Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target


64% of target met.

Latest Topics

- How did Darkspace loose it's customers? »
- Holly Cow Its alive!! »
- "GCQL MFC stopped working" when launching the app »
- Re: Ich verabschiede mich »
- Things Dark Space needs to Address »
- other games ? »
- Random Lobby Quotes »
- Credits »
- When to play? »
- A few years ago »

Development Blog

- 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 »
- Ship Tiers and You »
- Give Credits feature now live! »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
Kills chart
Killboard

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
09/28/17 +6.3 Days
- Towel Day
05/25/18 +244.6 Days
- International Talk like a Pirate Day!
09/19/18 +361.6 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 » » * Development Blog * » » Ship Tiers and You
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
 Author Ship Tiers and You
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal

Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1186
Posted: 2013-01-09 10:33   
Is it a must that ICC and UGTO share the same missle system?
You can just leave the current missle to UGTO and assign new ones (strike & skirmish) to ICC. There have been many missle regenations, give UGTO something inferior to ICC. That will maintain the reason why UGTO prefer fighter and ICC prefer missle.

UGTO seems to lack idea. I have a crazy one: tier II UGTO cruiser with carrier & missle role. As you say there is no prohibit against carrier & missle, I really think we should make something quite creative.
_________________


Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal

Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
Posted: 2013-01-09 15:52   
Since we are expanding to CM for ship requirements, will we also be expanding to platinum badges as prerequisites for ships?
_________________


Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral

Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
Posted: 2013-01-09 19:51   
rear facing core weapons should be an ICC thing, jim. It fits the engagement style of ICC more closely.


I also really like chlorophyl's idea with missiles. ICC and UGTO really have no reason to share missile systems, especially since ICC uses them a lot more and thus would put more R&D into them etc.
[ This Message was edited by: iwancoppa on 2013-01-09 19:52 ]
_________________


-xTc- ExisT
Chief Marshal
Army Of Darkness


Joined: March 20, 2010
Posts: 527
From: Red Lobster
Posted: 2013-01-10 07:52   
How are the kluth layouts coming along? Last a checked you didn't have many yet designed.

This is definitely making progress and will add a huge variety to the game.
Keep up the good work!

_________________
*Connection lost, attempting reconnect in 30 seconds....
Do you really want to just pay bills until you die?
MAKE DS GREAT AGAIN!


Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights


Chatting in 'DarkSpace English'

Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
Posted: 2013-01-10 23:39   
Quote:

On 2013-01-09 19:51, iwancoppa wrote:
rear facing core weapons should be an ICC thing, jim. It fits the engagement style of ICC more closely.


But it benefits the UGTO more.

ICC ships use shields, which can be redirected to any arc. Thus they are more free to rotate to bring weapons to bear, which is why most ICC gunships tend to have stronger broadsides than they do fore/aft armament.

UGTO ships rely more on armor, however, and once the armor on a given arc is damaged you have to turn the entire ship to move a fresh armor plate into line, or else you start taking hull damage. Turning like this to present undamaged armor also changes which weapons are pointing at the enemy, so a UGTO ship benefits greatly from having more even weapon coverage across all arcs. If you can bring the same number of guns to bear forward, broadside and aft, that frees you up to turn and present undamaged armor without having to worry about shifting your firepower around.

Quote:
I also really like chlorophyl's idea with missiles. ICC and UGTO really have no reason to share missile systems, especially since ICC uses them a lot more and thus would put more R&D into them etc.


I hadn't initially planned for this, but the more I think about it, it may very well be something I can pull off. I'll have to do some calculations on the damage of various missile types to make sure it'll work, though.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.

  Email Jim Starluck
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral

Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
Posted: 2013-01-11 14:54   
In which case - good luck to any poor K'luth sods!
_________________


Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2038
From: Michigan
Posted: 2013-01-11 15:15   
Quote:

On 2013-01-10 23:39, Jim Starluck wrote:
If you can bring the same number of guns to bear forward, broadside and aft, that frees you up to turn and present undamaged armor without having to worry about shifting your firepower around.



It also diminishes the amount of firepower you can focus on any one target. Sure, put regular cannons covering the rear arc, but cores are best utilized when facing forward.

That and most UGTO players are used to their heavy weaponry facing forward, doing this will confuse the hell out of them.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse


Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
Posted: 2013-01-12 00:32   
ICC have nice defenses, its them who should be given multiple-arc weapons, so they have less total no. of weps and it becomes meaningless for them to even rotate their ship (not to mention, they have nice or atleast better turning rates than other ships)



anyways, the artillery dread seemed like a dread version of the ICC strike cruiser, which was why i wondered whether it would be nice to k'luth players to fight a ship which can aim at them no matter how they position themselves around the ship.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.


