| Author |
Suggestion: Ship size balance |
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
|  Posted: 2011-08-17 11:43
"I suggest you read my post again. I said nothing about increasing gun amounts." - Thernhoghas
"so you're basically saying a 250 m long frigate should have the same engines and weapons as a 1.5 km long dread? seriously; wtf?" - Thernhoghas
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 04:33, Thernhoghas (RO) wrote:
Please correct me if I understand your suggestion wrong:
You want all ships have the same engines ( in matters of energy output) and guns ( e.g. no weapon scaling)
|
|
Total engines power generation: yes.
No gun scaling: no.
I only indirectly referred to weapon energy efficiency (damage per energy), which are already roughly equivalent across hull sizes.
This suggestion was specifically made to improve the value of small ship without improving their present firepower.
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-16 21:02, Phoebuzz wrote:
This suggestion is about energy efficiency, and the ability to deal damage over long period of time.
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 04:33, Thernhoghas (RO) wrote:
Also if you haven't noticed already smaller ships are EXTREMELY more energy efficient than larger ones. Go try it out, than come back and think over your suggestion again.
|
|
They are not, not even close.
1. You use the word 'energy efficiency' without knowing or caring what it actually means.
It does not mean 'I don't think that ship has energy problems'.
It means how much damage you get for every point of energy. Which as squat to do with the point you're trying to make.
And small ship weapons have nearly the same energy efficiency as dread+ weapons. Small ships just have a lot less weapons, and you'd need a seriously twisted perception of balance and reality in general to consider that to be an advantage.
2. The point you're trying to make, that small ships have no energy problems, couldn't be more wrong.
For example, a claw, immobile, and shooting only it's cannons and torps, is draining it's energy. When it's moving and shooting it's cannons and torps it's bleeding energy.
And not only is it wrong, but it's also meaningless, being able to smash the spacebar without running out of energy has absolutely nothing to do with ship balance, and it has nothing to do with the suggestion.
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 08:35, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
Could you imagine a Kluth small ship with the same energy reserve and regeneration as a dread? |
|
I've specifically stated that smaller ships would not have increased energy reserve, just increased regeneration.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-17 11:48 ]
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-08-17 12:01
my points still stand.
There is no energy deficiency problem with small ships over time, thus increasing their regeneration rate would do nothing towards improving their combat effectiveness, at least not how you think it would.
Small ships can stay in the fight longer than dreads and thus do more damage over time. This notion of small ships being half as effective as dreads on a DOT standing is ludicrous.
A icc small ship with the energy regeneration of a dread would be so insanely overpowered that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to kill. You really want that?
This idea blows and leaks at every weld… Let it go.
(now I know how backslash feels)
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-17 12:20
2nd attempt to explain the balance paradigm.
Currently when flying a small ship, even when you win, you lose.
Yes, you think small ships can be used effectively.
The real question is:
How effective is a small ship used effectively compared to a dread used effectively.
To answer the question for destroy vs dread:
A destroyer used effectively is only roughly 1/3 as effective as a dread used effectively.
And this is why players that can use both dreads and destroyers effectively will always choose a dread when they try to win a battle.
* For design reasons, smaller ICC ships (particularly cruisers) tend to be more effective than their UGTO and K'luth counterparts.
The goal of the suggestion is to improve the value of smaller ship without actually directly making them stronger through more armor or weapons.
A ship with more energy regeneration won't deal more damage, and won't survive alphas more easily, but more energy regeneration it will allow a good pilot to stick around much longer if they pilot their ship effectively, and thus bridge the gap in firepower through perseverance and attrition.
* I estimate that destroyers are 1/3 as effective as dreads because:
1. Destroyers have only roughly 60% of the energy regeneration of a dread.
2. A smaller ship only advantage over a dread is speed and maneuverability. So a destroyers needs to move to be effective.
Meanwhile dreads can be (and are) used effectively without moving around much (mostly through the jump drive).
Also, dreads have far more weapons, allowing them to convert their energy into firepower far more quickly, which reduces the amount of time they need to stick around or chase enemies, further lowering energy used by their engines.
For this reason I gave a (very arbitrary and vague) ~45% energy loss due to engines for dessies.
