| Author |
Bucket o' Suggestions |
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
|  Posted: 2004-03-26 12:41
Edit: 10th suggestion added (Infantry Orders)
Edit: 9th suggestion added (Lock System)
Edit: 1th suggestion removed (Lag has been reduced)
Edit: 8th suggestion added (Improvement to Stations)
- Fix the control/jitter lag (removed, because most of the lag is gone)
- Implement Faction balance in the Metaverse
Of course, since the MV is a persistent universe, the faction balance should also be persistent.
My suggestion would be to balance the Metaverse through prestige/stat gain bonuses/penalities based on the average population of each faction.
EDIT: This MV faction balance is NOT force-based, it is incentive-based. That means that every player/fleet is free to join the faction of their choice, but players/fleets get incentives for joining the undermanned faction.
Procedure:- Constantly log the activity of the 3 factions on the Metaverse.
- Get a % of activity for each faction in the last few days.
- Based on each faction's % of activity grant each faction the appropriate bonus/penalities to prestige gain.
Ex. 0/6 pop = +100% pres, 1/6 = +50% pres, 2/6 (33%) pop = normal pres, 3/6 (50%) pop = -50% pres, 2/3+ (66% or more) pop = no pres gain
EDIT: The formula is: Pres Gain = 200% - Pop%/3
- Planetary 'close-drop' invasions should be fixed
Drop pods were added to the game so it would be harder to cap planets. The reality is that with 'close-drops', it's now easier to cap planets than before since you no longer need to orbit planets to drop troops on them, yet can still bypass the planetary defenses.
Possible solutions (pick one):
- Prevent dropping troops if you are close to the planet. It's ugly, but it would work.
- Infantry pods should spawn with no velocity (stopped), and then they slowly accelerate toward their target. Thus, troops dropped close to the planet would be sitting ducks for the PD.
- Add heavy beams to planetary defenses. (They shouldn't be used for PD.) 3xCL2k per Def3 = Enemies keep their distance from the planet.
- ECM Bombing/Capping, or general ECM cloaking must go
ECM Bombing/Capping is horribly boring and unbalanced. You can't expect planets to win Electronic Warfare by themselves against ECM boats. And that just scream cheap quick planet caps where/when enemy aren't around. Worst, K'luth can't defend against ECM Bombing/Capping -EVEN- if they have players there, because K'luth lose much in building Sensor Base on their planet, they lose much by bringing ECCM on their ships, and they have the less Special Slots of all factions.
Anyway, here are my suggestions to fix ECM Bombing/Capping (pick one):
- Prevent ECM from working on bombs/infantry-pods.
- Implement a minimum sig of something like 0.2 or 0.4(except for all ships or only cloaked K'luth ships). It's easy to implement, and would keep the best of ECM/ECCM warfare, and get rid of the worst.
- Change the way ECM/ECCM system works.
The principal goal would be to change ECM so it that it brings sig always a bit closer to 0 each time while never being able to reach 0 sig.
Example of ECM/ECCM formulas:
- FinalSig = Sig+ECCM-ECM
This is the current formula.
- FinalSig = Sig * (Sig+ECCM) / (Sig+ECM)
Probably the best formula if we want to keep ECCM increasing sig by itself.
ECCM increases sig by itself, ECM/ECCM weight each other out (ex.: 60 ECM vs 60 ECCM = Normal Sig), and ECM reduces sig with a diminishing return.
Note: If you don't want to let ECCM increase sig by itself, don't run the formula unless ECM > ECCM.
- If ( ECM > ECCM ) Then FinalSig = Sig * Sig / (Sig+ECM-ECCM)
If ( ECCM > ECM ) Then FinalSig = Sig+ECCM-ECM ... (Don't use if you don't want ECCM to increase sig by itself.)
This is the same formula as the last one except that ECM/ECCM are canceling each other out instead of weighting each other out. With weighting, each ECM makes each ECCM less effective, and each ECCM makes each ECM less effective, that means that once there's a few ECCM active it becomes extremely hard to get a strong ECM effect through the reduced effectivenes. That's not a problem with cancelling.
