Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target

89% of target met.

Latest Topics

- Salute to DS! »
- Fix bombing please! »
- Login crash notification »
- Scenario/Admiral Server »
- Siege Torp Jump Bug »
- Happy New Year! »
- Reviving the game »
- [Poll] who would win »
- Re: Ich verabschiede mich »

Development Blog

- Hello strangers, it’s been a while... »
- State of DarkSpace Development »
- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »
- The Silent Cartographer »
- Cloaking update... »
- Tools for tips »
- Fleet levels and more! »
- Game Mechanics Question and Answer Thread »
- Under Construction »
- Ship Tiers and You »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
Kills chart

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
01/25/18 +3.1 Days
- Towel Day
05/25/18 +122.4 Days
- International Talk like a Pirate Day!
09/19/18 +239.4 Days




No anniversaries today.

Facebook & Twitter

Why not follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

Forum Index » » Developer Feedback » » Discussion about the state of ICC
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
 Author Discussion about the state of ICC

Joined: September 21, 2011
Posts: 37
Posted: 2014-02-03 22:29   
Possibly my first post ever despite how long I've been playing on/off. Just wanted to toss my two cents in since it appears anyone is welcome to do so. Not snark.

I'm running a combat dread with aux shield generators and a combo valence/railgun compliment. I've personally found the whole set is pretty effective when going for close-range confrontations. I'm not saying you'll kill 100% of whatever is coming towards your person but they'd be fools to get into it with a ship that can do the same thing a luth beam can. Uggie armor is hardly an issue when you use valence cannons, so it's more/less a non-issue. Fly smart, position yourself effectively, hit your target. Not saying you have to be a perfect ace but depending on how you play, certain weapons will do the job they're designed to.

And with that, I've found gauss have better range when used compared to rails. Rails are better dps but gauss can hit from further away. It all really depends on what kind of strategy you're going for. ICC isn't the faction that can rain Hell down upon an entire fleet with one dread. You're making assumptions if you think any faction can do that to the other. UGTO by comparison has a worse time BECAUSE of that little issue Ent mentioned. Knock off an arc and they're an easy target for the pickings.

ICC shields aren't bad, either. If you're a half-decent player then rotating them isn't a problem. Even bad players can rotate the shields with enough competence and NOT find themselves getting torn apart within the first 30 seconds. Attaching aux shields and maneuvering for those two sides to take the brunt of the damage from enemy weapons is A LOT SIMPLER THAN SOME WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE. Combination rail/valence for close-range and for snipers, have some gauss.

ICC isn't in a bad place from where I'm sitting. The right combination of weapons and putting some effort into energy maintenance makes any ICC just as deadly as it's counterpart. What ICC gets is range and maneuverability. Nobody else has that kind of advantage and it's a sad sight when the people who love this faction complain about us not being powerful enough when we CLEARLY get the better half of the deal.
\"You know, Commander, having seen a little of the 21st Century, there is one thing I don't understand; How could they have let things get so bad?\"

\"That's a good question... I wish I had an answer.\"

The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights

Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 557
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
Posted: 2014-02-04 06:14   
T3 Frig/Dread

Personally I think the sniper Frigate is okay, I'm uncertain of the problems others are seeing in it.
The ECM allows the sniper frigate to do what it says and snipe, maintaining it's stealth at low speeds, ghost shields will probably allow you to double your speed up to 20-25gu/s
That includes gauss and Skirmish missiles firing together.

The Strike carrier on the other hand I do have some wishful changes.
I think it fails on it's name as a carrier and also at striking.

As a carrier it carries the same number of fighters as the Command carrier, 6.
I'd like to see this increased to 7 or 8, this would put it on par with the Fleet carrier which may have to be re-balanced too - I'd have to look at the FC's layout again.
Next would be the reduction of cannons on arcs, swap either broadside cannons for Ion cannons up front, or front and aft cannons for Ion's on the broadsides.
Reducing it's PD for these changes would be acceptable to me even for more Local ECM slots.

These are just wishful changes however, and would have to be implemented along with changes to T3 Ugto and Kluth dreads if needed.
You'll have to ask someone else on those.