3. Dessie and dread weapons have very similar energy efficiency, meaning a dessie with 1/3 a dread's energy available for weapons will deal 1/3 of a dread's damage with that energy.
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-08-17 12:28
all you have to do to negate this "disadvantige" is stop firing for just a second and not go full speed...
Vola insta "look mom i got all my energy back and can keep shooting".
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:01
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 12:28, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
all you have to do to negate this "disadvantige" is stop firing for just a second and not go full speed...
Vola insta "look mom i got all my energy back and can keep shooting".
|
|
You have clearly shown a completely inability for critical think, or express yourself in any way other than insulting or presenting your unsubstantiated personal opinion as fact.
1. I've never used the word "disadvantige".
2. I've specifically stated "12.5gu/s" (which is half-speed for a dessie), not full speed.
3. You don't generate energy faster when you're not shooting. You're just not using it so it just end up in your battery. *Peekaboo!* Magical energy for the retarded.
4. Stopping shooting just means you do less damage even less often. (Which is the problem with small ships at the moment, the double curse.)
5. You've systematically misrepresented my suggestion, and then proceeded to shoot down your own bad interpretation. Congrats, you're so clever! /s
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-17 13:03 ]
_________________
|
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:09
You're making yourself too hard to understand.
Do you want small ships to be more effective without moving or what?
Small ships are MEANT TO MOVE TO BE EFFECTIVE -.-
otherwise there wouldn't be a need for small ships at all
take a short break, reboot your brain and think about your suggestion again, then you might also notice THAT NOBODY EVEN SLIGHTLY AGREES WITH YOU!
What-if-scenario:
what if scouts, frigates, destroyers and cruisers had the same energy generation per engine as dreads?
- ICC ships could fly with defmode permanently on
- K'Luth vs. other factions balance would be..... vaporized because K'Luth are meant to retreat to recover their energy for a while
- interdictor cruisers would be able to fly faster with their dico on
- UGTO small ships would fall so far behind the other factions counterparts that.... I don't think I need to explain more here <.<
in other words: IT WOULD BREAK THE GAME!
I really don't know how you imagine this should balance the game, but you surely haven't thought of it enough.
And as Defiance and I have repeatedly stated now:
Fly small ships right and ENERGY WILL FALL COMPLETELY AWAY AS A FACTOR IN COMBAT!
I could've used bold text, but holding shift down was simply easier 
A good pilot doesn't need more energy to stick in combat longer.
My CDessie is modded to move at 34 gu/s
even when nearly always moving at full speed, I run out of ammo before I even have to think about my energy.
now read that again, look straight into my eyes and say:
"Whatever, I still think smaller ships should have the energy generation of dreads."
[ This Message was edited by: Thernhoghas (RO) on 2011-08-17 13:13 ]
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:27
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:09, Thernhoghas (RO) wrote:
What-if-scenario:
what if scouts, frigates, destroyers and cruisers had the same energy generation per engine as dreads?
|
|
Not per engine, total.
"- ICC ships could fly with defmode permanently on"
First, that's a problem with defensive device scaling.
Second, a ship moving at full speed is generating 0 energy per second, whatever the base is. That means a scout would have to fly slowly to generate enough energy to keep defmode permantly on, which would actually lead to the scout dying faster.
"- K'Luth vs. other factions balance would be..... vaporized because K'Luth are meant to retreat to recover their energy for a while"
Small K'luth ship are currently FAR inferior to their UGTO and ICC counterparts.
That's mainly due to defensive device scaling, as ship get smaller a far larger portion of their effective HP comes from their defensive devices, which are really poor for K'luth.
"- interdictor cruisers would be able to fly faster with their dico on"
Cruisers generate ~79% as much energy as a dread. Even if the buff would increase their energy generatio to the same as dreads, that would still be only an increase of 25% in energy.
Currently an Interdictor can move at ~75% of max speed with dictor on, the the energy buff they could move at ~80% of max speed.
