| Author |
Suggestion: Ship size balance |
Antra
Admiral
Agents
Joined: February 16, 2002
Posts: 657
From: Grand Rapids, Michigan
|  Posted: 2011-08-19 05:34
Could you post some in-game examples to illustrate your point? If possible, how those examples would turn out differently with your suggested changes. I think this will help to get your point across more clearly,
_________________
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-19 15:23
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 22:44, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
So does Phoe want small ships to;
- have the exact same energy levels as dreads to start with?
- Or have it recharge faster than it already does?
|
|
1. Did Kenny just address me using the third person? Niiiiice. /s
2. If you'd actually read the thread, I've clearly repeated many times that the suggestion only affects energy generation, not battery size.
3. Currently, engines of the same type give the same battery size and energy generation for ships of all hull sizes. Dreads have twice the battery and twice the energy regeneration of a dessie, because they have twice the engines and twice the aux gen. Not only is "time to recharge your battery" a completely useless 'knee-jerk' metric, but small ships also currently regenerate in the same time as dreads.
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 05:34, Antra wrote:
Could you post some in-game examples to illustrate your point? If possible, how those examples would turn out differently with your suggested changes. I think this will help to get your point across more clearly,
|
|
Kindly.
The first in-game example would be Gejaheline's in game example.
It's a very important example for contrast to the actual goal of the suggestion.
Geja's is using a small ship very defensively, and in playing so, the ship's performance is mainly limited by the ship weapon firepower, not energy.
When piloting a ship this way, even giving the ship infinite energy wouldn't significantly affect the ship's performance.
This highlights why the idea is GOOD; this is why I think the idea is worth defending.
It will not, directly, make small ship more powerful; scouts evading fire won't become harder to kill; small ships skirmishing won't get a significant boost in firepower.
What the suggestion is about is POTENTIAL.
The second in-game example is an extreme opposite of the first.
Scenario: The enemy has built several plat farms that are mostly undefended. You need to go destroy them.
Let's compare the performance of a dread and a dessie against those plats.
Neither ship has nearly enough battery energy to destroy all the plats.
While the dread will run out of battery energy much faster than the dessie, that's a misleading and useless metric.
The truth is:
The dread jumps near the plats with ~200 energy, and generates ~2.6 energy/s.
The dessie jumps near the plats with ~100 energy, and generates ~1.3 energy/s. (This is for the current version.)
After 5 minutes of killing plats, the dread will have had access ~980 energy to fire weapons at plat.
The dessie will have had access to only ~490 energy (half).
Obviously, the dread is a far better choice. A dread would clearly deal twice the damage in the same amount of time.
What would be the performance of the dessie with my energy regeneration change?
First, the dessie's energy generation would go from ~1.3 e/s to ~2.3 e/s.
A bit less than the dread's ~2.6 e/s. (Engines currently give ~0.5 e/s each, and aux. gens give ~0.3 e/s each. The buff would bring all ships' engine energy generation to a total of ~2.0 e/s.)
In this scenario, the dessie will have had access to ~790 energy after 5 minutes.
Instead of dealing 50% of the dread's damage over 5 minutes of plat killing, the dessie would instead deal 80% of the dread's damage.
That is, of course, just potential.
Two important notes about the pertinence of this scenario.
1. Yes, destroyers can use that energy. I've tested bot K'luth's Claw, and UGTO's Assault Destroyer, and tested their energy consuption vs. their energy generation. Both ship ran out of battery after 77s while standing still and firing all weapons except the flux wave.
Even after my suggested energy regen buff, both ships would still run out of energy after 8 minutes.
If either ship power their engines in the slightest, their battery will drain even faster.
So they CAN use the extra energy, they very much do.
2. Obviously, the plats scenario is an extreme scenario. It's only meant to represent potential to do damage.
The practical value of this in a reasonable battle is the threat in ignoring a ship.
Currently, in mixed fleet battle, it's completely safe to ignore small ships. A dessie let free to run amok can at most be only half the threat of a dread let free to run amok.
