Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Gothars on August 12, 2012, 06:16:39 PM
-
The title pretty much sums it up. Maneuvering Jets are among the weaker systems so they could use a little boost. And it is specifically stated in the description that they are separate thrusters, so it would make sense for them not to be affected by a burnout.
-
Unless flameouts cause catastrophic system failure in all your engines (which they do) and put the extra thrusters out of action as well....
-
They are getting a boost in the next update. 100+ base speed. And no flux cost.
-
They are getting a boost in the next update. 100+ base speed. And no flux cost.
Really? I don't see anywhere where it says it gets another +50 speed, just that it will now stack with the zero-flux bonus.
-
Which essentially equates to +100 speed.
-
Yes, but 1/2 of it is not from the system, so the system isn't being buffed in the sense of getting even more speed, only in the sense that it's now compatible with the zero flux boost.
-
I think the point that Yoshi's trying to get across is that ships with jets get an effective +100 no-flux bonus as opposed to the 50 with standard ships. I think the Conquest just turned into a monster
-
I think the point that Yoshi's trying to get across is that ships with jets get an effective +100 no-flux bonus as opposed to the 50 with standard ships.
I realize that. I have already said I realize that. That still doesn't mean that Jets give +100 base speed all by themselves, which seemed to be was what Faiter was implying.
-
Blagh, I'm not reading the right people for the posts. Thought that Yoshi had posted both of 'em. This is what staying up until the early hours does to a mind
-
And for how much firepower the Conquest can bring to a fight and it can now cruise at, what, 100+ speed while all guns blazing. It IS going to be a monster.
-
And for how much firepower the Conquest can bring to a fight and it can now cruise at, what, 100+ speed while all guns blazing. It IS going to be a monster.
Not to mention awesome mobility too... the damn thing can supposedly fire one broadside, turn, fire both cyclones and keep firing the other broadside in one jet use
-
and since its already got 50 speed or so. that's 150 with both and if you have nav beacons or 2. that's 200+ speed on a capital ship, and that makes no sense. why stack it?
-
Yeah, I'm afraid it will make cruisers/destroyers obsolete, since it's both faster & more powerful...
-
i have to disagree , bigger speed + maneuverability ? right :-\
& Maneuvering Jets works just fine, especially in nebula & gives U max speed with flux & shield Up
-
Unless flameouts cause catastrophic system failure in all your engines (which they do) and put the extra thrusters out of action as well....
Since single engines can flameout that's not true.
But well, if there are already plans do boost the system...
-
why would it have a boost at all??? its maneuvering jets. not thrust booster, its supposed to make you turn faster. not go faster.
-
why would it have a boost at all??? its maneuvering jets. not thrust booster, its supposed to make you turn faster. not go faster.
Well i guess they also cause forward thrust.
-
why would it have a boost at all??? its maneuvering jets. not thrust booster, its supposed to make you turn faster. not go faster.
I'd suggest asking Alex on the development thread, rather than this one, because I'm pretty sure he checks the development threads more often.
-
he checks them all, but there are allot of posts you know. =I
-
why would it have a boost at all??? its maneuvering jets. not thrust booster, its supposed to make you turn faster. not go faster.
I think it makes sense. Maneuvering jets are distributed everywhere on the hull, some should face or angle to thrust into the forward direction.
-
Manuevering jets is not a weak system. I can kill tempests with my falcon. Though granted the falcon is pretty fast.
-
Manuevering jets is not a weak system. I can kill tempests with my falcon. Though granted the falcon is pretty fast.
Falcon->cruiser
Tempest-> weakest tri-tach frigate (in 0.53a)
Not such an impressive achievement.
Sure manoeuvring jets have made all the mid-line ships better, but when it comes to mobility they're not nearly as useful as the burn drive, skimmers or teleporters.
I think the problem is compounded by the fact that most* of the mid-lines were already a little underpowered to start with.
(*excluding the Conquest)
-
I think the problem is compounded by the fact that most* of the mid-lines were already a little underpowered to start with.
(*excluding the Conquest)
Really? I always thought that most of the midline ships were awesome. The only ones that I think are a little underpowered are the Eagle and the Falcon (which I think all they could use is either a speed buff or a survivability buff) and the Brawler (again, more SPEED).
-
I think the problem is compounded by the fact that most* of the mid-lines were already a little underpowered to start with.
(*excluding the Conquest)
Really? I always thought that most of the midline ships were awesome. The only ones that I think are a little underpowered are the Eagle and the Falcon (which I think all they could use is either a speed buff or a survivability buff) and the Brawler (again, more SPEED).
Brauler.
Falcon.
Eagle.
Sunder.
Vigilance.
None can stand up to their low-tech, or high-tech comparables.
I'd argue the only capable mid-line ships are the Conquest and Hammerhead. I'm ignoring the obviously valuable Gemini & Venture; the former isn't a combat ship, and the latter I don't consider to be mid-line due to its heavy armour & low speed.
There is one commonality with both the Hammerhead & Conquest; their defensive mounts are small energy and their offensive mounts are ballistic.
In front-line combat this mount configuration synergizes well enough to compensate for their mediocre armour/shield/flux/speed.
-
I think you've got the Falcon all wrong. It takes a little getting used to, and as a solo ship it's a little lacking, but in a small fleet battle, the reasonably low cost of the Falcon means that it can be used quite effectively as the anvil into which opponents are driven, with the engine power to keep up with the fight. I find it especially helpful if I've got other ships laden down with tactical weaponry, as it can comfortably hold the slightly larger assault weapons.
-
My issue with the Falcon is its lack of PD and large profile. If you put heavy burst pd on the energy slots then you have pretty good pd (at a very very high price), but the forward firepower is less than a Hammerhead due to systems. Or you can put gravitons in the energy slots and eat every missile on the shields. The profile is also so large that its going to eat incoming bombers and can't dodge any shots. I'd just rather have a Hammerhead.
-
Brawler.
...
Sunder.
Vigilance.
...
None can stand up to their low-tech, or high-tech comparables.
They aren't made to stand up to their rivals, they're made to support the larger ships.
...
Eagle.
...
In pre 53a, I seem to recall designing Eagles that destroy Dominators.
Regardless, in the Simulator I just had a custom Eagle destroy a Support Dominator with a little less than half hull remaining. And against a Heavy Assault, 100% hull. So it can, at the very least, stand up to it's low-tech comparable.
-
Yeah I don't understand the mid-tech slams. They are my favorite ships. And no jets are not as "good" as skimming or burn drive. But they complement the way the mid-techs play very very well.