| Author |
Anything that's not a dread isn't a "real ship"? |
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
|  Posted: 2012-05-07 11:56
This will be looked at when we re-balance weapons and defences, which is essentially what makes the differences so large.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-05-07 11:57
@Ent:
Thing is, I prefer not to suggest things that nerf a particular faction, or group, or players. I don't want to say "Nerf dread armor" or "Nerf dread weaps". The nerfing-in-response-to-QQ game has been going on for too long. Nerf mines, nerf cloak, nerd the Krill, nerf depots, nerf Missile Frigs, nerf ECM, nerf this, nerf that.
Thing is, if you intend to change something, then it should be done at a base level that affects everyone, but scales with the hull size.
That's why i suggested leaving Dreads alone and coming up w small ships that are specially geared towards taking them on, but are weak at defending themselves against other small ships. Scaling up missile accuracy and power affects everyone, but larger and slower ships to a greater degree. Reducing PD effectiveness does the same.
Next, I completely agree with you that a dread feels like a smaller ship than it is due to its turn rate. But then again so does every ship in the game. Airliner scouts size feel like micro-machines. Dessies feel like jet fighters. Cruisers feel like
speedboats. Dreads feel like cruisers.
IMO everything needs to be slowed down, but in a careful and proportionate way. That leaves the weaps (untouched) to be more effective, especially against the larger ship. It wouldn't hurt to scale back turn rates across the board by 25% first and see how it goes?
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-05-07 12:29
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-07 11:57, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Next, I completely agree with you that a dread feels like a smaller ship than it is due to its turn rate. But then again so does every ship in the game. Airliner scouts size feel like micro-machines. Dessies feel like jet fighters. Cruisers feel like
speedboats. Dreads feel like cruisers.
IMO everything needs to be slowed down, but in a careful and proportionate way. That leaves the weaps (untouched) to be more effective, especially against the larger ship. It wouldn't hurt to scale back turn rates across the board by 25% first and see how it goes?
|
|
-25% turn rate would turn Frigates and Destroyers into garbage. Destroyers are pretty much already outclassed by Cruisers in every respect with the exception of the UGTO Gunboat, and Frigates.....well, when do you ever see anyone using them side from the occasional Missile/Harrier? They're already bad ships overall because you get almost the same firepower plus more survivability out of a Scout.
Missiles would also be way too effective, right now they're a threat to Destroyers and Cruisers unless you actively avoid them, with -25% turn rate they'd be getting popped like balloons by Harpex spam. Lowering turn rate across the board would do even more to promote Dreadnought/Station spam.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2012-05-07 13:17
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-07 12:29, Talien wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-07 11:57, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Next, I completely agree with you that a dread feels like a smaller ship than it is due to its turn rate. But then again so does every ship in the game. Airliner scouts size feel like micro-machines. Dessies feel like jet fighters. Cruisers feel like
speedboats. Dreads feel like cruisers.
IMO everything needs to be slowed down, but in a careful and proportionate way. That leaves the weaps (untouched) to be more effective, especially against the larger ship. It wouldn't hurt to scale back turn rates across the board by 25% first and see how it goes?
|
|
-25% turn rate would turn Frigates and Destroyers into garbage. Destroyers are pretty much already outclassed by Cruisers in every respect with the exception of the UGTO Gunboat, and Frigates.....well, when do you ever see anyone using them side from the occasional Missile/Harrier? They're already bad ships overall because you get almost the same firepower plus more survivability out of a Scout.
Missiles would also be way too effective, right now they're a threat to Destroyers and Cruisers unless you actively avoid them, with -25% turn rate they'd be getting popped like balloons by Harpex spam. Lowering turn rate across the board would do even more to promote Dreadnought/Station spam.
|
|
... Or we could try a certain figure, then factor in hull level as a multiplier. Whatever it is, ships are turning too fast now, even the smaller ones.
How does hundred plus meter long frigate jink and avoid missiles as if they were fighters?
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Lithium
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 29, 2003
Posts: 109
| Posted: 2012-05-07 13:25
Larger ships can't hit smaller ships.
Smaller ships can't breach larger ships' armor.
IT'S BALANCED.
The reason why I don't call smaller ships real ship is larger ships make more prestige.
_________________
|
Airwolf^
Fleet Admiral
Joined: March 17, 2006
Posts: 16
| Posted: 2012-05-07 13:35
Why not... (copy is the wrong word to use) but replicate, what the great good games have and impliment that in DS. Most businesses, games etc. that are hugely successfull always have people trying to replicate their success by copying.
Where as most fail, due to their own personal or proffesional reasons or inadequacies.
I personally think DS has both the player base, and game "base" to pull it off.
Now of course no one wants to DS turn into one of those main stream games out there, because what DS has is unique.
So why not keep the uniqueness and implement what makes successfull games so great, whilst keeping their failures out?
