User Name
Password

Go Back   Planetarion Forums > Planetarion Related Forums > Planetarion Suggestions

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 14:58   #1
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
two additional ship types

Two additional ship types.

1. Flagships
These are vessels that are based upon the largest vessel in each fleet.

Terran
Dragon Chassis
x2 of the firepower, x2 the armour, Init is -1

Xan
Ghost Chassis
X3 the firepower, x2 the armour, init is -1

Cath
Scorpion Chassis
X2 the firepower, x 2 the armour init is - 1

Zik
Marauder Chassis
X2 the firepower, x2 the armour, init is -1

Only one flagship class vessel can be built per tick.

Marine Carrier
Terran
Chimera chassis
3x armour

Xan
Shadow Chassis
4x Armour

Cath
Scarab Chassis
3x armour

Zik
Thief Chassis
3x armour

The marine carrier only exists to board and steal Flagship, roid, and structure killer class vessels.

Ad
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 15:22   #2
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: two additional ship types

Interesting, what do flagship class ships target? Are you saying they keep their current targeting? And if anyone can steal them from anyone else, that would make for some interesting fleet combos. If we were to add something like this I for one would not remove the existing ships but look at adding two more ships to each race. If you could expand upon your idea some you might have something interesting.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 15:43   #3
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,452
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: two additional ship types

Superships fail per default. Bad idea.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 15:49   #4
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
Interesting, what do flagship class ships target? Are you saying they keep their current targeting? And if anyone can steal them from anyone else, that would make for some interesting fleet combos. If we were to add something like this I for one would not remove the existing ships but look at adding two more ships to each race. If you could expand upon your idea some you might have something interesting.

They might keep current targeting. Would need a bit of play testing.
No removal of other ships required.
Stealing them with marine carriers would be risky, but fun.
You can only make 1 (or a limited amount per tick).

Course, its just an idea. A twist on it, or some tweaks is an open ended idea.
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 15:57   #5
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Superships fail per default. Bad idea.
No idea is bad, unless the execution of it leads to:-

Bad things.
Broken balance
Broken game.
Impossible or difficult to code.

The ships are not really 'super' ships, they are just better. They could come with a high price tag, and are limited to 1 per tick.

Or you could take a fun aspect. What if you limit the Flagships to 1 per fleet, so its 4 per player. If you capture an enemy flagship, the ship gets taken to the planet and is then disected.

Upon being pulled apart, you might find:-
Res
Tech plans (ie, one of your research items gets done for you.
Roids
Captured Intel (Scans, data, news scans from the captured ships planet - or similar)
Extra score - something tasty.

This would make it fun to go after people's flagships, if you can get away with it

Ad
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 16:03   #6
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
Interesting, what do flagship class ships target? Are you saying they keep their current targeting? And if anyone can steal them from anyone else, that would make for some interesting fleet combos. If we were to add something like this I for one would not remove the existing ships but look at adding two more ships to each race. If you could expand upon your idea some you might have something interesting.

Perhaps the flagship would do something funky
Terran flagship - Kills 10% of the enemy fleet (unless stolen or killed)
Cath flagship - Freezes 10% of the enemy ships (Unless stolen or killed)
Xan flagship - Cloaks a percentage of the fleet, even from advanced unit scans
Zik flagship - steals 10% of the enemy vessels (unless stolen or killed)

I used 10% here as an example. Thats probably not good. Forget 10%, think of some reasonable value that might be appliable on sliding scale (what if the % falls as the numbers of combatants rise..)

Ad
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 17:22   #7
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,990
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

Right.

How does one destroy the flagship?

Are shots divided to it as they are on the current combat engine?

If so, you'll almost ALWAYS end up getting 100% stolen by the zikonian flagship, 10% killed by the terran flagship, and so on. Let me elaborate why. You have ten flagships (one built per tick over ten ticks). To flak your 10 special marauders, double armor, you have 10 000 regular marauders. That is, for each shot that hits a regular marauder, a lot less shots hit the special marauders. Coincidentally, they can take a good load of punishment due to their double armor (which doesn't affect them being targeted more).

This leads to you having to overkill it twice (because shots are spread by percentages: ie. the share of special marauders is ~0.001%, equals 0.1%, (10/10 010), so if you need 5 dealer to kill a marauder, you need 50k to kill 10k marauders: if you have 50k dealers firing, 50 of them hit special marauders - instead of 10 special marauders dying, 5 special marauders die. Why? Because they have double armor. This leads to 50% of your fleet being stolen.

Great.


Now, inserting tiny ships (by numbers) that inflict horrendrous damage on the enemy (in form of f.ex stealing 10% of the enemy's fleet), under the current combat engine, it gets difficult to root them out. Generally, coding fixes to the combat engine mechanics (on the level of altering how targeting works) is probably hard, time consuming, and risks a lot of annoying bugs.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 17:34   #8
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,452
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: two additional ship types

Keiz pointed out what I was too lazy to. Well said.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 21:07   #9
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Right.

How does one destroy the flagship?

Are shots divided to it as they are on the current combat engine?

If so, you'll almost ALWAYS end up getting 100% stolen by the zikonian flagship, 10% killed by the terran flagship, and so on. Let me elaborate why. You have ten flagships (one built per tick over ten ticks). To flak your 10 special marauders, double armor, you have 10 000 regular marauders. That is, for each shot that hits a regular marauder, a lot less shots hit the special marauders. Coincidentally, they can take a good load of punishment due to their double armor (which doesn't affect them being targeted more).

This leads to you having to overkill it twice (because shots are spread by percentages: ie. the share of special marauders is ~0.001%, equals 0.1%, (10/10 010), so if you need 5 dealer to kill a marauder, you need 50k to kill 10k marauders: if you have 50k dealers firing, 50 of them hit special marauders - instead of 10 special marauders dying, 5 special marauders die. Why? Because they have double armor. This leads to 50% of your fleet being stolen.

