| Author |
Bring back the configurable ship! |
Nutsy
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: June 20, 2007
Posts: 28
From: CT, USA
|  Posted: 2011-04-21 10:31
I would love to have the ability to choose the weapons that I have on my ship and what utilities I carry.
It used to be that there were weapons slots and utility slots and I could pick and choose what I wanted for weapons and utilities. For example, I could carry 3 or 4 aux power supplies on a frig and load it with proton cannons and I was able to stand my ground pretty well against a destroyer.
Now I am forced to use a ship that has only a certain preset of weapons and utilities. Sure I can change them out if I want to another of the same type, but I am not able to totally set it to what is good for my fighting style.
Is there any way we can go back to this way of doing things?
N
_________________
I don't fear Insanity - I enjoy every minute of it!!
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-04-21 10:42
No. It was a completely broken system that caused havoc with balance issues et al. If you have that system, then you end up with a game where every weapon is the same, but you can replace it, and we're not going to do that, because that would suck.
We give you a pre-set, I'd suggest on a personal note that you try not to force a ship into a role it's not meant to fill. We try to fill almost every role you'd want on a ship-hull (within reason, balance and faction design) - if something not there, then it's not meant to be for a reason.
_________________
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2011-04-21 10:54
If you want configuration with number of slots as basis, you in dead luck.
A picket destroyer has the most slots, filled by lots of beams and many cannons. Should you replace them all with torpedoes, you get the slightly-scaled back Torpedo Dread. The reverse is with the missile destroyer, whose missiles are so heavy it can carry only 5 slots of them. If you were to use torpedoes on it, you'd get a rather weak assault destroyer.
Compare both of them. Same armor, same energy systems, same hull and still one is way OP than another.
Now say you want to replace disruptors on a Mandible with ADs. You get a superpwnage 15 ADs.
If a Krill had its disruptors replaced with ADs, you get a max of 11 ADs. Obviously, this is unfair considering that the Mandible also has 2 SIs, 6 torpedoes and 4 heavy cannons, compared to Krill's 6 (fore) SI and 2 cannons. (FYI, 1 core weapon=2 torpedoes=5 cannons nearly.)
Say some miserable soul informed you that ship layouts are based on resource points for each device, and you think that should be a fair and just basis for configuring.
AD, EAD, Krill and SS (uggy) -
Suppose you mod the ships such that they are superb at their primary tasks (AD=8 IC, EAD=9 HCL, Krill=12 SI, SS=8 repair drones). Thats unbalanced, simply because they're too good.
End point - you won't get to mod ships, simply because you'll try the best configuration thats possible, which will also inherently be OP (torp MD anyone?).
Think of the various ships in 1 class as modded versions of a standard ship of that class. The devs have already done a lot of work making nice mods of the ships which aren't too OP.
Btw, thanks for the free +1 to post count.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2011-04-21 11:00
That's where the points system comes in.
_________________
|
Nutsy
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: June 20, 2007
Posts: 28
From: CT, USA
| Posted: 2011-04-21 11:01
Just out of curiosity, why would it suck? Everyone would be able to custom build their ships for the way the tactically work.
As for the ships having a certain use and using it for that, that is a given..... I just prefer to custom build my ships for what I do. And I am not the only one that would do that, I am sure.
But if you cannot, then at least give me a few more spaces to put ships in..... I don't like removing a ship to get one that is better suited for the task I want to perform, especially if I am paying for the credits to buy enhancements for the ships.......
_________________
I don't fear Insanity - I enjoy every minute of it!!
|
Nutsy
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: June 20, 2007
Posts: 28
From: CT, USA
| Posted: 2011-04-21 11:14
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-21 10:54, Brahmastra wrote:
If you want configuration with number of slots as basis, you in dead luck.
A picket destroyer has the most slots, filled by lots of beams and many cannons. Should you replace them all with torpedoes, you get the slightly-scaled back Torpedo Dread. The reverse is with the missile destroyer, whose missiles are so heavy it can carry only 5 slots of them. If you were to use torpedoes on it, you'd get a rather weak assault destroyer.
Compare both of them. Same armor, same energy systems, same hull and still one is way OP than another.
Now say you want to replace disruptors on a Mandible with ADs. You get a superpwnage 15 ADs.
If a Krill had its disruptors replaced with ADs, you get a max of 11 ADs. Obviously, this is unfair considering that the Mandible also has 2 SIs, 6 torpedoes and 4 heavy cannons, compared to Krill's 6 (fore) SI and 2 cannons. (FYI, 1 core weapon=2 torpedoes=5 cannons nearly.)
Say some miserable soul informed you that ship layouts are based on resource points for each device, and you think that should be a fair and just basis for configuring.
AD, EAD, Krill and SS (uggy) -
Suppose you mod the ships such that they are superb at their primary tasks (AD=8 IC, EAD=9 HCL, Krill=12 SI, SS=8 repair drones). Thats unbalanced, simply because they're too good.
End point - you won't get to mod ships, simply because you'll try the best configuration thats possible, which will also inherently be OP (torp MD anyone?).
Think of the various ships in 1 class as modded versions of a standard ship of that class. The devs have already done a lot of work making nice mods of the ships which aren't too OP.
Btw, thanks for the free +1 to post count.
|
|
Al that you are saying is that if a ship is properly configured, it could be a super power at what it is configured for. I do not see how this is a problem, as everyone would have the same access to make these changes.
As for the statement "Say some miserable soul informed you that ship layouts are based on resource points for each device, and you think that should be a fair and just basis for configuring." ummm...... sure - why not? You need credits to launch a new ship and to transfer it, why not make the changing of the weapons or utilities (ecm, eccm or aux power) cost some credits? All this would mean is that the factions would need to be sure to have a few "super credit" planets in their systems.
