Pilot Archive

---

LeaphChausew wrote:
Ok then.

As for Silverladys quote about ROTW ship pilots not losing to pre-ROTW ship pilots, well come over to Starsider for a day and I'd be more than happy to show you ..or -anyone- what an A-wing can do vs. these ships. Its all about effort and thinking outside of the parameters of mere ship statistics. Rapax was very right when he suggested of thinking of each pvp encounter as a puzzle.

---

This is precisely my point, Leaph...precisely.

You are not outclassed in your A-wing by a ROTW ship. This is a combination of your experience, skill, knowledge of the A-wing's capabilities, and your time and care with your loadout. That might also very well be in order of importance, though only you could answer that question.

What I am trying to say, is that if the ROTW were as unbalanced as the towne criers claim you_would_have_no_chance in an A-wing...but as both of us have stated...this is not the case.

I congratulate you on what you have done so far, and what you continue to try to do. It's just too bad more people donot seem totake your viewpoint and run with it like you have, instead of crying about imbalance.

Oh, and Rapax is right, btw...if we all keep crying about how things are unbalanced (me included, with my view that all snub fighters are overpowered), then SOE will do a balance pass someday, at the end of which *it will take 4 people just to kill a damn gunboat* is what he said, if I remember right.

---

silverlady wrote:

---

quadpers0n wrote:

i'm not sure i understand the logic on how it's going to get worse after a WO3 fix. essentially guns of all tiers have comparable energy per shot and reactor drain values. (for arguements sake). if a JSF with a tiny capacitor/reactor suddenly doesn't have enough juice to sustain spraying fire, won't it have to modify it's capacitor to accomodate? won't this force it to lose some of it's other advantages?

conversely, the heavy fighters can equip larger mass (and damage) guns, currently using the same tiny reactor/capacitor combo. they will need to replace their capacitor/reactor as well, but don't they have substantially more leeway in doing so because of more mass? with the end result of still being able to use larger guns?

---

A good way to look at it, Quad...but incomplete.

How many weapons do these heavy ships carry in comparison to the lighter ones?

I use roughly the same setup for my lighter fighters. Long and short of the story, I currently run EO4 and WO3. If WO3 is fixed, I will not have to change a thing on my setup, and drop to EO3. I don't hold the fire button, so EPS is not a huge concern for me, nor will it be with a fix. Now, consider my second sentence again...the heavy ships mount 4-6 weapons. Not 2-3. That's 2-4 MORE weapons that will have their drain divided by .3 (point three). In short, the heavier ships are going to feel the power crunch much, much more than the lighter ships...this is a mathematical certainty, and cannot be argued.

As it stands, it is currently the opinion that, with a few exceptions, the heavy ships are at a disadvantage to the lighter ships overall. I know that there are some fantastic B-wing/Firespray etc pilots, with fantastic loadouts, but generally speaking, the heavy ships are outclassed. This will become even more pronounced if/when WO3 is fixed. Do the math on your own ships, and you will see that I am right. Don't forget the drains on missle launchers in your WO calculations.

Bottom line: most of us that have decent RE'd equipment will only have to make minor (if any) changes to equipment and tactics...and very few of us will be able to run EO4/WO3 anymore. The heavier ships will pretty much require one of the high generation reactors to maintain their current standard of performance, and will almost certainly have to make more hardware changes than a lighter ship. The math is on my side, and this cannot be argued. While it is true that the heavier ships have more mass to *play with* as you say, that alone is not enough to bridge the gap. Flying a heavier ship, while having more firepower per volley,said firepower willacutally end up beingmore of a liability than an advantage, and the ship is still easier to hit.

Coran - The SR-71 was decomissioned because we have something better, and it's not satellites. Otherwise, why take it out of service? I do love the Blackbird, btw...it is my favorite plane.

You are also correct with your techincal definitions of mass, matter, and density. However, they do not make anything that I said to be incorrect in any way.

