| Author |
1.703 Feedback |
Point Of No Return
Chief Marshal
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 24, 2007
Posts: 78
|  Posted: 2014-02-11 12:54
In response the AD is not used because it cant take the damage of flux or emp weapons which kill it quick and ICC torps do very little damage as do
the ICC mines. And as far as the heavyness of albative armor supposidly causeing thier ships to manuver slower is rubbish in real game they turn and move as any other ships with no noticable disadvantage. As I said with 3 amor slot on each arc they can use 1 albative 1 reflective and 1 standard or any combo ther of on each arc rendering all arc's to null most ICC ship weapons to include carrier based fighters and torp fighter and all ICC planet offensive and defensive bases. Like I said it is a bad idea and one I would liken to surpassing the perfect cloak idea.
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2014-02-11 18:38
Quote:
On 2014-02-11 12:54, Point Of No Return wrote:
And as far as the heavyness of albative armor supposidly causeing thier ships to manuver slower is rubbish in real game they turn and move as any other ships with no noticable disadvantage.
|
You know that's a good point, I think it's time for a turn rate check.
Buzzard with all Standard, turn rate 22
Buzzard with all Reflective, turn rate 24
Buzzard with all Ablative, turn rate 20
Buzzard with all Stealth, turn rate 25
Gunboat with all Standard, turn rate 18
Gunboat with all Reflective, turn rate 20
Gunboat with all Ablative, turn rate 16
Gunboat with all Stealth, turn rate 20
BC with all Standard, turn rate 14
BC with all Reflective, turn rate 16
BC with all Ablative, turn rate 13
BC with all Stealth, turn rate 16
So we can see that Ablative does have an effect on turn rate, not really sure I'd call it a major difference but it is there.
My biggest questions are why does Reflective have lower mass than Standard, and why do Ablative and Reflective have the same HP as Standard?
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Point Of No Return
Chief Marshal
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 24, 2007
Posts: 78
| Posted: 2014-02-11 18:56
good point as I was wondering that where it says (with all albative, turn rate number) do they mean 1 on each arc or all 9 armor slots ?
_________________
|
Point Of No Return
Chief Marshal
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 24, 2007
Posts: 78
| Posted: 2014-02-11 21:23
And as a side note 1.703 UGTO armor buff which allows ugto ships to be immune to ICC planet offense and defense bases for the most part now. Which means that the ICC planet Shield Generator is now of no use to ICC since it is function as a delay device is also removed and is now only an obsticle for ICC when trying to recap a planet. It is nothing more now than a structure like a barracks to the ugto attackers.
_________________
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2014-02-12 03:21
[ This Message was edited by: The Fridge on 2014-02-12 03:22 ]
_________________
|
Jar Jar Binks
Grand Admiral
Joined: December 25, 2001
Posts: 556
| Posted: 2014-02-12 19:29
When i left the game ~1.5 - 2 years ago the devs were talking really big about getting rid of the planet hugging most stations win fighter/missile spamming campfest mixed with the ever popular tranny rushing we have suffered in one way or another since basically forever (no i didn't forget bomber cruisers).
I log in yesterday and absolutely NOTHING what so ever had changed on that front.
The only noticeable difference i could see were that we had more ships to chose from (and some are laughably illogical).
I realize it's many years to late to get the population back to what it once were (remember the times when there were 100+ people in MV mostly NOT camping planets?), but Palestar really need to sort their stuff out because it ain't gonna get any better leaving it like this.
Bombs are still too effective.
Planets are still to easy to capture.
Stations are still to powerful for their own good.
Faction balance is still stupidly bad.
Cruisers or lower ships are still only used by tryhards or people that can't get anything bigger that does what they want it to do.
I think (at least for me) the biggest cause of the state of this game is how stupidly easy it is to get rearmed. I mean, why do we have an ammo cap on our weapons when all it takes is 2 seconds from a depot/repair whatever to fully rearm?
Remove the ability to rearm from anything but a dedicated planet only building. And make it take a LONG time to rearm so we actually have to think about what we're doing and how we're doing it (because i really don't see the fun in spamming spacebar every X seconds while reading a book).
Make taking a planet actually be hard, there was a period when it was really hard (1.6 i think?), not just take a little bit longer because time to cap means nothing if no one is online to repel the bombers. Sorry solo bombers but any arguments as to why things should stay as it is you might have doesn't do anything good for the game, it only helps you personally.
We need a reason to work as a team and we need a better reason to fight eachother then "an enemy is attacking planet x" only to see some blue rings fly about that we can't target or catch up to when we get there. Or face x stations and a load of carrier/missile dreads hugging a planet.