[ This Message was edited by: The Fridge on 2014-02-04 06:15 ]

Chief Marshal

Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 465
From: Keel Mountains
Posted: 2014-02-04 16:11   
On 2014-02-03 09:37, Ent wrote:
On 2014-02-03 08:45, Pantheon wrote:
I don't see defence numbers here. Suspiciously overlooked. Same with falloff.
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2014-02-03 08:45 ]

This is because UGTO and KLuth's single biggest weakness is that you only need to through 1/4th of the armor to get to the hull. For ICC, you need to go through all their shields.

In addition, ICC ships can fit Auxillary Shields which provide a significant boost to overall ship HP and regen, thereby putting any ship that can fit them at a higher HP threshold than other ships of the same class.

ICC weapons have no falloff on all but Valence cannons and the greatest range. What they lack in volley damage they can make up for in DPS and energy efficiency. Ammo is restrictive on purpose. Most of the complaints listed with ships offer no specific instances of why they are not good for their intended role (for example, frigates have no inherent risk due to zero prestige loss, and specific ships fill specific roles). I see nothing of the sort.

UGTO can counter a majority of ICC's range based weaponry which provides much lower risk by fitting ablative which reduces their damage by 50%, but Valence cannons and Fusion Torps and beam weapons deal energy damage which can counter this.

UGTO also can use EMP (and Kluth can use ELF) to deal 50% more damage to shields, although EMP and ELF based weapons do less damage overall.


Quick point of clarification ent.

I thought the ICC lasers DID have falloff around 60% at max range?

Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"

Chief Marshal

Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 465
From: Keel Mountains
Posted: 2014-02-04 16:48   
On 2014-02-03 01:01, Deadly Jhomes wrote:

1. Sensor Frigate- PROBLEM- damage/ammo) useful ewar abilities however countered with lack of ammo and damage to attack target with its 2 heavy 1 light gauss guns. This ship is rarely seen in use.

3. Lance Frigate- PROBLEM- very high risk/low damage) 7 beam lasers... as we know 4 standard lasers=1 heavy beam so despite technically having more firepower than the sabre it still suffers the same fate when attempting to attack even ships of its own size. I have never seen this ship in use.

5. Sniper Frigate/Mline Frigate- PROBLEM- deja vu) these 2 ships are exactly the same in every single way except the tier 3 sniper frigate has 3 extra ecms which it cannot use in combat without dropping its energy to 0 in seconds. Just like the mline, the sniper has 3 heavy gauss guns along with 5 missiles, however the gauss guns arcs are terrible and are side fire only. This makes sense in the tier 2 mline frigate because it is tier 2 and must expect tradeoffs, but is unacceptable in a tier 3 frigate when ugto and kluth tier 3 frigates are far superior ships. dropping the gauss guns on the sniper and refitting with a single forward only ion cannon is a quick and easy fix without adding or subtracting significant firepower. I personally use the sniper frigate and it needs to be changed.

The frigates not listed here have use in some situations.


2. Combat Destroyer-PROBLEM- poor fire arcs) classic cannon torpedo combination should be effective but is crippled by poor fire arcs. Ship has 10 torpedos but can only fire 6 forward, 3 on each side and 4 backwards. One of many examples of looking good on paper until fire arcs are revealed.
This ship is in use.
3. Minelayer Destroyer-PROBLEM- very poor fire arcs/armor placement)
ship with 12 torpedos but only can fire a max of 6 at once, armor x3 placed on sides and back with only shields in the front makes for ackward combat when attempting to engage anything with both mines and torpedos This ship is rarely seen in use.

4. Interceptor Destroyer-PROBLEM- high risk/low damage) 1 heavy beam 7 standard beam lasers is enough to engage enemy ship but the damage is far too low for the high risk of close combat.

5. Escort Destroyer-PROBLEM- useless) a ship with point defense as its main use however it being a small ship still means the amount of PD beams is small and not useful enough on its own. I have never seen this ship in use.

The destroyers not mentioned here are able to compensate for any problems.


