Pilot Archive
Thread: How to stop Capital Ships going the way of the JSF
I had a thought today about Capital ships, make them require a rank beyond colonel in order to fly one. And for neutrals, well, I don't know, maybe they wouldn't get as large of vessels or something.
Kirsha - Kettemoor
From a shipwright perspective I think these should be player made. Perhaps a schematic for each component, turrets, bridge, engine, shields, secondary shields, chassis. The schematics could be looted, quested, etc..
First you would have to create the chassis, then add in the proper number of crafted turrets, the engine, bridge, and shields.
This would, firstly, limit the number of capital ships in space due to the facteach component would be cratedand createdfrom a schematic that was looted, require multiple components, and those components and the chassis would requre MASS resources. You'd probably be looking at 8+ million resources to create a Correllian Corvette.
There was talk, at one time, of the possibility of shipwrights being able to drop a hangar. If this is the case then it'd make sense that only shipwrights with a hangar would be able to craft such a ship. It could beelaborated upon by adding a built-in crafting station in the hangar, one that was customized to accomodate the size of the Vette.
The RotW ships being quest given instead of crafted really put a finger up at shipwrights, already a less-used and frequently abused crafting profession. This would help to set things straight.
Blackfoot wrote:
The RotW ships being quest given instead of crafted really put a finger up at shipwrights, already a less-used and frequently abused crafting profession. This would help to set things straight.
Blackfoot wrote:
From a shipwright perspective I think these should be player made. Perhaps a schematic for each component, turrets, bridge, engine, shields, secondary shields, chassis. The schematics could be looted, quested, etc..
First you would have to create the chassis, then add in the proper number of crafted turrets, the engine, bridge, and shields.
This would, firstly, limit the number of capital ships in space due to the facteach component would be cratedand createdfrom a schematic that was looted, require multiple components, and those components and the chassis would requre MASS resources. You'd probably be looking at 8+ million resources to create a Correllian Corvette.
There was talk, at one time, of the possibility of shipwrights being able to drop a hangar. If this is the case then it'd make sense that only shipwrights with a hangar would be able to craft such a ship. It could beelaborated upon by adding a built-in crafting station in the hangar, one that was customized to accomodate the size of the Vette.
The RotW ships being quest given instead of crafted really put a finger up at shipwrights, already a less-used and frequently abused crafting profession. This would help to set things straight.
I think the first step should be making the Capitol ships like space bases, as suggested. Give the pilots a "navy" rank to go with the army ranks. Then, with enough FP, you can place a Capitol ship at some place,maybe deep space/kessel. I'm not sure how to work them in to planetary space. But, opposing factions can board them, defeat any NPCs OR players onboard and can set a destruct/disable weapons/etc. Opposing pilots can also destroy the ship, but it would take LOTS of Aces to do this. Allow same faction to defend the ship, as well as man the ship's defenses.
I think that there isa small flaw in the faction ranking system as of now. FP gained in flying is only used on the ground. That makes some sense, I guess. But why don't we get Navy ranks instead? Guess that's another topic... sorry.
apprentice_of_eld wrote:
I think the first step should be making the Capitol ships like space bases, as suggested. Give the pilots a "navy" rank to go with the army ranks. Then, with enough FP, you can place a Capitol ship at some place,maybe deep space/kessel. I'm not sure how to work them in to planetary space. But, opposing factions can board them, defeat any NPCs OR players onboard and can set a destruct/disable weapons/etc. Opposing pilots can also destroy the ship, but it would take LOTS of Aces to do this. Allow same faction to defend the ship, as well as man the ship's defenses.
I think that there isa small flaw in the faction ranking system as of now. FP gained in flying is only used on the ground. That makes some sense, I guess. But why don't we get Navy ranks instead? Guess that's another topic... sorry.
/agree
How about we require manufacturing of main components be done in some sort of "Dry Dock" type Starship Chassis Factory, that has a similar appearance to a structure factory installation.
CommTampers wrote:It's not fair to make space content drop on ground. Also, what good is new content if it is sooooo limited?
But ground content (ie high end smuggler tools) drops in space.
BuzzBot wrote:
No, they won't SIT there, they'll be flying around...I guess...We really need small(ish) player-controlled space stations. It'd be awesome not to have to land for days on end. You'd just dock your ship at the station, and logg off on your bunk! Deticated pilots would never have to land. You could have supply shuttles come up with crates of what you needed. These could be places in, say, DS and Kessel, and player capital ships would have to capture them. That or there could be one Imperial station and one Rebel station at opposite ends in both Kessel and DS, now THAT would be cool!
I like this... now what if those supply ships (fuel barges and ect. ) where atackable by the opposite faction? lets say there where negitive effects on the station if the supplies don't reach the station like repair costs going up, maybe not even being able to repair fully or even eventualy having the station go to abandoned status, so it would be int the intrest of these pilots to defend there convoys (we could have both PvP and PvE escorts as part of this, how cool would that be?). Yeah I know... "but the kiddies will grief me Oib"... well if you want to be a bigger part of the GCW we need a way for things to swing back and forth, and that means opening up to the posibility somone else winning.