| Author |
New Planet Capping system |
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
|  Posted: 2011-02-13 04:58
was refering to planets engagment range up to 1000, cap range remains at 500, dicto at 1000
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-02-13 08:30
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-13 00:24, jamesbob wrote:
|
|
I'm not sure if you're trolling, but your post is borderline, well... stupid.
Changing prestige values is as simple as changing one value, and it affects everything linearly.
Changing defence damage values affects 6 different bases, and each has a varied affect upon a different hull type. Due to this, calculations, data collection, and research take presidence.
For example, me increasing the value on a Mix Def Base 1 by 100, is far more than increasing the value on Mix Def Base 2 by 100, due to the fact you can put more 1's on a planet.
_________________
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2011-02-13 08:39
Can you make the Tier 2's engagement range longer?
_________________
|
*Nemesis*©
Chief Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: March 05, 2005
Posts: 213
| Posted: 2011-02-13 08:45
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-12 15:37, JBud wrote:
I have actually seen more players this version.
As for the planet capture system, it is more practical. If you have a blockade in orbit, you own that planet, the game merely acknowledges that fact now. It could use some tweaking, but it is quite sound.
|
|
must have his beer goggles on
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-02-13 09:43
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-12 15:37, Kaepora wrote:
Do people sway thier loyalties because of the giant ships in orbit....or the guy pointing a gun at thier head  .
Either way, I sympathise with the billions of pop that die every day in the name of....well arent we supposed to be fighting for these people instead of razing thier homes cuz they switch sides so easily?
|
|
To be honest, the actual point of capturing planets has become steadily more irrelevant over the years.
Right now, the only practical reason you keep a planet is just for a place to spawn your ship, which is just one planet, usually, and you can spawn anything in Home Servers, so. The only reason you attack enemy planets is to cause people to fight.
We're pretty much killing billions of people for giggles, really. And maybe a few badges.
-Ent
_________________
|
mOno.
Fleet Admiral
Joined: January 12, 2011
Posts: 12
| Posted: 2011-02-13 10:38
Seems like the majority loves capping planets, and thats easy now. So its just about timezones whos the one capping, there is usually not much resistance.
Something rare is more important. Less planets would make them more important.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-02-13 10:48
New planetary system is ok. Just needs a bit of tweaking.
Damage and range...
Where missiles use to reach out up to 1500 gus away, planets now only do damage at 500. What needs to be done is a way to scale damage according to range.
Up to 1500 - least damage, 1000 more damage, 500 and under... even more damage.
The animations can vary. Maybe at 1500, you see sporadic missiles hitting your ships. At 1000, a combi of projectiles and missiles... and under 500 GU, projectiles and the occassional beam hitting you?
Someone mentioned bombing having an effect on control? Does it do that now? If not, it should be! Every bomb that hits the planet lowers its control points. Sounds logical to me.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-02-13 11:37
Bombs affect planet control.
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-02-13 13:30
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-13 11:37, BackSlash wrote:
Bombs affect planet control.
|
|
only by virtue of bombing off enemy inf and replacing with your own.
If you bomb only buildings, the controle is unaffected... or am i fps lagging again? (sometimes my hud dosent update. I contribute this to me gpu)
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
jamesbob
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 22, 2009
Posts: 410
| Posted: 2011-02-13 19:37
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-13 08:30, BackSlash wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-13 00:24, jamesbob wrote:
|
|
I'm not sure if you're trolling, but your post is borderline, well... stupid.
Changing prestige values is as simple as changing one value, and it affects everything linearly.
|
|
just out of curosity do you know that if i was to say destroy a station i would gain about 1k presentige if done all by my self and to one armor arc.
that does not seem like a presentige value problem with the armor and shields. (altho i could be wrong)
like you said when you change one its changes everything.
maybe your problem is the hull presentige gain has been messed with (either accdidently or intentionally just throwing it out their)
anyway back on topic
mark 1 bases are supose to be horrible at defending against anything larger then a cruiser.
mark 2 are supose to be great at defending against destroyer to stations.
right now everyone is kinda useing the mark 1 bases when people will let them.
and mark 2 are doing paint scratching (aka shields and armor damage only) to dreads and stations by them self mainly because they do not have enough time to hit the stations.
i like kennys idea with the range increase.
but you may want to throw in a bit more firepower just for the mark 2.
and on a personal note my second post that you claim is border line stupid is pointing out that it seems the devs released something when they are more concerned about combat persentige.
of course i could be wrong but thats kinda the impression i have goten so far coursty of the dev log.
[ This Message was edited by: jamesbob on 2011-02-13 19:51 ]
_________________
|
Spatzz
Grand Admiral
Praetorian Wolves
Joined: March 01, 2009
Posts: 7
| Posted: 2011-02-13 20:30
I highly dislike the new defenses and the lack of actual point defense on planets. Atm I can fire a MIRV at a planet with say 50% PD, and that single MIRV might still make it down. Before 1 MIRV would never ever make it to the surface.
At the same time I am not a fan of the AoE damage planets now give out, those little orange shots they fire are just pretty graphics that are in fact pointless. I would much rather defense bases use actual cannons and be given a laser back for PD.
_________________
|
4ert
Grand Admiral
Joined: September 25, 2002
Posts: 6
| Posted: 2011-02-13 20:54
inf should capture buildings on the planet, not planet itself. Once building is captured, controlling faction can choose to disable or raze it.
defending inf should have serious bonus when fortified in building, like 5x or so.
This can be completely different from current planet control numbers that represent orbital control more than surface control.
_________________
|
Kaepora
Fleet Admiral
Joined: February 08, 2011
Posts: 77
| Posted: 2011-02-13 22:36
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-13 08:30, BackSlash wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-13 00:24, jamesbob wrote:
|
|
I'm not sure if you're trolling, but your post is borderline, well... stupid.
|
|
This is what I think of EVERYTHING jamesbob says  .
Adding a higher range, with different client-side animations (Missile hits, cannons, then beams) that do not contribute to server lag would be a nice effect to kinda "bring back" the old look of planets, and have damage ramp up the closer you get makes sense too. The closer you are to a planet, the easier it should be to hit you.
So I'm throwing my +1 with kenny .
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-02-13 23:51
Increasing planetary def range will also serve to make planet clusters relevant again. Right now I could sit at, say, Fargo and not worry abt Erebuni or Tiflis.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Cory_O
Grand Admiral
Joined: July 15, 2010
Posts: 104
| Posted: 2011-02-14 01:07
I have been watching this thread to see where it went, and it has wound up where i thought it would. I agree that planetary defence structures are underpowered at the moment, and I also understand that making in big changes all at once is a dangerous proposition.
I think that something does need to be done for planetary defence structures, be it increased damage, increased range, reducing the requirements (i.e. power and workers. which hasnt been discussed but may be an easier way to achieve the same goal as increasing damage output) or any combination of the above. I do not mind the planet capping system its self, the main problem is that with the way planetary defence structures work currently there is no incentive to bomb or land infantry because you can easily tank the damage and capture it that way.
Perhaps, along with tweaking structures, a tweak could be made to the amount of affect infantry have on control. Basicly, what i want to see is a reason to bring transports and bombers. That would be ideal, i like the idea of having to work for a planet.
I understand from a programming standpoint this is probably a whole bunch of different things and they probably have affects on other things that may or may not be related.
I have patience and i would prefer it take time and be done right, than to rush it and it... suck, to put it bluntly.
_________________
I am the monster in your head. I am the phantom under your bed. I am the broken string when youre hanging by a thread. I am the darkness when the light fades away. When the buds of hope begin to sprout I am the harvester.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
