| Author |
Scaling Ships Damaged |
Antra
Admiral
Agents
Joined: February 16, 2002
Posts: 657
From: Grand Rapids, Michigan
|  Posted: 2010-11-02 19:19
Probably already thought of this, but what do you think about scaling Ships Damaged by Hull Level? Dread vs Scout not so much, but Scout knocking hull points off a Dread should be worth a tad more.
Hull Level is the first thing that came to mind, but I also wonder if a ship's res cost would would be more accurate.
_________________
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2010-11-03 14:27
Smile Smile.
This already is largely the case.
Can't give figures but a a Stations has more than 50 times the hull HP of a corvette.
_________________
DS Discordion
|
Antra
Admiral
Agents
Joined: February 16, 2002
Posts: 657
From: Grand Rapids, Michigan
| Posted: 2010-11-03 17:39
True, but does a Scout get more Ships Damaged for taking hull points off of a Station than a Station gets for nuking the Scout?
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-11-03 20:38
u want to scale points given based on ship attacked with?
I'd vote no, sorry, uh-uh.
As far as how much damage a ship does scaled by ship hull size, this is now the way it is. and it sucks.
_________________
bucket link
|
Admiral Alucard (2IC)
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: April 30, 2004
Posts: 279
From: St. Helens, England
| Posted: 2010-11-03 21:40
Ship dammage is already giving out way too much pres as it is, can praticaly get to GA in a few months as I have seen with a few accounts
_________________
Quod nos non interficit, nos fortiores facitrnrn
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2010-11-03 21:57
We have scaling already in that resources lost varies based on your rank, so that a Captain flying a cruiser loses less prestige than a Grand Admiral (though its a couple percent per rank, so not a huge difference). That's sufficient, I think.
_________________
* [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.\"
|
Jar Jar Binks
Grand Admiral
Joined: December 25, 2001
Posts: 556
| Posted: 2010-11-03 22:37
Well, it would make flying low tier ships more compelling, and might even make this game slightly more enjoyable for the new players that at the moment mostly just go up against dreads and stations.
which really isnt fun at all when your learning the game.
_________________
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2010-11-04 10:56
Can't give numbers, but i can give examples 
Funny fact:
(Haven't updated the information in over a half year my calculator may be a little out of date and inaccurate.)
Lets take a UGTO ST-2 Assault Corvette..
a player with the rank commander will "6,2" prestige if the ship is destroyed in Resources lost..
a player with the rank Grand Admiral will "15" prestige if the ship is destroyed in Resources lost..
_________________
DS Discordion
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2010-11-04 11:41
Quote:
|
On 2010-11-04 10:56, Eledore Massis [R33] wrote:
Can't give numbers, but i can give examples
Funny fact:
(Haven't updated the information in over a half year my calculator may be a little out of date and inaccurate.)
Lets take a UGTO ST-2 Assault Corvette..
a player with the rank commander will "6,2" prestige if the ship is destroyed in Resources lost..
a player with the rank Grand Admiral will "15" prestige if the ship is destroyed in Resources lost..
|
|
I think the penalty should be much higher the higher rank you are.
Actually, this has spawned in my mind a kind of epiphany that would make the game I think, a little more fair in how far in the positive you can end up prestige wise.
My theory is thus - if you lose more prestige the higher ranked you are, it makes sense because it would favor the skilled over the less skilled. This is because skilled players die less, thus, the theory goes, people who have a high rank and retain it prove them worth it, while those who die often (as with suicide runs where you end up in the positive with a big ship? Yeah, it can be done, I do it all the time.) will get demoted quickly.
This doesn't hurt the new players because if it scales the same as now up to about 2nd RA, they get significant progression without getting penalized for being new. Howevver, at 1RA, it would immediately start scaling at a much bigger rate. The Dreadnaught you lost at VA might have cost you 300, but at Admiral, the cost might be closer to 500. And so on. It means those who aren't ready to be Admiral will quickly get knocked back, and those that are can fly the ships for it, and even though the faster progression you get from dreads is there, there is always the big risk of dying in that ship. It might make that captain even consider.. a smaller ship? Gasp.
Not a bad idea personally. I'd go for it. I think after GA, I think being a Marshal in a Dreadnaught should carry a risk of about 1k prestige. I'd love the challenge. Station usuage would plummet to the ground. And the amount of worthless combat pilots would be really shown. I can't see any logical argument against it. Right now with a good battle you can easy grab 1k prestige with a Dread. A station, even higher. I think if you die in that battle, it should be worth what you gained.