---

i see the drain increasing... although it won't affect me since i have a 37k generation reactor. but what i don't understand is the energy per shot math people are talking about. generally speaking people in lighter fighters use smaller capacitors. let's say on average 1k energy doubled to 2k after overloading. with 2 guns that capacitor is going to be emptied (forgetting the borstel, and forgetting recharge) in about 15 shots? is my math off?

so of course, a b-wing in an identical setup would empty his cap in half that time. let's say 6 shots.

but the b-wing pilot also has only spent 1/6th it's mass on the same guns a small fighter spent 1/3 its mass on and he has 2 more. so slap a level 8 capacitor in there and double your # of shots, bringing it in line with the lighter fighter. the only difference is, instead of doing 2 guns worth of damage, you are doing 4. for the price the small fighter pays for 2, yet still having mass left over to use a much bigger engine and possibly even still using eo4 providing you have the more and more common high generation reactors. (I looted 4 or 5 in the past month alone, in addition to the 3 i already have). a pilot who is discerning about his equipment in a heavy fighter seemingly would be able to pack a better engine, overload it higher, fire as many shots but double the damage of the lighter ship. same thing applies to the heavier 2 gun ships. they get the same guns as the smaller ships, but if the upgrade to 2 10s they use the same 1/3 mass, but get around 3k more damage out of it.

maybe it's late and i'm missing something. but whenever i do the math on my oppressor, and consider that most people are going to drop engines down to do the same damage, yet still not have room for larger capacitors, while i have a huge capacitor, ample reactor room, twin 4.7k guns and a massive YPR level 10 engine...

i dunno it just seems like a wo3 fix puts me solidy ahead of light fighter pilots. i think about a pob, soon to have around 30k of defense (not counting shunts, rebel programs, etc) and i think, "ok a light fighter can dish out that kind of damage, but in practice will it? or will it be flying around with a 25% full cap perpetually because it's constantly draining the level 2 and 4 capacitors people normally put in them?"

what am I missing here? i get what you are saying about reactor drain, that's going to force alot of pilots to do less damage or go a bit slower until they get a big reactor, but i don't quite understand the math associated with the big fighters not being able to dish out as much punishment. it seems to me like the only thing stopping heavy fighters/bombers from being faster, heavier hitting, and better protected, at the expense of hitbox size, is finding a 23k generation kuat.

maybe we need to look at real word examples side by side? or is there something easy and i just need to sleep?

Quad:

I did not say that the heavy ships will have less firepower...I said they will be hit harder by a WO3 fix. This cannot be argued. The heavy ships will require ahigh generation reactor to maintain their current levels of performance in terms of engine and weapons. On the capacitor note...honestly, don't people already use larger caps in the heavy ships? If not, well, that's kind of short-sighted, in my opinion.

Short version: If WO3 is fixed, the heavy fighters will be effected more, and will almost certainly have to make more changes to perhaps both equipment and droid program usage than the light fighters. Chances are, the light fighters will not have to change any equipment, and just move down to EO3. Hence, heavy fighters will be impacted to a greater degree than light fighters. I also think the light fighters will become an even better option than they currently are if this change comes to pass.

Maybe I'm wrong.

But I don't think so.

Aurora is a fantasy. It does not exist. The fastest aircraft on record, shy of the shuttle, is the X-15, which clocked in a little over Mach 6 in the 60's.

The fastest spacecraft were the Apollos, which entered TLI at a little over 37,000 MPH. About 50% faster than the shuttles.

As far as the issues with the JSF, the failure is purely in balance. Superior mass, superior maneuvering, superior hit box. Every factor that determined the relationship between spacecraft prior to the launch of ROTW thrown completely out the window.

I don't think of them as the composite of space, I think of them as the Jedi of space. You aren't unbreakable in them, you aren't untouchable in them. But like the Jedi players, I've seen mediocre players exceed their normal performance limits by using them.