I don't care if i die a lot, but i want to have fun doing it. And fun is the one thing i haven't had yet...
_________________
|
-DBS
Marshal
Joined: January 04, 2011
Posts: 204
From: St. Petersburg, FL
| Posted: 2014-02-19 12:15
I feel like this game has forced you to play certain ships for each common engagement. Though this does get the players to use all the ships in a team based fashion, I feel it takes the a lot of the fun out of the game. The balance is so tight it's like a teeter-totter. High Hertz displays are great, but you still have to put the motion blur back in 
Devs= http://youtu.be/wgpytjlW5wU
[ This Message was edited by: -DBS on 2014-02-19 12:16 ]
_________________
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2014-02-19 14:57
Quote:
On 2014-02-19 12:15, -DBS wrote:
I feel like this game has forced you to play certain ships for each common engagement. Though this does get the players to use all the ships in a team based fashion, I feel it takes the a lot of the fun out of the game. The balance is so tight it's like a teeter-totter. High Hertz displays are great, but you still have to put the motion blur back in
Devs= http://youtu.be/wgpytjlW5wU
[ This Message was edited by: -DBS on 2014-02-19 12:16 ]
|
I will always miss the days where every dread actually felt like a massive capital ship with dozens of gadgets, fighters, and combat beams.
_________________
|
-DBS
Marshal
Joined: January 04, 2011
Posts: 204
From: St. Petersburg, FL
| Posted: 2014-02-19 15:02
Quote:
On 2014-02-19 14:57, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-02-19 12:15, -DBS wrote:
I feel like this game has forced you to play certain ships for each common engagement. Though this does get the players to use all the ships in a team based fashion, I feel it takes the a lot of the fun out of the game. The balance is so tight it's like a teeter-totter. High Hertz displays are great, but you still have to put the motion blur back in
Devs= http://youtu.be/wgpytjlW5wU
[ This Message was edited by: -DBS on 2014-02-19 15:04 ]
|
I will always miss the days where every dread actually felt like a massive capital ship with dozens of gadgets, fighters, and combat beams.
|
Cannons, core weapons, missiles, fighters. Tons of EW. Felt like a real ship!
Kluth actually had an element of surprise.
_________________
|
zamboxl
Vice Admiral
Joined: May 22, 2005
Posts: 6
| Posted: 2014-02-19 16:01
how about fixing the overpower aspect of ugto
_________________
|
marco ramius
Admiral
Joined: October 16, 2010
Posts: 23
| Posted: 2014-02-19 22:22
ummmm, i've only noticed 2 armor slots per arc not 3, so ugto can't nulify all icc damage, but it IS ,at least among icc players, a well known fact that DPS is all fine and dandy on paper but in actual practice that rails and torps specifically are weak in damage ( not DPS mind you, just in raw damage ).....to make most icc happy (including me) just double or triple the current ammo amounts. it just may make most of the bitching about it disappear.
*****PEACE*****
_________________
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2014-02-20 01:54
Quote:
On 2014-02-19 22:22, (Captain)_Jack_Sparrow wrote:
to make most icc happy (including me) just double or triple the current ammo amounts.
|
No one really gets through the current amount.
_________________
|
Orkan [OO-XII]
Grand Admiral
The Myrmidon Legion
Joined: April 22, 2010
Posts: 201
From: A Point Perfectly Computed Yet Never Repeating
| Posted: 2014-02-20 08:30
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 01:54, The Fridge wrote:
No one really gets through the current amount.
|
I beg to differ. I constantly need to reload my combat dread when dealing with platforms and a few players, Even bombs run short on my Bomber destroyer or siege transport after about two structures.
This is not really the problem.
To be honest the Storm cruiser now that I have flown it a lot feels like just the right amount of shielding and armour most ICC cruisers should have if the weapon damage is to stay as it is.
I feel the Assault cruisers shielding is just far too weak for the up close damage it can inflict. At a distance it is wasting its full potential as it cannot bring all of its weapons to bear. I realise this is the definition of a tier 2 ship so I think it's only true role is to act as a kind of kill-ship which hunts down damaged ships and delivers a killing blow. Finding this sort of situation is few and far between.
Like has been said before, its the game population that is the real problem. I have a feeling that with 20 players per side the ships and maybe even their damage would be roughly evenly balanced. We have many experienced players who really know how to use their ships and at what point to exit combat and with too few players to take on dedicated tracker roles we are seeing less kills than we would otherwise.
Whatever can be done to bring new players in should be Palestar's priority if this game is to truly shine.
