Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Interesting analogy regarding the Actis Interceptor
The technology age spread argument really only works when one military is engaging an enemy that is a non-threat to the units.
Personally I think part of the problem is how the ship loadouts work. If there was a chassis mass, and load out mass, and your handling was a factor of engine strength vs chassis mass + load mass, things would be more interesting. If you wanted the super fast handling of a light ship, you can't tank it to its max mass capacity. High chassis mass would allow higher load mass capacity, and the ability to add heavy gear would make up for the lack of manuverability due to the chassis weight.
Then, even if you could put 80k mass load into a 20k mass ship*,you'd get1/5th the handling.
* (think, hollow, armorless, engineless, componentlessshell)
The real problem, is that the "new ships" weren't added to improve the balance, but get existing users upgrade to RoTW for the far better ships. They were tweaked until it generated the "yeah everyone will want one" response. This makes trouble for a game that is adding more competitive weaponary, but is stationary it its timeline.
Other than that, we need something other than a single success vector for ships. Most games have one class (usually barbarian or something) that is simply maximizes the primary game mechanic "win" mechanisms.
In JLS, starfighter is the only class, and if you fly a tank or a hummingbird, how close your stats come to matching the perfect light starfighter is all that matters in the single tactical combat strategy. Until you can fly a bomber as a bomber, a fighter as a fighter, and a decimator/nova as a decimator/nova, where different factors push to gain successful loadouts based on different strategies, we will all fly the latest winning ship the devs roll out in the next space expansion.
Something overlooked in this discussion... Modern day aircraft (chassis) only set the envelope for how the aircraft handles andits possible loadout(how many g's it can take, how much weight it can carry *on the missile pods*, etc)... The componetry determines who it can "smoke."
An F-14 with an advanced weapon system (radar, targeting computer, missile, etc) will beat a F-22 Raptor with a 1970's era weapon system...
So there are a lot of factors to consider. Perhaps the reason the JSF can carry so much mass is it is made of superior materials (made for the Jedi) and is not a "mass produced craft."
Grievous Fighter
Every server has at least one guy with nothing better to do then solo Necro. I do it on ahazi, there are hundreds to thousands on vendors, mine for 100k. So the arguement of "its unbeatable" is moot, anyone can fly the grievous, and its identical in every way thats important.
Really the only valid arguement in the entire situation is the "should they even be in game" one, which would kick off the older opp vs awing crap all over again.
This game isn't Falcon AF or LOMAC or Jane's F-18. This game is Star Wars Galaxies. When the new RotW ships were introduced, only the most head-in-the-ground denier could say that the new ships were anything balanced compared to the currently available crop.
To add insult to injury, these new ships weren't craftable, but were handed out in deed form from quests. A gigantic F*** Y** to all the Shipwrights, everywhere.
What's your point with the analogy, anyway? Yeah, the F-14 has better performance than many of today's fighters. Whoopdedoo. Care to compare the F-14's performance against the now-in-service F/A-22A to see how "superior" it is? The fricking "A" model of the Tomcat couldn't even change its throttle settings too quickly or else an engine stall would be induced. That's a really great attribute in a fighter.
Sarcastic? Yes, I am. But quite frankly, someone using real world data to justify the imbalance in a SCIENCE FICTION GAME really deserves it.
Coran_Sienar wrote:
We don't care.
This game isn't Falcon AF or LOMAC or Jane's F-18. This game is Star Wars Galaxies. When the new RotW ships were introduced, only the most head-in-the-ground denier could say that the new ships were anything balanced compared to the currently available crop.
To add insult to injury, these new ships weren't craftable, but were handed out in deed form from quests. A gigantic F*** Y** to all the Shipwrights, everywhere.
What's your point with the analogy, anyway? Yeah, the F-14 has better performance than many of today's fighters. Whoopdedoo. Care to compare the F-14's performance against the now-in-service F/A-22A to see how "superior" it is? The fricking "A" model of the Tomcat couldn't even change its throttle settings too quickly or else an engine stall would be induced. That's a really great attribute in a fighter.
Sarcastic? Yes, I am. But quite frankly, someone using real world data to justify the imbalance in a SCIENCE FICTION GAME really deserves it.
When I type a post, I full expect some of it to go over people's heads. I never expect the entire post to go over someone's head. You have given me new insight on the ability to completely miss a point.
And just where did the model for that Science Fiction come from? People write about what they know. Sci-Fi revolves around and is molded by real experiences and true facts. If this were EQ, you might have a valid arguement, but this is Star Wars and much of it is based on real history...you just have to have your eyes open enough to see it.
I'll put it in words you can understand.
In Star Wars, the JTF being better than a TIE is totally acceptable! If you can't figure out why, you need to go back and do a bit more reading. 
"Ironically, the F-14 has more mass, and better electronics than its own replacement. This is why I believe it is a perfect example."
Yeah, someone actually tried to use real world examples to justify the imbalance in a Science Fiction game.
