Super maneuverable large ships...

Cmdr Esteban

Cmdr Esteban
SkipRat are you using translational thrusters in your combat positioning?

Boost strafing - vertical, horizontal (and diagonal if you have analogue control over thrusters)?

These manoeuvres are essential in countering attacks by other ships (AI or players).

I'm hoping you're not solely relying on stick and rudder here...
 
Last edited:

Mark Lock

M
SkipRat said:
Seriously, when did large heave mass ships become more maneuverable than small lighter ships?

Been playing this game again after 3/4 month break and already with 1 hour of playing the game is annoying the hell out of me.

Yes larger ships can be very very powerful and so they should be... but out turning small ships...
Click to expand...

Do you mean NPC ships ?? In this case yes, they outmaneuver smaller ships at times, NPC ships don't behave exactly like players' ships, they had to make them cheat a little to be more challenging
 

Hajile

Hajile
I have just read 9 pages of this...
Skip rat you are not a very good pilot. this hurts, I know and im sorry, frankly I am not a good combat pilot either. if you can't keep a cobra in the sweet spot of a clipper then you are doing something wrong. everyone on this page STARTED by trying to help you, please admit that you have a problem. admitting that you have a problem is the first step to getting better.
 

SkipRat

SkipRat
Darrett said:
Those are the arguments that we hear time and time again from people who are more interested in MMO progression mechanics (Bigger ship = better) rather than an interesting and balanced combat model. Large ships currently change vectors too quickly and are too maneuverable. If they increased drift in larger ships and decreased their ability to accelerate to maximum speed on all thrusters and especially forward facing thrusters, it would allow small ships to take advantage of this at close range by changing circling vectors to stay out of frontal firing arcs. This opens up roles for ships that aren't ultra-maneuverable like the Cobra Mk IV as well, since now you don't have every other ship in the game capable of dogfighting. What you'll hear is that you just don't know how to maneuver because you don't use FA Off, despite the fact that FA off turning does not increase maximum pitching speed and results in a head to head situation, which is the last thing a small ship pilot wants. The reality is that the combat model is flawed because of a lack of a ship roles system being instituted that makes your ship choice as well as your loadout a major decision point in what enemies you'll be most/least effective against.
Click to expand...

We have a winner...

Thank you.
 

shadragon

shadragon
Darrett said:
Those are the arguments that we hear time and time again from people who are more interested in MMO progression mechanics (Bigger ship = better) rather than an interesting and balanced combat model. Large ships currently change vectors too quickly and are too maneuverable. If they increased drift in larger ships and decreased their ability to accelerate to maximum speed on all thrusters and especially forward facing thrusters, it would allow small ships to take advantage of this at close range by changing circling vectors to stay out of frontal firing arcs. This opens up roles for ships that aren't ultra-maneuverable like the Cobra Mk IV as well, since now you don't have every other ship in the game capable of dogfighting. What you'll hear is that you just don't know how to maneuver because you don't use FA Off, despite the fact that FA off turning does not increase maximum pitching speed and results in a head to head situation, which is the last thing a small ship pilot wants. The reality is that the combat model is flawed because of a lack of a ship roles system being instituted that makes your ship choice as well as your loadout a major decision point in what enemies you'll be most/least effective against.
Click to expand...
My point was that ship maneuverability seems to be determined by the combat rating of the CMDR the AI is facing. I do use FA off in brief uses to get tighter turn circles. I don't fly FA off all the time as some people feel is necessary now.

To your point. Large ships should (generally) take longer to turn. Exceptions would be fighters like the Vulture and FDL as they are dedicated combat ships.

"interesting and balanced combat model" The model I see in use today is neither.
 

SkipRat

SkipRat
vindelanos said:
Why do you have a heatsink? You shouldn't be overheating in this setup. Dump that thing and replace it with an A booster.

Also, why the silver? Did you stop during a trade or delivery run to get into a fight?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Wait, what? Which of these ships is cannon fodder?
Click to expand...

I have heat sinks because they act as chaff for heat seeking missiles...

Or if I get to close to a sun...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

shadragon said:
My point was that ship maneuverability seems to be determined by the combat rating of the CMDR the AI is facing. I do use FA off in brief uses to get tighter turn circles. I don't fly FA off all the time as some people feel is necessary now.

