, are not immediately obvious when you see it ingame.
-
Good reskin. Is this your first texture work?
-
not just a reskin, my friend. ;) :p
my first actual MOD, made a couple of years ago. meant to release it to the public, but never did.
-
There's something wrong with its propellor :nervous:
-
eh, that's not the MOD, that's the original model screwing up. :p
it only appears in Modelview though. wonder why...
-
I like the look of it, but am I the only one to find it... odd, that a science vessel has better anti-capital ship armaments than a Fenris? Three anti-cap slashers, that's nearly as much as a Deimos in terms of hitting power.
-
it's meant to be used in the front lines, and it can also be used as a modified faustus used for pirate purposes.
-
I can kind of see the anti-fighter beams and the flak turrets (the faustus in the first SOC loop had those), but anti-capital ship beams are simply out of the question. They take up a lot of space and have huge power requirements (hence why a Deimos only has 4 of them, the Hecate also has 4, etc).
Plus why should a science vessel be able to outgun an Aeolus in terms of capital ship firepower?
-
ok fine, 1 anti-c beam.
-
That's still a lot of firepower for such a small ship.
-
Hecate has 5 beams, 3 slash, 2 Bgreen
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
Hecate has 5 beams, 3 slash, 2 Bgreen
Wrong. It has only 1 BGreen and 3 slash. Check the tables if you don't believe me.
-
$Subsystem: Turret20, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "BGreen" )
$Subsystem: Turret22, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret24, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret26, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret27, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
Well, there are five beams, though four are slashes and one is a BGreen.
If a science vessel should have beams, I don't see any reason to add more than a LTerSlash, since it is mounted on a Fenris, and probably is more energy efficient, since the science vessel also has a laboratory or two to keep operational, not to mention its solar panel, etc.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
$Subsystem: Turret20, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "BGreen" )
$Subsystem: Turret22, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret24, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret26, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret27, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
Well, there are five beams, though four are slashes and one is a BGreen.[/B]
That's pretty wank for a Destroyer isn't ?
-
I hope the solar panel would provide more energy than it uses to spin. :p
-
unless it's got a very wide fire arc, makig it a very capable destroyer. (if you play Starfleet Command, you would know. ;))
-
Wel that's just ghey, i was expecting the rear beam to be a bgreen, owell.
That is damn wank for a destroyer, hell, because of the placement of the beams i'd say it has LESS firepower than a deimos in most arcs. (the deimos has terslashes right?)
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
That's pretty wank for a Destroyer isn't ?
Well, bear in mind that the Hecate is apparently not intended to be put into battle, as in the postion where it would have to use its beam cannons offensively. Defensively (i.e. "Proving Grounds" or "Argonautica"), it has sufficient firepower to deal with its attackers while it retreats. Compare it to the Orion:
$Subsystem: Turret01a, 1.875, 3.0
$Default PBanks: ( "BGreen" )
$Subsystem: Turret06, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret07, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "TerSlash" )
$Subsystem: Turret09, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "Bgreen" )
$Subsystem: Turret11, 0.625, 2.0
$Default PBanks: ( "BGreen" )
See there? Five anti-capital beams, three of them BGreens. The Orion is much more apparently intended to be used offensively, rather than as a fleet flagship or a carrier, as Hecates seem to be more comfortably used as.
I hope the solar panel would provide more energy than it uses to spin.
I definitely misworded that. I realized the instant after I posted that a solar panel provides power, not eats it up. But still, seeing as how a science vessel could be better used for research, a significant amount of power would be shunted to the laboratories, right?
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Plus why should a science vessel be able to outgun an Aeolus in terms of capital ship firepower?
It still doesn't, you realize. Even with all those anti-cap slash beams. The bottom line is that a Leviathan can kick out more raw damage then a Deimos. The Deimos just lives longer.
Type 3 beam=consumes more power then slash mount.