- UGTO & K'luth planetary tech (Deprecated)
Edit: I've heard that the 3 factions should have their own type of planetary shield in 1.482
ICC have Planetary Shield, but UGTO & K'luth have no special planetary building... My suggestions (pick one):
- UGTO: Give buildings & troops bonus defense vs orbital bombardment
- K'luth: Add planetary cloaking: planetary statistics (pop/building/troop count) are hidden when scanned from long range.
- UGTO/K'luth: More/Better offensive weapons on their defense bases.
- UGTO: Flux cannons on UGTO defense bases.
- Asteroid Belts
There's alot of complains about asteroid collisions, so here are my suggestions to reduce the number of collisions:
- Add one (or four) permanent indestructible perma-visible asteroids to the belt. That way players will always know where the asteroid belts are.
- Change the Jump line to yellow/orange if the jump line crosses an asteroid belt.
- Shuttle Pod Slot
Weird idea, but here it is anyway. Ships would have Shuttle Pod Slots similar to Fighter Slots. They would spawn one pod per slot to load/unload troops/minerals, and the shuttle pod slot would require reloading before it can load/unload again.
- Improvement to Stations
The removal of Jump Drive from stations striked a serious blow to stations' mobility.
By losing their mobility stations have become much more vulnerable and are no longer able to fulfill their old role. They have been relegated to the roles of Wormhole dispensers and 'big ship to hide behind'.
This suggestion aims to give stations new roles and make them less vulnerable:- Remove the Torpedos. (They are no longer useful to stations.)
- Add a Jump Disruptor. (Gives station a new role while making them less vulnerable.)
- Add more Repairs (3 or 4 per station so they can all supply well).
- Fill the remaining slots with beams, missiles & fighters (beams to kill at point blank, and missile/fighters to compensate for lack of mobility).
- Lock System
The system should work through the combination of Lock Levels, and Planetary Divisions.
Lock Levels:- Faction Lock: The division is only usable by members of the fleet, can only be unlocked by a rank equal or superior to the lock.
- Rank/Faction Lock: The division is only usable by members of the fleet with a rank equal or superior to the lock.
Planetary Divisions:- Structures: Limits the construction, destruction, activation and deactivation of structures.
- Economic: Limits the ability to build structures, buy ressources from starport, produce components at factories, buy new ships at shipyards & change the production type at barracks.
- Factory: Limits the production of components at factories.
- Starport: Limits the ability to buy ressources and components from starports.
- Shipyard: Limits the ability the buy new ships at shipyards.
- Trade Lock: Prevents the planet from automaticaly trading minerals out of the planet. (Can be set to 'no trade' or 'trade with fleet planets only')
- Military: Limits the ability to disband infantry, load infantry from the planet and changing infantry orders. (Bypassed by individual infantry's allegiance)
- Infantry Orders
Infantry set to 'Defend' while on a ship should not be affected by the (U)nload command; they are defending the ship.
Infantry Locks: Infantry can be individually locked so that players from other fleets can't disband, load, or change their orders.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebus on 2004-04-03 10:40 ]
_________________
|
Ceridan
Cadet
Joined: May 24, 2003
Posts: 608
From: Canada
| Posted: 2004-03-26 13:38
Quote:
|
On 2004-03-26 12:41, Phoebus wrote:
- Fix the control/jitter lag
It seems (IMHO) that the lag is related to packet-loss. When the network packets the server must send to the client are lost, the player gets jitter lag. When the packets the client send to the server are lost, the player gets control lag.
The game is effectively unplayable with this kind of control lag, so this is just me saying: "Fix this first pretty pretty please... with a cherry on top!" *cute puppy eyes activated*
^
|
|
Agrees but I know it will be difficult
Quote:
|
Implement Faction balance in the Metaverse
Of course, since the MV is a persistent universe, the faction balance should also be persistent.
My suggestion would be to balance the Metaverse through prestige/stat gain bonuses/penalities based on the average population of each faction.
