| Author |
Darkspace Balance |
jedi42
Grand Admiral
Evil Empires Inc.
Joined: February 25, 2002
Posts: 478
From: jedi42
|  Posted: 2009-09-29 01:39
Faustus, (and all the other volunteers, mods and devs) I want you to know, I love ya man. Brilliant game. I still remember 6 years ago or so testing faction balance ship vs ship with you, one time.
Anyway … here’s my post.
If checkers or chess had an unknown amount of players across a varying sized board (which changed over times due to complaints or updates), you’d have a game that made no sense.
The game parameters must be locked down.
There was this hockey game on NES I believe simply called “ice hockey”. You had the skinny fast guys, your medium all around guys, and your fat but powerful guys.
In a three faction game, that’s what you should be looking towards. Two factions with great imbalance for attack or defense. Or Defense and Cloak. Or whatever, and one medium faction.
What is lost is in the last 4 years or so is the simplicity of shields vs armor vs cloak.
Planets should emulate “flags” in capture the flag games. That was the heart of old DS. Get those flag planets, turn the tide, and win.
It was a game about taking squares in checkers or chess, and knocking pieces off the board. Now it seems to have lost its focus. It's more based on upgrades and mods and all the other stuff the people that originally loved the game despised.
The beauty of old Darkspace was what came from the Scenario server, in my opinion.
Fight, play, ally, lead, destroy, build, for a common objective over 2 or 3 hours. Rinse and repeat.
Trying to create an MMORPG with 20 people properly active/playing doesn't make sense.
Trop Cruiser vs AC should be awesome fight, head to head.
Cruisers should comprise 70%+ of all fights, with the other 30% being dread or dessy and smaller.
Kluth destroyer vs human cruiser should be awesome fight, head to head.
Uncloaked K'luth should be punished with swift death if they don't jump and regen after hitting to weaken shields or armor.
UGTO should pay the price by long armor rebuild times.
ICC should have weak offense but rapid shield times.
K'luth should have strong attack, but no shields and weak armor.
UGTO should have big powerful attack dreads.
ICC should have big powerful carriers.
K'luth should have a mishmash of dreads with energy draining attack Dreads and builders.
K'luth should die if they stay to fight 1 on 1 dread vs dread.
ICC should be even with UGTO in dread vs dread.
Planets should be CRITICAL, requiring other classes to play.
Supplies should make a fortune, so should scouts.
Engineers should be rewarded for building, immensely.
Bombing should be a low prestige act.
Human dessies should be unable to take out any Dread or cruiser.
Human Dread should be very powerful but slow, able to dessimate K'luth if they are tactical.
Stations should be epically powerful, but stuck with 5 gu / sec and 10 minute jump time.
NO DICTORS. They discourage fighting and make people sit bored. 200 people playing? fine, have dictors. 6 people playing NO WAY.
Lower the prestige fee for getting blown up by 50%.
etc. etc.
Anyway, I will always enjoy and love Darkspace, I just don't have the time to play a whole lot. Didn't mean to rant, but maybe it will engender change. If not, no problem, but I absolutely hate to see the game struggle while it is free.
-dj42
/All hail Faustus.
//As I side note, I tried to invite 5 people I'm playing with on other games to join. They all asked me how many people played, etc. I can't help but to say it's a close knit game of great people, but the activity is slow and you have to *want* to play for it to work. Returning power to smaller ships would revive the game without a stat wipe (which would be unthinkable). Cruiser is an achievable goal, and if it's the most used ship in the game, people have something to shoot for that is actually accessible in a reasonable amount of time. Hell, lower requirements for cruisers and make them the big ship in the game... get people able to play.
///If you ask new players to play constantly for a year to barely compete with the 20 vets that play all the time (which is what they realize quickly), you're not going to get anyone to stay...
////Where's the forum ad campaigns on the free MMORPG boards like Evony and elsewhere we need to get members? Someone should head this up while the game is free for a couple weeks. Using talk like a pirate day is great, but... let's make a real reason??