1. Light Cruiser-PROBLEM- low damage) featuring 6 heavy railguns as only armament this ship struggles to engage anything larger than a destroyer no matter the weapon configuration you choose. (btw ugto interceptor cruiser has same problem) 6 heavy guns alone is just not enough. This ship is in use.

2. Heavy Cruiser-PROBLEM- poor forward fire arc) technically not a bad ship but is equipped with 12 torpedos yet can only fire 4 forward and 8 on each side. traditionally good icc broadside fire but only firing 4 forward and 2 backwards is quite a large tradeoff. Another example of looking better on paper than in gameplay. This ship is in use.

Cruisers not mentioned here have no problems worth mentioning individually.


1. Assault Dreadnought-PROBLEM- poor armor placement/lacks firepower of equivilant enemy ships) armor x5 with second plate in front may seem good but dreadnought low turn rate makes very vuln to close attack. Far less firepower and defense than equivilant ships of other factions leads to Assault dread losing close combat battles with cruisers and dreadnoughts very often. Very limited use makes Assault Dreadnought merely a shadow of its former versitile self. This ship is rarely seen in use.

2. Heavy Missile Dreadnought-PROBLEM- defense/offense) less missiles and less armor than the standard missile dreadnought makes this ships title a bit odd, the heavy missile dreadnought features ecms to attempt to be stealthed while attacking. However missile range and signature increase of recharging missiles makes this ship nothing but a Heavy burden.
I have never seen this ship in use.

3. Flagship Dreadnought-PROBLEM- basic armament lacking appropriate capital weapons) command ship featuring great electronic systems and priceless wormhole device yet its 14 railgun armament is uninspired. Simply a large amount of the most basic icc weapon proves ineffective and unintimidating when trading blows with so called equivilant enemy ships.
This ship is in use.

4. Strike Carrier-PROBLEM- basic armament lacking appropriate capital weapons/EMP vuln) another high rank ship equipped with large amount of low rank basic heavy railguns. Lacks capital ion cannon weapons appropriate for such a difficult to attain trophy. Complete lack of composite armor means the shields transfer emp damage directly to the hull devastating ship systems quickly and disabling ship beyond repair.
This ship is rarely seen in use. (due to high rank mostly)

5. Line Dreadnought-PROBLEM- none really this is another icc dreadnought making the 4th that has a large amount of basic icc railguns. but the need for them to be replaced or augmented with capital ion cannons is canceled by the fact that is has a brutal missile payload. i mentioned this ship only to show that its fine to have many basic heavy railguns when its not the only main weapon. This ship is unofficially the favorite of icc and is a common site.

That concludes my list of PROBLEM ships.

Now to cover the universal ICC problem.

ICC weapon damage is too low. We have all been saying this for a long time but have been told time and time again that we do more damage per second. This is not true and i am not sure why i am still hearing this. Even if i ignore the math it is very obvious when playing other factions that icc weapons take much longer to destroy enemys than ugto or kluth. Now kluth do massive damage and that is expected, and they carry more weapons per ship than ugto or icc. I want to focus on the railgun/particle cannon for now. Ill start with an easy to understand example. Using an ICC heavy cruiser i attack an UGTO supply platform from 1000 gu using only my railguns. I hit the platform with a single round of fire. That is 3 heavy railguns and 2 light railguns. The platform takes damage of 1-2% off of total armor. Now i repeat this with an ugto cousin the battle cruiser. i fire at the same UGTO supply platform using particle cannons only, that is 4 heavy particle cannons which is equivilant to the 3 heavy 2 light of the heavy cruiser. At 1000 gu the platforms takes damage of 3% and at 90 gu the platform takes 4-5% damage from a single round of the 4 particle cannons. Even with maximum falloff in place the particle cannon damage is greater. The recharge times on railguns and particle cannons differ by only 1 second. This is but 1 simple example of the difference in weapon damage i have countless other examples that do not need to be presented as this is easy to see for yourselves and any experienced player would already know this. This same damage difference applies for all of our weapons compared with the ugto equivilant. I have been told that range is supposed to be icc advantage but anyone who has played this game knows that even a dreadnought can dodge a railgun from 1200 max range and combat takes place anywhere from 100-600 somwher around there. A pathetic 200 extra range that a railgun has over a particle cannon is not an advantage when the particle cannon still does more even when maximum falloff is in place.