Volume: Aeolus < Science vessel
Aeolus=2 Type 3 beams
Science Vessel=3 slash beams
I'm not seeing the problem here.
-
See there? Five anti-capital beams, three of them BGreens. The Orion is much more apparently intended to be used offensively, rather than as a fleet flagship or a carrier, as Hecates seem to be more comfortably used as.
Ok, I was wrong. I forgot about that.
Type 3 beam=consumes more power then slash mount.
Volume: Aeolus < Science vessel
Aeolus=2 Type 3 beams
Science Vessel=3 slash beams
SGreens suck. It is crippled by it's llloooonnnnnggggg 45 second recharge rate.
Sgreen's table info:
$Fire Wait: 45.0 ;; in seconds
$Damage: 210 ;; NOTE: for beam weapons this is kind of a "continuous" damage applied every few fractions of a second that the beam is on.
Terslash's table info:
$Fire Wait: 10.0 ;; in seconds
$Damage: 350 ;; NOTE: for beam weapons this is kind of a "continuous" damage applied every few fractions of a second that the beam is on.
As you can tell, the Terslash is vastly superior to the SGreens that the Aoelus has.
-
maybe the SGreens were earlier Terran beams?
(and can we please stop spamming?)
-
Originally posted by Cobra
(and can we please stop spamming?)
*Bursts out laughing*
Brilliant. Sig worthy, if it weren't so contextually defined.
-
I don't see any spam here. I see completely on-topic discussions relating to beams, fire-control systems, balanced warships, and mods. Seriously, if this were "spam", we would be much further away from the Plato than you can imagine.
Spam, by definition, consists of making useless posts with only useless information, smilies only, or just idiotic crap. Nothing I see hear contains any of that. It may have gone slightly off from the Plato, but it has generated a decent discussion about beam cannons that I, for one, find helpful.
Cobra, you need to learn to not get mad when somebody turns the spotlight away from you or your work, at least when it does something useful. We've already discussed the Plato, and now we're talking about beam cannons.
As for the discussion:
As you can tell, the Terslash is vastly superior to the SGreens that the Aoelus has.
I agree about the 45 second delay making the SGreen look bad, but also take a look at the fact that the TerSlash beam is just that: a slash beam. SGreens, when they fire, either hit a target or not, and if they do hit, they do their own damage to the target in one area. The TerSlash beams, on the other hand, spread their damage out over a wider area (damaging more subsystems) and have a chance of hitting and then losing its target, or vice versa.
Overall, they seem equal, as the TerSlash, IMO, seems to do about as much damage on one burst as the SGreen does, factoring in Slash misses. The fire rate makes the difference, however, and it's in this case that the TerSlash is much better.
-
The thing is, taht sgreens are the most absolutley pitifull beam in the game, it does the least damage per minute out of any beam, 3647 dam/min, terslashes do 19250 damage/min, over 5 times as much, even with frequent missies this would make the terslash by fa the better beam.
Hell, ultra-AAA's are more powerfull than the sgreen, but then again, those are meant ot literaly sodemise fighters with their long powerfull shaft.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
See there? Five anti-capital beams, three of them BGreens. The Orion is much more apparently intended to be used offensively, rather than as a fleet flagship or a carrier
Which is completely departed from it's original purpose. The Hecate seems to have taken over in the area where the Orion did best, and beams have allowed the Orion to serve a new and and completely different purpose.
-
Exactly! Ah, the wonders of technological development and progress. :D
Hell, ultra-AAA's are more powerfull than the sgreen, but then again, those are meant ot literaly sodemise fighters with their long powerfull shaft.
That really deserves to go in a signature, but it seems too long. :lol:
-
The TerSlash beams, on the other hand, spread their damage out over a wider area (damaging more subsystems) and have a chance of hitting and then losing its target, or vice versa
While they are more subsystem oriented because they rake across the hull, they still have a much higher base damage than SGreens do. I just checked the table and the multipliers for shields, hull, and subsystems are all 1.0.
