| Author |
New ship for marshal rank |
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
|  Posted: 2011-09-22 19:20
not sure of the numbers i just know they arent the same.
_________________
bucket link
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2011-09-23 01:56
spartan, i personally cant agree with you on the EAD. anyway..
One tthing ive noticed is tha, in the event of a fight between ICC and ugto, it ends up being like this.
Whenever ICC gets out the ship 1 class smaller, they do absolutely fine.
This is GREAT! until we hit corvettes. Simply, i think they are [i] slighty [i] overpowered. Others wont agree with me, but as a general ship class...
Anyway.
Another small cry, The command dred has a BD weapons suite?
Another dumb idea,
For marshal ships, what about a super station? We have super dreds, but not super stations.... That have guns which would take a dred down to hull in 1 shot.
anyway, my 5 cents.
_________________
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2011-09-23 03:07
imo command dread should have some of its cannons and torpedoes shifted to rear arcs, so it cant focus all its damage like an assault ship.
krill can be given the role of an oversized super minelayer (like icc has a bomber dread and ugto has carrier dread). possible layout could be 6 am mine bays, 2 3-arc SI and 6 2-arc psi cannons for all-round defense, and standard beam layout of kluth dreads.
give the ead rear-facing torpedoes, like the torpedo and assault cruisers. hell, give it an extra qst on the rear and remove its only aux reactor 
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-22 19:14, SPaRTaN Z wrote:
Do they differ greatly?
|
|
ugto and kluth aux reactors have 7.5 energy and 0.25 energy recharge, icc reactors have 6 energy and 0.3 energy recharge. the ugto and kluth get bigger energy banks whereas icc get better regen.
icc aux gen outperforms the standard aux gen after recharging energy banks for more than 30 seconds 
[ This Message was edited by: 4th on 2011-09-23 05:33 ]
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-09-23 15:48
I have a suggestion:
I think SLC solves most of current problems with ships. Right now, we're playing as dev's vision. When a player is not comfortable with what devs give him, he definitely complaint. On the other hand, when a player modify his ship at his will, he can't not blame whosoever but himself.
I remember that when making the new ship, Jim stated that every class of ship has a total point and every device has flexible point depends on degree. To avoid the overwhelming ship, i.g. the old escort, plots should be categorized (i.g catergory beam on dessy has 3 slots) and thus number of device is limited per category, so that players won't exploit any weapon on the ship.
Should the SLC be revived, we only need a ship model of each class. In such case, I believe that opening Pirate for non-fleet players shall make this game interesting again. Thus, Pirate needs a dread model in the new era.
Whether SLC is implemented or not, I prefer more events for community to solve problem on DS. The good example is the Elites Design Contest: the staff make the challenge with some conditions; players submit their solutions that fulfill the request. Then the staff annouce which solution wins the challenge and give the reason. The point of this event is to make the forum more interactive. At least, we - the players - joining the developing of DS in joyful way. I know that devs are always listening to players. Now, how about players listen to devs more often?
_________________
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-09-23 18:25
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-23 15:48, chlorophyll wrote:
I have a suggestion:
|
|
Except, right, that you end up with hideously powerful monstrosities because people WILL customise their ships to gain the most powerful and/or broken combinations of weapons possible.
For example, destroyers armed with twenty particle cannons, missile dreads loaded out with massive numbers of torpedoes, UGTO dreadnaughts armed with nothing but massive batteries of flux waves, and so forth.
I predict that in the unlikely event that this is ever implemented, we will have dreadnaughts with nothing but core weapons, or maybe a ship with over a hundred chemical lasers, which would technically be permissible using Jim's point-based sanity-check system, which is why the point system is a guideline rather than a rule.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
MarineKingPrime
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 239
From: CSS CheezyBagels
| Posted: 2011-09-23 19:22
weapon type slots.
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2011-09-23 21:16
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-23 18:25, Gejaheline wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-23 15:48, chlorophyll wrote:
I have a suggestion:
|
|
I predict that in the unlikely event that this is ever implemented, we will have dreadnaughts with nothing but core weapons, or maybe a ship with over a hundred chemical lasers, which would technically be permissible using Jim's point-based sanity-check system, which is why the point system is a guideline rather than a rule.
|
|
It would (definitely) have to be an entirely new system such as DS has never had before.
The problem is there's only so many weapons and gadgets to choose from, and unlike some games like Freespace 2 (just off the top of my head because I remember it's super fast cannon vs slow pulse cannon and their distinct advantages/disadvantages) weapons within a category don't differ all that much from each other. There's also only a few types of damage which further limits the possibilities. Let's see there's kinetic, energy, PSI, EMP, and not sure if ELF is considered it's own damage type.