I have done all I can in terms of publicising the game on game sites, other chat forums as well as even adding an entry in wikipedia under space combat games but that should not really be up to the end-user.
If this game is going to continue successfully it needs to increase it playerbase. This is not a new subject but is now especially pertinent. I really want to see Darkspace alive with players even 20 a side regularly, it can be done as the players are out there. Something needs to be done to get them here.
I feel that some of the recent changes, all done in the name of balance and bettering the game have isolated a lot of the main player base. Many regular K'Luth and ICC Pilots simply do not play. Where previously few played UGTO it is now the case that some regular K'Luth players have switched to UGTO in order to keep their pres gain regular.
I feel that if changes to factions have pushed players away from their favourite faction then the game has truly lost something.
K'Luth had a style where they loved to be cloaked for good and I enjoyed the tension as an ICC pilot not knowing when they would strike. That was K'Luth for me. I even respected the extreme damage that their weapons dealt. What I did not enjoy was the way their cloak could not effectively be broken with ECCM and their armour, chitin included should have been reduced way more than just a low 4000 or so HP. K'Luth should strike hard, cloak forever as energy allows with ECCM being able to properly damage their cloak with just one ICC sensor frigate but be have very weak armour.
Ping, even though it was a bug, seemed to have something in it that made Luth hunting enjoyable and levelled the playing field so that blind fire could be an effective strategy.
It should be like this
ICC weakest weapons by far - Strongest defense by far
UGTO 'middle' weapons - 'middle' defense
K'Luth strongest weapons by far - weakest defense by far
I know that this is what the game's balance is aiming for but something is not quite right. I cannot quantify it right now especially as I have not played UGTO for a good while.
The danger of having any faction make more damage per second than any other is that over time even small differences in stats end up being massive damage output differences.
Let's go with a simple example. Let's take the average amount of damage per second made by fusion torpedos versus proton.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that fusion will make 600dps and the Proton 700.
In three exchanges the fusion will damage 1800 and the Proton 2100. In five exchanges the fusion will damage 3000 the proton 3500, and these are just average numbers the reality is that max damage for Proton torps is 1050 dps compared to fusion which is 750. Over time that is a massive difference.
It is true that minimum damage of proton torpedoes is lower than that of Fusion torps but the number of higher values mean that the protons will almost always 'roll' higher values than lower ones.
Can anybody else put up figures that illustrate better what I am saying?
Perhaps the 'extremes' between the factions are just too extreme and in an effort to make them each stand out things have become unbalanced. UGTO armour seems very tough, even when using energy weapons on ablative armour - should it really be that way?
Would things be any better if the offensive and defensive differences of all three factions were just slightly different. Say damge values being better by the tens and not the hundreds and likewise in defense?
But would that really be any better?
In any case my main point is that I think the only way to see if true balance has been achieved is to have equal numbers of players on all factions at the same time with multiple ship types so the faction can work effectively as a true fleet.
It almost always comes down to this. Darkspace needs players and it needs them bad.
_________________
![Email Orkan [OO-XII]](http://www1.palestar.com/gamecq/phpBB/images/email.gif)
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2014-02-20 08:39
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 08:30, Orkan [OO-XII] wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 01:54, The Fridge wrote:
No one really gets through the current amount.
|
Even bombs run short on my Bomber destroyer or siege transport after about two structures.
|
That's potentially already a non-issue, and I made my statement with that in mind.
[ This Message was edited by: The Fridge on 2014-02-20 08:42 ]
_________________
|
Rykros1987
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 01, 2012
Posts: 88
From: Not in an asylum. Yet.
| Posted: 2014-02-20 09:02
I think the ICC needs some long range ENERGY based weapons.
Ablatives alright in the sense that its like a ugto trademark stance on things....endure punishment get in close and rain hell on your enemies up close.
The problem is that...I can't think of a single long range energy based weapon to counter this. Except maybe mines not sure.
Which means if we want to fight ugto ablative we have to give up evasiveness and get in close where our shields and composite just dont hold up against somoene that out dps's and out tanks the ICC. Seems like an oversight to me. Especially since all they have to do is have a good pd ship along and suddenly mines just are....bleh....
Why give a faction more evasiveness and less tanking/dps and then give the ugto a tool that forces us to be close to them to do effective damage.
So uhm... give us some long range energy based weaponry to choose instead of railguns or gauss please. >.> Valence is nice...but should we really have to dogfight them and get pummeled to death to counter ablative?
[ This Message was edited by: Rykros1987 on 2014-02-20 09:06 ]
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
