| Author |
Darkspace Balance |
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
|  Posted: 2009-09-30 12:59
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-30 06:21, Shigernafy wrote:
It just hasn't happened due to scarce resources and time constraints.
|
|
Your words say Someday but the meaning is Never.
-Ent
_________________
|
befuddled
Fleet Admiral
Joined: December 01, 2002
Posts: 42
From: befuddled
| Posted: 2009-09-30 17:03
Umpteenth vote for pre-shipyard scenario: scarce resource planets to fight over; infinitely moddable ships made uber with alien tech; missions assigned by superiors for financial reward that can be spent on desirable mods (and a reason to obey); considerations of risk and loss with your preciously modded ship...
I never cared whether factions were unbalanced as long as you'd be forced to play whichever one was disadvantaged numerically at the time of logging on: it could make for some desparate, frantic, rear-guard action. If it all went to hell in a handbasket, meh, maybe things'd go better for you in the next scenario. If things did eventually go your way, then victory was all the sweeter for it.
As has been said before, it's not coming back. Still, nice to stir up the fond I remember whens.
MV? Never been too fussed rally. Some days the tide is in, some days the tide is out.
_________________
\"Scissors are overpowered. Rock is fine.\" - Paper
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2009-09-30 17:15
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-30 12:59, Enterprise wrote:
Your words say Someday but the meaning is Never.
|
|
I don't think you understand how long infinity is.
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2009-09-30 17:17
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-29 23:07, Sops wrote:
A simple map redesign, give each faction a home system with one in the middle to fight over.
|
|
Sag contains 5 system, Every faction as its own system (assuming it has not been captured) theres one to fight for in the middle, the only extra is the system the Mir controls, no one goes there..
SO you current idea is mostly our current situation
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2009-09-30 17:22
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-30 12:59, Enterprise wrote:
Your words say Someday but the meaning is Never. |
|
Actually, my words say that we never rejected it and thought it a good idea. Your words implied malicious dismissal.
I never addressed implementation schedules or likelihoods. I agree that its unlikely to happen.
<3 you too
this is why you don't see staff posting in threads or getting involved in discussions on development
_________________
* [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.\"
|
Sops
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 07, 2004
Posts: 490
| Posted: 2009-09-30 17:54
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-30 17:17, Zero28 wrote:
Sag contains 5 system, Every faction as its own system (assuming it has not been captured) theres one to fight for in the middle, the only extra is the system the Mir controls, no one goes there..
SO you current idea is mostly our current situation
|
|
http://www.darkspace.net/index.htm?module=servers.php&sid=&server_id=247407
You are forgetting either R33 or Luyten. There is also a direct jump between BD and Epsilon Eri which would be a bit unfair to the K'Luth and ICC if the ICC were actively competeing for territory.
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2009-09-30 19:12
My apologies, i totally forgot about one 
but i dotn think a 4 system would be any different, the people cna still be verywell scattered
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2009-09-30 19:54
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-29 23:07, Sops wrote:
Make it harder to cap a planet when there are no defenders. I know that idea sounds stupid but here is my reason. Someone else said they like to go on to the server and capture all the planets, to win the game like the good old times. There is a big difference between then and now, however. Back then you actually had to fight to capture the server and it was never an easy thing to do. Now the UGTO and K'Luth go back and forth every day capturing R33, Luyten and a hand full of planets in each others systems. It is like the factions time it just right so one signs on just when the other is leaving. Then it is no contest, one side has all the players and they go over and capture everything. No challenge, just boring. What are you winning in that?
|
|
Making them harder to cap would make it worse IMO. One of my favorite things about scenario servers was that the game restarted from the beginning every few hours, meaning there was always planet capping and engineering to do.
Consequently, one of my biggest problems with the MV is that the planets are always capped and almost always fully built. It takes away a huge part of the game, which is the intense chess-like jockeying for planets. When planets are always built, all you do is fly around in a combat ship and look for a fight. That gets old.