Why? Because at higher ranks, you're supposed to be good enough to keep that rank. And if not, you should lose it. Once you get Admiral, there is very, very little risk of demotion its almost a question of why we even have it. Only when you've just gotten that rank are you ever really vulnerable to losing it. I think that once you Admiral, dying often in big ships it should carry a serious risk of losing your rank.
Of course if you choose to fly the smaller ones, the prestige weight wouldn't be so harsh, as the actual prestige loss values wouldn't change, just the percent based on your rank. Its an easy simple change, requires no balance adjustments, and penalizes no one for what they'e already gained.
People only have to worry if they're at a really high rank and die often in really big ships either because its trivial to gain a ton of prestige in them even when dying or because they're just.. bad pilots. i'm sure there are none of those.
Here's the twist. There are of course, some ramifications for this. The difference is, they are negligible. I will address them now rather than when they come up later.
This will definitely cause higher ranked players to seriously consider if a dreadnaught is worth the threat its facing. Yes, you earned that ship, now you have to earn the right to keep it. Do I build a buffer with a smaller ship? Do I rush out now and risk my rank? Or am I not really at risk and just want to gain in the positive?
It will mean that those pilots in big ships will run away at early opportunities, making dictors very popular. I can see the big ship count dwindling already. Some people will draw analogies to .483. The difference here is...
ICC isn't OP like it was in .483. Dreads and Stations are much better than the Escort Destroyer ever was. And Kluth has a cloak that thousands of times better and stronger ships by far. Prestige gain from combat is much higher, and base prestige loss is much lower. Smaller ships aren't entirely worthless, so they are an option, for all factions.
So hey, think about it maybe? Aweseome.
-Ent
_________________
|
Subtilizer
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: February 20, 2010
Posts: 122
| Posted: 2010-11-04 12:20
Quote:
|
On 2010-11-03 21:57, Shigernafy wrote:
We have scaling already in that resources lost varies based on your rank, so that a Captain flying a cruiser loses less prestige than a Grand Admiral (though its a couple percent per rank, so not a huge difference). That's sufficient, I think.
|
|
ummmm shig i dont think captains can fly cruisers you get 1st cruisers at 2ra the indirector and missle i think they were.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2010-11-04 22:05
It was just an example; you get the idea regardless.
And Enterprise - brevity. Look into it.
_________________
* [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.\"
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2010-11-05 07:47
Quote:
|
On 2010-11-04 22:05, Shigernafy wrote:
It was just an example; you get the idea regardless.
And Enterprise - brevity. Look into it.
|
|
A simple idea is not merely, "Here's the idea. What do you think? ". You have to add in something like I don't know, arguments for why (or why not), include possible consquences, etc. Otherwise I find I just spend another five pages arguing with people because I didn't include any arguments in the first place.
Course you could just go TLDR if you want, most people do at that point and no one argues usually. Or they just look at the wall of text and say no without reading it through. So either way everyone wins.
-Ent
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2010-11-08 13:44
I dunno, I find I actually really LIKE Ent's idea, someone should look into it. Seems like a setup like that would actually make being a good pilot count for something because right now anyone with a ship larger than a Cruiser can point jump a fleet, maybe kill one ship if it's a really small fleet, get killed, and still gain enough pres to come out ahead because they do enough kamikaze damage when they die. Then they usually do it again with each ship in their garage.
I don't know about anyone else, but I think it'd be more fun if more people planned to make it out of a battle alive instead of not caring about making pointless suicide runs.
Another idea (granted, probably not a very feasible one) would be having a timer system where you're allowed a certain number of deaths per ship type per day in MV. That way everyone can fly whatever ships they want, but if you're a bad pilot or like to do suicide runs you'll find yourself with no "extra lives" rather quickly. What does this have to do with ship damage scaling? Nothing, but I didn't feel like making a new post just for that.
[ This Message was edited by: Grumpy Old Man on 2010-11-08 13:44 ]
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Aradrox
Grand Admiral
Joined: March 12, 2007
Posts: 133
From: Tennessee
| Posted: 2010-11-09 06:29
I actually like this idea for one reason... It will give people a REASON to fly that destroyer a reason to fly that cruiser BUT... base it off the players ranks as well in some way in order to keep players that are a lower rank from ranking up to quickly but enough to allow higher ranked players to atleast make a noticable dent in there prestige gain... as it stands now... im working on GA so im NOT flying anything smaller then a Dread...why? they deal the MOST damage and that means the most prestige gained...yesterday i gained around 4-5k prestige through combat
_________________
[
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-11-09 07:09
The amount of damage ships do is already scaled, and you already lose more prestige the higher rank you are - as multiple people have already pointed out.
You're asking us to add something that's already in the game.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2010-11-09 07:11 ]
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