Although i do get the impression that DS was never designed for really more than..40 maybe 50? players at a time, let alone the hundreds it could easily accomplish. However correct me if im wrong but i think the whole game engine would need to be reworked...
for example in EVE (sorry for swearing) you can never physically SEE if your missile/cannon hit another player (accurately or a miss) and their reason for that is due to server load their battle reports will show hit or misses but due to client make up, it would be almost impossible to have each individual player physically see if their weapons hit or miss a target independently.
Which in the same sense.... is also what makes DS great, because you can see what impact your shots make hit or miss, but being the double edged sword it is also what stops it from becoming big?
What im really suggesting is radically change DS to incorporate on a smaller scale what makes the ridiculously popular games so great.
I missed the customization back about 4 years ago when you could swap IDE engines for AME ones, particle for PSI.
It didnt really work well because... it wasnt balanced.
have a REAL rock paper scissors enviroment, that after every defeat or loss makes us take a step back and think. "damn that was fun... but i need to get better... i need my ship to do better"
if World of Warcraft (sorry for swearing again) can do it over, what is it now 16 classes.... (i havent played in 4 years) and can have a balanced and rewardign game over 16 rock paper scissor classes then so can DS. Unfortunatly although now i dislike the game, no one can really slate it as it IS one of the most profitable and successfull MMO's EVER made.
I personally stopped interest in the game after half way through the first expansion. The game was original and BEST when we had the original lvl 60 cap (tier 1,2,3) where if you where a level 60 with normal armour/gear on and you came across a full Tier 3 level 60, you would **** yourself and run the other way. To even GET full tier 3 gear/armour you would have to spend literally months with a team of 40 peole constantly trying to get even a fraction closer to another peice of Tier 3 gear for that 1 person out of 40.
Basicly. the game became **** when in the expansion getting good gear and being powerfull was easier, the unskilled became the skilled. Working hard to become one of the most feared players became unecessary.
I wouldnt be typing this if i didnt care about DS, it's dev's or its fanbase and you probably think im crazy comparing EVE or WOW with DS. But it has the same principles.
Make getting great ships HARD.
Make getting awesome weapons and armour HARDER.
Make being one of the most feared and eager to fight pilot's in the game almost impossible.
develop a true rock paper scissors system.
use the rogens rift/procyon area's effectively... such a waste seeing them there and barely used and lagged to hell.
Have scheduled tournaments or duel's 1v1, 2v2. 3v3 etc. Winner receives a rare peice of weapon/armour.
this would work if we had a true rock/paper/scissors system going. It would give players with dreads/stat's something more to work towards which would clearly outline the difference between a skilled and smart player between an unskilled.
Develop some sort of "talent tree" (talent tree could just be faction's, or even a point based system, use your imagination) where being great at long range meant you were terrible at close, be a killer in your chosen field of expertise but a dunce in the other field. Dont get me wrong all this sounds similar right? True because alot of it is already incorporated in DS its just not... balanced appropriatly. Theres too much riding on enemy player's if they for say planet hug with a mine field of platform's it becomes a double edged sword. They dont want to die, so they build that fortress type defence... the enemies realise they cant break the defence (unless they scuicide run) so they log... because there's nothing to do, except log or wait it out for the other team to log off till there is only a handfull left.
Thats NOT how it should be and you all know it.
either way if you dev's really wanted to see DS develop for the better look at your own game from a 3rd party perspective and not from where your sitting at.
This game could be alot better than what it is. You just gota make it happen.
thanks,
[ This Message was edited by: Airwolf^ on 2012-05-07 13:43 ]
_________________
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2012-05-07 13:47
Every other MMO is dice-roll based, which is why they can do that so easily, Airwolf.
And no, we're not going to become dice-roll based.
_________________
|
Silent Threat { Vier }
Marshal
Anarchy's End
Joined: August 03, 2004
Posts: 278
From: Waiting...watching...
| Posted: 2012-05-07 13:48
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-07 02:33, Fluttershy wrote:
These are not my words, but seeing as I've heard this said from several higher ranking players with more play time, it must be true. Right?
But why is this? Why do several people see dreads as a "real ship" and everything else is just junk?
Just ask anyone who commonly flies a dread how many damns they give if a pack of players in frigates and scouts attacks them.
|
|
Are frigates and scouts even supposed to be able to take down a dread? That seems silly. Can a little patrol boat with a machine gun mounted on it take down an aircraft carrier or an old battleship?
As a dread pilot do I care if a pack of smaller ships engages me? It all comes down to who is flying those ships and how close together they are working.
But in the end, yes I play Darkspace for the dread vs dread combat.
_________________
|
Tellaris
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: April 30, 2002
Posts: 830
From: Land of Chocolate
| Posted: 2012-05-07 14:42
You want some real world examples? I'll give you one.
Every year, Canadian and American navies go and have a training naval battle. As you are aware, Canada lacks Aircraft carriers. Hell we have all of 3 destroyers. And yet? We've "won" these fleet actions for the past 3 years. What do we do?
