Anaximander

Such username. Many incognito. Much popcorn. Wow.

That's the general rule of thumb, yes. No sane perrson IRL ever attacked a Capital ship with a cruiser, not on deliberation at least and with proper intel. The Capitals' larger guns, can hit a smaller ship before it can even get within firing range and it's the main reason Capital ships (past a certain mass of course) are approached with "bring a capital to fight a capital". There IS a mechanical limit on how big a ship's gun can be before it's impossible to operate, and Capitals oeprate on the assumption "equip the biggst guns, have the toughest armor". If Ia ship doesn't have the biggest guns or the toughest armor, it's NOT aa Capital. In fact, the term "capital ship" became of use when the Americans made the first "modern" version of a battleship hull, with the USS Constitution, which for its time was impossible to puncture with ANY cannon size, unless VERY VERY up close. Problem with "Old Ironside", is it would pepper you to death before you could even get close to it to shoot it. So, for all intents and purposes, Capitals are meant to fight other Capitals, and their escort ships are there to protect the Capital from being approached from smaller vessels who can do some serious damage if they get really close. The same rule that applied to USS Constitution and its two-type wooden armor, applied to the Bismarck's thick 300mm steel belt and the same idea applies to the USS Nimitz and its swarm of jets and drones. It's also why Capital ships always have the most senior of personel, with the commanding officer being a captain or admiral. Thhere is a certain degreee of experience needed behind such a ship. I personally in DU would stick with a Destroyer, mainly cause they are VERY VERY specialised, like a Rogue-class in other MMOs. You are just that DPS.

@Takao I did say '' super firepower on them''. Guess conjunctions were not clear. Point is, a capital can hit you before you can hit it. It's a Capital asset. A frigate fompered to a battleship costs peanuts. Losing a frigate is not a major blow to a navy. Also, I didn't say a frigate is Line-of-Battle. Frigates are meant for defensive operations. And submarines are just specialised frigates that can submerge. In fact, the original u-boats of germwny were nothing but repurposed bunter-killers, or as you may know them, frigates with torpedos. And again, specialised frigate ior destroyer does not mean capital.

@GunDeva Saying that "using a smaller stealthier ship equals it being a capital" is the same kind of fallacy as saying "a military jeep is an MBT". No, no it's not, a Capital Ship can only be combated by other capital ships - carriers vs carriers, battleships vs battleshiips or any combination of the two, or superfirepower onto them. A capital ship is NOT something below a capital ship, same way a Nokia 3310 is not a Smartphone just by virtue of it being a cellphone. If I was to paraphrase Takao earlier : if everything is a capital ship NO SHIP is a capital ship. Capital is SHIP SIZE, not class, nor ship role. if your ship is a frigate, it's NOT a capital. Only if it's a LINE-OF-BATTLE warship it's considered a Capital. Sure, your frigate could be a specialised stealth frigate, but guess what, it's NOT a capital. Is your frigate the head of a formation? Then it's a FLAGSHIP, not a Capital. Flagship == command ship.

The issue is not difficulty, it's logical steps to it. This is like saying "How can they add my pilot's model on a cockpit? That's impossible to do". It's not, it's called clever design, the cockpit got a default skeleton on it that inherits your model's skin ad your POV is translated to the skelton's fixture of a head That's how any game does this (more or less). Same way you can make liquid be an animation and the "liquid type" be a color palette. Hey, even more spiffy, make the animation play in certai nspeed/intervals given the liquids density, so tar-like liquids have slow aniamtions and a black texture, while thingsl ike acids got a "jitttery" animation, due to their high energy state and even better. The real issue is "why have a 'tank element' " , since you can just make certain liquid voxels only be possible to place over certain "solid" voxels. i.e. you can't put vinegar liquid voxels (just go along with the example) over marble cause vinegar erodes marble , so the game is like "nuh-uh-uh, you can't place that liquid on that surface".} And on top of all this, we can have "acid mechanics" for breaking down secured doors, or weakening walls for a Spec Ops team to bash it down, like Rainbow Six Siege, only in space and not owned by the Devil. Cheers.