With the energy regen change, giving a small ship the freedom to unleash their full potential could be equaly devastating as ignoring a dread.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-19 15:26 ]
_________________
|
MarineKingPrime
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 239
From: CSS CheezyBagels
| Posted: 2011-08-19 16:34
Wait, why would you want dessies to do 80% of a dreads total damage potential? The purpose of dreads is to do much larger amounts of damage at the cost of less manuverability. If a dessie can do a bunch of damage and remain manuverable, it would make anything above dessies obselete.
Sorry if this was addressed earlier in the thread, I didn't bother reading most of it since it looked like a massive qqfest
_________________
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-08-19 18:06
Okay, so essentially this entire thing boils down to "destroyers (and/or other smaller ships) don't do enough damage, therefore they need more energy."
If you're comparing destroyers to dreadnaughts in terms of damage output, you're missing the point slightly.
Game balance generally uses the concept of two-to-one ratios when comparing ships to ships of different sizes. Two scouts can beat a frigate, two frigates can beat a destroyer, and so on.
Since it take two cruisers to beat a dread and two destroyers to beat a cruiser, it should take four destroyers to beat a dreadnaught. I would suggest looking at situations where four dessies fight a single dread before drawing conclusions, rather than saying that a single dessie can't match a dread, therefore it is useless and needs improving.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-19 18:38
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 16:34, darksmaster923 (3IC) wrote:
Wait, why would you want dessies to do 80% of a dreads total damage potential? The purpose of dreads is to do much larger amounts of damage at the cost of less manuverability. If a dessie can do a bunch of damage and remain manuverable, it would make anything above dessies obselete.
Sorry if this was addressed earlier in the thread, I didn't bother reading most of it since it looked like a massive qqfest
|
|
Because it's engine energy generation.
The faster a ship moves, the less energy they get from their engines.
The only way a dessie (with my suggestion) could deal 80% of a dread's damage is if it doesn't move, at all, for 5 minutes.
At this point the ship is dealing 20% less damage has way less armor/hull and has for only advantage to be able to rotate quicker.
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 18:06, Gejaheline wrote:
If you're comparing destroyers to dreadnaughts in terms of damage output, you're missing the point slightly.
|
|
No, YOU are missing the point that DarkSpace is a combat game, not a economic simulator.
The key resource in the game is players, not resources or ship sizes.
You don't get 2 scouts for every 1 frigate, you don't get 2 frigate for every one dessie, you don't get 2 dessie for every one cruiser, you don't get 2 cruisers for every one dread.
What you do get is one ship per player.
And unless small combat ships are comparable in potential to larger ships, a player is just wasting his/her potential by using a small combat ship.
And this suggestion would bring smaller ships much closer to the usefulness of larger ships, without actually changing their brute power or playstyle.
_________________
|
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
| Posted: 2011-08-19 18:47
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 18:38, Phoebuzz wrote:
stuff
|
|
dude....
<.<
newsflash: this is an RTS not some egoshooter
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-08-19 19:01
still hate your idea...
lets say your idea goes through. Well my friend, Then no force in the universe will be able to kill my border cruiser.
Kluth ships ment to hit and run with energy as their restriction, will be free to run unbound by the rules set forth to govern their combat effectivness.
If a dessy has the potential to come within 80% of the dot that a dread does, then whats the point of flying a dread?
This idea, though well thought out, does not fit within the model DS runs on.
Also the main benifactors of your proposed system are assault class small ships... Why not adress their shortcomings more directly?
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-08-19 19:32
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 18:38, Phoebuzz wrote:
No, YOU are missing the point that DarkSpace is a combat game, not a economic simulator.
The key resource in the game is players, not resources or ship sizes.
You don't get 2 scouts for every 1 frigate, you don't get 2 frigate for every one dessie, you don't get 2 dessie for every one cruiser, you don't get 2 cruisers for every one dread.
What you do get is one ship per player.
|
|
Sorry, my fault, I wasn't clear enough.