The simple fact is that ICC cannot compete with ugto or kluth in battle we lack the ship variety, the ship quality and most importently the weapon damage. This falls on you developers you did this and need to admit the mistake already. Its not a big deal just please acknowledge this before ICC is gone completeley. I recently was told the system layouts are changing again and that ICC will have territory back when that happens but if nothing is done to FIX ICC then what will prevent this from immediatley happening again? This is not just one persons opinion, ICC needs help, all of the experienced ICC players feel this way. I dont know why you guys do not see it, but i hoped if anything I may have shed a little light on some of the reasons we are being slaughtered. Unless the goal is to rid Darkspace of ICC and have only 2 factions somthing MUST be done right away.

Ok, I will take these one by one

Sensor frigate - Mainly an EWAR ship meant to either conceal friendly ships, fighters or missiles. Or reveal enemy ships, fighters, and missiles. Keeping this in mind it does not require a large complement of weapons because you should either be A) Concealed by ECM, or B) willing to take the risk to help defeat your opponents and frustrate the k'luths cloaking ability. ECCM really does hamper the larger ships from cloaking, as well as the smaller.

Lance frigate - Laser ships are meant to engage ships which are their own class size. Hence, it is meant to attack other frigates or scouts.

Sniper frigate - I have personally managed to hull nemesis dreads with this ship and destroy battle cruisers. The main concern regarding it is properly managing your shields, and missiles and NOT NOT NOT spamming the spacebar.

Combat destroyer - I personally like the back archs because it gives me some method of shooting behind me when a k'luth ship uncloaks behind me or when another ship passes over me in order to try and turn around to get behind me. Still a worthy ship imo.

Minelayer destroyer- first, the minelayer should use mines to weaken somemone and then use the torps to finish them off. So ideally when you get in close enough for someone to attack your front arch, you will be near hulling them. Also, try making the opponent chase you so you can just continuously lob mines into their path as they follow you.

Interceptor destroyer - again, meant to engage ships of its own class or smaller, but really only its own class. As a result, if you try attacking something larger the damage will fall. Especially if that something has reflective armor.

Escort Destroyer - WHAT WHAT What? The escort destroyer is meant to PD and nothing else. Ideally you should use it when there are fighters or missiles swarming around. I admit that the new strike missiles firing in 3 volleys can hamper the effectiveness of this to a limited degree, but it is still a valuable ship to utilize. Those individuals who do utilize it, I recommend understanding that you are taking great risks on yourself and I thank you for using it.

Light cruiser - one of the most commonly seen cruisers at least by me. It has decent armor archs and shielding on all sides and the cannons can fire omni directionally. I do not really see a problem here. Again keep in mind that cannons are meant to be used against ships 1 size smaller than the ship they are on.

Heavy Cruiser - great for strafing dreads with its side arch torpedoes and cannons. also, can reasonably stand up to other ships of the same class.

Assault Dreadnought - Has 3 aux gens which can be refitted, has a large number of Heavy Beam Lasers on it, which deal lots of energy damage, can be refitted with sabbots to couteract reactive armor, and for medium range attacks, Has variance torpedoes which can deal ungodly amounts of damage at 600 gu range against other dreads. In short, it can cover the gamut of both the UGTO reflective, and ablative armors, in addition it has enough energy to maintain that rate of fire and its engines can be refitted for PFE or AFE if energy or speed are needed. Aside from people bringing them into range of stations I really do not see that much of a problem with them except for bringing them out unsuported.

Heavy Missile Dread - Pop a few range enhancements and/or ewar enhancements on the ship and youare golden, even without those you are still golden. It has 8 instead of 10 missiles, but who cares? If those are all strike missiles then that is the equivalent of some 24 waves of missiles coming at someone in waves from a concealed position. If you replace those missiles with long range variants then you get even more range and can easily dispose of ships from a stealthly position, whether it be at a planet, in a nebula (my favorite place to engage in missile/fighter wars) or in open space. The biggest problem is that people do not take into account their rising signature and blindly fire the space bar and reveal their positions.

