I would like to see more than two teams, which would enable a lot more interesting diplomatic options (especially if multiple player ships could each interact with separate support AI fleets, adding a lot of depth to BvB). I'm imagining alliances among the different factions that could be formed and broken dynamically, based on player ship actions and communications (or on the whims of the AI), and it would open up a lot of possibilities for custom missions that are not currently available. Rather than fly through the sector and just blow up anyone who happens to be red on the tactical screen, TSN ships could have the ambassadorial privilege to negotiate their team's alignment with any of the other races (be they red, blue, green, yellow, orange, or whatever), uniting against a common foe, and occasionally getting stabbed in the back.
My engineer had a thought after our game session last night. What about modifying the UI so that only the engineer (and possibly the captain's map) can see the ships energy stores. Then instead of showing the energy stores to tactical and helm, show them how much power their system has. For instance, show helm how much power they have to impulse, warp, and maneuvering while showing tactical how much power they have to beams and torpedoes. This would enable certain stations to request more power if needed or to have a better idea what they have to work with if certain systems are damaged. Currently, it's impossible for stations to tell how much power they have to work with without communicating with the engineer. Frankly, the engineer and captain are the only two people that NEED to know what the ships power reserves are, and it would be far more beneficial to most stations to provide them with a readout of their personal power situation than a readout of the ships total power reserves.
Jim Johnson said Mar 11, 2013 03:36:17
Chris, I think that would cause a problem with the demo, because only Helm and Weapons are available. One of them would need to know how much energy the ship had left. Otherwise, I agree that there are some redundancies on the stations that, if removed, would force player communication and cooperation a little more.
I would love to see the energy level, view screen control, and shield control only appear on one client screen (obviously not all three on the same screen!). Maybe Helm or Comms would have view screen control, Engineering would have the energy level, and Weapons would have shield control.
Thom, is there any way of making this an option that we can select ourselves, maybe on the server setup screen?
I'd think the bonus for a successful boarding action should be another friendly ship on the map. You might want to direct it to dock at a station for repairs and a full crew before sending it after the enemy, though.
After a great deal of play I think a good improvement to the game would be stronger torpedoes. As of right now they are mostly just used to put energy back into your ship. A volley of beam weapon fire does more damage then a single torpedo. And that just isn't right.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think they should be the primary weapon of the game. It would just be nice if it felt like they were doing something when they impact an opponents ship.
Have you launched a nuke yet? :)
Given the fire-and-forget nature of the torpedoes and their range compared to beams, I am satisfied with their damage, there has to be a trade-off besides limited ammo since stations can resupply the ship at no charge.
My Wish list
>I would like to see multiple ships available in each class.
Our fleet may consist of 3 light cruisers, but they needn't be clones of one another.
>As I mentioned previously (and I imagine is already in the works), DMX lighting working per ship would really be a beautiful thing.
>I can think of a dozen uses for having a tractor beam, just not sure which station would control it.
>AI improvements so that enemy ships and NPC ships try to avoid at least the static hazards.
>Streaming data (ship models, missions) from the Server to the Clients to aid in setting up a game.
>Trailing the list, I'd love to see Artemis take advantage of video hardware acceleration, with damage modelling and physics-dependent explosions, leaving a debris field of starship chunks adrift, or even a burnt-out hull provided the warp core doesn't breech.
"There is an old Celtic saying: "Coimhéad fearg fhear na foighde."
-Beware of the anger of a patient man.
Yes I've launched a nuke. Normally the nuke is fired and then whatever is left is cleaned up with beam weapons.
I stand by what I say because the torpedoes only do 20 damage a pop with a 15 second reload time. The energy weapons, on the other hand, do 12 damage each with a six second cycle time. These times are at 100%. With this you can out damage the enemy using beams. As my crew gets better with mines we hardly use torpedoes.
After reading through this thread more thoroughly, I do have a few thoughts. First, I see a lot of people saying that Comms needs more to do. However, my Comms officer is probably busier than anyone on my ship save (possibly) the engineer. That said, I'm getting the feeling that I'm one of the more benevolent captain's around here. I prefer to get as many ships to surrender as possible, only destroying those that leave me no other choice. Playing that way will keep the Comms station quite busy. As for some of the other "hot" topics in this thread, I figured that would weigh in along with a host of others.
1. I don't really understand the fascination with boarding parties and away teams. Yes, they are used extremely often in many different Sci-Fi universes, but I just don't really see it working. The Invasion mode, and well designed custom missions provide each station with quite a bit to do already. I don't personally believe that boarding parties are necessary to further the enjoyment of the game overall.
2. I'm totally on board with Ashwood's suggestion to provide crews with more to do than just fight stuff, and I'm glad to hear that Thom has a little something up his sleeve in this regard. I understand that it seems like most people just want to blow stuff up. That's fine, I highly doubt the Invasion mode is going anywhere, but a new game mode or some "official" missions that provide a crew with more gameplay options would be highly welcomed in my circle.
3. I'm also totally on board with Taigia's suggestion to make the Homing Torpedos a little stronger. As stated above, their best use seems to be as backup energy reserves, and there's just something wrong with that picture. This is even more of a problem considering that ECM's don't deal damage, and Nukes and Mines are quite hazardous to use with allies or Stations near.
