Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target

Time running out!

54% of target met.

Latest Topics

- Anyone still playing from a decade ago or longer? »
- Game still active. NICE! »
- Password resett »
- Darkspace Idea/Opinion Submission Thread »
- Rank Bug maybe? »
- Next patch .... »
- Nobody will remember me...but. »
- 22 years...asking for help from one community to another »
- DS on Ubuntu? »
- Medal Breakpoints »

Development Blog

- Roadmap »
- Hello strangers, it’s been a while... »
- State of DarkSpace Development »
- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »
- The Silent Cartographer »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
No kills today... yet.

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
03/30/24 +1.8 Days

Search

Anniversaries

No anniversaries today.

Social Media

Why not join us on Discord for a chat, or follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

Network

DarkSpace
DarkSpace - Beta
Palestar

[FAQ
Forum Index » » English (General) » » let see if we can help balancing the game
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
 Author let see if we can help balancing the game
Rebellion
Marshal
Faster than Light


Joined: June 20, 2009
Posts: 730
From: sol
Posted: 2011-08-10 17:17   
Quote:

On 2011-08-10 13:22, *XO*Defiance wrote:
ICC dont want weapon damage

ICC want defense




+1

but in the end its not really what we want the matters its a game and the devs will implement or tweak anything that will balance the game in thare eyes, i admit im ICC so i try to keep a open mind but still it can be argued that while fighting to keep icc from being nerfed into the ground i may come off as biased.

i mean i think that ICC should have better Defense then uggies and should have slightly weaker weapons to keep it balenced but the way it is now is the other way around weaker defenses (cept Def mode) and weaker weapons as of right now, i dont really see the logic.

-CRZY
[ This Message was edited by: Rebellion *XO2* on 2011-08-10 17:42 ]
_________________

\"War does not decide who is right, but who is left\"
\"I stopped fighting my inner demons we're on the same side now\"

Azreal
Chief Marshal

Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
Posted: 2011-08-10 17:24   
Quote:

On 2011-08-10 12:57, Borgie wrote:
Quote:

On 2011-08-10 12:30, $yTHe {C?} wrote:
Can I tell you guys a secret?

It nearly killed this game and lead to a years-long Dark Age. Our developers understand this.



ahh yes 483...




derp. 1.483....where to start....

One thing often overlooked is that most of that version (if I understand correctly) was begun by Gideon. Before it was completed, he vanished for...well, he left. As I understood it at the time, it became a kind of cabal trying to finish up what he had started, and...well, there you have 1.483 - also known as the suckhole of DS gaming.

It isn't true that devs don't listen to players. It also isn't true that they will stupidly implement ideas that are offered. I would say that right now, as I see the sausage being made, I see a whole lot of caution and a lot of effort to truly get things right.

It is always good to get the perspective of those playing the game. Devs know the QQ'ers from the folks that have a better overall vision of the game, so I wouldn't really worry about that.

And really, feedback on issues is needed. We can only test so much, and when a new version goes live, it is always going to be found to have small tweaks that need to be made. The devs catch what they can, we test as well as we can, but that is in a limited environment. Doing a one-on-one test is good...but it really doesn't tell you how the game will be when you begin to have several ships going at it. And that is where, in my opinion, feedback is needed from players.

I wouldn't say the current version is fine. I have several issues with it myself. Its pretty close, but it does still need some tweaking.
_________________
bucket link



  Email Azreal   Goto the website of Azreal
RonZo *FC*
Chief Marshal
Courageous Elite Commandos


Joined: March 17, 2004
Posts: 178
Posted: 2011-08-10 20:18   
Quote:

On 2011-08-10 14:37, I.Agamemnon (//|CO|\\) wrote:




Some errors fixed in ur footer bro
oh!! how i wish there was no QQ. i wish there was a nerf on QQing so i don´t have to hear it while i´m trying to enjoy hulling a luth dread.


[ This Message was edited by: Doran on 2011-08-10 20:51 ]

_________________
Chief Marshal RonZo
[CEC] Fleet Commander
Since 2004


Xavier I. Agamemnon
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet


Joined: October 12, 2010
Posts: 357
From: Babylon5
Posted: 2011-08-10 20:30   
Quote:

On 2011-08-10 20:18, RonZo *FC* wrote:


Some errors fixed in ur footer bro
oh!! how i wish there was no QQ. i wish there was a nerf on QQing so i don´t have to hear it while i´m trying to enjoy hulling a luth dread.


[ This Message was edited by: Doran on 2011-08-10 20:51 ]




whats the point in doing that?

_________________

Xavier I. Agamemnon
CD/I.C.S Spartacus
HC/I.C.S Athena
CDD/I.C.S Achilles
Leader of the Exathra Alliance Fleet.

  Email Xavier I. Agamemnon   Goto the website of Xavier I. Agamemnon
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet


Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
Posted: 2011-08-10 22:01   
Quote:

On 2011-08-10 20:30, I.Agamemnon (//|CO|\\) wrote:

whats the point in doing that?





I'd guess: to annoy you
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.

Ray[OU]
Marshal

Joined: December 07, 2010
Posts: 189
From: Some where in deep space, From another galaxy. [Origin Unknown]
Posted: 2011-08-10 22:45   
Grand Admiral Ray has somthing to say-

Ok i want every one to listen and shut your mouths for a sec i think before this new patch things where fine i say put every thing back the way before this patch except the following
1)the ICC combat dread newlayout keep that
2)the ICC strike cruiser keep that
3)flux and pulse wave no longer effect friendly missles and ships keep that
4)1 depot per planet keep that
every thing eles revert back to the way it was, (including all ships layouts except the ICC combat dread) and spend a nice 2 years on actually balencing the game making things equal, not 1 faction hits all and for those of you who want to flame this, if you got nothin nice to say dont say it keep your big mouths closed and dont hit the reply button at all. Tho i doubt any devs or mods or admins ever read wat i say cuz no one cares bout a grand admiral who mashed space bar to get where he is and faction hops every month or 2. With this new patch i really dont like darkspace any more hence my recent lobby campin and not playin.-
Grand Admiral Ray has spoken

[ This Message was edited by: Grand Admiral Ray [OU] on 2011-08-10 22:46 ]
_________________
The Absence of a signature means that the Above Entity simply does not care.


MarineKingPrime
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet


Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 239
From: CSS CheezyBagels
Posted: 2011-08-10 22:58   
Quote:
i mean i think that ICC should have better Defense then uggies and should have slightly weaker weapons to keep it balenced but the way it is now is the other way around weaker defenses (cept Def mode) and weaker weapons as of right now, i dont really see the logic.



This is VERY important. Devs, fix this. ICC ships are way to squishy.
_________________


CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light


Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
Posted: 2011-08-10 23:48   
anyone else just skip right over all post starting with GA Ray?
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144

DiepLuc
Chief Marshal

Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
Posted: 2011-08-11 00:29   
I believe PS staff always do job with caution. Most likely they won't undo what they've accomplished. The best chance of our is to suggest the value adjustment, e.g. perhaps 10% is too much, 7% might be better. Developers tends to have passion with 5N number, i.g 5 10 15 20. We may pursue them to change a bit, 3-6-9 or 4-8-12 instead of 5-10-15. The result won't be clear, but it shall be more gentle.
_________________


MrSparkle
Marshal

Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
Posted: 2011-08-11 01:02   
One of the things I want to see is the removal of ecm bomber frigates, especially now that planets don't even send a distress. I don't believe they really fit this version anymore. I've seen too many of them lately crippling planets with no distress and no chance for the planet to defend itself.

(a big part of this problem is the bugged distress call, but even still, there's no need to hide bombs with ecm anymore so now they're just too effective. If someone wants to ecm bomb it should be a team effort. Bring a scout with you.)

I feel that offense/anti ship bases need a serious buff to make them worth using over PD bases, and tier 2 bases of all three types need to be worth using over spamming tier 1. I think planets should be truly dangerous to approach, and should be able to defend themselves from lone ships or small fleets depending on how they're built (shipyards will have a harder time defending themselves, and low tech planets should also have a harder time). Planets have never been dangerous in DS, but they have the potential to be now, finally.

Battle and command stations I think were overnerfed. Again, devs probably think I'm QQing about it and won't listen to me, but I honestly feel that they got hit too hard by the nerf bat, so much so that most of them have been deleted from garages. The command module that's planned may not be enough to make the CS worth it. I feel that BS and CS need a reload (what kind of crazy engineer would design a massive and overly expensive station that couldn't even resupply itself? It's not even a station if it can't resupply itself. It's not worthy of the designation).