Great.


Now, inserting tiny ships (by numbers) that inflict horrendrous damage on the enemy (in form of f.ex stealing 10% of the enemy's fleet), under the current combat engine, it gets difficult to root them out. Generally, coding fixes to the combat engine mechanics (on the level of altering how targeting works) is probably hard, time consuming, and risks a lot of annoying bugs.
I really don't know where you got some of the above. I only suggested a couple of changes, like 2x the firepower, or 2x the armour. The ships could die if you use the chassis type, or go the stealing via marine carriers.

In terms of amplification of the race abilities, it was only an idea. I did say sliding scale, so in small battles, the Flagship might help, in larger ones it becomes less important in the outcome.

The stealing the flagship and getting a reward could be a lot of fun.
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 30 Jul 2007, 21:55   #10
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n
I really don't know where you got some of the above. I only suggested a couple of changes, like 2x the firepower, or 2x the armour. The ships could die if you use the chassis type, or go the stealing via marine carriers.

In terms of amplification of the race abilities, it was only an idea. I did say sliding scale, so in small battles, the Flagship might help, in larger ones it becomes less important in the outcome.

The stealing the flagship and getting a reward could be a lot of fun.
Don't let their bullying discourage you. You may or may not have a good idea here, but throwing the idea out here is the important part. Some other things to think about: your last post about percentage kills is probably a poor route to go. However having them be super powerful has some merit, as long as they can be countered effectively under some circumstances. I'm not sure it would be a good idea to have them be stealable, it could just make things too messy. Maybe there is some other creative way they could interact with the rest of the fleets, maybe provide defensive or offensive bonuses to other ships in the fleet or something? Think about it and make a suggestion.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 07:59   #11
Alki
Drink is Good
 
Alki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
Alki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better placeAlki single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

'bullying' my god you are such a moron, he pointed out the fundamental flaw in the idea if the current combat was to stay the same. Also he was asking questions about the idea, and how he would expect it to work against the current combat engine.
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
Alki is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 09:21   #12
Zaejii
This Space for Rent
Speedy Thief Champion, Turbo Turtle Champion, Cop-For-This Champion
 
Zaejii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 583
Zaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud ofZaejii has much to be proud of
Re: two additional ship types

nah, let them be targeted by stealing ships. the pilots would board the ship, the appropriate ships would be destroyed, then the flag ship would explode killing everyone on board!

i like the limiting idea, but maybe limit it to 1 per planet or such so its not like a "have to have one in every fleet" type thing.

i'd probably more like an idea that 'forces' xan to research siege hulls and have to build those factories this could quite possibly do it, if the other races didn't have to do any additional research to produce the ship.
__________________
When in doubt, blame Ascendancy.
#pastats
Zaejii is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 11:59   #13
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaejii
nah, let them be targeted by stealing ships. the pilots would board the ship, the appropriate ships would be destroyed, then the flag ship would explode killing everyone on board!

i like the limiting idea, but maybe limit it to 1 per planet or such so its not like a "have to have one in every fleet" type thing.

i'd probably more like an idea that 'forces' xan to research siege hulls and have to build those factories this could quite possibly do it, if the other races didn't have to do any additional research to produce the ship.

Well, the basic idea is simple enough.

Two new ship classes.
Flagships
Marine Carriers.

The flagship has some ability (obviously in discussion of what that might be.)
The marine carrier is the anti flagship vessel.

You could add simple extra's into research or tech tree areas that add to the game.

OR, if I were to take another tack, how about this.
Creators of Alliances gain a flag ship.
The Flagship has to be defended/ protected
The Flagship brings an attack modifyer into any battle where it exists (ie, alliance members get a 10% attack bonus (yes, I realise I just picked a ludicrous arbitary number there, but its just an example, for the sake of discussion)
If an enemy alliance takes a flagship, they gain the res in the alliance fund, or steal the taxable rate from alliance members for X ticks (examples, could be other things.).
The alliance creator HC gets a new Flagship after X ticks (or has to build one..)

Aim of the idea - to bring into play a strategic element for alliances to fight/defend in the game.

Ad
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 12:04   #14
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,990
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

How do you protect your flagship from marine carriers? (or do you? if not, in this case you will want to have the fastest possible chassis marine carrier so you can keep one in each fleet all the time - after all, if nothing targets marine carriers, they're indestructible, and if something does target them, you'll need a ceparate targeter or you're into heaps of issues with the "how to kill a marine carrier off a frigate fleet when it has four times the armor of the other frigates"?.)
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 13:02   #15
Tomkat
:alpha:
 
Tomkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.Tomkat has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: two additional ship types

I'm a bit confused. You've changed your mind about what the flagship's basic idea or premise is, about 3 times.

Is it so they have more armour? Or so they can kill a % of the ships they attack? Or so they enhance the rest of the fleet they're travelling with? Or are they for the alliance?

Before making suggestions, you should be clear in your head what the idea is that you're trying to propose.
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
Tomkat is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 13:41   #16
Makhil
Registered User
 
Makhil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,663
Makhil is a splendid one to beholdMakhil is a splendid one to beholdMakhil is a splendid one to beholdMakhil is a splendid one to beholdMakhil is a splendid one to beholdMakhil is a splendid one to beholdMakhil is a splendid one to behold
Re: two additional ship types

Why the flagship should be the biggest ship ?
Terrans have a big advantage has their flagship would be in their attack fleet, while Xans end up with the useless ghost...
I think a flagship should reflect the specificity of each race and be part of an attack fleet :
Terran : Dragon
Cath : Tara (should be a emp ship anyway)
Xan : Nightmare
Zik : Pirate
__________________
<smith> You're 15 and full of shit.
<Furious_George> no, im 22
Makhil is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 16:21   #17
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
How do you protect your flagship from marine carriers? (or do you? if not, in this case you will want to have the fastest possible chassis marine carrier so you can keep one in each fleet all the time - after all, if nothing targets marine carriers, they're indestructible, and if something does target them, you'll need a ceparate targeter or you're into heaps of issues with the "how to kill a marine carrier off a frigate fleet when it has four times the armor of the other frigates"?.)
Marine carriers would be a chassis that is one type of ship. FR? DE? As such, it would be targettable as a member of that class.
A designer of Marine carriers might add armour.
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 16:28   #18
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
I'm a bit confused. You've changed your mind about what the flagship's basic idea or premise is, about 3 times.

