Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Do you support this change?
Poll ended at Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:22 am
Yes 84%  84%  [ 52 ]
No 16%  16%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 62

Author Message
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am
Posts: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Post 
Ok, I've come up with two formulas which I believe could work (though one doesn't work for techs 3 and under...) and which would oveall be better...

First off... the starting formula...
AMBL = (tech^2) * (mastery+20) / 20

This gives the following...

Code:
TECH-MASTERY-PVP LEVEL
9   0   81
9   9   117
9   12   130
9   14   138
9   16   146
9   18   154
9   20   162

12   0   144
12   9   209
12   12   230
12   14   245
12   16   259
12   18   274
12   20   288

14   0   196
14   9   284
14   12   314
14   14   333
14   16   353
14   18   372
14   20   392

16   0   256
16   9   371
16   12   410
16   14   435
16   16   461
16   18   486
16   20   512

18   0   324
18   9   470
18   12   518
18   14   551
18   16   583
18   18   616
18   20   648

20   0   400
20   9   580
20   12   640
20   14   680
20   16   720
20   18   760
20   20   800





Now, the first of the modified formulas is the one which doesn't work for techs 0,1,2,and 3... Its also my least favourite of the two...

AMBL = (tech-4)^2 * (0.5*mastery+15) / 12.5

This gives pvp lvls of...

Code:
TECH-MASTERY-PVP LEVEL
9   0   30
9   9   39
9   12   42
9   14   44
9   16   46
9   18   48
9   20   50

12   0   77
12   9   100
12   12   108
12   14   113
12   16   118
12   18   123
12   20   128

14   0   120
14   9   156
14   12   168
14   14   176
14   16   184
14   18   192
14   20   200

16   0   173
16   9   225
16   12   242
16   14   253
16   16   265
16   18   276
16   20   288

18   0   235
18   9   306
18   12   329
18   14   345
18   16   361
18   18   376
18   20   392

20   0   307
20   9   399
20   12   430
20   14   451
20   16   471
20   18   492
20   20   512


I find them a little bit low...




The formula I like the most; however, as it provides a balance of both reasonably high pvp ranges, not too much of an increase for using station mastery, and lower lvl ranges for adonis/argo bases...

AMBL = (tech/4*3)^3 * (mastery+40) / 300

Pvp levels...

Code:
TECH-MASTERY-PVP LEVEL
9   0   41
9   9   50
9   12   53
9   14   55
9   16   57
9   18   59
9   20   62

12   0   97
12   9   119
12   12   126
12   14   131
12   16   136
12   18   141
12   20   146

14   0   154
14   9   189
14   12   201
14   14   208
14   16   216
14   18   224
14   20   232

16   0   230
16   9   282
16   12   300
16   14   311
16   16   323
16   18   334
16   20   346

18   0   328
18   9   402
18   12   426
18   14   443
18   16   459
18   18   476
18   20   492

20   0   450
20   9   551
20   12   585
20   14   608
20   16   630
20   18   653
20   20   675


Now, this third one, with the above mentioned pvp changes would give achilles mastery 20 base(imo the most 'common' of the high level bases) a pvp 'high level' (meaning the highest lvl person in pvp range) of:

590 - W0
664 - W0, 1x War
738 - W0, 2x War
738 - W0, Emp Run
812 - W0, Emp Run, 1x War
886 - W0, Emp Run, 2x War

640 - W1
713 - W1, 1x War
787 - W1, 2x War
787 - W1, Emp Run
861 - W1, Emp Run, 1x War
934 - W1, Emp Run, 2x War

689 - W2
763 - W2, 1x War
836 - W2, 2x War
836 - W2, Emp Run
910 - W2, Emp Run, 1x War
984 - W2, Emp Run, 2x War

I see that as reaonsable... Opens you up to most of the playerbase, and you can't really hide behind level protection anymore...

2nd post to come, less numbers more theorizing...


Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:51 am
Profile
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am
Posts: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Post 
Ok... after talking to a couple people about this, I've come to some conclusions... Some of which I knew before and I'm sure most of the playerbase do too... some of which

1) Generally, people do not want bases to be able to hide behind level protection to keep safe...

2) Since bases are just as strong now as they have been for a couple unis now; and players are getting stronger and stronger; we've reached the point where no matter how much money you put into a galaxy, your bases are no longer safe.

