Capital ships are dissapointing

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
THE_TrashMan
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon, 25. Apr 11, 12:05

Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by THE_TrashMan » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 12:20

For several reasons.

1) Too few of them. It's all freighters. Just 1 destroyer and 1 carrier with nothing else. What happened to other ships sizes/classes? Missile cruisers? Frigates?

2) Their design is mostly such that you can't even tell them apart from up-scaled fighters. There's little to give me a sense of scale and easily identify it as a capital ship. (And I personally dislike what you did to the Teladi ships).

3) The weapons. Dissapointingly small number of turrets and even worse - the turrets are the same as the ones on freighters. You'd think you'd have a larger class of weapons for capital ships - big guns to use against other big ships. Something to make them stand out.


So my suggestion to EgoSoft is simple - more ship with new weapons just for them. Add XL battleships with BIG guns. Frigates and such. You have a really nice framework and core game here, but it need a bit more polish.

EDIT: Another idea is to make capital ships immune to regular fighter weapons (but not the subsystems, so you can damage, but not destroy. You could also do it the way Freespace did it, that small weapons can only bring a capital ships hull down to 50-75%), so you'd need specialized missiles/torpedos to kill them.
- Burning with Awesomeness

- Pontifex Maximus Panaidia Est Canicula Infernalis

User avatar
ADMNtek
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue, 7. May 13, 16:07
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by ADMNtek » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 12:36

agreed. compared to XR the ships are pitifully just look at this.

Fulmekron:

Total DPS: 383800
Hull: 8400K
Capital Shield Class: Capital Field Generator Mk2 (x2)
Component Shield Class: Force Field Projector Mk1
Speed: 66 m/s
Drone Capacity: 150
Weapons:
HIT/MA Turret (Argon) x68
Plasma/MA Turret (Argon) x30
Plasma/JET LR Turret x12
Hailstorm Turret x8

Arawn:

Total DPS: 226560
Hull: 6000K
Capital Shield Class: Capital Field Generator Mk3 (x4)
Component Shield Class: Force Field Projector Mk2
Speed: 60 m/s
Drone Capacity: 300
Weapons:
HIT/MA Turret (Argon) x56
Plasma/MA Turret (Argon) x22
Hailstorm Turret x16
V Launcher x5
Astrobee Launcher x1


don't have the exact numbers for X4 yea but weapon wise they have a lot less.

stimdealer
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri, 7. Dec 18, 02:08

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by stimdealer » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 13:12

I imagine they just scaled down the 'capital ships' for X4 due to performance concerns.

Don't kill the messenger, I'm just pointing out possible reasons.

Gib me epic space battlez plox!

pittlebelge
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat, 4. Aug 12, 01:23
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by pittlebelge » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 13:25

I'd rather see some more capitals, have them bigger and meaner and such (I'd reaaaaaaly love that), but there is one thing I'll say in defense of those smaller ones : they are quite fast, if otherwise rather underwhelming. In the old X3 forums, I saw quite a few players complaining about the slow speed of the capitals.

Don't get me wrong, I used to fly in a kyoto back in AP. But I can understand the new compromise.

What I wonder most is if the new engine can handle projectiles and fight over longer distances. What I'd love is to see the capitals exchanging shots 50 or 100 km apart with swarms of fighters and corvettes buzzing in the middle and mid-weight in support.

So, yeah. Stupidly long range with enormous alpha damage, extremely slow turret turn rate and extremely fast projectiles, all making for a "battleship" feel. If not, the old galleon style suits me well too.

User avatar
bubbabenali
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue, 14. Jan 14, 08:30
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by bubbabenali » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 13:55

I have no problem with the numbers being reduced.
But they should hit at least something, had a viable coverage, should deal some damage and most importantly: the L and XL- ships should fire them when I fly the ship.
Seriously Flying a carrier turns the game into the slowest walking simulator on the market.

User avatar
Général Grievous
Posts: 3963
Joined: Tue, 14. Dec 04, 18:06
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by Général Grievous » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 13:58

I must say, i'd rather have Rebirth capital ships.
There is something i do not understand. Why didn't they add some retrofited Rebirth ships into X4? I mean, yes, the Teladis ships are here. But they are not the best design IMO.
Arawn, Taranis, Sucellus... they are beautyfull and heavy detailled and we don't have them in X4.

Paranids capital ships. Mostly the Odysseus. Or the Zeus. I don't know, they are very similar. Why did they put that keel? It feels soo fat this way and too similar with the Zeus.
Argon capital ships. Maybe the better ones. The Behemoth is pretty nice, but the Colossus is Ugly.
Teladi capital ships are Rebirth improvement. So i'm fin with it, even if i prefer X2 designs.

