| Author |
Questions to consider for rework of Stations |
Darksworde
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: September 06, 2002
Posts: 806
From: The Zoo
|  Posted: 2004-05-02 07:48
After taking a station out for a while in 1.481, I would like to take this oppotunity to aid the developers in the rework for a ship that i think currently serves no other purpose than as a mass transport system for ships in the current version of the game.
In order to help nudge the developers towards the goal of producing a useful ship, ive decided to list some questions with regards to stations that I think will help them design such a ship, as well as provid what I think are suitable answers to said questions.
So, here goes....
BTW, for posters after this post, pls make sure to keep your suggestions useful, whether positive or negative. If u have something negative to say, pls state why, not just say something like....
OMFG - Thats sucks....End Post..
Anyway, on with the questions..........
1) We all agree that the main aim of a station is to provide support. But, we ask, what kind of 'Support' is it supposed to provide.
Well, i see a station as providing 3 areas of support, combat, Planetary Defense and Planetary Capping support. From here, we can break down into each area and pose more questions, altho of course, some questions will overlap into each type of suport.
2) How does a station provide combat support
The quickest answer to this is 'Supply'. At current however, regardless of faction, there is a limited number of uses to each reload, namely 1000 drones. The whole point behind a station when providing combat support is to act as a refueling/reloading centre, whether deep in enemy territory, or helping defend a planet.
So, I would like to see an increase in the number of reload slots on a station by 1 or 2, meaning turnover of friendly ships is quicker. Secondly, an increase in the number of drones, maybe to say 5000 or 10000, or the ability for supply ships to transfer drones to a station, providing a supply chain , maybe.
3) What about the ability to defend itself
As a support ship, a station should automatically be regarded as having defensive weaponry, not offensive, which immediately narrows down the types of weapons it can have. Torpedoes, for instance, I view as offensive, so in my view, it should lose its capability to hold these.
My view of a station has always been as a mobile planet, so, based on this premise a station would have lots of Missiles, be it IT, AR or PSI. This then brings us to beam weaponry. The choice here is, do we give it beam or hvy beam weapons. This decision itself raises a few questions.
4) Should a station use primarily Missiles with PD Beams (Like a planet), or scrap the idea of long range weaponry and devote itself to Hvy Beams only.
Removing missiles and giving the station hvy beams only (lets say 15) now changes the enemy view of a station. At close range, the station now has the ability to incinerate most ships in 1 or 2 alphas. When attacked by long range weapons such as missiles, the Station now has the defensive ability to deal with a large number of fighters.
Finally, Increasing the range of its hvy beam weapons to say 400/500gu would provide a good way of putting the fear of god into torp based ships. Of course, a need for balance should be maintained.
5) Does a station really need to move?
Of course a station needs to move, without an ability to move, a station would not be able to provide support to a fleet in deep space. Of course, before the addition of Worm Holes, my suggestion in this area wouldnt have been practical. What I propose is that a station retains its ability to use worm holes, allowing itself to position in enemy territory, but loses its ability to move under engines. This essentially removes the ability to cap enemy planets totally, as Worm holes do not (correct me if im wrong) work within 2500gu of an enemy dictor.
The only issue with having 0 movement would be how a station would move through a worm hole. (Well pointed out archon). With this in mind, I think maybe reducing a stations movement rate to 1gu would be enough to ensure it would be almost worthless as a capping ship.
6) Without being able to cap a planet, how can a station provide capping support?
With the loss of its movement rate of 5gu and an ability to drop inf onto an enemy planet with a dictor, I would like to see the maximum amount of infantry raised from 12 back to 20, or maybe even more, lets say 32. This means that a station can now fulfill its role in capping support by acting as an inf repository for transport and other such ships.
7)What about Fighters, and, which type of fighters to use
Well, fighters are a bit of an issue. With the incoming types of fighter, namely attack, interceptor and bomber, we have to decide which type of fighters, and how many, can a station have.
This all comes down to which type of station platform we choose. I believe that with a missile based station, the need for fighters is pointless, as the station would have enough long range weaponry.