There is no such thing as "Small capitals". You people can have all the inferiority syndrome you can take, "Small Capital" is a fallacy. It's like saying "this is not a Prius, no, this is an Affordable Porsche". See the fallacy? Good. People can go ahead and call their corvette "Capital Ship", that'll make it all the more AMUSING when the QQ forum posts come in with people saying : "mimimimimi, my Capital Frigate couldn't kill them! NQ , BALANCE CAPITAL SHIPS" Only for people to bash said comments with "You flew a corvette, they fly a dreadnought, you were outgunned and outarmored by 3 orders of magnitud, you are lucky collisions between ships don't cause damage, cause they'd be able to simply cut you aprt with their bow". Either way, the meta will find an answer in time.

Yes, Bismarck was the first battleship class (before Iowa) to incorporate Radar guided Gun Controls. The japanese had them as well, albeit terrible in quality compared to the americans' and germans' . That's why the Bismarck zero'd its guns so fast on Hood and almost outright tore apart Prince of Wales, which went on to fight a few more battles. You also need to remember, back then they relied on Mk I "Eyeball" confirmation methods... at over 20 or 30 kilometers distance. Try and spot a ship's guns at thopse distances... with binoculars... They thought it was a cruiser, they made a call, it happens in war-time. Bismarck versus the HMS Hood and HMS Prince of Wales was the first battle of WW2 at sea between Britain and Germany. As for the air-targets, that's funny, cause they got hit hard by a dive bomber who jammed their tourbines at a 12 degree angle, forcing the Bismarck to turn helplessly just 2 days after it blew up the HMS Hood and be sunk subsequently. It could track air targets, but definitely not good enough for its guns to hit bombers.

@Takao 1) Actually, every ship is a "she", cause of some really antiquated naval traditions. There is the saying "steady as she goes", which has an equivalent in almost every language, always with a female pronoun associated with it. While Bismarck was an actual guy, it's irrelevant when it comes to naming ships. Case in point, Admiral Elmo(tickles?!) Zummwalt was a guy, but the stealth destroyer is still referred to as a she. Semantics, anyway. As for the cruiser size, the average cruiser back then was 200 meters long and during the first Bismarck engagement against the HMS Hood and PRince of Wales, they had considered it "just a bigger cruiser". The HMS Hood was 262 meters long and classified as "Battlecruiser" and the HMS Prince of Wales was 220 meters. Fo coruse they' think the Bismarck was "just a cruiser". To them, it was just that. Although, it packed A SHITTON more armor than what both ships had, let alone the Bismarck had radar guided Gun Controls for deadly precision of weapon groupings. 2) Roflstomped as in "omg, look at how big this Japanese ship is, it must be really OP". You know, cause back then people were of the idea "bigger is better".If carriers never had gotten into the limelight, today we'd be having 1km long battleships xD. Of course, as we know, the Japanese didn't learn from their own success at Pearl Harbor, as Musashi and Yamato were bombered to death. 3) Yeah, my bad, confused the fact French had created the hull design the Zummwalt uses to cut through waves. As for the Koreans, that's a destroyer they develope for the US, not for themselves. 4) & 5) And I stand corrected, confused a Carrier Strike Group with a Carrier. Turns out the escrot ships carry the Cruise missile launchers and missiles, while the Carrier provides the range-finding for guidance. 6) & 7) ... that's an elaborate example for agreeing with me. MachinePistols (UMP5K stands for UniversalMachinePistol 5000) is just a Sub-Machinegun, if it can fire pistol rounds (9mm for example) without having to squeeze the trigger every time, that's a sub-machinegun. Carbine also literally come from a greek word and a latin word for "rapid fire" and "fizzle" respectively - fizzle, cause, you know, muskets :P, if the musket can fire more than 5 times a minute, that's a "carbine" I guess, gotta love the 1700s. 8) And same deal will go down in DU. You'll see a "250 meters" ship, you'll say "hey, it's a cruiser, let's go pwn them guys!" , only to find super cruiser that's borderline as tanky as a battleship. Like the HMS Hood and HMS Price of Wales thought the Bismarck was a "meme cruiser", same trickery will go down in dU. As for the stealth potential, yes, Cross-Section reduction is one of the ways to go, the others could heat 9heat-sinks with limited lfieespan as long as they are active), magnetometric stealth (use non metallic materials to mitigated magnetometers) and gravitometric (make your ship light weight an vblend in with asteroids). But we derailed the topic long enough I'd say.

