[Twinky]

Originally Posted by Karash

I think the Jumpgate Evolution Community would have to reach into the 1000s during peak hours before Capital ships become a real gameplay idea. Just a side thought.

Exactly.

Too many are too hung up on the low populations of Jumpgate Classic that they don't realise a large player base is a possibility that would make cap ships viable. If Jumpgate can't manage to bring in a large population of players then there is no point in cap ships because it will just be the original vets again with barely 300 active players during prime-time.

Aswell, some are making it obvious that they haven't read the entire thread, otherwise they would know we don't intend for cap ships to be "uber wtf pwn mobiles". Cap ships are just intended to be 1) Money sinks 2) New type of playstyle 3) Fun for everyone.

[Nanaki]

Carriers should be heavily armored and shielded, but only possess enough turrets to defend itself. Limiting a Carrier's ability to proactively assault while giving heavy armor/shielding should prevent people from using Carriers as gank machines, and also prevent Carriers from being seen as 'Easy Prey' and trying to solo one.

Combat capital ships should be kept very small early on, such as Corvette and Frigate. If they add to the gameplay, consider adding bigger classes, if not, throw them out and stick with the Non-combat and support capital ships.

If cap ships arent in the game, then what the heck is that?

Freighter. Freighters are friggin huge.

[Twinky]

Originally Posted by xerout

I've been a big proponent of Cap ships but Injustice's point(s) have me thinking. Cap ships will need to be very very carefully implemented to avoid the problem illustrated in the above quote. I like the vision that Twinky laid out but I can see where problems could occurr. If one faction became even moderately imbalanced in wealth and population to another the results could be complete disaster for the "loser". Maybe we could at least start out with the baby step of some multi-player ships.....a bomber or heavy fighter with a tail gunner...or a mining ship with an extra seat and extra mining lasers. We could, as has been stated by someone here, implement Cap ships one class at a time after testing their impact on gameplay on a test server.

Just some thoughts.

Xerout

If things were to go the way they should, cap ships would cost so much that even McPlowed couldn't afford to fly them all the time and lose. Your also assuming that cap ships are a huge advantage, what advantage is there to having alot if they just become nuke magnets and die easily like they should when assailed heavily? My line of thinking is that if your going to fly a cap ship into battle you better have alot of well founded faith that your comrades are gonna be able to keep you alive or a considerable amount of your money is going to disappear in the spectacular flash of a nuke.

[Nanaki]

Look at my suggestion for Capship production. You literally have to jump loop after loop to get Capital ships built, and Capital ships can be destroyed before they are ever operational.

Which is why I add: If you let your enemies build 200 frigates, you probably deserved to lose.

[Raz]

I think I agree with Injustice.

Think about it. Ships in Jumpgate already do everything. They Flux, fight, haul, scout, defend, attack, bomb.

Except that the ships are actually maneuverable, flyable, and fun. Why is a slow hulking cap more 'fun' than a fighter? I don't really get it, a freighter is pretty big.

Whoever said ships in Jumpgate can't hold territory mystifies me. Have you played Jumpgate? Have you even heard of a gate/tube camp?

Like has been said before, cap ships will have to exist only to serve and bolster fighter forces if the system is to work at all.

[Ikeprof]

I would have no issue at all with either a Carrier class ship or at least support ships (rearm/refuel) for missions deeper into flux space or areas where you are simply a long way from anything remotely resembling a space station.

The discussion of how a cap ship makes a siege type situation too hard to break could be simply handled by limiting the sectors into which a Carrier class ship could jump. 3 Sectors away from a factional station isn't as bad as having a carrier sitting outside the launch tube.

[Powo]

I had an idea on how capital ships could fit in Jumpgate without being the common typical thing that a single player can obtain, and fly alone.

But it's too large.

[Nanaki]

The discussion of how a cap ship makes a siege type situation too hard to break could be simply handled by limiting the sectors into which a Carrier class ship could jump. 3 Sectors away from a factional station isn't as bad as having a carrier sitting outside the launch tube.