Brilliant. Sig worthy, if it weren't so contextually defined.
It's not that contextually defined if you think about it. I think everybody in the forum knows by now that he has been a major source of spam ever since he got here.
True, we all spam a little bit once in a while, but he has a record of doing it a lot.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
As you can tell, the Terslash is vastly superior to the SGreens that the Aoelus has.
I have in mind a particular circumstance; one of the missions from Cleaning Crew. You have a Moloch, a Deimos, and a Leviathan. Now, the Deimos is shooting up the Moloch but really isn't doing much at all. Each paired slash shot from the forward beams is good for about 1% hull strength, or less. The Leviathan jumps in and opens fire, and each hit from the SGreen is doing 5-7% hull damage.
Given the slash-type's inherent inaccuracy, there are many cases where you can get better performance out of an SGreen, as the Slash has a tendancy to run off the hull of the target with some ships.
-
A science vessel shouldn't have any capital ship weaponry. It's a science vessel, for crying out loud!
Personally I think the guy who commissions ship designs for the GTVA is on crack or something. How the hell do only a dozen Aeoluses get produced? They're death to any non-treb fighters and can easily stand up to anything below destroyer size.
But I did like the Silent Eye in Transcendant. I took a look at the armanment and started to wonder if it was some kind of time travel ship or some SOC cover-up thing.
-
They're death to any non-treb fighters and can easily stand up to anything below destroyer size.
And non-Maxim fighters. But they get pwn3d pretty badly by corvettes. Then again so do all the other cruisers, except for the Lilith of course.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
It's not that contextually defined if you think about it. I think everybody in the forum knows by now that he has been a major source of spam ever since he got here.
True, we all spam a little bit once in a while, but he has a record of doing it a lot.
*sigh* you know what? screw you. i do my best to contribute to this god-forsaken community, and all you say is "SPAMMER!!111".
-
Be nice....
Anyways...
Does anyone know what the Green Beam is for? It just sits there in the weapons table and I havn't seen any ship that uses it.
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
Personally I think the guy who commissions ship designs for the GTVA is on crack or something. How the hell do only a dozen Aeoluses get produced? They're death to any non-treb fighters and can easily stand up to anything below destroyer size.
The Aeolus was expensive. Command probably prefered to have a Diemos instead of 1 and a half Aeoluses.
-
Originally posted by Cobra
*sigh* you know what? screw you. i do my best to contribute to this god-forsaken community, and all you say is "SPAMMER!!111".
Marweas, is that you?!?
-
Originally posted by Cobra
*sigh* you know what? screw you. i do my best to contribute to this god-forsaken community, and all you say is "SPAMMER!!111".
Just give it a different designation, like GTC and don't name it like as if it were a science vessel (Plato). After that, no-one should say it has too much firepower for a science vessel.
One more thing: You can make its weapons weaker and state that these craft are usually deployed in large numbers (from 3 to whatever the GTVA can afford).
-
Originally posted by Cobra
*sigh* you know what? screw you. i do my best to contribute to this god-forsaken community, and all you say is "SPAMMER!!111".
We're so grateful to you. Please don't leave us. We're lost without you.
:(
-
Originally posted by Falcon
Be nice....
I agree. Get back on topic and stop baiting Cobra everyone.
Even if it is amusing
And Cobra, stop rising to the bait. Not everyone in the community is out to personally attack you for everything you do.
As for the mod itself I quite liked it. It fit in with Transcend quite well although it is heavily overgunned for a vessel its size.
-
Originally posted by nuclear1
Well, bear in mind that the Hecate is apparently not intended to be put into battle, as in the postion where it would have to use its beam cannons offensively. Defensively (i.e. "Proving Grounds" or "Argonautica"), it has sufficient firepower to deal with its attackers while it retreats. Compare it to the Orion:
*snip*
See there? Five anti-capital beams, three of them BGreens. The Orion is much more apparently intended to be used offensively, rather than as a fleet flagship or a carrier, as Hecates seem to be more comfortably used as.