Capital ship weaponnery. Yeah, too slow. In Rebirth, they find the good balance. I don't understand why they changed that.
- I hate to see 100 very slow plasma bullets never hitting anything.
- Few turrets. I think it's more because capital ships are smaller (destroyers are small). I hope for an intermediary class between Destroyer and Carriers: Cruisers.
- Turret bullets speed are too slow. It is very hard to kill a small fighter with any capital ship.
- Cap ships are not strong enough. In my last game, one small fighter just destroyed my engines. I feel it exaggerated
Il vaut mieux mobiliser son intelligence sur des conneries plutot que de mobiliser sa connerie sur des choses intelligentes...

Kalantris
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon, 10. Dec 18, 11:56

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by Kalantris » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 14:25

I would very much like to crap my pants everytime I have to face a capital ship in a smaller craft. I would very much want it to be a fight for my life rather than just a minor nuissance once the fighters and drones are taken care of. I would like my carrier to be more than a shield I use to protect myself when my guns are cooling down.

Here's a couple of my propositions:

1. Speed
As much as I have to agree, that capital ships should be slightly slower than fighters, the main difference should be agility and acceleration rather than speed. There's no real reason for capital ships to be limited to a couple dozen meters per second, it's space god damn it, there's nothing stopping the ship from accelerating other than its own mass. It would however cause a serious problem if caps could outrun fighters tactics-wise. I would slightly increase the speed of all craft limiting speed advantage to no more than 15-20% per size. So if the fastest fighters would be limited to 1000m/s, fastest destroyers would have 800m/s and carriers 600m/s. The main difference should be in turn rates and speed loss due to maneouvering, where fighters would outshine everything due to better power to mass ratio.

2. Weapons
There's a fine balance between carriers getting pwned by a single drone and carriers destroying all small craft before they get in range to fire a single shot. A rather simple fix would be to add power output to all ships, which would regenerate shields if weapons are not firing. It could lead to funny combinations where massive guns on really small craft could actually drain shields to operate. Way more ways to build a craft in that scenario. Way more balancing to do on the other hand, but since it's a single player game... who cares really? More options at the cost of worse balance is a tradeoff I would take every day of the week.

Capital ships should have small, medium and large hardpoints with the option to mount Large, Medium and Small turrets.
Small hardpoints: 2 small or 1 medium turret.
Medium hardpoints: 4 small, 2 medium or 1 large
Large hardpoints: 8 small, 4 medium or 2 large turrets.

That would allow builds like anti-missile carriers, heavy hitters with main batteries focused primarily on destroying enemy capital ships, missile boats etc. Anti-missile turrets should be a completely different type of turret, could take the place of the beam turret or beam turrets could be changed to prioritize all missiles before even considering firing at anything. Turret AI should also be changed, so that they prioritize targets they can actually hit.

3. Weapon balance
1. Beams should have low damage due to their inherent ability to snipe anything anywhere anytime.
2. Plasma guns should either fire fast projectiles with a low spread or the projectiles should be slightly homing (a couple degrees per 1000m) to help the problem of hitting anything.
3. Missiles should have a very limited range (they seem to follow you for like an eternity now).
4. All ships should have an anti-missile computer in the software section, that would fire flares automatically once anti-missile defences are breached.
5. Numer of flares on ships should be GREATLY increased.
6. Bolt repeaters could deal damage to both shields and hull at the same time at a certain ratio (90%/10%).

Mr_Cossack
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri, 7. Dec 18, 08:25
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by Mr_Cossack » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 15:20

Also we need to be able to control turrets in large ships. Right now they just feel like waste of money.

glaucon
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed, 17. Oct 18, 07:59
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by glaucon » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 15:22

mere Frigates from X3 would utterly destroy X4's destroyers.....

desiriel
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed, 8. Feb 12, 18:10
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by desiriel » Wed, 12. Dec 18, 15:27

For what's worth I totally agree with the OP.

User avatar
THE_TrashMan
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon, 25. Apr 11, 12:05

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by THE_TrashMan » Thu, 13. Dec 18, 11:20

ADMNtek wrote:
Wed, 12. Dec 18, 12:36
agreed. compared to XR the ships are pitifully just look at this.
I know.

But it's not just about turret count. There are way to go around performance issues - for example, you can have slow-fireing (but more powerful) turrets, but a lot more of them, so the number of projectile the game has to track reamins the same.

Then there's also the issue of turret power. Capital ships have dissapointing firepower. Turrets are flimsy.
I don't expect much from a space carrier, but a space battleship should be a BATTLESHIP. Heavily armored, BIG turrets
- Burning with Awesomeness

- Pontifex Maximus Panaidia Est Canicula Infernalis

User avatar
THE_TrashMan
Posts: 401
Joined: Mon, 25. Apr 11, 12:05

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by THE_TrashMan » Thu, 13. Dec 18, 11:33

Kalantris wrote:
Wed, 12. Dec 18, 14:25
Here's a couple of my propositions:

1. Speed
As much as I have to agree, that capital ships should be slightly slower than fighters, the main difference should be agility and acceleration rather than speed. There's no real reason for capital ships to be limited to a couple dozen meters per second, it's space god damn it, there's nothing stopping the ship from accelerating other than its own mass. It would however cause a serious problem if caps could outrun fighters tactics-wise. I would slightly increase the speed of all craft limiting speed advantage to no more than 15-20% per size. So if the fastest fighters would be limited to 1000m/s, fastest destroyers would have 800m/s and carriers 600m/s. The main difference should be in turn rates and speed loss due to maneouvering, where fighters would outshine everything due to better power to mass ratio.
While you are right that realistically there is nothing stopping a ship from accelerating forever, that might not work well for a game. Enemies could run away from you forever and all battles would be jousting.

