DarkSpace

Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target

Target met!

Latest Topics

- Anyone still playing from a decade ago or longer? »

- Game still active. NICE! »

- Password resett »

- Darkspace Idea/Opinion Submission Thread »

- Rank Bug maybe? »

- Next patch .... »

- Nobody will remember me...but. »

- 22 years...asking for help from one community to another »

- DS on Ubuntu? »

- Medal Breakpoints »

Development Blog

- Roadmap »

- Hello strangers, it’s been a while... »

- State of DarkSpace Development »

- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »

- The Silent Cartographer »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
No kills today... yet.

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
05/04/24 +4.7 Days

Search

Anniversaries

22^th - Tellaris

17^th - Oskar von Reuenthal

Social Media

Why not join us on Discord for a chat, or follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

Network

DarkSpace

DarkSpace - Beta

Palestar


	[FAQ]
Forum Index » » English (General) » » Stations, what are they good for?

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 Next Page )

Author

Stations, what are they good for?

Pope
Fleet Admiral

Joined: June 11, 2002
Posts: 2449
From: World of tomorrow

Posted: 2010-05-02 17:34

I dislike the idea of ship class caps. Why? Because it promotes waiting/hammering in order to get a certain ship (as it was with resource shipyards in scenario.)

Instead, i propose a per faction weapon damage modifier applied to all ships of a faction, based on the number of players logged on to the server in this faction. Ideal numbers would have to be found, propose hard caps at 60% and 120%, and a 10% damage factor for each 50% more/less active players.

_________________

UnknownWarrior
Grand Admiral
Raven Warriors

Joined: July 18, 2002
Posts: 724
From: North Carolina, USA

Posted: 2010-05-02 17:37

Anyone ever take into consideration making the orbit area for Stations further out away from the planet? Sure it would take away a tactical advantage to using Stations to drop infantry, but then that brings out the need for using transports in capping operations.

Stations are big and bulky therefore need to be further away from the planet or risk being pulled in by gravity.

So simply, per each ship class make it to where they can only get so close to the planet, IE

Stations - 500-400GU
Dreadnoughts - 400-350GU
Cruisers - 350-300GU
Destroyers and Below - 300GU or Less

This keeps stations from utilizing Depots planet side, so they now are faced with relying on supply platforms, supply ships and other stations. This can also apply to dreadnoughts though normally those dont take as long to repair. Cruisers could get closer but these are just rough numbers, but I think putting stations out that far would kill off the need for having all of them hugging up around planets (Regardless of faction)

Fact of the matter is, I think based on a ships mass should depend on how close they can get to the planet without blowing up. To counter people just passing by, add a little warning indicator in the middle of the screen that says "PLANET COLLISION DETECTED" or something to that degree, that in turn will force players to turn to avoid being destroyed.

As far as shipyarding goes (Since ships cant SY unless 250GU or less away or orbitting a planet) makes it to where you HAVE to orbit the planet to use the SY.

Just my two cents worth. Flame me all you want but its just a rough idea.
_________________

BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy

Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England

Posted: 2010-05-02 18:08

Absolutely nothing. Say it again y'all!
_________________

Pope
Fleet Admiral

Joined: June 11, 2002
Posts: 2449
From: World of tomorrow

Posted: 2010-05-02 18:09

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 17:37, Duo-021- wrote:

big and bulky therefore need to be further away from the planet or risk being pulled in by gravity.

This is not how it works.
_________________

Sops
Marshal
Galactic Navy

Joined: March 07, 2004
Posts: 490

Posted: 2010-05-02 18:34

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 14:08, Kanman wrote:
It will force fleet cooperation and organization and decrease lone-wolf activity.

Or you will still get lone wolfs only then it will hurt the rest of the team more.

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 14:08, Kanman wrote:
2 stations
2 dreads
3 cruisers
1 dessie or supply ship

Putting a cap on stations is in the realm of acceptability but a cap on cruisers? “Sorry but everyone else is flying the fun and useful ships but here, take a destroyer.” That sounds like a great way to drive people away from the game.

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 17:26, Pakhos wrote:
like a single scout is enough to blockade a giant planet .

Which is stupid.

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 17:34, Icekitty wrote:
faction weapon damage modifier

A damage modifier, I believe would be one of the best solutions to address balance.

