Ship scales and Ingame size-rework

[system]

Hey folks. Not certain about where to send that post, so here am I. Suggestion’s written in the title.

So EXACTLY, this means to adapt the ships to more conventional size (destroyers and Frigates bigger) and also change some ingame stats and game aspects to make sure everyone’s still able to enjoy the game…Quite a lot of work, but I think that the final outcome’s goin’ to be really awesome… maybe something like that :

 

Interceptors:

keep size

increased speed/maneuverability

increased active AND passive module effect… to compensate for the “smallest and most fragile ship class”-stats

Fighters:

slightly increased size (let’s just say… 1.1 or 1.2 times their actual size, so not very much)

slightly increased damage output

eventually slightly increased active module range (for commands) and effect (for gunships)

Frigates:

increased size (2 times maybe ? Nope, that’s not excessive… engineering Frigates drones will get a far more smaller size bonus though)

increased durability

increased damage and firing range BUT increased spread for ALL weapons

slightly reduced maneuverability

increased active module range

decreased active and passive module effects (ship specific modifiers less affected)

new stat (no necessary though, but still better for balance): 10-15% reduction to debuff effects (usually caused by tacklers)

Destroyers:

vastly increased size (3 or 4 times) and durability

vastly increased damage and firing range… and also spread (detroyers are dealing massive damage to all other ships, but are almost unable to hit small and nimble targets such as interceptors, especially on close range. So they keep their “support-ship” status)

reduced maneuverability

reduced active and passive module effect (and readapted size… ship specific modifiers less affected)

eventually 15-20% reduction to tackler-caused debuff effects

General changes:

maps should be set on a bigger scale (same thing for hangars, stations and outposts… those one’s turrets and rocket launchers should be a bit bigger (and have a small damage increase), but not as much as the outpost itself)

Aliens: Scouts and small biomorphs keep their size, hunters get a small size bonus and predator/large biomorphs size and (small) damage bonus… as well as less precise EM-spheres, don’t want them to one-shot every fighter/interceptor running into one of them

destroyer- and defiler-flagships: bigger size, eventually increased hp of the firing spheres on them, but no changes regarding damage and projectile speed (the destroyers torpedoes should be (slightly) larger and the defilers homing em-spheres should get only a small damage bonus…)

dreadnoughts: size increase… (compensating map and flagship increased size by making them fight more closely to each other)

ellydium ships… increased damage against alien ships too !!! These things were built to wipe out the invaders !

visual damage effects: the more damage you get, the more your ship looks bad. But general thing ; no need to set a precise “damage-visuals system” setting a scratch on every hull-part hit by something…

 

Got it ? Bigger ships are goin’ to dish out some more realistic damage, and be sturdier, and those attributes will be compensated by smaller ships being harder to hit (and the bigger ships being almost unable to avoid fighter and interceptors shots) !

 

Quite some work to deal with, but after a few testing phases, I think the result might be (more than largely) worth it…

[11854034]

vastly increased size (3 or 4 times) and durability

vastly increased damage and firing range… and also spread (detroyers are dealing massive damage to all other ships, but are almost unable to hit small and nimble targets such as interceptors, especially on close range. So they keep their “support-ship” status)

reduced maneuverability

 

no… more realistic, in a game no realistic… it’s hard…

 

For destroyer:

• increased size / reduced mobility = the bigger weakness of destroyer is the size and mobility, if you will i can be a beacon for your pleasure xD.

 

• increased damage and firing range = yhea!!! the Ace in me say that, but the player of destroyer say: it’s good, we have a big power for make specials effects for hollywood, The long range have no good velocity and accuracy and the better, you say: the destroyer can’t touch small and nimble target… the destroyer used for the light in the room?

 

• (detroyers are dealing massive damage to all other ships, but are almost unable to hit small and nimble targets such as interceptors, especially on close range. So they keep their “support-ship” status ) = i’m agree, it’s the good status for destroyer but, 3/4 of ships in game are small ships, invisible, counter and debuff.