[ This Message was edited by: dj42 {C?} on 2009-09-29 02:19 ]
_________________
jedi42, darkjedi42, [drunk], hoid o' toitles, evil, rum, cl2k drainer, gdi, {C?}, hive teets, fusion mating, perfect cloud formation, death star, point jump, tractor scout, torp det, def cluster, cloaked elf
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2009-09-29 06:06
Just a few parts to hate/love on.
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-29 01:39, dj42 {C?} wrote:
The beauty of old Darkspace was what came from the Scenario server, in my opinion.
|
|
If scenarios were improved upon, we really wouldn't have to worry about the MV. But I have to agree. Scenarios done right, it'd probably be better than the MV.
It is one of the many ways to 'fix the game' which is now the catch all term.
Such as.. scenarios force teamwork so people work together. [Teamwork go.]
Planets are important because there are far fewer of them. [Goal orientation go.]
Resources are scarce, removing Dreadnought fleets. [Balance fixed.]
Smaller ships are more common, giving newer players a chance and a role. [New player frustration fixed.]
And then you...
Get rid of the MV. Use all those servers for different storylines. Every map has objectives, which lead to different stories and maps depending on who wins.
Have different stories include different AI scripted events [making AI fun and useful] and different rank limits [allowing newer/older players to take on challenges in the same enviroment]
You get rid of the time limits definitely. Keep garages, which means ships go from server to server, map to map. But make them cost resources. [Keeps this for some reason important part of the game for some people there.]
And there you go. Everyone wins. Except people who like pointless sandbox filled universes. But nobody cares about them.
Quote:
|
Fight, play, ally, lead, destroy, build, for a common objective over 2 or 3 hours. Rinse and repeat.
|
|
I hate that part.
Quote:
|
<-long list of specific changes->
|
|
Scenarios aside..
Well theres only one real way to change ships in my opinion, to make them balanced.
And its pretty straightforward. First is just getting rid of gadget levels. (they are there, just hidden now). I think it hurts alot more than helps. But thats just an opinion.
Then you pretty much have to redo the gadgets, yes. And this opportunity allows you to fix some other irritating aspects.
You can now get rid of the ever popular so-many-damn-gadgets. I think it would be really reasonable to going back to having less than 30 gadgets on a single ship, right?
So without levels, you pretty much have revert to having alot of different kinds of gadgets. Which, just guessing, might be why we have the level system in the first place.
But with individual gadgets, its alot easier to fine tune ships.
So you reduce armor by alot. You go back to having Organic/Light/Standard/Heavy. You reduce weapon counts by alot, you make different variants of existing guns. And so on.
And then if we actually get that far, we can get into the details in my head. But that would take up half a page.
But essentially you just say, lets not make any ship better against any other than itself. So Dreads are best against dreads, cruisers against cruisers, etc. Nobody gets left out, and nobody gets to play king (or queen for those ladies out there).
It just means that people with higher ranks get to have more options available to them (a Dreadnought is harder to counter altogether than a scout). And perhaps more roles (better fighter support/bombing, etc.).
So thats my vision. Alot, alot of work to make work but I think personally, its a better and more interesting way to balance the game.
Yay, I'm trying to take over another topic.
-Ent
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2009-09-29 06:13
Even after the MV began, the idea of "winning" was still alive. Capture the MV, force a reset. Gave everyone 2 things: 1. the knowledge that the game was heading somewhere. 2. Incentive.
Now? Well, we don't reset the servers after full capture. In fact, you CAN'T capture a server anymore. So now when K'Luth, for example, goes out and captures a system or two, we are called names like cheaters, fun killers, and asked if we are trying to kill off the game.
Uh. No. We are trying to WIN it. But because the server resets are no more, that sense is totally lost on most of the players now.
Now it's a "we are losing so now we cry" game most of the time. Not a pick yourselves up and turn the tide game as it was.
MV would have more meaning if there was a reward for capturing the whole shabang.
Without that kind of rewarding, IMHO I don't really see the point in even having bombers. All it does then is drive the weakest links from the game. Why capture planets at all? There isn't a monetary incentive, a bonus to play incentive, a resource incentive, an enhancement incentive...no incentive at all, other than to milk one area of prestige over another.
