| Author |
Close Jumping |
Orion_Prime
Cadet
Joined: December 12, 2001
Posts: 1323
From: Missouri, USA
|  Posted: 2003-08-21 11:01
The new jump code in Beta semi-allows this concept. Now you can jump without slowing down, however, if you do, the precision of your jump decreases based on the percentage of throttle you're at.
Now this CEP idea, here's one reason why it wouldn't work: When you jump, you travel in a straight line. Assuming your ship is at least smart enough to point in the direction you are targetting, you wont go much to the sides. However, forward and backward from the target is a good idea.
Also, this should only affect precision jumping, not targetted jumping. IE if you ctrl-click in space then you will have this random distance poblem, but if you target an actual object (planet, ship, etc.) then you will still jump 250gu away from it. This will fix the massive probablity of planet collisions that is present with your system.
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2003-08-21 11:24
Quote:
| Stations arent made to be support Ships. |
|
Actually yes they are. Their original intention was to be a reloading support station. The UGTO station is even described as a support station. Thing is, with all those weapons, it's hard NOT to use it offensively...hence the ship rebalancing that's gonna happen later on. Support stations are only one of many ships that need reworking so they fit their intended role better.
Oh and sorry for sidetracking this thread  I think close orbit jumping as it is right now is fine. I think missile accuracy though needs to be fixed again. They were too accurate before, and aren't accurate enough now.
EDIT: minimum jump ranges are ok to implement.
_________________
 "My father taught me many things ... keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." -Michael Corleone
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2003-08-21 11:25 ]
_________________
|
Barthezzz
Fleet Admiral
Joined: May 31, 2001
Posts: 5630
From: The Netherlands
| Posted: 2003-08-21 11:56
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 05:37, Captain Caveman wrote:
But Bart, lets be serious about this. The pre-dominant part of this game is combat. By preventing ships from close jumping and forcing them into open combat, the pre-dominant part of this game will improve. And surely that is worth slowing down the capping of planets that already takes an oscenely small amount of time.
|
|
There is nothing wrong with changing the close jumping in combat.
But getting a big ship into orbit takes long. Now there is nothing wron with slow play but getting in orbit of a planet is boring as hell and there are hundereds of other things i can think of doing with that time.
Also since F Planned to Increase Planetsizes in the Future the distance youll have to fly will increase and so will the flight time.
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 09:43, Mortarr *CDR* wrote:
A structure that can be built, call it an ILS (Instrument Landing System) Antenna, or what-have-you. If built on a planet, it allows accurate jumps to that planet only. As a possibility, if the planet's faction changes, the planet is self-destructed by "loyalist guerillas" to prevent the capture of IFF codes by the enemy. |
|
If this would be added then i wouldnt have a problem.
The ILS would basicly make the Calculations for you near planets, allowing you to jump with normal precision and this Also gives the defenders an advantage when defending 
And if a planet gets captured the ILS just switches factions like any other building.
But What Orion suggested instead isnt a bad idea either.
The only problem i would have with these suggestions is not being able to Close orbit Jumping allied Planets.
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 11:24, MrSparkle wrote:
Quote:
| Stations arent made to be support Ships. |
|
Actually yes they are. Their original intention was to be a reloading support station. The UGTO station is even described as a support station. Thing is, with all those weapons, it's hard NOT to use it offensively...hence the ship rebalancing that's gonna happen later on. Support stations are only one of many ships that need reworking so they fit their intended role better.
|
|
both the ICC and UGTO Support Stations are called That, buty it doesnt make em support Stations.
Stations have had their current layout for i cant remember how long and im very sure they will keep this layout for a lot longer.
Also Calling the Assault Cruiser a Transport doesnt make it a Transport yet...
So currently the Support Station is not designed for Support.
Its an Assault Station and no matter what people call it, it will be that untill they change the Ship Layout.