 

so, reduced mobility + (reduced fire power because in long rang no good velocity and accuracy, your increased fire it’s just for pve, for main target lel and boss) + increased size + increased durability ( more slower and more bigger, the durability is useless, in pvp we have a lot of debuff ).

 

With your change, the destroyer can go in star wars and make a nice special effect for video… but in this game… you want a target who can’t kill and assist the group?

because actually he have no buff for team, and you want remove the little efficiency of destroyers.

 

(if you go in pvp, play all rank, the small ships can kill easily, actually all modules and capacitys of all ships are creat for balance… if you will a realistic game, we have to change all modules of all ships… the small ships have the supramacy in your change, they have fire power with debuff and buff for kill all ships and the mobility for stay alive a good time on the big target. (and i don’t speack about of a lot of module who can put sensor invisible a lot of small ships)

 

ps: sry for my translate, and don’t you becare if i speack with a bad feeling.

[49016701]

Current size is fine, but don’t worry, maybe we receive cruisers in a distant future, so increase the size is not necessary.

[34277030]

Dessy are too small yes i’ve been saying it when they release them, need to be at least x2 bigger

[39930487]

And frigates should have more mount points than fighters and more slots for active/passive modules, becuse they are bigger … and so on

E.g. half the dmg per frigate mounted weapon (4 in engis, 6 in lrf) and double the mount points, this would make better covering of angles and space around the slow frigates in terms of fire!

[49016701]

35 minutes ago, avarshina said:

And frigates should have more mount points than fighters and more slots for active/passive modules, becuse they are bigger … and so on

E.g. half the dmg per frigate mounted weapon (4 in engis, 6 in lrf) and double the mount points, this would make better covering of angles and space around the slow frigates in terms of fire!

Ok but weapons and modules are bigger too.

For your logic: destroyers will get  alot of modules.

But will be good if we can choose weapon mount locations, maybe destroyer modules too…

[49016701]

Well, we need some proportional equation.

Something like this:

interceptors < fighters < frigates < destroyers < (maybe carriers) < (maybe cruisers/dreadnoughts)

Just a dream… But i remember the first destroyer suggestions some time ago…

[39930487]

4 hours ago, aldermatias said:

Ok but weapons and modules are bigger too.

For your logic: destroyers will get  alot of modules.

But will be good if we can choose weapon mount locations, maybe destroyer modules too…

… yes build your design more. Many ships have weapon mount only upside of the ship - why? No ship builder would do this.

And I dream of a survival mode, if you flee, you can switch all main weapons in auto fire mode, but disengaged (not focused = less damage per enemy ship) or one could divide firepower from all main weapons like half of them into auto-fire mode, that would be good for slow ships - pilots could focus on smart use of flight path or use of modules special items etc - Thing here is not so much scoring but the feel of the game: pilot has fate in hios hands, pilots feel they can influence their ship and have direct influence on game and their ship. But paradigm is front seat pilot cockpit with crosshairs up to destroyer class, sadly…

 

I since long wondered why maximal number of active modules is reached in rank 7? why not rank 13? Ranks 1-4 have max 2 actives; rank 5s have max 3 actives, all ships from rank 7 on have max 4 actives.

 

But discussion is spurious, they will not modify the balanced core of the game - which is good.

[49016701]

1 hour ago, avarshina said:

… yes build your design more…

Meh? No, continues with 4 modules for all ship sizes.

[41244957]

How about replacing a fighter with 3 and interceptors with 9 which gets weaker below a % of hull/shield:

(the additional ships are displayed at 50% size at your screen edges (similar to your current ship when you zoom in and out)

 

This would make strength more realistic.

The below stats simulate damage-spread as well as single-target damage.

Ofc, AOE is a problem, but can be explained with “skilled pilots”.

