| Author |
Development Update 10/4/2005... |
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
|  Posted: 2005-10-06 18:49
Quote:
|
i never said i didnt like realism. but having that as a argument to remove something when u can have that argument about the entire game pisses me off. and theres ALOT thats more unrealistic then the shipyards, wich is probably the MOST realistic thing in the game.
|
|
Yes, but of course, argueing something that realistic in this game is pointless...or at least, thats what you said.
Quote:
|
the only thing that ruins it is that if u log off in space u can undock at any shipyard u want. THAT needs fixing. but removal of the shipyard all together is pretty over the top and shows for a complete lack of willingnes to find a solution.
|
|
lol, of course, reading my whole post might actually mean that you would not have typed this little tidbit...
Well, the list goes on, but I think I have one here!
- Near death? Use a shipyard!
- About to be captured? Use a shipyard!
- Avoid enemy fire? Use a shipyard!
- Want to WH spam? Use a shipyard!
- Want to be able to thwart any attack at a moments notice regardless of position? Use a shipyard!
- Want to camp an enemy homesystem for days on end? Use a shipyard!
And those are only some of the things I've seen them used for. Spamming ships is another too.
So yes, very realistic (pointless that was though right), oh and abused! But of course, because its abused its not ruined!
Quote:
|
like this: if u log off in space/go LD/whatever. the game automatically searches for the closest SY, be it in another system of whatever. and then if u dont log back on within 5 minutes, the ship u had gets DOCKED at that SY, so u wont be able to undock at any other SY unless that is destroyed, and then ONLY at the SY thats closest to the one that got destroyed.
its just that simple.
|
|
Oh thats really going to solve that problem that will...
-Ent
_________________
|
Ham&Swiss
Grand Admiral
Joined: October 12, 2004
Posts: 418
From: 10$ to whoever finds me
| Posted: 2005-10-06 18:57
Hey Ent, why don't you...instead of trying to get rid of everything that doesn't suit you, try to think of a way to make people unable to do those things on that list of yours? Like i said in my earlier post...read it and then flame me all you want. And that goes to everyone else...I think that the big F woulodn't like you deleting his hard work every time something went wrong.
-MD
_________________
If violence doesn't work, Your not using enough!
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2005-10-06 19:10
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-06 18:57, measter_destroyer wrote:
Hey Ent, why don't you...instead of trying to get rid of everything that doesn't suit you, try to think of a way to make people unable to do those things on that list of yours? Like i said in my earlier post...read it and then flame me all you want. And that goes to everyone else...I think that the big F woulodn't like you deleting his hard work every time something went wrong.
-MD
|
|
Will try not to state painfully obvious...will not try to state painfully obvious...
Oh forget it. Look, how long has it been since SYs and WHs were implemented? Thats a good what, 2 years? Yes, two years. Now, the things above listed have been occuring, needless to say, for two years. Now in two years I have already tryed to suggest changes be made, already tryed what your suggesting now.
However, it seems no matter how hard we try someone wants to abuse it. But thats not merely the only reason. Sometimes I feel like people just pick the part of a post they want to flame and ignore the rest of it. I don't generally want to repeat the main idea three billion times before some reads it. As you said, read it then flame.
But of course you hadn't read, as no one is argueing the benefits I listed countless times in my first post - no one is argueing the facts I stated. Instead people just decide that "hey, you didnt think it out so your idea sux haha kkthxbye."
Maybe F might actually read it - everyone else, however, seems to not want to.
Instead of trying to nerf something, why not simply remove it - and return some of the core concepts of the game.
-Ent
_________________
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1158
From: over here in New York noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2005-10-06 19:53
well....MY 2 cents worth.