Is it so they have more armour? Or so they can kill a % of the ships they attack? Or so they enhance the rest of the fleet they're travelling with? Or are they for the alliance?

Before making suggestions, you should be clear in your head what the idea is that you're trying to propose.
I'm taking the basic idea, and discussing changes, when people object.
Would the flagship have more armour? Yes, possibly.
Would the Flagship have some sort of firepower or ability. Yes. Possibly.
Would the flagship have no ability, but rather bring an attack modifier or something instead. Possibly.

If the flagship idea sucks at planet/fleet level, maybe it could be an alliance level. I suggested that in response to the bitching about it not fitting the combat engine. That would mean some new piece of code would be needed (or something).

The problem with 'fixed' ideas, and I mean no offense, is they may not work with the game or combat or code engines. Thus, annoying for you, I'll pose possible things with the basic idea, and make weird changes as I go, and annoying though that is, you'll have to live with it.
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 16:39   #19
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Makhil
Why the flagship should be the biggest ship ?
Terrans have a big advantage has their flagship would be in their attack fleet, while Xans end up with the useless ghost...
I think a flagship should reflect the specificity of each race and be part of an attack fleet :
Terran : Dragon
Cath : Tara (should be a emp ship anyway)
Xan : Nightmare
Zik : Pirate
I'm not really trying to set anything in stone. I agree with you that the flagship could/should/would echo the race ability Or something else.
If the flag ship does nothing, its not worth bringing in the game.
Don't want a flagship that totally unbalances the game either, hence flag ships have enemy ships called marine carriers.

I guess what I was saying, is flagships and marine carriers could have impacts in localised battles that add an element to the battles. Bringing Flagships to a battle has an advantage. Losing your FS has a disadvantage to you, and gives your enemy something for their action.

---

Alliance level Flagships

What if it was a planet killer?
ETA 20 to reach target, Init100, wipes out 25% of targets ships, roids, constructions, research, at target, requires large numbers of marine carriers to destroy.
(Yes, your 'insert' 'favourite' enemy alliance just got something else to worry about..)
Alliances only get one flagship planet killer. If it dies, thats it till next round.

Ad
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 17:04   #20
Mzyxptlk
mz.
Space Invaders Champion, Alien Invasion Champion, Mosquito Kill Champion, Squid Hunter Champion, Tiger Punch Champion, Barts Watersports Adventure Champion
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,452
Mzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus wouldMzyxptlk spreads love and joy to the forum in the same way Jesus would
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Superships fail per default. Bad idea.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
Mzyxptlk is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 17:37   #21
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alki
'bullying' my god you are such a moron, he pointed out the fundamental flaw in the idea if the current combat was to stay the same. Also he was asking questions about the idea, and how he would expect it to work against the current combat engine.
There are always going to be 'fundamental flaws' in *any* idea presented, if you then take a position of 'the never changing combat engine', or the 'never changing stats' or 'never changing' anything else.

Its not even a case where you and I can argue over the combat engine. At the very end, the idea sat on Appoco's desk will be one they like the look of, and be something 'do-able'.

In terms of 'Super ships fail by default', now posted twice, real constructive (sarcasm off), but stupid. The whole game is riddled by 'superships', usually 'balanced through the races'. Each race has ships that one way or another can have a devastating effect, and other ships that are lemon alike in their level of totally useless-ness, and friday afternoon stat build.

How the hell is a vessel that has *maybe* more armour, or firepower a supership anyway. In the end, its just another class of vessel, with its own stats, and a counter vessel with stats, and a modifier in terms of what might happen in use, with a -/+ side for the winner/loser. And in limited numbers too.

But you know, superships fail by default, so I guess the whole stats, and current combat engine are one huge fubar (Sarcasm on.)
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 21:36   #22
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: two additional ship types

I personally like the idea of these ships being an ally resource rather then a planet resource. This would allow the alliance to focus it's efforts in a tangible way on one or two planets at a time. I'm not sure I would go for the SK option, would be used on scanners for sure.... but then again maybe that's not a bad thing, giving allies a tool for going after the oppositions intelligence resources. I don't think I would make the flagship's bonus defensive however, because it would then just sit at the allies top planet all the time and dare people to come attack it. One thought on these lines.... I would make the flagship VERY expensive, so that even big allies would have to save up a while to build it. This would create a dilemma of whether to fund scanners or build the flag ship.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 31 Jul 2007, 23:58   #23
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
I personally like the idea of these ships being an ally resource rather then a planet resource. This would allow the alliance to focus it's efforts in a tangible way on one or two planets at a time. I'm not sure I would go for the SK option, would be used on scanners for sure.... but then again maybe that's not a bad thing, giving allies a tool for going after the oppositions intelligence resources. I don't think I would make the flagship's bonus defensive however, because it would then just sit at the allies top planet all the time and dare people to come attack it. One thought on these lines.... I would make the flagship VERY expensive, so that even big allies would have to save up a while to build it. This would create a dilemma of whether to fund scanners or build the flag ship.
Yeah, expensive
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Aug 2007, 05:18   #24
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,990
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

