Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 61

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: The gunship needs another size 5 internal slot, or at least a buff of some kind

  1. #16
    Originally Posted by maxpayne View Post (Source)
    What military slot?
    They are considering military modules which can only be used by certain vessels, specifically mentioned was the triumvirate of the FDS, FAS & FGS. Similar to the way the Orca and Beluga are uniquely able to fit luxury accommodation. Their reasoning seems to be that this should bring more competitive alternatives to the FdL.

    So for those who assume that FDev are unaware of or don't care about the yawn-inducing FdL 'meta', here is proof positive that they are aware and that they care!
    I got a fever, and the only prescription is more DAKKA!

  2. #17
    Originally Posted by TomP View Post (Source)
    They are considering military modules which can only be used by certain vessels, specifically mentioned was the triumvirate of the FDS, FAS & FGS. Similar to the way the Orca and Beluga are uniquely able to fit luxury accommodation. Their reasoning seems to be that this should bring more competitive alternatives to the FdL.

    So for those who assume that FDev are unaware of or don't care about the yawn-inducing FdL 'meta', here is proof positive that they are aware and that they care!
    I think the confusion above (kofeyh) stems from the comparisons with luxury cabins. Whereas luxury cabins are limited only to those two ships, I understood that these military slots would not mean MDP's would suddenly be made exclusive to military slots. Rather, these military slots would be additional slots for military style modules only.

    It's similar to luxury cabins but there is a distinct difference. Passenger "fixed" module slots provide additional slots for the Beluga and Orca to allow them exclusive access to luxury cabins. Military slots are proposed to allow extra module slots for fighter ships where only fighter type modules can be fitted, but those fighter type modules can still be fitted to optional slots.

    It's a bit difficult to explain But that distinction is important.
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/image.php?u=50093&type=sigpic&dateline=1416858574

  3. #18
    Originally Posted by Ydiss View Post (Source)
    I think the confusion above (kofeyh) stems from the comparisons with luxury cabins. Whereas luxury cabins are limited only to those two ships, I understood that these military slots would not mean MDP's would suddenly be made exclusive to military slots. Rather, these military slots would be additional slots for military style modules only.

    It's similar to luxury cabins but there is a distinct difference. Passenger "fixed" module slots provide additional slots for the Beluga and Orca to allow them exclusive access to luxury cabins. Military slots are proposed to allow extra module slots for fighter ships where only fighter type modules can be fitted, but those fighter type modules can still be fitted to optional slots.

    It's a bit difficult to explain But that distinction is important.
    Im not too sure. I am wondering if we will get military spec modules as well, for example a military spec Module Defence package or HRP, which will be a better version then the civilian version which we have ingame now. Personally I wouldn't mind that, having military versions of certain modules that can only be fitted into military specced internal compartments. It maybe that these compartment are only good for these modules as well and won't be able to fit other non military modules such as cargo bays or fuel scoops, so they have a drawback to them.

  4. #19
    Originally Posted by Max Factor View Post (Source)
    Im not too sure. I am wondering if we will get military spec modules as well, for example a military spec Module Defence package or HRP, which will be a better version then the civilian version which we have ingame now. Personally I wouldn't mind that, having military versions of certain modules that can only be fitted into military specced internal compartments. It maybe that these compartment are only good for these modules as well and won't be able to fit other non military modules such as cargo bays or fuel scoops, so they have a drawback to them.
    I'm all for that.
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/image.php?u=50093&type=sigpic&dateline=1416858574

  5. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #20
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commanders!

    Military slots would only allow module reinforcement packs, hull reinforcement packs and shield cell banks.

    Only some ships would get them, in various amounts. They would be additional slots.

  6. #21
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Military slots would only allow module reinforcement packs, hull reinforcement packs and shield cell banks.

    Only some ships would get them, in various amounts. They would be additional slots.
    Eh, Sandro, one question please... "Would" or "will"?

  7. #22
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Military slots would only allow module reinforcement packs, hull reinforcement packs and shield cell banks.

    Only some ships would get them, in various amounts. They would be additional slots.
    I would have prefered military specced modules that are better then civilian specced modules that only certain combat ships could use, but this way is fine as well.

  8. #23
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Military slots would only allow module reinforcement packs, hull reinforcement packs and shield cell banks.

    Only some ships would get them, in various amounts. They would be additional slots.
    That's all I wanted to know (because I assume you'll give a few of those to the gunship). Thanks


    -CMDR Sali Vader // Join SINC today! // Discord

  9. #24
    Originally Posted by SaliVader View Post (Source)
    As of now, the gunship has one size 6, 1 size 5 and two size 2 slots. You'll need one of the size 6 slots for a shields generator. That means that if you wanna put a fighter bay in it (and why wouldn't you, it is one of the reasons the gunship exists in the first place), you are left with either a size 5 SCB or a size 6 SCB, depending on which fighter bay you chose. This, combined with the terrible shields the gunship has (mine has 577MJs with size 6 prismatics plus 3 boosters) and its horrible manouverability, which makes it an easy to hit target, leaves the gunship in a pretty bad position. Please, give the gunship some love
    Gunship is a armor tanking ship, but not a shield tanking ship. So asking to obtain more size 5 internal slots for adding more SCB and a prismatic shield is not relevant.
    What could be relevant would be asking to obtain a manouverability buff, and more internal slots to add modules reinforcement stuff.

  10. #25
    I really like this idea to make specialized module slots, allowing ships to have certain role niches without making them superpowered multipurpose ships. I think it is a concept that can be expanded to trade ships as well (sort of done already with the way that Orca and Belugas can only load cabins in some slots).