I still am not seeing the issue...... aside from players needing to think a little more about what they are loading onto their ships before they take them into battle.
BTW, if I decide to change the sub-light engines on my ships, I have to pay credits for it - and for that matter the WH drive vs. the hyper drive too.
N
_________________
I don't fear Insanity - I enjoy every minute of it!!
|
Nutsy
Grand Admiral
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: June 20, 2007
Posts: 28
From: CT, USA
| Posted: 2011-04-21 11:15
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-21 11:00, The Fridge wrote:
That's where the points system comes in.
|
|
Which points are you referring to? The rank to get a better ship? If so, that still does not mean the option should not be available......
_________________
I don't fear Insanity - I enjoy every minute of it!!
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-04-21 11:35
Basically, when you can configure a ship, there is no need to have many ships in the same class. The dev give you one model of each hull, then you adjust it yourself base on the limit of slots they assign.
Ain't we allowed to modify our ship atm? You can switch from:
- CBL to pulse beam;
- Standard Armor to Albative/Reflective;
- Chitin to AHR;
- Partical Cannon to EMP Cannon;
- Rail Gun to Gauss Gun;
- Long-range missle to medium/short-range missle;
- PSI Cannon to Plasma Cannon;
- Assualt Fighter to Bomber/Sensor/Interceptor Fighter;
- Mirv/TK to Neutral/Bio bomb.
That's quite a long list.
Besides, when you afford to modify the ship the way you desire, the garrage 8-ships limitation is less meaningful cause you don't have to any sacrifice ship cause every ship is multi-purposes constructed.
Imagine someone replace CBL on Interdictor with Cannon...
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-04-21 13:55
No.
This defeats the purpose of having different types of ships per class. Everybody will simply fit the most powerful weps on the ships and every ship would be the same.
Ships were made to be role specific. To have strengths and weaknesses.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2011-04-21 14:41
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-21 11:01, Nutsy wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why would it suck? Everyone would be able to custom build their ships for the way the tactically work.
|
|
ahh silly 1.5xx players don;t remember the insanely op ED or torp MD.
_________________
|
-Shadowalker-™
Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: September 23, 2007
Posts: 709
From: Shadows
| Posted: 2011-04-21 14:52
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-21 14:41, Borgie (if its red its dead) wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-21 11:01, Nutsy wrote:
Just out of curiosity, why would it suck? Everyone would be able to custom build their ships for the way the tactically work.
|
|
ahh silly 1.5xx players don;t remember the insanely op ED or torp MD.
|
|
Don't forget about the TC, or the scale. Or the picket. Or the EAD EMP... 
_________________
|
SaturnShadow™ *FC*(Angel Of Darkness)
Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: February 03, 2007
Posts: 310
From: UK
| Posted: 2011-04-21 15:05
now i can understand about the ED PD and Torp MD
but the way im thinking is you have restrictions to config your ship for many examples
Md MC MD cant change missiles for Torps (or even have a MAX amount of Torps allowed at one time)
ED and PD cant change lasers for cannons (or even have a MAX amount of cannons allowed at one time)
but ships like (mostly going off ugto here)
Battle dread Battle Cruiser Torp Cruiser Gunboat Destroyer etc being able to swap out lasers for cannons and still able to config the level of the weapons (i kinda liked the staggered rate of fire of the Battle Dread)
but now that i think of it i kinda would be happy with just adding the weapon levels again
_________________
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2011-04-21 15:22
The points system was "proposed?" a while back.
You attach a certain value to a ship hull and the gadgets and weapons.
The values would vary depending on the weapon. so a Rail would be 1 point while a fusion torpedo might be 2.
Still hard to balance but would allow customization if perfected.
Of course each ship has a certain role, so instead of full customization you could allow a maximum number of a certain gadget on a ship, so you wouldn't get a Bomber dread with 12 MIRV slots and have certain gadgets available to certain ship hulls.
But yer difficult to balance.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2011-04-21 17:49
That system was a good one for 3 years at least. I was lucky to get in before it was killed. Needed tweaks, not revamping. Things like flux dreads and torp mds were a bad part of the game, and they could have been dealt with without throwing out the whole baby.
But the game has aquired a different "vision" - one away from player customization and options to one of dev control. Time will tell if this is a better system. So far, it doesn't seem to be.
_________________
bucket link
|
Sardaukar
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 1656
| Posted: 2011-04-21 19:16
I think the move was a good one, based on my experiences back in those days. I do miss some of my unconventional ships- Sabot dread, sabot destroyer, etc- but almost every ship being flown was one of a few player-determined "best" configurations. It was pretty stupid when the entire roster of ICC cruisers was useless because the only one worth flying was a torpedo Assault Cruiser. The only way to address that is to make the limits on modification stricter; Anything else, and you'll continue to get "bests."
And I think a lot of other players from then would agree, if they remembered the fleet admiral (scenario) server: The most popular place to get a fight for ages, and I believe one reason was the stock ships. There was rarely time or resources to build up a stock of modifications for your ships, so people had to pick a stock configuration and fly that... and the variety and more intricate fleet setups made it more challenging, more fun.
Even if I'm wrong on that point, the move has had another tangible benefit: We've seen more ship layout revamps and tighter balancing in a shorter timeframe than ever before. Not having to plan each ship layout around every possible adapation of it dramatically cuts the development time down.
[ This Message was edited by: Sardaukar on 2011-04-21 19:47 ]
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
