| Author |
Developer Update 08/12/2005... |
Arcanum {C?}
Cadet
Joined: June 25, 2005
Posts: 222
|  Posted: 2005-08-12 16:05
Well, you would only have to do it rarely if you value your ship and pilot it accordingly, unless you were an incompetent pilot, which you are not, or if you intended to abuse the new death system to respawn your ship, something about which I cannot speak for you.
I suspect that your other point will be a major issue of contention though. Some will argue that due to the unintuitive and illogical nature of the way some ships have been configured, not being able to interchange cannons and missiles and torpedoes could seriously cause some ship models to be nearly useless. Others will argue that being able to interchange weapons classes is the root cause of the game imbalance in the first place.
I take the following perspective: if missiles are worth using, people will use them. There is no need to force people to outfit their ships with missiles if they naturally bring tactical benefit to a battle. The same goes for beams and torpedoes.
So, rather than forcing people to use certain weapons classes, make it very compelling for each ship to be outfitted with a mix of weapons so as to prevent abuse. Or, if a ship is meant to be outfitted exclusively with say, torpedoes, then balance it accordingly.
In terms of gameplay, forced solutions are not only not elegant, but also lead to imbalances and dissatisfaction in the long run. Better adopt a laissez-faire approach, and make sure it is balanced properly.
_________________
The Praetorian Wolves.
We are many. We are one.
|
Faustus
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 2748
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2005-08-12 16:22
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 15:26, Diabum|ik wrote:
Put an option to disable voice-chat ingame for the modem users who don't want their bandwidth satured with useless garbage and I approve.
|
|
Thats a GIVEN... DUH! 
_________________
|
Fatal Rocko Willis
Fleet Admiral
Fatal Squadron
Joined: March 01, 2003
Posts: 1336
From: Kentucky
| Posted: 2005-08-12 16:23
4th and Long on the 5 yard line... Major Game Developers - 20, Palestar - 14...
Faustus takes the snap, rolls right, ducks a defender, rolls back left, ducks another defender... heaves the ball long... OMG! Touchdown!!!
Palestar Wins! Palestar Wins!
Outstanding ideas F, a little old school, a little new school... I like it.
Rocko
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2005-08-12 16:26
@Faustus, The new Additions sound great!
But, Ive got a few questions.
-How will ship capture be conducted with the new death system?
-Can you cut down the Engineer build times? Or make it take as much time to destroy a planet, as it took to build it?
-Can there be a "Maximum Fighter Launched" Limit Added? (such as with Mines)
-Can I get a Parts list that could tell me where things sit at now. (I remember that there was one that a player came up with for the v1480)
Thanks
-Charz
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2005-08-12 16:42
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 16:22, Faustus wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 15:26, Diabum|ik wrote:
Put an option to disable voice-chat ingame for the modem users who don't want their bandwidth satured with useless garbage and I approve.
|
|
Thats a GIVEN... DUH!
|
|
Using the right codec then teamspeak can work nicely alongside DarkSpace when using 56k. Its fuzzy but understandable. Hopefully if we have this choice of quality then (ie just to hear to 1-2k/bs) then this feature should be useable by most people.
As for the other changes. the propesed modding system shoudl work well. It will enable much greater control over ship layouts.
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2005-08-12 16:53
Quote:
|
I suspect that your other point will be a major issue of contention though. Some will argue that due to the unintuitive and illogical nature of the way some ships have been configured, not being able to interchange cannons and missiles and torpedoes could seriously cause some ship models to be nearly useless. Others will argue that being able to interchange weapons classes is the root cause of the game imbalance in the first place.
|
|
It is infact - for example, how is a missile ship designed to fire Torpedos?
Quote:
|
I take the following perspective: if missiles are worth using, people will use them. There is no need to force people to outfit their ships with missiles if they naturally bring tactical benefit to a battle. The same goes for beams and torpedoes.
|
|
Gadget are based on their use - if it doesn't do enough damage, they will pick something that does. My idea for modding was so that it was for alternatives, not better.
People will outift a ship designed for missiles with Torpedos because obviously, torpedos are better.
Quote:
|
So, rather than forcing people to use certain weapons classes, make it very compelling for each ship to be outfitted with a mix of weapons so as to prevent abuse. Or, if a ship is meant to be outfitted exclusively with say, torpedoes, then balance it accordingly.
|
|
Even torpedo ships, have lasers.
