| Author |
Question(s) about 1.672 - Beta |
Ants
Chief Marshal
Joined: February 11, 2005
Posts: 315
From: Canada
|  Posted: 2011-09-28 08:15
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-27 06:34, Pantheon wrote:
No, it doesn't. The 'out of combat' repair is fine, the only issue this seeks to resolve is taking too long getting back to combat. Back in the day when your ship exploded and it was gone for good, you could just grab a new one at full health, which minimised downtime.
|
|
There was one advantage to this old system,
You couldn't keep spawning stations or E/ADs due to the resources and different metals. When invading a system you used to have to spawn at your home systems that had the resources and make your way back.
I want that DS back
_________________
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2011-09-28 08:20
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-28 08:15, Fatal Ants (XO) wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-27 06:34, Pantheon wrote:
No, it doesn't. The 'out of combat' repair is fine, the only issue this seeks to resolve is taking too long getting back to combat. Back in the day when your ship exploded and it was gone for good, you could just grab a new one at full health, which minimised downtime.
|
|
There was one advantage to this old system,
You couldn't keep spawning stations or E/ADs due to the resources and different metals. When invading a system you used to have to spawn at your home systems that had the resources and make your way back.
I want that DS back
|
|
Well it's not coming back, so tough banana's. You may like it, another person may like it, but for everyone person that does, you can bet your bottom dollar that two or three others won't.
_________________
|
Ants
Chief Marshal
Joined: February 11, 2005
Posts: 315
From: Canada
| Posted: 2011-09-28 10:01
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-28 08:20, Pantheon wrote:
Well it's not coming back, so tough banana's. You may like it, another person may like it, but for everyone person that does, you can bet your bottom dollar that two or three others won't.
|
|
True that,
But still can dream of the "Good ol' Days"
_________________
|
Nekatil
1st Rear Admiral
Team Germany
Joined: April 07, 2010
Posts: 43
| Posted: 2011-09-29 23:24
just tested the new targeting for beams looks good but 1thing bothers me:
when i alpha targets, all lasers target the same sub-gadget
if possible, every one should target a different gadget
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-09-30 15:04
Quote:
| On 2011-09-29 23:24, Nekatil wrote:
when i alpha targets, all lasers target the same sub-gadget
if possible, every one should target a different gadget |
|
It will be less efficient that way. Cause when you target a specific gadget, you don't want those beams hit randomly anymore. Even if you are not focusing on any part, concentrating beams on one gadget ensures you have a better chance to deactivate it temporarily, then you can turn to another gadget.
I don't like the current subsystem damage. Weapons cause damage to subsystem when hull gets below 50%. It's terrible that once the subsystem starts repairing, lots of gadgets queues in line. Although the ship automatically self-repair is fast, having almost devices deactivated is a nightmare. I prefer:
- Weapon cause susbsystem damage when they hit hull. Special device like flux doesn't damage armor but surpass them and hit subsystem directly.
- Devices have 10% higher HP but self-repairs 20% more slowly. Thanks to that, during the combat, ships won't disable in a sudden but its parts get deactivated periodcally.
_________________
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-09-30 15:43
System damage is generally pants all round regardless, and I believe ideas are being worked on to make it less useless what with the "supply ships instantly repair it and you'll usually explode before it becomes serious" thing.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-09-30 15:46
i was under the impression that beams targeting gadgets was a visual effect to give the game more flare. Not that each individual gadget can take damage from...
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
| Posted: 2011-09-30 16:31
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-30 15:46, *XO*Defiance{CM7} wrote:
i was under the impression that beams targeting gadgets was a visual effect to give the game more flare. Not that each individual gadget can take damage from...
|
|
That too, yes.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2011-09-30 17:05
Quote:
|
On 2011-09-27 06:34, Pantheon wrote:
No, it doesn't. The 'out of combat' repair is fine, the only issue this seeks to resolve is taking too long getting back to combat. Back in the day when your ship exploded and it was gone for good, you could just grab a new one at full health, which minimised downtime.
|
|
You still do that, only it's another ship in your garage. You die, you spawn your next ship and you jump right back into the fray.