The thing is, some devs will think I'm just QQing about it all, but to me it's part of a better overall vision of the game (*wink to Az*). It probably conflicts with their vision though so it will all be dismissed.

Beyond those, I don't want anything specific for any faction. I don't know why ICC got a damage nerf, and I don't know why Kluth are scheduled for an armor nerf. I'd like to see those decisions reversed. I don't see the need for them, especially in light of UGTO's pretty significant buff. But there's more glaring issues than that. ECM frigates are a relic of the past, when planets could PD their bombs. Offense bases are a bad choice because they make bombing too easy and don't present enough of a threat to keep ships away, and BS and CS were overnerfed. Those are my three biggest issues at the moment.

On the plus side, I think depots and SS are perfect now.

_________________


MarineKingPrime
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet


Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 239
From: CSS CheezyBagels
Posted: 2011-08-11 01:46   
Quote:

On 2011-08-11 00:29, chlorophyll wrote:
I believe PS staff always do job with caution. Most likely they won't undo what they've accomplished. The best chance of our is to suggest the value adjustment, e.g. perhaps 10% is too much, 7% might be better. Developers tends to have passion with 5N number, i.g 5 10 15 20. We may pursue them to change a bit, 3-6-9 or 4-8-12 instead of 5-10-15. The result won't be clear, but it shall be more gentle.



Well they should. Its better to do a balance change and realize its the wrong change to better understand the balance of the game rather than doing the wrong change and say "meh, oh well" when the game completely breaks.

Quote:
I don't know why ICC got a damage nerf, and I don't know why Kluth are scheduled for an armor nerf. I'd like to see those decisions reversed.



This might fix balance between ICC and kluth, but the UGTO would be so immensely overpowered that it's just not worth playing the game anymore.
[ This Message was edited by: darksmaster923 (3IC) on 2011-08-11 02:24 ]
_________________


Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2011-08-11 03:45   
UGTO
Well, after playing the game a little bit more, I can say that the Uggies shd be more or less fixed soon after they scale back the armor buff. They can't depot tank anymore, so they're not invincible anymore.

However, I still foresee them spamming SS'es and dragging plats along to make up for this. Also, they'll probably build a massive number of plats near gates and camp. Well, huggies, being huggies.


ICC.

ICC were fine as they were before the 10% weaps nerf. Let's hope they're given that 10% back. Other than that, I've really got no other views on them. They seemed balanced with Kluth when 1.67 was first released. Sure, 7 Kluth dreads will instagib any ICC station. But 7 ICC ADs would do the same to a Kluth station or dread.


Kluth.

Kluth don't need another armor nerf, TBH. The buffed weapons already made Kluth a lot less durable. Why should a Kluth dread be about as durable as a human cruiser or dessie? I can understand Kluth ships being weaker than their human counterparts, but pls... not too ridiculously fragile.

But fine.... since everyone wants to nerf the Kluth... LOL. Someone proposed losing Kluth armor in exchange for improved regen? I propose losing regen for more weapon energy efficiency. i.e; losing 10% regen for 10% reduction in weaps drain.





Anyway. What I hope for in a future patch would be a limit to how many stations a faction can spawn in a given server. It seems a bit ridiculous that a fleet be made up of stations mostly. But that's up for the Devs to decide. We can only hope that some semblence of logical play over personal wants can prevail.



And to Nobodx's idea of a station having a dual JD and WH under a single cooloff, I disagree with that completely. That would make stations impervious to dictors. Why should they be? If a stupid station pilot finds himself in a dictor with a HMA, then he should be stuck there just like any other ship. It's a tradeoff. Why should stations be special?



Also, to Sparkle's comment on the BS and CS being nerfed completely. Is it primarily because they no longer have the ability to sustain a self repair rate that can outstrip damage? Or is it because their weap loadout is no longer "universal"? For both reasons, I say "Great!".

Stations are now specialized. Previously, you just needed to throw a BS or LS into the middle of a fight and it could ward off a few dreads. Now they truly need support, or die hard in the face of more mobile enemy ships that can dance around them and dodge their massive firepower.

In fact I propose removing the BS and CS completely, then giving the SS the command functions of the CS for whatever future module they have in mind. The SS is the most useful of all the stations anyway.