It is the wish of the developers, nay, Faustus himself, that each ship class is set up such that in terms of raw statistics it takes two ships of the next size down to surpass it. This doesn't mean you NEED two-to-one advantages to prevail, but it does mean you need a two-to-one advantage to confidently say "yes, we have more guns/armour/energy/wafer-thin mints than you do."
This is not likely to change.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-19 19:41
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 19:01, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
still hate your idea...
lets say your idea goes through. Well my friend, Then no force in the universe will be able to kill my border cruiser. |
|
Your border cruiser will go from ~2.4 e/s to ~2.9 e/s when immobile, and from ~0.9 e/s to ~0.9 e/s at full speed.
You're being quite melodramatic.
Quote:
| Kluth ships ment to hit and run with energy as their restriction, will be free to run unbound by the rules set forth to govern their combat effectivness. |
|
As I explained previously, multiple times, in multiple ways.
1. The change wouldn't directly change ship combat effectiveness. It would only boost their cumulative impact over time, IF they can stick around that long in a way that they can output that firepower.
2. The faster the ship moves, the less effective the buff would become, hence currently 'invincible' small ships that zoom around at full speed would not be affected by the buff in the slightest.
3. Energy drain would still greater than energy generation, even when immobile. If you're moving you're running out of battery fast.
4. It currently takes just as long for a K'luth frigate to regenerate it's battery than it does for a K'luth dread.
5. There's more than just energy that dictates the K'luth hit and run nature. For example, small K'luth ships are far more fragile than their human counterparts.
Quote:
| If a dessy has the potential to come within 80% of the dot that a dread does, then whats the point of flying a dread? |
|
Dreads do it faster, do 20% more damage, and can stay alive while they're doing that damage.
As you obviously didn't read. A dessie would need to stay immobile for 5 minutes to bring it's DPS to 80% of a dread. IMMOBILE.
Quote:
| This idea, though well thought out, does not fit within the model DS runs on. |
|
DreadSpace?
You are correct on that point.
Quote:
| Also the main benifactors of your proposed system are assault class small ships... Why not adress their shortcomings more directly? |
|
Assault class small ships don't have any fewer shortcomings that other combat small ships. Just because I named two assault class ships doesn't mean it would only help those two ships.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-19 19:49 ]
_________________
|
Blackjack [DBL]
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: February 25, 2011
Posts: 344
From: The land of venomous reptiles.
| Posted: 2011-08-19 20:10
With your little plan, the 2 most energy consuming factions will become unstoppable, imagine if ICC could use defense mode forever, it would ruin the balence of the game. While the Uggies will have little to no advantage at all.
_________________
Names I used: Da Bes Loser, Perseverance, Loyalty.
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-19 20:38
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 19:32, Gejaheline wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 18:38, Phoebuzz wrote:
No, YOU are missing the point that DarkSpace is a combat game, not a economic simulator.
The key resource in the game is players, not resources or ship sizes.
You don't get 2 scouts for every 1 frigate, you don't get 2 frigate for every one dessie, you don't get 2 dessie for every one cruiser, you don't get 2 cruisers for every one dread.
What you do get is one ship per player.
|
|
Sorry, my fault, I wasn't clear enough.
It is the wish of the developers, nay, Faustus himself, that each ship class is set up such that in terms of raw statistics it takes two ships of the next size down to surpass it. This doesn't mean you NEED two-to-one advantages to prevail, but it does mean you need a two-to-one advantage to confidently say "yes, we have more guns/armour/energy/wafer-thin mints than you do."
This is not likely to change.
|
|
I apologize for blaming you for the game's chosen design guideline.
As for the actual guideline vs. my suggestion.
I doubt it would actually change the pecking order in the game.
More energy won't help a destroyer survive in beam range of an enemy dread.
It's more in line with IF the dread allows the destroyer to survive for a long time in beam range, the dread will pay the price, dearly.
A scenario that is only likely to happen if the dread is afk, or sufficiently distracted by other enemy ships.