 

Fighter squad below:

* 55%, 25% shield: reducing attack damage to 1/2, 1/3

* 55%, 25% hp: reducing attack damage and hp to 50%, 25% until they are repaired

 

Small ships squad below:

* 80%, 65%, 52%, 41%: reducing attack damage to 8/9, 7/9, 6/9, 5/9

* 32%, 25%, 19%, 14%: reducing attack damage to 4/9, 3/9, 2/9, 1/9

[system]

On 01/11/2017 at 10:44 AM, beckert2 said:

vastly increased size (3 or 4 times) and durability

vastly increased damage and firing range… and also spread (detroyers are dealing massive damage to all other ships, but are almost unable to hit small and nimble targets such as interceptors, especially on close range. So they keep their “support-ship” status)

reduced maneuverability

 

no… more realistic, in a game no realistic… it’s hard…

 

For destroyer:

• increased size / reduced mobility = the bigger weakness of destroyer is the size and mobility, if you will i can be a beacon for your pleasure xD.

 

• increased damage and firing range = yhea!!! the Ace in me say that, but the player of destroyer say: it’s good, we have a big power for make specials effects for hollywood, The long range have no good velocity and accuracy and the better, you say: the destroyer can’t touch small and nimble target… the destroyer used for the light in the room?

 

• (detroyers are dealing massive damage to all other ships, but are almost unable to hit small and nimble targets such as interceptors, especially on close range. So they keep their “support-ship” status ) = i’m agree, it’s the good status for destroyer but, 3/4 of ships in game are small ships, invisible, counter and debuff.

 

so, reduced mobility + (reduced fire power because in long rang no good velocity and accuracy, your increased fire it’s just for pve, for main target lel and boss) + increased size + increased durability ( more slower and more bigger, the durability is useless, in pvp we have a lot of debuff ).

 

With your change, the destroyer can go in star wars and make a nice special effect for video… but in this game… you want a target who can’t kill and assist the group?

because actually he have no buff for team, and you want remove the little efficiency of destroyers.

 

(if you go in pvp, play all rank, the small ships can kill easily, actually all modules and capacitys of all ships are creat for balance… if you will a realistic game, we have to change all modules of all ships… the small ships have the supramacy in your change, they have fire power with debuff and buff for kill all ships and the mobility for stay alive a good time on the big target. (and i don’t speack about of a lot of module who can put sensor invisible a lot of small ships)

 

ps: sry for my translate, and don’t you becare if i speack with a bad feeling.

 

#Yeah, I’ve been thinking about the destroyer issue… bit more complicated than expected. Eventual solution may be increased hp for active modules and maybe enhancing the effect for some of them… turrets maybe ? Always usefully against closer range interceptor rushs… still thinking about that…

 

destroyer doesn’t have to get reduced maneuverability actually… think it’s pretty fine right now. But should it be maintained so instead do this:

→ Frigates: slightly increased maneuverability

→ Fighters and interceptors: increased maneuverability

That system is rather dedicated to reshape destroyers into the heavy frontline-brawlers they’re supposed to be… sturdy enough yo make sure interceptors won’t try to attack them alone (I mean please !!! A cov ops destroying a Tyrant, the most resilient ship in the game EVER, only by using a plasma ark ! Well if THAT is not overpowered…) and heavy damages to REALLY fit into the “destroyer”-role… but their weapons should only be accurate enough to shoot destroyers, Frigates and eventually Fighters. Otherwise they’re going to one-shot every interceptor running into them… and everyone knows that such a large ship is not exactly supposed to, right ? Just watch it ! Still possible to hit’em, but just more difficult. Interceptors are goin’ to need some backup to get destroyers, just like destroyers may need a tackler or engineer for some backup…

 

16 hours ago, aldermatias said:

Ok but weapons and modules are bigger too.

For your logic: destroyers will get  alot of modules.

But will be good if we can choose weapon mount locations, maybe destroyer modules too…

 

Definitely do NOT agree with affecting number of active/passive modules… already enough work to be done with the rest, that’s only a loss of time… eventually a 5th slot for destroyers, specifically fitted for turrets to counter interceptors in closer range, but not more. You don’t wanna see overpowered destroyer with a full broadside of special module, paw… you don’t wanna know this…

 

23 hours ago, aldermatias said:

Current size is fine, but don’t worry, maybe we receive cruisers in a distant future, so increase the size is not necessary.