Of the last 7 posts (edit: 8 now), 5 are from the same person. Can we stop now please? It's really hard to implement and makes things even harder to balance under the current combat engine.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Aug 2007, 05:32   #25
Monroe
Planetarion Forum Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,289
Monroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud ofMonroe has much to be proud of
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Of the last 7 posts (edit: 8 now), 5 are from the same person. Can we stop now please? It's really hard to implement and makes things even harder to balance under the current combat engine.
This isn't about implementation, or even if this is practical, this is about getting a creative idea out that may or may not have relevance on the future of PA, if you don't want to read about it, don't. For the rest of us, let us have a little fun, it's all rather harmless really.
__________________
Romans 10:9-10

#strategy
Monroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Aug 2007, 12:13   #26
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,990
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monroe
This isn't about implementation, or even if this is practical, this is about getting a creative idea out that may or may not have relevance on the future of PA, if you don't want to read about it, don't. For the rest of us, let us have a little fun, it's all rather harmless really.
What would be better, is, that one should

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat
Before making suggestions, you should be clear in your head what the idea is that you're trying to propose.
Because if your idea is on a level where you change it alledgedly three times in a thread, and feel need to post three consencutive posts on the same thread in space of twenty minutes (without anyone else posting on the thread), the chance is you could really do with some formulating the idea before posting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n
There are always going to be 'fundamental flaws' in *any* idea presented, if you then take a position of 'the never changing combat engine', or the 'never changing stats' or 'never changing' anything else.
Yeah. To elaborate further so that the other posters understands too. First, it's cool and nice to introduce new revolutionary ideas. For example, for round 21 a revolutionary new-school steal ship, thief was introduced. The people commented on it stating it's an ackwardly stupid idea, and should never be completed, but irregardless it was. For the sake of experimenting. After the round, noticing that harpies rarely got to fire at thieves (only under those situations when there was EMP-ships stunning thieves before they'd die stealing harpies), the experiment was ended as it was discovered "fundamentally" faulty. I hope this serves as a lesson why things shouldn't be implemented just for sake of experimenting.

What comes to altering the combat engine as it is, it's getting a bit of a tired subject to speculate about, as round 13 it was announced that there'd be a PAN for round 17, and a while after round 17 it was also stated that for round 22 a new combat engine would be coded, and... Beyond. Discussing changes at the moment probably should take into account to some extent the possibilities of implementing them. A new combat engine is rather distant. Implementing new ship classes might not be, but you could probably come up with something else that "Let's create ships that are stronger than other ships and do something, I don't know yet, someone could build them, someone not" in the fashion of "let's do something" and after five posts "well let's do another thing". Instead, replying to "how to implement this under current combat system given the percential targeting, pod class focused attack fleets, and such" would be far more constructive to the idea than just changing the idea on flight every twenty minutes.


edit. see:
Quote:
Originally Posted by First Post
The marine carrier only exists to board and steal Flagship, roid, and structure killer class vessels.
Marine carriers exist to board and steal flagship, roid (assuming astropod here), and structure killer class vessels. Initially, that sounds like a brilliant idea.

After you've thought about it for five minutes, you realize, that you simply cannot (with enough pods you can, but the marine vessels will always pick the pods from the fleets) steal asteroids from a xandathrii with enough ghost "chassis" marine vessels unless you can kill/stun/steal these vessels.
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.

Last edited by Tietäjä; 1 Aug 2007 at 12:22.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Aug 2007, 14:57   #27
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Because if your idea is on a level where you change it alledgedly three times in a thread, and feel need to post three consencutive posts on the same thread in space of twenty minutes (without anyone else posting on the thread), the chance is you could really do with some formulating the idea before posting it.
I was not just changing it. I was partly answering people's postings, fleshing out the idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Yeah. To elaborate further so that the other posters understands too. First, it's cool and nice to introduce new revolutionary ideas. For example, for round 21 a revolutionary new-school steal ship, thief was introduced. The people commented on it stating it's an ackwardly stupid idea, and should never be completed, but irregardless it was. For the sake of experimenting. After the round, noticing that harpies rarely got to fire at thieves (only under those situations when there was EMP-ships stunning thieves before they'd die stealing harpies), the experiment was ended as it was discovered "fundamentally" faulty. I hope this serves as a lesson why things shouldn't be implemented just for sake of experimenting.
The ship stats are riddled with ships that are useless against certain other ships. Again, to be clear, its the Reason TER have BS fleets, Cat have CR fleets, Xan have FI fleets. I know its exceedingly hard for some of you to grasp, but this section of the forum is for people to throw out ideas. Thats going to include things that don't work, or can't be included due to implementation problems. If you wish to be in thread, by all means, be constructive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
What comes to altering the combat engine as it is, it's getting a bit of a tired subject to speculate about, as round 13 it was announced that there'd be a PAN for round 17, and a while after round 17 it was also stated that for round 22 a new combat engine would be coded, and... Beyond. Discussing changes at the moment probably should take into account to some extent the possibilities of implementing them. A new combat engine is rather distant. Implementing new ship classes might not be, but you could probably come up with something else that "Let's create ships that are stronger than other ships and do something, I don't know yet, someone could build them, someone not" in the fashion of "let's do something" and after five posts "well let's do another thing". Instead, replying to "how to implement this under current combat system given the percential targeting, pod class focused attack fleets, and such" would be far more constructive to the idea than just changing the idea on flight every twenty minutes.
Suggestions on new ships, fleets, game design should not cease just because there are current issues with the game or combat engine. Any idea presented is likely to need fleshing out, tidying, fitting within what can be coded and another 50 things. Its in the thread for people to discuss. Not just sit there and reposte with 'superships by default, no. no. no.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Marine carriers exist to board and steal flagship, roid (assuming astropod here), and structure killer class vessels. Initially, that sounds like a brilliant idea.