Think of it this way. A lot of people with Jedi templates can't PvP or PvE for crap in any other skillset. Some JSF pilots are the same way. Stick them in a JSF and you get decent performance, stick them in anything else, and they're cannon fodder. Its pathetically forgiving.

see that's the part i don't get. you say light fighters won't have to change, but the big thing they will have to change is their energy per shot usage. if they have even two borstels in their ship it's going to be taking around80 a pull out of the capacitor. draining it very quickly. i see what you are saying about accomodating the inreased reactor costs associated with fixing wo3, but i don't understand the math when you talk about capacitor strength and energy per shot.

it seems to me that light fighters will be hit very hard, as they won't have room to put bigger capacitors on their ships. most now, if not 99% use level 2 caps. theyespecially wil be reluctant to sacrifice mass for a new capacitor if they are already going to be taking a hit in the speed/manuverability department by not being able to use eo4 anymore.

most people are going to be trying to do the same damage, only emptying their capacitors in 10-12 shots. keep in mind, energy per shot doesn't change significantly from a level 3 gun to a level 10 gun, and good high level RE jobs can get down amazingly low. not borstel low, but still pretty darn low. so the heavy fighter with 10s is going to be going through capacitor juice at the same speed as the JSF with two 6s, but doubling the damage output. (sorta)

i would think people would be fed up with emptying capacitors and would want to move to heavy fighters as soon as they found a way to power the thing, and after powering it they would dominate lighter fighters attempting to keep up in the damage department by sacrificing eo4 for eo3. i mean i'll have a 82/82/82 100 speed ypr engine, plus i'll be using eo4 AND wo3 with 2 huge guns. my hitbox will be bigger, but i dunno if you've ever gone up against a 82/82/82 ypr fighter using only eo3 and a smaller ypr engine. you really gotta use that chassis reaction time to it's fullest to perform in that kind of situation, and imo getting a hyper manuverable/fast light fighter is going to end up being harder than merely finding a high gen reactor and a level 6 cap. OR people will keep their hyper manuverability and sacrifice gun strength to fit on a capacitor that enables them to keep spraying shots around and shield stunting.

this will end up having essentially the same affect as mitigation based on chassis, at least if my logic works. i don't see the flaw in it... but like i said, maybe i'm missing something. anyone?

---

JanuHull wrote:

Aurora is a fantasy. It does not exist. The fastest aircraft on record, shy of the shuttle, is the X-15, which clocked in a little over Mach 6 in the 60's.

The fastest spacecraft were the Apollos, which entered TLI at a little over 37,000 MPH. About 50% faster than the shuttles.

---

---

silverlady wrote:

SOE is using the word mass because it does not change. The problem is, they are also using it to emulate the way we think of weight, which is the root of the problem and the misunderstanding. While it does sound like arguing semantics, it's really not. Weight means nothing in space, and that is why mass is used as the delimiter for what we can mount on our ships.

You are making an assumption when you say that the JSF/A-wing are probably made out of the same materials. I am not saying that you are wrong, because you are probably right...but still an assumption.

---

Well I did say the same or similer materials and yep it's an assumption, not going to spend more time then an assumption on that takes for two ships in a computer game

You're right, Quad, but I think perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say.

Capacitors, like reactor generation, do not scale properly (in my opinion) with reference to the mass increases that come with it. I am not (and do not claim to be) a master when it comes to knowing every stat possible on every piece of equipment. You are correct when you say that drains/eps do not vary/scale much when it comes to weapons. Mass, damage, and to a certain extent, refire rate do vary, which is obviously what limits which weapons can go into which ships while maintaining total viability. But these variables are outside the scope of what we are discussing.

I am going to take a couple of guesses here, and if I am wrong, please put in correct numbers for me, and we'll see how it turns out in the end.

Caps:

Decent cap for a light fighter (or any ship, for that matter) has about 1200 energy, and somewhere around 40 regen.

Higher level caps are what, about 1800 energy, and 60 regen?

Weapons: Janu mentioned in some other thread using level 7 or 9 quickfires in a B-wing (I think)...and let's assume a pair of level 6 RE's for the light fighter, since all of them can fit these with ease.

Forget about damage, let's just look at eps - are quickfires around 23/shot? I confess, this I do not know, and to tell you the truth, I'm not terribly sure what my level 6 RE's are, since up to this point it has not really been relevant. For comparison, let's just assume 23/shot on all weapons in question, and both ships using Cap Overload 4, WO3.

