| Author |
What ships need boosting? |
Tiffy Rando
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 19, 2003
Posts: 354
From: Austin, Texas
|  Posted: 2008-11-18 18:08
The way I understand it in this current build of DS, the intent was more or less for all combat ships within the same class to have equal prowess but use VERY different combat styles.
This however is not reflected very well in the current ship layouts. There should never be a definite "this one or that one" answer when a player is asked which ship within a class is the best.
So I had the thought of gathering some opinions on how we can bring all the combat ships within each class more or less in line with each other.
I'll start with a few examples to clarify what I mean.
ICC:
Cruisers:
The missile cruiser seems fine so I won't bring it up...
Heavy cruiser- The HC seems largely Okay in terms of firepower. It's arc layout is pretty much what it's supposed to be. However it lacks just a little bit of extra firepower to really push its damage through. The only tweak to it that I would make would be to replace the Left/Right/Rear missile launcher with a Torpedo instead. As well I would LOVE to see a TN mine dispenser put back on the HC
Assault cruiser - The Assault cruiser is a death-dealing beast of a cruiser, as long as your close up and in front of it. This is more or less the way it should be. In terms of tweaks, I would swapping one fore/left, and one fore/right chem lasers for a pair of sabot launchers in the same slots. That would let an AC pilot soften up a target's defenses while they got into range without spending a ton of energy.
Border Cruiser - This is meant to be an alteration of the Heavy cruiser more intended for mid-long range combat. As it stands its more or less a gimped version of the carrier cruiser. While I like it's EW capacity, I would love to see a little more varied firepower on it. Why is it covered in beams if it's long range?
In addition to that, I think the Dev's noticed how weak fighters are and decided to give the Border Cruiser an extra one as a measure of sympathy. However they merely succeeded in making the Carrier Cruiser seem redundant.
I think it would probably benefit the most from losing one of it's fighter bays, and having it's aft/left, aft/right, fore/left, and fore/right chem lasers replaced with IT missiles. Replacing the lost fighter bay with a fore/left rail gun, and fore/right rail gun would be good. Also replacing the Fore mounted chem laser up front with an AR missile wouldn't hurt.
Carrier Cruiser - This is meant to buzz around and slowly mob a target with ECM'd fighters. Fighters (especially F-29's) are pretty weak as it stands. Adding more fighters would be un-ICC, and would encroach on the UGTO style of play.
So the easy tweak to make would be to add an extra Fore/Left/Right rail gun. Replace the fore/left and fore/right chem lasers with IT missiles. Also replace the Left/Aft, and Right/Aft chem lasers with rail guns.
Jump Cruiser - Last but not least... The Jump cruiser is meant to be a mixed combat/bombing type ship... It's somewhat redundant tossed in with the slew of other ICC bombers and fighter bombing capable craft. However its current layout is quite congruent for filling that role.
I used to enjoy it more when it had it's three PCM launchers, so I came up with this tweak just as an idea. Change out all of it's rails for gauss cannons and replace its two MIRV launchers with PCM's. Then cut out its Fore/Left, and Fore/Right chem lasers, and a Fore/left and Fore/Right AR launcher. Instead add a Fore/Left/Right PCM launcher, a Fore/Left/Right gauss cannon, and a Rear/Left/Right gauss cannon.
Well that was long winded even for me... Please add your thoughts and comments. I might add a post with a full list of devices + slots for these ships so people who aren't familiar with ICC can see what I'm getting at.
_________________
Flagship: MCC-717: C.S.S Antaeus
|
Rae
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 23, 2002
Posts: 284
From: 10 minutes away in a fast boat
| Posted: 2008-11-18 19:30
Not really a single bad idea in the lot... well thought out.
_________________
-so precious lovin the thrill...
|
Reek Havoc *XO*
Chief Marshal
Interstellar Cultural Confederation United
Joined: June 23, 2005
Posts: 327
From: Philadelphia
| Posted: 2008-11-18 20:11
Pretty much spot on there and as a multi factin player I respect the work you've done in investigating and suggesting mods of each ships. I would caution on making changes as such too though as power seems to be a real issue now ith ICC ships. My SCB cannot travel ahead full without bleeding energy. Changing weapons layouts will likely cause more shortages than desired on ICC ships. Just a thought.
My other additions or mods to ICC ships mostly come in the Dread and Station class.
Bomber Dread: Useless with bombs travelling faster than ship, reduced bomb slots and ECM. I would reccommend lvl 0 bombs and upping the slots to 6 is a nice balance. More ECM would be a nice replaceent in lieu of bomb slots too.
Asault Dread: Still love it.
Command Dread: This ship is a mere shadow of its former self. Vastly underpowered and long charging HMA makes it a big slow moving tug boat of a target. Take a sup plat with you or run out of jump fuel if you cant get to a planet before you are jumped.
