Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target


9% of target met.

Latest Topics

- Getting our Player Base back »
- What's with the new Metaverse? »
- Carrier default loadouts - ships w/interceptors only? »
- Holly Cow Its alive!! »
- 01001000 01100101 01101100 01101100 01101111 »
- the mi type ships cheat »
- First Person view is possible in DS! »
- Latency Issues »
- missing dll. »
- 1.741 »

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

- International Talk like a Pirate Day!
09/19/19 +95.1 Days
- Towel Day
05/25/20 +344.1 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 » » 1.672
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
 Author 1.672
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light


Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
Posted: 2012-01-12 14:10   
Quote:

On 2012-01-12 12:58, Talien wrote:
Forgot to post this the other day, but I'm really liking the random AI names. It's a lot better than the basic ship with a roman numeral attached.


I liked the old ones, simply because you could see the ship type at-a glance and not have to waste time in a battle targeting all the AI.
_________________

http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7

Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light


Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
Posted: 2012-01-12 21:01   
Also, is it just me or does the longwave eccm not work?
_________________

http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7

Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3821
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-01-30 08:07   
Moved
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2012-01-30 08:23 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....


Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2012-02-01 20:22   
Some stuff I discovered:

Variants of ECM/ECCM have deactivation messages of "<EC(C)M> inactivated" rather than "Inactive" like other devices.

Narrowband and focused ewar cannot be activated while cloaked. This is presumably intentional. However, longwave ewar, which is non-targeted, also cannot be activated while cloaked (even with a target selected, see the bug about LW not being usable without a target). Standard ewar can be activated while cloaked.

Switch-out options for ECCM and ECM are a bit unintuitive, although it's reasonable once you've worked out how it works (switch ECM for ECCM, then switch ECCM for specialised ECCM or vice versa).

Not sure if ECM should overall reduce energy drain for cloaks when active, although I can see arguments in favour of both sides: On the one hand, it's using a device and should thus be less stealthy, but conversely stealthy ships with ECM should be able to stay cloaked for longer, really.

Destroyed engines and cloaking devices appear to stay active, which means cloak does not go down when the cloak reaches 0%. The damage intervals seem quite long, also. Damage repair is slow (except when a supply depot/ship repairs things instantly), but does a cloak still work at full efficiency when at 1%? If yes, cloaks are not in danger of ceasing operation.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


NoBoDx
Grand Admiral

Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 784
From: Germany / NRW
Posted: 2012-02-01 20:40   
last time i checked cloak damaged engines / cloak-gadget / generators much faster than those could be repaired while orbiting a friendly planet
_________________
The only good 'ooman is a dead 'ooman. An' da only fing better than a dead 'ooman'z a dyin' 'ooman who tell you where ter find 'is mates.

Fattierob
Vice Admiral

Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4058
Posted: 2012-02-01 20:42   
Quote:

On 2012-02-01 20:22, Gejaheline wrote:
Some stuff I discovered:

Variants of ECM/ECCM have deactivation messages of "<EC(C)M> inactivated" rather than "Inactive" like other devices.
Narrowband and focused ewar cannot be activated while cloaked. This is presumably intentional. However, longwave ewar, which is non-targeted, also cannot be activated while cloaked (even with a target selected, see the bug about LW not being usable without a target). Standard ewar can be activated while cloaked.



fixed.
_________________


seyyah
Grand Admiral

Joined: April 01, 2010
Posts: 46
Posted: 2012-02-02 12:18   
i know its not a so important thing but when i logged into beta, saw that AIs has names now! that was good but ICC ship initals confused me.
İ think ICC uses initals of ConfederatedStarShip C.S.S. but in beta they had ICS. What's inital are these? or is there a mistake?
_________________

former Roukanken

*Obsidian Shadow*
Grand Admiral

Joined: January 03, 2010
Posts: 316
Posted: 2012-02-02 15:23   
Intersteller Confederate Ship perhaps
_________________


Fattierob
Vice Admiral

Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4058
Posted: 2012-02-02 16:22   
Quote:

On 2012-02-02 12:18, Roukanken wrote:
i know its not a so important thing but when i logged into beta, saw that AIs has names now! that was good but ICC ship initals confused me.
İ think ICC uses initals of ConfederatedStarShip C.S.S. but in beta they had ICS. What's inital are these? or is there a mistake?




