| Author |
ICC whats become of it.......? |
Dwarden
Admiral
CHIMERA
Joined: June 07, 2001
Posts: 1072
From: Czech Republic
|  Posted: 2009-10-18 09:03
add new equipment gadget
structural integrity field (hull shielding)
when operational it decrease damage to hull to half (or more)
cooldown similar to pulse shield but with long lasting effect (20-40s)
no energy drain for use IF it's already charged and ready
small acceptable recharge drain while cooled down
_________________
... Ideas? ... that's Ocean w/o borders !
|
Fornax
Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: April 30, 2002
Posts: 906
From: Jacksonville, FL
| Posted: 2009-10-18 10:18
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-17 21:34, Jim Starluck wrote:
I believe ICC ships do have lower mass than their UGTO counterparts, what with using shields instead of heavy armor. This should give them improved turn rates and acceleration. But it doesn't affect maximum speed, which is what affects how fast you can close on a target and how much energy you get at speed. The only things that affect that are your hull type (Dessie, Cruiser, Dread, etc.), and your Engines.
I suppose we could give ICC a unique engine type, but I'm hesitant to do so, because it would need to have both high speed and energy generation. All of the other current engine types balance various aspects, without being too strong in any one in particular. The ideal engine for the ICC would thus be way too strong.
|
|
So here's a question. What if what needs refactoring is actually the cost to move?
I'm very hesitant to suggest allowing ICC to go significantly faster for the same sized hull. This may be a bad idea. Interesting, but not what I was suggesting.
What I believe is that all of the ships have a certain mass and that the power they use to go speed X is fixed across all identically sized ships. Change it to be linked to actual ship mass and give them a discount for the shields. Shields weight less than armor even though they're equal to it when you're "balancing the mass" of the ship.
So if an UGTO cruiser at speed 15 produces X and consumes Y power for the speed. Make an ICC cruiser at the same speed (15), producing the same total power X but only consumes half as much power to maintain the speed.
_________________
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2009-10-18 10:29
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-18 03:22, Enterprise wrote:
But this is a basic paradox. If you give ICC any kind of basic advantage to maintain distance, then its the same as it is now as UGTO and Kluth have a basic advantage to close distance. Its too hard to counter.
Personally, considering that ICC weapons do so much less damage and thus take so much longer to kill their enemies, that this is a better alternative than what we have now. |
|
Well, the way I was looking at it...
ICC have stronger defenses than UGTO, but weaker firepower--at close range. So at close range, the UGTO do more damage, negating the ICC's defensive edge. At longer range, the UGTO do less damage but the ICC do the same damage, while maintaining their defensive edge. Past a certain point, the ICC are going to be able to kill the UGTO faster than the UGTO are able to kill them. So the UGTO will need to be able to get into close range, because otherwise the ICC will dominate them. Thus, if the ICC can keep flying away at sublight indefinitely--holding the range open no matter what the UGTO do--they become to powerful.
The K'luth have a similar situation, but unlike the UGTO they can approach the ICC under cloak and engage at their discretion. I've some thoughts about the K'luth cloaking device, but that's another topic for another thread.
Quote:
| Of course, you could always redesign ICC from the ground up and instead of trying to make them into UGTO 2.0 you could actually give them their very own unique playstyle.
Like you know, all shields, no armor. More speed, more acceleration.
Boost shields to compensate for no armor.
Let ICC actually use that speed and acceleration by not totally killing their energy, and keep the weapons as they are. |
|
I *have* been thinking that ICC might significantly benefit from having two layers of shields rather than a layer of shields and a layer of armor... if only because this would allow them to employ both Actives and Reactives on the same ship, without having to worry about one particular arc of the shields being weaker than the rest. This would probably require shield energy costs to be significantly reduced, however, because if you double the shields on a ship you double their energy drain and give the ICC even WORSE energy management problems.
