On 2004-03-26 12:41, Phoebus wrote:
[Edit: 7th suggestion added (Shuttle Pod Slot)
Edit: 5th suggestion edited (Planetary Tech: Upgraded Offense)
Edit: 6th suggestion added (Asteroid Belt)
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*


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...


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.



UGTO & K'luth planetary tech
ICC have Planetary Shield, but UGTO & K'luth have no special planetary building... My suggestions:

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 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.

Thanks for the info.
Do you know where I can find a compendium of the changes planned for 1.482?

On 2004-03-29 16:51, Ascension(Purge) wrote:
What about pulse shields on planets?

On 2004-03-26 12:41, Phoebus wrote:

[*] 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).
  

[/list]_________________

On 2004-03-30 19:10, Ceridan wrote:

Shuttle Pods: Not good ONE POD????? now how can we cap correcly...