[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2011-08-11 03:53 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2011-08-11 07:37   
Just a few pointers on making good suggestions:

Firstly, if you're going to make a suggestion that you want to be taken seriously, put a lot of thought and effort into making it. If you don't have several decent paragraphs minimum, you've probably not gone into enough detail.

Secondly, you need to explain the whys, the hows, and the results of your suggestion, as well as explaining your suggestions in detail.

Whys: You need a good reason for the change. The developers aren't going to something on a whim. Give a reason why it needs to change, and give evidence that supports your suggestion. Essentially, explain what you think the problem is.

Hows: Go over your suggestion in detail. Precise numbers may not be strictly necessary, but it pays to avoid being too general. "X is too powerful, nerf it" is general, "X is too powerful because it has loads and loads of energy reserves, nerf its reactors" is more specific.

Results: Make sure you cover all the ramifications of your suggestion. Changing just about anything has far reaching effects, and it may have undesirable consequences that you need to spot and make allowances for. I have often been halfway through writing something when I've realised that something horrible will result, and I've had to rewrite half of it to avoid the undesirable consequence.

As a random example I've made up (disclaimer: this is not an actual suggestion):

How not to do it:
"MI should totally be way more powerful."

How to do it:
"I've been looking through the fluff of the MI, and noticed that they're made out to be world-shattering killing machines. Similarly, I've heard developers talking about how MI are meant to be a deadly threat to all living things in-game.
"However, having single-handedly taken down three MI ships at once in my combat destroyer, I am coming to the conclusion that they are failing to meet expectations as feared death-machines. They get stuck in R33, chase pointlessly after AI scouts, and hardly ever turn up in dangerous numbers.
"As such, I would suggest making the MI more dangerous. Not by improving their weapons or armour, since they already have stupidly powerful weapons, but by improving their AI.
"The MI have Death Beams that they use on planets, and anyone who gets in the way of the beam dies horribly. Obviously the weapons can damage ships, so why not give them the ability to use them on enemy ships? Since most MI ships have these beams, I would suggest removing them from the cruisers in order to prevent an MI fleet from instantly winning any engagement. It would, however, give them a certain fearsomeness that would make single players thing twice about engaging.
"Secondly, fix the map design that causes their AI to break and fly around in circles in R33. I believe that their pathfinding doesn't plan far enough ahead, so it changes its mind about which path is shorter halfway along it, causing them to turn around.
"Finally, have them turn up in groups. Have some kind of big announcement saying 'Look out! MI incursion!' and a big mob of them turn up and start attacking planet after planet until the Node leading them explodes. This could be achieved by giving the escorts a Defend order on a central ship (a node) while the node gets a list of planets to attack.
"Now, this does have some disadvantages. For one, it's more work on the server if more MI turn up, and I'm fairly sure that AI are fairly CPU-intensive as well as being non-trivial to design. Secondly, it takes focus away from PvP, which is what the game is generally about. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, because currently the game's PvE experience is a bit underwhelming.
"A more serious problem is a situation where MI turn up and there aren't enough players to fight them. In this situation, they would roll up to planets, glass them, and death-beam anyone who gets in the way. As such, I would suggest that the routine that creates MI invasions only triggers when a certain number of players are present, or it scales the invasions based on the number of players online.
"These changes, I think, would provide a more immersive game experience, and provide a challenging co-operative encounter for people who are interested in facing one of the more dangerous and mysterious elements of the DS universe."

Cue argument about MI being too powerful already, nerf AIs, et cetera. However, the second example is infinitely more likely to be read and considered by developers as a possible good idea. Failing that, it is at least a good place to start a constructive discussion.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


Xavier I. Agamemnon
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet


Joined: October 12, 2010
Posts: 357
From: Babylon5
Posted: 2011-08-11 11:00   
Quote:

On 2011-08-11 03:45, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
UGTO
Well, after playing the game a little bit more, I can say that the Uggies shd be more or less fixed soon after they scale back the armor buff. They can't depot tank anymore, so they're not invincible anymore.

However, I still foresee them spamming SS'es and dragging plats along to make up for this. Also, they'll probably build a massive number of plats near gates and camp. Well, huggies, being huggies.


ICC.

