[Chainfall Original] Air Cruisers: Next - Page 3

Azellon · 2011-03-21, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

So when two air cruisers are near each other they are supposed to ram each other to death? No outfit would buy any cruiser if it was just a flying base with twice the vulnerabilities and thirty times the difficulty in obtaining and maintaining. No, the weapons are critical to making them not fucking boring. And the weapons are next to useless against anything other than other air cruisers.

I see your point with the weapons. Tikuto brought up turrets and I like that idea a lot. Instead of chainguns, make them flak turrets. That eliminates a lot of the vulnerability problems, if you've got folks manning the turrets. If you don't have the crew for it, you probably shouldn't be flying it.

Make piloting one a function of CR, it's something you do using the map, point and click. Piloting one won't be an act of sitting in the seat and moving it from place to place, it would largely be automated, allowing you to do other things...such as man a turret or whatever else you might like. Command would also be something you could give permissions for.

Thinking of it less in terms of "this is a personal vehicle you fly that has these other features" like a Galaxy or GG, and more in terms of "this is a very large ship with a bridge and a crew" like a naval vessel. As the commander you don't necessarily take the wheel, you issue orders and the orders are obeyed.

In essence, this avoids the issue that it's boring by making it something you can do when you have a minute between doing the other things you're doing.

Baneblade · 2011-03-21, 07:16 PM

I covered all of that, but I need more room to get more detailed about each 'bridge' function. Gunners are already critical, as only the Primary Weapons are directly controlled by the Tactical Officer, who also coordinates the gunners incidentally since gunners tend to have target ADHD (must shoot everything) and OCD (must try to finish off that guy that is dancing in and out of my weapon range!).

The Commander is not chair bound, in fact his functions are mostly administrative. His direct role in the operation of the AC is that he can manage the Crew and replace one of them in an emergency (minus the Abilities unless he has the cert for that role). But you need four people to run the command and control efficiently. The gunners, damage controllman, and security forces are also critical to an AC that the enemy is actively trying to disable/destroy. A Frigate might be fully capable with only eight players, but a Battlecruiser may need as many as 20.

One alternative to the Bridge Crew I went over already would be to increase the cert commitment of being the Commander, but also being able to do all of the bridge functions yourself... sort of an EvE style command and control. Commander would navigate the AC either manually or with the autopilot, but it will be a busy pair of shoes during crunch time. So I think it might still be better to allow Commanders to do all of the basics, but keep the Advanced Abilities for other Crew. Remember, one very important thing about ACs is redundancy, including at the Crew level. If your Commander goes LD in the middle of a critical fight, what can you do to solve the situation?

Canaris · 2011-03-22, 01:03 PM

Sorry Sobe didn't make the distinction clear between your idea and other people asking for it to be loaded down with weapon systems, that's who my post was aimed at.

wrote it at early O'clock without enough caffine in my system

Baneblade · 2011-03-22, 01:12 PM

No worries, that makes more sense to me than the people who read the title than assume they already know what the idea actually is and post about stuff that is already covered in the OP.

DviddLeff · 2011-03-22, 02:39 PM

Yeah, my version of the cruiser is very similar, but different in that I disagree with having the empire unable to spawn in it (if the owners want them to that is) and being used to target none cruiser targets.

If the outfit wants to use the cruiser as on offensive or defensive weapons platform they should be able to, buts its a high risk use and a big loss of outfit credits if and when they lose the thing.

I do like the idea of different sized cruisers... everything from the next step up from galaxies to mobile bases; looking at merging it with the navy concepts people threw about.

Azellon · 2011-03-22, 03:32 PM

Or assuming that a similar idea is identical because it incorporates some of the same concepts.

I realize many of the things I said were covered in your OP. I also don't like your original idea, but I see potential there for something better than what you wrote. That's what folks do when they like parts of an idea but not the whole thing: they keep the stuff they like and discard the stuff they don't.

People on this board are so easily upset.

Baneblade · 2011-03-22, 08:41 PM

You want flying bases, I want airships aka naval style warfare. You can't have that with what you want.

DviddLeff · 2011-03-23, 03:32 AM

Can do; cruisers are the warships, carriers are the mobile bases.

I am fleshing out the naval aspect on my site, all very work in progress at the moment. For example I am stripping the air pads off the model I posted to have that as the cruiser. The carrier will be similar but have a couple of dropship pads on it, and less guns.

I'll make some models of the different ships, but atm I am getting to grips with sketchup rendering plug ins to make my models look better.

Azellon · 2011-03-23, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Can do; cruisers are the warships, carriers are the mobile bases.

This.

Ever seen an aircraft carrier? Those things aren't ships, they're floating cities. Somehow, some way, they share the water with smaller vessels of all stripes, from tiny speedboats to massive gunships (in this analogy, a mosquito or reaver is a speedboat and your cruisers are the massive gunships).

This adds dimensions to the combat in the game, which is a good thing. Look at Tribes as an example. Why is it still talked about? Why do people still play it? Because it's not a 2D shooter. You don't just run around on the ground and shoot people unless you want to die a horrible death. You fly. You ski. You move fast and you rarely touch the ground. It's the extra dimension that makes the game stand out.

This is expanding the dimension you're proposing without losing what makes PS a great game.

Baneblade · 2011-03-23, 12:57 PM

Originally I had intended on adding Carriers to this idea, but there are a ton of problems associated with doing so. Like how do you make them useful without making them overpowered. A Battlecruiser without the ability to shoot down isn't overpowered in the ground game. But a flying base servicing endless air farmers would be hugely detrimental to the ground game. How are you going to make the Carrier able to handle the airship vs airship game without making it OP vs the ground game? It doesn't seem like it will actually be possible, unless you limit Carrier spawns to aircraft that can't hover or efficiently deliver ordinance to the ground. But that just makes those aircraft easy prey for traditional aircraft.

