| Author |
Blockades |
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
|  Posted: 2005-07-08 15:02
Its been said many times before...
Blockades need to stop ships docking, not undocking. Otherwise how on Earth are we supposed to defend our planets?
_________________
|
Tiffy Rando
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 19, 2003
Posts: 354
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2005-07-08 21:04
what would be the purpose of blockading a planet then?
_________________
Flagship: MCC-717: C.S.S Antaeus
|
Faustus
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 2748
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2005-07-08 22:29
If anything, it needs to stop docking AND spawning... You forget, the reason we made blockades functions like this is to prevent exploiting of the shipyards by players. Basically, before someone defending a planet would sit in orbit and fight until they were at 10% hull, go into the shipyard, then come right back out with a brand new ship...
This was unfair and considered an exploit...
-Richard
[ This Message was edited by: Faustus on 2005-07-08 22:52 ]
_________________
|
Lonectzn
Fleet Admiral
Joined: January 06, 2005
Posts: 202
| Posted: 2005-07-08 23:40
Preventing spawning is going to be a really big issue. Say we have 15 players in one system, a couple of dreads jump to our only shipyard in another system, and a bomber comes to bomb. No-one can spawn to defend the planet...
Preventing docking will mean a hurt player will have to die or find another unblockaded sy to respawn (and thus abuse the system) with high pres loss, people really won't wanna die, and if someone brings a dictor or it's the only sy, they have no other choice but to die. Sy abuse is then perfectly prevented or punished. If people do choose to sy abuse, they're gonna lose massive pres. There's no drawbacks, at least none that can't be prevented by the enemy
However the current system doesn't prevent sy abuse. Several stations sitting at a planet, enemy forces come to attack, bring down the stations but they sy before dying. There's abuse. Bomber and several dreads come to attack a sy, defenders are unable to spawn and defend the (very important) planet. BIG drawback, it's inhibiting people defending important planets when it's not even sy abuse. Not only that it's still possible to sy abuse with another sy, spawn at other sy, jump to planet, dock when you're hurt. Rinse and repeat. That way is far easier than abusing with two sy with preventing docking, since you'd have to jump to the other planet hurt, rather than just sit in orbit and dock when you're hurt.
Also preventing docking is far more realistic.
_________________
|
Trekkie_zero
Cadet
Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 146
From: A state with too many A\'s....
| Posted: 2005-07-08 23:52
Dont forget a scout can just sit at an enemy sy and blockade it...
_________________
|
Maskerade
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 21, 2002
Posts: 638
From: Canada
| Posted: 2005-07-09 00:51
I could see maybe in the future when F has time that small ships, say frigates and scouts, could spawn at blockaded planets.
a la Blockade Runners
Keep in mind large ships never(or extremely rarely) were able to slip through a blockade
_________________
- Maskerade
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-07-09 03:40
I still think it should stop docking, so people cant SY exploit, since thats what we call a shipyard exploit..using the SY when your at 5% hull to save your ship, if you cant dock, you cant do that.
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2005-07-09 06:53
I think the problem is what constitutes a blockade.
If im wrong please correct me, but can't a lone scout initiate a blockade?
why not make a blockade at 3+ ships or even more.
-Charz
_________________
|
Wyke {ThorsHammer}
Cadet
Joined: February 22, 2003
Posts: 416
| Posted: 2005-07-09 07:18
I think blockades should stop ships docking and new ships spawning but in order to establish and hold a blockade the attacker must establish a superior force. This could add to the game play and be fair.
It would prevent a few scouts from holding a blockade, however if the attacker has a superior force the blockade occurs; If the defender has more ships the blockade is broken. This would prevent a single bomber Frigate/Destroyer/Cruiser from blockading a defending Dreadnought.
If we assume all ships have a strategic blockade score equivalent to their relative rank. This could be linear or exponential. e.g. Scout 0pt, Frigate 1pt, Destroyer & Light transports 2pts, Heavy Transports & Supply 3pts, Cruiser 4 pts, Dread 5pt, Station 6pts. Or 0, 1pt, 2pts, 4pts, 8pts, 16pts respectively. I prefer the exponential scale because it tilts the field in favour of using bigger ships to establish and break blockades.