When I started playing DS there were no Sy or Wh...just good old fashioned ground pounding.Battles that were incredible in that you had every class of ship and lvl of players in ther slugging it out to defend or to cap a planet or system.And yes..Stations DID actually long jump to battles for support and they could actually defend themselves in CLOSE encounters with the enemy.A station that jumped you made you crap your pants and run like a whipped dog.Dictors were a VITAL part of the combat operations as were supply ships.then along came Sys.....now.....no need for supply ships.....just jump to Sy...grab a new ship and go again.....rinse and repeat.battles now take place at planets...so no need for dictors.....planets have em....no need for ecm or eccm ships...again....can use planet based...so......basically....Sys took the fight away from space and gates and brought em to planets.which current bombing can trash 1 run....no more deathstars around like hathache.....or wecamp....michelle or dawn.....small lil murderous ship killing planets that took 3 dreads to kill...now a lil scout can trash an unshielded planet.
Whs...now those.......have good and bad points.......good in that you can travel from point to point instantly......bad.....too easy to get and too fast to recharge.....1 ship can use wh to go deep in enemy sys...trash entire system and then be wh'd out without a problem(with current setup)if they were to be altered.....say.....to GA only..and limited to say 1 hour recharge...and ship was NOT scrappable(have to die to lose it)....would limit the number of people using and abusing it.plus it would bring back the great classic battles of mass destruction and chaos.loved the old spawn at the nearest friendly gate when you die instead of instantly respawn at ANY planet you choose that has SY...basically...right back in battle so no change in odds.....whether you were ahead or behind in numbers.which in battle meant a great deal.IMO the "fun " factor has seriously dropped and resuted in the loss of a lot of great players simply because there in no longer a NEED for strategy,teamwork,planning or suitable reward(ie credits/pres) for defending/attacking/capping/scouting/mining planets........unless your a bombing pres whore.and I havent seen a GREAT fight since WHs and SYs came out.just a lot of players jusmping in and out of Sys to keep from dying.......or popping up WHs to see if they can Wh someone into a star or planet.WOW....great fun huh?
_________________
|
RagAnok
Admiral
Joined: February 02, 2004
Posts: 237
| Posted: 2005-10-06 21:08
To fill out more what I was saying about limiting the number of shipyards to a max of 2-3 and not getting rid of them in total and still solve so of the problem with them so here is my idea
1 limit the number of shipyards per faction to a max of 2-3
2 make shipyards platform based,
3 limit the amount of resources that can be stored on them
4 faction players must maintain the resource levels them selves (no auto fill)
5 make them moveable with in the system that they are built in
6 make it so you cannot dock your ship into a shipyard if the enemy are with in 1000 gu of it
[ This Message was edited by: RagAnok on 2005-10-06 21:14 ]
_________________
[IMG]http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m3/zardous/gunner.gif[IMG]
Telekinesis, thats what you need, just lay back and let your mind do the walking
|
Meko
Grand Admiral
Joined: March 03, 2004
Posts: 1956
From: Vancouver
| Posted: 2005-10-06 23:05
100% agree with Ent.
_________________
|
DOM700 [-IMO-]
Fleet Admiral
Joined: July 26, 2001
Posts: 3175
From: Eckental, Germany, Sol-System
| Posted: 2005-10-07 03:10
/me is always exploiting bugs until he is granted silver bug exploiter badge
_________________
If the buildings on your planets disappear, guess who was there....
Never forget what you fight for
I have earned my betatester badge for being part of the open beta
![Goto the website of DOM700 [-IMO-]](http://www1.palestar.com/gamecq/phpBB/images/www_icon.gif)
|
Captain Caveman
Cadet
Joined: October 12, 2002
Posts: 668
| Posted: 2005-10-07 03:12
[ This Message was edited by: Captain Caveman on 2005-10-07 07:54 ]
_________________
|
Coeus {NCX-Charger}
Admiral, I can't read,
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: February 16, 2004
Posts: 3635
From: South Philly
| Posted: 2005-10-07 05:52
While I see MANY good reasons for the removal of shipyards and wormholes, all of which I find myself agreeing with, I have yet to see a single good, intelligent, and/or compelling reason for the retention of shipyards.
