madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Apr 3 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>it does run out of energy with 2 laser nans going (or it should do). you could use normal nan for infinite usage, but why do that when using laser nan lasts a reasonable time and gives you faster repair rate and longer range.
Laser Nan 1 repairs less than Nan2...madpeople wrote:QUOTE (madpeople @ Apr 3 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>+ for things to get repaired they would have to remain within 400m of the turrets which could be rather hard if its a fighter trying to defend something. so sticking that close would limit what the thing being repaired could do, and remembering to stay that close could be hard since most ships are faster than it
Laser nan runs so to fast out of energy, that it's nearly useless, even with that high range:
Energy needed per sec:
2 x 1/0.083 x 100 = 2409.64 energy/sec
Time till you run out of energy:
24000 energy / (2409.64 energy/sec - 1000 energy/sec) = 17 sec
Inf. Nanning:
Nan1: -90 damage/sec (400 m, 120 energy/sec)
Nan2: -120 damage/sec (400 m, 120 energy/sec)
17 secs of 100% naning:
Laser Nan1: -118 damage/sec (1500 m, 1204.82 energy/sec)
Laser Nan2: -149.28 damage/sec (1500 m, 1204.82 energy/sec)The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
SY
Good to hear changes are coming to make cap ships more useful. I am a bit concern about the following thing, however..:
If light capital ships are "weakish, a single fig with galvs + dis could kill them fairly quickly if it was left alone (note here its an anti small ship cap so the lone fig wont be left allone), 3 figs with galvs could take one and win." Why would commanders want to use a light capital ship when they can use the same amount of manpower and do the exact same thing but without spending ~1000 credits? I think it would make more sense if a corvette can take on 4-5 figs since it cost money and a lot more investments in advance to get than fighters.
If light capital ships are "weakish, a single fig with galvs + dis could kill them fairly quickly if it was left alone (note here its an anti small ship cap so the lone fig wont be left allone), 3 figs with galvs could take one and win." Why would commanders want to use a light capital ship when they can use the same amount of manpower and do the exact same thing but without spending ~1000 credits? I think it would make more sense if a corvette can take on 4-5 figs since it cost money and a lot more investments in advance to get than fighters.
the only reason they share the same mount is because there aren't really enough flags available in the core to allow them to be on different mounts, if any new weapons get added, they have to share a mount with an existing weapon, the dual mounting was a work around, i tried to make it so that using one on the other would be very undesirable to keep people from doing it and to make them use the right one.
there is also the quick fire effect, people presented with the superior seeker still choose qfs because "omg, qfs are cool!" -> "omg LAZERS!"
there is also the quick fire effect, people presented with the superior seeker still choose qfs because "omg, qfs are cool!" -> "omg LAZERS!"
pkk wrote:QUOTE (pkk @ Apr 3 2008, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Laser Nan 1 repairs less than Nan2...
yes, but if you have nan 2, then you get laser nan 2, which repairs more - laser nan levels are the same as nan levels, not support ship class levelsQUOTEInf. Nanning:
Nan1: -90 damage/sec (400 m, 120 energy/sec)
Nan2: -120 damage/sec (400 m, 120 energy/sec)
17 secs of 100% naning:
Laser Nan1: -118 damage/sec (1500 m, 1204.82 energy/sec)
Laser Nan2: -149.28 damage/sec (1500 m, 1204.82 energy/sec)[/quote]
so laser nan will always repair faster than normal nan regardless of your current nan level.QUOTELaser nan runs so to fast out of energy, that it's nearly useless, even with that high range:
Energy needed per sec:
2 x 1/0.083 x 100 = 2409.64 energy/sec
Time till you run out of energy:
24000 energy / (2409.64 energy/sec - 1000 energy/sec) = 17 sec[/quote]
scout regen rate of 60, 1200 energy.
adv scout regen rate of 60, 1500 energy.
nan energy consumption 4*30 a sec
1200/60 = 20
1500/60 = 25
total hp repaired
nan 2
20* -120 = -2400
25* -120 = -3000
laser nan 2
17* 2*-149.28 = -5 075.52
also note 17/20 = 0.85 = 85%
having 2 laser nans firing lasts 85% of the time a normal scout nanning does, but repairs over twice the hp.
you could argue that you would then be better off with 3 normal nans, but they nan slower and die quicker and have slower response time.
so now it will either suck loads or it will be uber. and only playing with it will tell.
i could try explaining why i put them in but this post is already long enough. anyway, there was a whole argument and it concludes that this kind of ship will enhance fun.
anyway, the lt version isn't supposed to be uber, if you want to improve it, you get support class 2 which has a higher regen rate (i think i should actually decrease it since if you only use 1 las nan you can fire infinitely, but then you are using 2 people to get 1 nan, where as you could have 3 people to get 2, which is more efficient)
and 17 secs of continuous fire is a long time in allegiance terms. and given how fast it repairs, you will never really be firing continuously. i'm thinking this could be used to nan fighters in the middle of a dogfight, it may only take a second to nan a single fighter, then you will stop shooting (energy recharges) while you aim at another friendly.