3) A couple healers and a MF or two with slates can take out pretty much any galaxy. As long as there are enough healers to counteract the DPS (and thats not too hard anymore being that many monkeys are healing ~1.5-2k dmg per second...)




Now... After resists, even a galaxy with 5 well augged achilles bases can be outmatched by 2-4 monkeys (depending on the power of those monkeys without breaking a strong sweat.) For most achilles bases, a single multifire pax can break the shield regen... Even a base with 2x ares augs with an ande charger plus a surg dampner+ while being healed by a couple bases with ambro shield trans can be broken by 2 MFs using slates. Thats pretty much the best possible regen a person could expect to get out of their bases, and its nothing compared to how much damage can be easily delt to it at higher levels...

Now, being that the idea here is to open up access of achilles bases to more people, I think we should be seriously considered rebalancing the strength of bases to keep up with the ever-increasing strength of the playerbse. As it is, unless you've got a galaxy where all your bases are going to be in range of each other without range boosting augs (and thus allowing augs which can increase the shield regen and DPS of others), your galaxy WILL DIE to an attack. Pants proved this a short while ago. Some of the other teams are quickly reaching that point, and some are already there. If bases cannot hide behind their level protection anymore (which as it is means very little except in cases of serious abuse such as the lvl 169 achilles mastery 20 base in umbilical) then they need to be able to survive.



Ideas for rebalance that aren't just "increase stats on base gear."

1) Give some intelligence to base targetting. Right now, an attacker just needs a single slave to avoid all grem weapon effects in the galaxy. At which point he/she in completely free to attack unhindered.

2) Give some 'special effects' to base weapons; similar to the ambro grem effect. Things such as...

Annihilator Beam - Each shot reduces the target's shield bank by 1% for 2.5 seconds. This Effect stacks, but only one effect is taken 'off the stack' each 2.5 seconds. (Meaning if shot 1 time per second, the effect would be 1,2,1,2,3,2,3,4,3,4,5,6,5, etc... After a while of tanking a single person would have their shield bank reduced down so low he'd die in one hit... Thus, you'd have to have a way of alternating the aggro to split the effect between different people.

Achilles Laser - Ship engines have a 2.5% chance to lose power for 5 seconds on each hit.

Ande - Each hit surges through the hull, decreasing resists of the target by 5% per laser. (Meaning 10 ande lasers would turn a ship with 50% resist to a dmg type into a ship with 30% resists to that dmg type. This effect lasts for 5 seconds after the last hit.

I think these 'effects' would also increase the amount of strategy required in defending a galaxy, and also make it so that the same basic strategy won't always work for every galaxy. If a galaxy has a tonne of achilles lasers, you'll maybe want to equip your big damage ships with high tracking etherial weapons. If the galaxy has alot of ande lasers, then maybe you might need to worry a little more about sticking diffusers on your ships; even if it means sacrificing some DPS to do so. With annihilator beams, you'd want to rotate the person who takes the damage.

3) Make more base diffusers available... Currently, adonis diffusers are a complete waste, as a MF will kill one or more every shot, often meaning it costs 1-2 mill per second of combat to keep the base alive...

4) Make some way of targetting the healers.

5) Impliment base auras... Stuff like the ubers auras which reduce shield bank/regen, engine power, speed, damage, anything... Cap it at one per base, and some real balancing would be very much needed, but they could be neat.

6) Make the fortified and laconia kits either more accessible or more effective. Currently, it takes 4 attached tech 18 kits to make a single laconia one... The supply of tech 18 kits is not high enough to support this even in small amounts. I think it would be best if it were only 1 kit, but have a higher cost in actually building the upgraded versions.


Anyways, please take these points into consideration before making a descision. Thanks...


Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:43 am
Profile
Member
Team: The Happy Campers
Rank: Officer
Main: Enji
Level: 1638

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:50 pm
Posts: 22
Post 
I think all this makes sense, but you still haven't provided a solution to defend wide spread galaxies :wink:


Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:03 pm
Profile
Team: The Forgotten Colonies
Rank: Officer
Main: Demonx
Level: 4891

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:51 pm
Posts: 1
Post 
Plain and simple: I don't like the idea of having bases with different Attack Ranges as the players that own them.