Which would actually fall in line with the guideline, IMHO.
_________________
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-19 20:46
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 20:10, Perseverance *FCA* wrote:
With your little plan, the 2 most energy consuming factions will become unstoppable, imagine if ICC could use defense mode forever, it would ruin the balence of the game. While the Uggies will have little to no advantage at all.
|
|
This misconception about 'invulnerable' ICC ships comes from believing that ICC ships would both have speed and power.
But it's a choice between either speed OR power, because the energy comes from the engines, max speed = zero energy / zero speed = max energy.
A slower ship is easier to hit, and will get just a little more energy.
An immobile ship is just as easy to hit as a dread, and will still generate less energy than a dread.
And for K'luth...
Small K'luth ships are so easy to destroy, and have so little advantage over K'luth dreads that I don't see how that could become a problem.
Dreads, the K'luth strength at the moment, would see no buffs.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-19 20:49 ]
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-08-19 20:51
no I am reading what you say.
you said a immobile kluth claw takes 77s to deplete its energy.
with your change YOU said it would take 8m to deplete its energy.
No amount of butter on that will make me believe this is meant to be a "slight" change, and that the affect will be negligible.
Also leading me to believe you don’t understand how energy is generated by ships in ds.
Ships traveling at full speed maintain a measure of regeneration. A buff to the amount of energy generated per tick would certainly affect the ship at all speeds. Not just sitting still as you claim.
couple your energy regen idea, with my energy management skill, and you effectively buff my combat ability far beyond anything you have anticipated here. A gain of just a few seconds of being able to run defense mode is the difference of building my shields 20% or 100%. Running ten second burst of defense mode (as i do now) regenerates a substantial amount of shield energy. I can already take a full alpha from a siphon, limp away, and be full health in less than the time it takes my jump drive to charge.
What your proposing would make my ship indestructible through shield regeneration, pre-buff energy management, augmented defense mode time, and evasion.
Instead of using the energy your system affords me to boost damage potential, I as ICC poor it into defensive potential and become indestructible.
77s up 8m is one hell of a buff...
Square peg, round hole this idea is.
[ This Message was edited by: *XO*Defiance{CM7} on 2011-08-19 20:59 ]
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
| Posted: 2011-08-20 03:55
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-19 20:51, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
no I am reading what you say.
you said a immobile kluth claw takes 77s to deplete its energy.
with your change YOU said it would take 8m to deplete its energy.
No amount of butter on that will make me believe this is meant to be a "slight" change, and that the affect will be negligible.
Also leading me to believe you don’t understand how energy is generated by ships in ds.
Ships traveling at full speed maintain a measure of regeneration. A buff to the amount of energy generated per tick would certainly affect the ship at all speeds. Not just sitting still as you claim.
couple your energy regen idea, with my energy management skill, and you effectively buff my combat ability far beyond anything you have anticipated here. A gain of just a few seconds of being able to run defense mode is the difference of building my shields 20% or 100%. Running ten second burst of defense mode (as i do now) regenerates a substantial amount of shield energy. I can already take a full alpha from a siphon, limp away, and be full health in less than the time it takes my jump drive to charge.
What your proposing would make my ship indestructible through shield regeneration, pre-buff energy management, augmented defense mode time, and evasion.
Instead of using the energy your system affords me to boost damage potential, I as ICC poor it into defensive potential and become indestructible.
77s up 8m is one hell of a buff...
Square peg, round hole this idea is.
[ This Message was edited by: *XO*Defiance{CM7} on 2011-08-19 20:59 ]
|
|
heck, even with my energy management skills, which are average at best, you'd achieve that.
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-08-20 04:20
I just don't think the Devs will bite.
If I'm not wrong gadgets in the game have classes, and ships are limited by hull class to how many gadgets they can carry. Since everything scales, the lower classed gadgets just produce less of what their bigger brothers do, be it energy or firepower. It would need new gadgets just for small ships; specifically speaking aux gens, just to achieve what Phoebuzz wants, which is higher regen for small ships.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
