Page 1 of 2
The best ship ever?
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:31 am
Personaly, I prefer bomber. I use Falcon, Hawk and some powerful variant of these class that I have create. I love to have a lot of Plectron missile and it's very useful during mission like attack transmitter or attack factories.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:08 pm
I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I generally use custom designs with great acceleration, firepower, and stealth. The other factors that you mentioned are not important to me.
You did miss out durability though, which is very important thing. Most standard ships only have one or two command centres, and just 1 rear shield, which means that a single hit to the rear *could* destroy the ship - there's a very small probability, but if you fly a lot of missions, sooner or later...
The best standard ship is the Hurricane. It may have less shielding than the Warrior or Dreadnought, but it's certainly not weak (it has the 2 extra repair bots remember), and it has a much better selection of missiles. The price difference is enough for an extra wingman too.
Of those available from the start (ie. <117 credits) the Vampire is my favourite, or maybe the Breeze for dog-fighting.
By far the most annoying to fight against, are the Watcher series (although anything using Oriks as it's preffered missile is a problem for my fighters too).
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:53 pm
Thrust and armor are two variables you neglected.
There are only so many efficient configurations for any given play style, that it really depends on how a person flies.
I prefer repair to armor, turn to thrust, and depending whether it's attack or defend, radar to stealth.
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:27 pm
I perfer turning over anything.If you can turn good enough, you can dodge missles.(Of course this would require some skill)
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:03 pm
Like Legacy said, it depends a lot on how you fly, and what the mission objective is.
Armor is best for cheap ships, while Repair Bots are best for more expensive ships (space permitting).
Stealth is initially game-breakingly overpowered, but once you get onto later missions there are so many enemy ships that one of them will always be close enough to spot you, and then they *all* know where you are. Same applies to Scanners - they become pointless once you start having 6 wingmen and 3 squadrons of allies to spot the bad guys for you.
High turning ships are actually the worst for avoiding missiles, because they're slow - sure they can avoid just one, but if there are several coming from different directions, they're screwed. Having high acceleration makes it much easier to avoid missiles not coming from behind, and those you can outrun. A high Turning rate does however, make it much easier to get kills.
What I think would be more useful to know, is what's the best design for your wingmen to fly?
When, oh when, are we going to get MULTIPLAYER? Then I can show you all the awesomeness of high-thrust fighters!
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:48 am
It could be argued that high-turn fighters would be more aptly termed interceptors. I've got a few fighters in the mid-60's for turn that I'm quite happy to fly, and are generally among my better armed, but if I know I'm going to be defending a soft target, I'll take something with more turn, and missiles with active radar, because my own ship's survival is secondary to the mission at hand. Even if I have to eject, I have a better chance of taking out the enemy squadron leader(s), in theory, which could win us the mission.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:35 am
Certainly depending on the intended mission profile for the ship, but most of my 'fighter' ships concentrate on turning. I found that you can combine that with quite appropriate thrust if you can live without too many shields. One of the ships I used to have (unfortunately fell victim to a harddisk failure last year) had no shields at all, was available for 102 credits and still had a surprisingly good survivability.
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:21 am
I tend to rely on stealth and turning in my ships... once u get used it, its hard to switch back to getting used to being a target yourself
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:00 am
If you kill all ennemy fastly whit heavy missile, they will not kill you.
But I try to take ship that have at least 50 degree of turning capacity.
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:36 am
64? turn is about my bare minimum for fighters.
Posted: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:55 pm
I made a Borg Cube once, 8 heavy armour on all sides, 4 launchers. It didn't need much speed and turning ability, because it could take anything enemy ships could throw at it and keep on going. It was the best ship by far for the computer AI to control, very difficult to destroy (used hex editor to mod in to the game).
In my experience ships that are fast with high turning ability are cool to use but always take hits - its impossible to dodge everything coming at you, especially in big battles.
So, I would say armour and firepower are much better than speed and turning ability. Stealth is just for a laugh, repair is good, and 8 radar at the front is cool if you can fit them all in - you see the enemy positions right at the start of a mission.
But hell, I don't play this game anymore because of the game-breaking disappearing missiles bug in large-scale battles.
But that's just me.
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:16 pm
Ah, well, while in terms of effectiveness you might be right, I remember the most fun I ever had in Critical Mass was in an 'Attack Home Planet' mission flying a custom ship without any shields at all.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:32 am
Yeah, I enjoy the adventure there... I'd rather be trying to survive on the fringes in my fast, stealthy fighter, waiting for my opportunity, than sitting in the thick of it like a brick.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 12:16 am
When it his too easy to win, it is not funny. But play a critical mass game whitout any shield...
A shot and you died.
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 2:29 pm
I have some shields on most of my fighters. Usually three or four in the front, and a couple on the sides. Not usually more than one on the back.