Constantly log the activity of the 3 factions on the Metaverse, then get a % of activity from each faction in the last few days, and based on each faction's % of activity give the factions appropriate bonus/penalities to prestige gains. (33% activity should give normal prestige gain)
Ex. 0/6 pop = +100% pres, 1/6 = +50% pres, 2/6 (33%) pop = normal pres, 3/6 (50%) pop = -50% pres, 2/3+ (66% or more) pop = no pres gain
Note that these should be gradual spectrums of bonus/penalities...
|
|
Good Idea... umm but the system you are suggesting looks like PlanetSide's Faction Balance System 
Quote:
|
Planetary 'close-drop' invasions should be fixed
Drop pods were added to the game so it would be harder to cap planets. The reality is that with 'close-drops', it's now easier to cap planets than before since you no longer need to orbit planets to drop troops on them, yet can still bypass the planetary defenses.
Possible solutions:
- Prevent dropping troops if you are close to the planet. It's ugly, but it would work.
- Infantry pods should spawn with no velocity (stopped), and then they slowly accelerate toward their target. Thus, troops dropped close to the planet would be sitting ducks for the PD.
- Add heavy beams to planetary defenses. (They shouldn't be used for PD.) 3xCL2k per Def3 = Enemies keep their distance from the planet.
ECM Bombing/Capping, or general ECM cloaking must go
ECM Bombing/Capping is horribly boring and unbalanced. You can't expect planets to win Electronic Warfare by themselves against ECM boats. And that just scream cheap quick planet caps where/when enemy aren't around. Worst, K'luth can't defend against ECM Bombing/Capping -EVEN- if they have players there, because K'luth lose much in building Sensor Base on their planet, they lose much by bringing ECCM on their ships, and they have the less Special Slots of all factions.
Anyway, here are my suggestions to fix ECM Bombing/Capping:
- Prevent ECM from working on bombs/infantry-pods.
- Implement a minimum sig of something like 0.2 or 0.4(except for all ships or only cloaked K'luth ships). It's easy to implement, and would keep the best of ECM/ECCM warfare, and get rid of the worst.
- Change the way ECM/ECCM system works.
The principal goal would be to change ECM so it that it brings sig always a bit closer to 0 each time while never being able to reach 0 sig.
Example of ECM/ECCM formulas:
- FinalSig = Sig+ECCM-ECM
This is the current formula.
- FinalSig = Sig * (Sig+ECCM) / (Sig+ECM)
Probably the best formula if we want to keep ECCM increasing sig by itself.
ECCM increases sig by itself, ECM/ECCM weight each other out (ex.: 60 ECM vs 60 ECCM = Normal Sig), and ECM reduces sig with a diminishing return.
Note: If you don't want to let ECCM increase sig by itself, don't run the formula unless ECM > ECCM.
- Hmm, I found several other formula before the last one, but they all lacked in comparison (aka. more complex and/or less efficient). So I won't post them to save space.
|
|
Well I agree we nead to correct the zero infa/bomb drop(Luth DOES abuse it to the max)
So Here's my Suggestion :
ECCM/ECM dont work on any progectiles/Cargo Pod. ECCM/ECM also dont have any effect on Luth Cloak but Luth cannot fire/drop while cloaked
Quote:
|
UGTO & K'luth planetary tech
ICC have Planetary Shield, but UGTO & K'luth have no special planetary building...
My suggestion, give UGTO buildings & troops bonus defense vs orbital bombardment, and give K'luth planetary 'cloaking'; K'luth planet's pop/buildings/troops are invisible unless within scanning range.
_________________
|
|
For uggie it would be something like a Bunker but K'luth?... I dont think a planetary Cloak would be efficient...but intead of a protection they could have a building that makes the spawning of inf faster... but planetary cloak would be useless...
_________________
-1st Rear Admiral Ceridan
stuck in Univercity limbo
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2004-03-26 17:15
I agree for the most part.
But I've been thinking about the ecm bombing problem. I'm starting to think that it's not really a problem at all.
It's made ecm very useful. Remember when ecm wasn't worth using at all?
It's made sensor bases extremely useful if not essential. And not just vs Kluth.
Ecm bombing is really only useful vs undefended planets. Vs planets defended by players it's really difficult
And most important: it brings a new tactical element to the game! Do you use ecm or eccm on your ship? How many sensor bases to build? Do you fly an ecm scout to help your team, or fly an eccm scout to stop the enemy invasion? If you're Kluth, do you fly an ecm extractor? (the only ecm boat they have).