I was also considering an alternative where instead of the ICC using the same Standard Armor as the UGTO, and their Shields being equal to one of them, they instead have "Light Armor", which would be about 2/3rds as strong as normal, and have 2/3rds the point-cost. Shields would also be reduced in strength and cost by 2/3rds, which would let an ICC ship mount one plate of light armor and two shields where a UGTO ship would have two plates of armor. Again, energy use for shields would need to be adjusted.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2009-10-18 11:01
For what it's worth, I would really like ICC to indeed retain the ability to switch shields off to conserve energy without immediately exposing their hull.
_________________
|
Dilandu
2nd Rear Admiral
Joined: October 05, 2009
Posts: 14
| Posted: 2009-10-18 12:48
I like Dwarden's idea of Hull Integrety Shield:
1.) It sounds like an device a defensive faction like ICC develop and use, shields are icc specialty.
2.)Having a time limit on how long it works (20-40sec) could allow easy adjustments. Like with the ECCM ping agianst cloak, if we feel it's overpowered, reduce the time it operates.
3.)Have it as and Alternative to the Pulse Wave to encourage strategy, give the player a choice, as with kluth AutomaticHullRepair v.s. Chitinous Armor. In this case a choice between Misslie/Bomb/Infant Def. or last resort hull def.
And 50% hull dmg reduction sound resonable: 1.) lasts only short time, and 2.) drains energy afterwards, leave player worse off. 3.) dosent improve armor/shield stats.
Next,
I think the idea of 2 layer of Shields and no Armor is very radical, but i like it.
ICC shield is Superior tech in storyline, and they should presue and specialize in it.
But a few conditions might make this more workable:
1.) Agian, make it a choice for the player. Make the Inner-layer shield swapable with composite armor.
It would allow Bard's concern to be addressed.
2.) Connected to previous point: reduce Shield energy drain. Otherwise 2 layer shield would be too energy crippling to use at all.
1.)Of the two type of shields, Actives should be Stronger than Standard armor. By development history and technological superiority:
Std Armor< Reactive Shld
If both layer of shield are weaker than standard armor, why use it?
Increse the energy drain if nessary to balance it, but i dont think it nessasary: Sup platforms repairs armor, Shields you have to sit and WAIT.
and Actives recharge SLOW.
Lastly, Bard, this is the last card up my sleeve (and u may already know it), There is a trick to turn ON/OFF shields individually or in selectived groups (found this out unintentionaly detonating torps):
If you Number certain shield arcs as you do weapons(i.e. fore, aft), do Shift+ Number, it shuts off only those shields. So in theory u can turn either your outter or inner layer of shields off.
It might, however, cause a problem if you grouped a shield(fore) with a weapon to auto-roate as u fire, since each shield can only be numbered once.
[ This Message was edited by: Dilandu on 2009-10-18 13:07 ]
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2009-10-18 12:59
I really just like to have my inner layer of armour suck up and recover damage before my shielding will, without forcing my ship to expend energy for it. ;o
_________________
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2009-10-18 16:08
Agreed with Bardiche..
So what is the magic bullet for ICC?
Don't touch the interdictor, keep em the same for ALL factions.
We really don't want any faction to have dictor advantage otherwise people will never stop complaining about it. Its fine as it is..
Two shield layers and a light armor?
Maybe, but it will increase gadget count again.
Other types of engines/speeds? nope plz don't.
I only see Two kinds of options
1: Have a on off switch on shields.. No not the one we currently have..
Introduce the option for shields to be NOT protecting at the moment but allow them to recharge.
E.g. Lowered shields:
Use the armor the ship got to defend against attacks and recharge your shields at the same time..
2: For icc create a priority kind of energy management. + power to Shield / + power to Engines? / + power to Weapons / Balanced....
Seeing that when you use energy for your ship protection, you will no doubt will create something that might control where to prioritize your energy..
But i personally don't like This idea.. DS is not a tweak game...
_________________
DS Discordion
|
Leonide
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: October 01, 2005
Posts: 1553
From: Newport News, Virginia
| Posted: 2009-10-18 17:30
i just want an ICC that do respectable damage (railguns are Nerf foam guns, unlike torpedoes which do have power), and not be royally screwed over when my shields fail. as soon as my shields are gone, most of the time i am finished. (note: most of the time, but not all)
_________________
captain of the ICC Assault Cruiser C.S.S. Sledgehammer
|
linus11vf1j
2nd Rear Admiral
Joined: November 23, 2005
Posts: 3
| Posted: 2009-10-18 18:15
i was wondering, if it was possible to balance the number of weapons on both the forward and backward firing arcs, or even change the weapon config to be stern oriented.
