THIS ^^ +1 is what me gets everytimes too!!! Just 1 minute before, I saw a new star wars fighter, really interesting design, I like it, but the designer called it "fighter with a lot of maneuverability"... let's check the stats... Forward thrust/brake : 51 and 40m/s² yes that's good... for escaping.... Lateral thrust - the one for strafing left/right when attacking POIs, this is one of the important stats for "manoeverability" : 8m/s² (You need some 20m/s² to strafe these non-homing POI-Turrets, now imagine in 8.x there will be HOMING ONES!! AND YES, I could strafe them as they where patched in lately!!) Pitch/Yaw - the second important stat, when strafing you want the POI (-turret) still in your cross hair!!) : 1.65 and 1.17deg/s² Up/down thrust - good for up/down strafing AND for planet gravity escaping : 11 and 8m/s².... this can't even get off >1G planets with just up thrust... Really?? but I stopped arguing, some people won't learn... Sorry, I know I am on the other end of this scale and stop my ranting now ;-) edit, perhaps I should clarify my values in an example, even if most of you already know (me): WarpHunter. My Starter CombatFighter with Warp and Constructor. (That is, it's NOT my main and best CombatFighter!) Weapons: 9 (5x Gatlings, 4x Rockets) Forward thrust/brake : 69 and 32m/s² Lateral Thrust : 47m/s² Pitch/Yaw : 10.62 and 9.26deg/s² Up/down thrust : 29 and 19m/s²
I build my warpjumper lvl 10 with its purpose to get mats + the ability to defend myself if needed. That means normal steel since one doesn't have sathium yet and low lvl thrusters (wich i could still squeeze 32 forward, 25 lateral, 25 up out). For its purpose i feel it fits the job, although another 2 gatlings was preferred, but that woulda bring me up to 6 weaps. The challenge was a perfect excuse to finally build that warper. Personally i don't see a purpose to a high lvl sv jumper, cuz when you have the mats u need, next step is proper fighters and/or CV build. They gonna loose purpose anyway. That being said, i don't trip over definitions too much. A new player has to be given room for learning. Definitions change over time and experience. So has mine . And i wouldn't wanna have it any other way.
I agree on SVs with Max 4 Homers, "Scout Ship Armament"... but then again doing damage is my fav thing to do & i'm aggressive & violent. 10+ would be preferred by me, OR the 4ish Guns being DAMN BIG GUNS... Long ago I had a SV with 12 Rail Guns as a Warrior SV, while I was playing with buds who thought they could call their cute little SVs Warrior SVs when their Armament consisted of... 2 Gatlings & 2 Rocket Launchers... XD (Pre-Max Weapon Count Band Aid Fix Era... maybe even much earlier then that...)
Each to their own - but I don't see any issue with challenge parameters. They're set by the person who goes thru the trouble of setting up & monitoring the challenge - simple as that. If the parameters don't suit you - move on. If you don't like the wording, what's the big deal? Because if there's such a big outcry over little things, I can guess there's not gonna be much more of these. But I'm glad Jenn seems to have great patience. Also - why not a vessel with 4 weapons couldn't be called a fighter? It's just personal preference - what is 'enough'. I mean isn't every car manufacturer saying their car is the best/fastest/nicest to drive/most durable etc. Yet they are all different. Go figure. Not all vessels need to be perfect in order to qualify to be in Workshop or to be spawned in MP. Some ships have a flaw, some ships have more flaws. And many ships are more interesting because of that - so that they are not all made out of one mold. Not all ships are made to answer every questions - so a 'flaw' can be something that the vessel isn't simply made for. There is no one way to play this game - I love the creative freedom Empyrion has. Both building & playing. Let's not try to suppress that over silly squabble that what is 'good enough vessel' that you can play this game with.