_________________
|
Wyke {ThorsHammer}
Cadet
Joined: February 22, 2003
Posts: 416
| Posted: 2003-08-21 12:50
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 10:50, Malduc wrote:
The AD and EAD ... kluth shell ... finish your off.
I think this will seriously cripple the UGTO, for our cruisers aren't anything to shout at,
|
|
Dreads shouldn't be *jumping* into battles unescorted, a Shell (or any Dessie) shouldn't be getting close enough to a dread to harm it in the first place. With out it have been attacked by first destroyers and finished by the Cruiser of the escort.
The UGGIE TC is an excellent ship and a good match for the much feared ICC AC, its better power profile gives it more speed in battle and persistence in battle. The BC is imho better that the ICC HC.
Personally I think the reason for the wide spread fear of the Kluth AC is similar to the reason people fear the Kluth Shell. They tend to 'hunt' in packs. However packs of any ship are deadly to lone opponent.
_________________
|
warren
Grand Admiral
Joined: April 18, 2002
Posts: 312
From: piney point, md
| Posted: 2003-08-21 13:04
ok this a bad idea frist itll nerf all the dreads and stations so there would be no point to get them. and itll take even more skill out of the game yet dumming it down even more
and for support station dose it say any were what the support they could be for combat support or planet caping support or other things.
_________________
|
Barthezzz
Fleet Admiral
Joined: May 31, 2001
Posts: 5630
From: The Netherlands
| Posted: 2003-08-21 13:34
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 12:50, Wyke wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 10:50, Malduc wrote:
The AD and EAD ... kluth shell ... finish your off.
I think this will seriously cripple the UGTO, for our cruisers aren't anything to shout at,
|
|
Dreads shouldn't be *jumping* into battles unescorted, a Shell (or any Dessie) shouldn't be getting close enough to a dread to harm it in the first place. With out it have been attacked by first destroyers and finished by the Cruiser of the escort.
|
|
Yeah... thats one of those Tactics people like to talk about but rarely make it into the game...
DarkSpace Doesnt have Escorts, Support Fleet, Etc.
You have a bunch of Dreads and Cruiser that jump in. they pick a Target and hunt that ship, or multiple ships.
People dont look to see if any Dessies might attack their dread.
DarkSpace uses a simple system when it comes to AD's/EAD's/K'luth Dreads:
Make sure you get the first shot and make it hard one. If an EAD Jumps in and it cant fire its beams up close then its Dead.
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 12:50, Wyke wrote:
The UGGIE TC is an excellent ship and a good match for the much feared ICC AC, its better power profile gives it more speed in battle and persistence in battle. The BC is imho better that the ICC HC.
|
|
LOL! The UGTO Torp Cruiser is Crap compared to the ICC AC.
The ICC AC has better Shielding, More Weapons, More Reactors.
_________________
|
Tael
2nd Rear Admiral
Palestar
Joined: July 03, 2002
Posts: 3695
From: San Francisco Bay Area
| Posted: 2003-08-21 13:45
Well have talked about allowing upgraded units such as CL500lvl1 Cl500lvl2, etc...
So this idea has some merrit, while upgraded/more advance jump drives would lesson the margin for error...
Deffinately something to consider.
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2003-08-21 13:51
Quote:
| both the ICC and UGTO Support Stations are called That, buty it doesnt make em support Stations. |
|
Nope it doesn't, and that goes for many other ships too. They don't fit their intended roles too well. That's why there's gonna be a huge redesign of them all. Current stations I believe were intended to be the centers of fleets, a ship to rally around and to resupply at. But their design is better suited for other roles. They weren't meant to be one-man planet capping machines, or massive SD sacrifices. Do you see what I'm saying? The name shows the intention but the game doesn't support that intention too well.
Quote:
| On 2003-08-21 12:50, Wyke wrote:
The UGGIE TC is an excellent ship and a good match for the much feared ICC AC, its better power profile gives it more speed in battle and persistence in battle. The BC is imho better that the ICC HC.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! The UGTO Torp Cruiser is Crap compared to the ICC AC.