HINT: Being able to go slower than someone else makes it that much easier to stay in their blind spot.

Baneblade · 2011-03-23, 12:59 PM

In short, a Carrier will add far too much in the way of balance issues and will ruin the air cruiser concept as a whole. Which is why I left them out. It wasn't because I didn't want them in, that is for certain.

Azellon · 2011-03-23, 01:43 PM

How are you going to make the Carrier able to handle the airship vs airship game without making it OP vs the ground game?

As I said before, guns that point to the side and up. Give them a lower flight ceiling than other aircraft. Additionally, in the airship vs airship game this thing ideally won't be going toe to toe with a gunship because they're different classes of ships. A gunship may in fact be partially designed to take out one of these carriers, which is part of the elusive balance you're talking about. These things are best when they're being actively defended. Flying one solo is asking to get shot down. You won't get taken out by a small force, but you will get taken out if someone is putting a good deal of effort into it...much like a base. Hell, you could even make them impossible to destroy, instead making it so they can be captured like a base. Put one on each continent or only on select continents.

It doesn't seem like it will actually be possible, unless you limit Carrier spawns to aircraft that can't hover or efficiently deliver ordinance to the ground. But that just makes those aircraft easy prey for traditional aircraft.

So give the aircraft all the perks of normal aircraft, but make them more specialized. The bomber is a pure bomber and yes, it would be easy prey for a traditional aircraft. That's the point, to provide some balance. The AA is pure AA and would probably be pretty easy prey for ground-based AA. These two aircraft complement each other and should be used in tandem. You already have these roles in PS, I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that this won't translate to PS:N just as well.

Baneblade · 2011-03-23, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Azellon

As I said before, guns that point to the side and up. Give them a lower flight ceiling than other aircraft.

Okay, how does a Carrier destroy say a Battlecruiser? Just bombers? That seems rather easy to counter. And Carriers by definition won't be anywhere near the actual front of the theatre of war, making them largely irrelevant until they do show up and dead when that happens. I still think you are going for the overpowered angle, while my ideas cover 'Carriers' without actually making Carriers.

It is critical that air cruisers need interaction to maintain, thus any kind of permanent AC is untenable. Not to mention the pointlessness of adding an AC that is only good as a flying base that can't get close enough to be useful in the first place.

Additionally, in the airship vs airship game this thing ideally won't be going toe to toe with a gunship because they're different classes of ships.

Which in PS is not really viable since the maps are really not that large. Unless you want the Carriers to be 'orbiting' the continents all of the time. Personally I can't imagine why any outfit would choose the 'Carrier' over the Battlecruiser. Direct combat is the name of the game in PS.

A gunship may in fact be partially designed to take out one of these carriers, which is part of the elusive balance you're talking about.

That is the primary purpose of all of the ACs, to kill other ACs, acting as an outfit base/spawn point is secondary.

These things are best when they're being actively defended.

As it should be.

Flying one solo is asking to get shot down.

As it should be. Although I can already see the potential for cloaked Frigates for solo and small squad outfits.

You won't get taken out by a small force, but you will get taken out if someone is putting a good deal of effort into it...much like a base.

Actually, the entire idea is based around the idea that a small group of infiltrators could board an AC and sabotage it, vastly decreasing its performance profile. The only thing a Carrier will do is die or flip from constant 'spec ops' efforts.

Hell, you could even make them impossible to destroy, instead making it so they can be captured like a base. Put one on each continent or only on select continents.

Sod that. The entire point is that these are naval outfit assets, not flying regurgitations of the ground game bases.

So give the aircraft all the perks of normal aircraft, but make them more specialized. The bomber is a pure bomber and yes, it would be easy prey for a traditional aircraft. That's the point, to provide some balance. The AA is pure AA and would probably be pretty easy prey for ground-based AA. These two aircraft complement each other and should be used in tandem. You already have these roles in PS, I'm not sure where you're getting the notion that this won't translate to PS:N just as well.

Except for one thing, how are the ground game aircraft going to deal with the Carrier's aircraft? How would the bombers take out another AC? How far behind the scenes do you expect a Carrier to hide while the crew gets bored silly waiting for someone to run from? How are you going to ensure the AA aircraft don't completely dominate the ground based aircraft?

The answer: You don't.

Carriers do not add anything significantly valuable to the AC concept at all. Besides that, any of the current proposed ACs could already have been expanded to have a full function flight deck, but I abandoned that notion intentionally due to ACs needing limitations in regards to the ground game. That last thing anyone wants is an invulnerable flying fortress raining air farmers on their siege on Forseral.

The Bottom Line: Giving ACs as conceptualized hangars and flight decks appropriate for their size is a perfect compromise between nothing at all and full fledged Carriers.

If you want to press the Carrier issue some more, come up with something truly remarkable. I've run it before again and again and I didn't abandon it so some upstart prick can lecture me about why his idea needs to be spooged all over my thread.

DviddLeff · 2011-03-23, 04:42 PM

Ok, stripped the vehicle spawns off my cruiser, and added more weapon hard points to it.

Playing with a renderer for sketchup:

Azellon · 2011-03-23, 05:39 PM

Damn, had I known you were actively hostile to anyone tampering with your crap I would've stayed out of the thread.

But it is just that: crap. Your idea alone is not worthwhile. Adding more to the idea would make it a wonderful concept. As it stands it's half-assed and worthless. If it doesn't interact with the ground game at all, it is a different game and belongs in a different game. If you want naval battles go play Battleship.

Outfit-only spawning? Cool story bro, way to miss the point of PS. The very reason why AMSes aren't capable of going outfit-only is so pricks like you don't make them outfit-only.

But have fun fapping to your own garbage.