Before the Farstars war the UGTO ships used the prefix "TVS" for "Trade Vanguard Ship". This reflected the fleets primary purpose of an anti-piracy role.

With the breakout of the Farstars war, the UGTO ships had their prefixes renamed to "UWS" - United Worlds Ship. This was largely a response to the Farstars ship prefix of "CWS" - Colonial Worlds Ship (Some ships were also designated "CSS" - Colonial Systems Ship). The farstars were a more rag tag group then the ICC so their ships used whatever designation were they were produced from - CWS from the military shipards, CSS from the civilian, etc.

With the Farstars eventual defeat and swallowing up into what is now the ICC, the ICC decided that any old ships could still bear the "CWS" or "CSS" prefix, but any new ships produced would use the new ICC prefix - "ICS" for Intersteller Confederate Starship. This was to signify the new unity of the planets and their co-operation against the UGTO

The UGTO, meanwhile, still sees the ICC as rebel scum so this doesn't effect the UGTO ships at all, so they still use the "UWS" prefix.

_________________


*FTL*Soulless
Marshal

Joined: June 25, 2010
Posts: 787
From: Dres-Kona
Posted: 2012-02-02 19:07   
Quote:

On 2012-02-02 16:22, Fattierob wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-02-02 12:18, Roukanken wrote:
i know its not a so important thing but when i logged into beta, saw that AIs has names now! that was good but ICC ship initals confused me.
İ think ICC uses initals of ConfederatedStarShip C.S.S. but in beta they had ICS. What's inital are these? or is there a mistake?




Before the Farstars war the UGTO ships used the prefix "TVS" for "Trade Vanguard Ship". This reflected the fleets primary purpose of an anti-piracy role.

With the breakout of the Farstars war, the UGTO ships had their prefixes renamed to "UWS" - United Worlds Ship. This was largely a response to the Farstars ship prefix of "CWS" - Colonial Worlds Ship (Some ships were also designated "CSS" - Colonial Systems Ship). The farstars were a more rag tag group then the ICC so their ships used whatever designation were they were produced from - CWS from the military shipards, CSS from the civilian, etc.

With the Farstars eventual defeat and swallowing up into what is now the ICC, the ICC decided that any old ships could still bear the "CWS" or "CSS" prefix, but any new ships produced would use the new ICC prefix - "ICS" for Intersteller Confederate Starship. This was to signify the new unity of the planets and their co-operation against the UGTO

The UGTO, meanwhile, still sees the ICC as rebel scum so this doesn't effect the UGTO ships at all, so they still use the "UWS" prefix.





I am gonna miss CSS.

In regards to the cloak, i feel that a drain is a tad to high atm. Maybe 5 or so Precent reduction be better
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.


  Email *FTL*Soulless
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3821
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-02 22:56   
Quote:

On 2012-02-02 16:22, Fattierob wrote:
Quote:

On 2012-02-02 12:18, Roukanken wrote:
i know its not a so important thing but when i logged into beta, saw that AIs has names now! that was good but ICC ship initals confused me.
İ think ICC uses initals of ConfederatedStarShip C.S.S. but in beta they had ICS. What's inital are these? or is there a mistake?




Before the Farstars war the UGTO ships used the prefix "TVS" for "Trade Vanguard Ship". This reflected the fleets primary purpose of an anti-piracy role.

With the breakout of the Farstars war, the UGTO ships had their prefixes renamed to "UWS" - United Worlds Ship. This was largely a response to the Farstars ship prefix of "CWS" - Colonial Worlds Ship (Some ships were also designated "CSS" - Colonial Systems Ship). The farstars were a more rag tag group then the ICC so their ships used whatever designation were they were produced from - CWS from the military shipards, CSS from the civilian, etc.

With the Farstars eventual defeat and swallowing up into what is now the ICC, the ICC decided that any old ships could still bear the "CWS" or "CSS" prefix, but any new ships produced would use the new ICC prefix - "ICS" for Intersteller Confederate Starship. This was to signify the new unity of the planets and their co-operation against the UGTO

The UGTO, meanwhile, still sees the ICC as rebel scum so this doesn't effect the UGTO ships at all, so they still use the "UWS" prefix.