Our fleet takes two frigates, and have them approach the American fleet. These frigates are small, fast ships, designed to evade detection. They go straight for the Carrier on a suicide run. They fire their cruise missiles at the carrier, "destroying" it in a single run. Since the American Navy uses their carriers as flag ships, this basically kills the command structure, and the Canadian navy picks off the survivors. These two frigates are immediately hunted down and "killed" but it results in a win for Canada.
All of this is done under stealth, so far, the American Navy has consistantly failed to spot these frigate runs.
Also, there are different types of patrol boats. The PT boat you're describing is just general patrol duties. There are PT boats mounted with torpedoes that are AWESOME at taking down capital ships.
[ This Message was edited by: Tellaris on 2012-05-07 14:51 ]
_________________
Captain of the StarCruiser
I hit planets for fun!
Spellchecker, the POWER t00l
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2012-05-07 14:53
What's silly about scouts and frigates taking down a dread?
Do you find it silly that a handful of pilots in outdated torpedo bombers are able to sink an entire battleship with hundreds of crew?
Anyhow, this may or may not be a good idea, but, lose the whole thing with missiles... really... It just causes problems with desync and being too good against small targets (aimless 1 hit kills from 2000gus?), and being either totally useless or extremely overpowered.
Replace missiles with a long range bombardment projectile that has reverse falloff. You counter them by getting close to where they do little damage.
Dreads will have difficulty getting to them, while small ships will have no problem jumping to a safe attack range.
_________________
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2012-05-07 14:54
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-07 14:53, Fluttershy wrote:
What's silly about scouts and frigates taking down a dread?
Do you find it silly that a handful of pilots in outdated torpedo bombers are able to sink an entire battleship with hundreds of crew?
Anyhow, this may or may not be a good idea, but, lose the whole thing with missiles... really... It just causes problems with desync and being too good against small targets (aimless 1 hit kills from 2000gus?), and being either totally useless or extremely overpowered.
Replace missiles with a long range bombardment projectile that has reverse falloff. You counter them by getting close to where they do little damage.
Dreads will have difficulty getting to them, while small ships will have no problem jumping to a safe attack range.
|
|
No.
_________________
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2012-05-07 15:02
Really nice comeback, you bring up great points as always, Pantheon.
"No."
I'll be sure to remember that one.
I know this is asking for a lot, but could you elaborate a bit more?
_________________
|
Tellaris
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: April 30, 2002
Posts: 830
From: Land of Chocolate
| Posted: 2012-05-07 15:02
I actually like that negative falloff cannon idea. It could be interesting. Don't agree with removing missiles though. It could prove an interesting idea. Star Trek Starfleet Command did something like that with its "Plasma Torpedo." The longer the missile stayed in flight, the stronger it got. While this was basically a missile, it proved to be an interesting concept regardless.
_________________
Captain of the StarCruiser
I hit planets for fun!
Spellchecker, the POWER t00l
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2012-05-07 15:14
Interestingly, Backslash has been recently re-configuring the way that falloff is calculated behind the scenes so it's actually possible to have a weapon which inflicts greater damage at longer range.
We're considering using it in a super-long-range beam weapon which would be a mod option for the Heavy Chemical Laser. Wouldn't be nearly as strong as that, even at its most effective, but it would be accurate at range and strong enough to hurt light ships like, say, missile frigates.
Now, we aren't currently planning such, but the introduction of such a weapon could conceivably allow us to buff missile frigates to be more effective, since they'd have a solid counter.
No promises either way, though; the inverse-falloff beam itself is still a WIP.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
Silent Threat { Vier }
Marshal
Anarchy's End
Joined: August 03, 2004
Posts: 278
From: Waiting...watching...
| Posted: 2012-05-07 15:40
Quote:
|
On 2012-05-07 14:42, Tellaris wrote:
You want some real world examples? I'll give you one.
Every year, Canadian and American navies go and have a training naval battle. As you are aware, Canada lacks Aircraft carriers. Hell we have all of 3 destroyers. And yet? We've "won" these fleet actions for the past 3 years. What do we do?
Our fleet takes two frigates, and have them approach the American fleet. These frigates are small, fast ships, designed to evade detection. They go straight for the Carrier on a suicide run. They fire their cruise missiles at the carrier, "destroying" it in a single run. Since the American Navy uses their carriers as flag ships, this basically kills the command structure, and the Canadian navy picks off the survivors. These two frigates are immediately hunted down and "killed" but it results in a win for Canada.
All of this is done under stealth, so far, the American Navy has consistantly failed to spot these frigate runs.
Also, there are different types of patrol boats. The PT boat you're describing is just general patrol duties. There are PT boats mounted with torpedoes that are AWESOME at taking down capital ships.
[ This Message was edited by: Tellaris on 2012-05-07 14:51 ]
|
|
Ok maybe it was a bad example. I forgot how fragile modern navy ships really are. But now imagine if they could withstand the amount of torps that a dread in DS can. It would still be possible but not near so easy. And yes I do believe that smaller ships in DS can take down dreads if you have the right people, but frigates and scouts? I don't think they were ever really intended to be able to do so. Destroyers? Maybe. Cruisers? Certainly.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