I've never liked it. It always felt too "FPS" to me, and it kinda killed the idea of one fleet wiping out another and taking it's system, because you never really wipe them out when they jump right back to you with a new ship. You invade an enemy system, you beat their defending fleet in a close battle, but because of garages + shipyards you're really killing them multiple times, and sometimes the enemy wins due simply to the fact the attackers can't stop them from constantly respawning. I remember one very prolonged battle for a shipyard (Kluth vs UGTO) where it was simply impossible for Kluth to win even with superior numbers and multiple "victories", because of constant respawning nearby. The victory was decided by the ever-popular tranny rush, but that was the only option; it was either that or give up.
Back in the day you could spawn a new ship, but you had to travel unless the battle was in your home system. I'm talking way back in the day.
The problem with the new timer is the fact that it may make it even easier for people to jump back into battle and influence the outcome, after already being destroyed. I'm thinking worst-case scenarios here. There's nothing more annoying than killing the few defenders then seeing them right back in your face again.
(ok maybe the problem isn't the repair time, but the ease of respawning in another ship in the same system)
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-09-30 17:14
and to that i say, being on the faction with the lowest numbers, we should not hinder a lone, or few players ability to fight back.
Lone defenders have already taken a huge blow with the ecm change. I sort of welcome this change.
Ive tested it myself (exept stations) and found it to be very meh. Its no game breaker for sure. If it keeps people interested in the game, then so be it.
The only problem area i see, is Supply stations...
Maby the repair bonus should only apply to depots, and supply platforms? That way a group of SS cannot augment their abilities.
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2011-09-30 22:41
They don't have a problem fighting back, unless you think being able to respawn over and over is part of fighting back.
I don't.
Like I said, that kind of gameplay feels FPS to me. I don't play FPS. I'm not into action games unless they're Grand Theft Auto or Diablo or something.
_________________
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-10-01 02:20
the alternitive, is;
monkey see biger fleet.
Monkey scratches head.
Monkey logs off because there is nothing monkey can do without help.
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2011-10-02 12:37
- Added in /lock command. Players can specify the rank number or use the two letter shorthand (MS, EN, 2L, 1L, LC, CM, CP, 2A, 1A, VA, AD, FA, GA, MA, CM)
chief marshal and commander ranks need different shorthands. commander can become something like CO or CD
there is this weird problem with locking planets having 2 word names. the command searches for only the first word, and fails miserably when dealing with inputs like Two_Guns.
i want the command to work on planets that i have selected, or allow input of %t in its variable form. i dont want to type names like niflheimr or tar-nak when i am in a hurry
also, whats with the "I'm sorry, but you do not have the sufficient authority" when trying to 1) lock planets to a rank above your own rank; and 2) lock enemy planets, respectively?
otherthan these i like it  praise be to His Excellency Fattierob, Primus-unto-Pares of the dev team.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2011-10-02 13:59
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-02 12:37, 4th wrote:
- Added in /lock command. Players can specify the rank number or use the two letter shorthand (MS, EN, 2L, 1L, LC, CM, CP, 2A, 1A, VA, AD, FA, GA, MA, CM)
chief marshal and commander ranks need different shorthands. commander can become something like CO or CD
|
|
prety sure that's a typo, I'll double check it with
Quote:
|
there is this weird problem with locking planets having 2 word names. the command searches for only the first word, and fails miserably when dealing with inputs like Two_Guns.
|
|
you need to use the command like:
/lock "Two Guns" VA
put quotes around the planet name if it has a space in it
Quote:
|
i want the command to work on planets that i have selected, or allow input of %t in its variable form. i dont want to type names like niflheimr or tar-nak when i am in a hurry
|
|
%t might be easier then doing the . I'll look into it.
Quote:
|
also, whats with the "I'm sorry, but you do not have the sufficient authority" when trying to 1) lock planets to a rank above your own rank; and 2) lock enemy planets, respectively?
|
|
Well their had to be some kind of error message 
_________________
|
Doran
Chief Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 29, 2003
Posts: 4032
From: The Gideon Unit
| Posted: 2011-10-02 14:04
Commander should be CO
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
