| Author |
RE: ICC (QQ inside) |
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
|  Posted: 2010-06-04 13:05
ugto = op plz nerf
Right, done my part.
But no, seriously, this is meant to be a serious commentary and I'd like it if people wouldn't immediately think, "OH NO ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT ICC IS TOO WEAK" because honestly, no.
My idea is completely unrelated to the actual strengths of the ships, which given the design proposal do indeed excel at long-ranged combat and, in an ideal world where we maintain 1100gu distance from enemies, the ICC would be undefeatable.
But herein lies the problem, and it is this that I find to be a "bad design choice" with regards to the ICC. Bare with me as I try to explain why I think the design choice isn't optimal with the current game playerbase, and you may lambast me and call me stupid names if you disagree.
Right now, there are a few things people hate.
1) Missile Dreadnought spam.
2) Station spam.
3) Interdictors.
4) Planet hugging.
5) K'Luth Cloak.
6) Cat and Mice games.
Of these the first two are irrelevant but mentioned for completion sake and as I understand they will be "fixed" at an undetermined point in time.
The middle two and last one tie in closely with what I want to talk about, namely ICC's superiority at range being their shtick, as well as having shielding.
In DarkSpace, there are two ways to create distance between the enemy and you.
1) You fly away from the enemy.
2) You jump away from the enemy.
Both present their obvious disadvantages; the former suffers from your gunfire becoming less, and if they give chase you need moar engine buffs, while the latter presents the problem that, well...
To CLOSE distance, you either:
1) Fly at the enemy.
2) Jump to the enemy.
... and number 2 is a very handy tool to counter the create distance #2.
So, I hear you think, how is this all important? Wait for a moment here.
ICC, ideally, engage at range. As demonstrated by the above, both approaches to create distance aren't optimal. Cannons (and importantly, Core Weapons) don't fire backwards, or not all of them do. Missiles are said to be changed for 360 degree firing arcs, which is cools but they do not change much regarding the difficulty of maintaining distance for optimal cannon fire.
Changed missiles mean you can fly away and jump away every time the enemy tries to close distance, but this has obvious disadvantages. Namely, if there are two enemies, one can jump you directly after you jump to avoid the first enemy.
There are ways to counter that, supposing you are in deep space.
One is to pull an Interdictor, which is, surprisingly, not met with loud cheers of brilliant tactical insight and tends to debunk combat to be restricted to planetary assault. Which is, as aforementioned, not considered great due to "planet hugging" not being a favoured tactic.
The other is to spread your forces so the enemy won't know who to jump! This has the obvious disadvantage that if the enemy does jump one of two forces, that force is toast and you lose a portion of your attack fleet.
There are three ways to discourage enemies from closing the distance.
Interdictor, Assault Dreadnoughts/Line Stations and sitting at a planet. Each of these solutions makes the fight a long-range one where fighters and missiles are sent both ways, unless one group outnumbers the other in which case curbstomp happens.
Now then.
On to the crux of the matter here, being that ICC's optimal play involves strategies that people just plain don't like. We don't like people hugging planets unless we've got grand superiority, we don't like people pulling interdictors and we don't like sitting at a planet sending fighters and missiles at enemies.
All of these are the optimal combat situation for ICC, who default to their modus operandi indicating that more range = better and missiles = good. This, in turn, leads to behaviour where people will field their units best suited to dealing with such a threat, thus resulting in Stations. Thus resulting in supplies, and thus ending in QQ.
What I'm proposing is that the ICC be lifted of its "long-range" aspect and be pulled in line with the other factions, made possible for them to engage at closer-range as well.
This would solve the feeling that ICC is weak - they definitely aren't unless up close with the enemies, but generating range is, as I've mentioned, difficult, and players simply don't seem to be too fond of missile spamman and planet huggan.
Yeah idk I just wanted to get that off my chest. I'm not expecting any-/everyone to go "YEAH BARD YOU'RE SO RIGHT" and the development team donning their gentleman hats and going "brilliant post, A++, would read again", but you never know rite??
_________________
|
Coeus
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: March 22, 2006
Posts: 2815
From: Philly
| Posted: 2010-06-04 13:14
This.
It's why 99% of FA/GA/M/CM ICC players only field ADs ACs and LSes for combat - the occasional HC to screw around with, and an SS to repair friendlies.