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 17:37, Duo-021- wrote:
This keeps stations from utilizing Depots planet side

Not only is this one of the worst ideas proposed but it doesn’t address the problem.
_________________

The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights

Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.

Posted: 2010-05-02 19:10

Quote:

On 2010-05-01 20:13, The Fridge wrote:
Absolutely nothing

Say it again y'all

Oh not that sorta thread...

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 18:08, BackSlash wrote:
Absolutely nothing. Say it again y'all!

Lateeeeeeeeeeeeeee

_________________

Jar Jar Binks
Grand Admiral

Joined: December 25, 2001
Posts: 556

Posted: 2010-05-02 20:17

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 16:43, Tommas [ USF HunnyBunny ] wrote:
I find this post funny, 1.483 Cruisers was the shidle, then it was dreads, and now stations ppl complain about..see the pattern!

Degrade stations and ppl will use dreads, ppl will complain.
Degrade Dreads and ppl will use Cruisers, ppl will complain.
and the rest is fairly easy to understand.

the difference tho is that dreads (and certainly not cruisers) isnt a self supporting deathstar.

they dont require enourmous ammount of firepower to kill.

ICC is as far as i've seen actually TRYING to play with a balanced ship setup, but is forced into stations because at times its the ONLY THING ugto use!

they pull stations because they can, not because its needed.

or is it really needed to use 8 stations to try and capture a planet thats defended by 4 ppl in 2 dreads and 2 cruisers?

no, its safe and easy, nothing else.

so i still argue that stations need some form of penalty that makes having to many unappealing. i just hope the devs read this and actually take the huge ammount of ideas into concideration. and even try some of it out on the beta server.
_________________

buzzcoxss (Artisen Anitomical)
Fleet Admiral
Sanity Assassins

Joined: September 19, 2004
Posts: 144

Posted: 2010-05-02 20:34

your all stupied so ya there i said it now shh
_________________

Winters Rapture
Fleet Admiral
United Nations Space Command

Joined: December 09, 2007
Posts: 355

Posted: 2010-05-02 20:52

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 20:17, Jar Jar Binks wrote:

the difference tho is that dreads (and certainly not cruisers) isnt a self supporting deathstar.

they dont require enourmous ammount of firepower to kill.

ICC is as far as i've seen actually TRYING to play with a balanced ship setup, but is forced into stations because at times its the ONLY THING ugto use!

/\ This /\

Personally, I like the idea of limiting how many capital ships can be used. I'm not talking about slimming down every class of ship, Because not every class of ship is the problem here. It's only one(and will turn into two later).

Stations and dreads.
Limit those, there is NO NEED for one faction to be tooling around in 6 to 8 stations at a time, None. It needs to stop, before it stops the fun and combat for everyone else. Just from the popularity from this topic alone says that this IS a problem, that needs to be solved.

Now, dreads. I take dreads into this because while it's not a big issue now, when you take away the stations, everyone who was abusing them will mass to dreads and try to cause the same problem. So to 'nip it in the bud' as to say, it would be a safe bet to limit those too.

Why I only include those two classes? Because after that, everything is pretty killable, especially from those other stations and dreads that are active. It will make combat WORLDS more diverse. Yea, most people will use crusers, but that's alright! Crusers have nitche uses, not 'one ship eats all' junk that stations and dreads got going on.

Not only would it fix the current problem, make the game MUCH more interesting, and incurage team play (everyone in the smaller ships will want to support the cap ships more).

Yea, I can see the reasons why this idea sounds un attractive to some. If all I knew how to fly where stations and dreads I would have a problem with this too. But honestly, this is the best way to deal with the problem. Nerfing UGTO will only do damage, Nerfing stations will probably only do damage. This is the best way to see the problem solved while not compromising an entire faction.

This is all from my perspective, But from what i've read, and what i've seen, this is probably the best solution, in my opinion anyway.
_________________
Time for revenge. . .

Max Kepler
Fleet Admiral
Templar Knights

Joined: March 08, 2002
Posts: 589
From: ICS Victory

Posted: 2010-05-02 20:58

I think the primary issue with Stationspace (and Dreadspace) is the current way weapon ranges work.

Stations suffer from moving much too slowly (Dreads, slightly less so, but still). Hence they should be vulnerable to long-range fire. Currently, Railguns and their equivalents are far too weak to deal adequate damage at range, especially when Stations have the ability to self-repair. A group of 5 stations should be sitting ducks to Cruisers and Dreads with long-range capabilities, and should be taken out fairly slowly but easily.

