Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Disconnect turret POV from maneuvers
FantasticPlastic
Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:59 am
#53
As a pilot of a multiplayer ship, my advice is to fly steady and get a fighter escort.
It's not some kind of a "bug"--the turret is attached to the ship, how else is it supposed to move? It's not floating separately in space.
Multiplayer ships can have heavy shields and armor, this is because they work best when they're flying slow and steady so your gunners can target more easily.
I agree they're not ideal for flying by themselves--a group of two or three A-wings can rip you up in a Decimator if you don't have any fighter company. But with a small fighter escort of one or two ships, the potential for damage and firepower is really multiplied.
If you have a capital ship to take on, your multiplayer ship can fly slow and steady, the pilot can aim the missiles and/or spacebombs, the turrets can pick off ships that come near you, while your fighter escort engages the enemy fighters at close range.
I dont' know about PVP, but this has worked pretty well for us in PVE so far.
O.
It's not some kind of a "bug"--the turret is attached to the ship, how else is it supposed to move? It's not floating separately in space.
Multiplayer ships can have heavy shields and armor, this is because they work best when they're flying slow and steady so your gunners can target more easily.
I agree they're not ideal for flying by themselves--a group of two or three A-wings can rip you up in a Decimator if you don't have any fighter company. But with a small fighter escort of one or two ships, the potential for damage and firepower is really multiplied.
If you have a capital ship to take on, your multiplayer ship can fly slow and steady, the pilot can aim the missiles and/or spacebombs, the turrets can pick off ships that come near you, while your fighter escort engages the enemy fighters at close range.
I dont' know about PVP, but this has worked pretty well for us in PVE so far.
O.
RSQViper
Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:05 pm
#54
Although the turrets obviously are not floating in space (that's obvious), the point is that if it takes at least 4 people to man stations then this ship should be at least as efficient as 4 starfighters. On top of that it is a master box ship and holds more stuff and takes more resources to make therefor costs more. A lot more.
Making turrets interdependant of the ship with hardpoints at the limits (where the turret would start to turn with the ship if reached) would make these ships much more effective and fun.
These ships should be numero uno of all ships when manned. That can't happen without this change, which in my opinion is a needed change.
Zutono
Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:44 pm
#55
Sad to say...but there are people who are good at being gunners, people who are good at being starfighter pilots, and people who are good at being gunboat pilots. Out of the 54 members of my guild, I have 2 or 3 people out of that number who are actually BETTER in a turret than in a single player ship. When I have them both active in my ship, it's rediculous the amount of survivability we have. 3 missile tubes for the pilot?! This is known as "anything in front of me dies." I set up my secondary weapon group to have all 3 tubes fire at one time. This results in a proton torpedo, a cuncussion missile, and an Image Rec (or space bomb, depending on our loadout) all firing at once. With a refire rate of 1.0 on my launchers, I can unload the entire boat in just a few seconds on a single attack run. Warlord cruisers, The Corvette, etc, all become targets that can be killed in3-4 attack runs.
Of course, I AM running a full array of droid specials, and it takes me 5 minutes to get them all run before we start fighting.
My point is get to know your people...find out what they're good at. Put the fighter-jockeys in single seaters and have them do their thing. Gunners/Gunboat operators, get in your MP ships and blast away. Everyone has a niche' in JTL...just have to find the right role for each member of your TEAM.
ArdenStarmariner
Tue Nov 16, 2004 12:50 pm
#56
/agree
Making them independent would definitly be a change for the better. And I actually like flying as a gunner.
Making them independent would definitly be a change for the better. And I actually like flying as a gunner.
WombatRun
Tue Nov 16, 2004 3:47 pm
#57
Frankly, most of you naysaying Casey's points here aren't getting it.
I've played every space sim that's come out of the box since Wing Commander, and the fact is that the current turret system blows.
You people that are stating things like "The turret can't move independently of the ship.. it's ON the ship" are really highlighting your ignorance of the issue. It's basically like this.. let's say there is a fighter approaching at an elevated level to the ship, and you are in the top turret-- the side facing the fighter's angle of approach. If the ship yaws left, your cross hairs are yanked off the target.
What we're asking here doesn't improve the gunner's skill, it just does what ever turret system ever designed is supposed to do.. allow the gunner to choose when he moves the weapon WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PHYSICS, OF COURSE, and not simple movements of the vehicle it is placed on.
obviously, a roll is going to have some affect.. it's possibly placing your turret out of operation. Yet, if you are the gunner looking to hold a target within your sights, and you have not been rolled out of the firing lane, you should be able to keep the turret trained on a point independant of the ship's movement. IOW, within a field of fire, the only thing moving your crosshair should be you.