    Good thinking!

  11. #26
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Military slots would only allow module reinforcement packs, hull reinforcement packs and shield cell banks.

    Only some ships would get them, in various amounts. They would be additional slots.
    I fear there is no way around a complete ship rebalance due to engineers. Just like the heat meta. Either nerf it to obvlivion or redesign it. The result was a nerf but the issue persists: It is either incredibly underpowered or overpowered as its effect itself is the problem: generation of heat out of nowhere.

    Today, I haven't seen someone using a heat weapon to be effective. Except on pulse lasers because there is no other alternative to phasing sequence.

    With additional military slots players gonna stack them HRPs and the hitpoint inflation will continue. I already can tank two full wings in my META FDL and then wake out in safety before my shields are scratched. The only threat will be plasmas ... ALOT of plasmas.

    The new MRPs are not really useful. Missiles are still the hard counter to any hull tank. There needs to be a way to permanentely counter missiles using skill .. not a specific loadout. Currently emissive seeker missiles are the hard counter to any hull tank due to their 100% accuracy .. even for modules. Any weapons will be doomed in less than 10 seconds while the hull strength itself remains at 90% .. thus resulting in a flying piece of concrete that is doomed to blow up .. after some minutes of continous multicannon fire.

    Same for shield cell banks. Have a hammer which triggers the cascade effect three times per salvo completely negates the nerf of this special effect and remains the hard counter to any large ship .. or any ship using SCBs which is why the META FDL will still be the uber king of doom in combat in PvE and PvP.

    Even if the FAS would have 10 military slots and the FDL 0, the FDL would win as the FAS can not stack SCBs due to them being countered by cascades, especially in wing fights. It would have to rely on MRPs and HRPs but these do not fully protect your modules. So you will end up with 0% wepaons and 90% of hull left no matter how many MRPs we stack due to the inability to protect our modules from seeker missiles with skill.



    The problem with military slots, MRPs/HRPs and to stay on topic: the Gunship is that it is unable to compete with the FDL's firepower, shield strength, agility or anything.

    The Gunship is slower, has less firepower, turns slower, weaker shields and has weaker hull. The fighter is toast in less than a second.

    Right now, the only counter to missiles are shields. Anything with a good shield rating is simply viable and better and what a surprise it is .. the FDL wins.

    All these balancing issues are tightly connected together and due to engineers vs vanilla it is almost impossible to balance them seperately.



    That said, I suggest (in case of the Gunship) to repalce the small hardpoitns with a large one (yes this requires model design resources) just like the FAS has one, give it one C4/5 internal and make it a little faster ... ~375 m/s vanilla A rated thrusters.

    For missiles: Allow for outmanouvers against seekers. Or simply make them harder to hit on cold targets. For example add a jitter effect the colder the targetted ship is, this neds to be refreshed all the time the missile is locking on and tracking, eventually losing the lock whe the ship can not target the cold target ship (or if it is silent running, missiles could usel ock as well as of HEATSEEKER).
    Commander Crimson Kaim, hunting imperials since 3301!
    > Video logs <

    Loyal Federation Supporter



  12. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #27
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Huita!

    Will.

    Watch this space.

    Hello Commander Alex Ringess!

    It's actually about adding options to military ships without polluting multi-role ships.

    But yes, military slots will specifically allow hull and module reinforcement.

    Hello Commander Crimson Kaim!

    Military slots isn't the only addition we're going to test this beta. We're also looking at shields. Again, more details incoming soon.

    However, it's worth noting that we're focusing more on 1v1 engagements at the moment.

  13. #28
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commander Huita!

    Will.

    Watch this space.

    Hello Commander Alex Ringess!

    It's actually about adding options to military ships without polluting multi-role ships.

    But yes, military slots will specifically allow hull and module reinforcement.

    Hello Commander Crimson Kaim!

    Military slots isn't the only addition we're going to test this beta. We're also looking at shields. Again, more details incoming soon.

    However, it's worth noting that we're focusing more on 1v1 engagements at the moment.
    Yay! By the way, while we're at it - is the idea to make combat ships better at combat, not multirole ships worse at combat? I mean, there's Cutter that's currently king of the hill for everything. It's supposed to be military ship, but you can just add cargo racks and haul 700+ tons around with 350+ boost and highest mass factor in the game. Wouldn't changing, not adding, some modules there make sense?

  14. #29
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commander Huita!

    Will.

    Watch this space.

    Hello Commander Alex Ringess!

    It's actually about adding options to military ships without polluting multi-role ships.

    But yes, military slots will specifically allow hull and module reinforcement.

    Hello Commander Crimson Kaim!

    Military slots isn't the only addition we're going to test this beta. We're also looking at shields. Again, more details incoming soon.

    However, it's worth noting that we're focusing more on 1v1 engagements at the moment.
    Its going to be an interesting thing for the military ships. I hope something is being considered for trade ships as well. The T7 had a nice boost recently, but the T9 is just a flying coffin, so something that could be added to trade ships in the way of specialalized modules might go a long way to making them more attractive for their designed role.
    Je suis Sidewinder (Credit for image goes to Moozipan)

  15. This is the last staff post in this thread. #30
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Huita!

    The idea we're testing is to help pep up some combat ships (amongst other things), yes.

    The Imperial Cutter, Anaconda and Federal Corvette are all super ships, with price tags to match. While they may lean towards certain activities, they are capable at most tasks, which is not something we're looking to change.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast