Stop hurting the beloved heavy scout

Development area for FreeAllegiance's Community Core.
Cadillac
Posts: 11578
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 9:42 am
Location: London, UK

Post by Cadillac »

Fun is for voobs.
Image Image Image
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." Carl Sagan ("The Lives of the Stars" ep. 9 Cosmos)
Rants Blog Cadillac, *Wurflet@Event, ?GoldDragon@Alleg, ^Biggus*#$@us@XT, +Ashandarei@Zone
Adept
Posts: 8660
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Post by Adept »

Cookie Monster wrote:QUOTE (Cookie Monster @ May 19 2012, 10:27 PM) Fun is for voobs.
I think I need to put this into my sig :lol:
ImageImageImageImageImage
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Adept
Posts: 8660
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Post by Adept »

Shiz, as a top int-ho, I'd be interested in what you would like done with the belters int. Currently it's still way too sluggish, even though we dropped the mass nerf to 150%.

I'm thinking dropping the mass nerf to 25% would be the next logical step. It's not like the damn thing gets any extra hull or anything to account for that weight.
ImageImageImageImageImage
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Shizoku
Posts: 5816
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 7:00 am
Location: Ozzy's right nut.

Post by Shizoku »

I would either
a) Boost the accell/drop mass to make them more flyable for the average pilot (I actually don't mind them the way they were(pre-fuel nerf), they require a bit more forsight than other ints otherwise you get plastered into bases and asteroids.) I would be more in favor of boosting accell than removing mass because it still allows the the belt int to be a great rammer, which is one of it's perks.
b) Do what Vir did and make the missile slot more usable with mrm's. This may be pretty op because of the perks to seeker, but may be worth a try.
c) Perk energy to make the fact it can use energy weapons actually viable. Obviously you don't want a hvy int with 3utl 2's with too much energy but enough to make this perk worth while. If this core still has hvy int nans then this wont work.
Image
Adept
Posts: 8660
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Post by Adept »

Shizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ May 20 2012, 01:50 AM) I would either
a) Boost the accell/drop mass to make them more flyable for the average pilot (I actually don't mind them the way they were(pre-fuel nerf), they require a bit more forsight than other ints otherwise you get plastered into bases and asteroids.) I would be more in favor of boosting accell than removing mass because it still allows the the belt int to be a great rammer, which is one of it's perks.
b) Do what Vir did and make the missile slot more usable with mrm's. This may be pretty op because of the perks to seeker, but may be worth a try.
c) Perk energy to make the fact it can use energy weapons actually viable. Obviously you don't want a hvy int with 3utl 2's with too much energy but enough to make this perk worth while. If this core still has hvy int nans then this wont work.
Thanks for the suggestions. Here's some nuts and bolts info.

a) Boosters are the same for all craft. The reason ints get more bang out of the same buck is that they have a lower mass than figs. The thrust from booster 1 is exactly the same. Top speed under booster is limited by thrust. So, upping the thrust of the belter int will make it dodge better, and accelerate quicker to it's non-boosted top speed, but above that it will start to work as breaks. In theory I suppose the reverse thruster power could be lowered to reduce this effect.

Personally I'd prefer to eliminate the mass nerf and have the belters int just be an int, but I think a lot of people disagree. How sluggish they are is pretty much entirely dependent on their mass. Currently it's 30 tons to 20 tons on the other ints (aside from TF who have lighter ones). Fuel can (and has) been adjusted individually.

25% mass nerf would have the difference in acceleration from what it is now. I would probably keep the 150% fuel, to see if that actually makes them good enough to ues rather than dropping it to +25%.

***

b) Missiles weigh a ton each, so even a small amount of them again craps out the ints performance. I suppose seekers would work as a buff, seeing as how the dumbfires are about as useful as nipples on the Pope.

***

c) Viru took out the nans from the heavy int, I believe. If it would have enough energy to be a really good nan, I suspect heavy int bomb runs would be pretty much unstoppable.




But again, thanks for the brainstorming. This is exactly what is needed. :thumbsup:
ImageImageImageImageImage
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
TurkeyXIII
Posts: 1460
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:18 am
Location: Melbourne, Aus

Post by TurkeyXIII »

Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ May 20 2012, 09:04 AM) In theory I suppose the reverse thruster power could be lowered to reduce this effect.
Won't make a difference.
QUOTE (Randall Munroe)14.2: Turkey consumption rate of the average American in milligrams per minute[/quote]
Image
Adept
Posts: 8660
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 12:53 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Post by Adept »

TurkeyXIII wrote:QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ May 20 2012, 04:40 AM) Won't make a difference.
How do you figure? Admittedly I haven't tested it, but in theory it should work unless I'm having a brain fart :mellow:
ImageImageImageImageImage
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
TurkeyXIII
Posts: 1460
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:18 am
Location: Melbourne, Aus

Post by TurkeyXIII »

The speed limitation is brought on by drag, and drag is dependent on forward (total) thrust. Reverse thrusters never fire while you're boosting, nor while you're at full throttle.
QUOTE (Randall Munroe)14.2: Turkey consumption rate of the average American in milligrams per minute[/quote]
Image
the.ynik
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 7:23 pm
Location: Germany

Post by the.ynik »

TurkeyXIII wrote:QUOTE (TurkeyXIII @ May 20 2012, 04:41 PM) The speed limitation is brought on by drag, and drag is dependent on forward (total) thrust. Reverse thrusters never fire while you're boosting, nor while you're at full throttle.
The latter part is incorrect.
Reverse thrusters fire when the ship's speed is higher than the normal speed (for the current throttle) and the forward thruster isn't used.
That's why bomber pilots need to press forward thrust when getting rammed - otherwise the reverse thruster slows them down back to maximum speed.

But the booster key also activates the forward thrusters, so you are correct that reverse thruster strength has no effect on the boosting speed.
Hellsyng
Posts: 929
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 7:50 pm

Post by Hellsyng »

the.ynik wrote:QUOTE (the.ynik @ Aug 16 2012, 12:28 PM) The latter part is incorrect.
Reverse thrusters fire when the ship's speed is higher than the normal speed (for the current throttle) and the forward thruster isn't used.
That's why bomber pilots need to press forward thrust when getting rammed - otherwise the reverse thruster slows them down back to maximum speed.

But the booster key also activates the forward thrusters, so you are correct that reverse thruster strength has no effect on the boosting speed.
Bomber pilots pressing forwards thrust does nothing, I'll go find the thread where they tested it if I have to, the only thing it does is keep your momentum going forward in case you get a bad ram (that tries to make you go sideways a little).
MastaMetz wrote:QUOTE (MastaMetz @ Dec 6, 2012, 10:32 PM)@#(!ternet. I'm a genius!
Post Reply