To your point. Large ships should (generally) take longer to turn. Exceptions would be fighters like the Vulture and FDL as they are dedicated combat ships.

"interesting and balanced combat model" The model I see in use today is neither.
Click to expand...
Agree.
 
Last edited:

DragoonKnight

DragoonKnight
Sardu said:
Wait a tick...

How are the ships able to thrust backwards so much? There are no front thrusters. You would think they would be reliant on the small boosters to do that but they should offer nowhere near the speed you can attain in backward thrust now. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You are missing the fact that the top speed for traveling backwarda is only about half of what your ship can do traveling forward without boost.

So all the posts calling for a nerf on rear thrust are wasted. Its already been done.
 

the100thmonkey

the100thmonkey
DragoonKnight said:
You are missing the fact that the top speed for traveling backwarda is only about half of what your ship can do traveling forward without boost.

So all the posts calling for a nerf on rear thrust are wasted. Its already been done.
Click to expand...
With FA-on, this is true.

With FA-off, the nerf is to the acceleration, not the maximum velocity.

*edit*

and it's 60%.
 
Last edited:

777Driver

777Driver
Darrett said:
Those are the arguments that we hear time and time again from people who are more interested in MMO progression mechanics (Bigger ship = better) rather than an interesting and balanced combat model. Large ships currently change vectors too quickly and are too maneuverable. If they increased drift in larger ships and decreased their ability to accelerate to maximum speed on all thrusters and especially forward facing thrusters, it would allow small ships to take advantage of this at close range by changing circling vectors to stay out of frontal firing arcs. This opens up roles for ships that aren't ultra-maneuverable like the Cobra Mk IV as well, since now you don't have every other ship in the game capable of dogfighting. What you'll hear is that you just don't know how to maneuver because you don't use FA Off, despite the fact that FA off turning does not increase maximum pitching speed and results in a head to head situation, which is the last thing a small ship pilot wants. The reality is that the combat model is flawed because of a lack of a ship roles system being instituted that makes your ship choice as well as your loadout a major decision point in what enemies you'll be most/least effective against.
Click to expand...

Believe me, if I had it my way the Clipper would handle like a Cutter, the Anaconda/Corvette/Cutter would have much worse maneuverability and increased fire power.

Regarding FA-OFF, you are correct max speed along the pitch/roll/yaw axis is the same as FA-ON, you seemed to have left out a crucial detail, initial acceleration into a maneuver is faster with FA-OFF.

Btw, take a look at these stats, mainly the acceleration part that you seem to be complaining about.
 
Last edited:

Darrett

Darrett
777Driver said:
Believe me, if I had it my way the Clipper would handle like a Cutter, the Anaconda/Corvette/Cutter would have much worse maneuverability and increased fire power.Regarding FA-OFF, you are correct max speed along the pitch/roll/yaw axis is the same as FA-ON, you seemed to have left out a crucial detail, initial acceleration into a maneuver is faster with FA-OFF.
Click to expand...
That's true, which benefits larger ships disproportionately, especially since your vector is maintained during the maneuver which lessens the time to target, but forces a head to head situation. Again, advantage for the large ship. What you describe is exactly what I'd like to see, an increase in firepower and survivability for large ships in exchange for a maneuverability decrease. Ideally, you'd see fewer instances of large ships being outright destroyed, and turn it into a situation where they were either forced to jump out or disabled and pirated, as destroying a huge block of metal like a Type 9 should be more effort than it is worth for most people.
 

Minecraf345

M
If you want a fast, slow turning, turret reliant ship, fly (or fight) the Imperial Cutter. The Clipper was designed more for 1v1 combat while the cutter is more a multi-role that can be in combat if needed.
 

Vezdekot

V
SkipRat said:
Seriously, when did large heave mass ships become more maneuverable than small lighter ships?

Been playing this game again after 3/4 month break and already with 1 hour of playing the game is annoying the hell out of me.

Yes larger ships can be very very powerful and so they should be... but out turning small ships...
Click to expand...

Out turn, Dogfight in Elite? Lol. Hit the "boost" button then "FAoff" , that's the dogfight in Elite. Want to see real dogfigt? try IL-2 or WarThunder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom