Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target


49% of target met.

Latest Topics

- не присылают код »
- How did Darkspace loose it's customers? »
- Things Dark Space needs to Address »
- other games ? »
- Random Lobby Quotes »
- Credits »
- Holly Cow Its alive!! »
- Re: Ich verabschiede mich »
- 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
07/27/17 +2.5 Days
- International Talk like a Pirate Day!
09/19/17 +55.8 Days
- Towel Day
05/25/18 +303.8 Days

Search

 

Anniversaries

11th - Nexus 14 Drone A
11th - Nexus 14 Drone B

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
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
Posted: 2012-12-30 15:14   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 13:33, chlorophyll wrote:
I love to contribute some experience about the tier essence:
Minelayer needs ECM.
Missle/fighter needs scanner.
Beam needs ECCM.

So,
M-307M Missile Dreadnought: 1x ECM
ST-125 Elite Assault Dreadnought: 1x Scanner
M-412L/M Line Dreadnought (Tier 2, Cannons + Missile roles): 1x ECM
Well, I will give 307M and 412L/M a scanner instead of ECM and ST 125 an ECCM.



Beam ships lose all EWar devices, for the same reason that you can't combine Beam and EWar roles. Too much interference from the different gadgets. This also means that a ship with Beams that should normally have an EWar gadget or two gets extra weapons instead.

Missile ships and Carriers don't need Scanners to detect their targets; Scanners only help at detecting small objects or exceptionally distant ones. They're more about spotting missiles or fighters at range, or about detecting planetary structures from more than 500 gu.

Quote:
Something to remind:
Quote:
On 2012-12-24 01:54, Jim Starluck wrote:
- Cruisers
-- Talent: When the going gets tough, the tough get going! All Cruisers have an extra Armor plate to help them survive, and they always carry an E-War device so they can't be taken by surprise!


Parasite: no E-war device.
M-239A/L-M Strike Cruiser: no E-war device.



Because both the Parasite and the Strike Cruiser have a Beam role, they lose that EWar device.

Quote:
Quote:
On 2012-12-24 01:54, Jim Starluck wrote:
- Missiles
-- Talent: All those launchers and ammo magazines take up an awful lot of room, so these ships lose 1 armor plate--usually from the rear end. Don't let badguys get in behind 'em!


M-47L/M-S Sniper Frigate: 1 armor plate for all direction
M-239A/L-M Strike Cruiser: 3 x front, 2x others
And I think that 307M layout has been changed regularly after each post.
.
... It's best that you introduce tier and role so we can check for you.



The 1 armor plate on the Sniper Frigate is a Fore armor, not Full. ICC Frigates normally get 4 shields and 2 armor plates, one Fore and one Aft. The Sniper Frigate has a Missile role, so it loses the Aft one.

The Strike Cruiser, on the other hand, relies almost entirely on shields. It gets +1 Armor from Beams and -1 Armor from Missiles, so it can have a full set of armor plates on each arc and a single Full armor due to being a Cruiser. For that particular ship, however, I've elected to replace the normal Armor with an extra set of shield generators, so it winds up with double Shields on each arc and a single Full-arc Armor plate.

And no, I've not changed the M-307M layout since I first posted it.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.

  Email Jim Starluck
GunsOfHonor
Fleet Admiral

Joined: July 31, 2011
Posts: 190
Posted: 2012-12-30 16:43   
This seems like a horrible idea.......


Secondly what you said about minelayers is so incorrect...THEY'RE USELESS!
And so im pretty sure i read this right, but if i have EAD's and AD's in my Garage are you saying i can no longer use them as they are the best of the best and without question a T3 Vessel. Im going to have to work to CM just to use my AD and EAD again. Even though i've sunk so many enh. into both of them. Please don't tell me i read that right.

This is way to big of a change
_________________


Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
Posted: 2012-12-30 18:42   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 16:43, GunsOfHonor wrote:

Secondly what you said about minelayers is so incorrect...THEY'RE USELESS!



We're already investigating changes to mines to make them more useful.


Quote:
And so im pretty sure i read this right, but if i have EAD's and AD's in my Garage are you saying i can no longer use them as they are the best of the best and without question a T3 Vessel. Im going to have to work to CM just to use my AD and EAD again. Even though i've sunk so many enh. into both of them. Please don't tell me i read that right.

This is way to big of a change



The AD won't be T3, but the EAD will--it's Elite, after all.

If you have a ship with Enhancements that you can no longer fly after the update where these new layouts go live, we're going to have a program to either refund you the credit cost of those Enhancements or just give you a new set of those specific Enhancements so you can put them on another ship; not quite sure which yet.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.