@Takao 1) The idea is, that "Dreadnought" is just a conventional way of referring to an absurdly big battleship. The reason they refer to them as Dreadnoughts, is the fact they exceed a certain displacement which the nations of 1918 agreed on limited battleship sizes - cause that's what nations do, make laws for war and then promptly ignore them. Of course, when WW2 started boiling, everyone lied about their Battleship sizes - except the Japanese, who just used common-day troll tactics and just went ful absurd on their ship sizes. Germany had the Bismark (I don't remember its class) which was ALMOST the size of a cruiser, but had a lot of displacement, at least twice that of a Cruiser, but also its 30 Knots speed. During the first British-German naval battles of WW2, the Bismark sunk the HMS Hood (a Dreadnought-class) with the infamous "one shot kill", which detonated the Hood's entire payload of ammunitions. The Hood and its escort, the cruiser Prince of Wales, mistaken the Bismark for a Cruiser, thus they took a shot on its own cruiser escort ship. So, it's about displacemen,t not "size" strctly that makes a "super-battleship". The Bismark was created due to Nazi Germany's need to confuse enemy spies with the ship's size, by adding twice the armor belt and torpedo blisters along the ship's length., essentially increasing the mass. When the US heard of Yamato and how it pretty much roflstomped ANYTHING on its wake, the ship engineers of the time said "how big must it be? Let's built it a bit biggher than the Arizona(which was sunk in Pearl Harbor)". When they first saw the Yamato, the Iwoa-Class Battleships were already being out of the Ddry docks. The Iowas won vs Yamatos cause of their RADARs and gun controls which made the deadly precise at night. Lastly, there are no current day active duty battleships. Carriers are the end-all-be-all for capital ships. Actual research the past 17 years have gone into making Stealth Frigates with the French leading the charge and absurdly long-range Destroyers developed by the South Koreans. The name of the game is "make the carriers extra safe". 2) Carriers also have Cruise missile launching capabilitiy, as well as Predator Drones. I mean ,they can pinpoint targets 500 km off. So.. .yeah, they are really effective if it comes to pulverising enemy ships. 3) Referr to 2) as of why Battlestars are Carriers in my eyes. Also, check out the Iowa's modernised weaponry used during the 1990s Desert Storm operation. Their aremanets were then applied onto Nimitz-class carriers to bolster their offensive capabilities when the Iowas were decomissioned. 4) True, the HMS Dreadnought was revolutionary for its time, but that's besides the point, it's just a frame of referrence. It's why we call the M16 a "carbine" instead ofa a machinegun - which it is, it is a mechanised gun working on gases. It's why we canll the AK-47 an Assault Rifle (and yes, Carbine != Assault Rifle, CoD is not reality). It's about "conventionn", i.e "everyone calls the M16 a Carbine, to make it stand out due to its niches and everyone calls the Vektor an SMG, cause it's a machinegun, but sub-parr as of stopping or suppresive potential in actual combat for war-time". Notince. "war-time", there's a reason SWAT teams use SMGs and not Assault Rifles. Likewise, the Dreadnought is just that - convention. It's just a way to let others know "this battleship is not normal". 5) Still, Displacement is what you classify ships as. And RADRS will let you know of displacement - in conjunction with other means of course - they won't tell you what calibre of weapons the cruiser you detected has. 6) Star Trek authors and fanbois didn't stop at just violating the Prime Directive, they had to come up with atrocious ship classifications - aside from non-sensical ship designs.

@Takao The HMS Dreadnaught was a big battleship - first of its kind. It's why we refer to super battleships as Dreadnaughts. Yamato was an even bigger ship than that and it was called ''yamato class battleship'', along with its sister ship Musashi. The third Yamato class was repurposed as a carrier The USS Missouri is an Iowa class battleship and is bigger than any Dreadnaught class battleship ever fielded, But is still about 75% Yamato's size. Carriers have missiles on them and they can hit other ships with them. The Nimitz ones have, so did the Enterprise class carriers before them. Battlestars are that, carriers, their power is the Vipers and Raptors. Capital means ''major'' as in asset. Battleships are that, as well as carriers. They were the original WMDs. and had an arms race, they who had more battleships would win. SSD from Star Wars is just a super battleship - a Dreadnaught. Calling the HMS Dreadnaught a ''sci fi thing'', is like saying '' Iraq War? Obviously inspired by the famous Victorian era theatrical play : The Empire Strikes Back" Cruisers are ships of the line. Nobody ever calls light cruisers as such they just call them cruisers. Read a history book, stop taking Star Trek as the index for ship naming accuracy. Cheers.