That's why scenarios did it best: You always had everything to do. You were not going to succeed as a team on a map if people didn't want to use transports or engineer, and even still, it was no big deal since a new map was a few short hours away and teams were bound to be scrambled. In the MV, planets are captured to try to stimulate combat, but not as the goal to achieve, unlike scenarios.
There's the big difference: The goal in the MV is to fly around in dreads and fight, the goal in scenarios is to win the map by capturing all the planets, earning bonus prestige for your team and participating in all the elements of this game.
A winnable MV with a goal might help. Might. I don't have very high hopes for that though, because like I said it's always fully built. I personally don't find it fun to log on, see all the planets captured and fully built, maybe one not fully built or one recently bombed, and that's it. I love the excitement of the early scenario game, where planets are still being captured and furiously bombed and defended, in an attempt to get the bigger ships while preventing the other side from doing the same. The MV can never have that same excitement unless it duplicates scenario gameplay, and then what's the point? Just make it scenarios.
_________________
|
Julian Delphiki
Admiral
Joined: June 19, 2002
Posts: 170
| Posted: 2009-10-01 02:36
I have to agree with Sops and Mr Sparkle on a couple of ideas.
Making the MV so you have to capture certain planets to move on would make the Mv require more teamwork and strategy which imo makes it funner(no strategy/goal isnt very fun).
While that may not be feasible anytime soon, how about having gates with a control flag similar to the stars. Capture certain flag planets and gain access to a certain gate to the next system(in Sag, you would generally already have access to the gate going to the center system, but you would need to control certain planets in that system to move on to enemy systems beyond.)
Along with this, making the gates in each home system only able to spawn for the certain faction. ie in Lacerta, only ugto can spawn at the cross-server gates when loading directly into that server. Require factions to push their way through Sag and gain access to the gate to the enemy's home system in order to invade. This helps push combat into localized regions without having to cut the servers down in size.
Also, Scenario servers do need to have a bit more priority in the game. Sparkle made a good point that right now in the MV, there is rarely the need to build. Scenario offers more of an all-inclusive gameplay server. You need more organization and different types of ships in order to win the scenario. Though as it is, scenario doesnt appeal to many for a few reasons that have been mentioned.
[ This Message was edited by: Julian Delphiki *P2* on 2009-10-01 02:50 ]
_________________
|
jedi42
Grand Admiral
Evil Empires Inc.
Joined: February 25, 2002
Posts: 478
From: jedi42
| Posted: 2009-11-27 01:08
Quote:
|
On 2009-09-30 07:00, Coombie wrote:
All the people posting in this thread clearly care about the game and want it to thrive. the powers that be need to start listerning.
Lets look back in time and see what made ds popular in the first place, it wasnt the mv thats for sure even in the hay day of ds the scenario server had 50+ players in it and the mv had aboiut 15-20, if i had to pick the 1 thing that began the down fall of ds i would say it was the invention of shipyards, great for the mv, but killing scenario thus the majority of players.
I believe if scenario was returned to the old system, pre shipyard, we would see player numbers increase
I still think the mv should stay but it needs to be winnable as others have stated it is pointless atm, and the faction ai ruin any decent battles that do hapen there, remove factrion ai increase mi/pirates/whatever but leave the playing to the players not retarded bots.
|
|
Thanks Coombie.
I hope someone has been listening. Honestly, I haven't been back to DS since I made the OP.
I think Coombie and a few others get it, I just wonder if the rest do. And even if they do, if anything can be done.
Good seeing you around Coombie.
