Why are ships so hard? (this may be a shitpost)
- Thread starter Blind Owl
- Start date
Not that I've heard. Mind you, I don't hear everything.
AntiSqueaker
Space Marshal
Considering the "Freelancer vs small jump points" issue has flip flopped like 30x since the game's been in production, I would take everything at this point in time with a healthy grain of salt.
It's not like we actually have jump points to navigate anyway, so CIGs probably just guessing at this point.
It's not like we actually have jump points to navigate anyway, so CIGs probably just guessing at this point.
While i would normally agree, the freelancer has also doubled in size, if not close to tripled. so i doubt it will be able to fit through small jump points.
I wanted one multi-role multi-crew ship, it became the Aquila I was in doubt a long time, but then the trade gods gave me a bright sign and I was sold :p
The Freelancer was kind of a backup for the Aquila, to be used in dangerous space, faster, more agile and a smaller target. When I took her out for a fly I was very surprised of her good handling, so I upgraded her to a Missile Boat :D
I let myself be surprised.
I played with a starfarer last night, and honestly, I was not impressed. Yes, the nose cannons will kill absolutely any small ship it hits first shot, but if your opponents get close, you are doomed. Turrets (at least in the current iteration) are really not worth all that much. Lost a person in a turret twice last night within 30s of spawning some pirates - once in a connie, once in a starfarer - Turret got hit, they got ejected.
Turrets are also bloody hard to use in space if the pilot is doing even minor maneuvering. They might be more effective in ground assaults where they can force resistance into cover. Finally, unless the Star G has a ton more resilience, they will also blow up too easily for their size. Even if they don't blow up, an attacker doesn't need to kill it to render it useless. Pop the fuel pods on a starfarer and they lose the reason they are there. At that point, you can either bug out or move on to another target. Even if the fuel pod gets repaired, they still lose all the fuel that was stored there. To me, this means that the Starfarer is just one big target that will need considerable protection for long range probes.
Turrets are also bloody hard to use in space if the pilot is doing even minor maneuvering. They might be more effective in ground assaults where they can force resistance into cover. Finally, unless the Star G has a ton more resilience, they will also blow up too easily for their size. Even if they don't blow up, an attacker doesn't need to kill it to render it useless. Pop the fuel pods on a starfarer and they lose the reason they are there. At that point, you can either bug out or move on to another target. Even if the fuel pod gets repaired, they still lose all the fuel that was stored there. To me, this means that the Starfarer is just one big target that will need considerable protection for long range probes.
If it ends up being able to negotiate a small hole, then it may be worth owning one.
If it doesn't, well, she still packs a punch, and moves quite nicely.
I don't have many ships that'll fit through anything less than a Large jump point anymore lol.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I'm the same way. I like the look of the bridge, and standing on it would be fun, but I think of all that target area and realize her guns are not worth much and you don't want to take her out without several friends manning the guns and several more in escort. You might get by without the escort in deep, empty space like when you're exploring, but I would not take her near a busy system.
And if what you want is a cool multi-role to fly without an escort most of the time, I just think the Carrack is worth the extra pesos. That bridge is just breathtaking. Who doesn't want to live there?
Last edited:
All big ships doesn't matter which currently suffer from the problem that they need turrets to work and turrets currently dont. Lets be honest though they are intended to be weak if a fighter can sit in your blindspot (which they all seem to have). It is not enough to say they will need escorts because if 3 singler person ships attack a ship with say 5 crew and 2 escorts because the left over single fighter can still abuse the big ship. Anyways lots of balancing still very much required. If a large fuel tanker was able to abuse all fighters I would thing there is something wrong with that as well so not at all sure how this will end up.
By itself, a large fuel tanker should not be able to abuse all fighters, but one-on-one, a fighter should not be able to survive close in - and it should be hard to even able to get into close range. Turrets, shields and main guns with some minimal maneuvering SHOULD be able to make it very survivable for the larger ship when a lone wolf ship attacks. The minute you get 3 on 1 odds though against a bigger ship, you are going to be hard pressed to fight them off if their pilots/weapons are any good.
