Derailment from "Fly By Boarding"

[LughC]

I am generally against "nerfing" (for the lack of words), but the reason fly-by-boarding is so simple and risk-free in the first place, is because the ships lack so many turrets in general. Doing the "normal" approach should feel rewarding and not a time-waster compared to the fly-by-method. If turrets weren't so laughably low damage, marred even further by low projectile speed and reload. Beams would be the perfect anti missile weapon of not still bugged to this day and anti pod if not so abysmally weak. stronger and faster M-bolts would have another reason to exist other than pretty firework show.

Shield below 10% wouldn't work either. L-class shields and above reload without delay. They would be up in no time. Even then, I think that shields in this game function more like reactive force fields, only blocking high speed or high energy shots. So they don't trigger against pods, that only travel at 100m/s.

Take the Asgard: Even, if this ship was specialized as long range artillery, nobody in their right mind would build a "battleship" with this few turrets. Look at all the wasted hull space, which is 90% without any M-turrets. You can't be more inviting to pirates. Even the designer intended for this ship to have more turrets (see flat grey segments of the hull), but Egosoft nerfed it for the release of COH.
This deficit is present for all other ships too, both basegame and DLC, except for the Raptor. This is the only ship, whose weaponry make sense, not its fighter capacity though. Destroyers for some reason, can hold 40 s-ships (Harry-Potter-magic-bag), but couldn't better cover their blindspots?

I feel the need to remind you you're playing an arcade game not a simulator.

[Caedes91]

I am generally against "nerfing" (for the lack of words), but the reason fly-by-boarding is so simple and risk-free in the first place, is because the ships lack so many turrets in general. Doing the "normal" approach should feel rewarding and not a time-waster compared to the fly-by-method. If turrets weren't so laughably low damage, marred even further by low projectile speed and reload. Beams would be the perfect anti missile weapon of not still bugged to this day and anti pod if not so abysmally weak. stronger and faster M-bolts would have another reason to exist other than pretty firework show.

Shield below 10% wouldn't work either. L-class shields and above reload without delay. They would be up in no time. Even then, I think that shields in this game function more like reactive force fields, only blocking high speed or high energy shots. So they don't trigger against pods, that only travel at 100m/s.

Take the Asgard: Even, if this ship was specialized as long range artillery, nobody in their right mind would build a "battleship" with this few turrets. Look at all the wasted hull space, which is 90% without any M-turrets. You can't be more inviting to pirates. Even the designer intended for this ship to have more turrets (see flat grey segments of the hull), but Egosoft nerfed it for the release of COH.
This deficit is present for all other ships too, both basegame and DLC, except for the Raptor. This is the only ship, whose weaponry make sense, not its fighter capacity though. Destroyers for some reason, can hold 40 s-ships (Harry-Potter-magic-bag), but couldn't better cover their blindspots?

I feel the need to remind you you're playing an arcade game not a simulator.

And I feel the need to remind you, that the devs themselves, describe their game as a simulation.

[LughC]

I am generally against "nerfing" (for the lack of words), but the reason fly-by-boarding is so simple and risk-free in the first place, is because the ships lack so many turrets in general. Doing the "normal" approach should feel rewarding and not a time-waster compared to the fly-by-method. If turrets weren't so laughably low damage, marred even further by low projectile speed and reload. Beams would be the perfect anti missile weapon of not still bugged to this day and anti pod if not so abysmally weak. stronger and faster M-bolts would have another reason to exist other than pretty firework show.

Shield below 10% wouldn't work either. L-class shields and above reload without delay. They would be up in no time. Even then, I think that shields in this game function more like reactive force fields, only blocking high speed or high energy shots. So they don't trigger against pods, that only travel at 100m/s.

Take the Asgard: Even, if this ship was specialized as long range artillery, nobody in their right mind would build a "battleship" with this few turrets. Look at all the wasted hull space, which is 90% without any M-turrets. You can't be more inviting to pirates. Even the designer intended for this ship to have more turrets (see flat grey segments of the hull), but Egosoft nerfed it for the release of COH.
This deficit is present for all other ships too, both basegame and DLC, except for the Raptor. This is the only ship, whose weaponry make sense, not its fighter capacity though. Destroyers for some reason, can hold 40 s-ships (Harry-Potter-magic-bag), but couldn't better cover their blindspots?

I feel the need to remind you you're playing an arcade game not a simulator.

And I feel the need to remind you, that the devs themselves, describe their game as a simulation.

what aspect of this game is a simulation? The closest thing to a simulation in this game is the economy and that's heavily abstracted.

[Alan Phipps]

Let's stay on thread topic please. Everyone knows that this is a sci-fi game and not reality.