Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target


Target met!

Latest Topics

- Reminiscing »
- Holly Cow Its alive!! »
- Messenger Battle Chat by T-Roy! »
- Getting our Player Base back »
- Fully customizable ships? »
- First Person view is possible in DS! »
- What's with the new Metaverse? »
- Carrier default loadouts - ships w/interceptors only? »
- 01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 »
- the mi type ships cheat »

Development Blog

- Roadmap »
- Hello strangers, it’s been a while... »
- State of DarkSpace Development »
- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »
- The Silent Cartographer »
- Cloaking update... »
- Tools for tips »
- Fleet levels and more! »
- Game Mechanics Question and Answer Thread »
- Under Construction »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
Kills chart
Killboard

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
08/24/19 +5.6 Days
- International Talk like a Pirate Day!
09/19/19 +30.9 Days
- Towel Day
05/25/20 +279.9 Days

Search

 

Anniversaries

No anniversaries today.

Facebook & Twitter

Why not follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

[FAQ
Forum Index » » Beta Testing Discussion » » New Engine and Defense Changes (1.674)
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
 Author New Engine and Defense Changes (1.674)
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral

Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
Posted: 2012-06-03 17:22   
What if the ICC had their own set of engines?
For example, having the ability to go 25% faster than the other factions, but draining a great deal of energy once the engines are going faster than 100%
A cruiser engine that does 20 would be able to go 25, but drain enough energy that it couldn't be maintained for long.

Would that better allow them the tactical placement advantage?
They can outmaneuver other ships, but they can't run or maintain that distance without short jumping and bringing a few measily weapons to bare.


Not saying you SHOULD do this, just a consideration, because ICC really doesn't seem to have a big enough tactical advantage to justify that they get completely clobbered at beam range.
Sucks for the ICC dreads since that's a hard position to avoid.
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2012-06-03 17:29 ]

_________________


Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2039
From: Michigan
Posted: 2012-06-03 17:50   
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 10:41, Fattierob wrote:
I guess I should seperate it into "Strategic" and "Tactical" mauneverability. K'luth have Strategic Maunverability: They dictate where, when, and how long the fight is. ICC have Tactical mauneverability: They dictate the range and placement of the ships in the fight.



That would be true if ICC had some sort of an advantage in top speed, but they don't. It's much more difficult to increase or even keep range than it is to close it especially when the other guy is just as fast as you are.

The only reason it seems like that's the case is a lot of ICC players like to use Cruisers, where UGTO and luth almost exclusively use Dreadnoughts and Stations.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Fattierob
Vice Admiral

Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4058
Posted: 2012-06-03 17:50   
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 14:13, Persistance wrote:
Makkars go dessie and up, all the way to station.




Makkar are getting nerfed soon anyway, they will be getting the Unique flag so you can't stack them
_________________


Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2039
From: Michigan
Posted: 2012-06-03 17:56   
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 17:50, Fattierob wrote:
Makkar are getting nerfed soon anyway, they will be getting the Unique flag so you can't stack them



All I have to say to that is it's about time.

One question though, what about all the ships that already have multiple Makkar stacked on them?
_________________
Adapt or die.

µOmniVore
Grand Admiral

Joined: September 13, 2006
Posts: 171
Posted: 2012-06-03 18:30   
I would love it if you guys allow build enhancements on other ships with buidling devices, Command Carriers, Command stations.

but loving the sabbots, wish they were a replacement to rail guns instead of torps...

one suggestion is that icc should have faster jump drive recharges so we can maintain range, or give jump drives a minimal jump distance of 1k gu away meaning no-more short jumps. it kinda takes away icc range advantage. or give jump drives a 10s spin up in addition to the turn counter

my point is that we can only have a range advantage at range, on a side note out missiles should have a longer range and shorter cycle timer as well as more ammo than the other factions.
_________________
When we fail to dream we fail as a society.




  Email µOmniVore
Fattierob
Vice Admiral

Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4058
Posted: 2012-06-03 21:08   
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 17:56, Talien wrote:

All I have to say to that is it's about time.

One question though, what about all the ships that already have multiple Makkar stacked on them?



I'm writing some code that will check to see if a ship has duplicates of the same unique and just removes them and deposits it in the garage storage. This is why that particular change is taking so long
_________________


Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2039
From: Michigan
Posted: 2012-06-03 22:06   
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 21:08, Fattierob wrote:
I'm writing some code that will check to see if a ship has duplicates of the same unique and just removes them and deposits it in the garage storage. This is why that particular change is taking so long



Heh, I predict several people are going to end up with more Makkar in their garage than ships that can be equipped with them.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral

Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
Posted: 2012-06-03 22:37   
Looks like you're going to need to increase garage space

That would be kind of nice, though... I've had to toss a lot of enhancements to make room for better ones
_________________


Bardiche
Chief Marshal

Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
Posted: 2012-06-04 06:06   
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 17:50, Talien wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 10:41, Fattierob wrote:
I guess I should seperate it into "Strategic" and "Tactical" mauneverability. K'luth have Strategic Maunverability: They dictate where, when, and how long the fight is. ICC have Tactical mauneverability: They dictate the range and placement of the ships in the fight.



