On 2010-05-06 13:11, Phoebuzz wrote:
Stations are currently 'Death Stars'. High firepower, relatively low armor, and anemic fleet support. Anyone taking one station without other stations out will triggers the reenactment of 'Star Wars: A New Hope'. "Hey guys, there's a single prestige pinata at xxx, let's kill it."

To fix station these current problems must be fixed:
1. A station alone (that is without other stations) is far too vulnerable.
2. Stations currently only really bring firepower to the table, and that's the reason people bring station over other ships, firepower.
3. Stations in groups are far too hard to destroy because their survivability is based on supply drones.

To make stations not suicidal on their own (that is without tons of supply/other stations), they need more defense. That's more armor, at least 4 more directional armor plating for all factions including ICC. That will make a single station significantly harder to kill on their own.

To balance out the increased defense, and to balance out the individual usefulness of an extra station vs. an extra non-station, station firepower must heavily reduced. Stations should have equal or LESS firepower than dreads.
If a player wants to bring more firepower to battle they should bring more combat ships, not more stations.

To increase a station usefulness (outside of raw firepower) more fleet support utility should be added to stations. Supply drones on stations is NOT fleet support, it's self-support; stations use supply drones mainly on themselves or other stations.
Adding more supply drones to stations won't fix anything.
Adding more electronic warfares slot will encroach even more on the role of smaller ships.
Stations already have access to tractor beams, build drones and wormholes.
So the only other thing that we could add to station to improve their fleet support is an interdictor field device, preferably with extended range.
Adding interdictor field to stations will do several things. First it'll increase their survivability by quite alot as it'll slow close jumping 'suicide' dreads by quite alot. Second, it'll extend the function of station to that of their original design, sector control. Third, it rewards bringing one station for the dictor, but the dictors from extra station does not stack making station spamming alot less useful.

And last, combat supplying needs to be toned down. A diminishing return supplying system that is only active in combat would be optimal. Ex.: First supply drones repairs 4/4 hp, second 4/5 hp, third, 4/6 hp, then 4/7, 4/8, 4/9, etc.

TL;DR
Alot more armor, alot less weapons, dictors, diminishing return for combat repairs.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2010-05-06 13:39 ]

On 2010-05-08 04:19, iwancoppa*Halberd of Light* wrote:
IDEAS as of now:

Hardcap limit on stations

FAR reduced firepower

MASSIVELY increased armor

Unable to be assisted in repair(no supping the station to heal, only ammo)

250GU automatic repair field

Automated Repair Drones (compensate for lack of supping)

250GU bubble shield (ICC only, acts as a giant shield stopping all incoming fire, must be swapped for rep field)

250GU EMP field generator (UGTO only, halves damage of all incoming weapons, but only if the shots iriginate from outside the shield. must be swapped out for red field)

325GU PSI energy storm (K'luth only, increases energy regen and fire rate on all ships in bubble by 25%)

On 2010-05-08 05:03, Starcommand of ICC wrote:
again with the hard cap on stations? Really do you want to punish people for ever reaching GA? If you do that then its just another worthless rank like M and CM are. The fleet buff ideas are good, and only 1 should be able to be active within a 5k gu radius. The real issue is yes UGTO stations can out repair any damage dealt to them, and this is a real concern for balance. These things and more would of been changed by now if ICC was able to do the same thing and out repair UGTO damage. We would be having massive posts on how OP ICC is with that. When it comes to UGTO everyone's real silent on the issue.....scary. Do not put a cap on stations, like 3 or 4 will be off defending a planet while people on the other side of the server might want to fighter bomb something but won't be able to because of the cap. There will be many unforeseen consequences of this and more if it goes through. Just like the "blanket" range nerf that killed the usefulness of platforms in the MV, there will be other issues that will pop up.

On 2010-05-08 11:23, Kenny_Naboo wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-05-08 05:03, Starcommand of ICC wrote: Stuff

Then what non-convoluted, easy to implement, idea would you suggest?

On 2010-05-08 15:22, Starcommand of ICC wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-05-08 11:23, Kenny_Naboo wrote: Quote: On 2010-05-08 05:03, Starcommand of ICC wrote: Stuff Then what non-convoluted, easy to implement, idea would you suggest?

In combat repair drone limits, 6 total per a ship. 2-3k Detection range like how the blockade code works. AI are excluded from the code.

This allows ICC to still missile spam with there "long" range missiles and still be able to overpower the repair rate of UGTO. With 6 drones per a ship this allows an Support Station and another to repair a single ship (or one to itself and the other helping). Any more and the drones start repping too fast. If another ship tries to help repair, the drones will just turn off. The limit would drop as soon as your ship no longer detects enemy's at the range.