After you've thought about it for five minutes, you realize, that you simply cannot (with enough pods you can, but the marine vessels will always pick the pods from the fleets) steal asteroids from a xandathrii with enough ghost "chassis" marine vessels unless you can kill/stun/steal these vessels.
While shooting down ideas, you happened to miss part of it. I said that Flag ships would have a high init (late), so would the marine carriers, but beyond that, any new ship presented will have to have the once over in terms of its values for the purpose of balancing the game. What the **** is the point in saying no new ships, no no no, because woooooo wooooo woooooo if we don't think about it, the whole game is unbalanced. In the case above, the marine carriers have a later init than the pods, and are mincemeat for combat ships anyway, aside from having some extra armour.

Like EVERY other ship ever entering the game, new ships and ship types would have to have balance considered in their implementation. This is not a reason to say don't have them.

It was never about bringing in a new killer ship. It was about just starting to flesh out an idea. For all I know, if we cut down the operational impact of flagships and marine carriers, as we're just tossing the idea around.

Even if we came out of this thread with the idea that each player having a flagship that was ceremonial more than anything else, and if you can capture one you gain 100k score would add an element of fun in the game.

This is not a lot different from special roids or other ideas that have been around.
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 1 Aug 2007, 18:50   #28
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,990
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n
Its in the thread for people to discuss. Not just sit there and reposte with 'superships by default, no. no. no.
It was already pointed out why superships fit bad into the current combat engine.

Quote:
The ship stats are riddled with ships that are useless against certain other ships. Again, to be clear, its the Reason TER have BS fleets, Cat have CR fleets, Xan have FI fleets.
The ships stats are riddled with useless ships, occasionally, yes. Like the Chimera of round 21, which was pretty much unused save one player of significance. It's not a goal we strive for when stats are thought about, how to fill up the races with ships that people think about as "trash".

Again, why I was talking about podclass fleets, is that once you allow one race to have these "marine carriers" of pod class and deny others it, you're already causing a significant balance issue. If you're planning on making the flagships and marine carriers just a trinket that has little game impact, you don't have to deal with the issue, but if they're going to have game impact, the chances are these are the sorts of holes that will draw abuse. A little careless mistake like this (or the thief, or the covert operations for this round) can quickly blow out of proportion. Whenever you add things that have impact of significance to the combat engine, or do experiments there (again, this is why the thief example was brought up), you need to be very careful not to create something that has an anonymaly effect (ie. no amount of harpies can ever do anything about thieves alone), or some other dramatic effect (CBA getting mashed down to 0 structures in a couple of ticks).

This is why the idea gets critisized - to avoid such incidents. The second thing you might get critisism about, is, that posting a lot of posts in a form of a monologue isn't a great way to brainstorm, you'd be better off just collectign and summarizing in one post.

Let me elaborate yet further how the mechanics of the targetting problems are. First, you have a marine carrier of class "a". And a flagship of class "b". Flagship has some devastating effect (be it an alliance level or a planet level flagship), such as demolishing 10% of the target's structures. One race is given a flagship of their podclass "b". This podclass "b" (look at it like you look investors, tycoons, and shadows of round 21) has ships that utterly devastate ships of class "a", be it the class where the marine carriers are located in.

Because the marine carriers shoot late to prevent conflicts with asteroid capture and such, you are going to have to, by default, sacrifice a huge amount of resources to get a tiny touch at the enemy flagships. The chances are you'll still fail, as you'll be overwhelmed by your enemies class "b" ships that target your class "a". This race gets inevitably trampled by this problem, suffering of it excessively - a problem other races won't suffer, because of the different planning of the podclasses, flagship classes, and marine carrier classes. Again, this brings three more moving bits into the ship statistics design, which isn't easy as it is with pods and structure killers. This is why I find that the idea fits badly into the current combat engine. What comes to future combat engines, that's a whole another story, because we don't for now know what they'll contain even initially.

Quote:
What the **** is the point in saying no new ships, no no no, because woooooo wooooo woooooo if we don't think about it, the whole game is unbalanced.
The point is, the generic agenda is that the game should be less unbalanced, in order to make for a scenario where f.ex a bad race choice won't ruin your round (terran round 21).
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Aug 2007, 10:57   #29
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Talking Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
It was already pointed out why superships fit bad into the current combat engine.
But my dear fellow, if you add new ships, its no longer the current combat engine. Whatever any one believes, its been clear to me since I posted the first posting, that the idea would require some work in the combat engine/game to even start being possible. Which is why its so lame to cite current combat engine for a reason not to persue new ideas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
The ships stats are riddled with useless ships, occasionally, yes. Like the Chimera of round 21, which was pretty much unused save one player of significance. It's not a goal we strive for when stats are thought about, how to fill up the races with ships that people think about as "trash".
Occasionally? Frankly you are just talking rubbish now. The ship stats are skewed and have to be for the game to actually work. Which means in every round, players get a mix of some good ships, and the rest of their fleet is by design, hammered by something else. I don't mind that it happens, it seems thats the method balance is achieved, and its understood by the player base who then go on if Ter to build BS, if Xan to build FI, and so on. What I objct to is people like you who claim its not there, and then attempt to ram some ludicrous theory of superships are bad by design.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Again, why I was talking about podclass fleets, is that once you allow one race to have these "marine carriers" of pod class and deny others it, you're already causing a significant balance issue. If you're planning on making the flagships and marine carriers just a trinket that has little game impact, you don't have to deal with the issue, but if they're going to have game impact, the chances are these are the sorts of holes that will draw abuse.
Any new ship is going to change the game. And potentially case a balance issue. I'm not denying other players marine carriers in pod class, *you are* merely by extension. Nowhere in my posting is there an inate theory of denying players anything. My suggestion of Flagships and Marine carriers was one of adding something for everyone, not denial of something. If the wise amongst us see that the idea needs to be melded so its better balanced, I'd like that as much as you would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
A little careless mistake like this (or the thief, or the covert operations for this round) can quickly blow out of proportion. Whenever you add things that have impact of significance to the combat engine, or do experiments there (again, this is why the thief example was brought up), you need to be very careful not to create something that has an anonymaly effect (ie. no amount of harpies can ever do anything about thieves alone), or some other dramatic effect (CBA getting mashed down to 0 structures in a couple of ticks).
Very bluntly, in the above cases, that is what beta and speedgame should be used for. PAteam took the bold steps to close the beta's and allocate the beta places to 'beta testers' (And I will add, I am not saying they were wrong to do this). So the Q and A in regard to the game will - especially with new ideas be an area that is wholly different from 'Ideas'. If you have no solid arena for playtesting new ideas, like Beta, then close the ideas forum down.
If you have a problem with ideas/new features *testing* you need to take it elsewhere. This is the ideas forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
This is why the idea gets critisized - to avoid such incidents. The second thing you might get critisism about, is, that posting a lot of posts in a form of a monologue isn't a great way to brainstorm, you'd be better off just collectign and summarizing in one post.
No, the idea is being stupidly attacked. Seriously, *ideas* should not get weighted down by failing Beta/Speedgame testing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Let me elaborate yet further how the mechanics of the targetting problems are. First, you have a marine carrier of class "a". And a flagship of class "b". Flagship has some devastating effect (be it an alliance level or a planet level flagship), such as demolishing 10% of the target's structures. One race is given a flagship of their podclass "b". This podclass "b" (look at it like you look investors, tycoons, and shadows of round 21) has ships that utterly devastate ships of class "a", be it the class where the marine carriers are located in.