  Email Jim Starluck
Walrus of Apathy
Admiral
Templar Knights


Joined: August 07, 2005
Posts: 464
From: Dorans Basement
Posted: 2012-12-30 18:54   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 16:43, GunsOfHonor wrote:
This seems like a horrible idea.......


Secondly what you said about minelayers is so incorrect...THEY'RE USELESS!



Currently yes, but we have some ideas floating around on how to make them not so.

Quote:

And so im pretty sure i read this right, but if i have EAD's and AD's in my Garage are you saying i can no longer use them as they are the best of the best and without question a T3 Vessel. Im going to have to work to CM just to use my AD and EAD again. Even though i've sunk so many enh. into both of them. Please don't tell me i read that right.



You did read that right, the EAD at least is going to be a T3 ship, and as a T3 dread it will be restricted to CM. As for your enhancements, it's already been stated publically by Pantheon that a system will be put in place where you can remove Enhancements from ships and be reimbursed for them. Either that or give you Enhancements of equal value.

Quote:

This is way to big of a change



This really isn't any bigger of a change than the the last time we had a major shift in our balancing paradigm.

[ This Message was edited by: Walrus of Apathy on 2012-12-30 18:56 ]
_________________


  Email Walrus of Apathy
Zero28
Grand Admiral

Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 589
Posted: 2012-12-30 20:55   
Quote:

On 2012-12-29 18:09, Zero28 wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-12-29 10:36, Jim Starluck wrote:

That *is* the general idea. The problem is that smaller ships have fewer points to work with to start, and that makes it harder to work with them.

[ This Message was edited by: Jim Starluck on 2012-12-29 10:36 ]




thsi siw here i want to get at, What about ships of the same class (E.G Destroyer)?

a tier 1 ICC combat dessie with cannon role, has less weaponry of its class then a tier 2 and even less that its tier 3 counter part Wich pretty much make the higher tier more specialised in the same roles + 2 more roles

anyone see were im getting at?




can i get a answer on that?
_________________

19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: \"Zero..you are DS's hero\"

Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal

Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
Posted: 2012-12-30 21:16   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 20:55, Zero28 wrote:


Quote:

Snip



can i get a answer on that?




So, what you're saying is you want the 2nd Lt destroyer to be just as powerful as the Grand Admiral destroyer? That doesn't seem quite right to me...
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2012-12-30 21:17 ]
_________________


Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-12-30 21:41   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 16:43, GunsOfHonor wrote:
This seems like a horrible idea.......


Secondly what you said about minelayers is so incorrect...THEY'RE USELESS!
And so im pretty sure i read this right, but if i have EAD's and AD's in my Garage are you saying i can no longer use them as they are the best of the best and without question a T3 Vessel. Im going to have to work to CM just to use my AD and EAD again. Even though i've sunk so many enh. into both of them. Please don't tell me i read that right.

This is way to big of a change




Ditto what Jim said.

Plus, from what i know, the UGTO will also have a T2 assault dread that looks not too different from the existing EAD. Remember, besides the re-tiering, the ships themselves will be refitted too.





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


Walrus of Apathy
Admiral
Templar Knights


Joined: August 07, 2005
Posts: 464
From: Dorans Basement
Posted: 2012-12-30 21:43   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 21:16, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 20:55, Zero28 wrote:


Quote:

Snip



can i get a answer on that?




So, what you're saying is you want the 2nd Lt destroyer to be just as powerful as the Grand Admiral destroyer? That doesn't seem quite right to me...
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2012-12-30 21:17 ]



What Zero's concern is that the layouts presented seem to show that Higher tier ships are just as good if not better at roles than their single role Tier 1 counterparts, thus making the T1's superfulous and keeping the issue of "Bigger is Better" in a way. What we're more striving for is lower tiers have specialization while higher tiers lose the specialization for adaptablilty. The layouts presented seemed to show this wasn't the case. I've discussed the issue with Jim and we've decided to adjust the point system used for layouts on the smaller ships slightly to rectify the issue and bring the system back to it's original goal.
_________________


  Email Walrus of Apathy
Zero28
Grand Admiral

Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 589
Posted: 2012-12-30 22:31   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 21:43, Walrus of Apathy wrote:

What Zero's concern is that the layouts presented seem to show that Higher tier ships are just as good if not better at roles than their single role Tier 1 counterparts, thus making the T1's superfulous and keeping the issue of "Bigger is Better" in a way. What we're more striving for is lower tiers have specialization while higher tiers lose the specialization for adaptablilty. The layouts presented seemed to show this wasn't the case. I've discussed the issue with Jim and we've decided to adjust the point system used for layouts on the smaller ships slightly to rectify the issue and bring the system back to it's original goal.