That's no excuse in my book. Plus in Argonautica the attacker was a Corvette (albeit with Bomber support). An Orion would have nailed the Moloch in problem, assuming it had proper Fighter support to allow it to concentrate on the Corvette of course. A replacement should always be better than the original. Otherwise, what's the point ?
I've noticed the damage inflicted by TerSlash can be quite inconsistent aswell.
-
Basically what i see the beams designed for, slash for broadsides and the 'standard' beams for frontal attacks, seems only logical to me.
-
which is very logical.
@ Karajorma: glad ya liked it. and right now i'm toning down its firepower.
@ Topace: Taking advice. :)
-
I really like the mod, actually. The weapons seem a bit excessive for something that small, but it looks cool, and I'd use it. The weapons are incredibly simple to change, after all.
And I agree with Topace - call it a light cruiser. More befitting it's role and capabilities. :)
-
GTLC... something. i don't know what to re-name it. :nervous: all the greek and good egyptian names are taken. :nervous:
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
That's no excuse in my book. Plus in Argonautica the attacker was a Corvette (albeit with Bomber support). An Orion would have nailed the Moloch in problem, assuming it had proper Fighter support to allow it to concentrate on the Corvette of course. A replacement should always be better than the original. Otherwise, what's the point ?
I honestly don't think that the Hecate was intended to entirely replace the Orion. Sure, the Orion's were getting phased out, simply because most of them were 30+ years old. Still, the GTVA must have found good use for the Orion as an offensive weapon, leaving Hecates to perform a more carrier-suited role, while more and more corvettes were gradually added in as an offensive weapon to take the Orion's place.
Then again, this should be looked at in terms of the GTVA, as both sides now had combined their forces, and now each side had ships fitted to different roles. The Hatshepsut and the Typhon, IMO, had an opposite relation as the Orion-Hecate. The Typhon seemed to be more of a Vasudan fighter carrier, though it was still a problem to attack. The Hatshepsut, on the other hand, had a spine covered in anti-capital ship beams. I'm supposing that the GTVA had expected to decommission its old Orion and Typhons, and replace Typhons with Hecates and Orions with Hatshepsuts, since they seem to fit the same role as each other.
-
My view is that the GTVA realised how vulnerable destroyers were when the Lucifer wiped out most of the fleet. Having such large "eggs in one basket" ships was risky, so they decided to shift destroyers away from being "ships of the line" towards command and control, while leaving the brunt of the fighting to corvettes (two corvettes are much better than one destroyer). This would explain the Hecate's contrasting design to the Orion. It has all-round beam coverage, and extensive defensive weaponry, whereas the Orion is very vulnerable to bombers (though it is very powerful in ship-to-ship combat).
The Hatshepsut is somewhat different, however. I think it was designed to take advantage of beam weapons (the tech fluff mentions there were problems fitting Typhons with beams) - it has excellent firepower across most arcs, unlike the Typhon, and again is heavily defended. I think it was designed to work well in concert with Sobeks in front-line situations, rather than being a command ship like the Hecate.
-
Actually, all GTVA vessels have strongish anti-cap beams in their forward firing arcs, excepting the Colossus.
This doesn't make sense when you consider that te Lucifer had forward-firing beams (making it idiotic to try and go toe-to-toe with it). Possibly Command planned on a more offensive approach, hence quickly consolidating gains in the nebula, where forward firepower would be key.
Meanwhile the Colossus would jump in and neutralize the Lucifer.
-
The colossus was definitley a broadsider.
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
The colossus was definitley a broadsider.
Too bad the turret code only seems to allow 3/4 turrets to attack a single target at the same time. An even then the AI dosn't pick the right weapons (unless you've been messing with the weapons table to ensure that anti-fighter weapons are NOT used against destroyers)
Might be altered by difficulty setting, though I doubt it.
