Author |
Ranks? |
Koba Chief Marshal Praetorian Wolves
Joined: April 20, 2010 Posts: 309 From: United States of America
| Posted: 2011-03-02 11:10  
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-02 10:18, James 296 wrote:
[ This Message was edited by: James 296 on 2011-03-02 10:33 ]
|
| derp de' der to tedily tump te' ter
_________________
|
DiepLuc Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010 Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-03-02 13:45  
Guys, I think we should stop at describing the facts and tell the opinions. We don't need to argue. Because whatever you say, you can't do anything to change the game. Only development team can. And they also have their discussions during meeting. Let them decide.
Besides, I suggest we should follow self's prejudice. You want more cruisers and destroyers; fly them yourself. You want to do something reckless with dread and station; fine, feel free to do so. Whatsoever, you can't play others' game. Just enjoy your time in Darkspace.
I know folks give comments because they love the game, as much as I do. But we should not put the topic to the limit of the nerve by personal attack.
_________________
|
Lrd_Hunter Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2006 Posts: 245
| Posted: 2011-03-02 16:19  
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-02 13:45, chlorophyll wrote:
Guys, I think we should stop at describing the facts and tell the opinions. We don't need to argue. Because whatever you say, you can't do anything to change the game. Only development team can. And they also have their discussions during meeting. Let them decide.
Besides, I suggest we should follow self's prejudice. You want more cruisers and destroyers; fly them yourself. You want to do something reckless with dread and station; fine, feel free to do so. Whatsoever, you can't play others' game. Just enjoy your time in Darkspace.
I know folks give comments because they love the game, as much as I do. But we should not put the topic to the limit of the nerve by personal attack.
|
|
i agree and we should enjoy the game who know how much longer it going to be around.
_________________
|
Silent Threat { Vier } Marshal Anarchy's End
Joined: August 03, 2004 Posts: 278 From: Waiting...watching...
| Posted: 2011-03-02 17:20  
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-01 05:59, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
So you prefer a riskless game that just allows you to throw things away with reckless abandon? Is that fun? Even in many MMORPGs, having your main character die will result in significant penalties, like losing special items, experience or even levels. In EVE, when you die in a ship, you lose that ship.... forever. Is DS meant to be an 'easy mode' game? Something simple for the kiddies?
Ultimately, the Devs will have to decide what DS is.
Is it just an arcade shooter where everyone gets into a big ship, mashes the spacebar, fight/kill then dies happy without any risk. Therefore strategy goes out the window? Or do they want some semblence of tactics and strategy, which incorporates risks to both team and player?
I hope to play something that rewards for successes and punishes for mistakes.
|
|
He makes some good points. I for one want the need for tactics and strategy. I want a game where teamwork and working with your other faction members is important. I totally agree that to lose a ship should be a much bigger deal (though care must be taken not to go too far the other way where people will log after one death).
What about a timer that stops you from pulling out a destroyed ship right away? Maybe 15 minutes. If you have 3 combat ships in your garage, noone should go through all 3 of them in 15 minutes unless you are playing stupid or doing suicide runs. Was thinking of a message that says something like: Ship suffered extensive damage, cannot leave the dock yet. (this was just a quick idea, i didn't take time to think through all the pros and cons of it)
Hmm i suppose it's pretty bad if we have to think of ways to force people to play smarter...
_________________
|
Gejaheline Fleet Admiral Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005 Posts: 1127 From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-03-02 17:47  
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-28 22:47, chlorophyll wrote:
When you kill a ship, you gain A prestige. When you are destoyed, you lose B prestige. Here both of him and you use the same class so A = B. You get positive prestige thanks to combat and jumping. Your prestige is negative if:
1/ You had captured him.
2/ He had SDed.
Raise prestige loss per death = Raise prestige gain per kill. You don't get true reward, it's actually an prestige transfer from player to player.
|
|
No.
By that logic, approximately 50% of the game's population should have negative scores, accounting for activities such as building and bombing.
Ships damaged and resources lost are not equivalent.
You gain prestige from combat by causing damage to enemy ships, I.E. by removing hitpoints by way of weapon fire. Thus, prestige gain is determined by your weight of guns and how many hitpoints the target has.
You lose prestige from combat by dying. Loss from this is calculated, essentially, from the resources value of your ship as Shig said, not by the amount of health that a ship has.
Thus, A does not equal B, and dying does not cause you to lose the same amount of prestige as you would gain from reducing an identical ship to zero hitpoints.
In addition, this assumes that the ships in question are at full health. A ship that has 5% hull left will yield 5% of its potential prestige value to its killer, while the dying ship will cause full prestige loss regardless of its total hitpoints at death (which sounds silly, but one must bear in mind that a ship can die whilst having armour or shields remaining, which themselves yield prestige for damaging them).
In my opinion, prestige loss from death should be pumped up across the board and prestige from hull damage should be downward adjusted to account for the fact that recently ships have been acquiring ever-more guns and hitpoints, which has been pushing up the potential prestige gain from a single kill (or a single volley, for that matter). I should emphasise that that's my own personal opinion, and not necessarily the views of other staff or the developers.
_________________ [Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
Talien Marshal Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010 Posts: 2044 From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-03-02 19:43  
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-01 02:50, Shigernafy wrote:
Hulls and gadgets all have a value variable which, when added up as a ship and multiplied by a factor based on your rank, determines the number of resources lost added to your profile, which is then factored again to give you a prestige hit. So changing the prestige hit from death could be done in a few ways:
- Raising the hit a given point of resources lost gives you in prestige. This would mean every death would be more painful (except for midshipmen, whose rank factor is 0 and thus don't gain resources lost).
- Raising the rank factor that determines resources lost from value points. An FA losing a cruiser and a Captain losing a cruiser already take a different hit in res lost; this would make the hit for that fictional FA relatively more painful. That is, the higher ranking players would be penalized more heavily for losing any ship than they are now.
- Raising the value variable on hulls. This would make a given class of ships more costly to lose for everyone.
This post is just to provide a little information on how things work so you can appropriately tailor your feedback (and realize that "3200 for a station" isn't per se possible -- you didn't specify which station [since gadgets affect the value and thus the cost] or who's piloting it [since their rank affects the resources lost]. Though that said, the numbers don't really vary that much that we couldn't ballpark around a given number for a given ship class). I don't have a position... not publicly anyway.
|
|
Raising the hull value seems like it would be the best way to go since the issue is that too many people are using Dreads/Stations like they're disposable/expendable, being able to come out with a net prestige gain after jumping into the midst of an enemy fleet then dying within 30 seconds is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is gaining pres from SDing in a platform cluster.
_________________ Adapt or die.
|
Kenny_Naboo Marshal Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010 Posts: 3823 From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-03-02 23:23  
Quote:
|
On 2011-03-02 17:47, Gejaheline wrote:
In my opinion, prestige loss from death should be pumped up across the board and prestige from hull damage should be downward adjusted to account for the fact that recently ships have been acquiring ever-more guns and hitpoints, which has been pushing up the potential prestige gain from a single kill (or a single volley, for that matter). I should emphasise that that's my own personal opinion, and not necessarily the views of other staff or the developers.
|
|
+1
_________________ ... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
DiepLuc Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010 Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-03-04 08:02  
A question suddenly comes to me.
I comprehend one factor of the prestige loss is rank, higher rank bigger loss. Is rank also one factor of prestige gain, the higher rank the smaller reward when killing something?
_________________
|