[ This Message was edited by: Azreal on 2009-09-29 06:16 ]
_________________
bucket link
|
Guyton (Angel of Death)
Marshal
Joined: January 25, 2004
Posts: 706
| Posted: 2009-09-29 07:53
When I started playing five years ago it was the scenarios not the metaverse that caught my attention. The one time I however did turn an eye to the metaverse was when I finally hit the rank of Vice Admiral. Then it was all about "ooo...new dread can't play it here I need some where else to play it...hmm...metaverse?" I got sick of the metaverse after a few days of playing in it. Even in the current metaverse its more about "hold your ground" than actually capturing planets.
Btw: I don't see scenarios and platforms working unless they are already in place in a "home system".
[ This Message was edited by: Guyton(Angel of Death) on 2009-09-29 08:08 ]
_________________
Yes, its scifi lore : https://www.youtube.com/@BlackstarLore
|
Sops
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 07, 2004
Posts: 490
| Posted: 2009-09-29 11:05
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-29 06:06, Enterprise wrote:
Get rid of the MV. Use all those servers for different storylines. Every map has objectives, which lead to different stories and maps depending on who wins.
Have different stories include different AI scripted events [making AI fun and useful] and different rank limits [allowing newer/older players to take on challenges in the same enviroment]
You get rid of the time limits definitely. Keep garages, which means ships go from server to server, map to map. But make them cost resources. [Keeps this for some reason important part of the game for some people there.]
And there you go. Everyone wins. Except people who like pointless sandbox filled universes. But nobody cares about them.
|
|
I think there is a reason why most successful MMOs have persistent universes, it is fun to work to a goal in the game and knowing it may still be their the next day. I do agree that there are some major problems with the current MV but I do not think the idea should be scrapped.
How many round based games are their that you have to pay for monthly? Probably not many.
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2009-09-29 14:10
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-29 11:05, Sops wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-29 06:06, Enterprise wrote:
Get rid of the MV. Use all those servers for different storylines. Every map has objectives, which lead to different stories and maps depending on who wins.
Have different stories include different AI scripted events [making AI fun and useful] and different rank limits [allowing newer/older players to take on challenges in the same enviroment]
You get rid of the time limits definitely. Keep garages, which means ships go from server to server, map to map. But make them cost resources. [Keeps this for some reason important part of the game for some people there.]
And there you go. Everyone wins. Except people who like pointless sandbox filled universes. But nobody cares about them.
|
|
I think there is a reason why most successful MMOs have persistent universes, it is fun to work to a goal in the game and knowing it may still be their the next day. I do agree that there are some major problems with the current MV but I do not think the idea should be scrapped.
How many round based games are their that you have to pay for monthly? Probably not many.
|
|
Round based games tend to be less successful because they are repetitive. Of course, with the idea above, that pretty much nixes that.
And ontop of that fixes alot of the more annoying issues that are hurting DS today.
And pretty much, such an idea as above is persistent, simply in a unique way. Its not as if we have our own secret starbases that we can build and customize.
Which is really why to me, its such a genius idea. Its like playing the MV one system at a time.
There are people who say, well that eliminates alot of freedom and well, yeah it does. It pretty much forces you to fight the enemy over something, it pretty much forces you to work together to fight your way, planet by planet, system by system, where every planet counts and losing one can be disasterous. Working towards a common goal, and allowing the playerbase to more deeply be immersed in a more personal, Darkspace universe that isn't just about a big MV, its about every small planet.
Oh hey, that sounds terrible. Or does it?
-Ent
[ This Message was edited by: Enterprise on 2009-09-29 14:27 ]
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2009-09-29 15:36
I agree with everything Enterprise said. Scenarios are a very different type of gameplay than the MV, but to a lot of us who were around when scenarios were king, they were more fun.
I don't think scenarios with shipyards are very fun though. I also cannot picture scenarios with the basic resource system we have now (no urdanium, no hypermatter etc). But balance is there, automatically. You can change factions each map, so it never really gets stale (that might not be true for people in fleets, I don't know as I purposely stay fleetless). Lower ranked ships are useful and valuable, meaning newer players aren't overwhelmed by Dreadspace.