The SCP people really need to do something about the turret code. Then again I've been saying that for ~3 years now, and nothings come of it:sigh:
-
:wtf:
Too bad you weren't saying that when I was muching around in it some months ago.
Also IIRC taylor made some changes, but reverted them beccause they unbalanced missions (e.g. making a capship target asteroids with flak and AA made such missions extraordinarily easy. :p)
-
I didn't notice those were taken out. Couldn't it be a commandline option, like -nobeampierce, since the idea of 'escorting' an Orion through an asteroid field is just stupid?
-
Wouldn't it work better as a mission flag?
-
Perhaps, but in the same way I don't play with shield-penetrating beams I don't want to play with grossly incompetent gunnery crews aboard 2km warships. Those 'escort through asteroid field' missions were ALWAYS weak: the guns didn't help and it was usually some trivial number of fighters covering it. I mean, hey, its only an Orion - who cares? :rolleyes:
-
it was only the most important orion in the entire Great War. :p
the turrets were fine, actually. would have been a lot cooler if it had AA beams and fired through the endless amount of asteroids. :D
-
or perhaps the mission could be edited so that the guns were destroyed, and the modified mission stuffed in a media vp, so we can have non-incompetent gunners.
-
Cobie, that was sarcasm.
I feel this is precisely analogous to the beampierce issue. Since -nobeampierce was implemented, the same rationale can be applied to implement -gunnerswithaclue. Purists will never turn it on and everyone else will: everyone wins. Except, possibly the codemonkeys who have to implement it.... :nervous:
-
@the issue of the "Overpowered" science Vessel.
It just scares you that the little nerd of the Fleet could totally kick your ass if you screw with him too much.:p
About time that someone released a Science Vessel Mod.;)
@Incompetent Gunners: Think about this: Two fighters are slated to protect an Orion. Why? Because its not supposed to be all that hard anyway. In fact, weren't you out there more for protecting the Galatea from Shivans than for asteroid escort?
Encouragement to the Coders: Remember, we might make the new ships, but you guys make them look good.:cool:
@Everyone else: Those so-called "code-monkeys" could easily find other things to do. Show some respect.:mad2:
*reads post*
*knows he shouldn't post without lots of editing*
*posts for the hell of it*
*Dons Flame-proof armor*
-
Non-retarded turret AI was introduced, and removed because it renders several missions completely redundant. I'm just asking for switchable, since the premise of those missions is mindblowingly stupid on the outset, and in my opinion the AI should be improved as much as possible then crippled down (where necessary) to provide the 'authentic' FS2 experience for purists.
Lets be clear. The guns shoot at bombs. They don't shoot at 100m+ rocks. This is utterly, laughably stupid. When I was in highschool playing FS I thought it was stupid, and now I'm 25 it's not any less so.
-
actually, in my FS game the Galatea actually shot the asteroids. :p
-
Well, I prefer the mission flag idea, I think we have enough command lines as it is. Not to mention any missions where it mattered would need serious rebalancing. :p
-
IIRC in FS1 the gunners shot at 'roids, but they don't in FS2.
-
IIRC they don't use flak, beams, or missiles. I'm not 100% sure about that though.
Asteroids are also lowest priority.
-
I think the issus is there were too few asteroids..and they weren't denagerous enough.