Flagship dreadnought - Good for bringing on fleet attacks against enemy systems and for establishing platform bases while retaining firepower in a hostile system. Also, it is good for helping stats and other allys out of tricky positions with its WH device. Additionally replace the auras with range auras and you have a 16% range increase to all allied weaponry wiithout even needing enhancements. Again, cannons are meant to eb used against ships that are 1 class size smaller.

strike carrier - I do not really see a problem here, I routinely smashed apart Walrus of Apathy's bastion dread with a Strike Carrier when we were testing in beta. The key is to begin your attack from a ways away with the fighters, and then glide in on impulse on a diagnol so that no one traces the fighters back to you. The greatest danger to this ship is at the point where it jumps in. After it conceals itself the danger is lessened incredibly. With range enhancements and gauss guns you are able to attack from almost 2k GU away with cannons alone. Replace with stealth shields for added invisibility and you can easily compensate for the increased signature from the fighters recharging.

Line Dread - My personal favorite ship but why did you include this in a section on ships with problems?

These are my opionions and breakdowns of these ships. Take what you will from here and use it to improve yourselves and the game.


Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"

Alien Masterful

Joined: December 18, 2007
Posts: 218
Posted: 2014-02-05 16:23   
it shows in OP that AD does 2/3 or dmg for almost half the energy, add to that the longer range since chem lasers of halbard only work up close, and that pretty much sums up icc faction strenght apart from the rotatable shield so that you can keep aiming your front at enemy at all times. I dont know why comparing the numbers made you post this....
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he is a bot

Vice Admiral

Joined: May 22, 2005
Posts: 6
Posted: 2014-02-13 20:09   
luth player here, just wanted to say that i am in complete agreement with the original author. Icc is way underpower, plp can rationalise this however they want, but their performance in battle proves this. Icc runs time and time again, and have you looked at their space lately soon there will be no icc left.


Joined: December 20, 2004
Posts: 382
Posted: 2014-02-18 21:21   
I'd throw my thoughts into the mix as well, I fully agree with the Author, for I'm mainly and mostly UGTO player, after taking time off I decided to play as ICC, to be honest it was blind to me in the past due to my arrogance but I clearly see that ICC is rather..how can I put it... Inefficient, now I've also played ICC in the past briefly and I can say proudly that ICC in previous versions were more balanced then this so called patch this time around.
To be frank, I don't really call this a patch, but rather a cluster---k, putting it out there, many other previous patches were more balanced then this rubbish.

Vice Admiral

Joined: May 22, 2005
Posts: 6
Posted: 2014-02-18 21:29   
On 2014-02-18 21:21, Lord Victor Davion wrote:
I'd throw my thoughts into the mix as well, I fully agree with the Author, for I'm mainly and mostly UGTO player, after taking time off I decided to play as ICC, to be honest it was blind to me in the past due to my arrogance but I clearly see that ICC is rather..how can I put it... Inefficient, now I've also played ICC in the past briefly and I can say proudly that ICC in previous versions were more balanced then this so called patch this time around.
To be frank, I don't really call this a patch, but rather a cluster---k, putting it out there, many other previous patches were more balanced then this rubbish.

Davion let me just say thanks man, thats is pretty big of you specially being ugto, plz dont take that as a putdown it is not, just that most of you guys dont reallise how good ur ships are.

Raven Warriors

Joined: June 07, 2010
Posts: 25
Posted: 2014-02-20 18:07   
So the pulse shield is still useless? lol.

Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal

Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
Posted: 2014-02-22 02:51   
Also, just wondering why the ICC torpedo fighter(XB-17) is complete crap compared to the UGTO torpedo fighter(B-29)?

The B-29 does 2700-8100 damage, and the XB-17 does 1800-3000 damage. This is not even accounting for the incredible accuracy the B-29 seems to have while the XB-17 loves to miss with its sabots. Oh and all other stats including energy drain are the same so lets not even start down the "But yours uses so much less energy!" path...