It's possible you still don't get it. Maybe you maintain this silly WWII argument (you know, the one deliberately not accounting for all the different types of energy weapons, missiles, locking systems, and chaff) and you refuse to acknowledge the need. But the fact is that in PvE the hardest targets are certainly those that are turreted -- in PvP turrets are pretty much a joke. Even the most stubborn of people has to admit that there is obviously an issue with the game design when the weakest of PvP opponents are the strongest in PvE.
I've played every space sim that's come out of the box since Wing Commander, and the fact is that the current turret system blows.
You people that are stating things like "The turret can't move independently of the ship.. it's ON the ship" are really highlighting your ignorance of the issue. It's basically like this.. let's say there is a fighter approaching at an elevated level to the ship, and you are in the top turret-- the side facing the fighter's angle of approach. If the ship yaws left, your cross hairs are yanked off the target.
What we're asking here doesn't improve the gunner's skill, it just does what ever turret system ever designed is supposed to do.. allow the gunner to choose when he moves the weapon WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PHYSICS, OF COURSE, and not simple movements of the vehicle it is placed on.
obviously, a roll is going to have some affect.. it's possibly placing your turret out of operation. Yet, if you are the gunner looking to hold a target within your sights, and you have not been rolled out of the firing lane, you should be able to keep the turret trained on a point independant of the ship's movement. IOW, within a field of fire, the only thing moving your crosshair should be you.
It's possible you still don't get it. Maybe you maintain this silly WWII argument (you know, the one deliberately not accounting for all the different types of energy weapons, missiles, locking systems, and chaff) and you refuse to acknowledge the need. But the fact is that in PvE the hardest targets are certainly those that are turreted -- in PvP turrets are pretty much a joke. Even the most stubborn of people has to admit that there is obviously an issue with the game design when the weakest of PvP opponents are the strongest in PvE.
Cobra2468
Tue Nov 16, 2004 4:13 pm
#58
to much to read here but yeahi agree, the turrets should work like that. the warthog gun in halo and halo 2 is a good example of how the turrets on MP ships should work. if the turret is facing south and the ship turns east the turret will remain pointing south. if the turret is pointing up and the ship goes down the turret should still be pointing in the direction "up" use to be.
IntoTheGarbage
Wed Nov 17, 2004 1:07 am
#59
Vegitaa wrote:
...adding mount points to the MP ships. Add a second shield generator, multiple engine slots, additional reactors (we have a main why not a secondary) this way you can take advantage of the huge mass the MP's provide while making them better. Then when someone says, "Why is the MP's so overpowered/faster/tougher/etc..." The answer would be, " Because it has two shield generators, one forward one rear. It has 4 engines so of course it's fast. It has 2 guns per turret that why it fires faster. It has multiple reactors which is why it can continue to fire so much..."
/drool
Now THAT is a multi ship I can get behind. (and in)
Is it over powered? It shouldn't be. It should be at least as powerful as four single fighters working together. Arguably it should be more powerful given the higher level of co-operation between the four players in an MP ship vs the co-operation between 4 players in 4 fighters.
Fidgiter
Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:55 am
#60
Folks have pointed out that even with gyrostabilized turrets the MPS crewed by 4 will still be nowhere near as effective as 4 individual ships. Then there was a suggestion about multiple components which normally are not duplicated such as armor, shields, capacitor, reactor, engine, booster and perhaps doubling up the guns in the turrets.
Being able to stack multiple instances of mostof these things poses technical issues however, there is another way.
Add new schematics exclusive to MPS such as Mark VI and Mark VII gear and leave the mass as is. This could give a bump to the ship stats that would offset the grouping requirements.
CaseytheHutt
Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:43 am
#61
Possibly, but that still adds the issue of having to add logic to bind certain components to specific chassis - something currently not in the game.
I still think it would be easier to add new subcomponents for "heavy" upgrades. For instance, right now you can install an "intensifier" on a shield when crafting and that intensifier adds about 15% to the front and back hp of the shield but also increases the energy consumption by about 20%. Why not just add a "massive intensifier" that adds about 400% on to the front and back hp but has a similar effect upon energy consumption and mass as well. You'd end up with a shield generator that was VERY effective but that could not be installed in anything but an MPS just because of the mass limits. To cover this, you'd also want to add similar "massive" subcomponents for reactors, armor, and perhaps capacitors?
Moreover, the really cool way to add these in would be to make them loot drops off of large ships (anything from about a Lamda transport up) ONLY - not craftable - which would logically be equivalent to high-end component loot drops in the ground game (like Krayt tissues) so it fits well into the SWG way of doing things.