All of those other ships ICC have are an utter frickin waste for MV combat, save supplies & engineers. Given EDs & Scouts when there are 'Luth about - but seeing as the very nature of Luth void any and all such chance of ICC fighting using this whole "Long Range" stigma we've been saddled with, I'd rather not even go into that side discussion.
End result: Back to my original point. AD, AC, LS - the only reasons to fly something else in combat is because you're A) ranking up to get to fly said ships, B) need to do some luth-pinging & beaconing, C) Screwing around & expect to die regardless.
Dictors notwithstanding, but Bardi already covered them nicely.
[ This Message was edited by: Coeus on 2010-06-04 13:15 ]
_________________
Do I really look like a guy with a plan?
'I'm gonna go crazy, and I'm taking you with me!'
ICC Security Council Chief Enforcer
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2010-06-04 14:14
Is there a way to change ICC to make them better able to maintain and utilize range, as that is a stated design preference for them?
some quick thoughts
- full arc weapons (downside being better close combat too)
- faster recharging jumpdrives (breaks with human tech, but that's just lore)
- better tracking on weapons, so you can fire broadsides better
- (even) better speeds/turning
- ???
- profit!
I think you have a decent point, but I just wonder if there aren't ways to address the issue in ways other than just ditching that aspect of ICC altogether.
_________________
* [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.\"
|
Okkam
Marshal
Joined: February 06, 2008
Posts: 157
From: Dorset
| Posted: 2010-06-04 14:16
Each race in the MV has its own set of completely useless ships. For instance most things lower than mandible (apart from the scarab) are practically pointless in a game where giants play in the sandbox (as a description of station warfare).
I understand and sympathise with ICC but I have somthing I wish to add to ICC.
There are 2 main types of missles, IT and AR. If I am not mistaken AR missles do less damage but are of critically shorter range. This means you can infact deal damage to things that are close range but not long range also (probably to prevent ICC being op).
It isn't as such that ICC are easy to take down because of their shielding being able to be assigned to each quadrant, however that doesn't help if you're in a station.
I disagree with ever giving ICC the same close range firepower as the other two races, it defies the entire ICC POV.
My suggestion to help bolster ICC and separate the forces of the MV without causing grief to the other factions with a ship buff:
- Create shield reinforcing supplies. I used to play ICC and I understand that to have shield technology means that their armour needs to be weak otherwise they would be practically invincible, however with that in mind it doesn't matter how many supplies you whack onto a ICC ship once the shields are down its gone.. fried... dead.. pushing up space daisies.
UGTO benefit from supplies because they repair armour and UGTO have a decent amount of armour, K'luth kinda benefit from supplies post battle because they are soo weak during battle that a destroyer can flash fry a supply ship and they give away the cloaked position of the K'luth fleet while repairing. (We have actually started to uncloak and FF our own AI supply ships as a result of that)
Change the ICC to have a form of shield transfering supply. I would suggest making it a energy transfering supply but that can be abused in alot of ways compared to a shield transfering supply. You can make one class or two and have it so its got minimal weaponry and decent defences, depending on the type of supply, like other races' supplies.
I defy anyone to point out that having a shield transfering supply ship is a bad idea.
_________________
When the universe collapses and dies there will be 3 survivors; Tyr Anasazi, the cockroaches and Dylan Hunt trying to save the cockroaches...
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2010-06-04 14:27
Quote:
|
On 2010-06-04 14:14, Shigernafy wrote:
Is there a way to change ICC to make them better able to maintain and utilize range, as that is a stated design preference for them?
|
|
One idea I can think of right away is Increase Rail and Gauss projectile speeds, that would go a long way to making it easier to fight at range. As it is now they're too slow to hit anything besides a Station at max range and even trying to hit a Cruiser from more than 500 GU away is usually an exercise in futility if it's trying to dodge at all.
[ This Message was edited by: Talien on 2010-06-04 14:28 ]
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Novacat
Grand Admiral
Joined: October 30, 2001
Posts: 2337
From: Starleague Cache
| Posted: 2010-06-04 14:34
Quote:
|
- faster recharging jumpdrives (breaks with human tech, but that's just lore)
|
|
Well, ICC are quite advanced, considering that they have shields, pulse beams, pulse waves, Ion Cannons, and such. Developing a better jumpdrive would probably not be too farfetched.
Quote:
|
- (even) better speeds/turning
|
|
ICC ships have the same speed as other factions, and only marginally higher accelleration/turning rates (Roughly 5%-10% better).
