| Author |
Transit System |
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
|  Posted: 2005-10-06 14:55
Quote:
|
Shipyards
The shipyard I propose isn’t a planetary structure, although it relies on planets for resources still. The basic idea is that it is a space station-esk object, though a little larger (this will involve 1, maybe 3 new models). The SY would be in orbit around the star and at quite a distance from it. In fact, it replaces the current ‘Home Gate’ in the home systems.
Sounds simple eh? Well, the tricky part is that is needs to be build-able and destroyable. This presents the hardest part of the idea, programming wise. But it doesn’t need to be anything special at first, no fancy building animation or anything. It could just appear after the build time has elapsed and be treated like an AI ship once in existence.
|
|
A nice idea, though, only under the condition that there can only be one per faction - maybe even two, or three for outer regions. The prestige gained from destroying these should be relatively small, otherwise it may just become another incentive to camp a homesystem.
Quote:
|
Wormholes
This is the special bit. Currently wormholes can go anywhere within range. This is a major detriment to tactics.
My idea for the new wormhole is simple; it can only be formed between two similar gravitational environments. Now, before you scoff at that, all it means is that it can be formed in a different star system at roughly the same distance from the star of that system as the person forming it is from the star of the system they are in (phew). Ok picture time.
…
Anyways, hopefully some of you will see where I’m going now.
|
|
Hm...well I'd have to no on this one - if there would be any way to even remotely think about keeping wormholes in my mind it would be something like a transport system.
How do you mean? Well its simple, it functions how the shipyard does now - buildable on the planet. It can then be 'linked' to another wormhole structure. (permanently, until scrapped and built again). However, the way it works is simple.
Planet A is located in System A. This structure takes relatively more resources to run than the shipyard on a daily basis, so there is little room for defences. When activated, it can create a wormhole 1kgu from the planet (directly foreward of the structure), which connects to Planet B in System B, which has a likewise structure - the Wormhole is created 1kgu from that planet.
Limits - Resources, maintenece - 10 minute charge time perhaps. Cannot be actively connected to any system that is enemy (it has to be your faction), and the planets in question must be free of other gravitational objects by at least 5kgu.
Quote:
|
Restrictions
Ok, so the wormhole can only be generated by a Support Station. Stations can only be built at shipyards (that goes for all ships too though). Plus, support stations have no drives! Very important this; other stations have sub light drives, but the support station does not.
Also, wormholes can only be made between adjacent systems, you can’t bypass a system.
That’s it, that's all that's required for this idea (well, mostly).
|
|
Read above.
Quote:
|
Tactics
How does this play out in MV. Well, let’s start from an MV reset.
Each faction has is own Home Shipyard, pre-built in it’s home system, just like the current home gate in fact. However, it needs resources to build bigger ships. All it needs is for a few engineers to go out and build up a few planets. The ports on those planets will automatically (or manually, PLZ!) send resources to the SY.
|
|
Manually.
Quote:
|
So, An FA pulls out a Support station from a SY in his home system. S/he can’t go anywhere. S/he has to ask (order) others to supply them with infantry and components. But now the stage is set. The support station makes a wormhole to the adjacent system. The fleet and the station invade. Its arrival is unannounced; indeed there is no way for the enemy to know where it is.
|
|
Read up. Also, this undermines the fact that you can still invade an enemy system without once being stopped at an instant.
Quote:
|
The fleet busies itself by capturing planets, while the support station sits in deep space, on hand to re-supply and give others its infantry. It can open a new wormhole back to the home system every now and then for more supplies (and also to the next enemy system, but that would be a step too far).
One thing the fleet must not do is alert the enemy to the position of the support station. If any of them get tracked back to the station, the invasion is history!
|
|
Still, it undermines the fact that enemy defences can be bypassed at a whim - and escape just as easily.
Quote:
|
While the fighting is underway, the support station is busy building a shipyard. It needs a constant supply of resources for this, as SYs don’t come cheap. The supply station is obviously very busy, it has an entire fleet to supply, wormholes to punch every now and again for reinforcements and a shipyard to build. But why build it?