Walrus of Apathy
Admiral
Templar Knights


Joined: August 07, 2005
Posts: 464
From: Dorans Basement
Posted: 2013-01-12 18:32   
What you need to realize is that Dreads are going to be slower and less manueverable than ever, so I think they'll appreciate having weapons more spread out on the arcs, as it'll be a whole lot harder to get an enemy into one particular arc.
_________________


  Email Walrus of Apathy
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2038
From: Michigan
Posted: 2013-01-12 18:36   
Quote:

On 2013-01-12 18:32, Walrus of Apathy wrote:
What you need to realize is that Dreads are going to be slower and less manueverable than ever, so I think they'll appreciate having weapons more spread out on the arcs, as it'll be a whole lot harder to get an enemy into one particular arc.



I thought the whole point of Dreadnoughts was to be battering rams that maul anything that gets caught in their primary firing arcs, but slow enough that they can be outflanked by more maneuverable ships. If they're going to have similar firepower in every direction then what is the point? They won't have a weak spot to exploit and we'll be back to square 1.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Walrus of Apathy
Admiral
Templar Knights


Joined: August 07, 2005
Posts: 464
From: Dorans Basement
Posted: 2013-01-12 19:14   
Quote:

On 2013-01-12 18:36, Talien wrote:
Quote:

On 2013-01-12 18:32, Walrus of Apathy wrote:
What you need to realize is that Dreads are going to be slower and less manueverable than ever, so I think they'll appreciate having weapons more spread out on the arcs, as it'll be a whole lot harder to get an enemy into one particular arc.



I thought the whole point of Dreadnoughts was to be battering rams that maul anything that gets caught in their primary firing arcs, but slow enough that they can be outflanked by more maneuverable ships. If they're going to have similar firepower in every direction then what is the point? They won't have a weak spot to exploit and we'll be back to square 1.



They still are the mauling battering rams, these ships are still designed with 80%+ of their weapons focused on the forward arcs. Their ability to fight all around is not nearly as pronounced as you think it is. Having one or two heavy weapons that can fire aft doesn't compare to the 5-6 that will fire forward.

Look at the Artillery Dreadnought layout Jim posted, yes it can fire two HMDs aft, but it's fore arc fires 3 HMD's and 3 QSTs, these ships are still based on having the enemy infront of you.
_________________


  Email Walrus of Apathy
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2038
From: Michigan
Posted: 2013-01-12 21:29   
The way you put it made it sound like things were leaning more toward mostly even coverage across all arcs, as long as we're not going to see ships like that it's a relief.

Though I still have to say rear facing cores seem wasteful even if it's just 2. Look at the current Assault Cruiser, it has a pair of rear facing torps that rarely get used and a lot of the time you end up with 30+ ammo while the forward facing ones are empty or nearly empty.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights


Chatting in 'DarkSpace English'

Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
Posted: 2013-01-17 00:36   
Generally, the placement of weapons depends on what kind of ships you're intended to fight against.

When you're an Assault Dreadnought designed to hammer other Dreads into scrap with heavy beam arrays and torpedo salvos, you generally don't have to worry as much about your target dodging. You can easily afford to have more of your weapons focused forward. Having weapons with smaller arcs also means you can cram in more of them for your point-value.

On the other hand, if you're a Battle Dreadnought expected to engage a wide variety of targets, including ships that are smaller and faster than you, you tend to want better coverage so it's not as easy for your enemies to flank you and escape your firepower. You'd especially want good coverage if you're UGTO, for reasons discussed earlier.

The Artillery Dreadnought is a sort of hybrid of these roles, intended to operate with either close-range Assault ships or mid-range gunships. So it sort of has a blend of the two armament styles.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.

  Email Jim Starluck
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal

Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1186
Posted: 2013-01-19 19:28   
Quote:
On 2013-01-09 03:51, Kenny_Naboo wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-01-09 03:05, Jim Starluck wrote:
ST-115 Artillery Dreadnought


- 3x Tri-arc Heavy Mass Driver (1x FPS, 1x FPA, 1x FSA)
- 2x Dual-arc Quantum Singularity Torpedo (1x FP, 1x FS)
- 1x Fore-arc Quantum Singularity Torpedo

6 Core weaps. My god, this Arty Dread is almost like the old Krill.


Old krill doesn't have torpedo. And UGTO cannon range is farther than K'Luth's one. Nevertheless, standard & albative combo for this beast...
You're gonna killed by this one, a lot. Hand it a battle-excessive look, Kenny. Paint it with a big, orange "Hated" on the body.
[ This Message was edited by: chlorophyll on 2013-01-19 19:29 ]
_________________


Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights


Chatting in 'DarkSpace English'

Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
Posted: 2013-01-20 22:17   
And that's another good reason to spread some weapons out over wider arcs. Too much firepower focused forward can get terribly OP.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.

  Email Jim Starluck
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 Next Page )
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Page created in 0.056107 seconds.


Copyright © 2000 - 2017 Palestar Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of use - DarkSpace is a Registered Trademark of PALESTAR