_________________
Ghostly Specter of an Ancient Past.
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2010-06-04 14:36
@SilentHunter13: It is not the point that AR missiles do close-range; it is that at distances exceeding 400gu, the rail gun has superiority over the particle cannon.
However, it is not easy to maintain a distance from the enemies, as your broadsides and front-side firing does nothing to generate fast distance whereas UGTO can fly head at you and, thus, null any worries over whether they are firing at you optimally or not. They turn their best firing arc towards you and go full speed. ICC can do nothing but take it like champs and engage in exceedingly closer-ranged combat until they lose the range superiority, or flee and reduce weapon output, thereby losing range superiority by virtue of "firing three guns does not killer make".
ICC shields are fine although I'd like it if they were more resilient but hey the devs disagree so going over that point again is trite and boring and I honestly want the developers to consider the ICC point of view rather than going "ICC is fine, railguns are OP and if anything ICC MD and SS need nerfs". Because on paper it looks great, but connecting theory to reality shows that that railgun = OP statement doesn't work given the ease at which range is closed.
No, going "lol LEARN 2 PLAY URE FACTION" doesn't work because it boils down to "ICC is the only faction that needs to work hard at maintaining range superiority" - other factions just need to concentrate on getting in range and firing, and the closer the better in a game where closing distance is easier than creating/maintaining it.
It doesn't help that UGTO counter-parts have more guns, thereby ensuring that long-range or short-range, ICC never does more damage because they simply don't have as many guns to offset the difference.
@Shigernafy:
Quote:
| - full arc weapons (downside being better close combat too) |
|
I don't think that really fits with how DS has made most its ships, and honestly it'd feel very weird to me to have a ship that has no weak spot. It'd make ICC perhaps a little too good, as superiority on all arcs allows them... unique strategies.
Quote:
| - faster recharging jumpdrives (breaks with human tech, but that's just lore)
- better tracking on weapons, so you can fire broadsides better
- (even) better speeds/turning |
|
The first point would... change ICC, to be sure. It'd improve the situation, but only insofar that ICC pilots are adept at plotting jump courses close enough to the battle for weapon efficiency to kick in, yet not too close to allow UGTO/K'Luth quick distance-covering. It wouldn't be ideal, to speed up their jump drives, but it'd be interesting and lore-wise i am sure one of the two factions can cook up a new JD compatible with lighter ships.
Weapon tracking would obviously allow them to engage at range better, but it doesn't solve issues with creating distance as broadsiding still leaves distance between motionless target and you fairly constant, whereas few players will sit there and take it like champs without moving.
... No, not even Stations, but we're not talking about fighting Stations.
How would you improve speed, idly? It'd be interesting to see a faction that's actually different from the others in more than defence/weapons as it is now, but any change in speed is still paired with the weapons not being suited to rear-side firing, and the differences in speed being a tough cookie to crack with regards to "is going 2.0gu faster really important?", for example - going 2gu/sec means you need 10 seconds to create a 20gu distance... whereas noticable effects are every 50gu? That means you'd need 25 seconds and, yeah, not really ideal either.
Is there a specific reason ICC must be a long-range faction? It was advertised as the defensive long-range faction, but it does neither of those two well or without making other players do things they dislike such as planet hugging, dictoring etc. Is it really important to fit them to a mould that isn't optimal given the current gameplay?
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2010-06-04 14:59
Put simply:
In a world of jump drives, "Long range faction" just does not cut it.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Xydes
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 07, 2009
Posts: 276
From: England
| Posted: 2010-06-04 15:05
YEAH BARD YOU'RE SO RIGHT
Brilliant post, A+++.
This indeed is true. I have flown many factions. And ICC is totally rubbish at close range combat. I mean if you don't like ICC planet hugging... what do you expect them to do. Go Deep Space and WAIT for you to shoot them?
They are not a close range faction. They are Long Range Tanks. Who need a little more hitpoints when it comes to close range.