Because the marine carriers shoot late to prevent conflicts with asteroid capture and such, you are going to have to, by default, sacrifice a huge amount of resources to get a tiny touch at the enemy flagships. The chances are you'll still fail, as you'll be overwhelmed by your enemies class "b" ships that target your class "a". This race gets inevitably trampled by this problem, suffering of it excessively - a problem other races won't suffer, because of the different planning of the podclasses, flagship classes, and marine carrier classes. Again, this brings three more moving bits into the ship statistics design, which isn't easy as it is with pods and structure killers. This is why I find that the idea fits badly into the current combat engine. What comes to future combat engines, that's a whole another story, because we don't for now know what they'll contain even initially.
I don't think I was ever as finite as you paint. I suggested using existing ship chassis as an example. For all I care, you could create two new classes/ chassis designs. Seeing as the PAteam do this each round with existing ship design, its not a seriously horrible problem. Would the two new classes of ships need to have their balance crafted and adjusted? Off course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
The point is, the generic agenda is that the game should be less unbalanced, in order to make for a scenario where f.ex a bad race choice won't ruin your round (terran round 21).
No, I understand that. But I'm here posting just a possible idea, one that is in the 'ideas' forum. Its not the forum for why round 21 was a wreck for Terrans. Its not a forum for don't post ideas because the current (and therefore obselete if any new idea gets picked up) combat engine seemingly won't work. Its not the forum for Ideas should not happen because our beta and implementation of new ideas is so bad I need to come to your thread and tell you not to post ideas, because its a bad idea, go away and shut up, because you know twenty previous 'new ideas' were bad, so we must not have ideas at all.

Seriously, stop infesting my thread with 'Can't do attitude'. If you have nothing good to add, or can't add in something constructive that makes the idea better or workable, then don't comment at all.
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Aug 2007, 12:12   #30
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,990
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n
Seriously, stop infesting my thread with 'Can't do attitude'. If you have nothing good to add, or can't add in something constructive that makes the idea better or workable, then don't comment at all.
The thing is, this isn't the first time people suggest "supership" design to be added to the combat engine (mind you, combat engine changes require more than just adding a shipclass, if you'd compare PA engine to PAX engine, which abolished and revamped targeting and mission concepts at large).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n
What I objct to is people like you who claim its not there, and then attempt to ram some ludicrous theory of superships are bad by design.
No. There are useless ships like harpy, that are useless against zikonian frigates, but useful against xandathrii frigates. Then there's been ships that were just plain useless, having no real function beyond filling up the zone.


Here's one thread. It's regarding "death star" type of ships (essentially "flagships") that are limited by construction but provide some powerful benefit (10% enemy ships stolen, anyone, +10% attacker damage, anyone?). Here's another one about stealing resources with ships. Feel free to surf the forums more for suggestions on huge ships that bring different benefits, it's in the FAF -thread too. I suggest you check the numerous "let's introduce new ship/orbital facility/planetary defence bump" threads amongst the years for more insight into the subject. There's been ideas about mashing structures, giving bonuses to damages, stealing resources, stealing researches, and so on around earlier, too.

Quote:
Seeing as the PAteam do this each round with existing ship design, its not a seriously horrible problem. Would the two new classes of ships need to have their balance crafted and adjusted? Off course.
The thing with the combat engine is, that at the moment there's no new chassis design being done. I reckon during the whole PAX period it's been fighter, corvette, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship. The problem comes adding to this. Adding two new ship types outside the existing classes (to say, Flagship class, and Marine carrier class) is possible, but it makes things quite a bit more complex without really bringing in too much, as mentioned on one of the earlier threads involving the subject.

