Deprecated: Function bp_core_get_user_domain is deprecated since version 12.0.0! Use bp_members_get_user_url() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
Deprecated: Function seems_utf8 is deprecated since version 6.9.0! Use wp_is_valid_utf8() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
Deprecated: Function seems_utf8 is deprecated since version 6.9.0! Use wp_is_valid_utf8() instead. in /home/lotj/www/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
-
-
September 21, 2009 at 8:23 pm #11605"Quicksilver":2xi4d1ec wrote:My idea for a revamp of ship combat is a simpler one that will probably be wildly unpopular. My suggestion is to make the maximum number of ships you can have in a battlegroup about five. A clan can mass as many ships as they want and put them in orbit, but they can only have five to a battlegroup. That way, it encourages clans to train more pilots, makes it damn hard for one idiot to lose the entire fleet, and just overall has a nice leveling effect, hopefully even reducing on spam. Shouldn’t even be that hard to code.[/quote:2xi4d1ec]
Umm.. Did I not.. ..?
"Skiia":2xi4d1ec wrote:1) Add a battlegroup cap.[/quote:2xi4d1ec]I thought I did.. And..
"Skiia":2xi4d1ec wrote:1b) 5 Ship Battlegroup Max, period. This option is a possibility, and not as difficult as the first.[/quote:2xi4d1ec]
-
September 22, 2009 at 12:21 am #11606
Crazy talk. You’re just jealous you don’t have my inborn charisma and talent for communicating ideas.
-
September 22, 2009 at 4:46 pm #11620
Nothing wrong backing up an idea that has been around since at least era 3, when it first started becoming a problem and when several people started to see that BG needed limiting.
-
September 26, 2009 at 8:59 am #11666
The biggest problem with a flat cap on a battlegroup’s size is the difference between ship classes. Say the Republic’s best ship is the MC80, and the Empire is using ISDs. If you go 5v5 the Empire would win every time. My idea would be for each clan to have a "crew pool" that would be tapped to man all the ships in your battlegroup. Bigger and better ships need more crew to run, and bigger clans are given more crew. If you don’t have enough crew members for all the ships, they’d be divided between the ships, which then suffer penalties to fire rate and shield recharge efficiency.
Deploying more ships would still leave you with an advantage until you reach the absolute maximum allowed, but clans would suffer diminishing returns as they add more ships to their group. At some point, the benefit of having more ships would be small enough that it’s not worth risking them in battle.
-
September 26, 2009 at 1:20 pm #11668
MC80s really aren’t all that much worse than ISDs, I’m not even sure if they are worse at all, come to think of it.
-
September 26, 2009 at 2:41 pm #11669
I think they got something like 500 less shield’s or hull and 5 less projectiles in each slot or something like that, but no MC80’s are not much worse at all then ISD’s.
-
September 26, 2009 at 5:03 pm #11671"Adriav":2d3e330r wrote:The biggest problem with a flat cap on a battlegroup’s size is the difference between ship classes. Say the Republic’s best ship is the MC80, and the Empire is using ISDs. If you go 5v5 the Empire would win every time. My idea would be for each clan to have a "crew pool" that would be tapped to man all the ships in your battlegroup. Bigger and better ships need more crew to run, and bigger clans are given more crew. If you don’t have enough crew members for all the ships, they’d be divided between the ships, which then suffer penalties to fire rate and shield recharge efficiency.
Deploying more ships would still leave you with an advantage until you reach the absolute maximum allowed, but clans would suffer diminishing returns as they add more ships to their group. At some point, the benefit of having more ships would be small enough that it’s not worth risking them in battle.[/quote:2d3e330r]
That’d be interesting. You could, say, have a certain number of ‘personnel’ for each actual player hired. ‘Personnel’ could be pulled to man ships, or as guards/customs people on the ground (placed by Diplomats).
-
September 26, 2009 at 9:59 pm #11675
Capital ships are actually balanced, where ISDs have more armament, MC80s are actually somewhat faster than them, and have better handling, so to speak. You just need to learn how to utilize each vessel to it’s capabilities, as strange as that sounds for a text based game.
-
September 27, 2009 at 12:29 am #11676
Sure, MC80s have plenty of advantages, and being able to retreat some of your ships makes both victories and defeats that much less costly, if you can manage it. But in terms of firepower and energy/shield capacity, ISDs have them completely outmatched. Or maybe I’m wrong.
Either way, it’s beside the point. It could be VSDs and MC80s, or ISDs and Nebulons. Hammerheads and Sith Destroyers. If one ship is better than another, even a little, this system would work better than a flat cap. And it would let clans use their full variety of ships, instead of relying only on the best class.
"Skiia":zf04th8c wrote:That’d be interesting. You could, say, have a certain number of ‘personnel’ for each actual player hired. ‘Personnel’ could be pulled to man ships, or as guards/customs people on the ground (placed by Diplomats).[/quote:zf04th8c]I wouldn’t base it on player recruitment, or people would abuse the system and join up with alts. If you make it per-account, they’d just create or have their non-LOTJ friends create accounts to join the clan and log in once a week or whatever the requirement is. I’d leave it as either something for imms to customize, or based on major/minor status and the type of clan (government, manufacturing, service, etc).
-
September 27, 2009 at 3:36 am #11678
MC80s are signficantly faster than ISDs, but it’s not as much of an advantage. Also, the ISD has a significantly better internal layout.
-
September 30, 2009 at 2:39 pm #11709
MC80 has (Going of of memory) more fuel(55000 to the ISD 50000, More ability to shoot/recharge), more ions, better hyperspeed(Means most times, you’re going to have significantly more fuel than the ISD, or on par), better speed(I think? If so, this makes a difference).
I get your point, but no one has ever really tried to use a variety of ships. They ALWAYS went for the best(I seem to recall the Republic ordering people NOT to build MC90s because they weren’t "as good" as MC80s and were more costly. The only reason to build your "not best ship" now is because of the 130 heavy capship change, and even then, clans still focused on their heaviest ship anyways. Every system is going to have its pros and cons, but I’d think a hard cap on BG limit at the least, as well as a soft cap on how many cappies can have is the better bet.
Because trust me, it really doesn’t matter how shitty your capship is, you get enough and its GGNORE. 15 battlegrouped nebulons will overpower 5 or 10 unmanned batlegrouped ISDs, despite the fact the ISD probably has 10x the armorment. 10 capitals of any size will be able to easily destroy another capital in 5-10 seconds(I think I actually saw the DL ambush the NR on three occasions, the NR dying in 13 seconds, 20 seconds, and 15 seconds from exitting hyperspace)
-
September 30, 2009 at 6:04 pm #11714
NR was building MC40s for the large contingent of people with piloting levels over 100 but under 130. We would have built more Nebulons but they were absolutely terrible. Crappier stats than Acclamators and they couldn’t land. A couple were built for training purposes but they got destroyed when the imps raided the base. After the NR fleet got utterly destroyed that first time, over Kuat, a plan was put in place to defend Coruscant with something like 200 autopiloted X-wings, launched from the ground.
-