Fleet Admiral

Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
Posted: 2014-02-22 06:21   
ICC carriers are known for being pretty lousy, but surprisingly, despite their numerical stats, an ICC T1 can defeat a K'luth T1, and having a less functional carrier is better than no carrier at all. It fills a role that no other ship can quite manage.

It doesn't really matter if an ICC carrier can't take on an UGTO carrier, as that is a rare scenario. The point of carriers is to attack from well outside of interdictors, and out of range of most all weaponry, preferably used in a position where attacking said carrier will put someone in great danger.

Fleet Admiral

Joined: October 01, 2012
Posts: 88
From: Not in an asylum. Yet.
Posted: 2014-02-22 09:41   
On 2014-02-22 02:51, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
Also, just wondering why the ICC torpedo fighter(XB-17) is complete crap compared to the UGTO torpedo fighter(B-29)?

The B-29 does 2700-8100 damage, and the XB-17 does 1800-3000 damage. This is not even accounting for the incredible accuracy the B-29 seems to have while the XB-17 loves to miss with its sabots. Oh and all other stats including energy drain are the same so lets not even start down the "But yours uses so much less energy!" path...

I noticed this as well its rather rediculous. On ugto the carrier's torp fighters seemed awesome hitting for large amounts of damage right away when they get in range of enemy ships.

ICC fighters on the other hand...if you use torpers you'll find that the enemy doesnt even take that much of a dent at all. They just end up mostly ignoring the fighters until their armor starts to slowly fail.

Hmmm interesting though....according to the stats...it takes a sabot fighter....1.25 seconds to empty its salvo at a target...

The ugto and kluth varients have slower moving projectiles...and appear to empty their ordinance at a rate of...2.25 seconds per salvo.

So sabots move faster torwards targets, fire at almost double the frequency, and...hmmm...do the fighters have increased traveling range? not that it really would matter nobody is ever going to launch them at max range...but still. >.>

oh and do sabot fighters carry the same amount of torps as other factions torpers...if they did it would severely limit their capabilities dps wise...

Re-edit: ok ammo seems to not exist for fighters as in limitless shooting...

I can't seem to figure out what the delay between projectile salvos for the torp fighters is. >.>

Anyhow the actual dps comparison over time seems to be...

ugto torpers
2400 dps

kluth torpers
2666 dps

icc torpers
1920 dps

that is if theres no differing delays between the different fighters launching new salvos. >.>

oh and thats per fighter. If I knew exactly how long it takes them to start firing again after a pass I could factor that in...but I dont. Oh and it might be a little off since I dont know if fighters have a weapon cooldown or not. >.>

oh ok i think....I have...the fighter speeds are 35 gu/sec?

so roughly 13 salvos on a motionless target for sabot fighters....and 7 for the rest per pass if they flew all the way to the target and sabot armtime wasnt factored in...basically a rough dps estimate without knowing disengage/reengage distances and the speed the ship gets to those...

So...13 x 2400 avg = 31,200

7 x 5400 = 37,800

7 x 6000 = 42,000

Icc looks uhm...underperforming so far >.> Even if the dps is listed higher then it actually really is....you can obviously see that the sabot fighter uhm....is weaker then the rest in a way that...uhm...doesnt seem to fit with how they compare other factions vs one another. But ICC fighters do at least compare to some degree...ok so I'm guessing their not imminently needing fixing.

[ This Message was edited by: Rykros1987 on 2014-02-22 12:00 ]


Joined: December 26, 2011
Posts: 254
Posted: 2014-02-23 09:48   
Think of the K'luth!

That is all.

Fleet Admiral

Joined: October 01, 2012
Posts: 88
From: Not in an asylum. Yet.
Posted: 2014-02-23 14:10   
On 2014-02-23 09:48, Taelon wrote:
Think of the K'luth!

That is all.

LIES! Now everyone back to UGTO vs ICC comparisons...

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 )
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Page created in 0.043572 seconds.

Copyright © 2000 - 2018 Palestar Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of use - DarkSpace is a Registered Trademark of PALESTAR