The greatest thing: Everyone is crammed into that one map. You won't have 6 people in Sag, some hunting the MI and some hunting pirates and never seeing each other, 5 in Rogens, a few in Procyon, etc. Everyone is in the same map, fighting for the same planets. Action is guaranteed, even with very few players.
Old scenario games got pretty intense, with lots of people all trying to capture the same few planets with the rare resources, tranny rushing, constantly bombing, trying to engineer real fast before the next bomber showed up, grabbing a new transport and shuttling those two infantry to a nearby planet, getting a new transport, shuttling two more etc. until you had 10 to capture a planet (who remembers that huh?).
I'm telling you, if that old game play returned I'd be back in a heartbeat. I just have little interest in a persistent server, in a game that has no PvE whatsoever. That's like a persistent Battlefield 2 server, what's the point?
I also agree with getting rid of gadget levels, and the sheer amount of them. There's no reason for all those gadgets, and it makes the Repair screen useless. You used to be able to actually choose which systems you wanted repaired first, because you didn't have 30+ icons to look through.
There's also no reason for a dread's gadgets to be both more numerous and more effective. The fact that they have more than smaller ships should be enough. That's how it used to be. Yeah, dreads weren't the uber powerhouses they are now but I didn't hear anyone complaining. Cruiser/destroyer battles were more fun anyway, even before ship modding.
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2009-09-29 15:41 ]
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2009-09-29 16:02
I too also agree to those 2
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Dionysian *EP5* (Angel of Destruction)
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: November 21, 2003
Posts: 135
| Posted: 2009-09-29 18:33
IMHO there are a 3 basic problems in DS - Given that i've only played for about 2 days in the last 2 months some of these may have been fixed in which case fine - but initial impressions are that they are not. So in no particular order.
1) Is the game fun to play?
For many players - no. DS should be about combat and all the associated activities - supping etc. For various reasons there is little combat so little fun.
Some may like building for hour - bombing planets but why pay $10 pm for that. Buy a game on DVD and play for ever.
2) Is the game easy to play?
Once you get in yes, but there have always been issues. I was always able to get in and play - then had an update - 1.517 i think and i culdn;t get in without the client window opening then shutting immediately. with this version i can get in. My PC didn;t change - but it's down to me to fix it - if i can't i can't play. Having played for years i know that it's probably worth coming back to later - noobs won't.
3) Is the game reliable?
getting better i think but still some lag issues / desync issues - I know it's a long term gripe that affects different people differently and may be down to factors beyond darkspaces control - but the game needs to accept that for many players / potential players it is an issue as it affects CAN they play the game. IF they can't they will leave - end of.
It may not always be DS fault but what can DS do to fix - Better servers, bandwidth obviously cost money but game has been tweaked to lose the fighters / missiles that lagged out 483 - why not scrap all planetary mssiles and go for core weapons - or bigger missiles - more damage -slower fire rate. Lose some objects in MV - asteroids etc .
If this game is to be succesful a noob needs to be able to click download and get a fully working game installed with minimum knowledge. They then need tpo be able to get in quickly
When they get in it needs to be clear what they need to do. Manual is great but doesn't suit everyone - people learn in different ways. Also need better in game help - either via players or in the game.
Then there needs to be plenty going on. I think there are a number of ways to do this.
1) Get more ships in a confined space by reducing the size of each server. This coule be reviwed - maybe a new map each month - or add another server if the pop gets too large - e.g. NEW WORMHOLE DISCOVERED - 5 NEW SYSTEMS TO EXPLORE
2) Incentivise players to join less played sides - e.g. get a pres bonus if you play as a side with fewer players. e.g. 1/2 the press loss - double the press gain if you outnumbered 3 - 1 etc
3) Better intel to guide you to enemy ships - maybe even just to the system they are in - gates could do it. or AI scouts actually go to real ships if they hang around too long
4) reduce the proportion of time spent repairing after battles compared to fighting battles to keep it fast paced. Long pauses make the enemy log off. So maybe repair all ships in garages when server resets. Come back with 50% hull when you die - not 5%. reduce weapon damage - increase armour & drone speed.