Indeed. JS is indeed excellent for bringing to life the DOM of an HTML. It's good when it can refer to objects in this frame. Lua is strong when used for nesting large functions or even creating modularity via variables. It's simple to use and difficult to master. C# is just Microsoft's Java. Same shit.

I know I am building my radars to read ship cross-section and ship mass when scanning.

Yes, that is accurate, but here's the deal. Hire protection for a nuclear plant. Have the protection activate the Sensor triggers and have the sensor triggers proxy the Control Units who run the power plant. Maintenance? Have a certain Organisation run maintenance of the power plant for a city, since NQ plans to have some form of wear and tear (look up their Warp Drive explanation on the AM and Ask Us Anything thread for more info). Likewiwse, have the sensor trigger proxy the control unit, and have it run a certain cycle off of a person's CPU /RAM that's on the building. As far as "AFK moneymakers go" there's nothing more moneymaking than AFK making money by doanting your CPU for runnign ap owerplant. I know, life is unfair, some people have high-paying jobs just cause they are trusted more or highly specialised - and that won't be any different in DU. I'd not pick a rando mengineer over an engineer who knows the power plant in and out and can fix it real fast if something happens - like a cetain Twerkmotor planting some bombs for shits and giggles. Job done, you got something that runs oan cycle, off of people who are near it. Jobs are created. You may say "this sounds boring as a job", well, you can't be running on adrenaline 24/7, sometimes, you need to just chill out, go afk, or just talk with other people in your org while you run maintenance on the power plant to make that dough. P.S. : You, the one who will yell "NDA!!! :V", I didn't say anything that's not on the DevBlogs or the Tutorials on youtube

Well, the thing is, anyone who knows basic Javascript, PHP and SQL can make a currency off the game. Thing is, the ToS gods would ban them for trading out of the game resoruces for in-game currency, you know, RMT, since you'd need to have your currency exchanged for something - like the casino chips in Las Vegas, they can be redememed for dollars and you can use dollars to get casino chips. One way is to treat minerals as currency, but that prospect is just not stable.

The problem with this, is expectations. Case in point, people don't even understand what a ship class is and what a ship size is. The USS George H. W. Bush, is one of the Nimitz-Class Carrier Capital ships the US Navy has in its disposal. They are referred to as "Super Carriers", they can easily repell other nations' entire navy on their own. The ship size is Capital, the ship type is Carrier. The ship Class is Nimitz. You CAN name your own ship classes, that's going without a saying. You can't though assume what a "capital ship" is. It's the ships that helm entire formations. You don't helm a formation around a cruiser or a frigate. A capital ship relies on its escort ships for protection - like how the USS George W. Bush is relying on frigates and destroyers to keep enemy vessels from coming too close. And in that frame of referrence, you can't redefine what a Carrier is. A Carrier is a Line-of-Battle ship. Line-of-Battle, is all Capital ships, like Battleships and Battlecruisers (now makes sense why the Battle- prefix, doesn't it? ). If a "carrier" is as small as a frigate, it's not a carrier, since it's not a Line-of-Battle ship, it's a Line-of-Defense ship - a frigate. People may say "but hey, they had cruisers in WW2 that could launch two planes, what about dat?!". Yes, and launching two planes doesn't put you on the same level with a carrier, which can launch 40 of them. A dreadnaught is but a class of battleship. Heavy Cruiser is a class of Cruiser. And depending on who you ask, Destroyers and Hunter-Killers are just a ship class of frigate. People can name their frigates as "battleships" to satisfy their e-peen, my RADAR won't lie like they do and I will DO write my radar to identify ships as of their mass and size. Oh, their mass is way more than their size should allow? I guess that's a flying pinyata then of a freighter. Oh it's too big to be a freighter? I guesss it's a carrier. And no, Freighter is not a combat ship, Han Solo is just a truck driver and George Lucas is a hack.. Battlestar Galactica? Just a fancy name for a Carrier. Super Star Destroyers? Dreadnaughts, plain and simple. Titans from EVE Online? Still, just another class of capital ships, despite EVE insisiting on the term "super-capital", which is ridiculous, like saying "Eternal Forever Trumandane Leader". TL;DR : People should not try to reinvent the wheel, it's too much effort for nothing.

