| Author |
Version 1.44 |
Antra
Admiral
Agents
Joined: February 16, 2002
Posts: 657
From: Grand Rapids, Michigan
|  Posted: 2002-03-26 11:12
Two things.
1) K'luth can now have point defense! Yay! At least, if they mount a CL300 or so in the ELF slot. Limited arcs, sure, but hey  .
2) ICC is now at the same disadvantge the UGTO is when facing K'luth: disruptors don't go through shields, but when I can take your shield down....hehehehe.
_________________
|
Frohike
Admiral
Mercenaries of Andosia
Joined: August 14, 2001
Posts: 33
From: Germany
| Posted: 2002-03-26 11:17
Quote:
|
On 2002-03-26 10:46, Gideon wrote:
Five, it is now Beam class, so ships that can mount multiple beams can mount multiple ELF beams.
|
|
Erm i hope Faustus will not allow more then one ELF ship, it´s a kind of special weapon...
BTW: Don´t think sooo much over the ELF and the EMP before u couldn´t test 1.44, wait, test the weapons and THEN you can write suggestions.
_________________
|
Faustus
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 2748
From: Austin, Texas
| Posted: 2002-03-26 13:23
I'm having some problems today with the beta server, just called at the ISP and they are looking to fix the machine right now.
The energy costs for ALL devices have been completely rebalanced. I put all the devices into an Excel spreadsheet, and came up with a balance that should be far better than what we currently have.
The ELF and EMP weapons/mines now damage internal systems based on the distance of the system from the hit point on the ship. The system before, simply used the facing of the device (front, aft, right, left) to determine if the system could be damaged or not.
I'm currently waiting for the beta server to come back online, once it does I will be broadcasting a message for everyone to help beta test the 1.44.
-Richard
_________________
|
Antra
Admiral
Agents
Joined: February 16, 2002
Posts: 657
From: Grand Rapids, Michigan
| Posted: 2002-03-26 13:40
Sounds great! Could you set the two beta servers to be Unbalanced, so we can pick and choose what factions we want to test?
_________________
|
Gideon
Cadet
Joined: September 14, 2001
Posts: 4604
From: Oregon, USA
| Posted: 2002-03-27 15:01
I did test them some.
And while I personally don't like point five, I figured it would make UGTO and ICC players happy.
My personal opinion is that the ELF should be special or unique class.
_________________
...and lo, He looked upon His creation, and said, "Fo shizzle."
|
Dormio Niggling
Cadet
Agents
Joined: February 15, 2002
Posts: 154
From: Warsaw, Poland
| Posted: 2002-03-28 06:14
I've proposal for EMP...
1. EMP Cannon could be mounted only in huge ship (because of it power) i.e. Dreadnaught or Cruiser.
2. EMP could be mounted in smaller ship (i.e. Frigate or Destroyer) but it should have less power and should give demage points both for enemy and friendly ships (you don't have to target).
Why ?
EMP Cannon need much more power from system than an easy EMP device -> so in this way it will be available only for big ship.
In smaller ships there is not enough power to use EMP Cannon but there could be used simple EMP device making wave doing some demages to all ships around.
_________________
Confront your enemies avoid them if you can,
A gentleman can walk but never run...
|
Gideon
Cadet
Joined: September 14, 2001
Posts: 4604
From: Oregon, USA
| Posted: 2002-03-28 11:03
I am strongly against the inclusion of sabot rockets on any tech tree at this time.
The reason is thus:
Sabot rockets are fired in four round volleys (like the cannons), and attract point defense. If I remember rightly, they damaged planetary structures. Even if this is changed, they will still attract fire from the planet's defensive lasers.
Just two of these will occupy 8 defense base beams. Three would be 12 beams. Four, well you get the idea.
There are usually between 6 and 8 defense bases able to fire at incoming missile weapons and bombs at any time on a planet's hemisphere. That means 12 to 16 beams to shoot down projectiles.
Just mounting two of these on a ship will allow you to occupy four of the defense on a hemisphere (Four rockets per weapon = 8 rockets, two beams per base = 4 bases, so two bases per one rocket pack). Three or more, and you can occupy the whole defensive grid (Six or more defense bases). This is before any cruise missiles and MiRV bombs are taken into account. The result would allow just one ship to overwhelm an entire planet's defenses.
I think that this is counter to the goal of requireing several ships to coordinate attacks on a planet.
Sabot rockets would need to not be targetable by point defense, and not able to damage planetary structures in order to be included.