The best balence to modding likely is to make every weapon useful in its own kind.
Right now, people will fit all disruptors. Why? It does the more overall damage than cannons.
The entire focus of modding the entire time I have played was to get better weapons. This should not be.
In order to maintain balence, modding should be for alternatives. Missiles change for missiles. Torpedos change for torpedos, and so on. A PD boat outfitted with cannons is not only illogical, it defys the purpose of a ship.
This brings us back to making every single last ship useful. If you want a ship for cannons, get a ship designed for cannons. It is very likely that ships are going to be fine tuned, so there need not worry about it.
Quote:
|
In terms of gameplay, forced solutions are not only not elegant, but also lead to imbalances and dissatisfaction in the long run. Better adopt a laissez-faire approach, and make sure it is balanced properly.
|
|
This, right now, is imbalenced. For too long there are Missile ships with torpedos; beam ships with cannons; cannon ships with beams, all defying the design of the ship because it brings more firepower than its intent.
As stated before, modding should be restrictive, very much so at that, like I suggested a long time ago.
Fairly enough, a Torpedo Cruiser is simply meant for that : Torpedos. It was not designed for missiles or any of the like, otherwise, it would be called a Missile Cruiser.
The same shows for the Missile Dreadnought. It was designed for what? Missiles. Not torpedos, otherwise it would be a torpedo dreadnought..
See my point? Ships were designed this way with the thought in mind that every ship filled a particular role, and did one particular thing, so as to prevent the "One ship kills all" syndrome. Unfortunately this backfired.
If modding is freely done, then having a ship specific for its job is almost nulled because it is modded differently than its intended, the only way to fix this, is to force it to its role.
This means that ships can be tweaked for their purpose. This would mean slots that are...
-Torpedo Slot.
-Missile Slot.
-Beam Slot.
-Cannon Slot.
-Heavy Missile Slot.
And so on, you get my point. Missiles should only be interchanged with missiles, torpedos should only be changed for other types of torpedos, beams should only be changed with other types of beams.
This way, you can mod your ship with versatility, but only in the role it was designed in. For example, a Torpedo Cruiser can change its P torps for AM or F Torps, depending on the situation.
-Ent
_________________
|
Bigwolfe
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 16, 2003
Posts: 156
From: Bland County
| Posted: 2005-08-12 17:29
that's awsome!!!i can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is going to be great, hopefully this will be out before i get back from vacation on the 20. 
_________________
Your in Trouble Now....
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2005-08-12 18:04
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 16:26, CharAznable wrote:
-Can I get a Parts list that could tell me where things sit at now. (I remember that there was one that a player came up with for the v1480)
|
|
kinda like this?
_________________
|
Arcanum {C?}
Cadet
Joined: June 25, 2005
Posts: 222
| Posted: 2005-08-12 18:18
Enterprise - I can see the logic of what you are saying, but the problem remains that an MD which is restricted to only missiles really sucks. And this is not because there is anything wrong with the ship itself, but the fact that missile accuracy is easily defeated by point defense and good piloting. Torpedo MDs are much more lethal.
_________________
The Praetorian Wolves.
We are many. We are one.
|
Bobamelius
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 2074
From: Ohio
| Posted: 2005-08-12 18:23
Much too lethal, you mean.
An MD with missiles does not suck. However, compared to the utterly absurd amount of firepower than a torp MD can put out, yes, it does.
Ever heard of remote detonation? It works great with missiles too.
Easy way to make missiles even better:
Hear that Big F? We need that...
[ This Message was edited by: Bobamelius on 2005-08-12 18:27 ]
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2005-08-12 18:26
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 18:04, Doran (Give Midshipmen Sup/Engy) wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 16:26, CharAznable wrote:
-Can I get a Parts list that could tell me where things sit at now. (I remember that there was one that a player came up with for the v1480)
|
|
kinda like this?
|
|
Almost.. I was looking for more of a Device list that told more about the device "where things sit at now." I should have been more specific. I would like to see how much dmage guns do, And how much Damage armor can take. Not to mention hull values, asteroids, Planet sheilds, Def bases, fighters.. etc.. so on and so forth...