I still think it would be easier to add new subcomponents for "heavy" upgrades. For instance, right now you can install an "intensifier" on a shield when crafting and that intensifier adds about 15% to the front and back hp of the shield but also increases the energy consumption by about 20%. Why not just add a "massive intensifier" that adds about 400% on to the front and back hp but has a similar effect upon energy consumption and mass as well. You'd end up with a shield generator that was VERY effective but that could not be installed in anything but an MPS just because of the mass limits. To cover this, you'd also want to add similar "massive" subcomponents for reactors, armor, and perhaps capacitors?
Moreover, the really cool way to add these in would be to make them loot drops off of large ships (anything from about a Lamda transport up) ONLY - not craftable - which would logically be equivalent to high-end component loot drops in the ground game (like Krayt tissues) so it fits well into the SWG way of doing things.
Fidgiter
Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:09 am
#62
CaseytheHutt wrote:
Possibly, but that still adds the issue of having to add logic to bind certain components to specific chassis - something currently not in the game.
True but also fairly easy to validate
I still think it would be easier to add new subcomponents for "heavy" upgrades. For instance, right now you can install an "intensifier" on a shield when crafting and that intensifier adds about 15% to the front and back hp of the shield but also increases the energy consumption by about 20%. Why not just add a "massive intensifier" that adds about 400% on to the front and back hp but has a similar effect upon energy consumption and mass as well. You'd end up with a shield generator that was VERY effective but that could not be installed in anything but an MPS just because of the mass limits. To cover this, you'd also want to add similar "massive" subcomponents for reactors, armor, and perhaps capacitors?
Apart from being more difficult to validate from the ship management screen, how is this different than Mark VI and VII components? Of course the Mark VI and VII components would also have subcomponents. Ultimately the constraint of the MPS would be power and not Mass.
Moreover, the really cool way to add these in would be to make them loot drops off of large ships (anything from about a Lamda transport up) ONLY - not craftable - which would logically be equivalent to high-end component loot drops in the ground game (like Krayt tissues) so it fits well into the SWG way of doing things.
Maybe looted schematics or something akin to Firespray <groan> disks. As a "Player Economy" guy I don't like to see the skill point and resource investment undermined by loot but that is a subject for another thread. For now let's just leave it as an agreement that MPS only components are made available in some form.
CaseytheHutt
Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:26 am
#63
"For now let's just leave it as an agreement that MPS only components are made available in some form."
Exactly, we're both arguing for the same thing - just nit picking about how best to do it
I lean the way I do because, as a general rule, I try to push the devs for whichever solution is going to require the LEAST amount of effort on their part, on the assumption that the less effort required, the more likely they are to go for it. My own little revision on Okam's Razor : net effect being equal the solution that requires the least coding is the easiest to talk the devs into
EDIT: Darnit, mispelled Okam!
Exactly, we're both arguing for the same thing - just nit picking about how best to do it
I lean the way I do because, as a general rule, I try to push the devs for whichever solution is going to require the LEAST amount of effort on their part, on the assumption that the less effort required, the more likely they are to go for it. My own little revision on Okam's Razor : net effect being equal the solution that requires the least coding is the easiest to talk the devs into
EDIT: Darnit, mispelled Okam!
Message Edited by CaseytheHutt on 11-17-2004 10:27 AM
Fidgiter
Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:00 am
#64
Making the MPS more fun to play and making it durable enough to justify 4 in 1 rather than 4 in 4 is the answer to the MPS.
Give the purpose MPS are intended to have and let the solo fighters fire forward.
Bugboy321
Fri Jan 14, 2005 9:46 am
#65
Manning a turret isn't something you can just toss a guildie into and expect them to do a good job, it takes practice, practice, practice. Yes, it's hard tracking targets but IT'S HARD TRACKING TARGETS! While I agree the MP ships need to be made a little hardier, 2 good guns, 2 good gunners and a pilot that has the situational awareness to pilot the ship in a manner that makes targeting for the turrets effective is all it takes. There's way too much complaining about this aspect or that aspect when in reality you just need to get better at it. And grabbing a bunch of guildies and expecting to be successful defending a MP ship is not the way to get better at it, after all even the WWII B-17 bombers were sitting ducks without an escort, and until they put the drop tanks on the mustangs to escort them,they had major loss of aircraft.Additionally, the crews of the B-17's were a closeknit group ofsoldiers thatate, slept and drank together, they didn't just meetFriday nights to go bomb the heck out ofGermany. The MP ships are NOT attack ships, they are bombers and need to have a fighter escort. If you don't have an escort I would suggest you try easier prey.