| Author |
Developer Update 08/12/2005... |
Arcanum {C?}
Cadet
Joined: June 25, 2005
Posts: 222
|  Posted: 2005-08-15 11:16
Removing cross faction modding presents an urgent need for rebalanced weapons (all factions) and a wider selection of (K'luth) ships.
By using particle cannons and fusion torpedoes, both human technologies, I have been able to achieve a fighting chance as a K'luth pilot. Remove cross-faction modding, and these technologies will be unavailable to K'luth. The problem here is that human weapons are both stronger (due to less energy drain, higher range, faster projectile speed and faster reload) than K'luth weapons.
On-impact damage is not meaningfully more for K'luth weapons that it pays to have higher energy drain, lower range, lower projectile speed (especially AM torpedoes which barely ever hit anything, even dreads, unless the pilot is stationary or moving in a straight line) and longer reload time (especially normal disruptors or psi cannons compared to particle cannons or railguns).
Furthermore, human factions have at least 30% more ship types to choose from than do K'luth. Now that modding is more restrictive, the lack of choice for K'luth will come as a disadvantage. Whereas a wise K'luth pilot could mod his ship accordingly to make it more functional in 483, in 484 these choices will be much more limited. Thus, to be fair, I believe K'luth should have greater ship selection.
Faustus - please give this serious consideration. I am not voicing this opinion out of faction bias - I'm certainly not asking for any advantages to be bestowed upon any faction. I merely ask that the issue of balanced weapons, and ship selection be addressed along with the other great updates in 484.
_________________
The Praetorian Wolves.
We are many. We are one.
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2005-08-15 11:34
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-15 10:50, Phoebum wrote:
What's going to happen with PD now that device levels are forced by hull size? (Higher level increases recharge, damage, range and energy cost. Increased damage is useless to PD, and increased recharge and energy cost are both hurting PD.)
Will UGTO and/or K'luth get their own beam designed for PD?
|
|
The advantage of higher levels for the bigger ships is greater intercept range for PD. Combined with these ships also being able to mount higher numbers of PD lasers then they will be as effective if not more so.
Also consider that we have ships which are specifically designed to provide point defense. (IE Escort and Picket Destroyers).
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2005-08-15 12:01
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-15 11:34, Mr Black wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-15 10:50, Phoebum wrote:
What's going to happen with PD now that device levels are forced by hull size? (Higher level increases recharge, damage, range and energy cost. Increased damage is useless to PD, and increased recharge and energy cost are both hurting PD.)
Will UGTO and/or K'luth get their own beam designed for PD?
|
|
The advantage of higher levels for the bigger ships is greater intercept range for PD. Combined with these ships also being able to mount higher numbers of PD lasers then they will be as effective if not more so.
Also consider that we have ships which are specifically designed to provide point defense. (IE Escort and Picket Destroyers).
|
|
A L8 (I assume Dreads will be L8) Disruptor costs 1.8 energy and recycles in 12 seconds. Trying to PD with that is suicide.
Also K'luths don't have picket ships.
Frigates are L4, Destroyers are L5, so even UGTO/ICC picket ship will be badly hurt.
I predict ICC's pulse beam level progress will be (or already is) designed in favor or point defense, which, unless UGTO/K'luth are given a PD beam with similar advantages, will ridiculously increase the ICC's already great PD advantage.
Also, beleiving that a L8 CL/Ruptor is equal or BETTER at PD than a L0 CL/Ruptor is simply delusional. Range means nothing for PD unless 'picketing' for another ship.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebum on 2005-08-15 12:09 ]
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2005-08-15 12:11
Considering K'luth can just cloak to avoid most of such fire, the PD is not really a great issue.
Destroyers can also fly and turn fast enough to avoid the majority of those planet missiles and fighters.
[ This Message was edited by: Mr Black on 2005-08-15 12:13 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Phoebuzz
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 17, 2003
Posts: 110
| Posted: 2005-08-15 13:37
Uggies can't cloak, CL aren't significantly better at PD than Disruptors.
Missile should select a new target if their current target isn't valid anymore, cloaking doesn't protect against missiles very well.
I think missile (and definitely fighters) should be changed to lead their target instead of following them, as currently dodging missile requires nothing more than moving perpendicular to the missile trajectory.
----
I think I 'found' a way to greatly reduce missile/fighter lag.
With level missile/fighter device should, instead of more damage/speed/ammo, get more missile/fighter launched per activation.
For example, 1 missile at L0, 2 at L2, 3 at L4, 4 at L6, 5 at L8 and 6 at L10.
With the missile/fighter grouping code, those extra missiles/fighters would not drain extra server ressource or bandwidth, preventing alot of lag.
(A missile dread would shoot 6 groups of 5 missile instead of 30 lone missiles.)
Fighters could be come in group of 1 for cruisers or smaller, 2 for dreads and 4 for stations.
For even more lag reduction, remove the missile from defense bases.
Add a missile base.
Make the missile base and fighter base have only one level available at tech ~75, and make those bases use alot of resources (something like 10 pop, 40 energy).
Make the missile bases and fighter bases shoot alot more missiles/fighters than before.
This way there will be fewer sources of planetary missiles/fighters (hence alot less lag) but just as many missiles/fighters.
[ This Message was edited by: Phoebum on 2005-08-15 13:39 ]
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2005-08-15 14:27
Quote:
|
Faustus - please give this serious consideration. I am not voicing this opinion out of faction bias - I'm certainly not asking for any advantages to be bestowed upon any faction. I merely ask that the issue of balanced weapons, and ship selection be addressed along with the other great updates in 484.
|
|
Its kinda a given that all. all weapons on all factions, along with all ships, of every class/type/rank of every faction...