However, the second type of station, I believe needs some amount of fighter support, but with issues of balance, the more fighters you have, the less beam weapons you would need. A good balance I think would be say with 15 hvy beam weapons, the number of fighters on a station should around 3 or 4.
Now, consider the type of fighter a station should have. Initially, i thought that bombers should be thrown out of the window straight away, but then, when you think about it, having them in the mix would provide a good way to provide capping support at long range. The initial station I think should have a mix of all three, in my opinion. So, with this in mind, i think a stations weapon layout would read something like this
10 Hvy Beams (Lets call them cl5ks) with a range of 400gu.
2 Slots of Bomber Fighters
3 Slots of Attack Fighters
4 Slots of Interceptors
8) On the subject of Wormholes
With the change in a stations layout, I think it is very important that the station also have the ability to close its own wormholes, else a station will have no chance of escaping from an enemy fleet. As of 1.481, the ability for an enemy fleet to follow a station through its escape wormhole means that using stations in large fleet is almost an act of suicide, a stations only possible means of escape being to wh to a friendly planet with a SY and then use it to disappear.
Of course, the other issue with worm holes is, with a reduced movement rate, some stations might not be able to enter a worm hole in time. I would also like to see an increase the amount of time that a worm hole stays open!
Well, Ive rattled on about this subject for long enough now...So, I open up the subject to other ppl. Please remember to remain constructive and explain your opinions, whether positive or negative. I think we would all like to see the station fulfill its role as a support ship, I know I would, and hopefully, this thread can go a fair way into pointing the developers in the right direction!
_________________
We are the L.A.G. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated into the side of a planet!
[small][ This Message was edited by: Darksworde on 2004-05-02 08:22 ][/small]
[ This Message was edited by: Darksworde on 2004-05-02 08:31 ]
_________________
Live by the sworde, die by the sworde
|
Meko
Grand Admiral
Joined: March 03, 2004
Posts: 1956
From: Vancouver
| Posted: 2004-05-02 07:53
Those r really good comments..
i like this idea the best out of them all.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2004-05-02 08:04
Those are really good ideas, I like the idea of having beams only, but I dont think it should lose all its torps. Maybe only keep 2-3 for that little extra defence.
_________________
|
Hellza - master
Cadet
Joined: February 24, 2004
Posts: 556
| Posted: 2004-05-02 08:07
well i love it  more reloads... more misslies less beams.. or more beams less misslies.. faster.... has up to 30 anfs cause it is so huge..... more armor
stations should hav more fighters less anfs it can hold or something... stations r huge so it should hav at least 5 fighters
.... there should p a better station 4 GA
_________________
|
Rocki
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 13, 2002
Posts: 1029
| Posted: 2004-05-02 08:35
Very nice post, interesting suggestions, and very close to my own ideas of a Support Station. I hope the Devs take this in mind when redesigning the stations.
_________________
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Chief Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1159
From: Back in Texas and noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2004-05-02 08:37
well as far as ITs being main defensive wep.all ships can dance around them all day except another station.so that would mean the station would basically be dead. the cruiser sitting just outside of your beams and way inside your ITS is going to eat your station like cotton candy.
as for removing engine,bad idea.a fleet needs to be on the move,not sitting still here it can be jumped and pounded on relentlessly .taking eng out only make it a bigger target.
1 extra reload would be nice but for ICC wouldnt help as reloads wont fix shields but will fix kluth and ugto armor.need to find a way to balance those two items.shields and armor or give ships a choice between which they want ( me........ARMOR).
on carrying more infantry.
its a STATION.
10x bigger than a tranny,but only carries 2 inf more?thats just a LITTLE bit rediculous.a station should have at least a 30 inf capacity,yes its slow.but used as a staging platform,it Does have a definite place in fleet manuevers in capping operations and support of fleet,repair/reload them.
_________________
|
Darksworde
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: September 06, 2002
Posts: 806
From: The Zoo
| Posted: 2004-05-02 09:01
Actually, interesting point. With the removal of a stations jump drive, if a station used a wh, its always gonna be around 2.5k from a planet, which means that at 5gu/sec movement rate, it would take around 8 minutes to close the distance!
With a movement rate of 1gu, it will arrive at the planet in 41 minutes!
