Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

61

Suggestions / Re: Linux Port ...

« on: March 03, 2012, 02:38:34 PM »

For one insane moment I forgot what a 'Linux' was, and thought this was for a new space station...

Derp.

62

Suggestions / Re: Under-mounting Weapons

« on: March 03, 2012, 02:31:13 PM »

So long as the AI doesn't do it, that sounds fine. A player can always determine if a weapon is identifiable in a configuration, but it'd be a pain to make sure it works for every weapon in every hardpoint on every ship, so the AI doesn't conceal one accidentally that's too short or something.

63

Suggestions / Re: Flight Decks

« on: March 01, 2012, 11:52:26 PM »

A neat change would be to bind fighter wings to carriers, with the number deployed depending on something like hangar space. That way, the player's limited to the number of ships they can replenish each fight by the capacity of the carrier to carry spare ships, and only at the carrier specific to that wing. So, someone may assign a Condor to carry Broadswords, allowing destroyed Broadswords to be replaced completely there in combat (as limited hangar space provides), but non-Broadswords could only be repaired, not replenished. In that way, the number of squadrons fielded at a time would be dependent on the carrier's capacity, not the number of independent groupings as it is now. For example, rather than buying two separate Broadsword wings, one would just bind Broadswords to a carrier, and deploy two wings from the carrier in combat only (or however many ships as hangar space provides). Wings not bound to a carrier would just act as they do now, only without the ability to be replaced during combat, and wings in fleets without carriers would be irreplaceable without one.

Kind of a difficult idea to explain, but I think it would make much more sense in-game than the current system.

64

Suggestions / Re: A rethink of ship acceleration and top speed

« on: March 01, 2012, 11:21:03 PM »

I think the 'real-life' mechanic being represented by the abrupt boost is the redirection of energy from the shields to the engines, which seems pretty reasonable. A smooth curve would make it seem like what's controlling the speed (particularly when the shields are up) is something silly like air resistance, obviously not present in space. If modular engines were added, then having varying accelerations and tiers (or no tiers) would be a logical step, but for now the system seems pretty realistic and enjoyable. Frankly, the difference between a curve and constant seems completely negligible, since speed reaches its cap quite rapidly anyway.

65

Suggestions / Re: pilum missile tracking

« on: March 01, 2012, 10:51:23 PM »

I'm currently rolling with a Paragon and four Ventures to handle the support side of things, which means 30 missiles per volley when they're all deployed. It's really quite effective against larger targets, for reasons stated, but I would agree that a two-stage system to speed them up a bit initially would be neat, as the faster ships or the Paragon's four WTFBBQTachyons often destroy medium sized ships first. To balance things, perhaps they should be incapable of detonating in the first stage, dealing pathetic amounts of kinetic damage instead, so they're limited entirely to long range support.

Still, it does seem that no changes are really necessary. They serve a valuable tactical purpose in a balanced way, and their poor tracking and speed fits perfectly with the characteristic dumb spammy missile. The two-stage system would further specialize it, but it's not really needed, and it certainly doesn't need a complete buff.