Will be rebalenced with the pros and cons of every other pro and con.
For a recap of said pros and cons :
UGTO : Average Weaponry/Armor/Mid Ranged.
ICC : Weaker Weaponry/Stronger Armor/Shields/Better Defences/Longer Ranged weapons.
K'luth : Stronger Weaponry/Weaker Armor/Cloak&Autorepair/Shorter Ranged weapons.
-Ent
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-08-15 14:29
ICC dont have stronger armour, they just have shields.
_________________
|
Arcanum {C?}
Cadet
Joined: June 25, 2005
Posts: 222
| Posted: 2005-08-15 14:44
Rebalanced ships do not address the issue that K'luth has significantly fewer ships than the two human factions though..
[ This Message was edited by: Arcanum {C?} on 2005-08-15 14:46 ]
_________________
The Praetorian Wolves.
We are many. We are one.
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-08-15 15:03
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-15 14:44, Arcanum {C?} wrote:
Rebalanced ships do not address the issue that K'luth has significantly fewer ships than the two human factions though..
|
|
They dont need as many to do their job. You dont need a picket destroyer because you can cloak. You dont need a long range cruiser or dread because of your close range weapons....etc
_________________
|
James Bum007
Grand Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: April 23, 2003
Posts: 480
From: Queens, New York
| Posted: 2005-08-15 15:25
All I can say is, very nice Faustus. I like those changes.
"Nough Said"
_________________
|
Arcanum {C?}
Cadet
Joined: June 25, 2005
Posts: 222
| Posted: 2005-08-15 15:27
Jack - I need you to explain your last post because you lost me.
K'luth don't need long range cruisers or dreads because of their close range weapons?
What is the logic in that statement?
--
Ship variety has nothing to do with cloak. Cloak is what the K'luth got in exchange for weaker armour. They have just as much need for different configurations as any other faction.
Using that logic, ICC has no need of escort destroyers because they have pulse beams.
[ This Message was edited by: Arcanum {C?} on 2005-08-15 15:28 ]
_________________
The Praetorian Wolves.
We are many. We are one.
|
Alien Mastermind
Grand Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: January 20, 2003
Posts: 242
From: Toronto
| Posted: 2005-08-15 15:38
Forget about all these fancy changes.
Fix the lag and we'll see where we can go from there. While the game still lags uncontrollably in combat to the point that i die before getting armor damage, the least i care about is faction ballancing. I can compensate for lousy ships but i can't compensate for 5-min delays in commands.
_________________
\"It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.\"
-Arthur C. Clarke
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2005-08-15 16:00
Quote:
|
On 2005-08-15 15:27, Arcanum {C?} wrote:
Jack - I need you to explain your last post because you lost me.
K'luth don't need long range cruisers or dreads because of their close range weapons?
What is the logic in that statement?
|
|
Are you blind, or just cant read 0.o. Its pretty self explainatory...
They dont need long range cruisers or dreads, like carriers and missile ships because kluth have extreme close range weapons that do far more damage.
Hence, less ships required.
Your wrong also in the armour + cloak arguement.
Cloak is in compensation for crap PD
AHR is in compensation for weaker armour and in conjunction with cloak, works.
ICC have good PD and pulse wave, but dont have any offencive type weapon. Like the UGTO have flux beam and wave.
- -
@ Alien, good point.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2005-08-15 16:06 ]
_________________
|
GothThug {C?}
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 29, 2005
Posts: 2932
| Posted: 2005-08-15 16:11
why do i get the feeling Kluth are getting more nerfed in the later patches? this is making me physically ill 
_________________
|
Arcanum {C?}
Cadet
Joined: June 25, 2005
Posts: 222
| Posted: 2005-08-15 16:43
First point: Currently, K'luth disruptors and psi cannons, or any combination thereof, do not deal as much damage as particle cannons over the same 15 second period.
(Clarification: Certain individuals would argue that one disruptor-based alpha-strike is more powerful than one particle cannon-based alpha-strike, ignoring completely the fact that you can unleash 3 particle cannon-based alpha-strikes in the time it takes to perform 1 disruptor-based alpha-strike.)
Second point: Let's assume pulse beams, pulse waves, shield rotation and Ion Cannons are what make ICC unique, and that flux beams, flux waves, armour type selection and QSTs are what make UGTO unique. K'luth have disruptors, cloak, automatic regeneration and SIs. 4 points of uniqueness each. Yet somehow, K'luth supposedly have no need for ship variety because they have strong close range weapons and cloak. Sounds suspiciously like saying that UGTO has no need for ship variety because they have flux waves and armour.
(Aside: I fail to why offering the K'luth additional ship selection poses certain individuals, who will remain conspicuously unmentioned, such a great threat to their sense of security, especially since no one ever mentioned that these newer ships had to be stronger or better, just different.)
Third point: Range is an extremely important advantage. It implies being able to deal damage while not taking any - for the amount of time that it takes for the enemy to close the gap between the two ships' firing distances. So, when a person says that one faction should have long range weapons which are (currently) significantly stronger or minimally equivalent in power to the short range weapons of another faction, believing that this brings about game balance, this strikes me as astounding. Every faction needs long range weapons, and every faction needs short range weapons. The degree of power assigned these weapons for each faction can and should be variable.
(Pre-emptive Response: Cloak theoretically allows one faction to negate the range advantage, agreed. The problem arises when, point blank, said close range faction, i.e. K'luth, is unable cause more damage than said opposing faction, i.e. ICC/UGTO while having weaker armour, and also being unable to fully utilise the advantage of recloaking, due to the current situation with beacons.)
_________________
The Praetorian Wolves.
We are many. We are one.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