Planets could be assumed to have a blockade defence score equal to its civilian transport fleet. Therefore a planet with a Starport and therefore a civilian heavy transport, has 3pts base score. This score could be allowed some scope to vary on factors like dictor, defence & fighter bases. In order establish a blockade and stop that transport you need more than 3pts, so you need 2 Destroyers or a Cruiser. A lone scout or frigate is not going to cut it, though a large enough fleet of them might.
A typical planet with 1 Starport (4pt from Heavy transport), 1 Dictor (1pt), 4xDefence bases 3 (12pts), 2 Fighter bases II (4pts), would need an enemy force of at least 24pts, e.g. A Dreadnought and a Cruiser.
It might also be possible to allow some ships as capable of blockade running regardless, scouts and /or light transports. These wouldn't unfairly aid defenders, but would introduce tactical options for example if a player had a loaded troop transport docked and ready to deploy.
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2005-07-09 09:13
Hmm blockade depending on the planets defence rating. Interesting idea. Have the defense rating be proportionate to the blockade radius. 0 def = 2500gu rad, 10+ def = 500gu rad. 6 def would give a bloackade detection radius of about 1300 gu.
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
poisonlizard
Admiral
Joined: March 08, 2004
Posts: 46
| Posted: 2005-07-09 09:58
I really like your idea here Wyke, but I would add a little to it.
Have command ships weighted with a higher score, say 16pts for a dread and 20 or 24 for a command dread. This would give the command ships another role, and should make sense tacticly. The attacking fleet having a command ship should make them better organized and able to respond to threats quicker, thus a bonus to blockading.
Although I think the math for planet defenses would need some tweaking, as almost all planets have better defense than that.
1 Starport (4pt from Heavy transport), 1 Dictor (1pt), 6-8xDefence bases 3 (18-24pts), 2-4 Fighter bases III (6-12pts), would need an enemy force of at least 29-41pts. Thats a few ships (dread and 2-3 cruisers at least), but having the command ship may offset this.
[ This Message was edited by: poisonlizard on 2005-07-09 10:03 ]
_________________
[=IT=]Enterprise!: \"Spamming is when its only from one person :)\"
[=IT=]Enterprise!: \"Idiocy is when everyone joins in.\"
|
Meko
Grand Admiral
Joined: March 03, 2004
Posts: 1956
From: Vancouver
| Posted: 2005-07-09 13:17
Wyke's idea for the win!
that idea is:
-fair
-logical
-tactical
-stratigical
-dam-fun-gameplay-al
also poisonlizards add on should be taken into account
_________________
|
Mithrandir
Chief Marshal
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 1276
| Posted: 2005-07-09 14:36
Ships already have a built in Mass variable that scales by size - I'd say use that to compute blockades. Dreads are 27 or so, I think, and stations in the low 30s maybe? I forget. Anyway.. make it 50 or 70 or something.. so two dreads full of armor could do it, or 24 scouts with shields.
I'd make things a bit harder on the ICC, as their shields weigh less than armor.. likewise with the Kluth I believe, who are lighter to begin with. But it would avoid having to code any more numbers into things.
There may be other internal numbers somewhere too that would make it even simpler (and fairer, since ugto are advantaged here slightly)... but I don't know of any.
_________________
|
Tiffy Rando
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 19, 2003
Posts: 354
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2005-07-09 15:44
Well most UGTO ships can cook up a nasty swarm of fighters, or just keep up a continuous particle cannn barrage, unlike either ICC or K'luth so I think it' makes sense that UGTO are advantaged
_________________
Flagship: MCC-717: C.S.S Antaeus
|
Trekkie_zero
Cadet
Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 146
From: A state with too many A\'s....
| Posted: 2005-07-09 16:04
I aggree it would make sense the major human faction would therefore be able to hold blockades more effectively then the ICC or Kluth, mostly for the kluth because when they cloak they cant blockade and when they decloak they cant take too much damage from planetary def therefore its not their purpose to blockade but to attack and take the planet... The ICC dont need to blockade as much because one pass with a bomber dread can break a planet... Even a bomber dessie can do that and they can do ranged bombardments with their a trio of MDs and take out a planet...
Basing it off their mass makes sense and only allowing frigates, corvettes and the basic jump gate stuff makes sense because those ships are meant for planetary defense and escort duties, which means that they hold it till the bigger ships can get there.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