To make a few more questions about the idea itself. You mention the marine carriers don't need to exist in already existing shipclasses, like flagships wouldn't exist. What else would marine carriers do, than steal flagships (at one point you mentioned targetting skillers, apods, and such - is this role still valid, or changed by now?), and if they would, would they do it after everyone else or at some point in between? Also, how would you then destroy a marine carrier (except with another marine carrier possibly?)? Would there be a "conventional" class to shoot down marine carriers? (This again can bring some difficulties with the statistics - making a plausible set of ship statistics isn't as easy as it sounds, and there's always the risk of something going fubar). If marine carriers are of their own class, and only target flagships, but are hit by conventional shipclasses, doesn't it get very hard to get any of these in alive, given that regular ships would (as you suggest, with the dead pods incident) shoot first? Merely adding "two ships that do something, one to counter the other and one to do something" is a bit vague. Can you specify how the idea is going at the moment, so I can actually write off on where the idea might fail? (As you see, this is an ideas forum, and the point is to discuss new ideas, which evidently involves critisizing them).
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Aug 2007, 13:21   #31
AdmV0rl0n
Registered User
 
AdmV0rl0n's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 207
AdmV0rl0n is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
The thing is, this isn't the first time people suggest "supership" design to be added to the combat engine (mind you, combat engine changes require more than just adding a shipclass, if you'd compare PA engine to PAX engine, which abolished and revamped targeting and mission concepts at large).
I never used the word 'Supership' - others did. I suggested a 'Flagship' and a marine carrier. I suggested an open ended idea of what they might do. I even extended the idea so it worked outside of the combat engine (ie, a simple alliance level, FOR EXAMPLE.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
No. There are useless ships like harpy, that are useless against zikonian frigates, but useful against xandathrii frigates. Then there's been ships that were just plain useless, having no real function beyond filling up the zone.
I have no idea why you are really attempting to wriggle. Are you claiming that my Thief are not superships? Because right now, any sane Terran will tell you they equate exactly to super unstoppable ships. You've sat in thread and bitched about how class a would do terribly badly against class b in a set of circumstances, and how superships are bad, while pretending for who cares what reason that, this situation is something that does not occur. The game has superships by race, and you keep telling me in thread superships are bad. Seriously, get a clue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Here's one thread. It's regarding "death star" type of ships (essentially "flagships") that are limited by construction but provide some powerful benefit (10% enemy ships stolen, anyone, +10% attacker damage, anyone?). Here's another one about stealing resources with ships. Feel free to surf the forums more for suggestions on huge ships that bring different benefits, it's in the FAF -thread too. I suggest you check the numerous "let's introduce new ship/orbital facility/planetary defence bump" threads amongst the years for more insight into the subject. There's been ideas about mashing structures, giving bonuses to damages, stealing resources, stealing researches, and so on around earlier, too.
I am glad people posted those ideas. You see, here is the thing. Its an ideas thread. Not a thread to attack ideas, not a thread to limit or close discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
The thing with the combat engine is, that at the moment there's no new chassis design being done. I reckon during the whole PAX period it's been fighter, corvette, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship. The problem comes adding to this. Adding two new ship types outside the existing classes (to say, Flagship class, and Marine carrier class) is possible, but it makes things quite a bit more complex without really bringing in too much, as mentioned on one of the earlier threads involving the subject.
OK, you keep on throwing this at me. Do you run, maintain and look after the combat engine for PAteam? If the answer is yes, ok, I'll stop posting and we can forget the idea. If the answer is no, go away, and stop quoting 'current combat engine' at me. Changes to the combat engine big or small with an idea like this are a given. OK. Understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
To make a few more questions about the idea itself. You mention the marine carriers don't need to exist in already existing shipclasses, like flagships wouldn't exist. What else would marine carriers do, than steal flagships (at one point you mentioned targetting skillers, apods, and such - is this role still valid, or changed by now?)
The original premise was basic. New ships, flagships, marine carriers. Flagships do something new. Players have marine carriers as the in game counter. Could you extend the ships to do other things, yes you could, and I would not mind if you could. I also don't mind if you don't.

But even, as I have done in this thread, if you offer simple things:-

simplify the idea due to whining.
Flagships when raiding give you 5% extra roid cap, 5% more kills (or simple stuff put up for simple discussion)

I'd still have people come in thread and say:-
Superships by design are bad (even tough the game is riddled with superships)
The current combat engine can't do this - go away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
, and if they would, would they do it after everyone else or at some point in between? Also, how would you then destroy a marine carrier (except with another marine carrier possibly?)?
Marine carriers would be wasted unless you need them. However, if you want to add a third new class feel free.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Would there be a "conventional" class to shoot down marine carriers? (This again can bring some difficulties with the statistics - making a plausible set of ship statistics isn't as easy as it sounds, and there's always the risk of something going fubar).
Well, you've attacked me for suggesting the ships, wether we use conventional method (ie ship stats), or a new method. If the conventional class fought with marine class, and you twisted this like every other class in the game is twisted, at least you'd be consistent. Maybe herein, you actually have added something for the first time. An observation that its actually 3 classes, new ones, that *maybe* don't mess with the rest of the combat engine, flagships, marine carriers, and heavy destroyers (example, blurb would be, guns upgraded to deal with marine carrier armour, or whatever). In both cases, both have a limited use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
If marine carriers are of their own class, and only target flagships, but are hit by conventional shipclasses, doesn't it get very hard to get any of these in alive, given that regular ships would (as you suggest, with the dead pods incident) shoot first?
Well, should you be easily able to walk in and just take someone's flagship?
(I'd say no..), so the fact you might face problems mounting such a raid is different from how people have to plan missions now how?

In making or building a flagship, do we want to create a 'Supership'.
No. But it would be fun if the Flagship did something. If it does *nothing*, there is no point. I suggested a couple of tangents, one being maybe its a ship for alliances to have, the first HC getting it. Or based on race and adding an attack or defence modifyer.

There has to be a counter to flagships. If not marine carriers, then could it be something else.

If you steal/cap a flagship, can you gain a benefit worthwhile taking the risk.