Missle Dread: Love this ship too. Although I wish we had an option to add torps on broad side arcs for added protection from creeping cloaked kluth mandi's.
Lastly my comments about game play.
It seems that we all spend time in combat but spend a lot more time in repair mode/ supping each other. It would be nice if all repair drones worked equally to keep combat consistent and moving in the mv so the players stay more active. It feels like punishment when your Dread at 5% hull takes 15+ minutes to repair with 12+ reloads on you from varying stations, depots and sup plats.
There is also a lot of frustration with bombing. Bugs/Deync seem to be the cause of frustration. However, I thought the intent was to reduce mirving in the mv. This patch has epicly failed at doing so. Mirving and figther bombing is more prevelant than ever albeit without the prestige gain. Hopefully this will be re-thought and corrected. I liked bombing in 483 and thought merely is the damage of the mirv was reduced it would be a good balance. A good suggestion wold be to maybe let one cloud of mirvs (5-6 mirvs) level a structure and 5-6 nuets level a diamond full of inf.
There's much more. I have to commend the dev. team and staff too for all the hard work. Remember, we play the game and support it and although we bitch at times and get frustrated we still appreciate the work that has gone into th game.
I'll close with a note to the dev team and Faustas, let us (the player base) help you make it a better game rather than the unbalanced one it has become. We're still here.
-RH
_________________
DarkSpace: ICCU (Fleet tag: =ICC=) is always recruiting ICC pilots! (/clan join =ICC=)
|
Sardaukar
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 1656
| Posted: 2008-11-18 21:05
I think extractors could use a boost. They work with asteroids a lot and could use the boost to get through.
_________________
|
Sens [R33]
Admiral
Joined: September 27, 2008
Posts: 1020
From: Edge of th...
| Posted: 2008-11-18 21:22
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-18 21:05, Sardaukar wrote:
I think extractors could use a boost. They work with asteroids a lot and could use the boost to get through.
|
|
DO A BARRELROLL!!
_________________
Proud member of the Order of the Gaifen
Founder and former Club chair of the Shigernafy Fan Club
Co-founder of the Doran Judication Comittee
![Email Sens [R33]](http://www1.palestar.com/gamecq/phpBB/images/email.gif)
|
Pakhos[+R]
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: May 31, 2002
Posts: 1352
From: Clean room lab
| Posted: 2008-11-18 21:40
replying this from opposite faction!
When i came back to play 1.483 i was like why those icc shields arent going down! Now , in this version , i say /y are u coming back for second round? , they say ,waiting for sheilds to charge. So i believe , dev couldnt find the correct numbers to code for icc shield in both version.
Anyway I only can add about cruisers that ,they are twice easier to kill than ugto cruisers. Also missile dread, dude, with torps or without em ,this is my worst nightmare when i am in dread or station. Assault dread , well those ions dont hurt as they used to but double fire/charge rate make me scare when i am hulled and on run 
Combat dread , well comparing to mandy , it is just weak.
_________________
* Josef hands [PB]Quantium the Golden GothThug award for best melodrama in a miniseries...
[-GTN-]BackSlash: "Azreal is a master of showing me what is horribly broken in the game."
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2008-11-18 22:10
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-18 21:05, Sardaukar wrote:
I think extractors could use a boost. They work with asteroids a lot and could use the boost to get through.
|
|
TRY A SOMERSAULT
_________________
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2008-11-18 22:14
The Combat Dread is a lot better than it's ever been in the past. If I were to change anything about it, it would be those missile slots. Two Port and two Starboard don't really contribute that much, especially since when they actually launch all the missiles start off flying straight forward.
I'd suggest switching them to two Fore/Port/Starboard and Aft/Port/Starboard, to give it a little more broadside "oomph."
Pakhos: The Combat Dread is better when fighting UGTO. It's best at stand-off, mid-range combat, but K'luth are going to be getting into close range no matter what you do, so the Assault Dread is a much more effective choice.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
Tiffy Rando
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 19, 2003
Posts: 354
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2008-11-18 23:30
Thank you for all the comments guys. Fornax your point about repairing is absoloutely true. Even the K'luth who have the benefit of AHR, still repair hull at an excrutiatingly slow rate.
Regarding lobsters:
Ignoring their stations, the luth dread class and smaller due to their paper armor (which is perfectly reasonable considering it's regrowth speed) incur damage extremely fast... That being said they spend most of their time on fire.
On the other hand, the ICC are almost as energy deficient as the kluth. If it isn't already this way I think it would make lot of sense if the power requirements per shot for missiles were toned down a bit. The only truly power hungry ICC ships should be the ones in the assault class due to their multitude of beam weapons.
It should also be noted that ICC shields tend to evaporate fairly quickly at the slightest sign of trouble. Considering the meek overall damage of gauss and rail weapons I had a thought that ICC might not do to badly with an HP or recharge rate buff to shields...