@Sephrajin I fully understand your issues and concerns and I do apologize for any troubles you might have experienced. I am very much open to sugeestions and very willing to try out new ideas for future challenges. Also just to give you a bit of how I approach things a bit. Here is my vision "Create something based on a set of rules and restrictions and see what you are able to accomplish". But these are totally optional you want to pass on a challenge if you aren't really feeling it. I am more trying to give other ways to play a game most of us have been playing for some time now. Let me give you an example of when I took some art classes in the past. I was in a simple drawing class. I loved to draw cartoons and characters so I thought why not, this sounds like fun! I remember the first assignment than was given was to do a landscape using charcoal as a medium. Let me just tell you I do not like drawing landscapes and despise using charcoal. Plus to top it off I didn't want to take this class to work with charcoal! Drawing is my passion and I want to do what I came here for Draw Cartoons! But I really didn't have a choice so here we go. Over the next few days I remember asking a few questions to the instructor and getting more of a feel on using charcoal. I tried to listen and just kept working at it. Technically speaking I had only 3 tools to work with, the paper, the charcoal and my mind. Limited toolset but I started to think outside the box for some new ideas. I came to terms knowing that I only had the paper and charcoal to work with, but I learned to apply new techniques. Shading, contrasting and different patterns could allow me to do more with the limited toolset. By the end of the assignment, I didn't love charcoal but I learned to respect its uses. So what did I take from all of this? I learned that even doing something that I didn't want to do, or like to do, allowed me to experience a new creative way of thinking. It didn't matter what tools you give me I'll find usage from them, and limiting me only makes me try to think up of new ways to innovate. By no means am I saying that I am the best creative mind, I don't think anyone can really say that, but I do find joy and feel rewarded when approaching a idea. This was just a life experience that changed my mindset. I believe this was in middle school, can't remember been some years ago but the message is still clear to me. "I am 100% a firm believer that restriction and limitations is the only true way to innovate something" Jenniphurr But I will say that things will being shifting and adjusting as time goes on. I thought voting was a good way to reward people for these challenges but in the end its not the point. The point is the love the passion and the journey. So future challenges will constantly grow and change to meet the needs of the challenge. If you have some suggestions for a challenge, I would be love to hear your thoughts. My door is always open and I will always listen. Also just wanted to thank you for your time. Feel free to message me if you want to talk, I would love to collaborate some ideas for a challenge with you. Hey it will be fun!
I didn't agree on the wording on "Fighter" cause of my Shamelessly Biased Opinion, but I didn't see any reason to sweat it either, cause I know full well everyone has their own Shamelessly Biased Opinions as well. We can discuss our differences all we want, but in the end, it's ok for us to have those differences. If I ever implied otherwise, then I apologize... As always, I can sometimes flunk Comprehension 101, & I can tend to really suck at Eloquence. Plus my Head Problems grief me to no end so it can be erratic & unstable what kinda Mental State i'm in when I Read & Make Posts. Also, being unable to Vanilla Compatible place as many Weapons on SVs as I want can kinda get to me at times, but i'm still trying like unholy hell to stand my ground on the Devs doing their work RIGHT rather then fast so we can someday see the end of the Max Weapon Count Band Aid Fix functioning well, legitly, & fun. I have no qualms with having to pay for that extra damage as well cause Damage Dealing is my fav thing to do. If I have to be a not-fast dude with little to no Shields & not-exactly-Eagle Eyed Sensor Strength, so be it. I'll kill faster, kill harder, still build for Brawn & can take my damage via Armor, & I don't have to be completely invincible, but if the battle made for fun Carnage, I dunno if i'd really consider it a loss... plus my foe may well be limping off the Battlefield rather then walking off it.
Well said and I agree. Without restrictions and limitations it's too easy just repeat what you have done before.
I've gotten stuck in that rut before & found myself stuck on how to get back outta it... hell, was in such awhile ago till the Deathmaw climbed me back out with its 3D Thinking.