Reasons I've seen that even warrent mentions thusfar:
Convience - I don't feel like flying around for 5 minutes so let me just go right to where the action is. Destroys strategy, eliminates the need for intelligent fleet commanding & ship piloting, and just sounds like a way to appease the CS crowd rather than provide good gameplay.
Realism - I've seen this mentioned but I reeeeeeeeallly didn't feel like reading into the context of its usage so I'll just say this... what are you fracking stupid? Show me the first realistic thing about a planet poping out a ship that is bigger than it is (Luna anyone?). Not to mention... oh... everything else in this game? I hope this wasn't a term used in defense of keeping SYs & WHs - because you know that old legal adage about the man who represents himself? Yeah...
One semi-compelling arguement that I've seen is game-playability (again, something that strikes me as a CS-style thing - not something I'd want or expect in an mmorts or whatever we're classifying DS as this week) and it does have its merits - but is completely off base seeing as how SYs and WHs have done nothing for the gameplay but turn it into one big campground where everyone pitches their tents around the nearest SY planet.
I see lots of ideas - but no good, valid, compelling reasons that make me even think twice about asking the removal of both. And I'm not dead set against them, I've made my mind up given the information and thought processes going on here, and with that info on hand I decided that both are far too easily abused & destroy too much of the strategic gameplay to warrent further thought on keeping them.
_________________
Darkspace: Twilight
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2005-10-07 06:21
I don't like artificial limits. Making it so you can only build two or three shipyards is to me kinda hokey - why can't you build more? Is some guy in fleet HQ just saying that to be annoying? I like to have reasons.
That said.. why not keep shipyards, but make them ridiculously difficult to gain. Add a new type of planet that is better than the current Terrans, but only add three to the MV. It would have high resource production and high habitation numbers without modification... then have the shipyard require 200 workers and 250 power, or something. Thus, it would really only work on these planets, or maybe a Terran with no defenses (=easy pickings).
Thus, we can effectively make these Super Terrans the home planet of each race... and if we had an Upgrade Building button (Hint hint), make them unscrappable... and maybe have a safe zone as well..
That way we'd have a home gate type setup but with the ability to spawn higher level ships.
Another thing we could have is high resource upkeep for the shipyards - like, serious drain of resources. The Super Terran would still need half a dozen planets directing some resources to it to stay up and be able to spawn anything easily; that way you could always harm the enemy's spawning ability by taking out the other planets nearby. (This would work best if we had trade routes again, so you could actually disrupt these for an effect)
Likewise, terrans devoted to shipyarding would need a whole lot of help to keep their resources up; you could neutralize them without too much trouble by taking half a system.
This gives value to the game, I think, in that it on the one hand simplifies getting into battle and provides a forward operating base... while also providing a target to fight over for fleets (Terrans in clusters, I'd think), as well as adding value in attempts to strategically reduce the amount of resource flow to the shipyards (bombing, capturing neighboring planets).
In theory, then, these systems would become contested. And due to the costliness of the shipyards (and perhaps via system redesigns to enforce a low number of them - clusters being required for defense, for example), their number would be few.
Wormholes ... they'd work alright if they couldn't go out of the system, I think, but at the same time, Ent has a point in that they're not adding much at that point, so why bother to keep them at all?
Shipyards have their weaknesses, but I think they could actually add something to the game if designed well.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 07:13
Just ged rid of these gameplay killers AT ONCE and be done with it... *sigh*
No amount of arguing can compensate the bazillions of valid and brightly explicited arguments from the past 2 years that clearly go in the direction that WHs and SYs detrimented gameplay by reducing the strategy, tactics and the challenge involved of capturing an enemy system.
Also, I don't know how to quite put it into words so I am going to ellicit some feelings from you using analogies... The way I felt playing 1480 is just gone... I don't feel it anymore, the magic is gone, if I'd be a woman, I'd be running away from you and rejecting you right now... 