Fornax I agree with all your points regardind the ICC dreadnoughts, the bomber dread is somewhat overpowered still, the AD is an awesome piece of equipment, and the MD is VERY effective at what it does.
As to wether or not the MD could use extra torps covering its flanks, that's a hard thing to really determine. We would have to try different setups in the beta server. I think that it's a fine ship for now, and luth deserve the chance to be sneaky 
I fully agree with Jim regarding the Combat dread, exactly what he said is true
Command Carrier - The command carrier, I've decided is actually only inches from being a decent ship. Right now it's problem is it's pathetic amount of offensive capability. It's supposed to be a jack of all trades ship if I recall. The only tweak I'd make to the Command Carrier would be to replace its left/right/fore, and left/right/aft chem lasers with HCLs, and also replace those two gauss with normal rail guns.
That would give it 5 cannons, one missile, and six lasers including an HCL able to fire on its side arcs, making this ship capable of decent broadside combat to supplement its fighters.
Skipping down to the destroyer class.
The combat destroyer, missile destroyer, bomber destroyer, and escort destroyer all seem fine, although the escort really lacks any offense whatsoever (expectedly).
Minelayer Destroyer - The minelayer destroyer, in my opinion should be as combative as the combat destroyer, replacing some of the heavier anti-ship weapons with mines.
Here is a the weapons layout that I think would be suited to the task.
2x Chem laser (full)
1x Railgun (Fore/Left)
1x Railgun (Fore/Right)
1x Railgun (Aft/Left)
1x Railgun (Aft/Right)
1x Sabot (Fore/Right/Aft)
1x Sabot (Fore/Left/Aft)
3x TN Mine dispenser
[ This Message was edited by: Grand Puba Tiffy Rando on 2008-11-19 02:43 ]
_________________
Flagship: MCC-717: C.S.S Antaeus
|
Delando
Marshal
Joined: May 04, 2007
Posts: 260
| Posted: 2008-11-19 09:36
Hull repair IS excruciating slow. If i get hulled to 50%, it'll be just quicker to get a new ship from the SY.
But i dont recomend it unless combat is really heated. give some pres to suppys.
ICC shields does seem much weaker, since we cant afford to use Actives shields anymore.
But some other advantages do compensate for it:
Shield have no mass, making icc ships extremely agile.
the faster turn rate helps greatly in combat, my kluth dressy cant out manuver icc HC's.
And AD have ECCM's, unlike EAD's, so it's harder for kluth to sneak up next to it.
_________________
|
Winters Rapture
Fleet Admiral
United Nations Space Command
Joined: December 09, 2007
Posts: 355
| Posted: 2008-11-19 16:36
very good points, both Fatal Reek Havoc *COM*, and Supreme Potentate Tiffy Rando. if i where to hear that some of these changes where to take place in the beta server i think i would much more inclined to cheak it out. and reek made a very good point, it would be a good idea to actually listen to the players about the game, you might not get as many problems.
_________________
Time for revenge. . .
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-11-19 16:54
Unless, you know, players contradict one another or offer suggestions completely outside the intended scope of a given object or the game.
Not that this thread does anything of the sort - and we do listen to players. We just don't always, and saying that we always should could lead to a really confusing game.
The other thing to keep in mind is perspective. A lot of players have an allegiance to one faction or another, or tend to play one over the others. Not to say that they are intentionally trying to sway the devs to favor their faction, but their experience and preferences can have a subtle and implicit influence on their feedback. So another challenge for devs is soliciting feedback that's constructive and useful but also trying to weigh that feedback against our numbers and the biases of the devs and players. That is, a diehard ICC player might not win consistently and thus call for a strengthening of the ICC - but in our reckoning, their play style may not fit the goals of the faction, or the losses they suffer might be justified (ie, certain ship types are supposed to counter certain others). Trying to balance all this out is very complicated.
And it can't all be a game of numbers, but at the same time, there are a lot of factors to try to balance - overall faction balance, ship class balance, ship balance in terms of it matching similar types on opposite factions (assault v assault) as well as other types, the "style" of the factions, etc. As I'm sure you're all aware after seeing our numerous attempts at balance over the years, its hard to get a perfect system.
BUT - we do appreciate the help. Any feedback is valuable, even if we don't seem to act on it. Its not that we don't like it or you or whatever, but it may just be that we don't think the data fits the goal of the faction, or we like relative strengths, or even that the testing scenario wasn't a common enough occurance; its hard to judge objectively when we explicitly try to balance based on group scenarios instead of one-on-ones, since then there are more variables to try to analyze and separate.
Anyway, keep up the good work; I know I at least think this thread is potentially a great help, and it makes me want to get in and test out some battles and fiddle with some numbers. Thanks, and have patience as we tweak things over the next few days, weeks, and months.