Fighter “a person who fights, struggles, resists, etc.” “a person with the will, courage, determination, ability, or disposition to fight, struggle, resist, etc.” Military. “an aircraft designed to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft in the air and to protect bomber aircraft.” Nowhere in those definitions do I see a requirement to have certain weapons, specific grades of armor, or even certain performance requirements. There was a time that a fighter was wood instead of steel. A biplane with a propeller and machine gun(s). Fighters have come a long way since then. But I guess some here would argue that “The Red Baron” did not fly a fighter…. According to what I read, he flew bombers for a while before becoming a fighter pilot. Why so much emphasis on strictly defining a fighter as something with lots of firepower, heavy armor and superior maneuverability? Setting high standards is not whether it is a fighter. High standards is about the quality of fighter. Just what can it do. Is it a superior fighter? Returning to the definition of a fighter, the question is then “designed to seek out and destroy what?” To seek and destroy an enemy aircraft made of wood with an engine and propeller does not require the same fighter as you might use to seek and destroy a F-35 Lightning II. However, in the reverse, if the fighter is designed to seek out and destroy the F-35, then that fighter probably could seek out and destroy an Albatros D.II as well. Note: the Albatross D.II is one of several flown by “The Red Baron” and the fuselage was apparently made of wood--I think in the game you can texture steel blocks with a limited number of wood textures. Almost tempting. Is my Blue Hawker a fighter? The Blue Hawker doesn’t have hardened steel or jets. The weapons are just six machine guns. In contrast, my Green Darter has four railguns plus four rocket launchers, jet engines and hardened steel. Does the Blue Hawker stop being a fighter just because the Green Darter might be superior? Both are designed to seek out and destroy enemy aircraft, or in this case alien drones. Or do they stop being fighters just because I never built them for PVP? And what of my little Hummingbird with only two gatling guns, is it not a fighter? For its intended purpose as a fighter, the Blue Hawker has continued to excel. At level 25, I was still seeking and destroying any space drones I could find with it. Now the game is in flux, so battles in my favor once may not be so next time. Yet I will go a step further. Even my Hummingbird with only two gatling guns is designed to seek out and destroy a light drone or two. For that, I don’t need something tough. In that respect, the Humminbird can be considered a fighter, designed to seek out and destroy the lightest of “enemy aircraft.” Setting high standards might not be truly about whether something is a fighter or not, but rather whether it is a superior fighter. I am hoping that you can get the point I am trying to make without having to see the Hawker, Darter or Hummingbird for yourselves. All three were designed to seek and destroy “enemy aircraft”. Yet, the quality between them varies greatly, from light and cheap to something faster, tougher and better armed, and with that so too does the quality vary of “enemy aircraft” that they can successfully seek and destroy. As for this challenge, I created a fighter I probably never would have otherwise. I was already planning a fighter-ambulance. I would have just created another Darter, hollowed out part of the hull, gave it an interior with a fake bed or two, and just called that a fighter-ambulance. That wouldn’t work for this challenge as both the Darter and Hawker from my Dragonfly collection are too big. Instead, fitting this new BP into the weapon restriction and size constraints meant chopping off the wings and squishing everything down to the required depth. I almost went with four rockets--rockets would have been flush but the weapon I chose sticks out nicely like a spear, putting some of that warrior look back into the SV. On top of this, I still hollowed out the hull so I could add a fake patient bed and pretend this SV was a fighter-ambulance. With all this shrunk down into that space while adding an interior, the cockpit I have favored for my smaller SV within the Dragonfly collection up to this point just wasn’t going to work. So I had to rethink that too. My original concept would have probably looked like someone found a space in a fighter to stick a patient bed and a couple medics and then told them to hold on for dear life while the fighter pilot made a quick run to the pickup site and back, looking like someone patched together something for a desperate one-off rescue op. So I think the challenge actually made me push the design truer to what it should be, a specialized vessel, as if they do these rescue ops on a regular basis and thus Dragonfly Industries actually has a small vessel for this purpose.
@dpburke2 now the main problem is, even some motorjet with just two tagged on pistols would be enough to kill these Drones we have in Empyrion, still it wouldn't be enough in a real fight. And I'm not even talking PVP here. I'm in the making of a combat scenario, where the space part with three different combat challenges is already finished (minus some PDA blahblah), and I can say for sure, you will need way more "fighter" in these vessels to just only survive, not even to begin with killing anything, that's for sure... Spoiler: teaser
LOL that's for sure... if one is able to SV Hover over the Drone where it can't attack you, even an idiotic T1 Pistol duck taped to the SV Hull with a string ya can pull attached to the Trigger can kill the Drone.
I don't know if it will make a difference, But I've updated the Falcon Interceptor. So any pic in the collection isn't exactly current.
Guess it'd depend on if Jenn wanted to save for Posterity the Creation in its latest Form, or the Creation in its 'Entry Form/Revision'...
Drones now are a threat only until the assault rifle. Should we have Oblivion drones as the hardcore variant? And let them be bulletproof Should be a natural incentive to rotate out gatlings in favor of energy weapons (and to deploy a fleet of tritium pentaxid harvesters on the nearest moon..)