Aye, exactly it
glad to hear it
_________________

19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: \"Zero..you are DS's hero\"

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3820
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-12-31 00:11   
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 22:31, Zero28 wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-12-30 21:43, Walrus of Apathy wrote:

What Zero's concern is that the layouts presented seem to show that Higher tier ships are just as good if not better at roles than their single role Tier 1 counterparts, thus making the T1's superfulous and keeping the issue of "Bigger is Better" in a way. What we're more striving for is lower tiers have specialization while higher tiers lose the specialization for adaptablilty. The layouts presented seemed to show this wasn't the case. I've discussed the issue with Jim and we've decided to adjust the point system used for layouts on the smaller ships slightly to rectify the issue and bring the system back to it's original goal.




Aye, exactly it
glad to hear it





But this will not imply that they higher tier ships will be less powerful in a single role. So if a T1 dessie has 6 guns, it does not mean that the T2 and T3 ships will have to split their 2 or 3 type of weaps across 6 slots too.

They will naturally carry more weaps and will be more powerful than the preceding tier vessels. But Jim will balance it such that the difference won't be too far to the point of being OP.




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


GunsOfHonor
Fleet Admiral

Joined: July 31, 2011
Posts: 190
Posted: 2012-12-31 04:57   
Im really intrested to see where this is taken..

BUT PLEASE proceed with caution
_________________


Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse


Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
Posted: 2012-12-31 06:26   
as far as enhancements on ships becoming unusable (if you cant fly it you cant take enh off it), i think the existing ship layouts should get mapped to their corresponding tier 1 and 2 counterparts, so that
a) ships can be flown even after the introduction of new ship systems
b) the enhancements are not totally useless towards the layouts of the new ships.

so, the current AD, EAD and siphon get mapped to some tier 2 assault ships, cannon dreads get mapped to tier 1 cannon dreads and so on.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.


DiepLuc
Chief Marshal

Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1184
Posted: 2012-12-31 09:07   
Quote:
On 2012-12-30 15:14, Jim Starluck wrote:
Beam ships lose all EWar devices, for the same reason that you can't combine Beam and EWar roles.


ST-125 Elite Assault Dreadnought and M-239A, Parasite are all beam ships, why does ST-125 have 1 scanner but M-239A & Parasite not have any?
From what you said
Quote:
On 2012-12-30 15:14, Jim Starluck wrote:
Scanners only help at detecting small objects or exceptionally distant ones. They're more about spotting missiles or fighters at range, or about detecting planetary structures from more than 500 gu.


You want EAD to detect missle/fighter from range to PD them, or detect small ships from distant to point jump them. With scanner, that will reinforce the EAD into superb hunter indeed. As a player, I do not want EAD to become such a beast. I have been in it and against it, I faithfully hope it only has ECCM.
Quote:
On 2012-12-30 15:14, Jim Starluck wrote:
Missile ships and Carriers don't need Scanners to detect their targets


Why? Perhaps you may clarify "do not need" or "should not have" here.
When I was in Missle and Carrier, I do need scanner. Fighter is an extra long range gadget and only with scanner may I bomb the planet while staying in safe zone. Missle ships also needs scanner to see small ships from distant. Missle is a good weapon to kill those small flies when self explode at correct timing.
Another reason to have scanner on missle/carrier is ship sensor ability. Cruiser/dread has a short sensor distance, hence scanner is helpful a lot.

I also understand the after tractor on 307M to tractor supply platform in order to spam missle continously. But I don't think people will play that risk style. They will hide supply platform far away and jump back to get supply. Besides, when 307M launches all its missles, it supposes to jump away because nobody allows it to keep spamming. Action again 307M usually takes place fast. Maybe one extra CL beam instead of tractor beam is a beter layout. Not to mention tractor does not work well.
Quote:
On 2012-12-24 01:54, Jim Starluck wrote:
And no, I've not changed the M-307M layout since I first posted it.


I apologize. I did not look carefully.
But why 1 ECM for 307M? ECM can't hide the dread and harpex unables to explode within ECM range.

I know the way you and I exploit the ships are not the same hence our expectations of ships are different. I ask questions because I'm trying to understand your vision and also have a hint to adjust my playstyle in the future with the new ships.
[ This Message was edited by: chlorophyll on 2012-12-31 09:08 ]
_________________


Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
Posted: 2012-12-31 12:33   
Quote:

On 2012-12-31 09:07, chlorophyll wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-12-30 15:14, Jim Starluck wrote:
Beam ships lose all EWar devices, for the same reason that you can't combine Beam and EWar roles.