Easy to implement? Kinda would more or less be a modification to the blockade code and adding it to all ships. Maybe even add a little "Under Attack" on your screen (bottom or top screen and optional) to show people that the limiter is in effect.

Slow, heavily equipped and armored, and the biggest bulls-eyes around. If you had to pick a ship that is easy to hit with even the slowest weapons, it would be the station. However, if you flew too close to one, you would learn that it is not the easiest target in space. Boasting incredible short-range weaponry, the station can destroy anything that gets close enough. However, the station itself is extremely slow. The primary function of a station is fleet support. They are able to reload and repair friendly ships, as well as to shield them from damage. Stations are the core of a long-range assault fleet as well. Their wormhole device allows the creation of a temporary portal between systems. This wormhole can be used by all ships, making its use somewhat risky.

On 2010-05-08 15:22, Starcommand of ICC wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-05-08 11:23, Kenny_Naboo wrote: Quote: On 2010-05-08 05:03, Starcommand of ICC wrote: Stuff Then what non-convoluted, easy to implement, idea would you suggest?

In combat repair drone limits, 6 total per a ship. 2-3k Detection range like how the blockade code works. AI are excluded from the code.

This allows ICC to still missile spam with there "long" range missiles and still be able to overpower the repair rate of UGTO. With 6 drones per a ship this allows an Support Station and another to repair a single ship (or one to itself and the other helping). Any more and the drones start repping too fast. If another ship tries to help repair, the drones will just turn off. The limit would drop as soon as your ship no longer detects enemy's at the range.

Easy to implement? Kinda would more or less be a modification to the blockade code and adding it to all ships. Maybe even add a little "Under Attack" on your screen (bottom or top screen and optional) to show people that the limiter is in effect.

On 2010-05-01 21:36, Starcommand of ICC wrote:
issues with station spam. they can't fight effectively because of all the FF. You don't see all those UGTO SS's shooting at once becasue all those missles would FF there allies and make for pres loss instead of gain. Station rushing on the other hand CAN be stopped and HAS been stopped before. ICC tried this last week and got shut down pretty bad by 3 UGTO stations, 2 EAD's and some BD's. We were able to only drop 3 loads of inf for an unsuccessful cap.

UGTO station spam is rediculas becasue of ONE thing. Armor reapirs, and with all those armor plates it goes up pretty fast. ICC can't do this because well.....shields don't repair. So this issue is mostly based on balance issues more then just a tactic. This wouldn't be much of an issue if ICC could do the SAME thing as UGTO.

On 2010-05-09 07:07, jackbob wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-05-01 21:36, Starcommand of ICC wrote: issues with station spam. they can't fight effectively because of all the FF. You don't see all those UGTO SS's shooting at once becasue all those missles would FF there allies and make for pres loss instead of gain. Station rushing on the other hand CAN be stopped and HAS been stopped before. ICC tried this last week and got shut down pretty bad by 3 UGTO stations, 2 EAD's and some BD's. We were able to only drop 3 loads of inf for an unsuccessful cap. UGTO station spam is rediculas becasue of ONE thing. Armor reapirs, and with all those armor plates it goes up pretty fast. ICC can't do this because well.....shields don't repair. So this issue is mostly based on balance issues more then just a tactic. This wouldn't be much of an issue if ICC could do the SAME thing as UGTO.

oh yeah and lets make ugto armor resistant to energy weapons then kluth would want their armor to be like ugtos and be resistant to projectile weapons as well and its the great circle of life its full of complaining with people failing to relise that icc shields are resistant to energy weapons (which is what a ugto partical cannon is 50% energy weapon. note the infinite ammo what was my first hint) which makes it emp to kill icc shileds is best one on one and we reach the same conclusion who ever had the most people would win hey icc did you relise that your ships anit as good against ugto as they are kluth and you wonder why kluth can slughter ugto one on one where ugto can't do the same without being royaly screwed most of the time (no as in stuffed finished DONE FOR)

when you manage to relise that start looking for the weaknesses example icc have great missle ships and great range we ugto have to close in to KILL YOU. try keeping your distance that might help we ugto have to ping when ever we see a kluth ai or player for fear of being slughtered with a decloak behind us at least you don'tr have to worry about that you take less damage from such attacks DUR.


