Jump to content

Suggestion for PVP adjustments.


LouHodo
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, LouHodo said:

I suggested a descending weapon mount system.  In further detail.

 

XS core can mount xs weapons max 

S core can mount small weapons and below.

M core can mount medium weapons and below.

L core can mount large weapons and below. 

 

So large cores can put any weapon system on it.  Giving the large core the most versatility but at a greater cost.

Yeah, this could work. Its really how one would expect it to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, LouHodo said:

I suggested a descending weapon mount system.  In further detail.

 

XS core can mount xs weapons max 

S core can mount small weapons and below.

M core can mount medium weapons and below.

L core can mount large weapons and below. 

 

So large cores can put any weapon system on it.  Giving the large core the most versatility but at a greater cost.

 

Dear all,

 

I am strongly opposed to this suggestion.
Indeed, it would forfeit the possibilities of the naval bomber doctrine that is a real-life example.
It also relates to the destroyer and torpedo doctrine against capital ships.
However, I personally expect small vessels built around big weapons to be strongly encumbered by it.
And that either by mass, ammo limitation, energy, fuel requirement.

 

Before you oppose the real-life countermeasure of the naval screen, that is an escort of destroyers to protect a capital vessel.
Indeed a naval screen would force you to play with other players in e.g., space fighter to defend you.

I strongly suggest that it is possible for a capital ship to defend alone against a destroyer swarm if the capital ship is designed with enough secondary weapons.
These secondary weapons would have firepower and range enough to force the swarm to stay enough away.
This distance allows the capital ship to dodge or be missed by unguided ordinance and more time to intercept guided ones.

 

Moreover, real-life destroyers are protected by the curvature of the ocean that allows them to hide under the horizon until a closer distance.
This particular point is not possible in space.
Moreover, it is even more difficult to hide in space than on earth because of the heat emission (EM infrared emission) against the dark, cold background.
Meanwhile, active radar forces an EM reflection from a target by illuminating it.

 

My apologies I have gone astray.
As you certainly noticed, I am speaking from a certain scientific realism point of view.

I am pleased to have joined your community yesterday.
Thus, I am very unfamiliar with the combat mechanics of the game.
And I am aware that in-game, mechanics can be... Arbitrary.

 

Best regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Myrias said:

 

Dear all,

 

I am strongly opposed to this suggestion.
Indeed, it would forfeit the possibilities of the naval bomber doctrine that is a real-life example.
It also relates to the destroyer and torpedo doctrine against capital ships.
However, I personally expect small vessels built around big weapons to be strongly encumbered by it.
And that either by mass, ammo limitation, energy, fuel requirement.

 

Before you oppose the real-life countermeasure of the naval screen, that is an escort of destroyers to protect a capital vessel.
Indeed a naval screen would force you to play with other players in e.g., space fighter to defend you.

I strongly suggest that it is possible for a capital ship to defend alone against a destroyer swarm if the capital ship is designed with enough secondary weapons.
These secondary weapons would have firepower and range enough to force the swarm to stay enough away.
This distance allows the capital ship to dodge or be missed by unguided ordinance and more time to intercept guided ones.

 

Moreover, real-life destroyers are protected by the curvature of the ocean that allows them to hide under the horizon until a closer distance.
This particular point is not possible in space.
Moreover, it is even more difficult to hide in space than on earth because of the heat emission (EM infrared emission) against the dark, cold background.
Meanwhile, active radar forces an EM reflection from a target by illuminating it.

 

My apologies I have gone astray.
As you certainly noticed, I am speaking from a certain scientific realism point of view.

I am pleased to have joined your community yesterday.
Thus, I am very unfamiliar with the combat mechanics of the game.
And I am aware that in-game, mechanics can be... Arbitrary.

 

Best regards,

Your exact problem is your coming from a realism stand point.  Gameplay >>> realism.  Sure I don't Mind things being "realistic" as long as its accompanied by good balanced gameplay. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Your exact problem is your coming from a realism stand point.  Gameplay >>> realism.  Sure I don't Mind things being "realistic" as long as its accompanied by good balanced gameplay. 

 

"Realism," or at least the appearance of it, is the basis for engaging gameplay of the kind that we like. Or we'd all be playing Angry Birds. Plausibility or "verisimiliitude" are better words for what games like this actually provide, but being based in a consistent view of the world is important. And consistent means that "if it fits, it fits" is a good rule. Arbitrary break points just open up exploits and reduce freedom in design to create novel interactions. It's the arbitrary nature of the break points in current systems that make them unsustainable as the basis for PvP in a finished game. If you could combine radars (like you can combine engines...) large ships would have the potential for vastly larger detection and lockon ranges (while still being effectively mobile and offensively competent) than small ships (which would be plausible; you don't put an Aegis array on an MTB). But you're limited to one per seat and they don't stack.