 

Then increase the cruisers size… maps are supposed to be extended anyway… but cruisers ? Where did you get that rumour ? The actual dreadnoughts are already bein’ called “cruisers” half the time…

[49016701]

1 hour ago, Nexusbot said:

Then increase the cruisers size… maps are supposed to be extended anyway… but cruisers ? Where did you get that rumour ? The actual dreadnoughts are already bein’ called “cruisers” half the time…

Yes, cruisers and dreadnoughts it’s literally the same thing. Not so big like the current Star Conflict cruisers and dreadnoughts, it more like 2-3 times destroyers and carriers sizes. 

1 hour ago, Nexusbot said:

Definitely do NOT agree with affecting number of active/passive modules… already enough work to be done with the rest, that’s only a loss of time… eventually a 5th slot for destroyers, specifically fitted for turrets to counter interceptors in closer range, but not more. You don’t wanna see overpowered destroyer with a full broadside of special module, paw… you don’t wanna know this…

You misunderstood me, i don’t want multiples destroyer modules, 4 its a good number. But of course carriers and cruisers will get a lot of weapons.

[41244957]

On 2.11.2017 at 1:12 PM, aldermatias said:

You misunderstood me, i don’t want multiples destroyer modules, 4 its a good number. But of course carriers and cruisers will get a lot of weapons.

I agree, knowing r15 normal ships I can say:

 

When you equip 2 equal items, it’s like 80% efficiency for the second

When you equip 3 equal items, it’s like 60% efficiency for the third

When you could equip 4 equal items, it’s like 70%*4=280% which is 40% efficiency for the forth and the fifth would have only 20%, the sixth 0%

 

When you have enough interesting options to equip, 4 is no problem, else 3 are good enough.

I find myself equipping combat shield regen 3x and it works better than 3x different shield resist.

[system]

[@Sola_Evoli](< base_url >/index.php?/profile/258237-sola_evoli/) I think we’re talking about active mods on destroyers, not passive…

 

[@aldermatias](< base_url >/index.php?/profile/259720-aldermatias/), well then I think we’re almost on the same position, except for the “bigger ships are coming, so no need to make the actual ones bigger”… BTW, where does that “playable-cruisers-rumor” actually comes from ? Has it ever be confirmed ? Well, I mea, r14 destroyers just barely came out, and focus is now on OS-rework and Ellydium-shipbuilding, so I don’t think we should expect these ones to appear during (at least) next year…

[13083642]

On 1/11/2017 at 10:49 AM, EndeavSTEEL said:

Dessy are too small yes i’ve been saying it when they release them, need to be at least x2 bigger

I believe that in the design they were way bigger, but they reduced its size for better balance i guess: dont include something really different.

(check the size of the cockpit)

[34277030]

3 hours ago, Papitas said:

I believe that in the design they were way bigger, but they reduced its size for better balance i guess: dont include something really different.

(check the size of the cockpit)

Yes this concept art show it perfectly, lot of things where supposed to be different 

[49016701]

Destroyers should be renamed to “frigates” and frigates should be renamed to “bombers”.

[34277030]

1 hour ago, aldermatias said:

Destroyers should be renamed to “frigates” and frigates should be renamed to “bombers”.

Frigates to corvette sounds better to me 

[41244957]

20 hours ago, EndeavSTEEL said:

Frigates to corvette sounds better to me 

Agree.

 

Definitionen von frigate (translate.google.com)

Substantiv

a warship with a mixed armament, generally heavier than a destroyer (in the US Navy) and of a kind originally introduced for convoy escort work.

Predominantly it was the destroyers and frigates of the Navy that served.

 

Definitionen von corvette(translate.google.com)

Substantiv

a small warship designed for convoy escort duty.

The convoy’s 64 ships were initially protected by one RCN destroyer and three corvettes; two additional corvettes joined while the convoy was under attack by at least eight submarines.

 

[49016701]

Ok, now we give 9 classes to game:

 

Interceptors < fighters < bombers < corvettes < frigates < destroyers < carriers < cruisers < dreadnoughts

 

Developers have so much to do XD