| Author |
Stations and Accusations |
Jhomes
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 22, 2013
Posts: 92
|  Posted: 2014-07-15 18:00
Hello there, I am Dark space's The Jhomes, and i want to briefly talk about rules, exploits, and making choices. First off for reasons i do not understand certain UGTO players which i do not wish to offend have accused many of my current ICC teamates with breaking rules such as Faction spying, sabotaging enemy planets, quick logging to avoid death, and such exploits as building platforms on invis system/server borders, among others. Some of these are serious offenses and obviously easiliy understood in the ROC (rules of conduct) as against the rules. Also many of these things are pure speculation with no proof to back them up and are most likely simply result of growing agrivation against ICC. However I am just another player and i have no way of knowing whether or not ALL or some of these accusations are indeed true, as they very well could be. I have been told the accused have been reported and the ones in charge CAN and WILL find out the truth. But i feel i have to say, please everyone use your heads, a few of the accusations i have heard have possible natural explanations, and as a pretty good rule the simplest explanation is more often than not the truth.
First the sabotaging of enemy planets by players switching faction and scrapping and trashing planet structures and planet economy (res, tech, ect). This is seriously ridiculous if true and imo anyone who does this should be banned for life, However I was present on one of the nights in question and ICC was capturing these planets with nothing but AI standing in the way. Is it not easily possible that ICC captured these planets and said planets were trashed during bombing/capturing process?> then UGTO ai recapped them before ICC could fix or ICC left them in disarry to be recapped. Things like this are extremeley common and the fact that the accusers did not think of this further supports my theory that most of this is misdirected frustration, as these are skilled, long time players that to my knowledge know the game well. I think many of you are forgetting we are enemies in faction only, we ALL play this game for the same reasons, we ALL just want to have fun playing whichever faction we choose without feeling that one or two other factions have any sort of advantage whether it be exploiting cheats, or unbalenced ships/weapons/armor(shields).
With that taken care of its time to talk about STATIONS. Most players (me included) think Stations are causing alot of the frustration that is recently threatening the game. Now the DEVS are no fools, they know this and are already making new things such as anti-station seige torpedos (which i have high hopes for after seeing and trying them in person). But this is not about what is happening in the future its about the now. UGTO players have complained that the ICC Line stations shield regen is too much to handle for their weapons to damage, and honestly they are 100% correct on that. Compared to kluth weapons, ICC and UGTO weapons are not all that different in DPS and attacking somthing with such an outragous buffer of tens of thousands of hp regen a second is quite a task. The reason the line stations regen is soo high is simply percentages. ICC shield models regen a percentage of the max hp a second, which works fine for other ships but on a station the shear amount of HP in a shield unit results in a huge number for shield regen. This by itself isnt so bad but when a planet is being attacked by many stations ther is no real way to fight them, whether it be ICC station or not.
Now i bet you thought i would suggest a reduction in ALL station HP didnt you? But instead i have a much more wild solution. People are taking somtimes 2 and 3 stations or more out at a time to fight in battles wherever they may occur, resulting in some of the largest and most boring battles i have ever seen. I propose station not be allowed to go further than 2000 gu maybe less away from the friendly planet it spawns from and then would be used only for planet defense agaisnt invaders instead of fleets of stations boringly crawling across the universe to start an even more boring battle. For this to work, station would not need to lose their WH capability, they only need to lose ability to enter WH, and only 1 type of station (support type, battle type, command type) can be around 1 planet at a time, so you could have 3 stations out at the same planet but they would have to be 1 of each type, no more double and triple battlestations, overwhelming everything and bringing the fun to a grinding halt.
Thanks if you read this far, please lemme know what you think, as this is clearly an issue right now, and the only way to change is to discuss, and we all want the same thing, a better DS for all.
Jason
_________________
|
Rykros1987
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 01, 2012
Posts: 88
From: Not in an asylum. Yet.
| Posted: 2014-07-15 18:53
Error. Too much sentences crammed in too little space. Please recompile.
_________________
|
BoomBox
Admiral
Joined: November 06, 2010
Posts: 4
| Posted: 2014-07-15 22:41
how about making shield energy usage be less on smaller ships, and more on larger ships? that should take care of the percentage regeneration problem.