And remember, a good product is a product that makes you feel something, not the other way around, thats what differentiates a good advertising campaign from a bad one, a good nite with a woman from a bad one and in pretty much the same way, a good gaming experience that gets you addicted compared to one that doesn't leave you wanting more.
Right now, most of the playerbase addiction occured during the pre-SY-WH era. What we are feeling would be best described in romantic terms as: well, she was very handsome for a time and I really couldn't think of anything but her, each day I was craving for more, each time I left, left me wanting for more. No more, gone are those wonderfull oxytocin pumping factors. I'm left with a woman that thinks she owns me and thus don't take much effort to do all the right things that sparks this addiction that's making me type this very post... Hence my unsubedness, I never let a woman take advantage of me and I'd be damned if I'd let game developers do the same  .
Marketing isn't Palestar's forté, and that's a BIG SHAME.
[ This Message was edited by: Diabo|ik on 2005-10-07 07:15 ]
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 09:07
Shig actually came up with a very good idea for Shipyards, though for me personally, I would be content if that these Terrans would be very rare indeed, but perhaps I would be more prone to a one per faction setup for that.
-Ent
_________________
|
Arcanum {C?}
Cadet
Joined: June 25, 2005
Posts: 222
| Posted: 2005-10-07 10:00
Drawing on some ideas which had been previously posted by various members of the Darkspace community, and comparing those to the discussion within this thread, I believe there is an easier solution which should make most of you happy.
The solution would be something like this:
Remove shipyards
As presently implemented, shipyards are somewhat imbalancing. Thus, removing shipyards as we know them, would be a good idea.
Implement Space Stations (as planned in 1.484)
But with a twist. Space stations should be mobile defense platforms, which have incredible damage resistance, and extremely strong weapons. They should be larger than planets, and have the ability to spawn ships.
Sound too powerful? Not so. There should be several accompanying limitations. Space stations should be VERY hard to construct, each module should take hours of engineering and consume a very large quantity of resources. On top of that, once the Shipyard module on the space station is constructed, every time a ship spawns from the Space Station, it consumes part of the resources which are stored on the Space Station. Yes, Space Stations store resources like planets, but REQUIRE miners to constantly replenish their resources to enable a constant stream of ship spawning from the station. Ships docked at the station do not require resources to spawn.
So what are modules? Modules should include: Armour/Shielding module, Defense Module, Fighter Module, Power Module, Engine Module, Ship Bay module, Shipyard module, Supply Module, Resource Storage Module, WH module.
Most of these are self-explanatory. The Engine module - this will allow the Space Station to move at 5.0 gu, and I would suggest increasing the travel speed of player-piloted stations (Command Station, Line Station, Hive, etc) to 10.0gu. Since there IS a gap between the 15.0gu speed of Dreadnoughts and the current 5.0gu speed of player-stations.
Furthermore, the WH module of Space Stations should take 6 hours to recharge. This means that after it moves into a zone, a Space Station must be defended actively for 6 hours before it can get out.
Space Station armour should recharge faster than the damage output of 6 dreadnoughts firing from a distance (out of the Space Station's range). This means that you have to assemble a REAL fleet to do significant damage to the Station.
Too powerful? No. The ARMOUR/SHIELDS should recharge very fast, but once the Station's internals are damaged, they can only be repaired by ENGINEERS, not supply ships. This means, more resources, and a lot of engineering time.
One last restriction. Space Stations should only be controllable by players who are using the Command-class Station of their faction. This means that Space Station control will only be available to Grand Admirals who have all their badges and Bronze Privateering.
A good reward for all that hard work, no? 
Keep Wormholes, but implement Gate Control
The idea of Gate Control had been previously discussed in the forums. The idea was pretty simple:
- Players of a faction may only use Friendly Gates.
- Any Gate connecting two systems controlled by the same faction is considered "Friendly."
- Any Gate connecting a "Friendly" system to a "Neutral" system will be considered Friendly to that faction.
- Any system neighbouring an enemy system is considered "Neutral."