_________________
...and lo, He looked upon His creation, and said, "Fo shizzle."
|
PizzaTheHut
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 14, 2001
Posts: 1180
From: Detroit, MI
| Posted: 2002-03-28 16:09
Quote:
| - Change the code so when you die in the MV, you are redirected to the home system and will spawn there. |
|
I can see how this CAN be a good thing, but how it can also be bad...
point 1 - if you are on proc and ----lag---- into a planet, you are sent way back to Ind fo k'luth (very long drive back) it's not bad for UGTO/ICC as they are right in the middle of everything.
point 2 - you alrready have the option to be sent back. If you die and log off without selecting a ship, you get sent home if I am not mistaken.
I have a few suggestions that aren't too detailed yet, but will hint at one... allow clan's to build a clan home gate. You could restrict it to one per clan, and only clan members can use it. Perhaps it can be related to stations.
Just a thought.
BTW hitting beta real quick, hope k'luth is on one.
_________________
|
Warpath81
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 13, 2001
Posts: 431
| Posted: 2002-03-28 19:27
I agree with some of the stuff Gid is saying about the Sabott Rockets, and I agree to an extent. But there is something else to consider. In the meta, it is getting pretty difficult to make any push into a system. With kluth defenses so powerful and missle defenses knocking down ships so quickly, it is very difficult (almost impossible) to knock down a planet. I think a small fleet should be needed to take down a planet when just dealing with the planet. If you think about it, when the meta starts getting busy, you try to cap a planet and your not going to be dealing with just those insane defenses, but defensive ships as well. If a planet is being well guarded, it is impossible to try and even make an attempt at caping it. Adding Sabbot rocks would make taking planets a little easier (though with the present power of defense structures, not much), and make caping a planet with a defense screen of ships somewhat possible. Right now, it takes a fleet of about 4-6 ships by themselves to take out a planet without cover...that would mean a fleet of 8-12 to take out a planet with cover, and that would even be iffy. Full built planets area pretty tough nut to crack, and I think adding sabbots would make it a little more balanced and resonable. Plus, it would make the carrier a serious foe to deal with, instead of being kind of laughable, as most people view them right now. I'd be scared to death of a wing of fighters with both sab. rockets and rail guns, which would make me think twice about dealing with carriers, which is kind of what they are for.
FYI: if we decide to make carriers and fighters this powerful, it might be wise to knock down the defensive power of carriers way down, requiring them to have an escort at all times. That is the way carriers (in sci-fi shows and in real life) work: very weak ships with extreme high range fire-power. Without an escort, a carrier is screwed, with one, it is amazingly powerful.
Just my 2 cents
_________________
Come hang out with us
irc.steelrat.com, channel #dirtydeeds
http://www.steelrat.com/ddforums
|
NeoViper
Admiral
We Kick Arse
Joined: August 19, 2001
Posts: 491
From: Connecticut, USA, Earth
| Posted: 2002-03-28 21:36
Given that the DC is my favorite ship... i have 2 things to say...
1) the DC as of right now.. has no defense other then its limited PD and its fighters... that makes them VERY weak against other dreads or 2 cruisers...
2) In the real navy... the carriers are the most respected ships in the water... and I agree with warpath.. there a joke in DS. I think that needs to be looked into
[ This Message was edited by: NeoViper on 2002-03-28 21:37 ]
_________________
Kill me IF you can....
But remember...
I have GTN...
and we will hunt you.
|
Deleted
Admiral
Joined:
Posts: 0
| Posted: 2002-03-29 20:21
Sabot missile is no good as is, prefer railgun for three reasons.
1) You cant destroy railgun shots.
2) The ammo is too low, finding I'm running out - which I've never done with a railgun. Needs to have at least 60 ammo.
3) If I am gonna equip it then I have to spend credits, the cost seems to vary from 3200 downwards. Yet if I sell railguns I get 125 creadits - where am I supposed to get cash in the middle of a battle field ? Is it possible to get a reasonable amount if you are selling your old weapons. If the answer back to this question is dont mod then please can we have some free upgrades as per UGTO and Kluth.
Seems as though shields have either been redistributed or reduced. Is there a reason for this ? I understood that ICC were disadvantaged in fire power compared to UGTO dreads anyway ?
I've not had enough battles to comment on EMP but I've heard a lot of moaning from the Kluth especially - the obvious point though is that battle damaged ships will be unable to escape due to gadget damage for ICC and Kluth, yet UGTO will be ok. The term shooting fish in a barrel seems to be apt.
PS.
In reply to a comment about the pulse shield - hardly ever used it. Would prefer to have an extra railgun on my cruiser anyday.
_________________
|
Gideon
Cadet
Joined: September 14, 2001
Posts: 4604
From: Oregon, USA
| Posted: 2002-03-30 10:05
I have a thread in suggestions on teh new sabot rockets. Redirecting my commentary on them there.
_________________
...and lo, He looked upon His creation, and said, "Fo shizzle."
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