ICC were fine as they were before the 10% weaps nerf. Let's hope they're given that 10% back. Other than that, I've really got no other views on them. They seemed balanced with Kluth when 1.67 was first released. Sure, 7 Kluth dreads will instagib any ICC station. But 7 ICC ADs would do the same to a Kluth station or dread.


Kluth.

Kluth don't need another armor nerf, TBH. The buffed weapons already made Kluth a lot less durable. Why should a Kluth dread be about as durable as a human cruiser or dessie? I can understand Kluth ships being weaker than their human counterparts, but pls... not too ridiculously fragile.

But fine.... since everyone wants to nerf the Kluth... LOL. Someone proposed losing Kluth armor in exchange for improved regen? I propose losing regen for more weapon energy efficiency. i.e; losing 10% regen for 10% reduction in weaps drain.





Kenny this is the reason i always agree with you. also it because your right. kluth doesn't need anything done with them. there fine.

Quote:

On 2011-08-11 07:37, Gejaheline wrote:
Just a few pointers on making good suggestions:

Firstly, if you're going to make a suggestion that you want to be taken seriously, put a lot of thought and effort into making it. If you don't have several decent paragraphs minimum, you've probably not gone into enough detail.



thanks Gejaheline. for the help and i have a hard time explaining stuff because im use to jest doing it. like if you where to ask me how am i going to fix this i could not tell you. but i can do it. but this helps thanks again.

_________________

Xavier I. Agamemnon
CD/I.C.S Spartacus
HC/I.C.S Athena
CDD/I.C.S Achilles
Leader of the Exathra Alliance Fleet.

  Email Xavier I. Agamemnon   Goto the website of Xavier I. Agamemnon
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light


Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
Posted: 2011-08-11 11:47   
Why is it that UGTO gets something that totally negates an entire factions advantage? I’m talking about ablative armor and ICC. Ablative armor coupled with the 20% armor HP boost makes UGTO actually more defensive than ICC. When I brought this up in the past, I was always told to “close with them and use lasors”. If I closed and used beams and cannons and they had standard armor, I would inflict more damage but they would still have the advantage of firepower. So why close with them when they have ablative armor where they have advantage of defense and offence?

UGTO already holds a defensive advantage over ICC with the 20-25% armor HP boost. Couple this with specialized armor and advanced defense enhancements, and it becomes a ball of LOLs. This of course, does not even consider the 10% weapons damage nurf for ICC and bonus for UGTO.

My suggestion is to give ICC either choice of reflective or composite armor, or raise energy resistance of our shields and armor to put us back in line with defensive faction status quo. This will allow UGTO to keep their specialized armor and allow us to close with them and maintain defensive advantage. With the 10% buff debuff of weapons, UGTO would still maintain offensive advantage over icc at mid range. Some problems with this idea, is that if you make the changes to ICC strong enough to notice Vs UGTO, it may throw off ICC/Kluth balance. This does nothing to stop enhancement balance.

Or remove UGTO specialized armor for Standard, Heavy, Light variant. Heavy would be the 120% hp of now with a -10% maneuvering, and acceleration. Standard would be 100%HP with current maneuvering and acceleration. Light would be 80%hp with +10% maneuvering and acceleration. (may have to adjust those values to be more impactive. Light should put UGTO on same maneuvering plane as ICC. Couple this with making defense enhancements give a negative bonus to maneuvering and acceleration equal to one half of the positive bonus. (Advanced defense upgrade; +6% defense -3% maneuvering and acceleration)
Also leave K’luth armor alone. Their fine, even from the eyes of ICC. Their small ships are a challenge now for the first time since ive been here. I like where kluth is at.

Other enhancement balancing suggestions. (these apply to all levels of enh at a relational scale)

Advanced Beam multiplier; +6% beam damage -3% Recharge rate

Advanced Weapon Multi; +6% Weapon damage -3% Recharge rate

Advanced defense upgrade; +6% defense -3% maneuvering and acceleration

Advanced maneuvering jets; +6% maneuvering -3% defense

Advanced weapon accelerator; +6% range -3% damage

Advanced weapon cool/cond; +6% recharge rate -3% damge

Advanced engine tuner; +6% speed -3% energy reserve


[ This Message was edited by: *XO*Defiance on 2011-08-11 11:51 ]
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
Page created in 0.024998 seconds.


Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Palestar Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of use - DarkSpace is a Registered Trademark of PALESTAR