Even if you took this to its simplest degree, and treated a flagship at the first HC of any alliance, treating it like a special 'roid', capping it wins your alliance 1 million extra score, a completed tech or construction for its members, it_would_add something to the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Merely adding "two ships that do something, one to counter the other and one to do something" is a bit vague. Can you specify how the idea is going at the moment, so I can actually write off on where the idea might fail? (As you see, this is an ideas forum, and the point is to discuss new ideas, which evidently involves critisizing them).
Superships - No
Does not work with current combat engine - no
Terrans wrecked RD 21 - no
Beta testing ideas sucks - no

- Is not criticism, its just blanking people posting ideas.
__________________
My Co-Ords? There is nothing interesting at my Co-ords!
AdmV0rl0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Aug 2007, 14:15   #32
Tietäjä
Good Son
 
Tietäjä's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,990
Tietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better placeTietäjä single handedly makes these forums a better place
Re: two additional ship types

Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmV0rl0n
Seriously, get a clue.
This is a joke right?

Quote:
OK, you keep on throwing this at me. Do you run, maintain and look after the combat engine for PAteam? If the answer is yes, ok, I'll stop posting and we can forget the idea. If the answer is no, go away, and stop quoting 'current combat engine' at me. Changes to the combat engine big or small with an idea like this are a given. OK. Understand?
I've promised to help Game's work on the ship statistics for next round. I hope that's a sufficient answer. For what it makes, I'm feeling more and more reclutant to touch it with a stick every day.


Quote:
I'd still have people come in thread and say:-
Superships by design are bad (even tough the game is riddled with superships)
The current combat engine can't do this - go away.
It has been argued why the current combat engine isn't very well equipped for such ideas, and the argument has received a level of support amongs some experienced players.



Quote:
Marine carriers would be wasted unless you need them. However, if you want to add a third new class feel free.
Personally, I'm not about to add any classes.



Quote:
Well, you've attacked me for suggesting the ships, wether we use conventional method (ie ship stats), or a new method. If the conventional class fought with marine class, and you twisted this like every other class in the game is twisted, at least you'd be consistent. Maybe herein, you actually have added something for the first time. An observation that its actually 3 classes, new ones, that *maybe* don't mess with the rest of the combat engine, flagships, marine carriers, and heavy destroyers (example, blurb would be, guns upgraded to deal with marine carrier armour, or whatever). In both cases, both have a limited use.
Why I've critisized the idea of adding classes? You said it yourself. If the conventional classes fight with the marine class, you need to be extra careful so you don't end up with things like marines sniping out pods from fleets with an amount of podfleets having no chance to do about it (essentially creating more or less sniping shipclasses). If it works as an external to the current combat mechanic, then it's a whole different story.


Quote:
There has to be a counter to flagships. If not marine carriers, then could it be something else.
You still haven't answered a few questions regarding the idea. In fact, you're concentrated on defending your idea outside the actual idea (focused on the debate instead of the content of the debate). Let me ask them again, and elaborate.

Quote:
The original premise was basic. New ships.
Brainstorm that. That's a little vague at best. Obviously, it would be reasonable to actually also include a plan on how these ships interact with the existing game.

Quote:
Flagships when raiding give you 5% extra roid cap, 5% more kills (or simple stuff put up for simple discussion)
Quote:
Marine carriers would be wasted unless you need them. However, if you want to add a third new class feel free.
This, yet, leaves very little ideas on how to integrate the new ship classes and their effects into the current game system. Do they float on a combat of their own, marine carriers chasing after flagships, or do they combat regular ships as any ship? The relation between the idea and the current game mechanic needs to be resolved inevitably. You can keep saying that "stop attacking the idea", but instead you could offer possible solutions to this problem, because that's the essential ("fundamental") problem in implementing ships that have differing effects to the combat system where the current ships work at.

I can only visualize a few alternatives.

First, without marine carriers. That's when you have to place the flagships a little like structure killers are placed at the moment - off pod classes, for mentioned reasons. While this might bring in new content, the next question is whether the content is worth the tradeoff which is more hassle, and more work on the balance. Some people have, following the changes in population and such, argued that the game doesn't really need to become more complex, but it needs some sort of a finishing touch with more attention to things working better than bringing in new things. This is a matter of flavour.

Second, with marine carriers. This way you can completely exclude the flagships from traditional combat, which avoids them being impenetrably protected by a wall of other ships (through EMP resistance variance or armor variance). This leaves you with only marine carriers being able to target them, and again places you in a question of how to place the marine carriers in the ship classes. If a race has say frigate marine carriers, this means that races that shoot hard at frigate can trounce through rather easily, while if you don't shoot at frigates on your podfleets, you can't hit it with flagships. Given the ETA of the flagship (what would it be?), it would again favour a race over other, which probably isn't the intention is it?

The third is a variability from the second. It would involve placing both marine carriers and flagships outside the conventional fleet setup. At this point, you could either make one ship for each race with no job whatsoever but to bash marine carriers (like an astropod picks roids), or just to leave marine carriers untouchable and just simply require an amount of them (accompanied by a fleet slot) to stop given flagships. The latter would essentially work as a "second" combat engine that works out the same fleet slots and may affect the outcome of the primary engine, but also may not.

They all come with certain problems (which some people call fundamental) involved. Which one were you planning on, or did you have another idea?
__________________
"Oh, wretched race of a day, children of chance and misery, why do ye compel me to say to you what it were most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is for ever beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. The second best for you, however, is soon to die". Silenus, tutor to Dionysos, speaking to King Midas.
Tietäjä is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 2 Aug 2007, 14:23   #33
robban1
Registered User
 
robban1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 845
robban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these partsrobban1 is infamous around these parts
Re: two additional ship types

hehe too much info in this tread but hey flying pds might be an idea too
__________________
____________________________

robban1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018