Now, factor in balance. I reckon to stop ppl using a station to cap an enemy planet, around 10-15 minutes would be about right, so, i reckon a max speed of 3gu would be about right!
_________________
Live by the sworde, die by the sworde
|
$yTHe {C?}
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: September 29, 2002
Posts: 1292
From: Arlington, VA
| Posted: 2004-05-02 12:39
On the subject of torpedoes, I think Darksworde has the right idea of removing them totally and extending beam range. Stations are not meant to be offensive platforms of destruction. But, this of course raises the question of how would a station defend itself if it is attacked by a number of small ships? The beams help, and a station nearly always has other friendly ships surrounding it, but that may not be enough. Therefore, i will make the suggestion that has been repeated time and time again; Increase station hull values!
_________________
|
Flandres
1st Rear Admiral
Joined: June 29, 2002
Posts: 209
From: California
| Posted: 2004-05-02 14:29
I don't think the speed needs to be changed, the station is slow enough.
However, most heavy weapons should be removed, and a few fighter bays added. I'll agree with that.
_________________
|
TAZ
Cadet
Joined: July 04, 2002
Posts: 143
From: U.S.A.
| Posted: 2004-05-02 17:29
I like what I see here.......these are some great ideas....but I would add one thing!! The stations relly on thier wormholes to get into and out of the action, the same way any other ship would use its jump drive. This means a failed worm hole can be the death of even the best station pilot! I would like to see some way to indicate to the pilot of the station that there is a high probability of his worm hole failing when hes placing it. I think its only fair concidering that now with the new dictors all that happens with a ship is that its jump drive becomes inoperable......and they no longer get penalized for attempting to jump in a dictor field!!
Maby a yellow targeting iris when your putting your worm hole in a questionable area?? Green when theres no chance of failing and red when theres just no chance of it forming at all!!
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2004-05-02 20:44
I definantly like the beam idea, alot better than torpedoes.
As for missles, maybe for ICC, but for UGTO, id put fighters. It has to fit the context of each faction, other wise it just doesnt make sense.
Also, you for got an important part, adding more armor, (or in crease the hull) of the station. Theyre just too flimsy for its size, no matter what. Especially the ICC version. Add a couple layers of armor, so that it can actually take a beating.
-Ent
_________________
|
Koda
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: August 29, 2002
Posts: 1384
| Posted: 2004-05-02 22:46
Very good sugesstions,
but my question to you is, how far down on the "Grand Ol list" do you think this is going to be placed at?
Im not trying to take away your thunder or detract from your Ideas here m8, cus they are really good. But how is it you think that Changes to the Stations are going to be made when so many little things are going wrong??
I undestand your looking forward to the future of DS but how can there be a future to DS when It takes over a year for a patch? And a patch that so many people who waited for it are dissapointed in? How many people here would rather have a "EvE/HW2 Eye candy feel" to attract more people?
Off the top of my head i can think of 5 things id rather have done to improve player numbers in this game rather than fix the flaws in the support station.
Darkspace is a great space sim, and there is no doubt in my mind about that. What is a big question with me is the competivness of DS in the Space sim market. And time and time again, im told that there wont be a faster pace of change without a larger player base.
And without a larger player base there wont be your Support Station Changes,...
Just trying to put a big picture view on it..
sorry if i pissed anyone off but sometimes you gotta say stuff people dont like to read.
-CharAznable
_________________
|
-=Arch=-
Cadet
Joined: July 10, 2002
Posts: 214
From: *CLASSIFIED*
| Posted: 2004-05-03 08:54
Seeing as this post is by far the best idea Ive seen in a long time regarding stations ... means that the Devs will ignore it completely because it makes too much sense.
just kidding
_________________
|
Dempster
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 03, 2003
Posts: 668
| Posted: 2004-05-03 12:15
i think those are great suggestions but pjs right the only thing those its would be hitting would be dreads
_________________
|
Bobamelius
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 2074
From: Ohio
| Posted: 2004-05-03 12:25
Now these are the kind of suggestions DS needs...
Not people trying to give a fully-statted ship with all kinds of very specific systems and such, but some good general concepts for the development team to consider.
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