The topic would make for an interesting round table discussion for sure, but we don't have much to work with. I'm not a fan of just letting people create whatever kind of ship they want, because if you think the Krill was OP before imagine it loaded with nothing but SI and generators, but limiting the modding possibilities would wind up being almost what we have now.
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-09-23 23:46
If each hull had nonweapon gadgets fixed, and a limit on how many of the same weapon type could be mounted it could work (at least in theory), but invariably there would be an "ideal" layout for each ship that most everyone would use so it would only be something novel for a while, then we'd be right back where we are now.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-09-24 02:56
Quote:
| On 2011-09-23 18:25, Gejaheline wrote:
Quote:
| On 2011-09-23 15:48, chlorophyll wrote:
I have a suggestion: |
|
Except, right, that you end up with hideously powerful monstrosities because people WILL customise their ships to gain the most powerful and/or broken combinations of weapons possible.
For example, destroyers armed with twenty particle cannons, missile dreads loaded out with massive numbers of torpedoes, UGTO dreadnaughts armed with nothing but massive batteries of flux waves, and so forth.
I predict that in the unlikely event that this is ever implemented, we will have dreadnaughts with nothing but core weapons, or maybe a ship with over a hundred chemical lasers, which would technically be permissible using Jim's point-based sanity-check system, which is why the point system is a guideline rather than a rule. |
|
Quote:
| On 2011-09-23 15:48, chlorophyll wrote:
I remember that when making the new ship, Jim stated that every class of ship has a total point and every device has flexible point depends on degree. To avoid the overwhelming ship, i.g. the old escort, plots should be categorized (i.g catergory beam on dessy has 3 slots) and thus number of device is limited per category, so that players won't exploit any weapon on the ship. |
|
Maybe you don't understand the category that I have mentioned.
Here is the example for ICC Destroyer:
Total Point: 200
There are about 20 categories, but ICC destroyer has estimatedly 15 available categories (sorry I don't count) that listed as shown below:
- Engines: 3 slots.
1 IE Drive = 15 pts. 1 AFE Drive = 12 pts. 1 PFE Drive = 12 pts.
- Faster Than Light: 1 slot
1 Tachyon Drive = 20 pts. 1 Hyper Mass Accelerator = 30 pts. 1 Worm Hole Generator = 25 pts.
- Standard Cannons: 6 slots
1 Rail gun = 20 pts. 1 Gauss Gun = 17 pts.
- Beams: 4 slots
1 Chemical Beam Laser = 20 pts. 1 Heavy Chemical Laser = 25 pts. 1 Pulse Beam = 17 pts
- Core Weapons: 0 slot
- Torpedos: 6 slots
1 Fusion Torpedo = 20 pts.
- Missiles: 6 slots
1 Raptor Missile = 17 pts. 1 Ion Tracker Missile = 20 pts. 1 Phoenix Missile = 23 pts.
- Bombs: 6 slots
1 MIRV = 20 pts. 1 Neutron Bomb = 17 pts.
- Mine's: 6 slots
1 Thermo-Nuclear Mine = 20 pts
- Fighters: 0 slot
- Special: 1 slot
1 Pulse Wave: 15 pts. 1 Beacon: 15 pts.
- Armor: 4 slots
1 Composite Armor = 15 pts.
- Projection Defences: 4 slots
1 Active Shields = 15 pts. 1 Reactive Shields = 12 pts
- Power Systems: 3 slots
1 Auxilirary Fusion Reactor = 10 pts
- Drones: 0 slots
- Electronic Warfare: 2 slots
1 ECM/ECCM = 10 pts. 1 Scanner = 7 pts.
- Utility: 0 slot
All gadgets are full arcs, the more the stronger. Can hire 1 extra slot per category for 100 credit / month.
It's unnecessary to reach the total value but it's required for essential categories to have at least one active slot - the engine, the power system, the armor etc.
I don't think someone can build hideously powerful monstrosities. And ship customization was actually implemented until it's cancelled due to exploitation. But with the limit of the total score and the value of each gadget, how could someone exploit?
I know that providing an already-set-up ship is easier to program than allowing modification. It's just an idea since I know SLC was actually in game in the past.