You see, for every one of those questions (and those are just a sample), the answer has a trade off. If you have ecm on your ship to help with invasions, you can't help STOP an invasion. Vice versa for eccm. If you build more sensor bases, you have less defense or fighter bases. If you fly a scout to help your team, you really can't fight or do anything else and are a vulnerable target.
It's always good to have more tactical choices. I think this ecm bombing/capping tactic is a problem simply because we haven't devised effective ways to stop it yet. We don't build to prevent it, we don't mod to stop it. Yet.
_________________
|
Astral Viper
Cadet
Joined: February 27, 2003
Posts: 343
| Posted: 2004-03-27 19:10
put the eccm in ur cargo hold and u can do both (unless ur a scout)
_________________
GTN wasnt just a Fleet it was a Family we all were and still are and always will be brothers in our hearts.
From the ashes of Earth we rise like a pheonix spreading our wings
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2004-03-27 19:12
I'm not sure anyone will do that. They don't even engineer against ecm capping
_________________
|
Ceridan
Cadet
Joined: May 24, 2003
Posts: 608
From: Canada
| Posted: 2004-03-27 22:19
Quote:
|
On 2004-03-26 12:41, Phoebus wrote:
Edit: 6th suggestion added
[ ... ]
- Asteroid Belts
There's alot of complains about asteroid collisions, so here are my suggestions to reduce the number of collisions:
- Add one (or four) permanent indestructible perma-visible asteroids to the belt. That way players will always know where the asteroid belts are.
- Change the Jump line to yellow/orange if the jump crosses an asteroid belt.
_________________
|
|
That have my vote
_________________
-1st Rear Admiral Ceridan
stuck in Univercity limbo
|
SaiKoR
Cadet
Joined: November 13, 2003
Posts: 21
| Posted: 2004-03-27 23:05
Quote:
|
On 2004-03-26 17:15, Holycannoli wrote:
It's made sensor bases extremely useful if not essential. And not just vs Kluth.
Ecm bombing is really only useful vs undefended planets. Vs planets defended by players it's really difficult
And most important: it brings a new tactical element to the game! Do you use ecm or eccm on your ship? How many sensor bases to build? Do you fly an ecm scout to help your team, or fly an eccm scout to stop the enemy invasion? If you're Kluth, do you fly an ecm extractor? (the only ecm boat they have).
|
|
u've forgotten about the k'luth.
how are they supposed to defend against ecm bombing? they cant build sensor bases, and they cant have eccm on their ships.
if you can give the kluth something which fixes the problem, then im all for ecm bombing
[ This Message was edited by: SaiKoR on 2004-03-27 23:06 ]
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2004-03-27 23:29
Quote:
| how are they supposed to defend against ecm bombing? they cant build sensor bases, and they cant have eccm on their ships. |
|
Do you mean 'cant' as in it will reveal them? That's a tactical choice.
Yes they can to both. And they do build sensor bases as it's more important to be able to defend your planet than it is to hide your ship. Actually it's more like they're forced to because PCM's will not get PD'd by defense bases if there's negative ecm present. So anti-sensor bases on a Kluth planet are it's doom. I've been part of Kluth planet defenses where anti-sensors were built, and all PCMs launched at us went straight through and hit the planet. Doh!
It's not all that bad though for Kluth to build them. As much as they are hurt by the defense necessities, they also benefit the most from ecm bombing/capping For now, until the human factions wise up.
_________________
|
ChiggenWingz
Cadet
Joined: May 13, 2002
Posts: 185
From: Sydney Australia
| Posted: 2004-03-28 04:43
Dont forget soon in the next patch they will be putting in the new fighters and defence platforms, so all the problems with ECM and close planet dropping will change.
_________________
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2004-03-28 13:24
K'luths can't defend vs. ECM Bombing/Capping for two reason. First, ECCM & Sensor Bases disables K'luth main advantage: cloaking, and if K'luth planets must have a bunch of sensor base that means K'luth won't be able to cloak around their planets. Second, K'luth have the fewest Special Slots of the 3 factions.
K'luth's best EM boat is the extractor with 3 EM. ICC/UGTO best EM boats can have 5 EM.
K'luth needs 2 Sensor Base (+12 sig) to cancel one enemy ECM boat (-15 sig).
K'luth needs 2 ECCM extractors (+18 sig) to cancel one enemy ECM boat (-15 sig).