The arguement "if no automation, then no automation" does not work. If you don't like the fact you won't fly a giant spaceship on your own that doesn't mean NQ has to make even the msot trivial of stuff manual. Scripts are there to assist on controls, not do things for you - like fighting with drones, or just making a ship that can fire 1000 guns on one target at once while you travel at 5,500 Km/s in orbit around the target. The scripts are there to let you know when you got a high chance of hitting the enemy, not taking the shots for you. "Oh, you wanna log into the game? LEARN HOW TO NETCODE SCRUB" that is what you sound like. Please stop reposting the same topic under a different title. It's counter-productive.

If people got the time and patience (and knowhow) to make a currency in DU using certain arcane methods, they can be anyone's guest and do just that. Player-made currency does not guarantee stability.

Yes, and a freeware is not what DU is, it is its own Intellectual Property. People can make all the look-alike Mario castles they want, Nintendo does not own the concept of castles or plumbers or dragons for that matter. Not the same thing to begin with

Technically, cosines are not degrees and angles are not cones of fire.

Cue obligatory "O Fortuna".

...that's exactly the same. The angles are not enough, eventually, five triangles will end isoscelic and will form a pentagon. It's geodesic patterns, they work like that.

A hexagon is 6 triangles. You can't avoid the pentagons regardless.

See, this is the thing. Most groups in games like DU, split the profit from an op's loot. In Albion for example, we got chests set up where we drop a day's loot from PvP, then the people who were on that group thayt night - give ntheir assistis on the group - get a percentage of the proceeds of that chest when its contents are sold. That's not any different in DU. Being a repairman on a carrier is as important as a pilot who flies a star-fighter.

Copyright Infringement only kicks in if the person who is making a copy of a trademarked property makes money off of it, NQ does not make money off of it, they didn't develope the X-Wing Ripoff, and they do not directly profit off of it. People buy DACs, NQ is not responsible for what people do with their DACs' money in-game. In this case, NQ is not making money out of the intellectual property of said copyrighted concepts, like the X-Wing. For easy referrence, NQ can easily point out to the Marvel Comics VS City of Heroes case, where it's obvious thE creators of the MMORPG City of Heroes were not to be held accountable for their users' creations - Captain USA , Steel Man, The Incredible Bulk, White Widow, Hawksight, Rick Furry , etcetera. Also, NQ can easily make a database of copyrighted names that can't be appointed onto constructs, like X-Wing , USS Enterprise, (Super) Star Destroyer or Battlestar Galactica. As long as people don't name them these names, NQ has no need to deal with the issue itself. So, it's time to make the Hee(greek X)-Wing Fighter, the AstroCombatant Galaxia, the USS Enterpreneur and the (UIltra) Interstellar Destroyer.

