| Author |
Fix Planet Defence. |
Ravendark
Marshal
Sanity Assassins
Joined: July 01, 2010
Posts: 443
|  Posted: 2011-08-16 19:49
maybe a system where you could cap planet only with command class ship...that would, for example, have to maintan or have action in relation with target planet to cap it. example fo this example, moving unit over the planets grid, strategicly fight the planetery and perhaps ground defenses, enemy infntry, play a little tower defense 
and ofcourse defense strong enough that would kill the ship easily if doesnt have some support
_________________
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-16 19:59
1. Planetary defenses do not deal quite enough damage.
2. Planetary point defense doesn't work. I can't tell if it's just not working at all, or if it's because it's using the EXTREMELY bad substractive defense formula.
Substractive defense formula:
Final Damage = Base Damage * (100% - Defense)
A good defense formula is the additive defense formula:
Final Damage = Base Damage / (100% + Defense)
The reason substractive is bad is the combination of two things (or one thing called 'Increasing Return'.)
First, 100% defense in a substractive system results in immunity, which is a big no-no. So the system must be designed so it's not possible to reach 100% when focusing on stacking defense.
Second, 50% defense in a substractive system only has moderate effectiveness. In DarkSpace, that means you'd need 4 bombs instead of 2 bombs to kill a stack of infantry. Whoopiedoo!
This result in the defense being either worthless or overpowered.
On the other hand, an additive defense system is self balancing, and allows powerful individual defense system that can never reach invulnerability.
Let's say ICC Tech2 Defense Base gives +100% PD, that would mean it would take twice the bombs to destroy anything on a planet with a single one of those defense bases. Yet, a planet with 9 of those defense bases would increase the number of bombs needed to destroy something by 10 times.
Very effective, alone like in groups, without ever becoming broken.
3. It doesn't seem like PD affects infantry drops. It really should.
Preferably it should give a % chance to completely destroy each infantry dropped. (Again, 100% / (100% + Defense) chances of landing successfully.)
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-16 20:02 ]
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-08-17 19:28
PD reduces the damage done by enemy inf by the same % as it reduces bomb damage.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Reznor
Marshal
Joined: March 29, 2010
Posts: 316
| Posted: 2011-08-18 03:59
Idea by Kenny that he came up with months ago:
Keep Planetary Defenses, but at high ranges, give the planets a "Mock missile strike" . It's a client-side graphical effect that shows you being damaged with a missile. But the missile is the same as the "red puff balls" that you're hit with now: they don't give damage, they just show you that you're getting damage over time.
These "fake missiles" would start hitting at high ranges, like 1.5k like the old ones.
Server doesn't take as much lag, because it uses the same system, with no actualy object's being produced (Only phantom ones) . The most work I think would be programing it to fire fake missiles at a certain range, and normal puff balls once you get closer. Then it's a matter of making a good animation.
_________________
Indictor: 1. To accuse of wrongdoing
Interdictor: (DS) A planetary emplacement or Cruiser Class vessel capable of preventing FTL travel in a certain radius.
|
Musiqsoulman
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: November 26, 2005
Posts: 209
From: Italy
| Posted: 2011-08-18 05:37
I like planet defence as it is, the fact it's easier to cap a planet, discourages bombing, and encourages ship fighting.
_________________
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-18 06:05
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 03:59, Reznor wrote:
Idea by Kenny that he came up with months ago:
Keep Planetary Defenses, but at high ranges, give the planets a "Mock missile strike" . It's a client-side graphical effect that shows you being damaged with a missile. But the missile is the same as the "red puff balls" that you're hit with now: they don't give damage, they just show you that you're getting damage over time.
These "fake missiles" would start hitting at high ranges, like 1.5k like the old ones.
Server doesn't take as much lag, because it uses the same system, with no actualy object's being produced (Only phantom ones) . The most work I think would be programing it to fire fake missiles at a certain range, and normal puff balls once you get closer. Then it's a matter of making a good animation.
|
|
That's a good idea.
Now, if only we could stop AI from jumping into, and cruising through, enemy planetary dictor fields.
_________________
|
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
| Posted: 2011-08-18 07:36
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 05:37, Musiqsoulman Koy wrote:
I like planet defence as it is, the fact it's easier to cap a planet, discourages bombing, and encourages ship fighting.
|
|
which, in return is plainly WRONG.
This game isn't all about ship to ship combat.
There is a reason for players to be able to build and bomb planets.
Building and bombing planets is also part of this game.
To me, bombing planets was the most fun thing to do before 1.6. Now all I have to do is go ecm-bomb. It's boring.
Just because ship to ship combat has the highest pres gain, it doesn't mean that it's all this game is about.
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.
|
Musiqsoulman
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: November 26, 2005
Posts: 209
From: Italy
| Posted: 2011-08-18 09:52
Building should be very gainful, compared to ship fighting or bombing. is it that way? I have no idea.
Cloud bombing was very cool and fun.
_________________
|
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
| Posted: 2011-08-18 10:39
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 09:52, Musiqsoulman Koy wrote:
Cloud bombing was very cool and fun.
|
|
It was.........
it was.................
:'(
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.
|
Krim {C?}
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: June 24, 2002
Posts: 362
From: Boston MA
| Posted: 2011-08-18 11:15
Planet defense is there as an assistance to the defending fleet. It's not intended to be a catch all death star that destroys any fleet that comes near. If a Fleet aproaches an enemy planet without defenders they should be bruised, but not pushed back merely by defenses.