_________________
jedi42, darkjedi42, [drunk], hoid o' toitles, evil, rum, cl2k drainer, gdi, {C?}, hive teets, fusion mating, perfect cloud formation, death star, point jump, tractor scout, torp det, def cluster, cloaked elf
|
ADmiraLMaXimus (Bringer of Doom)
Chief Marshal
Praetorian Wolves
Joined: March 09, 2002
Posts: 363
From: Earth
| Posted: 2009-11-27 02:18
well back to the topic...
i dont belive the game is totally balanced yet
the biggest problem i see is missles....
missles are the reason for the arc bug
and since we have to live with that bug... then missles should be made a lot weaker.
missles hit any part of a ship and the only area effected is the rear
so turning your ship to use good areas or armor or hull doesnt make a difference.
so ugto and kluth are very easily hulled while icc can just rotate shields to the rear to prevent missle damage.
either fix the arc bug once and for all and dont just be lazy and say live with it or make the missles a lot weaker....
but do something about it please 
then there will be more balance than there is now
thank you
_________________
Revenge Is A Dish Best Served Cold..... It Is Very Cold.... In Space.....
|
Starcommander
Marshal
Joined: December 14, 2005
Posts: 579
From: In your base, stealing your cookies
| Posted: 2009-11-27 05:26
A MV with a goal. Have the war fought sector by sector (and make more) have key star systems and at the end of the day (every 12 or 24 hrs) the side that holds the most star systems wins. Keeping an odd number of systems makes it for a clear winner in each one instead of having ties. A new sector is loaded up and the war continues. Sectors could be 3-5 systems with around 5-10 planets each (half of which are Key planets to hold). Each system should have at least 1 terran planet if not more. Have the campaign written so even if its just one side causing landslide after landslide it still will take a week or more to reach the final home system (yes EXPAND the DS universe). When one side is completely wiped out it will move on to the next nearest sector to the second enemy. All 3 sides still would be present, with the defeated side trying to redeem themselves in this new area. The war would continue until one side has gained control of both the other factions home sectors. When in home sectors it would start with the retreating faction already in control of the sector but this wouldn't last for long. This would make everyone happy the builders would have lots of work to do and the combat people would still find lots of combat around the Key planets. Personally I love doing it all, building, combat, bombing it all was fun.
The winning side that was on at the time should get a 3k pres bonus for winning the war. Fleeted members could gain an additional 2k pres for this win (making it more of an incentive to be fleeted) as well as for all fleeted members of that side gain the pres even if they were not on that day (active members only, duh!). For winning a sector all players of the winning side gain 300 bonus pres on top of the 10 pres they get for each key planet owned. Losing side would get only 5 pres for each key planet they own (must be on at the time of the loss). Maybe if the server could keep a log of who's been on that day so that those who have logged off still get the pres for the win since they too helped in the victory. This would need to be a min of 1 or 2hrs of communicative play to gain this bonus. Since D/C's happen is why I say communicative play time instead of just a straight 1 or 2hrs of play. Cuz if you get D/Ced just twards the 2hr mark it would be quite annoying to have to do it all over again.
If in the case that one side has completely logged off. When it moves to the next sector that there's a single uncappable planet that's a long jump away (30 or 40 sec) from the nearest system. This would be a Barren or Ice planet just out there with the jump gate next to it. This is a non key planet and is more or less a large asteroid that's in a wide orbit of one of the systems. This provides a fall back point and a launch point for a side that has logged off completely or is getting whupped. So that when some players come on to that side they have an INF planet to work from to move in and start capping non key planets at first in order to gain momentum to strike at the well defended Key planets. There should be an arid at least that's a non key planet. With the current resource limits on planets this would be needed, if the resource caps were removed and the old type of resource gathering was implemented again this would not be needed. Also on a side note on that, make mining beams able to mine just one type of resource instead of just picking everything up at once.
This gives the MV the Scenario style play with a clear winnable goal. Rework the storyline with the war so it has progressed and now all 3 sides are now in the running. I like the scenario still in its early stages of the campaign where its just ICC vs UGTO good battles and lots of just good fun. Have just 2 servers again, Scenario for the faster paced Cruisers and below fighting and MV with the above idea in place for the overall war. I always saw it like this, SV was the quick short version of the game for people who couldn't commit a lot of time to play the game but wanted some good time to play and find some combat still. MV was the long term big war that continued on and on with a complete winnable goal in the end (capping everything and forcing a reset).