It also totally destorys the idea of having perma-drones help protect bases.


Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:30 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Vanu Sovereignty
Rank: Officer
Main: Purgatory
Level: 1075

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 7:49 am
Posts: 0
Location: Netherlands - Friesland
Post 
Do you guys realise that with that code the mastery bases will be more vulnerable... isn't mastery meant to survive easier instead of die easier? this way mastery will protect against ai... but will die way sooner in a war - a couple of bases will kill any ai that attacks it but uber players in their 3 zeus paxes with 5 slates and a monkey will rape them all... seems like mastery is a disadvantage instead of an advantage now...

_________________
- Purgatory


Mon Jun 19, 2006 8:11 pm
Profile
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am
Posts: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Post 
2kewl4u wrote:
Do you guys realise that with that code the mastery bases will be more vulnerable... isn't mastery meant to survive easier instead of die easier? this way mastery will protect against ai... but will die way sooner in a war - a couple of bases will kill any ai that attacks it but uber players in their 3 zeus paxes with 5 slates and a monkey will rape them all... seems like mastery is a disadvantage instead of an advantage now...


Thats what I said, but Jeff disagrees... In both of the two formulas I developed I tightened up the difference between mastery and non mastery bases. Jeff's formula had mastery 20 double the level... My first one has mastery 20 increasing the lvl by 60%, and my second has it increasing by 50%. I tried to make my formula's a comprimise between what I feel it should be; the general responses coming from the playerbase; and Jeff's own formula and ideals regarding the situation.


UltraViolet wrote:
Plain and simple: I don't like the idea of having bases with different Attack Ranges as the players that own them.

It also totally destorys the idea of having perma-drones help protect bases.

There is a very easy solution to this issue.

All of a person's and/or team's assests in a galaxy receive the same pvp level equal to the highest pvp level of any permanant object (base or drone) in the galaxy. This would make it so that all bases and drones will always defend each other, and all bases/drones will always defend players on their team while in that galaxy from everyone able to attack them. If the galaxy starting pvp level is 500, and a level 200 comes into the galaxy, his new pvp level becomes 500 for the duration of his stay in that galaxy. As soon as he leaves the protection of his team's galaxy, he goes back to a PvP level of 200. I believe this would really improve defensive PvP and PvB.


Enji wrote:
I think all this makes sense, but you still haven't provided a solution to defend wide spread galaxies Wink


I'm not sure if you mean 'defend the wide spread of galaxies' meaning at the uni rush; or if you mean it as big galaxies with very spread out planets. I'll respond to both.

As it is, I'd say the majority of galaxies are too far spread out. To have any chance of having your bases defend each other in most situations, the bases need at least 1-2 base range augs for a mastery base plus an artemis bowstring; and for a non-mastery its more like 2-3 base range augs. Though yes there should be some galaxies which are very spread out with plenty of planets, I think they should have the advantage of having a boost in the general amount of resources. This isn't to say decrease the others, just increase the far spread out ones. I feel the majority of galaxies; including red giant galaxies; should have orbits ranging from 1-200 range from the outer edge of the sun to roughly 2-2.5k. Right now there are many galaxies which have ranges more in line of 350-5k from the sun. This makes them nearly impossible to defend without stacking a whole bunch of bases in one planet.

Another change I think should be made... Remove the decrease in range on magcannons of higher tech. Achilles magcannon is almost useless as everything except in base vs base combat. Its got a range of 600 compared to achilles laser's range of 592. Ambro mag has 800 range... Ande 700... Should be more like 875 for Ande and 950 for Achilles; with the annihilator cannon rounding it off at 1k.

To Recap:
1) Reduce the average radius of planets' orbits.
2) Increase the range on the higher tech 'mag' weapons.



Now as for the uni rush...

I think at this stage in the game, removing everyone base gear would cripple basebuilding. Even the most solidly defended galaxies are no longer practically impenetrable. In any war from this point on among those higher teams (which really cause the problem during the uni rush), they are likely to lose a significant number of bases. Mercs and Traders lost alot vs Pants, while inflicting some limited damage to Pants. Now; however, those two teams have learned from their mistakes and from the tactics employed by pants, and they're more capable of taking on the achilles bases out there. I'm sure Caps, Oly, and Godsmack would be in the exact same boat where they are able to take even the toughest bases. This means that if players have to restart and rebuild all their base gear, most of the uni the galaxies are likely to be spent significantly undefended.