_________________
|
Len05
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 18, 2012
Posts: 22
| Posted: 2014-07-16 05:37
Quote:
On 2014-07-15 22:41, BoomBox wrote:
how about making shield energy usage be less on smaller ships, and more on larger ships? that should take care of the percentage regeneration problem.
|
If devs alloy your changes,the ICC assault dreadwought (the only one assaut dread in the ICC armada with the torpedo dreadnought) would be unflyable
Problem isn't the energy,it's the shields. Shields need to be patched,that's all
Sorry if I have a bad english
_________________
|
Legatus Immolation
Marshal
Joined: December 20, 2004
Posts: 384
| Posted: 2014-07-16 09:25
I agree with Len, the ICC shield Regen is vastly too high, About a good 5-10 seconds and already maxed shields again, not to mention the Combination with the Defence Regen Attachments which 24% would nearly Triple the Regen rate because of how high the current regen is without them. Face it simply, the real problems of darkspace is fallen into three catagories, Missiles, Stations and ICC shields.
_________________
|
Incinarator
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 24, 2010
Posts: 237
| Posted: 2014-07-16 12:27
Quote:
On 2014-07-15 18:00, The Jhomes wrote:
First the sabotaging of enemy planets by players switching faction and scrapping and trashing planet structures and planet economy (res, tech, ect). This is seriously ridiculous if true and imo anyone who does this should be banned for life, However I was present on one of the nights in question and ICC was capturing these planets with nothing but AI standing in the way. Is it not easily possible that ICC captured these planets and said planets were trashed during bombing/capturing process?> then UGTO ai recapped them before ICC could fix or ICC left them in disarry to be recapped. Things like this are extremeley common and the fact that the accusers did not think of this further supports my theory that most of this is misdirected frustration, as these are skilled, long time players that to my knowledge know the game well. I think many of you are forgetting we are enemies in faction only, we ALL play this game for the same reasons, we ALL just want to have fun playing whichever faction we choose without feeling that one or two other factions have any sort of advantage whether it be exploiting cheats, or unbalenced ships/weapons/armor(shields).
|
It's generally blindingly obvious when someone sabotages a planet. I wasn't there so I can't say whether or not this happened, but trying to shame the UGTO players for suspecting something this serious is counterprodctive. Stop that. On the other hand, the UGTO players should make very sure that the planets were actually sabotaged and not just bombed. As for some of the other accusations I have seen them in action multiple times myself.
Quote:
On 2014-07-15 18:00, The Jhomes wrote:
With that taken care of its time to talk about STATIONS. Most players (me included) think Stations are causing alot of the frustration that is recently threatening the game. Now the DEVS are no fools, they know this and are already making new things such as anti-station seige torpedos (which i have high hopes for after seeing and trying them in person). But this is not about what is happening in the future its about the now. UGTO players have complained that the ICC Line stations shield regen is too much to handle for their weapons to damage, and honestly they are 100% correct on that. Compared to kluth weapons, ICC and UGTO weapons are not all that different in DPS and attacking somthing with such an outragous buffer of tens of thousands of hp regen a second is quite a task. The reason the line stations regen is soo high is simply percentages. ICC shield models regen a percentage of the max hp a second, which works fine for other ships but on a station the shear amount of HP in a shield unit results in a huge number for shield regen. This by itself isnt so bad but when a planet is being attacked by many stations ther is no real way to fight them, whether it be ICC station or not.
|
Shields do not regen a percentage of their HP per second. They regenerate an amount determined by a formula that the game calculates. A simple solution to counter yours would simply be to give LS shields an exception so that their gadget level doesn't blow the shield regen up too high.
This being said, I disagree. As general rule I do not think LSs are hard to fight because of their (admittedly high) shield regen, but rather because it is neigh impossible to get to a range where they cannot hit you.
One way to take on the LS is to shoot it with missiles, far out of the range where its torpedoes could hit you. This is all fine and dandy, but the ICC are the missile/PD faction. They can and will out-missile just about everything if the enemy is on even ground as them. This makes out-sieging LSs a pain, because you have to have overwhelming force to out-missile their PD while also not dying to their missiles (platspam, anyone?).