All of this shouldn't take a long time to program into the current system. Other then having to make more systems this shouldn't take long to do.
With the current order of things bombing needs to be made much more viable with more pres gain for stuff killed. Right now bombing is more of a necessity and is really boring and you don't gain much. Is why you see the current MV with fully built planets that just change hands. The old MIRV bombing WIPED the planet, now you had to go back and rebuild it or lose what you just took. It gave lots of pres with both bombing and then rebuilding it. Also back then there were only certain planets (DEF number) that a bomber dessy at the time could take. A high Def 16 or 20 planet was not solo-able to a bomber dessy, bomber dread maybe but overall caused it to be a team effort to bomb the planet. After bombing someone would need to get combat or continue the bombing campaign and allow the others to fortify what you currently just took. With the MV/SV hybrid this would emphasize the need for combat support during bombing campaigns to tie up the defenders while a few started there bomb stacks.
With the ideas stated above this would fix the current stagnate MV.
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Starcommander -TNCO- on 2009-11-27 05:27 ]
_________________
WH 40k armies, Grey Knights, Dark Angles, Imperial Guard (Vostroyan First Born) and Orks.
There is a thin line between knowing when to give up and when to try harder.
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2009-11-27 10:08
The problem with a winnable MV? You wake up the next day and it was won overnight, when you had half the planets when you logged off.
Plus, a winnable MV is not that much different than scenario, it's only on a larger scale. We simply don't have enough players to support it. With a winnable MV, the entire MV can easily be won in a few short hours by a small handful of players at a time when DS population is at it's lowest (usually past midnight EST and early morning GMT).
And that's exactly what would happen too. Over and over and over.
I still play in scenarios. Yeah the maps are bugged, shipyards really kill the action, having to wait all that time to start using cruisers and dreads, and lately there's more new players who have no idea what they're doing than vets (and I don't mean the kind of new player who's trying to learn), but it's still more fun than the MV to me.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2009-11-27 10:37
I think the biggest question/issue continues to be danced around again and again.
SOME players dont like MV.
SOME players dont like AI.
SOME players dont like PvE.
SOME players dont like farming for enhancements.
SOME players dont like a winnable MV.
There are two very distinct camps on some things, and some crossovers in others. I mean as far as player support.
If you like scenarios, fine. Play scenarios. Why have the complete opposite view that MV MUST go?
If you don't like a PvE server, fine. Don't go into Proc or RR. Why be so worried that others do?
Try to have the areas of the game that you love most tweaked, as opposed to trying to get whole sections of the game whacked out.
Question: Ever think of the fact that some players like the AI and PvE servers as much as you like scenario server and PvP only? What if you get rid of them and those players say screw it?
I ask, cause I am probably one of them. I like those aspects of progress that DS has taken. I don't like others, such as limited modding & leveled weapons, just to name a few. I do like those though.
People make arguements about how "other games have" all the time about all sorts of things they hold to be sacred. Then they get hypocritical or blind when the issue is something that seems their own pet hate.
Far as I am aware, those same other games also have AI and PvE....
A winnable MV would make sense, because it would just be an extended scenario. There has always been a clamour for some type of recognition of a server capture.
Would it be capped overnight? Um. Isn't it capped overnight to an Aussie right now? It is the fact that the game is international that it will ALWAYS be possible for some person identified as (you) to wake up and find the server reset or whatever overnight.
So What. Is it better waking up and seeing it all red and having to grind out a system again? It'll be reset....um...that is better....right...?
If you fall in the catagory of "doesn't play in the MV", then honestly I dont see wth you would care what happened there anyways.
But I would only say that if I were being honest.
Oops.
_________________
bucket link
|
Sens [R33]
Admiral
Joined: September 27, 2008
Posts: 1020
From: Edge of th...
| Posted: 2009-11-27 11:03
I don't know if you have actually tested it or not but the HC vs BC and TC vs AC are entirely based on player skill. The stock ships are about as balanced as any ship will ever be on DS.
_________________
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
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