I would prefer just arming stations with specialized anti-capital ship guns or missiles instead. It stops hostile carriers from sitting outside the tubes while avoiding the arbitrary safe zones that nobody really likes.

[SingleShot]

Those that speak about player numbers factoring in are right.

Another danger is cost control, imo.
It seems obvious that cap ships would be expensive. And it's easy to say that expensive is great since it will keep cap ship spam from happening. But if cap ships are viable and extremely costly you've suddenly radically driven up the cost of fighting. Not so much fun.

A more extreme example of this would be if you made FFs cost 500k per pop. You need FFs to fight...but 500k? To be competitive you'd have to make and then spend millions of credits per fight.

It seems pretty easy to say that cap ships dumped into the Jumpgate we know are not really in the spirit of the game, and would certainly not fit in well. But ND probably has the best idea of whether they could fit in the new Jumpgate that they're crafting. Properly implemented I'm sure they could be made to work. See Allegiance. Worth the effort/a good idea? *shrug*

[Vinegar Goose]

Some Comments on Capital Ships
- Should only have two player crews. A pilot/commander and a gunner. All turrets point in the direction of the gunners cross hairs. More then two players would make the ship difficult to crew. Two man tanks worked well in Planetside. The 3 man TR tank didn't. One player would have trouble jumping from pilot to gunner (should still be an option).

- Main guns should have trouble tracking a fighter and have slow rate of fire and slow shot speed. A flack option would allow the shell to burst at a range selected by the gunner (use for the throttle). Fighters can maneuver to avoid the shot. The Cap ship would be able to disrupt an attack but would have a hard time destroying a careful fighter pilot.

- If a fighter gets too close the gunner can switch to secondary guns. These are Thorn and Barrack class weapons on small turrets.

- Cap ships don't have to be huge. A Frigate could be the same size as the existing Freighters.

- Fighting Cap ships in fighters and bombers would require different skills and tactics then Jumpgate Classic gank fleet fights. There should be room for both styles of play.

[Nanaki]

- Should only have two player crews. A pilot/commander and a gunner. All turrets point in the direction of the gunners cross hairs. More then two players would make the ship difficult to crew. Two man tanks worked well in Planetside. The 3 man TR tank didn't. One player would have trouble jumping from pilot to gunner (should still be an option).

It wouldnt work well if turrets were configurable, and if some turrets were special-purpose (I will personally configure one of my less needed turrets for external repair work, for example). For one, early capital ships will only have fighter-grade weapons. The factions barely have the economy to setup Capital ship production, much less Capital weapon, capital engine, etc. etc. etc.

Keeping all the turrets linked together causes problems as well if the capital ship (Especially a large one) is being hit from multiple sides.

- Cap ships don't have to be huge. A Frigate could be the same size as the existing Freighters.

Combat cap ships, yes, but the idea also includes for much larger Carriers as well.

A more extreme example of this would be if you made FFs cost 500k per pop. You need FFs to fight...but 500k? To be competitive you'd have to make and then spend millions of credits per fight.

Except that you dont need FFs to fight. Sure, it would be nice to have, but, if worse comes to worse, there is the concept of actually fighting your battles with something less than the absolute very best.

[SingleShot]

Originally Posted by Nanaki

Except that you dont need FFs to fight. Sure, it would be nice to have, but, if worse comes to worse, there is the concept of actually fighting your battles with something less than the absolute very best.

I can fight on an old-style Gator (antag), with sheps, with a vine, with a haven or canopy, spore, and sharks. I can do it with no duelist.
But fighting on anything but the most limited and temporary basis without FFs is not very pointful. A group of ships without them will simply lose or fail to kill a group of ships with them.


But I don't see how this is relevant to the problems of cost control of capships. Either you make them ineffective and useless or you break Jumpgate PvP in a dozen different ways, including either making fighting very expensive, or by giving everyone and there mother a battleship to ram stuff with.

There is a very fine line between those points and who knows if it could be hit on target.