[ This Message was edited by: Shigernafy on 2008-11-19 21:34 ]
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Tiffy Rando
Grand Admiral
Joined: January 19, 2003
Posts: 354
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2008-11-19 17:57
Shig has a good point, the devs do actually listen to what we say. (mostly.) There are always a lot of ideas and a lot of opinions, and I know that many are in fact taken to the table and discussed. We just don't always hear about it.
With this thread what I'm hoping to achieve is to point out some flaws in some of the current ship and faction layouts, and achieve some consensus about how to change them for the better.
Moving on, the UGTO
I mostly liked what I saw, all the ship classes seemed well equipped with good arcs, I personally managed to do a LOT of damage in my EAD. I did notice that while effective versus wimpy ICC shields, particle cannons frankly don't do a whole lot against k'luth station armor (flying the battle dread).
Now I know that k'luth armor doesn't need nerfing, and what I'm trying to figure out is if particle cannons need a small boost. I'm going to use some cannon equipped ICC ships to get a good measure of rail guns vs particle cannons.
I did manage to get my butt kicked flying a torpedo cruiser (with ablatives on the front back and sides) vs a heavy cruiser, now I'm not sure if it's because I'm a nub or if maybe rails are actually decent. On the other hand, myself in a gunboat dessie and a friendly in a harrier frigate were able to destroy the sheilds of a missile dread without much trouble as well as lowering a line stations shields to 70%.
As far as UGTO ship setup tweaks...
Command Dread - I noticed the UGTO Command dread has the same weapons layout as the ICC command carrier but with fewer fighters, and an extra bomb. This leads me to think that if I suggested replacing the fore/left/right and aft/left/right CL's with HLCs on the UGTO Command Carrier, maybe I should suggest the same for the Command dread.
I'm not sure how balanced this would be, I'd have to test it in beta to really find out.
Torpedo Cruiser - I loved everything about this ship, except that I noticed that p torps are quite slow and tend to miss a lot. As such you need to fly full speed to keep close enough to a target to actually land hits. In the process of this you tend to rapidly lose energy.
I'm not sure if adding an extra aux gen would be unfair. So I might suggest maybe increasing it's total energy a little.
_________________
Flagship: MCC-717: C.S.S Antaeus
|
Pakhos[+R]
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: May 31, 2002
Posts: 1352
From: Clean room lab
| Posted: 2008-11-19 18:48
Quote:
|
Moving on, the UGTO
I mostly liked what I saw, all the ship classes seemed well equipped with good arcs, I personally managed to do a LOT of damage in my EAD. I did notice that while effective versus wimpy ICC shields, particle cannons frankly don't do a whole lot against k'luth station armor (flying the battle dread).
|
|
i noticed that too.When i switched to ugto today i tried to help little_caoz while he was fighting to a hive and nest in his ss. What i did , just sit 200 gu away behind hive and space bar smash. Didnt have any energy drain since i was sitting . Interesting , even hive was badly hurted and low on armors, i couldnt manage to breach his armor .Maybe at this point he had 5 drones on him , plus autorepair ,plus fast armor gain ability.
You may consider about p cannons damage but i think it will be a kind of unfair to other factions since p cannons has 1600 gu range. Which is longest range cannons in the game that can be fired.
_________________
* Josef hands [PB]Quantium the Golden GothThug award for best melodrama in a miniseries...
[-GTN-]BackSlash: "Azreal is a master of showing me what is horribly broken in the game."
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2008-11-19 21:40
Quote:
|
On 2008-11-19 17:57, Supreme Potentate Tiffy Rando wrote:
I'm not sure if adding an extra aux gen would be unfair. So I might suggest maybe increasing it's total energy a little.
|
|
Just a quick note about mechanics: a ship's energy pool is governed by three things:
1 The hull size (dessie, cruiser, dread, etc)
2 The engines
3 Any aux gens
The hull class gives the base energy pool, along with a base regen, though I think that is either extremely slow or nonexistent (try disabling your drives and you'll notice its quite slow to recharge).
The engines give a fair bit of a boost to your total energy and also provide the majority of the regen.
Aux gens don't make a huge dent compared to the other two but can provide a bit of augmented juice.
I know that in general the number of aux gens doesn't vary much, but that's probably just habit more than anything necessary. The other two variables, though, are not going to change - defining energy on a ship-by-ship basis just isn't going to happen, and adding or editing engines would drastically change things - since they also affect acceleration speed and max speed (not to mention a not insignificant amount of mass). Thus, its either a tweak to their weapons (either the layout, fine, or the weapons themselves, though this obviously has spillover effects onto every other p-torp-laden ship) or an aux gen.
So anyway, my point is that max power can effectively only be edited by the addition of aux gens - but with the side effect of greater regen as well.
Just so you know.
[ This Message was edited by: Shigernafy on 2008-11-19 21:40 ]
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