That would be true if ICC had some sort of an advantage in top speed, but they don't. It's much more difficult to increase or even keep range than it is to close it especially when the other guy is just as fast as you are.

The only reason it seems like that's the case is a lot of ICC players like to use Cruisers, where UGTO and luth almost exclusively use Dreadnoughts and Stations.



This. The devs have made a lot of arguments that ICC are not meant to engage at close range as they hold at advantage at longer ranges due to the lack of fall-off, but K'Luth have the devices and tools to determine when, where, how and at what range engagements begin; they are the close-range faction and have been given the tools to ensure that any engagement they initiate will be in their advantage, and that their ships will be in all the right locations.

Even if one were to use an Interdictor, the only way for ICC to "dictate the range and placement" of engagement is to fly away from their opponents, which makes them unable to bring to bear their full armaments, and by flying smaller ships, which lets them control the placements of their ships better.

I recognise UGTO ships losing energy when they go at full speed, guns ablaze, but what compelling reason is there for UGTO ships to chase after ICC at full speed if ICC has fielded an Interdictor? And if they haven't, why not jump, and if ICC persists in fleeing, disengage and do something else?

Thus. ICC is able to dodge a little better than UGTO and handles somewhat better, but they are nowhere capable of "dictating" anything in an engagement.
_________________


Azreal
Chief Marshal

Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2801
From: United State of Texas, Houston
Posted: 2012-06-04 06:20   
UGTO distance of engagement is too far, being just under what ICC has. With enhancements, UGTO easily outdistances ICC. ICC does not have a speed, distance, or defense advantage at this time.

Kluth, atm, are a little too undetectable, making them able to setup with no threat to them relly at all, unless 10 UGTO ships just decide to suddenly hit the V key for no real reason. When Kluth do uncloak, they are able to tear thru ICC shileding rather quickly.

I cant blame anyone who thinks that being ICC sucks. They really do seem to be the red headed stepchild in the basement.
_________________
bucket link



  Email Azreal   Goto the website of Azreal
Bardiche
Chief Marshal

Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
Posted: 2012-06-04 07:15   
ICC are fine, really, it's just that whenever the developers describe their attributes, it feels like we're playing different games.
_________________


Fattierob
Vice Admiral

Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4058
Posted: 2012-06-04 08:22   
Yeah, i'm speaking of what I want things to become, not what they are now. What i'm saying is, keep these things in mind when asking why things are how they are because that is what I am aiming for. I know we have a lot of work to do to get where things would be as i'm speaking of.
[ This Message was edited by: Fattierob on 2012-06-04 08:29 ]
_________________


The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
Posted: 2012-06-04 08:36   
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 21:08, Fattierob wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-06-03 17:56, Talien wrote:

All I have to say to that is it's about time.

One question though, what about all the ships that already have multiple Makkar stacked on them?



I'm writing some code that will check to see if a ship has duplicates of the same unique and just removes them and deposits it in the garage storage. This is why that particular change is taking so long




What about increasing the reduction to Armour to 8-9%
I'd say 9 if they remained stackable uniques.
8 or even 7 if they got durability.

But i like spamming Makkers because it lets me do what bard said, stay in favorable positions, so i maybe/am bias....

[ This Message was edited by: The Fridge on 2012-06-04 08:37 ]
_________________



Bardiche
Chief Marshal

Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
Posted: 2012-06-04 09:03   
Quote:

On 2012-06-04 08:22, Fattierob wrote:
Yeah, i'm speaking of what I want things to become, not what they are now. What i'm saying is, keep these things in mind when asking why things are how they are because that is what I am aiming for. I know we have a lot of work to do to get where things would be as i'm speaking of.
[ This Message was edited by: Fattierob on 2012-06-04 08:29 ]




It's because you talk in present tense that we think you speak of how things are now.
_________________


Fattierob
Vice Admiral

Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4058
Posted: 2012-06-04 09:31   
Quote:

On 2012-06-04 09:03, Gesellschaft wrote:

It's because you talk in present tense that we think you speak of how things are now.



Yeah I know, I'm kinda being too naive here. work to do, etc, get back to testing initiative, cake, et all
_________________


Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Page created in 0.015230 seconds.


Copyright © 2000 - 2019 Palestar Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of use - DarkSpace is a Registered Trademark of PALESTAR