Here’s the crux. Apart from the supply station that formed the wormhole, no other station can go through the WH, they just have too much mass. That means you need a shipyard to spawn battle stations etc.
|
|
The problem with this, is that it allows a fleet to maintain a hold on a system in a way that suggests camping. And to think about it in a realistic manner, what faction would spend millions of resources on a shipyard in enemy space that can be destroyed as soon as they must leave?
Shipyards are for prolonged settlements - this means in an area that is almost always friendly - such as a homesystem. For a faction, it would be too serious of a gamble to put a costly station in the thicket of battle.
Quote:
|
And to dominate an enemy system, you really do need battle stations that can jump from planet to planet. Otherwise, how would you defeat the enemy that’s bound to have battle stations since they own the system and have a shipyard… Of course, you could find their SY and destroy it, which would impede them.
|
|
This unfortunately, simply makes the problem worse - let me explain.
The galaxy in which we play in is immense - there are millions and millions of square GU in existance. If a faction were to have a shipyard in every system, its likely going to be way out of the way, hidden. This makes it very difficult at all to gain a hold in a system - at least now you know they are on planets and easy to locate.
This is why I suggest Shipyards may be only one - three per faction, and only the homesystem one would be automatically rebuilt.
If this were to be the case, it would make the problem unfortunately worse if there were shipyards in every system (which would likely to be the case), because enemy ships could still so easily escape death, as well as easily return to the fight.
The main problem I foresee with shipyards is that they are abused - and if they are limited, they become too much of a hassle to use. This is again, most of the reason why I want them removed.
But why? Well, if you have played 1.480 you would see, it makes invading hard to do - as it should be. Your idea of shipyards is good, but as it stands you can capture an enemy system without even a fleet, and there needs to be ways to make it so that it requires it. A homesystem Shipyard, maybe even two outposts, good, but I am going to total no the ability to build shipyards anywhere.
Gatecamping was a simple enforcement of the requirement of fleets - if systems were far enough apart that only scouts could get across, then it returns this wonderful strategy of keeping the enemy at bay and the old, fun engagements that were.
As for wormholes, as I already have explained, I do not think that they should be ship based, but planet based, at most. If not that, then I generally would vote to get rid of those too.
-Ent
[ This Message was edited by: Enterprise on 2005-10-06 14:56 ]
_________________
|
Crim
Fleet Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: March 16, 2003
Posts: 1336
| Posted: 2005-10-06 18:24
I suddenly feel the urge to yell for a rollback..Viva La .480!
_________________
|
RagAnok
Admiral
Joined: February 02, 2004
Posts: 237
| Posted: 2005-10-06 21:12
i was thinking a long the same lines and posted it in the update news so i will post it here as well
To fill out more what I was saying about limiting the number of shipyards to a max of 2-3 and not getting rid of them in total and still solve so of the problem with them so here is my idea
1 limit the number of shipyards per faction to a max of 2-3
2 make shipyards platform based,
3 limit the amount of resources that can be stored on them
4 faction players must maintain the resource levels them selves (no auto fill)
5 make them moveable with in the system that they are built in
6 make it so you cannot dock your ship into a shipyard if the enemy are with in 1000 gu of it
[ This Message was edited by: RagAnok on 2005-10-06 21:13 ]
_________________
[IMG]http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m3/zardous/gunner.gif[IMG]
Telekinesis, thats what you need, just lay back and let your mind do the walking
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 07:02
Just ged rid of these gameplay killers AT ONCE and be done with it... *sigh*
No amount of arguing can compensate the bazillions of valid and brightly explicited arguments from the past 2 years that clearly go in the direction that WHs and SYs detrimented gameplay by reducing the strategy, tactics and the challenge involved of capturing an enemy system.
Also, I don't know how to quite put it into words so I am going to ellicit some feelings from you using analogies... The way I felt playing 1480 is just gone... I don't feel it anymore, the magic is gone, if I'd be a woman, I'd be running away from you and rejecting you right now... 
