I don't think you could keep lined up side on for very long against an agile ship the same as you can when reverse face tanking
"Dogfight" Flight Model?
- Thread starter Darkslayer
- Start date
I have seen capital ships multiple times in multiple CZs. You will see them when very powerful minor faction are at war with each other.
Exactly! Am I the only advocate for actual dogfighting?
It would be cool if we could have npc wingmen as well. A large ship with 3 npc crew (slf pilot and 2 crew to do odd jobs like fire turrets and whatnot) would easily defeat a small ship with a single pilot, but a player in a small ship could have 3 wingmen also in small ships who would even out the odds and make it a balanced fight.
Medium ships could be an in between, requiring only 1 extra crew member to full pilot, and having a power level in between a fully crewed large ship and small ship.
You would have exactly the same rotational characteristics, only roll would become "pitch" and pitch would become "roll". The side thrusters for accelerating away from the enemy would be weaker than retro thrusters but since you're just using them to maintain the max speed it's not going to make much of a difference. On the other hand you'd be using the powerful main thrusters to accelerate sideways for evasion which would mean more, rather than less agility.
No, there are plenty of "advocates" for dog fighting but it is not everyone game. There are a lot of Commanders who will jump in a small ship and head to a CZ. Myself included. There are others who are not going to get very good at that and probably never will.
Out of those big 3 the Corvette is the only one that is a designated combat (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
Sure, but look at a Viper next to a Vette. Same difference.
Modern naval ships don't even fight like this. Even during most of WWI Naval battles are a very much "stand off" affair. The naval ships during the Battle of Midway never saw each other.
We see Capital Ships line up next to each other in CZs and start slugging it out which is very unrealistic. A more realistic scene would be these ships many KMs away from each other launching fighters and attack ships and firing long range weapons at each other. In fact they could be light seconds away from each other firing Super Cruise enable missiles. (Hey, new weapon, the Super Cruise Missile!)
It's hard to blame the flight mechanics that makes small and medium sized ships so fun to fly and fight in, for people finding, and using tactics that get around dogfighting. The 'Reverseski' had been around for a while. There have been many discussions on how to deal with it. The long and short of it is, you can't dictate how people use the tools given. Don't blame the Flight Mechanic, don't blame big ships, blame human nature.
And don't turn it around and say that FD should have known and done something to stop it. If they did, you'd just be here complaining about something they did to try and stop it. If a Big ship goes all 'Reverseski' on you. Disengage and find something else to fight. Small ships don;t have the 'right' to knock off big ships, you have to defeat them, in their entirety. Try getting a bigger ship.
And don't turn it around and say that FD should have known and done something to stop it. If they did, you'd just be here complaining about something they did to try and stop it. If a Big ship goes all 'Reverseski' on you. Disengage and find something else to fight. Small ships don;t have the 'right' to knock off big ships, you have to defeat them, in their entirety. Try getting a bigger ship.
Last edited:
The Corvette is 5.6 times the length of a Viper
The Farragut is over 12 times the length of a Corvette.
The point is the "large ships" are still tiny to the actual Capital ships, small enough to still be about manoeuvre over broadside
Last edited:
Exactly!
Tactics are what are employed to win the fight. The "revereski" is a valid dog fighting tactic in this game. As is boost+FAOFF, etc. Any maneuver that gains you an advantage over your enemy is a valid tactic. It certainly should not be removed from the game,
Flying backwards, sideways, etc are all valid in space. This is not air combat it is "space" combat.
Last edited:
I thought he was dishonourably shot in a German dungeon during by Lord Flasheart? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RFwflbMo2c
Last edited:
If your response to game balance issues is "get a bigger ship", you're missing the point. Just having a big ship should not be an "iWin" button. Should it be easier to win? Sure; but the response should never be "go big or go home".
A much more fun an engagement game mechanic would be a Rock/Paper/Scissors approach. The classic Figthers kill bombers, bombers kill capital ships, capitals kill fighters approach used in other games. Of course in Elite's case, there is a whole range of ships between Fighter and Capital (Capital being the Big 3 in this case).
While not all fighters/small ships need to be a threat to the big three, a ship explicitly configured to be a threat should be. Its a shame Torpedoes are pretty much junk in this game, as they would be the perfect response to having a weapon specifically designed for killing a big ship.
As it stands right now some small ships explicitly configured for PVP are a threat to big ships, but the skill required on the smaller ship is pretty high. One false move and you're dead.
But, the fact remains, all of the ships we have access to are considered 'small' ships. The largest of the ships we have access to are still the smallest of ships that are part of the navy, ect. My response wasn't simply 'get a bigger ship'. I'll stand by my point that small ships don't have the 'right' to destroy big ships, but a small ships can destroy big ships. I was replying to the notion that the game's fight mechanic was to blame for the 'Reverseski'.
The point about the size of his ship was a call to change his tactics. You focused in on the ship size issue, rather than the idea that you can, and should, find a way to defeat your opponents, rather than blame the flight mechanic. One of the tactics he applies is the agility of small ships. He could use a larger ship, with more firepower, and/or speed. Or he could just decline to engage Commanders who employ the 'reverseski'.
Last edited:
Until FD add in some kind of way for small ships to rival the big ships in terms of price, obviously people will expect a performance difference - it's only reasonable people get performance relating to the price they pay. Currently, the game is balanced around small ships being stepping stones and toys to play around in, but players should move into their larger ships to do proper work unless they expect to be seeing a rebuy screen.
That being said, this is one of the reasons why I am in favour adding in the ability to assign your NPC crew your spare ships so they can join you as wingmen. Unless someone has been a serious exploiter, it's quite difficult to amass the funds necessary to fully outfit a whole wing of large ships, meanwhile it is quite reasonable for even a middling player to throw together their own little wing of vipers. This would give the cheaper ships a whole new lease of life, as players would have the option to broaden their assets rather than being rewarded for focusing entirely on a single ship.
Alternatively, I would also be in favour of adding in a new set of compact modules, that are only available up to class 5-6 in size (depending on module and balance requirements, and not including the FSD to prevent massive jump range inflation) that offer the specifications and performance of an A-grade module the size above, but the price of an A-grade two sizes above. For example, a 5A Compact Power Distributor would have the performance, mass and power requirements of a class 6A, but the price of a 7A distributor. A heavy fighter, such as a Vulture, would overall have a price tag of around 200 million if outfitted with such modules, which is starting to get into the same ballpark as the larger ships in terms of price (although, it still shouldn't compare well against a fully equipped large ship, which would likely cost at least twice as much). If necessary, this system could be expanded to add in hypercompact modules in smaller classes that offer performance 2 classes higher but price 4 classes higher, to allow even little ships like Vipers and Eagles the chance to play on a level playing field with the larger ships. These modules would also benefit traders, as they could use smaller shields than normal by paying extra credits as well as their small distributor being less of an issue.
Yes. Many times. The dancing Farraguts were particularly amusing. I have even been shot down by a Majestic when I strayed a little too close for the trigger-happy captain's liking.
If your point was "There are ways of dealing with the reverski", it might have been more helpful to explain how. Your original post just says get a bigger ship or run away.
I think the big ships do offer a great leg up in the price vs. performance category, across all mission roles. They earn their keep and that's why so many people like to fly them. And again, there are some small ship configurations that do well against big ships, but those same configurations do well against all ships.
I'm just saying I think FDev is missing an opportunity to create a "bomber" like role where a small ship can be configured explicitly for killing big ships; at the expense of small ship killing ability. Just a couple of new weapon/utlity types would probably suffice. Your "Compact" module idea would greatly undermine the value of big ships, and upset balance even further.