5 ICC/UGTO ECM boats vs. 6 Sensor base + 4 ECCM Extractors = -3 sig.
My suggestion to cap the signature to a minimum of ~0.2 would fix the problem.
ECM would still help bombing by limiting the window in which def base can shoot incoming bombs. (Instead of 2-3 shots, def would only have one shot)
Anyone know where planets scan from? Surface or core?
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebus on 2004-03-28 13:25 ]
_________________
|
Banshee
Grand Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: August 28, 2001
Posts: 2181
From: Philadelphia, PA
| Posted: 2004-03-28 13:46
Quote:
|
[*] Implement Faction balance in the Metaverse
Of course, since the MV is a persistent universe, the faction balance should also be persistent.
My suggestion would be to balance the Metaverse through prestige/stat gain bonuses/penalities based on the average population of each faction.
Constantly log the activity of the 3 factions on the Metaverse, then get a % of activity from each faction in the last few days, and based on each faction's % of activity give the factions appropriate bonus/penalities to prestige gains. (33% activity should give normal prestige gain)
Ex. 0/6 pop = +100% pres, 1/6 = +50% pres, 2/6 (33%) pop = normal pres, 3/6 (50%) pop = -50% pres, 2/3+ (66% or more) pop = no pres gain
Note that these should be gradual spectrums of bonus/penalities...
|
|
While i agree on the most part, forcing someone to choose a faction in the metaverse, or forcing them to move from one they are already on is out of the question.
To me one of the finer points of the MV is that you can fight as who you want to, build your ships to your own liking, and keep doing as such...
Otherwise what does MV become over than one long scenario with a few gizmos added in?
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2004-03-28 13:59
Quote:
|
On 2004-03-26 12:41, Phoebus wrote:
[*] UGTO & K'luth planetary tech
ICC have Planetary Shield, but UGTO & K'luth have no special planetary building...
My suggestion, give UGTO buildings & troops bonus defense vs orbital bombardment, and give K'luth planetary 'cloaking'; K'luth planet's pop/buildings/troops are invisible unless within scanning range.
|
|
I would suggest the Ugto get a cl3k base and the Kluth get Ruptor bases..
/me shudders to think of cloaked worlds....
_________________
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2004-03-28 14:55
Quote:
| Quote:
| On 2004-03-26 12:41, Phoebus wrote:
[*] UGTO & K'luth planetary tech
ICC have Planetary Shield, but UGTO & K'luth have no special planetary building...
My suggestion, give UGTO buildings & troops bonus defense vs orbital bombardment, and give K'luth planetary 'cloaking'; K'luth planet's pop/buildings/troops are invisible unless within scanning range. |
|
On 2004-03-28 13:59, Vicious wrote:
I would suggest the Ugto get a cl3k base and the Kluth get Ruptor bases..
/me shudders to think of cloaked worlds....
|
|
The planet isn't cloaked itself, I didn't even suggest the buildings... Only the long range stats are invisible.
If you select a far away enemy K'luth planet it lists 0 pop, 0 buildings, 0 defense, 0 ports & 0 troops. But if you get within 500 gu of the planet, it list the correct stats and shows the building/troop locations on the surface like usual.
Better -offensive- weapons on UGTO and/or K'luth defense bases is a nice suggestion. I'll add it to the list.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebus on 2004-03-28 14:57 ]
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2004-03-28 15:16
I know what you mean Phoebus, but it's a problem Kluth have to live with right now. Kluth simply have to accept the fact that until 1.482, they won't be able to cloak around their planets.
Oh, and I heard that each faction will have it's own form of planetary shield. So we just have to see.
_________________
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2004-03-28 15:28
Quote:
|
On 2004-03-28 15:16, Holycannoli wrote:
I know what you mean Phoebus, but it's a problem Kluth have to live with right now. Kluth simply have to accept the fact that until 1.482, they won't be able to cloak around their planets.
Oh, and I heard that each faction will have it's own form of planetary shield. So we just have to see.
|
|
Thanks for the info.
Do you know where I can find a compendium of the changes planned for 1.482?
(Just so that I don't waste my time, and everyone-else's, by posting already planned or irrelevant suggestions.)
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebus on 2004-03-28 15:28 ]
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