Currently there are less weapons on the back than the front, and for me flying a combat dessie, and using the 800gu mark as a reference for firing I'm pretty happy about the weapons and shields and energy. However, for me to maintain that, I have to be flying away from the enemy all the time.
So why not instead of having bow oriented weapons, have stern oriented weapons? It's a little more radical than standard ship designs, but it plays into the defensive/ranged niche of ICC without making any tweaks at all.
It also force the defensive form of ICC in that we either are broadsiding or using the stern to attack. We also still maintain weakness in that running head long offensively into combat is a bad idea. Which it is anyways considering the shields are weaker in taking damage than armor.
BTW the idea of having shields recharge without them being active/on I think should be implemented.
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2009-10-18 19:35
I like the ideas in the last 4 replies. I'm especially intrigued by the idea of spreading out ICC's weapon arcs. I think it could be very interesting if ICC's weapons were spread out among it's 4 arcs, so that they can't really fire a powerful alpha, but enemies can't maneuver out of their primary firing arcs either (like you can do vs UGTO and Kluth, especially Kluth).
It's not better, it's not worse, it's different. Just like you can't play as a Kluth the same way you can play as a human, you can't play as ICC with balanced firing arcs the way you can play as UGTO.
The combat destroyers already sort of employ this, with guns split between port and starboard (not much in rear arc though), and specialized ships like the missile dread or assault ships might have to keep most weapons in the front arc. But ICC might work well as a defensive faction that focuses on shields and protecting it's ships with weapons in all directions, where outmaneuvering them might be futile.
It might be helpful to know what the devs' vision of the 3 factions is? What was the original vision of them vs what they are now, and is that original vision still attainable? I always thought the vision was that UGTO was human offensive, ICC human defensive, both human factions not differing too much but enough (where UGTO has offensive ship systems ICC has defensive), and Kluth heavy offensive with little defense and an emphasis on stalking.
I think covering all arcs instead of focusing on one, two or three fits the idea of a defensive faction very well.
_________________
|
Light404
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 10, 2002
Posts: 54
| Posted: 2009-10-18 20:57
One of the things I have always wished for is that shields recharge when they are "off". Lowering shields sounds much more appropriate so that they can charge and not take damage.
I like the idea of getting +1 layer of shielding per arc per ship, but as has been stated, the shields would then require a significant slash to the amount of energy they draw, especially when flying at combat speeds (75-90% of full speed).
The standard armour values would have to be left alone: ICC only has one physical armour value that protects all 4 arcs of their ships (generally speaking, dreads I think being the only exception with 1 armour/arc). The armour is really more of the ship's "skin" than actually armour - it gets depleted fast enough anyways, i feel its main and only purpose is to allow the player to do some quick dodging maneuvers before turning on shields. In its current form, it allows just (and only) that.
Having most of ICC weapons concentrating on the side arcs seems like a good idea to me atm. It seems like it would really play into the ICC's intened play style.
One of the things that has come up is that ICC are SLOW, primarily becuase there is not enough energy to support shields, weapons and engines.
If the amount of energy that shields require is drastically cut, then that can go into increasing ICC's top speed and maneuverability. Now, I realize that increasing ICC's top speed (example, ICC cruisers can fly at 25gu opposed to the ugto/kluth which may only get 20, ICC dread 20gu and kluth/ugto 15gu etc) has kind have been a fine line issue in recent posts, BUT if the bulk of ICC weapons were designed to fire from the side arcs, that top speed and manuevering means ICC ships can serpentine ahead of the target, not really gaining any distance from the target as both ships are shooting each other with their primary firing arcs (the arcs that contain the most weapons), thus both sides should have roughly equal firepower.