Rob! I like the new AI ship names.

How abt letting players name their ships too? I think it'll be a worthy addition to the game. It'll be cosmetic yes, but it might rekindle player interest in the game again perhaps.

Players shd either be able to name their ships individually...

Or perhaps just choose a single ship name in their profile that'll apply to any ship they're flying. Let the name be unique within that faction if possible.

Is this feasible?


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


seyyah
Grand Admiral

Joined: April 01, 2010
Posts: 46
Posted: 2012-02-03 06:56   
maybe you should add another reference article for shipnames to documents like the ship operating and command chain one just for more deliciousness
Quote:

On 2012-02-02 22:56, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:

Rob! I like the new AI ship names.

How abt letting players name their ships too? I think it'll be a worthy addition to the game. It'll be cosmetic yes, but it might rekindle player interest in the game again perhaps.

Players shd either be able to name their ships individually...

Or perhaps just choose a single ship name in their profile that'll apply to any ship they're flying. Let the name be unique within that faction if possible.

Is this feasible?


and this would be nice
_________________

former Roukanken

-(kha-ti the silent watcher)-
Grand Admiral

Joined: September 12, 2011
Posts: 185
From: the land of silent watchers
Posted: 2012-02-03 10:47   
i would love to be able to name my own ships. it'll be a small thing that i'm sure everyone who plays would love. though the devs have enough to do so i highly doubt it will be anytime soon
but while i'm at it i do love the new ai names in beta its a nice touch i can't wait to see in the metaverse.
_________________


Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2012-02-06 11:44   
Quick thought on the targeted electronic warfare gadgets, since while they sound cool and I like them, I suspect they have a couple of fundamental flaws (which are making me think "oh crap, these may be useless")

The fundamental flaws are twofold, and are variants on the same basic issue.

Okay, targeted ECCM. The idea here, presumably, is to make hostile targets more visible so that you can shoot at them if they've got lots of ECM.

Problem there, however, is that you need to be able to target them in the first place, and if YOU can target them, so can all of your friends.

Once you get it pointed at them, of course, it works fine, so the moment that ECM scout gets close enough you can keep it painted until it runs away. Until it DOES become visible, however, your ECCMs are dead weight.

On the other side, targeted ECM.

The problem here is that- Wait, okay, for one, targeted ECM should inexplicably be used on your ALLIES, not your enemies, even though this runs against real-life ECM.

What I was GOING to say is that since enemies share sensor information, blinding one target isn't going to be very effective, but it turns out it actually works in a really weird manner.

I think e-war need a looking at in general, perhaps. More on that when I dig out my giant posts on e-war refactoring.


And yes, I do write my posts like a stream-of-consciousness exercise.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black


Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3821
From: LobsterTown
Posted: 2012-02-06 12:31   
Quote:

On 2012-02-06 11:44, Gejaheline wrote:
Quick thought on the targeted electronic warfare gadgets, since while they sound cool and I like them, I suspect they have a couple of fundamental flaws (which are making me think "oh crap, these may be useless")

The fundamental flaws are twofold, and are variants on the same basic issue.

Okay, targeted ECCM. The idea here, presumably, is to make hostile targets more visible so that you can shoot at them if they've got lots of ECM.

Problem there, however, is that you need to be able to target them in the first place, and if YOU can target them, so can all of your friends.

Once you get it pointed at them, of course, it works fine, so the moment that ECM scout gets close enough you can keep it painted until it runs away. Until it DOES become visible, however, your ECCMs are dead weight.

On the other side, targeted ECM.

The problem here is that- Wait, okay, for one, targeted ECM should inexplicably be used on your ALLIES, not your enemies, even though this runs against real-life ECM.

What I was GOING to say is that since enemies share sensor information, blinding one target isn't going to be very effective, but it turns out it actually works in a really weird manner.

I think e-war need a looking at in general, perhaps. More on that when I dig out my giant posts on e-war refactoring.


And yes, I do write my posts like a stream-of-consciousness exercise.




Targetted ECCM is useless against Kluth once they cloak. You can't target them anymore and will wish you brought along a Longwave instead. In that case, the use and existence of focused ECCM will become a moot point.


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


Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next Page )
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Page created in 0.042819 seconds.


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