That being said; something has to be done about the uni rush. Now one thing I can say is that Mercs (the main perpatrator of the fast galaxy grabbing this uni) will not be going quite so crazy in the uni rush this coming uni. This has nothing to do with the event of the uni, we just generally realized that 1) we didn't need the many galaxies, 2) we couldn't use that many galaxies, and 3) we couldn't hold that many galaxies. Apart from that, I think it would be good to imprement a timer on galaxy ownership. Not 24 hours because this isn't a game about equal opportunity, its a game where those who play and obsess will get the big rewards... That being said, 1 galaxy owned per account per 4 hours is more than reasonable IMO. The fact of the matter is though; if you want the better galaxies, you have to be on to take them at the start of the uni.


Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Imperium
Rank:
Main: Gurjit
Level: 666

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 1:05 pm
Posts: 0
Location: Chatham, England
Post 
yes i merely made a suggestion, some sort of time limit should be imposed, without carrying base gear i think the universe would be significantly crippled.
Also i think what would be better if just the base levels were increased to the highest base in the gal, if every player got that level it could easily be abused, a lvl 5 walks in, someone like Mauty has a base ni there, they are now lvl 1000 and so, they are open to being podded for a loooong time, and they having not enough sp or gear or cash to fight back in the least. Other than that most the other suggestions are quite good.

_________________
The Skull Lives On!


Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:55 pm
Profile
Member
Team: The Happy Campers
Rank: Officer
Main: Enji
Level: 1638

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:50 pm
Posts: 22
Post 
Maybe instead of reducing galaxy radius, make artie bow string a bit less expensive, and make it stack (like have 5 bowstrings)...

Increasing mag cannon range wolud have a limited impact, since in those galaxies it is usualy easy to hide between moons and plannets, making magcannon bullets shot from the opposite of the galaxy a pure waste of energy...


About the uni rush I was thinking about something like the team has to agree who lays the 1 st base, because it will be the team's "nest".

Then a team has the right to expand to the galaxies 1 warp away from the nest when the population of the nest (total population of the galaxy) has reached 1M (random figure, to be defined.).

Then when a galaxy reachs 1M, u can expand 1 gal away from there.

And so on....

Or u could expand to galaxies away from the nest when it reaches 10M, 3 galaxies away when it is 50M

It might be a combo of both, a team can expand to any galaxy within the "bubble" surrounding the nest, and spread 1 galaxy after another in a direction they like (to reach a desired galaxy for instance).

This would mean the civilizations would spread from its capital, and would leave plenty of place uncivilized at the beginning of the universe. I hate to see that the universe is "civilized" 3 days after reset ;-). The idea here is to slow the whole expansion of teams, not only delay the rush for 48hours or so...

(then we would need then that a lot of gal can become suitable nests (like 1 colony plannet, 1 metal, 1nuke, 1 rats supply) )


Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:50 pm
Profile
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am
Posts: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Post 
Enji wrote:
Maybe instead of reducing galaxy radius, make artie bow string a bit less expensive, and make it stack (like have 5 bowstrings)...


They aren't too expencive right now... I've got 2 wide spread galaxies, and I had arty bowstrings on most of my bases (all the good ones at least.) The cost is irrelevant in the long run as its worth the investment. Stacking them would just be broken... I know I'd stack 5 on one achilles base with 2x ares 2x ande firing augs, and from 5k+ range deal 10k+ dps... The problem isn't in the bowstring, its in the space between planets...



Enji wrote:
Increasing mag cannon range wolud have a limited impact, since in those galaxies it is usualy easy to hide between moons and plannets, making magcannon bullets shot from the opposite of the galaxy a pure waste of energy...


Magcannons can be useful if they are used to extend the potential range. As long as the etherial beam weapons have the weapons selection priority, its fine.


Enji wrote:
Nest idea...