This speed can then play into ICC's defensive/long range tactics, as if things go sour then the extra speed is used to slowly get out of the enemies firing range. The ICC ship could still be destroyed as it attempts to run because the UGTO/Kluth will still be in weapons range with their primary (front) weapons arc; and - for the most part, the ICC ship will not be able to fire back (minimal rearward firing weapons).
[ This Message was edited by: Light404 on 2009-10-18 20:59 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Light404 on 2009-10-18 21:02 ]
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2009-10-19 01:14
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-18 10:29, Jim Starluck wrote:
Well, the way I was looking at it...
ICC have stronger defenses than UGTO, but weaker firepower--at close range. So at close range, the UGTO do more damage, negating the ICC's defensive edge. At longer range, the UGTO do less damage but the ICC do the same damage, while maintaining their defensive edge. Past a certain point, the ICC are going to be able to kill the UGTO faster than the UGTO are able to kill them. So the UGTO will need to be able to get into close range, because otherwise the ICC will dominate them. Thus, if the ICC can keep flying away at sublight indefinitely--holding the range open no matter what the UGTO do--they become to powerful.
The K'luth have a similar situation, but unlike the UGTO they can approach the ICC under cloak and engage at their discretion. I've some thoughts about the K'luth cloaking device, but that's another topic for another |
|
The difference is that at close range, UGTO and Kluth do far more damage than ICC would at long range. Even if ICC does more damage than UGTO does at a distance, that doesn't make the amount of damage they actually do any greater, or infact make it take any faster infact to kill their target.
Infact, at range, ICC have significant difficulty in even hitting their targets, so the little damage they do manage to get off doesn't in any way compare to the amount of damage that UGTO or Kluth pull off when using their advantages.
Would being able to maintain distance indefinitely mean that they'd eventually kill their target? Of course. But that is a very big eventually. Being faster doesn't mean you can't point jump them, that you can't dictor them, that the damage you do pull off is any less. It just means you have to do more than set max speed to full and just spam weapons.
Which is all that UGTO do now to combat ICC.
If thats reasonable then I must be living in the wrong world.
-Ent
_________________
|
Fornax
Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: April 30, 2002
Posts: 906
From: Jacksonville, FL
| Posted: 2009-10-19 18:00
This suggestion lacks the basic information of what exactly is the balance point for railguns/energy based cannons - what's the point where railguns do more damage than other ranged cannons...
In my opinion, although some long range plinking does go on at 1kgu+, most of the heavy damage gets done under 400gu. I'd suggest setting the balance point somewhere well inside that limit.
_________________
|
Mr Black
Grand Admiral
Palestar
Joined: September 20, 2003
Posts: 486
From: Gaifenland
| Posted: 2009-10-20 16:55
We have a problem with cutting energy drain on shields, both and passive and active modes... we are already using single digits to factor regeneration and repair rates for these gadgets. The ability to change this is limited because how they work is tied directly into the energy system, which updated every tick (20 times a second). Armor is only calculated once every second.
I have already cut the values where possible, but am currently unable to go lower unless we can switch from using integer values to float values.
_________________
 \\r\\n
DarkSpace Administrator - \\r\\n
drafell@palestar.com
|
Nax
Marshal
Joined: May 12, 2005
Posts: 768
| Posted: 2009-10-20 17:45
Quote:
|
On 2009-10-20 16:55, Phantom Limb wrote:
We have a problem with cutting energy drain on shields, both and passive and active modes... we are already using single digits to factor regeneration and repair rates for these gadgets. The ability to change this is limited because how they work is tied directly into the energy system, which updated every tick (20 times a second). Armor is only calculated once every second.
I have already cut the values where possible, but am currently unable to go lower unless we can switch from using integer values to float values.
|
|
What do you mean? There's always zero.
This may seem odd but I as a player kinda enjoy the unique nature of the ships and that we have to play around with power more than others.
Of course, I did come here from the Starfleet Command community back in 2002...which is based on the Starfleet Battles (paper & pencil) game rules which are easily the single most complex space combat game ever designed. Power management was the #1 skill in both SFB and the computer version (SFC).
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