Sure, in a book where nothing interacts with it, it's acceptable. But if you are going to whip out EU stats and any other BS to support the JSF, then here's a few things about the timeline from Lucas, himself:
1. There are only 3 Jedi. Vader, Palpatine and Yoda.
2. Tiefighters don't have shields.
3. Tiefighters (and all of their variants) don't have hyperdrives.
You can't just pick and choose parts of the EU that you like to support an imbalance in a multiplayer game. That's what you're missing.
Message Edited by Coran_Sienar on 09-02-2005 03:06 PM
Coran_Sienar wrote:
Umm...I guess I was imagining:
"Ironically, the F-14 has more mass, and better electronics than its own replacement. This is why I believe it is a perfect example."
Yeah, someone actually tried to use real world examples to justify the imbalance in a Science Fiction game.
Read what I said again. "If this were EQ, you might have a valid arguement, but this is Star Wars and much of it is based on real history" I was supporting what I said, so you didn'tcatch me in some mistake.
Sure, in a book where nothing interacts with it, it's acceptable. But if you are going to whip out EU stats and any other BS to support the JSF, then here's a few things about the timeline from Lucas, himself:
1. There are only 3 Jedi. Vader, Palpatine and Yoda.
What jedi did Admiral Thrawn join forces with? If there are truely only 3, then where did he come from? Remember, Lucas did approve the books to be apart of the EU, you can even get your info from www.Starwars.com.
Lucas has approved everything in the EU and in the books that have been written. They can't have the name without his approval.SWG is no considered apart of the EU. Joruus C'baoth - sure he was a clone...but then..wasn't the Emperor?
2. Tiefighters don't have shields.
Lucas has approved everything in the EU and in the books that have been written. They can't have the name without his approval.SWG is no considered apart of the EU.
Your arguement on sheilds would hold water if we actually were in a Naval squadron assigned to a fleet. Sadly, like Stormtroopers, we are not and can not be. We are actaully more like mercenaries to our faction. This is much in the fashion that Han was to the Rebellion. That being the case, we are able to add additional gear to our ships...and mass? Well, we are able to use better lighter equipment to get it all to fit. It is possible to use the rules from the RP game to do this and stay within the restrictions of those set by the books.
3. Tiefighters (and all of their variants) don't have hyperdrives.
Lucas has approved everything in the EU and in the books that have been written. They can't have the name without his approval.SWG is no considered apart of the EU.
Hyperdrives? Again, same response as above.Stock fighters didn't have them. We don't fly stock fighters. Don't like the fighters inthe game flown by NPCs having sheilds or hyperdrives? Take it up with SOE and LA. They are the ones that approved them, but it has no relavence in there being a JSF in the game...as there was likely far more JSF made than there are any of us flying tricked out fighters.
You can't just pick and choose parts of the EU that you like to support an imbalance in a multiplayer game. That's what you're missing.
I'm not picking and chosing, you are. I'm not missing anything. Even if you disagree with 2 and 3....1 is a fact from the books, and he would have been around. There is much to support other jedi in the EU as well...all approved by Lucas. You can try and play the Movie Cannon card all you like, but in this MMO.....it don't mean jack. Star Wars is not just the movie...it is the EU, the books, the RPG games...all approved by LA and Lucas.
Message Edited by Coran_Sienar on 09-02-200503:06 PM
Vulthoom wrote:
I think the real world analogy of the F-14 is rather flawed. An airplane such as the F-14's service lifespan has as much to do with political and war conditions as does the design. The F-14 is not really a premier Interceptor anymore. It is a long range , pretty high speed missile platform. Whether or not it has been upgraded, doesn't make the design any less aged. Fighters such as the MiG-29, MiG-31, and Su-27 (to give an opposing force perspective) will spank an F-14 in air to air combat. The reasons for it not being replaced have more to do with the major world powers not going to war, and the fact that congress doesn't allow the Navy or any other branch to replace it's entire interceptor fleet when something better pops up after a few years. And making a comparison of 2 airplanes that were made for different roles isn't really supportive of the argument being made. The F/A-18 is a fighter/attack (ground support) aircraft. It is not a true interceptor. Comparing the F-14 to the F-22 Raptor would be a more realistic picture, at which point the fanboi-ism would fade away, and the F-22 would show the true age of the F-14 design.
Comparing them to an F/A-18 is actually more realistic than to the F-22.Whether or not the analogy is flawed is irrelevent. Anyone with any hint of common sense knows that theActis is much too powerful.But here's another analogy anyways,
Today I was watching a segment abouttheBlue Angels on the Military Channel. They compared the combatconfigured F/A-18 to the Blue Angel configuration of the same aircraft. The combat F/A-18 is outfitted with external fuel tanks, missle pylons, ect. for combat engagements. This gives the aircraft a fair amount of drag and reduces its potential manueverability.
In comparison, the Blue Angel F/A-18 lacks any external devices, pylons, ect. The aircraft is streamlined, painted with drag resistant paint, and are much lighter. The aircraft is capable of much slower/faster speeds, tighter turns, and much greater manueverability overall.
Same Aircraft, different config. My point is that the Actis is over powered because it loses no manueverability as its mass increases. A pilot, of anystarship,should have to make a choice, Firepower or Manueverability. In the Actis' case, when fully optimizedfor Firepower, it should show a substantial lack of speed and manuevering. More so than an X-Wing because of its older design and size.