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 +1.3 Days

Search

Anniversaries

21th - Doran

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) » » Anything that's not a dread isn't a "real ship"?
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
 Author Anything that's not a dread isn't a "real ship"?
jacensolo
Vice Admiral

Joined: December 20, 2011
Posts: 52
Posted: 2012-05-07 15:53   
This "darkspace" commuinity contains the truth. it's not about the techniques or tactics and hearsy of a few high ranking players. please refer to my post here.

http://darkspace.net/index.htm?module=forums.php&page=/viewtopic.php?topic=52722&forum=1&9

A bit of impartiality goes a long way
_________________


Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
Posted: 2012-05-07 16:10   
Quote:

On 2012-05-07 15:14, Jim Starluck wrote:
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.




Missile Frigates have had solid counters from the first day they were introduced, it's just most people never bothered to use them and instead cried and whined until the missiles were nerfed.

A long range beam as a hard counter to smaller ships is a really bad idea, unless your plan is to quite literally make anything smaller than a Destroyer useless. Let people use the proper ships to hunt down smaller ships instead of giving them an easy button to do it for them. If they'd rather sit in their bricks and shrooms and get picked apart while being unable to do much of anything about it then how is it anyone's fault but their own, and why are they being continually catered to? It's bad enough that Interceptors are able to hard counter smaller ships already since they got their super beams but at least Carriers and Command Stations aren't common, however super long range beams with reverse falloff on assault ships and battle stations would be a 100% nullification to any sort of conceivable tactics using Scouts and Frigates, and would even make using Destroyers risky.

Of course, if it would have super high energy use and super long cooldown to match that super long range it may not be quite as bad as I'm picturing it to be, but regardless of how it might be implemented I stand by my opinion of it being a horrible idea.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral

Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
Posted: 2012-05-07 16:43   
imo, the only ships that should even have beams with reverse falloff are small ones that are specifically designed and balanced to attack other small targets.

Basically having the same role as interceptor fighters.

large ships most definitely should NOT have weapons suited against small ships.
Remember, you have carriers with interceptor fighters.
If you want to attack small ships with a big ship, use a carrier, not an assault or standoff dread.
_________________


Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
Posted: 2012-05-07 18:37   
The damage from any hypothetical reverse falloff beams would drop off very steeply as you got closer to the ship using them, and since they replace HCLs, it would eliminate a lot of the firepower that assault ships use to kill things at close range. It would make them ironically less dangerous at close range, since torps can't hit small ships easily. They would have only their regular CLs and their Core Weapons to fall back on.

And as I said, this weapon is still in the planning stage. We haven't decided on any values for it, or whether it'll be going into the game at all.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.

  Email Jim Starluck
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
Posted: 2012-05-07 21:10   
I realize it would make them less effective vs. larger ships, but a 100% accurate weapon to take out small ships who's only defense against them is the ability to avoid damage makes no sense. It'd be like a game of rock paper scissors where one person gets to use two hands at the same time.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-05-08 03:54   
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.



You do realize that if small ships can take out large ships with relative ease, that would mean that a large ship will one shot a small ship anytime. It makes no sense to intentionally nerf big ship weaps while giving big bonuses to small ships.

It also doesn't make sense to have projectile weaps that does more damage the further out it goes. It just sounds wrong. Period. So I'll back Pantheon there with a "No".



That said, the inverse falloff beam, while interesting, will have to be implemented with care. Giving it to big ships as a direct counter to small ships should be a no-no. Giving it to small ships as a counter to big ships is fine, but the effectiveness or power of the weapon should suffer a
penalty for its ease of use.

Another thing I would caution against is the over-engineering of the game. What we have now is a good basic system of weaps and defs. What they probably need is some reshuffling. Adding in new stuff is always good provided they're not implemented as stopgap measures to cover some perceived deficiency elsewhere. Dig a hole to cover a hole.



[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2012-05-08 06:54 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral

Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
Posted: 2012-05-08 06:43   
Dread turn rate needs to be lowered a lot, you cant even get a scout around behind one without getting into suicide range.

And secondly, why are there not frigate class ships that are entirely set for launching large volleys of torpedoes, or a smaller number of 2x damage heavy torpedoes? (not counting the nymph, because it has mixed weaponry) Couldn't this be a counter to dreads? Having frigates that exchange armor, lasers, and EWAR for strictly forward-facing torpedo launchers?

Why would this be a problem? You could counteract such a ship by using... anything that's not a dread or station.

But if you see a team using nothing but dreads, you get out the torpedo frigates and start bombarding them with volleys of 10-12 torpedoes.

This would also be a counter to someone spamming platforms
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2012-05-08 06:46 ]
_________________


Fatal Afro Man *NCO*
Marshal
Fatal Squadron


Joined: September 09, 2006
Posts: 201
Posted: 2012-05-08 06:54   
Quote:

On 2012-05-08 06:43, Fluttershy wrote:
Dread turn rate needs to be lowered a lot, you cant even get a scout around behind one without getting into suicide range.