The ICC AC has better Shielding, More Weapons, More Reactors. |
|
The first part about better power profile will be true, even Gideon mentioned it. ICC will have more power problems than K'luth with the limitation of reactors. I haven't checked out the ICC AC in the beta MV yet, but I do know there's plans to make reactors a reactor-slot item, meaning no more modifying with them. ICC's active shields and their weapons will draw a lot of power that can't easily be replenished with reactors.
But in the current version, yes the ICC AC is superior to UGTO TC.
_________________
|
Eleda
Cadet
Joined: August 03, 2002
Posts: 438
From: Sunny ol England
| Posted: 2003-08-21 14:00
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 05:02, Captain Caveman wrote:
Just read Jimmy's and Eleda's post regarding a change to the accuracy of a plotted jump, and I must say that I liked it. Basically, they suggested that when a ship calculates a jump, their re-entry point will not be exact.
|
|
Ahem, i did not say this. Though i wanted close jumping removed i had my own suggestion for this
Quote:
|
1) Ships have a minimum jump distance of 2000gu's.
|
|
I like this  It stops those annoying close-jumps that totaly screw over fleet tactics and formations
Quote:
|
2) Each ship has something called a CEP (circular error of probability) based on its size. The bigger the ship, the bigger the CEP. The CEP works, by being the radius of a circle, centred on the aim point, witbla bla bla etc etc
|
|
No, don't like it. Though a method of preventing long range jumping to circumnavigate fleet formations is needed (and don't anyone mention the dictor.Its pritty poor at the moment and after the beta changes to jumping it will just be a joke),this will result in far too many planet collisions..even when no enemy are present
My ACTUAL suggestion was to temporarily paralyse ships when they jump, representing the fact that initiating and maintaining the jump is going to take 99% of a ships power. Because of this most things are going to have to be shut down when you jump.
When you intiate your jump ( and i mean actually the point when you jump, NOT when you press J) all of your systems (including weapons but excluding your JD) will turn off. After you jump your ship will be un-able to thrust (turn/accelerate/decelerate) charge weapons or do anything for a period of time between 3 to 5 seconds. After this time you will be able to move as normal and your weapons will start to charge back up.
This will encourage people to jump to the edge of an engagement, as landing ontop of your enemy will give them a 6-10 second window when you cannot shoot back, which doesn't sound like long but can feel like a lifetime when being shot.
Once they have jumped to the edge of an engagement the 2000gu jump minimum will prevent any in-battle close jumping. And so is the problem solved
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2003-08-21 14:15
Quote:
| My ACTUAL suggestion was to temporarily paralyse ships when they jump, representing the fact that initiating and maintaining the jump is going to take 99% of a ships power. Because of this most things are going to have to be shut down when you jump. |
|
You know in beta it's the exact opposite? You don't even have to slow down to a stop before you jump. You can be flying at full speed and jump, exit the jump at the same speed, and the exit point is calculated based on that speed.
So I'm hoping your suggestion is not a total waste, cuz it seems Faustus prefers an even easier jump system than what we have now.
_________________
|
Eleda
Cadet
Joined: August 03, 2002
Posts: 438
From: Sunny ol England
| Posted: 2003-08-21 14:25
Quote:
|
On 2003-08-21 14:15, MrSparkle wrote:
You know in beta it's the exact opposite? You don't even have to slow down to a stop before you jump. You can be flying at full speed and jump, exit the jump at the same speed, and the exit point is calculated based on that speed.
So I'm hoping your suggestion is not a total waste, cuz it seems Faustus prefers an even easier jump system than what we have now.
|
|
Notice carefully that i stated only THRUST would be prevented for that 3-5 second interval.You would still be moving at your pre-jump speed when you finish your jump..you just wont be able to turn/slow down/speed up.
My suggestion is totaly compatible with the jump changes in beta . Thanks for pointing it out though
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