and finaly all this why not make icc more like ugto is never going to get accepted by the admins because THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

for the love of peace DROP THE MAKE ICC LIKE UGTO AUGMENT ITS GOING NO WHERE AND IS TO OLD

try keeping your distance

oh yeah and lets make ugto armor resistant to energy weapons

On 2010-05-09 08:01, Starcommand of ICC wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-05-09 07:07, jackbob wrote: Quote: On 2010-05-01 21:36, Starcommand of ICC wrote: issues with station spam. they can't fight effectively because of all the FF. You don't see all those UGTO SS's shooting at once becasue all those missles would FF there allies and make for pres loss instead of gain. Station rushing on the other hand CAN be stopped and HAS been stopped before. ICC tried this last week and got shut down pretty bad by 3 UGTO stations, 2 EAD's and some BD's. We were able to only drop 3 loads of inf for an unsuccessful cap. UGTO station spam is rediculas becasue of ONE thing. Armor reapirs, and with all those armor plates it goes up pretty fast. ICC can't do this because well.....shields don't repair. So this issue is mostly based on balance issues more then just a tactic. This wouldn't be much of an issue if ICC could do the SAME thing as UGTO. oh yeah and lets make ugto armor resistant to energy weapons then kluth would want their armor to be like ugtos and be resistant to projectile weapons as well and its the great circle of life its full of complaining with people failing to relise that icc shields are resistant to energy weapons (which is what a ugto partical cannon is 50% energy weapon. note the infinite ammo what was my first hint) which makes it emp to kill icc shileds is best one on one and we reach the same conclusion who ever had the most people would win hey icc did you relise that your ships anit as good against ugto as they are kluth and you wonder why kluth can slughter ugto one on one where ugto can't do the same without being royaly screwed most of the time (no as in stuffed finished DONE FOR) when you manage to relise that start looking for the weaknesses example icc have great missle ships and great range we ugto have to close in to KILL YOU. try keeping your distance that might help we ugto have to ping when ever we see a kluth ai or player for fear of being slughtered with a decloak behind us at least you don'tr have to worry about that you take less damage from such attacks DUR. and finaly all this why not make icc more like ugto is never going to get accepted by the admins because THEY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. for the love of peace DROP THE MAKE ICC LIKE UGTO AUGMENT ITS GOING NO WHERE AND IS TO OLD

Learn 2 Play.


UGTO: Good at Mid-Close combat and over all the all around faction, not great at anything but good at everything.


ICC: Great Long range with Ok Mid Range and horrible at close range. Exceeds in difficult to kill ships but at the same time have poor offensive power. Masters of electronic warfare.


Kluth: Masters of Close Combat poor armor but has a cloaking device to cover for the lack of standoff power. Highest damage but again weak armor to compensate.




UGTO is the middle ground faction, with ICC and Kluth being the two extremes. At least thats how its supposed to go.

If we look at the firepower:

Kluth at max for firepower.
UGTO med firepower.
ICC Poor firepower.

Look at the armor:

ICC Best armor/shielding systems (well supposed to be)
UGTO middle ground with the option of putting on ablative or reflective armors.
Kluth poor armor.

Currently in 1.5:
UGTO: best armor (With repair)
ICC: a slight second (Without repair)
Kluth: Right where there supposed to be

Every faction has its one exception to there factions description. For ICC we have the Assault Cruiser, and Assault Dread, the ONLY two close combat ships for fighting Kluth with. Kluth have the Gangla there only long range ship not all that great at missile spamming but its functional most of the time.

The power tree is supposed to look like this.
ICC beats UGTO (long range), UGTO beats Kluth (firepower vs poor armor), and Kluth beats ICC (Higher firepower vs high shields).

However the tree is now looking like this
UGTO beats ICC (Firepower killing shields too fast), ICC beats Kluth (ECCM on every ship able to ping), and Kluth beats UGTO (UGTO unable to ping as well as ICC so Kluth can sneak up better).
Or like this in some cases
UGTO beats ALL.

Quote:

try keeping your distance

Would LOVE TO but it seems like our jump drives are the same as UGTO.................and Kluth can always keep up.



I am not trying to get ICC to "be like UGTO" instead I am trying to get ICC to have a fair balanced repair rate thats on par with the REST OF THE GAME. Biggest issue ICC has is repair rate and return to combat time, as well as IN combat repair as well. We could survive a lot longer then UGTO ships if our shields recharged with drones.



UGTO has missiles too, not a missile dread but the Support Station has only TWO LESS missiles then the ICC one. Theres nothing stopping UGTO from doing the same missile spam ICC dose. We have pulse shields for our factions special, not only can we fire the most missiles we also have the best counter to them. So when UGTO missile spam is out of the question then use fighters. Your aggie and carrier dread BOTH are VA ships, and you can certainly push an ICC fleet away with fighters.

Quote:

oh yeah and lets make ugto armor resistant to energy weapons

You do its called REFLECTIVE ARMOR.


UGTO particle cannons yes are a mix of both energy/kinetic, but its the kinetic part of that is what kills the shields too fast.