And secondly, why are there not frigate class ships that are entirely set for launching large volleys of torpedoes, or a smaller number of 2x damage heavy torpedoes? (not counting the nymph, because it has mixed weaponry) Couldn't this be a counter to dreads? Having frigates that exchange armor, lasers, and EWAR for strictly forward-facing torpedo launchers?

Why would this be a problem? You could counteract such a ship by using... anything that's not a dread or station.

But if you see a team using nothing but dreads, you get out the torpedo frigates and start bombarding them with volleys of 10-12 torpedoes.

This would also be a counter to someone spamming platforms
[ This Message was edited by: Afro Man on 2012-05-08 06:59 ]



This was done, but with missles instead. Then everybody QQ'd because nobody wanted to use "anything that's not a dread or station." For the amount of times the missle frig has been brought up in this thread, nobody seems to be paying attention to the fact that making a small ship to counter dreads will lead to the MAJORITY of the player base QQing till its nerfed. The ideas to rebalance movement speeds are more logical. Especially in terms of making dreads harder to fly, as they should be.



_________________
[Signature size too large, please resize. (600x200x100kb)

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-05-08 06:58   
Quote:

On 2012-05-08 06:43, Fluttershy wrote:
Dread turn rate needs to be lowered a lot, you cant even get a scout around behind one without getting into suicide range.

And secondly, why are there not frigate class ships that are entirely set for launching large volleys of torpedoes, or a smaller number of 2x damage heavy torpedoes? (not counting the nymph, because it has mixed weaponry) Couldn't this be a counter to dreads? Having frigates that exchange armor, lasers, and EWAR for strictly forward-facing torpedo launchers?

Why would this be a problem? You could counteract such a ship by using... anything that's not a dread or station.

But if you see a team using nothing but dreads, you get out the torpedo frigates and start bombarding them with volleys of 10-12 torpedoes.

This would also be a counter to someone spamming platforms
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2012-05-08 06:46 ]



All the ship turn rates need to be lowered. Scouts a little, scaling up to dreads. I really don't like seeing scouts flying rings as if they were RC kites.

That said, I agree with the later part of your post. Specialized small ships with armament to be used against heavy ships will be good additions to the game. If the slow turning dreads can't get them, then you send interceptor frigs or combat dessies after them.


_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse


Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
Posted: 2012-05-08 06:59   
i dont think now is a good time for suggesting wacky weapons as part of polarized ship layouts. in case someone read the DevLog alpha section, weapons and defences (mainly weapons) are planned to be reworked.

suggesting ideas of lolships at this critical juncture, as i see it, would be a hindrance to the progress of game balance and waste the DevPower on descriptively denying suggestions.

let one thing happen first (weapon and defence) as it has greater priority. antidread smallships and weapons for them should be discussed later.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.


Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral

Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
Posted: 2012-05-08 07:08   
so if the dreadspace QQers don't want there to be any counters to their all-powerful ships, make dreads available to everyone so newbies aren't useless for several months.

"I'm new, what can I do to be useful?"
self destruct your frigate on mobs of 4 or more enemy targets for a month until you reach Fleet Admiral?
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2012-05-08 07:31 ]
_________________


Fatal Afro Man *NCO*
Marshal
Fatal Squadron


Joined: September 09, 2006
Posts: 201
Posted: 2012-05-08 07:25   
Quote:

On 2012-05-08 07:08, Fluttershy wrote:

"I'm new, what can I do to be useful?"



Supply, build, beacon scout, fly EW support. To name a few things....
_________________
[Signature size too large, please resize. (600x200x100kb)

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-05-08 07:32   
Quote:

On 2012-05-08 07:25, Afro Man wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-05-08 07:08, Fluttershy wrote:

"I'm new, what can I do to be useful?"



Supply, build, beacon scout, fly EW support. To name a few things....




Yup. That's what I did for starters.
Supping and building plats.

Some ppl may just be too impatient and want in on the action. Get killed, then QQ to change the world.


_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral

Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
Posted: 2012-05-08 08:08   
Why would you limit new players to roles that really need a fair amount of experience to do properly? Minus supply.. which is just plain boring.
_________________


Azreal
Chief Marshal

Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
Posted: 2012-05-08 08:18   
Yes, I agree. We should be more realistic. After all, the Navy hands out destroyers and aircraft carriers to any ensign who requests them, why should we be any different?

Flutter, you should learn a simple truth; It's better to be thought of as a fool, than to post in a forum and remove all doubts.
_________________
bucket link



  Email Azreal   Goto the website of Azreal
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next Page )
Page created in 0.019291 seconds.


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