- Gates connecting Neutral systems can only be used by those factions contesting the Neutral system. (If UGTO controls Cincinnati and K'luth controls Delta Pavonis, only UGTO and K'luth may use the Cincinnati-Delta Pavonis Gate. ICC may not use the gate, but CAN Wormhole into either Cincinnati or Delta Pavonis [see below.])
- Worm Holes can only be generated into Friendly or Neutral space.
- Any faction may long-jump into any space.
Extend distances between systems so no single ship can long-jump without supplies
The idea here is to prevent people from long-jumping and bombing solo. Bombing should be a fleet-based activity.
--
So what does this accomplish? How will the game feel like after the aforementioned changes?
Suddenly, the tactical importance of a Space Station is paramount. It is the ONLY platform which can spawn a ship outside of the home gate. It can serve as a "home base" for massive invasions of enemy systems. But protecting it will be a feat in itself, because it is so slow, and because its WH takes 6 hours to recharge.
Engineers and Miners will be in demand (even during combat). Command Stations will be needed to control these behemoth stations. Battle Stations and Supply Stations will be more and more used to defend the Space Station.
Gone will be the days of lone bombing. Gone will be the days of a prestige cow bombing a home system deep in enemy space and getting out without consequence. Gone will be the days of Shipyard abuse and WH abuse.
Control of systems will actually have a strategic impact on the mobility and defensive opportunities of a faction. Gate control will be paramount.
--
And most of all, it would revert this game back to its ORIGINAL COMBAT FOCUS. Because all the activity would be concentrated in those Neutral "hotzones," it would always be a "all hands on deck" situation. You would have no choice but to help your faction fight in that battle, and the OUTCOME WOULD MATTER.
And that is truly as Darkspace should be.
_________________
The Praetorian Wolves.
We are many. We are one.
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 12:37
I disagree with you Arcanum for one main reason. You said :
"Sound too powerful? Not so. There should be several accompanying limitations. Space stations should be VERY hard to construct, each module should take hours of engineering and consume a very large quantity of resources. On top of that, once the Shipyard module on the space station is constructed, every time a ship spawns from the Space Station, it consumes part of the resources which are stored on the Space Station. Yes, Space Stations store resources like planets, but REQUIRE miners to constantly replenish their resources to enable a constant stream of ship spawning from the station. Ships docked at the station do not require resources to spawn."
Hours? mkay... so if the build time of a component is 1 hour and you've been building it for 59 minutes, what happens if the engineer pops? The 99% built structure remains THERE yet is UNSEEN? That means you could build 99% built "space stations" everywhere at first and once you need it, you just complete the last percent...
I can see many abuses coming from this... Even if there is a limit of ACTUAL BUILT space stations per faction ( and devs says they hate artifical limits ). there would be no imposable limits on partially built stations... Basicaly you could just start one in every system and complete it only when you need it, rinse repeat... XPLOIT! Unless the 99% built part would vanish as soon it stops being built... frustrating the hell out of a whole fleet in the process or at the very least the engineer/supports and they'll log off, pissed... BAD IDEA! Remember, they have to be wanting more when they log off... Not be pissed...
Removing SYs and WHs altogether is the only way to prevent any further abuses ( as you know how the human brain is smart when it wishes to find an easy way to get what it wants ) and to promote teamplay and full fledged fleets ( as well as making bombing the way it was in 1480 ), making the old GREAT battles of yore, possible again...
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
Coeus {NCX-Charger}
Admiral, I can't read,
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: February 16, 2004
Posts: 3635
From: South Philly
| Posted: 2005-10-07 16:44
Again, all ideas for changes but no compelling reasons to keep & impliment these changes that outweigh the benefits of eliminating both SYs & WHs.
What REASON is there to consider these ideas? What REASON is there to give more alternatives to get to the combat zone quicker? As it stands I'm opposed to the whole "quickfix to combat" idea as it is.
_________________
Darkspace: Twilight
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