Capitals could use a small speed buff, at least in the travel mode.


2. Weapons
There's a fine balance between carriers getting pwned by a single drone and carriers destroying all small craft before they get in range to fire a single shot. A rather simple fix would be to add power output to all ships, which would regenerate shields if weapons are not firing. It could lead to funny combinations where massive guns on really small craft could actually drain shields to operate. Way more ways to build a craft in that scenario. Way more balancing to do on the other hand, but since it's a single player game... who cares really? More options at the cost of worse balance is a tradeoff I would take every day of the week.

Capital ships should have small, medium and large hardpoints with the option to mount Large, Medium and Small turrets.

That would allow builds like anti-missile carriers, heavy hitters with main batteries focused primarily on destroying enemy capital ships, missile boats etc. Anti-missile turrets should be a completely different type of turret, could take the place of the beam turret or beam turrets could be changed to prioritize all missiles before even considering firing at anything. Turret AI should also be changed, so that they prioritize targets they can actually hit.[/quote]

Yes.
Big turrets with terrifying power and range for anti-capital work. Small turrets for PD. Medium for general purpose.
Although technically you could have PD on big turrets too. A bit of an overkill.


2. Plasma guns should either fire fast projectiles with a low spread or the projectiles should be slightly homing (a couple degrees per 1000m) to help the problem of hitting anything.
Plasma would be short range, big damage, melts armor
3. Missiles should have a very limited range (they seem to follow you for like an eternity now).
4. All ships should have an anti-missile computer in the software section, that would fire flares automatically once anti-missile defences are breached.
5. Numer of flares on ships should be GREATLY increased.
6. Bolt repeaters could deal damage to both shields and hull at the same time at a certain ratio (90%/10%).
yes. Although for 3) it would depend on the missile and it's role. Long-range anti-ship missiles would have one hell of a range, but por turn rate so would be useless agaisnt nimble fighters
- Burning with Awesomeness

- Pontifex Maximus Panaidia Est Canicula Infernalis

Dreez
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue, 10. Mar 09, 13:50
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by Dreez » Thu, 13. Dec 18, 11:45

One of the most important things that needs to change is that boosting should not reduce your shields... that needs to go byebye.

Then we need to have total control over all turrets as well as the ability to chose what "main" weapons we want on our destroyer..
Having all destoryers using the same main batteries is a joke, considering that the X-universe has always been about faction-diversity.
I would also claim that having a destroyer maxing out at 10 turrets when the previous had 50 (Taranis) and even a Tyr from X3 had 8 turrets on ONE side..
our current capitalships feels like an ant compared to the previous caps.

Tyr with 8 PSP's charged Broadside controlled by player = 1shotting almost any enemy cap.

Current capitalship turrets = almost non-existant damage that can't kill much.
Of all the things i've lost, i miss my mind the most.

Shimrod
Posts: 907
Joined: Tue, 18. Feb 03, 02:43
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by Shimrod » Thu, 13. Dec 18, 11:58

The turret limitations were one of the biggest drawbacks in X3 for me, focused as I was on turret scripting. I was very excited by rebirth having both a greater quantity of turrets and each being able to track independently. I'd like to see more turrets on XL ships.

I haven't unlocked the rep or the funds for XL ships yet though so no input on that beyond looking at specs. So far I was really impressed when I traded up from fighter to nemesis, the scale and detail of it on the landing pad, and how the cockpit is becoming more like a bridge. I'm really hoping there will be more to do internally on the XL ships, like walk about internal docking bay. Maybe someday turret blisters you can walk into :)

silenced
Posts: 2052
Joined: Tue, 20. Jun 06, 19:43
x4

Re: Capital ships are dissapointing

Post by silenced » Thu, 13. Dec 18, 12:15

Dreez wrote:
Thu, 13. Dec 18, 11:45
One of the most important things that needs to change is that boosting should not reduce your shields... that needs to go byebye.
In X3:AP it used energy cells for the Turbo Booster MK1/MK2 to use the , and only if these were used up it drained the shield. Which was a good design decision.
... what is a drop of rain, compared to the storm? ... what is a thought, compared to the mind? ... our unity is full of wonder which your tiny individualism cannot even conceive ... I've heard it all before ... you're saying nothing new ... I thought I saw a rainbow ... but I guess it wasn't true ... you cannot make me listen ... I cannot make you hear ... you find your way to heaven ... I'll meet you when you're there ...

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”