5) if no people are on - give the AI ships more of a role - e.g. convoys of transports escorted by warships - at least you could fight them. Make the AI fleet up more rather than just wonder round on their own.
Unfortunately the development time seems to being spent on what the developers want to do and not on what the players want / need. SO they add nice touches that don't tackle the real issues - I would suggest that the devs look up the Kano model of customer satisfaction to see what i mean. As they're volunteers i'm not going to blame them for this but it will end up in a shrunk player base if the basics aren't fixed.
Give us an easily accessible game - reliable game engine - and plenty of action when we get in and we'll pay and play. Make it hard, unreliable or boring and we won't.
_________________
|
$yTHe {C?}
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: September 29, 2002
Posts: 1292
From: Arlington, VA
| Posted: 2009-09-29 19:31
posting in an Azreal is an elite pvper thread
_________________
|
Sops
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 07, 2004
Posts: 490
| Posted: 2009-09-29 23:07
Some of you sound like you mostly advocate scenarios because you want a smaller server that forces players into more combat. But there is no reason why the MV can not be redesigned to reach the same goal.
An easy fix would be to drop all the extra servers. Right now people only fight in Sagittarius the other servers are normally empty.
A simple map redesign, give each faction a home system with one in the middle to fight over.
If you want to keep a bigger map the developers could come up with a moving front system that will limit which planets a team can capture based on which they currently hold, forcing all the action to a smaller area.
Make it harder to cap a planet when there are no defenders. I know that idea sounds stupid but here is my reason. Someone else said they like to go on to the server and capture all the planets, to win the game like the good old times. There is a big difference between then and now, however. Back then you actually had to fight to capture the server and it was never an easy thing to do. Now the UGTO and K'Luth go back and forth every day capturing R33, Luyten and a hand full of planets in each others systems. It is like the factions time it just right so one signs on just when the other is leaving. Then it is no contest, one side has all the players and they go over and capture everything. No challenge, just boring. What are you winning in that?
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2009-09-30 00:15
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-29 23:07, Sops wrote:
A simple map redesign, give each faction a home system with one in the middle to fight over.
|
|
Because just four systems to play through might get pretty boring very quickly. And still doesn't as effectively push people together. Still no goal. still no direction. Still just picking a spot and fighting over it for the hell of it.
Quote:
|
If you want to keep a bigger map the developers could come up with a moving front system that will limit which planets a team can capture based on which they currently hold, forcing all the action to a smaller area.
|
|
Already been suggested and rejected, because god forbid we put any kind of structure or direction in the game. But I have advocated this in the past.
-Ent
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2009-09-30 06:21
I didn't realize it was rejected, Enterprise. It just hasn't happened due to scarce resources and time constraints. I think it was generally a well-received idea.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Coombie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Playing DarkSpace.
Joined: October 04, 2001
Posts: 149
From: Australia
| Posted: 2009-09-30 07:00
All the people posting in this thread clearly care about the game and want it to thrive. the powers that be need to start listerning.
Lets look back in time and see what made ds popular in the first place, it wasnt the mv thats for sure even in the hay day of ds the scenario server had 50+ players in it and the mv had aboiut 15-20, if i had to pick the 1 thing that began the down fall of ds i would say it was the invention of shipyards, great for the mv, but killing scenario thus the majority of players.
I believe if scenario was returned to the old system, pre shipyard, we would see player numbers increase
I still think the mv should stay but it needs to be winnable as others have stated it is pointless atm, and the faction ai ruin any decent battles that do hapen there, remove factrion ai increase mi/pirates/whatever but leave the playing to the players not retarded bots.
_________________
|
Darksworde
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: September 06, 2002
Posts: 806
From: The Zoo
| Posted: 2009-09-30 12:41
Have to agree with Coombie. Scenario was always by far the most popular "version" of darkspace. Bring it back in its classic form, as per 1.479
I certainly don't have four or five hours to spare a day. However, a short 30 minute blast in Scenario would be most appealing. Instant combat, fair sides!!!!
_________________
Live by the sworde, die by the sworde
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
