Spider-man Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 I know much more thought has been put into this than what I have dedicated to it, but it seems that the cloaking device/PAD combination makes the player too powerful. Either that or the Starstations are too weak. For instance, One would assume that destroying/capturing a starstation should be one of the most challenging endeavors in the game. Currently, however, it is the easiest thing to do. Cloak, approach, shoot until dead. If the enemy was able to see thru the cloak when you fire, or could still establish a missile lock or something -- there would be a sense of risk or danger. But as it is now, there is not much risk involved in attacking Stations. Fighters, ODS, and other ships seem to be appropriately difficult to fight. They are still able to make themselves a difficult target. But they are at quite a disadvantage when I am cloaked and have the PAD. Am I missing something here guys? or does this disadvantage serve a purpose (ie: no hiding on stations during multiplayer -- you WILL DIE)? [ 02-09-2002, 03:45: Message edited by: Spider-man ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xierxior Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 i can lay wast to a station in a fighter... they need better shielding or stronger pta turrets, anyways just a thought i dont think you should be able to destroy stations in fighters and when your cloakd it be alot more dangerous if your shielding didnt work, be nice if stations had two pta systems like in freespace2 one was designd for takeing out fighters and one for capital ships before anyone thinks this is a wish list i better shutup and im not compareing bcm to freespace2 in any way and or form at all i just thought the anti fighter pta systems were very chalengeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spider-man Posted February 9, 2002 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 Hmmm.. the "no shield while cloaked" idea is interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclipse Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 Starstations don't need better shielding; reducing the fighter cannons damage and increasing the damage of station PTA's is what needs to be done. As it stands now, you don't even need a cloak and PAD to totally shred a station. My philosophy is that a station should nearly breach an attacking capital ships' shields by the time that the ship is inside of the stations PTA range. Also, they need to stop targeting missiles or the missiles need quite a bit less armor. Finally fighter weapons should not completly breach the shields of something 100x it's size in under 30 seconds. Of course these are just my poersonal beliefs, and unless I were somehow able to send subliminal messages to the SC, there is prettymuch a nil chance of getting it changed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 I believe starstations are too weak too. Not that I want them as tough as ODS systems, I want to feel some challenge. Right now, I can destroy any station in one pass with my sunflash.... yes I agree starstations should be made like they're the most challenging thing to destroy/capture I believe I believe the starstations should have 2-3 times more shields/armor and a 2-3 faster shield/armor recharge/repair time. It would make it much tougher, and much more enjoyable. In fact, starstations should be almost impossible to beat alone. What will it look like in MP, in any fleet assault? Eh, that's what Orion is for, fleet and starstation assaults. If one ship can destroy a starstation in 20 seconds, how will the enemy be able to keep their starstations alive facing 20 ships? Also, it looks weird... a small 1.5km ship can destroy a HUGE 25+ kilometers sized starstation. What's with that? Shouldn't the firepower be scaled with the size of everything, or almost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xierxior Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 if the stations had more powerfull/longer ranged pta systems that would really help i wanna hear hull breach by the time i get within their fireing range, the firestorm can even take out a station by just flying around it the pta systems on it seem real strong.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weegee_101 Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 I'll agree, every time I've attacked a starstation I've destroyed it in about 1-2 minutes. Destruction of it isn't my goal, capturing is, but I never can disable them, darn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderJohnson Posted February 9, 2002 Report Share Posted February 9, 2002 I captured every anti-Gammulan station from Erindi to Earth with no (hull) damage. Sometimes cloaking, sometimes not. Always taking less than 10 minutes, time dependent on how many of those fighters launched at me I destroy. I think that it should stay that way though. As someone else said, in multiplayer it'll be a good reason to NOT stay docked at stations. (although the amount of time it takes to sell mined minerals may make a lot of people get killed) Another thing, didnt the SC say at some point (sorry if i'm wrong), that people will be able to man station turrets/guns? (not sure if it was BCO or BCM or my imagination) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xierxior Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 it wouldnt matter if someone maned them because they would probly be less acourate and even if they were more acourate, they still wouldnt inflict enough damage, the pta system scrape my ship til i get intside their fireing range, youd figure the stations are so large theyd have the mother of all pta systems, i know id be scared of docking at a station in multiplayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 From a fictional standpoint, what civilization would devote the resources to building a huge space station that can be taken out by a single fighter at will? It seems like a boondoggle project that only our Congress would endorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderJohnson Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 Heh, Gammulan stations are so much better built and defended than Earth's stupid stations. (captured Galcom HQ, Genesis, and Empirian stations between Erindi and Sol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dredd: Heh, Gammulan stations are so much better built and defended than Earth's stupid stations. (captured Galcom HQ, Genesis, and Empirian stations between Erindi and Sol)Gammulan starstations aren't better than non-gammulan stations. A type-3 station is a type 3 station, whether it's gammulan or terran or syrion or mandorian or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xierxior Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 he means the gammulan station and yes it does seem to be better defended last time i checked it had higher shielding and more pta turrets and it looks like it has engines to.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunanta Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 I have to agree- the stations are a bit weak... It takes so little effort to destroy them. IMHO, you should need a small fleet to take one down. It would be akin to a single warship of any class being able to destroy a coastal fortress. Stations are also, of course, trading platforms-- if they weren't, you might as well have another ODS instead of building a huge, expensive structure. Of course, for that reason, a station should be even more powerful because it does double duty--serving as a hub of trade and commerce in addition to helping to secure a region--so its loss would be doubly felt, as opposed to that of a simple ODS whose only job is to help defend a single planet or moon. [ 02-10-2002, 03:49: Message edited by: Sunanta ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 If the stations were more powerful (trust me, I can make them near impossible to beat, and in fact, invincible), the station capture feature would never be realized. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclipse Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 Maybe not near impossible, but perhaps bump them up to difficult to beat would be nice. *waits, hoping SC will increase the difficulty* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Schacher Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 Maybe some combination of beefing up the shields or recharge rates, while increasing the integrity level that it surrenders. I find that after wearing a station down to almost nothing, I have to save the game before trying to get it to surrender. If I don't hit it *just* right, it blows. So, make it harder to wear down, but once wore down make it easier to SOS. Maybe it's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 The main problem is that you can cloak your CC and be undetected by the station. I can park my CC in front of the station and use the PAD and never once get attacked by the station or have it launch ships at me. If you ever try this while uncloaked your dead within minutes. IMO having all cloaked ships be detected within a certain proximity to the station or that you must decloak to fire your weapons would resolve the ease of station capture or destruction. This would also be essential for MP. [ 02-10-2002, 13:35: Message edited by: Gordon ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: If the stations were more powerful (trust me, I can make them near impossible to beat, and in fact, invincible), the station capture feature would never be realized. Ever.How so? We just want them a bit more challenging, not impossible to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Steve Schacher: Maybe some combination of beefing up the shields or recharge rates, while increasing the integrity level that it surrenders. I find that after wearing a station down to almost nothing, I have to save the game before trying to get it to surrender. If I don't hit it *just* right, it blows. So, make it harder to wear down, but once wore down make it easier to SOS. Maybe it's just me.Nonsense. Siddown. Next! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Gordon: The main problem is that you can cloak your CC and be undetected by the station. I can park my CC in front of the station and use the PAD and never once get attacked by the station or have it launch ships at me. If you ever try this while uncloaked your dead within minutes. IMO having all cloaked ships be detected within a certain proximity to the station or that you must decloak to fire your weapons would resolve the ease of station capture or destruction. This would also be essential for MP.Good ideas. I will consider them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Epsilon 5: quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: If the stations were more powerful (trust me, I can make them near impossible to beat, and in fact, invincible), the station capture feature would never be realized. Ever.How so? We just want them a bit more challenging, not impossible to beat.Read my post again. This time, wipe your monitor first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 quote:If the stations were more powerful (trust me, I can make them near impossible to beat, and in fact, invincible), the station capture feature would never be realized. Ever.It's that part that i don't understand. Why not? [ 02-10-2002, 16:58: Message edited by: Epsilon 5 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 I said : In can make them near impossible to beat You said: We just want them a bit more challenging, not impossible to beat And if you read my ENTIRE statement again, you will see how your truncating what I said, gives a completely new meaning to what I said. [ 02-10-2002, 16:59: Message edited by: Supreme Cmdr ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epsilon 5 Posted February 10, 2002 Report Share Posted February 10, 2002 Then I want them a bit before near impossible to beat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now