Focusing on EPS and how it relates to the capacitor alone:

Light fighter running CO4 - 2400 energy, 160 regen

running WO3 - EPS is about 153

drains cap in 15-16 volleys, cap takes 15 seconds to charge from 0 to 2400

B-wing running CO4 - 3600 energy, 240 regen

running WO3 - EPS is about 306

drains cap in 11-12 volleys, cap takes 15 seconds to charge from 0 to 3600

Now let's look at the damage comparison - let's assume that every shot from every weapon hits every time, with a damage of 2k...none of the above happens, but it is a good indicator of the *best case scenario*

Light fighter, 16 volleys, 64k damage

B-wing, 12 volleys, 96k damage

Looks good for the heavy ship, yeah? Indeed it does, and here is where I think we are not on the same page. Up to this point, you are absolutely correct...the heavy fighter does significantly more damage than the light fighter in what could very well be the same amount of time, using the best case scenario for both ships. However, what has to take place in order to make this happen is my entire point.

1) In my opinion, a high generation reactor and a huge capacitorare not negotiable when using a heavy fighter.

2) Unless you are bent on continuing to use EO4, neither is necessary for the light fighter, and performance is not terribly affected. Honestly, if you hold down the fire button as you fly, then you deserve to be out of juice, but that's just my opinion. People that already take good shots will not be affected very much by a WO3 change. However, even in careful shooters in a heavy ship will have to take note, and use quite a bit more caution.

Which leads to my final point. Most of the heavy ships in question already require more piloting skill to line up good shots against the zippy fighters, which is as it should be. I think we call all agree that generally speaking, the light fighters are at an advantage because the defenses on the heavy fighters are not good enough to compensate for the maneuverability of the small fighters...which are fully capable of one-shot kills, and they should not be, unless fighting another small fighter. Point being...it's much, much easier to get into a *best case scenario* with the small fighter, generally speaking, so the heavy is, in practice, not as good as the numbers play it out to be.

If any of my equipment stat numbers are wrong, please put on ones that are more correct, and we'll see how it all comes out. I want to have a good, and correct discussion on this topic, and using correct figures is the way to go at it objectively.

The boxing analogy used hereis flawed.

The main difference between the heavyweights and flyweights is simple...

-Flyweights are nimble and have a tiny hitbox. They willtap you with many smallish hits while staying evasive and out of reach; wearing you down over time.

The Aurora does not exist.

You have proof of this, I assume?

Honestly, it sounds like your opinion vs my opinion, neither of which is based on hard proof.

I also misspoke when I mentioned the Aurora...I made it sound as if *this* was the replacement, in fact I did state that right out. However, I also said that *we have something better*, and if it's not the Aurora, then something else. The SR-71 was taken out of service for a reason...meaning, we have something that performs the same function better/more effeciently. An unmanned spyplane, perhaps?

Oh, and the shuttle does have incendiary-typeengines...they are not used in orbit, but they are there.

One last note on the shuttle - it can be considered an aircraft, and it's orbital speed is over 17k mph...last I checked, Mach 6 was about 4440...

---

silverlady wrote:

---

Oh, and Silver: Physics FTW!!

---

I can't tell if you are making fun of me or not

---

---

TheDarkness4u wrote:

JSF vs A-wing

JSF vs Grevious

---

---

Ducimus wrote:

---

Ducimus wrote:
I think most everyone can agree that sycks can be an annoyance in PvE. Not hard, just slightly annoying.

well.... i have no further comment, i did grab some nice screenies though.


JSF VS Syck - top down

JSF VS Syck - Side view

JSF VS Dunelizard - top down

---

I love pictures, dont you? The following are picks of a Khraxi NPC i disabled, but it is essentually a vaskai, the model is identical.

JSF VS Vaskai - rear view

JSF VS Vaskai - side view

JSF VS Vaskai - Bottom, upwards view


EDIT:

I just have to say, no ship should be THAT freaking small.

While im at it, i still have these. Wingspan is about the same (nevermind that a hit on the JSF's wingtips wont regester any damage *rolls eyes*), but the chassis, is most definatly shorter, In sum, its even smaller then an A wing.

JSF VS AWing - side
JSF VS AWing - rear
JSF VS AWing - top
JSF VS AWing - bottom

Message Edited by Ducimus on 08-31-2005 11:07 PM

---