And remember, a good product is a product that makes you feel something, not the other way around, thats what differentiates a good advertising campaign from a bad one, a good nite with a woman from a bad one and in pretty much the same way, a good gaming experience that gets you addicted compared to one that doesn't leave you wanting more.
Right now, most of the playerbase addiction occured during the pre-SY-WH era. What we are feeling would be best described in romantic terms as: well, she was very handsome for a time and I really couldn't think of anything but her, each day I was craving for more, each time I left, left me wanting for more. No more, gone are those wonderfull oxytocin pumping factors. I'm left with a woman that thinks she owns me and thus don't take much effort to do all the right things that sparks this addiction that's making me type this very post... Hence my unsubedness, I never let a woman take advantage of me and I'd be damned if I'd let game developers do the same  .
Marketing isn't Palestar's forté, and that's a BIG SHAME.
[ This Message was edited by: Diabo|ik on 2005-10-07 07:15 ]
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-07 13:58
Revised original post
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2005-10-08 15:01 ]
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 15:53
Hmmm, how about no?
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-07 16:38
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-07 15:53, Diabo|ik wrote:
Hmmm, how about no?
|
|
Ok, so your first post you spam my suggestion thread with drivel about the current system, without a single reference to the idea. Then the second post, you offer an opinion with out even the slightest reason to back it up?
Hmmm, how about you STFU?
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2005-10-08 15:00 ]
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 17:16
How about acting like a grownup and actually reading the references I inserted ( like the 2 years worth of post on the subject ). Read, learn then come back and keep your composure, mkay?
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-07 17:54
So, your whole argument against my specific suggestion, is that nothing has been done about all the other suggestions made about the CURRENT system of WHs and SYs, so you choose to disqualify my altenate system... by proxy?!
You are just parroting what someone has written on the release side.
Quote:
|
Posted: 2005-10-06 19:10 by Enterprise
Oh forget it. Look, how long has it been since SYs and WHs were implemented? Thats a good what, 2 years? Yes, two years. Now, the things above listed have been occuring, needless to say, for two years. Now in two years I have already tryed to suggest changes be made, already tryed what your suggesting now.
However, it seems no matter how hard we try someone wants to abuse it.
|
|
Come back when you have read, understood and can consructively criticise my specific suggestion. Either that or, you guessed it; STFU and stop spamming this thread with rhetorical drivel, parroted opinion and flamebait.
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2005-10-08 15:01 ]
_________________
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 18:25
[ This Message was edited by: Diabo|ik on 2005-10-07 18:33 ]
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
Diabo|ik
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 16, 2002
Posts: 327
From: Quebec, Canada
| Posted: 2005-10-07 18:33
[quote]
On 2005-10-07 18:25, Diabo|ik wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2005-10-07 17:54, c0ldfury wrote:
So, your whole argument against my specific suggestion, is that nothing has been done about all the other suggestions made about the CURRENT system of WHs and SYs, so you choose to disqualify my altenate system... by proxy?!
You are just parroting what someone has written on the release side.
Quote:
|
Posted: 2005-10-06 19:10 by Enterprise
Oh forget it. Look, how long has it been since SYs and WHs were implemented? Thats a good what, 2 years? Yes, two years. Now, the things above listed have been occuring, needless to say, for two years. Now in two years I have already tryed to suggest changes be made, already tryed what your suggesting now.
However, it seems no matter how hard we try someone wants to abuse it.
|
|
Come back when you have read, understood and can consructively criticise my specific suggestion. Either that or, you guessed it; STFU and stop spamming this thread with rhetorical drivel, parroted opinion and flamebait.
|
|
I won't even dignify this reply with a decent post, growup, read ( dig the archives, you might just find my earlier constructive posts on the subject and you might notice that the consensus is to get rid of them completly ), learn, get some respect and maturity then maybe you will rewarded by a constructive reply from me. In more than 3 years I have never seen such a bad forum behavior on the beta side... yeah... your alpha, you can say STFU... *rollseyes*
_________________
Mostly Retired.
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2005-10-07 18:38
Looks like I found the bug in the forum that deletes the first post... is there an admin about?
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2005-10-08 15:31 ]
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