So that would be around 6.7% faster, yes. (16gu/s instead of 15gu/s)
"- UGTO small ships would fall so far behind the other factions counterparts that.... I don't think I need to explain more here <.<"
That's, again, due to defensive device scaling, more precisely the poor scaling in regeneration. In absolute HP/s terms, small ships regenerate nearly as fast as dreads, but UGTO have nearly no regeneration so they don't benefit from that imbalance.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-17 13:29 ]
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:30
You're overcomplicating things, but If I understand you correctly, you'd like to see smaller ships do comparable damage to larger ships per point of energy used? That would be accomplished either by increasing energy efficiency of weapons, resulting in less energy used on a per weapon basis (bad, as smaller ships would be able to fly full speed while firing forever), or increased damage (bad, because smaller ships would then also be doing damage comparable to larger ships per shot, with the added benefit of having a faster fire rate, giving much higher dot per weapon.)
Smaller ships already have higher dot per weapon as a result of faster fire rate which is the main reason guns are more effective than beams on smaller ships, beam fire rate does not change much, if at all, but the smaller the ship the faster the cannons fire each shot in a volley as well as recharge the next volley faster.
In other words, the game is already balanced for the perceived lack of energy efficiency of smaller ship weapons by increasing their other attributes to compensate.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:37
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:30, Talien wrote:
You're overcomplicating things, but If I understand you correctly, you'd like to see smaller ships do comparable damage to larger ships per point of energy used? |
|
They already do.
So, obviously, that is not what I am suggesting.
The goal of what I'm suggesting is to increase the potential of small ships when piloted well.
The way is by increasing total engine energy generation to dread levels on all hull sizes, this will give all ships sizes the potential to influence a battle to the same extent as a dread, without actually making them directly stronger.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-17 13:38 ]
_________________
|
Thernhoghas
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: September 18, 2010
Posts: 243
From: somewhere in Germany
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:39
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:27, Phoebuzz wrote:
stuff
|
|
So you're saying a 29 m long corvette should have the same total energy generation as a 1.5 km dread?
This is even more insane.
and "a problem of defensive device scaling"?
The problem is your suggestion -.-
You want something changed that is working perfectly fine? This is pointless.
again:
My CDessie is modded to move at 34 gu/s with makkars and engine trail;
even when nearly always moving at full speed, I run out of ammo before I even have to think about my energy.
now read that again, look straight into my eyes and say:
"Whatever, I still think smaller ships should have the energy generation of dreads."
if you can't, then stop defending your suggestion
if you can, you should prolly do the same, since it was just proven that their energy generation is fine.
[ This Message was edited by: Thernhoghas (RO) on 2011-08-17 13:42 ]
_________________
It is not the beard on the outside that matters. It's the beard on the inside.
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:39
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:27, Phoebuzz wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:09, Thernhoghas (RO) wrote:
What-if-scenario:
what if scouts, frigates, destroyers and cruisers had the same energy generation per engine as dreads?
|
|
Not per engine, total.
First, that's a problem with defensive device scaling.
Second, a ship moving at full speed is generating 0 energy per second, whatever the base is. That means a scout would have to fly slowly to generate enough energy to keep defmode permantly on, which would actually lead to the scout dying faster.
*what the.... your not for real.... are you? More energy generation and you think that will make scouts die faster???*
Small K'luth ship are currently FAR inferior to their UGTO and ICC counterparts.
*all tests i done in beta befor this current beta version were even class per class ICC Vs Kluth. It takes seven shots for a kluth parisite to burn through all shields and one plate of armor into hull on a HC. Or just two if the HC doesent rotate. 4 shots to burn through UGTO armor. Far from useless considering how many alphas it takes for icc and UGTO to hull a kluth cruiser. Also in these tests, energy for the kluth ship was never a factor. L2p*
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-17 13:29 ]
|
|
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Panduh
Grand Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: June 03, 2007
Posts: 250
| Posted: 2011-08-17 13:52
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:37, Phoebuzz wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:30, Talien wrote:
You're overcomplicating things, but If I understand you correctly, you'd like to see smaller ships do comparable damage to larger ships per point of energy used? |
|
They already do.
So, obviously, that is not what I am suggesting.
The goal of what I'm suggesting is to increase the potential of small ships when piloted well.