[ This Message was edited by: chlorophyll on 2011-09-24 03:10 ]
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2011-09-24 16:17
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-23 23:46, Talien wrote:
If each hull had nonweapon gadgets fixed, and a limit on how many of the same weapon type could be mounted it could work (at least in theory), but invariably there would be an "ideal" layout for each ship that most everyone would use so it would only be something novel for a while, then we'd be right back where we are now.
|
|
It would ultimately not vary that much from what we already have.
I do have to say one thing: I think a modding system would greatly help increase the player population. People like space games where you can design and/or mod your ship.
Here's an interesting thought too: Imagine if we had an entirely new modding system such that the current ships and their names are no longer relevant - no more EADs, no more Siphons, no more ADs etc. All ships would simply be named their hull type: Dreadnaught, Cruiser, Destroyer, etc. You don't spawn a Siphon or EAD, you spawn a Dreadnaught.
You spot an enemy, see he's in a dread, but all it is is a Dreadnaught. You have no idea what weapons he has. You have no idea of his capabilities...unless perhaps you use a scanner and cycle through his systems (which I know is still possible to do on friendly targets, or was recently). You see the possibilities yet? No more predictability. No more staleness. I think it could be genuinely exciting, so long as the modding system was fair and had a "diminishing returns" effect in place to discourage filling a ship with only one type of weapon.
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2011-09-24 16:19 ]
_________________
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2011-09-24 22:09
Yea, it would be great. no longer could you go, "oh, hey, thats a missile dred" and know you need an EAD to kill it.
instead its, Hey, an ICC dred. i wonder what loadout it has? Will it tear me up with beams? or is it a cannon cake?
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-09-25 00:45
SLC? Might as well remove all types of ships and just have hull classes.
Well, there goes specific roles out of the window. Sounds like a crap idea to me. Everybody'll fly one type of config. The best type of config.
I stick by my suggestion. Move stations up to Marshal and above so we don't see too many of those shrooms and trashcans in the MV.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2011-09-25 00:46 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2011-09-25 21:16
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-25 00:45, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
SLC? Might as well remove all types of ships and just have hull classes.
Well, there goes specific roles out of the window. Sounds like a crap idea to me. Everybody'll fly one type of config. The best type of config.
|
|
That's the whole point - hull classes, and you choose your role. Not only that, you don't know what you'll be up against.
There has to be a sort of diminishing returns system in place though so that you can't just load a ship with tons of cannons. something like the more of a specific weapon type you add, the more points they cost, and the more arcs each cover the more points they cost.
I'm not sure about everyone flying the same config. Look at the battle dread vs EAD. I see both ingame. Neither is better than the other. Same with Siphon vs Krill or Ganglia. Two completely different uses and neither are better than the other (well now that's not true, Krill is not worth it anymore).
You would use the config that's best for you. Maybe you prefer sitting back firing cannons. Maybe you prefer getting up close with lots of beams. Maybe you want to sacrifice some firepower for extra armor, or say "screw armor" and load up extra weapons. Maybe missiles are your thing, but you'd rather have more armor and fewer missiles than the Missile Dread. Maybe you want to load up with core weapons and generators, but to do so you have to sacrifice armor and engines to make enough room.
I have ideas, including the already mentioned extra point cost the more of a specific gadget type you choose to add, along with extra weight cost making a ship less maneuverable the more of a specific gadget type you add. There needs to be penalties involved, and most important it wouldn't be based on the current point system used because it's incompatible.
One thing I know I would change: ECM/ECCM/Scanner would cost a ton of points for ship hulls larger than frigate. Way more than current.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-09-25 22:06
Fully customizable ship sounds like trouble to me.
I could recreate another Krill, or even a Mega-Krill. But this time with 12 SIs and nothing else. Trust me, I would. Since I could just decloak at 600 GUs, fire 2 salvos, and recloak again, rinse and repeat. And there'll be nothing that any human ship can do about it.
And the next thing you know, every Kluth dread will be the same. You'd get 8 Kluth Mega-Krills, each spamming 12 SIs at you from every which direction instagibbing and blotting you out from the sky like papier-mache.
More QQ anyone?
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2011-09-26 03:52
Which is why there needs to be a diminishing returns-type system, so that fitting 12 SI would leave you with very little armor and maybe even fewer engines just to make room for them all (which would be a double whammy - reduced maneuverability and reduced energy). Say the first 6 are normal size, but every one past 6 is larger and larger so that by the time you've fitted 12 you have very little room for armor and engines or anything else. You won't be fitting a normal amount of armor and engines.
I am personally not against the idea of a ship with 12 core weapons, so long as there's a hefty sacrifice of armor/shields and maybe even engines to achieve it. You want to fly a glass cannon, be my guest.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