... you can't actually aim... at a cosine... it's like being asked : "How far is that object? and replying : "33 degrees left on my FOV" ...that's... not what cosines are for. Here's the thing. ( @blazemonger feel free to read as well, you might understand more than non-EVE players). If NQ allows for people to trigger turrets and forcing them to raycast + fire, then this is how it will go. 1) You set up a turret or group of them to face forward on your ship - fixed guns, like jetfighter noseguns. 2) You use an operator or a control unit command, so when you press TAB, you actually fire the turrets, by making them raycast and if they lock-on to something (softl-locks, this is how the digging tool works on all the videos) the gun will fire at the enemy. This kind of dumb-firing weapon system is by all means, something you can do solo. But hold on your horses ladies and gentlement (and by popularity alone, furries) this is not so simple. See, raycasting, given how NQ explained it, will work on a "cone of fire". Which means "you got a core in wihch yo ucast targeting rays that lock-on to terrain / voxels, if you lock on a voxel grids EMPTY voxel space, then the shot will go 100% a miss" . Yeap. Welcome to the world of unforgiving math. To be clear, this is ONE type of model they can go with, since it's far easier to implement given their model of programming (Actor Model). Don't ask how, it's math, it's magic, it's algebra. Now, add the very fact the game - as explained on Kickstarter Update #21 - follows the similar model of EVE Combat. So, your weapons have "muzzle speeds" in the form of optimal ranges and tracking speeds which determine how fast the weapon can turn around, which compares to the targets' "cross-section" and their transversal speed. So, your dumb-firing ship, has one way of aiming - zero in your nose onto the enemy, and fire, hoping to hit something. AT this point, I need to point out something... the guns are not manned. They don't get hit-chance bonus by their gunner since there IS no gunner to give skill training bonii to the turret itself. it's firing on its default settings, not modified. You are just piloting the ship and just dumb-firing the guns. Remember that, DUMB-firing. It's the equivalent of spraying and praying with a submachinegun, hoping to hit someone 500 meters away, while hip-firing. The chances are PRETTY slim. Now, let's move onto the thing about, you know, your transversal. Since your ship is essentailly a stick with some guns on its front, ti means your onyl way of shooting is : 1) approach 2) approach even faster or they will shoot you to death, you got no tranversal to throw off their aim You need to close the gap between you and the enemy so you won't miss your shots. Problem is, while you close in on them, they cna pepper you and kite you to death if they got a multicrew. Notice, they can shoot behind them or on their right, they got gunners to manually turn the turrets and give bonii to them for tracking / optimal range / damage. You got no such thing. IF you want this kind of thing, then sure, I guess NQ can make an exception, give some people te ability to dumb-fire weapons, I mean, starfighters HAVE to work somehow like that, right? IF you want that dumb-firing mode of a ship that only works for people who are vehemently against multicrewing, well then, enjoy the pros and cons. Just don't expect to be on any level of equal footing against a moving target, especially a moving target of more players than you. So, to recap, IF NQ WAS TO ALLOW FOR DUMB-FIRING VIA OPERATORS : 1) you are forced to using CQB weaponry - pulse lasers, small caliber (for ships) ballistics, rockets, blasters (short range plamsa weaponry). 2) you are forced to fly a lightly armored ship to bridge the gap between you and the enemy faster - less mass, more acceleration 3) you are one guy on a ship, any boarding party that sneaks up on your ship, means you are outgunned. 4) pray to the Spaghetti Monster the enemy has no tractor beams, cause you ain't getting out alive if they also got CQB weaponry and peopl;e mannning those turrets, their guns will do more damage cause thier guns are manned by actual people. Here's a quote from EVE for a ship that behaves exactly like that, the Interceptor class frigate, Taranis : "There's a reason the blaster Taranis is flown by mental cases. Fear is a handicap when you're travelling at 4km/s in a metal death tube with thin walls and three small nuclear devices strapped to the outside. Should you survive for more than two seconds inside web range, the poor sap you fire those blasters at is seriously going to regret not having a web/tank/neut/whatever as you rip his face off at a close enough range to go through his pockets as you do it. The other outcome is that you wake up covered in slime wondering where the bus that hit you went. The Taranis is a ship for angry people who prefer to deal in absolutes. None of that sissy-boy, "We danced around a bit, shot some ammo then ran away LOL", or, "I couldn't break his tank so I left", crap. It goes like this: You fly Taranis. A fight starts. Someone dies. There is no other possibility." - Stuart Price. The alternative, would be to have the Swedish S-Tank's scheme of controls. The driver is the gunner and the reload is automated. What's the catch? You can't drive and shoot at the same time and you need to adjust the gun every time. In DU's terms, you can switch between piloting and aligning the turret(s) you use at one time, which means, you are spreading like butter over a giant slice of bread. As I said to the original post I made on this thread "the world's most taxing and stressful game of whack-a-mole". And yes, that means such "solo" ships are only effective if you actually have a PhD in DUAL Universe and are a Jedi to predict when people will burn towards you to use their momentum to close the distance between you two. The max speed may be 5,5 Km/s in DU, but combined velocities can reach 11 km/s