4. A larger map and the addition of a finer grid would be welcome.
5. Something else that's been getting to me is the firing arcs. A good number of enemies have either 360 firing arcs or fore and aft arcs. I can't help but feel like more of the ships should have aft firing arcs. I'm tempted to say that at least the Dreadnought should be upgraded to 2 aft beams and that a single aft beam should be added to the Battleship. It's quite difficult to take down a ship when your forward shields are down and the only real way to have to attack them is with your forward beams. Yes, you can try to flank them, but if they have aft beams, that doesn't really do any good, and even if they don't have aft beams, on the tougher difficulties they are just as agile as you are, so trying to swing around behind them can be nearly impossible.
JamesDunnem, I think most if not all of the items on your list sounds excellent and I shall lobby for them as well. But remember that AI and NPC ships are intentionally unable to "see" minefields. On that topic, enemy minefields that the players cannot see would be an interesting idea.
"Damn the torpedoes! Four bells, Captain Drayton!"
(Likely actual words of Admiral David Farragut, USN, at the battle of Mobile Bay. Four bells was the signal for the engine room to make full steam ahead).
This is even more of a problem considering that ECM's don't deal damage, and Nukes and Mines are quite hazardous to use with allies or Stations near.
Thanks for making my point more valid. I hadn't even thought that we are left with only two weapons when a station is under attack and it is hard to take down a fully shielded Skaraan ship before it jumps/teleports/cloaks. Then you are left guarding the station waiting for it to return, all the while the other enemy fleets are lumping up into a more dangerous death ball the closer they get to the station.
It's quite difficult to take down a ship when your forward shields are down and the only real way to have to attack them is with your forward beams. Yes, you can try to flank them, but if they have aft beams, that doesn't really do any good
I don't disagree but this is what you have mines for. After you piss them off and they are following you drop the mines. But you know what else can be fired behind you? Torpedoes! If they were stronger then they would be a better option for when you need to hit targets that beam weapons can't.
Though an aft beam weapon with a narrow firing arc would be good for hitting them when they are behind you, picking at fighter swarms, and those annoying drones.
[Last edited Mar 11, 2013 21:33:37]
So, if only friendlies can "detect" friendly mines, does that mean that the location of the mines is stored on the ship's computer or uploaded from a friendly server? I would assume that if you can't detect enemy mines that you wouldn't be able to detect friendly ones either. This would definitely add some fun play if enemies could drop mines.
Additionally, maybe mines are too small or stealthy to see with sensors, but they'd be visible, making a forward view more important. They'd probably still be difficult to see, and by the time you did see them, it'd probably be too late.
Alternately, maybe they're difficult to detect, but not impossible, similar to naval minefields. Perhaps they can only be detected from a distance similar to the missile range, about 5000m. Then they become more deterrents than traps, a way to force enemies to take a longer road or funnel into a narrow pass to access friendly territory. The difficulty in detecting them would make warping across a sector willy-nilly a bad idea, since at high speeds you wouldn't have time to avoid hitting a minefield, but the cost of mines and the difficulty in laying them would make it prohibitive to lay out large minefields far from starbases.
Just an idea, but what about a pre-fight/"take-off" and a "post-flight" sequence? Like switching on all systems, spinning up the FTL, activating the warp core, whatever, and then shutting it down at the end. Make it optional, so that if a crew want to use that mode, they can, or if they don't have time, or don't like the addition, they can switch it off. but a system like this would add to the immersion of the experience, as well as add a new level for the Role-players, letting them recreate the "beginning" of a crew's adventure, as well as "getting home safe."
If it helps any, I actually do have a start up sequence in Episode 1 of Epsilon Sector
, specifically put there because I love the go/no go scene from Apollo 13.
If you have played some missions by Chaz he made hidden minefields that you find while flying around. But they only appear when you get close meaning I sometimes had to start yelling full stop and screaming like a maniac so we didn't hit them. Very unusual and Exciting expirence. Highly reason end it. However there is the problem that when they appear so late you can't stop in time at full warp. Some people might like that others not. It is intreasting though.
And the hope that the war against folly may someday be won, after all
Jim Johnson said Mar 12, 2013 03:39:36
Chris, I have to confess that I like the battlewagon having enough frontal firepower to plow the road ahead of it, even at the cost of having nothing facing the rear arc. You head into a group of ships, fire ECMs first, then wade into the middle of the fur ball with those four beams over clocked to 300%. Ain't nuttin coming through that. The danger of course are the quick little cruisers maneuvering onto your six, and hitting you where you can't hit back.
I think the way the battleships are designed makes for some interesting tactical problems with regard to how to best use them, especially in concert with another friendly ship. Actually, all of the ships have different strengths and weaknesses, and one of the things my group is starting to explore is what pairing of ships gives the best chance for success. My personal favorite is the battleship and the missile cruiser.
Jim: Well, if I had enough people to run dual ship missions, it wouldn't be as much of a problem. But the most I've ever had in one game was 5 people (I did Science and Captain). Often we just have four people, and occasionally we run with 3. When we have 3 or 4 people, it's hard to make that 300% beam run because the engineer is often too busy to give his full and complete attention to engineering. It's hardly the ideal set up I know, but it's the nature of what I've got.
Taigia: You're upgraded missiles proposal would go a reasonable distance towards helping with my beam arc issue. As far as using mines however, they're a little more rare, and I try to save them for large groups near stations or fighter squadrons. I'm not likely to order a mine drop against a single ship (even a tough one) unless it's all I've got to work with.