 

Also, restricting guns by size of core would just change the meta to XS cores with Cannon, since XS cores still can't be locked until they're close enough to run in under longer ranged guns and shred the big ship carrying them with higher DPS. Apparently, according to at least one dissenting voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Kezzle said:

"Realism," or at least the appearance of it, is the basis for engaging gameplay of the kind that we like. Or we'd all be playing Angry Birds. Plausibility or "verisimiliitude" are better words for what games like this actually provide, but being based in a consistent view of the world is important. And consistent means that "if it fits, it fits" is a good rule. Arbitrary break points just open up exploits and reduce freedom in design to create novel interactions. It's the arbitrary nature of the break points in current systems that make them unsustainable as the basis for PvP in a finished game. If you could combine radars (like you can combine engines...) large ships would have the potential for vastly larger detection and lockon ranges (while still being effectively mobile and offensively competent) than small ships (which would be plausible; you don't put an Aegis array on an MTB). But you're limited to one per seat and they don't stack.

 

Also, restricting guns by size of core would just change the meta to XS cores with Cannon, since XS cores still can't be locked until they're close enough to run in under longer ranged guns and shred the big ship carrying them with higher DPS. Apparently, according to at least one dissenting voice.

Yes I get all that. My main point is when you come to a crucial decision sometimes, and one often based on the technology, you go for gameplay.  How the planets work isnt realistic at all. Nothing orbits and the star isnt even there. But they do what they have to, while trying to create the illusion of some realism.  And that is just fine. I've seen elsewhere where maybe on youtube comments, almost dismissing DU out right because "planets and moons dont orbit".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As there is no real restrictions as to what you can fit on a core (as long as you stay within the build box) and NQ has no immediate intent or priority in implementing mechanics that would impose a "natural" limitation (like power). A forced on like size limit seems the only viable option.

 

I'd much prefer that a core has a specific Fitting room/capacity ( similar to the power/capacitor needs in EVE) and by using that you can choose to sacrifice one thing to "overspec" something else or add things like batteries to increase possible load. But I do not believe the DU game design allows for this, at least not currently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnnyTazer said:

Yes I get all that. My main point is when you come to a crucial decision sometimes, and one often based on the technology, you go for gameplay. 

Aye, there will always be technical restrictions on what can be implemented. But just changing what you can fit won't stop there being an meta that people will moan about. You have to address the whole system and make it work more smoothly (in terms of how the components interact with each other). NQ are going to do that at some point, and until then, any change will just change what people perceive as the broken bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happier with a little leeway.  So;

 

XS cores could have xs and small weapons

 

Small could have small, medium and xs weapons

 

Medium can have all (but not XL if that comes in)

 

Large can have all.

 

And lower the damage taken by voxels so we don't just have Borg cubes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, SpinelessNJ said:

The PVP combat in this game is pretty much the worst I have ever experienced. I hope at some point soon there is a major redo on the mechanics because at present its insanely basic and boring. 

It's the first Iteration as proof of concept.  Give them time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kleves said:

yea and in real life attacking unarmed ships gets you listed as a terrorist and hunted down. but in pvp video games it's a requirement. 

To paraphrase: "One man's terrorist is another man's canny businessman." Labels like that are defined by the society we live in. Currently, there is no such thing as society in DU. It's a massive anthropological experiment to see whether societies will form in a very "Darwinian" setting. One of the primary uses for society is mutual protection, so it does seem relevant to have the possibility of violence exist so that it gives a reason for societies to form. Then those societies can start labelling predators and transgressors as "terrorists" ( a much-overused term) and criminals and hunting them down all the way back to the beginning. Why not start one? The predators have already begun, have you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kleves said:

yea and in real life attacking unarmed ships gets you listed as a terrorist and hunted down. but in pvp video games it's a requirement. 

What part of DU is real life? I dont respawn in real life if a terrorist blows me up. So spare me the bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2020 at 2:35 PM, Thor Wotansen said:

What's interesting here is that you only took umbrage with the use of gold, and had nothing to say about possible higher tier product materials.  There are many things in this game that don't make sense from a "well in real life" perspective, however, they make sense within the rules set out by the game.  In this case, if you want oodles of hitpoints, you have to take on some serious mass.  This is balance.  I expect any future high tier product materials to have really good resistances against specific damage types, and have a huge resistance hole with another type of damage.  We already see this with steel, with it's 50% damage reduction of incoming EM damage, which is the best EM damage reduction of any honeycomb in the game, including T5 pures. 

But to get back on track, you are proposing a massive damage nerf, which will do only one thing, and that is to force everyone to use only missiles and to build giant cubes of gold to counter incoming damage.  Instead of solving it, you just create a new meta.  True balance comes from changing all things, not just one.

I went that was the one thing I chose to pick on.  I could write a small book on wrong uses of metals.  Lithium as a building material?  Silicone for ship walls?  Straight carbon for hulls?  Marble?   Yeah the list can go on.  Some things I can give some leeway on, like plastic.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...