| Author |
Idea to allow weapon flexability but avoid ED/PICKET issues |
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
|  Posted: 2006-11-19 00:39
Modding has always been tricky, but, I know this is scary, but I agree with Jack.
Most of the underlying problem in most versions is people using a ship as it was not intended, then stating quite simply...
Quote:
|
"It's part of the game, so its the way it's supposed to be!"
|
|
...which we all know, is a crappy response but we cant argue with that kind of logic now can we? 
This alone gets rid of many problems. No more PD ships with massive cannons. No cannon ships with massive amounts of beams. No missle boats with torpedos (for christ sakes, its called a damn Missile Cruiser.)
It's time the Darkspace got off the whole 'free willed modding' thing. I wouldn't comeplain if they ripped modding completely away.
The limited amount of modding is more than enough. You can turn your ship from beam offensive to beam defensive. You can change your cannon type to be conservative or to full frontal. You can make your torpedos heavy hitting, or accurate. Your missiles slow and longer range or fast and short range.
You have plenty of options; more than enough options. If you want a ship with missiles get a ship designed with lots of missiles. If you want a ship with cannons. get a ship with lots of cannons. What reason would there be to mod ships who werent designed for something when you have a ship already configured FOR that something?
Theres only one reason : People like making overpowered ships. People want the upper hand, and thats the only reason behind the advocating of it.
Not enough types of ships you say? They can make more. They can refine the ones already there (has anyone even thought of that?), they can make it perfect, and this is the perfect path to it.
Im sorry, there is no foundation at all for cross-class modding, so therefore, Jacks plan works.
-Ent
_________________
|
Russian Roulette with Muskets
Grand Admiral
Joined: September 04, 2002
Posts: 393
| Posted: 2006-11-19 04:25
*mantra* no stupid mixes plz.. no stupid mixes plz... no stupid mixes plz... like putting one or two lone missiles onto a ship... missiles are long range and only usefull in packs.. so use them on missile ships only.. no stupid mixes please... no stupid mixes please...*
_________________
- In firepower we trust.
- I'm not buying this!
-we ran out of firepower.
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2006-11-19 04:54
Just to make it clear:
We are not removing modding.
What we are doing is restricting weapon types back into thier own categories, as was done in past versions.
A Standard Cannon(ie. particle) will only be replacable by another Standard Cannon mount(Railgun/EMP/Guass).
Far from restricting modding, this will actually enable us to introduce a greater number of weapon variants as we will be able to have a fair degreeof control as to how they are used ingame.
For an example:
Instead of having just one particle cannon, we might have three variations:
Standard P-Cannon - Same as ingame
Sustained Burst P-Cannon - Fires more projectiles per volley but at a much lower damage per projectile and slightly slower recharge.
Charged Burst P-Cannon - Fires two volleys each containing three projectiles which spread out as range increases. Has a longer delay between each volley.
These are concept examples only. There are no plans to introduce them in 1.484 as of yet.
There is a chance that K'Luth might be getting a second cannon type weapon to give them a choice and more modding options, but until we can actually playtest the core ships we cannot go much further than concept ideas.
[ This Message was edited by: Drafell on 2006-11-19 05:25 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-11-19 04:57
Let me just say that that restriction design is in no way finished, and not the final thing. It's just something to work on.
@Fattie. Yes, K'luth don't get very many options. But it's hard to give modding options to a faction that's designed for just one thing. But we can impliment new weapons at a later date. So whilst it may seem that ICC and UGTO get more options (no matter how limited), the change is very little.
We don't know how much is going to be restricted yet - as we have no idea of what level of modding breaks the game. For all we know, torps might have little impact, so we might leave them - or we might not. It's a work in progress, but I hope you can see what we're aiming to do.
Please, please don't act like it's a big thing. Me and Drafell argued with Faustus AGAINST removing modding. But we do agree that there needs to be restrictions. And it's no easy task, implimenting upgrade/modding restrictions but at the same time allowing some level of customisation without allowing any overpowered builds to become available.
At the moment, I think those restrictions are pretty good. UGTO can switch their weapons to do more systems damage - which I think is pretty cool, considering it's one of their special traits. ICC can switch out to get more defence, which again I think is pretty neat - it defines them as what they're supposed to be - a defencive faction. K'luth on the other hand, are very hard to do, because they're intended to be a hit and run faction. I see no need in giving them CL's, because they have disruptors, and they have no use for the flux/pulse beams, since they're not meant to do systems damage, and the can cloak to avoid missiles and such, the same goes for cannons.
UGTO and ICC however, don't get AME drives, or the AM jump drive. I personally think this is a good choice - UGTO and ICC were never meant to be able to go as fast as K'luth, and it allows them to be speedy, like their original design intended them to be.
I hope this explains what we're trying to do, and convey the fact that it's not easy to do. We do want modding in the game, and I'm pretty sure it won't be removed (yet), but there needs to be restrictions, so we can all enjoy a balanced and better game.
- Jack
[ This Message was edited by: Judge Dev *Jack* on 2006-11-19 04:59 ]
_________________
|
Uberhund
Admiral
Joined: July 15, 2005
Posts: 21
From: Atlanta Metro Area, GA U.S.A.
| Posted: 2006-11-19 10:42
A few 'Final Thoughts'.
Can anything be done about enemy ships 'hiding' iunder an allied ship's bulk?
Case in point: We were fighting another faction, when one of their cruisers comes in and parks under one of our stations. We could not hit it because the station was 'shielding' it with its mass. Anytime we shot at the crusier we actually hit the station. (The station player had logged, so we got the cruiser when the station disappeared and he was surrounded.)
Can missle behavior be changed so it continues on track to the last known position of its target until it hits something (does not have to be intended target) or runs out of fuel, instead of self distructing if a ship eguages ECM or cloaks?
If a ship is firing any kind of weapon, should not my ship be able to lock on to it for a second or two even if it is cloaked or 'hidden' by ECM?
This may make fighters too much, but could they straffe the area they are targeted for, reguardless of if they have a 'target' or not? It would also be nice if they could be set on defensive mode so they would fight enemy fighters and possibly shoot down incoming missles/torpedos?
Coul;d there be a bomber variant that carries neut instead of mirv type bombs?
Thanks.
_________________
Who let the DOG out?
|
Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A
| Posted: 2006-11-19 15:13
I still say get rid of modding, give everyone a stick, and let natural selection take over..
_________________
|
GothThug {C?}
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 29, 2005
Posts: 2932
| Posted: 2006-11-21 04:33
For a new Kluth Cannon Type how bout something similar too a UGTO's Pcannon? Partical PSIcannon type thing i dont know lol
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-11-21 08:26
No. ICC and K'luth won't get a weapon 'like' the Particle Cannon, same as ICC and UGTO won't get a weapon 'like' the Psi Cannon.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