(Unless it's a small fleet/single ship/ai)
My suggestion for this problem is to have the damage output spread out against attacking ships.
1 Single ship = 100% of the planet's defensive capabilities
2 50%
3 33%
4 25% etc....
The larger the fleet the less damage each ship takes over time
You could also put in some adjustments for the size of the ship as well. So as not to discourage a scout from jumping in to do his job...
But I dont know code, or how hard it would be to do something like that.
_________________
"Universum est gelu quod atrum , nos es unus verus lux lucis"
GTN - Veneratio est Totus
|
Reznor
Marshal
Joined: March 29, 2010
Posts: 316
| Posted: 2011-08-18 19:38
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 11:15, Krim {C?} wrote:
Planet defense is there as an assistance to the defending fleet. It's not intended to be a catch all death star that destroys any fleet that comes near. If a Fleet aproaches an enemy planet without defenders they should be bruised, but not pushed back merely by defenses.
(Unless it's a small fleet/single ship/ai)
My suggestion for this problem is to have the damage output spread out against attacking ships.
1 Single ship = 100% of the planet's defensive capabilities
2 50%
3 33%
4 25% etc....
The larger the fleet the less damage each ship takes over time
You could also put in some adjustments for the size of the ship as well. So as not to discourage a scout from jumping in to do his job...
But I dont know code, or how hard it would be to do something like that.
|
|
I thought this is how it was now. Plus I remember a dev log entry about increasing damage done to assault dreads, so damage scaling to ship size should be easy to do.
_________________
Indictor: 1. To accuse of wrongdoing
Interdictor: (DS) A planetary emplacement or Cruiser Class vessel capable of preventing FTL travel in a certain radius.
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-08-18 22:37
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 11:15, Krim {C?} wrote:
Planet defense is there as an assistance to the defending fleet. It's not intended to be a catch all death star that destroys any fleet that comes near. If a Fleet aproaches an enemy planet without defenders they should be bruised, but not pushed back merely by defenses.
(Unless it's a small fleet/single ship/ai)
My suggestion for this problem is to have the damage output spread out against attacking ships.
1 Single ship = 100% of the planet's defensive capabilities
2 50%
3 33%
4 25% etc....
The larger the fleet the less damage each ship takes over time
You could also put in some adjustments for the size of the ship as well. So as not to discourage a scout from jumping in to do his job...
But I dont know code, or how hard it would be to do something like that.
|
|
That used to be the case before the planetary changes.
Planets would actually shoot live ammo (not red balls of... er... representation) at ships. And the more ships there were, the more the damage would be spread out.
In fact, some ships would act as decoys or shields for bombs to get through.
A combination of the current influence capture and the old planetary defences would be good. But it won't happen, as the Devs achieved their objectives of lowering the server load by getting the planets to throw dices instead of missiles your way. 
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
| Posted: 2011-08-19 01:48
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 11:15, Krim {C?} wrote:
Planet defense is there as an assistance to the defending fleet. It's not intended to be a catch all death star that destroys any fleet that comes near. If a Fleet aproaches an enemy planet without defenders they should be bruised, but not pushed back merely by defenses.
(Unless it's a small fleet/single ship/ai)
My suggestion for this problem is to have the damage output spread out against attacking ships.
1 Single ship = 100% of the planet's defensive capabilities
2 50%
3 33%
4 25% etc....
The larger the fleet the less damage each ship takes over time
You could also put in some adjustments for the size of the ship as well. So as not to discourage a scout from jumping in to do his job...
But I dont know code, or how hard it would be to do something like that.
|
|
yup, that's how it is now.
Planets have an AOE field that damages every enemy ship that enters it.
When two or more enemy ships are in the field, damage is separated. I'm not sure but I think it's dealt like this:
planet has 6 off bases II
enemy EAD and corvette are in the field;
corvette takes 50% of the damage from 6 off bases II on the corvette scale -> it takes dmg from 3 off bases II on the corvette scale
EAD takes 50% of the damage from 6 off bases II on the assault dread scale -> it takes dmg from 3 off bases II on the assault dread scale
add another ship and and each will take 1/3 of the dmg each would take when it would be in the AOE field alone; and so on...
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-08-19 02:17
IMO, I don't want planet to be difficult to capture atm. It should be harder to capture but first, it needs a role for itself.
We have several types: terran, arid, ocean, etc and they're playing same function when they have Metal. I definitely do not hire lawyer, engineer, pilot, police if they do the same job when I already had one of them.
I don't have a chance to play in 483, but I can say in 5xx I'm quite happy when I capture a planet that is not a barren. When I capture a terran, I yell: Yay!, here comes station; when I capture an arid, I smile: There we go dread!... With the current building queue, I can construct any ship I desire when I supply it enough resource.
My the question is, may we have each class have a certain element to build and launch it in shipyard? Eg: station needs uranium, cruiser needs heavy metal... I think it's not hard to make the change in ship's prerequisite. On the other hand, with ship requirement, map designing is easier. We can even go further, that require such element to build some planet structure, such as depot requires Titanium...
Tl;dr: I hope planet plays specific role, therefore we have a goal to occupy it.
_________________
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-08-19 03:30
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-18 11:15, Krim {C?} wrote:
My suggestion for this problem is to have the damage output spread out against attacking ships.
|
|
This is currently implemented, as far as I'm aware.
However, it's not strictly linear. Two ships don't take half as much damage each as one single ship would; it's 75% each or something like that. More ships reduce the damage per ship, but it's not a straight 2 ships = 1/2, 3 ships = 1/3 thing.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