My advice is this: Fit stations with a new type of Armor. One that does NOT repair by drones, but is somewhat stronger than the current brand. Stations are huge, and as such, a direct assault will rarely work, and so should be whittled down. But once their armor is broken and their hull is exposed and damaged, they should have to retreat.

Also: Give Torpedo/Assault Cruisers FULL or at least FORE,LEFT,RIGHT firing arcs. These would be fantastic ships at taking down stations, if not for the fact that they have to bear right down on the station to fire. The current system basically eliminates the whole point of having a more maneuverable ship. Remove some beams (or even a torpedo or two) if you have to equal the firepower out. Just let them do what they're meant to do!

_________________

Sardaukar
Admiral
Raven Warriors

Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 1656

Posted: 2010-05-02 21:15

First, yes, unless made clear otherwise, a staff forum post should usually be taken as a post from that person as a player. Unless they're an admin, maybe. But especially not a non-dev moderator in a balance topic.

Anyways, I still think this is a case of the wrong approach being taken. Using stations against these things is probably the wrong idea. Too slow, can't get to the facings fast enough, and did I say it's too slow?

This is from my experience:
An AC can easily survive the offensive might of most K'luth dreads. I'm not sure a UGTO station will bring much more pain to bear, relatively- and there are multiple AC's present, or AD's. Three HC's can whittle down a station's armor to around 50% in a few minutes from a thousand GU away (with nought but railguns), dodging the meager retaliation. You can get an AD to fire torpedos from this range. Or you can get up close and personal. But that three cruiser-scale arrays of railguns can do such damage has me quite sure that a properly applied beam/torpedo/missile salvo would be lethal.

I don't mean to sound like a snob, but my playtime on ICC lately has left a sour impression in the team's... abilities, as pilots. This is mostly due to what seems to be a great deal more inexperienced, newer players, and I hope it changes in time. But it leaves me hesitant to take some of these statements of UGTO invincibility without a couple spoons of salt.

And I would really like to see a test such as Bard proposes. Empirical evidence is the best evidence.

Also of import: Stations are motherloving slow, if I haven't said that yet. This is another long-lost aspect of DS, but the ultimate goal is planetary conquest. Those stations don't stand a chance at stopping transports on the opposite side of the world, unless they spread out- which makes them easy targets for assault ships.

[ This Message was edited by: Sardaukar on 2010-05-02 21:18 ]
_________________

Aeraesoria
Admiral
Synchronicity

Joined: October 25, 2007
Posts: 49
From: Aeraesoria

Posted: 2010-05-02 21:17

What ever will be done will be done... we as players can only suggest and argue about the balance of ships and stations. As such the best WE as players can do is give feedback to the developers of the game to make corrections and adjustments to the game to make it more balanced and in a sense fair. I did think for a while that maybe the developers didn't look at these threads but then again they probably do but hardly don't respond in them because they are probably taking down notes and looking at ways they can improve the game and make it better for us. We can all keep going back and forth with arguing about something but it is ENTIRELY up to the game developers to make those changes if and when it is done we will have to see... though not all changes are good. A few years ago I couldn't play this game due to connection and computer issues and since then I hadn't played until I came back 2 months ago and found I can play cause I no longer suffer FPS slow down or lag besides the somewhat desync I get but that's all. I before hadn't played the game long enough to experience what it was like to snipe ships at long range
_________________

Sops
Marshal
Galactic Navy

Joined: March 07, 2004
Posts: 490

Posted: 2010-05-02 21:44

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 20:58, Max Kepler wrote:

Also: Give Torpedo/Assault Cruisers FULL or at least FORE,LEFT,RIGHT firing arcs. These would be fantastic ships at taking down stations, if not for the fact that they have to bear right down on the station to fire. The current system basically eliminates the whole point of having a more maneuverable ship. Remove some beams (or even a torpedo or two) if you have to equal the firepower out. Just let them do what they're meant to do!

They do what they are designed to do just fine, you are just not using them right.
_________________

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black

Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown

Posted: 2010-05-02 23:09

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 18:34, Sops wrote:

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 17:34, Icekitty wrote:
faction weapon damage modifier

A damage modifier, I believe would be one of the best solutions to address balance.

I'm sorry... but WHAT?