*sigh* So true now. Maybe a 315, lol. Makes me wish I'd picked up a small explorer. Maybe the Reliant Sen.
I want the Carrack some fierce. If she comes available, that'll be the one my Star-G becomes. That bridge is glorious.
I concur with your thoughts on the Aquila. Alone is deep space, fine, but taking her into hostile space alone. Probably not the smartest move.
I agree. A larger ship (depending on its role) should be able to defend against one or two fighters, at least long enough to get out of there or escorts arrive.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I think about it as the same dynamic history records with fighters attacking bombers during WWII. The fighters almost always won. The bombers would group together and cover each other with their turrets, but bomber crews in WWII had the lowest survival rate of any form of service in that war. The only way to really keep the bombers safe was not only to send fighter escorts, but for those escorts to practice sufficient discipline as to stay with the bombers rather than go hunting for kills. Even with that discipline in place, and gunners at every turret, and as many defending fighters as attacking fighters, bombers did not have a good survival rate. We should all keep this in mind because the Redeemer is just not nearly as lethal and survivable as the Buck, or Hornet or Sabre.
And note, we no longer build bombers with turrets. We haven't in half century.
In my opinion (which counts for absolutely nothing), someone who really wants to explore for the sake of exploring should have 2-3 ships.
If the Freelancer still fits through the small wormholes (which is my current understanding), get that one over the 315, especially if you are a decent pilot. From the video I saw on the wormhole concept, the 315 will have the edge over any other ship in terms of navigating the wormholes routes. Small and maneuverable. On the other hand, the Dur should be able to fit the dragonfly as a mini-rover type for a quick planetary surface recon, have access to slightly better/more sensors, still be small enough to handle with 1 person, and should still take a bit more of a beating, meaning more survivability if you jump into something nasty and need to make a hasty retreat. It still might make sense to get the 315 AND the Dur, but I would only spend cash on one and get the other with in-game currency.
For the second (or third) ship, get the Aquila or the Carrack. I see the Carrack as more of the backbone of any exploration fleet, with it making up part of the core fleet, identifying potential targets with long range scans and dispatching the Aquila or one of the Dur/315 models to take a look at the area to see what's out there. I don't really see the Carrack as being out on it's own either. It will probably always need at least a few escorts to protect it, meaning that you may also need more fuel support, if you are out of range of a local fuel station. This may mean more protection to babysit the floating gas can, etc.
The Aquila I see as more of a "flex" option. It should be able to be the backbone of a bigger enterprise, or be able to go out exploring with just you and 3-5 of your fellow TESTies. With the Snub ship, you can have some flexibility in fighter protection (the Merlin or a long range fighter like the Vanguard should be enough), do it's at the goldilocks zone of being able to do single ship missions and participate in large scale operations either with smaller ships, or being assigned a sub area to itself by exploration leader. Finally it has a rover to allow easier collection of cargo to bring back to the ship, or can be pressed into service as a small hauler/tagger other ops.
Right now, I am torn between the Carrack and the Aquila. Do I get the bigger ship I would LOVE to have or do I get a slight smaller ship and be less as the mercy of having to organize bigger effort if I want to go do something. I'm torn and I still have not made up my mind... To paraphrase the thread title, ships are hard....
Last edited:
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
The Freelancer is the largest ship that can fit through a small wormhole, and should provide a much larger scan area and general exploration capability than the 300 series.
Last edited:
[/QUOTE]
Correct. I should have said IF the freelancer still fits through the smallest wormholes.... My bad
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
I dunno if anyone has said, but I have watched a few vids of the Freelancer in action. While difficult to defend, it is a kick to watch those big guns hammer opponents.
Is it already clear if it is possible to switch all the gear between variants in game? I had a Freelancer as smal/medium transport, but was quite impressed by its flight capabilities, so I upgraded it to a MIS for its combat abilities. Can I replace the missile loading system with scanning equipment in game?
The 350R has its fuselage re-engineered to accommodate two thrusters. It would be obvious if that couldn't be reversed in game :)