-Pol
_________________
|
Sputter{TB}
Grand Admiral
Interstellar Cultural Confederation United
Joined: September 22, 2004
Posts: 109
From: Pennsylvania
| Posted: 2010-06-04 15:37
A point i'd like to know is if where are the superior long range faction why do our guns only shoot a little bit farther than others
- Particle Cannon: 925gu
- Quantum Singularity Torpedo: 1050gu
- Railgun: 1225gu
- Ion Cannon: 1290gu
as you can see we don't have much range over them which can't be easily canceled out by a point jump in which we lose
_________________
Ph33r the Ruptors!
|
Starcommander
Marshal
Joined: December 14, 2005
Posts: 579
From: In your base, stealing your cookies
| Posted: 2010-06-04 16:24
Quote:
|
On 2010-06-04 14:14, Shigernafy wrote:
Is there a way to change ICC to make them better able to maintain and utilize range, as that is a stated design preference for them?
some quick thoughts
- full arc weapons (downside being better close combat too)
- faster recharging jumpdrives (breaks with human tech, but that's just lore)
- better tracking on weapons, so you can fire broadsides better
- (even) better speeds/turning
- ???
- profit!
|
|
Fill arc weps would be nice, but as bard said, a little too good. Would give every ICC ship the same thing that stations have, no weak points.
Faster JD? ICC would be able to do something to there drives to do that, after all there humans. Kluth don't know how to make half of there tech they even have (like AMJ's and AM torps), so it would stand to reason that the humans would eventually make something better. Back before the range nerf this idea would of been perfect for ICC to keep its range, because a 250gu difference in ranges is nothing if the enemy is flying straight at you. ICC weps were perfect for long range and during the range nerf, ICC was that one that shouldn't of gotten it. Reducing ranges was to cut down on "lag" and CPU time but it hasn't made a single difference at all. Missiles are the one thing that cause the most lag for anyone, not particles flying around. Reinstate the old ranges (except for Kluth there range is fine as is) and allow ICC to have there long range guns again, then add a faster JD for them.
Better Tracking on weps. This would co-inside with the old ranges again, ICC weps should have a fast travel speed so they can hit at those long ranges.
As someone already said, our top speed is the same as everyone elses. Kluth can go one faster but they rarely use that drive. I would like to see one or the other show up, as in either ICC gets faster JD OR faster Sub Light.
If ICC could keep its long range then you would see less, AD and AC and more of our long range ships like the CD and MD as well as the HC would become more popular then it already is.
_________________
WH 40k armies, Grey Knights, Dark Angles, Imperial Guard (Vostroyan First Born) and Orks.
There is a thin line between knowing when to give up and when to try harder.
|
Lark of Serenity
Grand Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: June 02, 2002
Posts: 2516
| Posted: 2010-06-04 18:23
i dont think we want full arc weapons. it was certainly nice on the AC, because we COULD run away and shoot at the same time, but other than that it doesnt really help the range issue.
our smaller missiles do not hit more frequently than the big ones: ARs miss just as much as ITs, and in fact all of our missile ships have a mix of both, as proof that the two together are not OP. it just means running headlong into an MD in your dread will probably result in a bit extra damage before the MD explodes.
one idea would be a device that created range? like, pushed enemy ships away kind of deal?
_________________
Admiral Larky, The Wolf
Don't play with fire, play with Larky.
Raven Division Command - 1st Division
|
Lunatiq
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 30, 2002
Posts: 292
From: Phoenix, AZ
| Posted: 2010-06-04 18:36
How about increase the effectiveness of ICC dictors? Like to a range of 1500 GU to provide the extra 'cushion' of distance around ICC planets, allowing one or two more missile volleys before we have to bug out (which if we are rushed by a large enough force we inevitably have to do.)
Or give the ICC dictor platforms with a 500 gu range, which could be placed strategically in order to create said buffer. Something along Lark's idea of repelling enemy ships, but not actively, just defensively.
Anyway, my 2 cents. I like increasing the speed of gauss and cannons as well, but shooting spit-wads at UGTO armor and invisible K'luth, speed isn't everything.
_________________
Admbito - "I can't jump..."
Lunatiq - "You must be white..."
|
Reznor
Marshal
Joined: March 29, 2010
Posts: 316
| Posted: 2010-06-04 18:41
Repulsion field scout!
ECM up to the 6 stations at a planet, hit the repulsor field button, and watch them explode in fire death  .
_________________
Indictor: 1. To accuse of wrongdoing
Interdictor: (DS) A planetary emplacement or Cruiser Class vessel capable of preventing FTL travel in a certain radius.
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2010-06-04 18:42
Bigger dictor is not a good idea for me, as BArd wish to remove logn range, wich i dotn think its a bad idea, and bigger dictor encourage MD spam and Planet hugging, wich is what bard is trying to avoid, and i agree with him
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