Damage modifier based on population?

Wouldn't that be hard to code, and will serve to totally throw the balance off?

If I have 10 guys on my team and the enemy has only 3, my weaps suddenly do less damage? Or vice versa?

That's totally inconsistent, and will throw you off completely. Your torps could be monsters one day, and peashooters the next.

We need simple solutions. As Challenger has so rightly noted (yes, Challenger of the almighty RSM, the ones who spammeth the Metaverse with the toadstools of death.

) the stations are fine. They're not OP. Ship balance is about as right as they can possibly be.

It's player numbers. By default, UGTO will always have the most number of players because of their:
a) Well rounded ships
b) Easy energy management
c) Good armor factor
d) Easy on noobs

Class limits is simple to implement from a Dev's point of view. Don't need major recoding work, less probability for errors or bugs. As noted by another player, other team based games have class limits to help gameplay balance and to prevent spammage of a certain classes. Imagine Battlefield 2 where everyone jumps into a tank.... it would defeat the purpose of a combined arms game. They paid to play BF2, but it doesn't mean that they're entitled to get a tank anytime.

Similarly, yes you may be qualified to fly a station, but if it hits the class limit, then take a dread out, until the other guy frees up the slot. Or you can discuss among your faction mates, who can fly what for the best tactical combination.

Many ppl talk tactics, talk about teamplay, talk about helping their faction, but how many of them are actually willing to get out of their favorite big ships and take a tranny, dictor, or bomber to actually help the team out?

_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black

Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown

Posted: 2010-05-02 23:32

Quote:

On 2010-05-02 21:15, Sardaukar wrote:
First, yes, unless made clear otherwise, a staff forum post should usually be taken as a post from that person as a player. Unless they're an admin, maybe. But especially not a non-dev moderator in a balance topic.

Anyways, I still think this is a case of the wrong approach being taken. Using stations against these things is probably the wrong idea. Too slow, can't get to the facings fast enough, and did I say it's too slow?

This is from my experience:
An AC can easily survive the offensive might of most K'luth dreads. I'm not sure a UGTO station will bring much more pain to bear, relatively- and there are multiple AC's present, or AD's. Three HC's can whittle down a station's armor to around 50% in a few minutes from a thousand GU away (with nought but railguns), dodging the meager retaliation. You can get an AD to fire torpedos from this range. Or you can get up close and personal. But that three cruiser-scale arrays of railguns can do such damage has me quite sure that a properly applied beam/torpedo/missile salvo would be lethal.

I don't mean to sound like a snob, but my playtime on ICC lately has left a sour impression in the team's... abilities, as pilots. This is mostly due to what seems to be a great deal more inexperienced, newer players, and I hope it changes in time. But it leaves me hesitant to take some of these statements of UGTO invincibility without a couple spoons of salt.

And I would really like to see a test such as Bard proposes. Empirical evidence is the best evidence.

Also of import: Stations are motherloving slow, if I haven't said that yet. This is another long-lost aspect of DS, but the ultimate goal is planetary conquest. Those stations don't stand a chance at stopping transports on the opposite side of the world, unless they spread out- which makes them easy targets for assault ships.

While I agree with what you're trying to convey about thinking up tactics to overcome a situation, I'd also like to point out that there will always be situations where even sound tactics will hit an unsurmountable brick.... no, wait, make that a reinforced concrete wall.

I've heavily damaged and even killed some UGTO stations, using combined ship tactics. But this is just one station at a time I've faced. You put 2 stations in close proximity of each other.... still possible, but it gets harder.

Bunch up 5 stations, and it becomes nigh impossible. Why? The smaller ships need to focus their firepower on one station to take it down.

The other 4 stations are free to fire on the individual ships in your fleet, and trust me.... SS weaps hurt plenty....

Plus, 4 of them, with their combine repair drones, will fix up the target station faster than you can damage it.

And don't forget the dreads and cruisers that are flying around shooting at your ships too. I'd say that the life expectancy of your combined fleet, vs 5 stations and some other assortments, will be measured in minutes....

In the end, it becomes a futile effort. The only thing your faction can do, if it has the ranked players, is to pull out 5 stations of your own and VOILA.... StationSpace.

Is that what you want? Tactics are good. But I tells ya.... even tactics have a limit.

[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2010-05-02 23:35 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 Next Page )

Page created in 0.032829 seconds.