I have nothing againsta capship shooting down asteroids with it's turrets - it only makes sense. but for a fighter wing to be there it eihter has to a be a LOT of asteroids, fast ones (so that the turrets would be owervhelemed) or something else (shivans)
-
From the code comments for chosing weapons to fire at asteroids:
// don't use turrets that are better for other things:
// - no cap ship beams
// - no flak
// - no heat or aspect missiles
// - no spawn type missiles/bombs
// do use for sure:
// - lasers
// - dumbfire type missiles
// - AAA beams
Other than the obvious choice (no cap ship beams) the weapons that don't fire are ones which could generate a large amount of friendly kills, especially if you have fighters which are providing extra fire support. As WMC said, asteroids are lowest priority (bombs->ships->asteroids) and asteroids are given priority by time-to-impact so that an asteroid that's moving faster will get priority over one that's physically closer but may not hit first. The code was setup to try and match behavior observed from the original FS1 but I'm not sure if :v: actually did all of that. :v: had removed part of the asteroid targetting code (the part that actually decides if it's a target or not) but it still tried to process asteroids as targets.
There was talk of making it a mission flag, but only if it turned out to have a negative impact on gameplay. The original campaign has one mission which looks like it should have working code similar to this and that was a good point in not having it as a flag.
-
thing is.....if it upsets mission balance, then one simply has to re-open FRED and re-balance it. It's not as hard as one thinks, and changing it to the point that it isn't what it once was is not necessary either, especially if its just changing the numbers or something :)
-
Thing is that rebalancing is fine if you assume that only the main campaign needs rebalancing but when you add every other campaign that uses asteroids it becomes a much bigger task.
And then once you've rebalanced the main campaign for one feature you have less excuse to stop a second feature someone likes because that needs rebalancing. So you add that feature and rebalance.
And then someone points out a third thing.... etc.
We all know how fast the code-monkeys turn out the SCP changes. It's much faster than the hosted campaigns can keep up with in many ways. Before long we'd end up with a huge number of new features implemented and not a single playable mission because everything that's ever been released needs rebalancing. :rolleyes:
Far better to draw a line in the sand as the SCP have done and say "No Rebalancing. 100% backwards compatibility"
-
yeah, true. but if it were optional to have better AI, and have it backward-compatible (like having a seperate build or flag) then rebalancing the vanilla missions to finally not be so.....silly i guess, would be better....
-
I have no problems with mission flags for this sort of stuff. Game flags is a bit pointless really for this sort of thing because then the mission designer has to issue advisories about whether to use them or not. (Thankfully Launcher v6.0 will sort that kind of nonsense out).
-
Why not just release a mission pack with the rebalanced material?
If someone wants the rebalanced material, let them sit at their 56K connection and download it to replace the original missions. If they don't want to, then they just don't need it.
Makes sense right? I mean, I think that it would definitely be a good idea to improve turret AI especially in the first mission of the SOC loop.
-
Didn't my long post explain exactly why forcing this so that mission rebalances are needed is a bad idea?
What did you find hard to understand about it?
-
hmm... i've replaced the 3 TerSlashes with 2 SGreens (which do considerably less than TerSlashes), and narrowed the AAAf's to 2, and the rest of the weapons are Standard Flaks. All that's left is the name, which i don't know what to name it. All the good names are taken... :nervous:
-
www.pantheon.org
Take your pic...
-
ok, how does GTLC Actaeon sound?
-
Sounds good to me, though I think there was a space station called the Actaeon. Don't quote me on it though.
Either way, yours isn't a space station, so it doesn't matter. :nod:
-
i just realized: the Actaeon has almost the same firepower as the Aeolus. :eek2:
[EDIT] new version available with a better techroom description. :p Clicky-pow! (http://freespace.evilones.net/actaeon.rar) (C) Raa Tor'h :p
-
That's what we've been telling you throughout the whole thread, IIRC. Anyway, downloading now...