The other option is to use medium range ships like a bastion dread to attack them directly. This option, though, is really not viable. Not only do you have a very small window that you must stay in to remain out of range of the LS's weapons (300 gu BEFORE enhancements) you also have to remember that the LS is almost certainly not alone. Two or three LSs spread out correctly will make it impossible for you to be in range to shoot them while also being out of range of all the weapons of the other stations. Trying this method on more than one enemy ship at a time (even LS escorted by a cruiser) will almost certainly result in death, which forces players to use the siege method against LSs. Since the ICC out-missile the other factions as a general rule... the complaints begin.
During this time, an equal numbered force of UGTO dreads/stats will always be able to penetrate the shields of a LS through its regen... if only slowly. The only time I can't think of this being the case is if you have a single dread going against a single LS, and that LS has both aux gens and defense enhancements. Otherwise, the in-combat regeneration of the LS will not be able to overwhelm the damage of a bastion dread, or a carrier/missile dread. In that case, the LS has to trade off energy for survivability... which is fair, tbh.
Quote:
On 2014-07-15 18:00, The Jhomes wrote:
Now i bet you thought i would suggest a reduction in ALL station HP didnt you? But instead i have a much more wild solution. People are taking somtimes 2 and 3 stations or more out at a time to fight in battles wherever they may occur, resulting in some of the largest and most boring battles i have ever seen. I propose station not be allowed to go further than 2000 gu maybe less away from the friendly planet it spawns from and then would be used only for planet defense agaisnt invaders instead of fleets of stations boringly crawling across the universe to start an even more boring battle. For this to work, station would not need to lose their WH capability, they only need to lose ability to enter WH, and only 1 type of station (support type, battle type, command type) can be around 1 planet at a time, so you could have 3 stations out at the same planet but they would have to be 1 of each type, no more double and triple battlestations, overwhelming everything and bringing the fun to a grinding halt.
|
I cannot explain just how rediculous this solution is. The devs have already adressed the 'limit the number of ships' argument multiple times, and I have to agree with their logic. Players shouldn't have the ability to take any particular ship out limited by an arbitrary number of ship s allowed in sector y. This is before you even limit stations to 2000 gu away from a friendly planet. Instead, stations need to either be made weaker to make them not so OP/deincintivise their use, or they need to be giving a reasonable counter that isn't just another station. Siege torps are a possible solution to this problem that you mentioned, and a far more reasonable way to go about solving the problem.
My preferred solution to this problem is to add two types of siege torps, one that has a large AoE and modest damage, and one that has no AoE but huge damage. Having the first type of siege torp would retain their functionality against platforms without making them stupidly powerful. The second option would only really be viable against a single, slow, powerful target.... like a station.
_________________
I be rebuilding your planets!
|
Fleet Admiral.sherman
Fleet Admiral
Joined: July 17, 2010
Posts: 2
From: Fleet Adamiral.sherman
| Posted: 2014-07-24 20:43
ICC don't follow the ROC never have it dosen't matter to some of them as long as they win.
Some ICC has no Honor in the game.
[ This Message was edited by: Doran on 2014-07-25 09:22 ]
_________________
Fleet Admiral.sherman
|
Princess Luna
Captain
Joined: July 25, 2012
Posts: 24
From: Canterlot Castle
| Posted: 2014-07-25 04:52
I never knew it was Against RoC To spawn Certain Ship Types..Guess i missed something When I skimmed over it..oh wait..It doesn't say anything about spawning ships!
_________________
|
Gekko-Go
Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: August 08, 2010
Posts: 20
| Posted: 2014-07-26 20:53
Line stats themselves need to be looked at under multiple scenarios(power-enhancing, with cruiser support, planet support, platform support...) and i'll leave my comment about them at that.
What i would like to see an end to is the super-fast construction of platforms. here is the scenario i continually run into:
I'll grab a carrier and split my fighters between bombers and a-34 attack craft, and proceed to bomb a planet. This takes time as ICC planets tend to have shields and the second a bomb hits, every ICC player recieves the report ala chat.
after about the 3rd wave, i'll see a player jump to the planet, and then disappear under ecm/sig. this player usually begins constructing platforms, but won't finish them. they will build them to about 10%. At this point i am ready to flip the table, because what this means is this:
1. Capping the planet at this point is useless, as the platforms combined signature will outweigh the inf+boming power of my current ship.
2.the player who placed these platforms knows this, and is using them to lure ships into close range.
3.in the amount of time it will take to remove the platforms(by fighters or ship change), the planet will recover from the bombing. These platforms will also reappear very quickly if destroyed.
4.there will definately be a cruiser or worse waiting for any close-range ship.