the only time you would fire continuously is if you arrive at a hvy class capship which is almost dead and you try to repair it, in which case you deserve to run out of energy to try to keep it balanced.
you could also nan a base, in which case it doesn't matter too much if you run out energy or not as you're not in a hurry
anyway, they will get their stats changed based on feedback from play testing (how something works on paper and in game...) but i'm not looking for perfect balance, i will try to balance things to make it playable so people can tell me if they like this sy techtree shape. but i'm not here to make a new core, just to showcase a concept. if enough people say "yes, this type of SY works better than the usual types" then maybe proper core devs will implement it in their own cores, and balance it as they see fit. (balancing it is their problem, i just need it roughly balanced so its playable so people can give me feed back on how well it works as a shape for SY)
if play tests do show that it needs to be changed to make the core playable, then my approach to fixing it would probably be binary chopping the recharge rate until it's about right (and probably increasing it's total energy)Pedro wrote:QUOTE (Pedro @ Apr 4 2008, 12:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Good to hear changes are coming to make cap ships more useful. I am a bit concern about the following thing, however..:
If light capital ships are "weakish, a single fig with galvs + dis could kill them fairly quickly if it was left alone (note here its an anti small ship cap so the lone fig wont be left allone), 3 figs with galvs could take one and win." Why would commanders want to use a light capital ship when they can use the same amount of manpower and do the exact same thing but without spending ~1000 credits? I think it would make more sense if a corvette can take on 4-5 figs since it cost money and a lot more investments in advance to get than fighters.
in practise it should take a group of fighters to kill one. a single fighter would get killed before it even got in range to open fire.
i think 3 figs was a bit of an under estimate, it probably would need more. (i'm currently worried they will be too effective and that only med class will be able to kill them)
but given the lt capships strong anti fighter weapons, it needs to have weak hull else you will never kill it.
anyway, i think the next logical step is to let people play it and say what they think about it.
the types of feed back i'm looking for are
1) whether this style of SY works better (is more usable / balanceable / scales better with player count)
2) bugs in the core - things mounting what they shouldn't etc (so i can fix them so people can give me feedback of type 1)
3) huge imbalances in things (to make it playable so people can give me the first type of feed back. i'm not looking for perfect balance here, that's up to a core dev should they implement this kind of SY after seeing the the first kind of feedback)
p.s. is the list of cores selectable when making a game dependant on the lobby server? or does it query each server connected to it and ask what cores they have? (would it be easier to repeatedly update the core if its file name didn't change every update? - involve less work for people)Last edited by madpeople on Fri Apr 04, 2008 10:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'll certainly keep an eye on this thread. I'd like to see caps more often.
The ships without a single gunner slot seem a bit strange to me. I'd think any of the big tubs deserves at least a single AC turret.
The ships without a single gunner slot seem a bit strange to me. I'd think any of the big tubs deserves at least a single AC turret.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Apr 8 2008, 05:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I'll certainly keep an eye on this thread. I'd like to see caps more often.
The ships without a single gunner slot seem a bit strange to me. I'd think any of the big tubs deserves at least a single AC turret.
i think shiz gives the best explanationShizoku wrote:QUOTE (Shizoku @ Jun 21 2007, 06:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yes because something that can kill a ship with one missile from over 5k should have no weakness whatsoever.
if you think of capships like vehicles in land battles, tanks etc, and fighters infantry, the dest is a MRLS it can wtf pwn things at long range, but it needs other things to D it close up.
an explanation for the dev is that it is concerned with killing capships, it simply isn't interested in small ships, much like the deathstar didn't have and anti fighter turrets. but since it ignored the small ships in its design, it needs other things like (tie) fighters or other capships to defend it
but the main reason is to prevent them being a "do it all" ship, anything that is good at everything is probably going to be cheesy, so i made things good at specific jobs, but have weaknesses so given the right tool they can be dealt with.Last edited by madpeople on Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well, its weird playing allegiance alone, most things work ok except for the tech tree, i dont think your supposed to get mk 2 before mk 1...lol
this picture shows the bug im talking about
first i started off researching the support class, then mk 2 of the support class. after mk 2 support finished, Lt ships mk 2 became available and i had not researched mk 1 Lt ships.
i tested this further and got the benifets of mk 2 Lt ships without researching mk1. it seemed strange so i assume its a bug/mistake etc.
other than that the weapons slots seem correct and the bigger capital ships have not been underpowered (in terms of turn, acceleration etc.)
Edit: i was also a bit board and researched random things in tac and exp
this picture shows the bug im talking about
first i started off researching the support class, then mk 2 of the support class. after mk 2 support finished, Lt ships mk 2 became available and i had not researched mk 1 Lt ships.
i tested this further and got the benifets of mk 2 Lt ships without researching mk1. it seemed strange so i assume its a bug/mistake etc.
other than that the weapons slots seem correct and the bigger capital ships have not been underpowered (in terms of turn, acceleration etc.)
Edit: i was also a bit board and researched random things in tac and exp
Last edited by shibbyx1 on Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
quote 'djrbk I'm quitting Allegiance unless someone quotes me on something I said in their sig