The way is by increasing total engine energy generation to dread levels on all hull sizes, this will give all ships sizes the potential to influence a battle to the same extent as a dread, without actually making them directly stronger.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-17 13:38 ]
|
|
So, basically, it's going to come down to tactics between any amounts of any kinds of ships.
You're saying that for smaller ships, energy management should never have to be a problem (because that's what dread-level energy management will do). Isn't that kind of a moot point when you are !(doin' it wrong)?
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-08-17 14:29
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:37, Phoebuzz wrote:
They already do.
So, obviously, that is not what I am suggesting.
The goal of what I'm suggesting is to increase the potential of small ships when piloted well.
The way is by increasing total engine energy generation to dread levels on all hull sizes, this will give all ships sizes the potential to influence a battle to the same extent as a dread, without actually making them directly stronger.
|
|
Smaller ships already can accomplish this with someone who knows what to do, they don't need higher energy generation to do it. Ships have aux reactors for a reason aside from some luth ships which have ELF beams instead, in which case yes, they are inferior in power generation.
But to put it in realistic terms, what you're asking for is a 100kw generator (Scout engine) to produce the same amount of power as the hydroelectic plant at Niagra Falls (Dreadnought engine). It just doesn't work that way, a smaller power plant is going to produce less power than a larger one simply because it's smaller.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
*FTL*Soulless
Marshal
Joined: June 25, 2010
Posts: 787
From: Dres-Kona
| Posted: 2011-08-17 14:45
the only small ships that are limited combat wise are really luth cause of lower defence and ICC cause of Ammo.
And in terms of this like its been said slow down ad stop shoting for 10 secs or so. So say i am in a combat dessie and ran out of energy rather than fly 25 Gus i would slow to ~18/19 and if i felt pretty safe (and a little ballsy) would also flip shields off to recharge energy.
Yeah for luth and uggies its different cause they don't have energy sucking shields but just slow down and stop fireing.
And yes it works, I for one do it all the time (if i don't run out of ammo first)
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2011-08-17 15:27
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:52, Panduh wrote:
So, basically, it's going to come down to tactics between any amounts of any kinds of ships. |
|
That's the goal yes, to make small ship equally viable as large ships, if they are tactically appropriate of course.
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-17 13:52, Panduh wrote:You're saying that for smaller ships, energy management should never have to be a problem (because that's what dread-level energy management will do). Isn't that kind of a moot point when you are !(doin' it wrong)? |
|
Increasing the engine energy generation of smaller ships won't ever remove energy management, because that energy is consumed when the ship goes faster.
So a small ship moving at full speed will drain just as fast as they do now, so there's always going to be a need to balance energy generation with consumption.
Plus, it seems most of you greatly overestimate the increase in energy generation for smaller ships.
For example, Cruisers would only get +25% energy/s, while Destroyers would get +50% energy/s.
Quote:
| On 2011-08-17 13:39, Thernhoghas (RO) wrote: |
|
"So you're saying a 29 m long corvette should have the same total energy generation as a 1.5 km dread?" - Thernhoghas
*facepalm*
Don't even try the realism clause; The game is nowhere near realistic at the moment, not even close. The 29m corvette already has somewhere around 40-50% of the energy generation of a dread.
Kneejerk reactions won't win you any point.
"and "a problem of defensive device scaling"? The problem is your suggestion -.- You want something changed that is working perfectly fine? This is pointless." - Thernhoghas
Yeah, because destroyers and frigates are so useful right now, no problem.
"My CDessie is modded to move at 34 gu/s with makkars and engine trail;
even when nearly always moving at full speed, I run out of ammo before I even have to think about my energy." - Thernhoghas
Again, your point is entirely irrelevant. The argument isn't about energy problems. It's about potential effectiveness.
Quote:
| On 2011-08-17 14:29, Talien wrote: |
|
"Smaller ships already can accomplish this with someone who knows what to do, they don't need higher energy generation to do it." - Talien
No they can't. It's mathematical.
You can be fooled into thinking you can, but, piloting a scout/frigate/dessie, you're still an insignificant gnat that would be far more effective in a dread/cruiser.
(Cue the pointless and irrelevant reply about specialist ships being useful.)
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebuzz on 2011-08-17 15:28 ]
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