Bombing/capping a planet is not fun. it is a chore, with low pres gain and the potential for a lot of loss.
---
As for 'foul-play,' i remember a certain player changing teams and ruining a ugto transport rush attack on planet B after many attempts on Planet A deadlocked by the above scenario failed. This player jumped 5 transports who were in orbit of a hostile planet in a ugto sensor scout and used ecm to hide their signature, ruining their attempt to use infantry and transports to 'fast-cap' a planet while under fire. This is NOT how a player should conduct themselves.
_________________
DS is not dead
|
Incinarator
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 24, 2010
Posts: 237
| Posted: 2014-07-26 23:14
Quote:
On 2014-07-26 20:53, Gekko-Go wrote:
I'll grab a carrier and split my fighters between bombers and a-34 attack craft, and proceed to bomb a planet. This takes time as ICC planets tend to have shields and the second a bomb hits, every ICC player recieves the report ala chat.
after about the 3rd wave, i'll see a player jump to the planet, and then disappear under ecm/sig. this player usually begins constructing platforms, but won't finish them. they will build them to about 10%. At this point i am ready to flip the table, because what this means is this:
1. Capping the planet at this point is useless, as the platforms combined signature will outweigh the inf+boming power of my current ship.
2.the player who placed these platforms knows this, and is using them to lure ships into close range.
3.in the amount of time it will take to remove the platforms(by fighters or ship change), the planet will recover from the bombing. These platforms will also reappear very quickly if destroyed.
4.there will definately be a cruiser or worse waiting for any close-range ship.
Bombing/capping a planet is not fun. it is a chore, with low pres gain and the potential for a lot of loss.
|
Perhaps you should try not bombing in a carrier. Or even better yet, with that awesome stealthed bomber ship you have... yeah.
As for the scenario you outline... I find it strange you say this, because that NEVER happens to me. If someone quickbuilds the plats, they do actually build them. They don't just leave them at 10% like you say. As for your points:
1. Platforms do not contribute to capture. They haven't for a long while. Neither do stats, actually. If your point is that they can out-PD your attempts to damage the planet, then I'll give you that... though they do actually have to finish the plats to do this.... so that point is moot in this scenario.
2. What's so bad about trying to get a fight? Besides, it's still possible to take out plats in this situation without making yourself a giant target. Use a BC or something. Or a citadel dread, if you're feeling ballsy. Or just capture them.
3. That's called defending a planet. It'd be kind of stupid if they were utterly unable to stop you. This reminds me of cloud bombing.
4. See point 2.
Bombing IS a chore. Just like construction, supply, EWAR, or any other role. Hell, I oftentimes find myself thinking combat is a chore. Welcome to DS and life in general.
My recommendation for you is to get out of that carrier. Carriers are not good for bombing. They just aren't. Nevermind before you only take half a set of bombers...
[ This Message was edited by: Incinarator on 2014-07-26 23:16 ]
_________________
I be rebuilding your planets!
|
Gekko-Go
Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: August 08, 2010
Posts: 20
| Posted: 2014-07-28 00:34
The main reason i use a carrier to bomb is so i don't have to run between systems to reload, and a properly controlled bomber squadron is just as effective, if not more, than getting up close with a bomber, especially when a planet has a very high PD.
[ This Message was edited by: Gekko-Go on 2014-07-28 01:27 ]
so i ran some numbers...and you might be interested.
these calculations assume that the method is doing the least amount of damage listed for the weapon.
not sure if i need to increase the damage for the bomer-carrier as each fighter launches 3 fury bombs.
Bomber-Carrier:
1 fighter squadron(3 fighters)= 2025 damage, 1254 area damage
8 squadrons = 16200 damage, 10032 area damage
this is per-strike.
a squadron can continue to bomb until it is recalled, or destroyed. carrier can sit at range, and move/act independantly. fighters are vulnerable to pd.
Strategic bomber crusier:
3 MRIV bombs 3000 damage, 1860 area.
12 shots.
cruiser must remain in range of planet, and is vulnerible to any ships or platforms. planet will fire upon bomber. bombs are highly suseptible to pd.
This is my case for why bombing from a carrier is better than a bomber cruiser. unless the bomber cruiser has immediate support from a supply ship, station or nearby plats, it will take more time and effort to bomb.
_________________
DS is not dead
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