-
nah, you were just telling me that it was extremely overpowered for a cruiser of its size and class. ;)
-
Originally posted by taylor
From the code comments for chosing weapons to fire at asteroids:
// don't use turrets that are better for other things:
// - no cap ship beams
// - no flak
// - no heat or aspect missiles
// - no spawn type missiles/bombs
// do use for sure:
// - lasers
// - dumbfire type missiles
// - AAA beams
[/B]
The irony is that despite its heavy armanment, the Plato would be essentially helpless against placid asteroids. :p
Something its enemies could easily exploit with its low speed. :p
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
The irony is that despite its heavy armanment, the Plato would be essentially helpless against placid asteroids. :p
Something its enemies could easily exploit with its low speed. :p
That was intentional with the weapon choice though. It allows for relatively safe escorts as buffers rather than an all out shooting match between typically anti-capship large vessels and asteroids. As a fighter pilot you don't really want to be in the line of fire of a dozen flak guns or large beam weapons. This gives the mission designers some more play with strategy where you could have large vessels escorted by a fighter wing or two and several small cruisers through a large asteroid field.
It also opens up the largely untapped class of small cruiser which would be ripped to shreds by a destroyer but would be perfectly suited to the escort role with it's weapons and size better designed for fighter and bomber suppression. Rather than having a ship with a lot of flak guns and a couple of large beams you could have one with a good mix of anti-fighter beams, a few flak guns, and some rapid fire laser turrets. In a bomber you can pretty much walk right up to most destroyer class vessels and have at it, but a ship like this would eat you alive.
EDIT: Just so this post will have something to do with the Plato :) ... You probably wouldn't send a science vessel out on it's own, unless you actually want it taken out. You would want fighters or some other light escort with it to provide support. Giving the Plato weapons suited to defend itself against large ships is a good thing but it is a science vessel after all so haveing it armed to the hilt doesn't make much sense.
-
or it could be a big surprise in a small package ;7 (which is what i meant the former GTSC Plato to be :nervous: )
-
so, how's the mod now?
-
Cool. :yes:
-
anyone else? :nervous:
-
No bumping!
Be glad you got all the responses you did.
-
lol, i know, i just wanted to know if anyone is happy with the changes. ;)
-
(http://webspace.utexas.edu/mhn67/Xanga/PDR_0049.JPG)
-
AAAAHHHH!!! :shaking:
-
[color=66ff00]Keep it relevant guys.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by WMCoolmon
:wtf:
Too bad you weren't saying that when I was muching around in it some months ago.
Also IIRC taylor made some changes, but reverted them beccause they unbalanced missions (e.g. making a capship target asteroids with flak and AA made such missions extraordinarily easy. :p)
I was saying it alot... till just over a year ago when I stopped being a regular (would check in every day), and dropped to part time (weekends only).
Frankly, I haven't been able to keep up with the SCP (the latest WORKING version I have is 3.6.5 IIRC, going to wait for 3.7 before I start yelling about bugs;)), so I haven't really got a clue what's in there now.
I mean, with bob's new submodel code thingy, is the old limit on submodels per ship removed, and if yes whats the new one? And how the heck do you enable his new detail submodels? It's this sort of thing that those who have been following/developing understand, but things are not set out clearly for those who come in late...:nervous:
But I'm all in favor of a massive overhaul of the turret code, and the AI in general. I understand where Kara's coming from, but I wonder:
If the turret code AND the AI piloting code were equally upgraded, wouldn't the changes keep the balance (at least in fighter/bomber Vs cap ship scraps)?
I find it really annoying when your ship with with four big beams on the flanks uses instead four puny PPG's against a juggernaut, when said PPG's are not even in range:hopping: OF course, one can ensure that said beams are the weapons used, but it limits your ships weapon choices.
At least change the code so MP turets fire ONCE the normal is pointed at (or leading) the target, not as soon as it starts attacking...:ick:
-
(Dumb post deleted)
-
I think he was staying stopping he capships from fireing smaller weapons THAT ARE OUT OF RANGE ANYWAY at larger targets, or prefering smaller weapons against capatial ships even if the ship can fire at it with something bigger.
-
eh, my bad. :D
-
Close it.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
But I'm all in favor of a massive overhaul of the turret code, and the AI in general. I understand where Kara's coming from, but I wonder:
Hmm, wonder if Goober's busy.....*runs*:p
-
I will tell you: Yes, the FRED Contest.