ST-125 Elite Assault Dreadnought and M-239A, Parasite are all beam ships, why does ST-125 have 1 scanner but M-239A & Parasite not have any?
From what you said
Quote:
On 2012-12-30 15:14, Jim Starluck wrote:
Scanners only help at detecting small objects or exceptionally distant ones. They're more about spotting missiles or fighters at range, or about detecting planetary structures from more than 500 gu.



You want EAD to detect missle/fighter from range to PD them, or detect small ships from distant to point jump them. With scanner, that will reinforce the EAD into superb hunter indeed. As a player, I do not want EAD to become such a beast. I have been in it and against it, I faithfully hope it only has ECCM.



The EAD has the Scanner because its third role is Escort, meaning it has heavy PD. It needs the Scanner to detect and target missiles and fighters. It can't get any ECCM because it has a Beam role, which prohibits any EWar other than Scanners.

The Parasite is just pure beams, so it has no need for a Scanner--its targets will always be nearby.

Quote:
On 2012-12-30 15:14, Jim Starluck wrote:
Missile ships and Carriers don't need Scanners to detect their targets


Why? Perhaps you may clarify "do not need" or "should not have" here.
When I was in Missle and Carrier, I do need scanner. Fighter is an extra long range gadget and only with scanner may I bomb the planet while staying in safe zone. Missle ships also needs scanner to see small ships from distant. Missle is a good weapon to kill those small flies when self explode at correct timing.
Another reason to have scanner on missle/carrier is ship sensor ability. Cruiser/dread has a short sensor distance, hence scanner is helpful a lot.[/quote]

I'm currently re-factoring ship designs with adjusted point values, so I'll see if I can work a Scanner into Carriers. Missile ships won't need it, though; they're meant to target larger ships rather than smaller ones.

Quote:
I also understand the after tractor on 307M to tractor supply platform in order to spam missle continously. But I don't think people will play that risk style. They will hide supply platform far away and jump back to get supply. Besides, when 307M launches all its missles, it supposes to jump away because nobody allows it to keep spamming. Action again 307M usually takes place fast. Maybe one extra CL beam instead of tractor beam is a beter layout. Not to mention tractor does not work well.



The tractor beam is actually there because I had a few points left over, but not enough to spend on another missile. Again, currently re-working my designs, so it may get dropped.

Quote:
Quote:
On 2012-12-24 01:54, Jim Starluck wrote:
And no, I've not changed the M-307M layout since I first posted it.


I apologize. I did not look carefully.
But why 1 ECM for 307M? ECM can't hide the dread and harpex unables to explode within ECM range.

I know the way you and I exploit the ships are not the same hence our expectations of ships are different. I ask questions because I'm trying to understand your vision and also have a hint to adjust my playstyle in the future with the new ships.



The Missile Dread's one ECM alone won't be able to hide it, but Dreads are not intended to operate alone. That one ECM may make it easier for another EWar ship nearby to help hide the MD.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.

  Email Jim Starluck
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral

Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
Posted: 2012-12-31 15:03   
Overall I agree with this change, the merits are obvious:
- More dynamic combat
- Increase in viability of smaller ships
- Helps eliminate "bigger is better" syndrome
- Helps get rid of stagnant combat of giants

However, there are a few points where I see concern.
1. As there is only one tier 3 ship per class, will this ship exemplify the philosophy of the faction to which it belongs? For example, the tier 3 ICC Destroyer seems very much like a typical UGTO or even Kluth layout rather than an ICC design and unless UGTO/Kluth have an equally powerful design at close ranges we may have humorous battles where the UGTO/Kluth Destroyers are the ones trying to keep range. Ditto for any super long range Kluth/UGTO ships.

2. The balance of the tier system in ship classes as discussed above by others. Will the tier 3 ships be the go to ship once you unlocked them? Will there be incentive to use the lower tier ships? If I want heavy duty cannon fire, will I head for the specialized tier 1 or will I still want to rush for the tier 3 ship that has cannons as one of the roles? Balance here is all in the numbers, but it will be hard to strike a balance as tier 3 ships will have inherently more potential firepower, and the synergy between some layouts (the famous cannon/torp/beam layout) can make sure that all of the extra points in these gadgets are put to good use at the same time, overwhelming ships with just one or two of these layouts. Similarly, dissonance between some layouts (ie a carrier/torp/missle layout) may make the ship useless when faced with their tier 1 or 2 counterparts. Again, just some design concerns that can be overcome by careful watching of numbers and resonance/dissonance between roles. (a torp/cannon/beam combo can easily put all of these weapons to use in a close range brawl but a carrier/torp/missile will always have some roles not available for use)
_________________


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 0.035591 seconds.


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