Thanks again
-Charz
_________________
|
AdmBito
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: October 04, 2002
Posts: 1249
From: Its hard out here for a pimp
| Posted: 2005-08-12 18:41
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 14:36, Enterprise wrote:
Quote:
|
We shall be keeping the "Resource" flags as they are called (i.e. Hydrogen, Oxygen, Metals, Heavy Metals)... and upgrades / ships may be limited to only certain planets in the MV and scenerio that have the needed resource flags. For example, a HMA jump drive might require 5000 resources, a technology level of 70, and Hyper Matter to be present on the planet you are currently oribitng before you can perfom that upgrade of your jump drive.
|
|
Quote:
|
That actually gives more strategic importance to planets than ever.
|
|
|
|
Was...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
What will be removed are the seperate resource cargo types such as Heavy Metals, Metals, etc... we shall have only one type of resource that you can transport in your cargo hold.
|
|
Quote:
|
No more "What resources gives more?!" questons...
|
|
|
|
...all this quoting...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
The next major change is to upgrade levels. Upgrade levels for all gadgets are going to be specified by the ship type. In other words, if you have a cruiser, all your devices might automatically be set to level 7. You will not be able to modify or change a device level, it will be controlled in code only. This will obviously require some re-balancing of the levels for some gadgets so we can have a unified level system.
|
|
Quote:
|
Brilliant, actually brings firepower down to what it should be. However, it would be much, much wiser to limit levels by every individual ship, to give each one a more prominent role.
|
|
|
|
...really that...
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Modding a ship is will change as well. Each gadget will have between 0 and X upgrade paths. When oribiting a friendly planet, you will simply target a device on your ship and press a button to upgrade that device to another. Upgrades will have a time delay depending on the device, cost planet resources, and cost you credits from your account. The mount types will become unimportant information now, so that will be removed from displays... it's actual use was intended for the AI code so it could evual what type of device is what...
|
|
Quote:
|
All good..except keep the timers LOW..as in, not more than 2 or 3 minutes, at most.
Fleet grouping and voice chat are both going to get implemented in this version. Your group is going to be your clan/fleet. No need to invite / disband groups. Any prestige gain / loss will be shared by all other players in your fleet in the current server. Additionally, I'm going to re-enable voice chat... voice chat will default to your fleet only, also going to allow direct voice communications in-game. Obviously, I'm going to provide the ability for a player to mute communications from another just in case someone gets abusive.
|
|
I have a slight disagreement with this. By default your group should be your fleet, however, it would be nice to have an option to merge groups, for example, two fleets on the same faction ([Raven] and [-[A]-] for a quick example) who are working together in the same system could group together for easier orgranization.
Other than that, voice chat is obviously a + here.
|
|
Quote:
|
Lastly and most important.... death is going to change dramatically. You will no longer lose ships when destroyed, they will be returned to your storage with 1% hull and all devices destroyed. The only penalty a player will pay for death is the time it takes to fully repair (and that is optional as well) your ship.
|
|
Quote:
|
...well..I can see both a good thing here and a bad thing.
The good thing is, we no longer have to worry about losing a ship that we've spent a period of time to modify just right.
The bad thing is, is that if there were no prestige loss (since you say the only penalty is the time it fully takes to repair), is that people can just run into planets, then respawn and have someone whore supply prestige off of it.
Hence, it can be abused.
Other than that, I think the general idea of this enitre next version looks very promising. I've waited 3 fragger years to see a balence in which everyone is happy with, perhaps it will work this time.
-Ent
|
|
-Bito
[ This Message was edited by: AdmBito on 2005-08-12 18:48 ]
_________________
Puppies gotta die, too.
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2005-08-12 18:55
Maybe make missles faster with a beter turning speed? that would help.
_________________
|
GothThug {C?}
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 29, 2005
Posts: 2932
| Posted: 2005-08-12 19:51
i like the ideas for this update . however can WE PLEASE get rid of planet capturing, its tiresome and its the same thing every single frackin day. we invade their space they invade ours, our planets fire level 15 Lasers/Disrupters ITS TIRESOME! please no more capturing planets 
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-08-12 19:53
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-12 19:51, Fatal GothThug{C?} wrote:
i like the ideas for this update . however can WE PLEASE get rid of planet capturing, its tiresome and its the same thing every single frackin day. we invade their space they invade ours, our planets fire level 15 Lasers/Disrupters ITS TIRESOME! please no more capturing planets
|
|
I pray to God this is a joke....
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