It occurs to me that you don't really have a grasp of what are necessary for the 'high level' galaxies... Generally speaking, the commods are of a secondary priority. That being said, if a team could only expand outwards from one galaxy, 90% of the players on the top level teams would be in a state of progressively decreasing uselessness during the uni rush. The thing about the uni rush is that these higher strength teams actually don't need to share galaxies. Their players want a galaxy to themself. Forcing the majority of a team to wait and wait and wait to get their galaxy.


Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:49 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar
Team: Olympus
Rank: Director
Main: Calypso
Level: 1800

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:00 pm
Posts: 757
Location: Scranton, PA, USA, Earth, Sol, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Universe, Multiverse
Post 
I'm actually all for a 'home galaxy' and a team cluster method. SS' Galaxy claiming, Empire building aspects are much like a few RTS games I've played, and those games all had a similar system.

I think that making a team first designate a galaxy as 'home' and then being forced to only build in galaxies within say 2-3 Radius of that galaxy, then 2-3 Radius of that galaxy, etc (eventually forming chains and clusters) would seriously slow down the universe rush. You would need to evaluate a galaxy not only based on Max Colonies, Misc Resources, Asteroids, but on what is near that galaxy as well. It would force teamplay and cohesiveness as well, since you couldn't just have one player drop a kit, and then end up screwing it all up.

Also, if a system like this were to ever come to pass, which I really doubt it would, special galaxies (shadow, ring, etc) wouldn't follow this rule.

Calypso

_________________
"My name isn't Slick. It's Zoidberg! John f***ing Zoidberg!"
Some people want to love their god. Others want to "love" their god. Mmmmm.... adum.....
<< OMG It's my head in a jar!!!


Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:04 am
Profile
Main: Cyphe12
Level: 1566

Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:50 am
Posts: 0
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Post 
Calypso wrote:
I'm actually all for a 'home galaxy' and a team cluster method. SS' Galaxy claiming, Empire building aspects are much like a few RTS games I've played, and those games all had a similar system.

I think that making a team first designate a galaxy as 'home' and then being forced to only build in galaxies within say 2-3 Radius of that galaxy, then 2-3 Radius of that galaxy, etc (eventually forming chains and clusters) would seriously slow down the universe rush. You would need to evaluate a galaxy not only based on Max Colonies, Misc Resources, Asteroids, but on what is near that galaxy as well. It would force teamplay and cohesiveness as well, since you couldn't just have one player drop a kit, and then end up screwing it all up.

Also, if a system like this were to ever come to pass, which I really doubt it would, special galaxies (shadow, ring, etc) wouldn't follow this rule.

Calypso


I think something like this might be an amazing idea for the very distant future. It would take ALOT of work to get it to function properly. For now though, for now though there are stepping stones which must be travelled.


Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:00 am
Profile
Moderator
User avatar
Team: Olympus
Rank: Director
Main: Calypso
Level: 1800

Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:00 pm
Posts: 757
Location: Scranton, PA, USA, Earth, Sol, Orion Spur, Milky Way, Local Group, Universe, Multiverse
Post 
Yeah, a system like that would be a LOOONNNGGG way off, since it would be very complex for the devs to work it properly. Atm though, I think overall things are going in the right direction. Bases won't be able to hide behind level protect (and from what I heard, neither will t20 ships). Add in the level caps on rumble, and for the most part you'll have fairly balanced PvB (once they finally sort the base strength and healing agression).

This game will be much better off though, once they finally get a nicely working PvP and PvB system, and I honestly think this will help with that.

Calypso

_________________
"My name isn't Slick. It's Zoidberg! John f***ing Zoidberg!"
Some people want to love their god. Others want to "love" their god. Mmmmm.... adum.....
<< OMG It's my head in a jar!!!


Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:35 am
Profile
Site Admin / Dev Team
User avatar
Team: Admins
Rank: Director
Main: Jeff_L
Level: 1969

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:21 am
Posts: 3894
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Post 
I really like the clustering idea - but wouldn't people just split off from the team at the beginning of the uni and then build and later rejoin?


Wed Jun 21, 2006 5:43 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Team: Silver Guardians
Rank: Officer
Main: R.S.S. Wasp
Level: 4683

Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:15 am
Posts: 174
Post 
It would happen, yes. Maybe it'd be possible to cluster people who were on the teams a week in advance?

_________________
Image
https://fantasoft.co.uk/
https://chanwalrus.com
https://sect.news/


Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:02 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 101 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.