The most loathed startfighter ever.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delance said:
Yeah, you are correct. I've read on the game stuff that it was on the same "evolutionary line" or something, but it was not based on it.
Click to expand...

Hawk said it was a throwback to wartime-style fighters - designed to be versatile and multi-role rather than specialized, like the Hellcats before it.
 
And just like every other medium, multirole, jack of all trades, baseline "get the job done" fighter, nobody likes it. :( Nevermind that it functions adequately in almost every role, more than likely well under the price tag for more "specialized" fighters. A military machine, even Confed, can't afford to put everyone in the seat of the most advanced, gadget-filled fighter to come off the assembly lines. I'll take half a wing of Scimitars/Rapier II-G's/Hellcats/Tigersharks over 1 or 2 Rapier/Sabre/Excals/Vampires any day.

C-ya
 
Viper61 said:
And just like every other medium, multirole, jack of all trades, baseline "get the job done" fighter, nobody likes it. :( Nevermind that it functions adequately in almost every role, more than likely well under the price tag for more "specialized" fighters. A military machine, even Confed, can't afford to put everyone in the seat of the most advanced, gadget-filled fighter to come off the assembly lines. I'll take half a wing of Scimitars/Rapier II-G's/Hellcats/Tigersharks over 1 or 2 Rapier/Sabre/Excals/Vampires any day.

C-ya
Click to expand...

The WC2's Rapier II-G was an impressive fighter even given the newer craft out there - I'd say the Epee was more multi-role with the torp capability. :D
 
Haesslich said:
Hawk said it was a throwback to wartime-style fighters - designed to be versatile and multi-role rather than specialized, like the Hellcats before it.
Click to expand...

What's a little odd, since the Tigershark really isn't any different from any other fighter on WCP. Due to tech limitations, it can't really perform attack roles any more than the other "specialized" fighters. Even transports and invulnerable to its weapons.

In fact, Space Superiority fighters with torpedoes - like the 'Strike Vampires' from SO - are much more of a "throwback" than the Tigershark.
 
The Tigershark is a good ship if you know how to get the most use out of her. What I wasn't exactly sure about was the rocket pods . . . you had to either have really good aim, or be up close enough to an opponent that you couldn't miss, and they didn't really do that much damage. I guess you could unload a handful of 'em into a manta's rear end, or perhaps into a turret on a strafing run, but that's about all they're good for.
 
overmortal said:
What I wasn't exactly sure about was the rocket pods . . .
Click to expand...
I used them exactly how the manual suggests . . . blast away till the caps run dry, keep lighting them up with Dragonflys, follow back up with energy weapons, wash, rinse, repeat.
I also tended to put them to good use skinning turrets.

C-ya
 
I don't like the Tigershark because it's plain - it doesn't do anything interesting, and it doesn't handle in any particularly unique way. Ditto for the Hellcat. There's nothing *wrong* with it, but there's nothing especially fun about flying it.
 
The thread ended more like a "least loved fighter" than the "most loathed", really. Ok, many people really hate the guts of Scim and Epee, but there isn't much to actually HATE in the hellcats and tigersharks, I mean, both were solid fighters with decent defences and weapons, if nothing too flashy. Much unlike Sims and Eppes. It's not that Cats and Sharks have flaws, they just haven't got big advantages.
 
Chris Blair said:
Longswords. I hate those things so damn much!
Click to expand...

I thought this was supposed to be a forum discussing a Sci-Fi Space Sim, not FRPGs...
Although I happen to like long swords. They are pointy and kill people. I'd rather use a Katana though.
 
One interesting thing about the Tigershark was the mass driver and the whole charging up thing. It was also much harder to defeat the bugs with it.

Ships on WCP aren't as well balanced as on WC3.
 
I believe ships aren't supposed to be throughly balanced. It's more fun when you have a favorite ship, one that suits your style better than the others... That's why no one here ever complained about the Hornet for instance.

At first I was not very good with the CMD thing. I think I pilot better than I shoot, so I ended up missing that shot quite often. Sad. But that was my fault. And later I got better with it. It was quite thrilling, to hear the sound of a full charged CMD, my finger holding the trigger for one more second until the bug was in my sights and BOOM, there he goes do Deadbugland.
 
Bandit LOAF said:
I don't like the Tigershark because it's plain - it doesn't do anything interesting, and it doesn't handle in any particularly unique way. Ditto for the Hellcat. There's nothing *wrong* with it, but there's nothing especially fun about flying it.
Click to expand...
Thats where the appeal is in it for me. It isn't flashy, it doesn't have a major advancement or advantage to set it apart from its opponents. It becomes more about you against the other pilot, instead of your machines abilities against his. Your tactics, your flying skills, your ingenuity and improvization . . . I guess flying these fighters just represents a more a pure "warrior" experience to me :).

C-ya
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top