Discovery Gaming Community

First, I thought of putting this in the Suggestion Box or the Features Request thread, but I would like to hear people's opinion, so a new thread it is.

I spend much time thinking about mechanisms and functions behind things and I'd like to share a couple of my thoughts and ideas about this Universe with you guys.

Maybe these have already been suggested and commented, but I only have a certain amount of time to read through the archives and I would rather spend that on reading about RP and lore.

Here goes.


1. Decide exactly how much RP and how much arcade this is.
I've only been here a very short time, but there seems to be a bit of inconsistency between the wish for RP and the practical application of it.
I vote more RP, but of course if this is how you like it, leave it be..


2. Think warships when balancing vehicles.
The other day I saw a bomber square up to a two large ships and a couple of NPC fighters.
He didn't win, but got one of them to pull from the fight and got away himself.
How would a single bomberplane or torpedoboat hold up against a battlecruiser? Not well is my bet.
You could argue that a submarine is comparable, but then you would have to greatly nerf the speed of the bombers.
Imo, the largest ships should feel 'untouchable'.
If abuse is a problem, maybe there could be made some sort of very expensive cargo that the ship needs to have more than 1% core and is lost upon death. Would make sense that the material for the reactor is lost in an explosion.


3. New Cargo - 'Player Pilot'
Should have a value of zero and be sold everywhere, but your core is reduced to 1% or/and you can't undock if you don't have at least at least 1 abord.
I think this could make for some interesting roleplay.
You could save others and RP it, you could transfer 'your character' if you wanted to meet on a ship, Police could detain "you" and your ship could "follow" them to the nearest station on autopilot, etc.


4. Food, Water, maybe Oxygen
Put a very slow decay rate on these items to simulate consumption.
As it is, I jettison 1 unit of food and water once in a while, when I wan't to RP this effect.
But this would increase RP-feeling, as long as it doesn't force people to dock for food ALL the time
If it could be tied together, so your pilot would start to decay when these run out, it would be SO awesome imo.


5. Crew.
Cruise would only work if you had x amount of crew (ie. freighters 2-3 etc. transports 5-6 etc.)
Simulating the needs to keep a ship fully operational.


6. Citizen Restarts/Restricted Shipyards
Maybe I've understood the concept of indies wrong, but my understanding is that it is a player, who have restarted as some faction, without having applied in the proper recruitment channel. Right?
If this is right, then I believe a lot of chaos could be avoided if you could only restart as civilianLi/Rh/etc. and restrict that ID to freighters. (Civilians don't need combat vehicles)
Put a README! in the cargo that directs to proper introduction channels, then when people introduce themselves and show they have understood the concept of the forum and basic RP, the admins can bump their ID to the one requested. (this would still allow indies, but encourage people to join the official faction)
Shipyards/sellers should be registred and not be allowed to sell combat vehicles to civilians or indie security forces. This could be enforced through iRP or ooRP repercussions
Maybe this would put way to much workload on the admins though, I've no insight into the effort needed for this

If you've read this far, kudos.
Now donate $0.02!

EDITED - Heh.. Changed around for the layout and forgot to sort the numbers.. Palm, face, smack.

Interesting numbering system. Normally that would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - but I guess 1, 2, 4, 2, 3, 5 works as I read it.

I think that you could argue that the 'Player Pilot' is your ID. I always run with a Crew on a bigger ship, but how many? Should how your ship works be governed by how many crew you have. I'd go with that, but somewhere a minimum, maximum and optimum should be listed.

And for the first question two the problem is abuse.

Added into this I think that a ship should need maintenance, and not just from battle damage. The question really is 'Is any of this possible inside the Freelancer game engine and mods?'

Bad Idea

-_-

Because?

Addressing point #2:

Just because a ship "feels" untouchable doesn't mean it is untouchable.

People thought HMS Titanic was untouchable, and a non-warship iceberg proved otherwise.

There have been several other historical instances where seemingly unsinkable warships were attacked and destroyed by much smaller, cheaper ships (airplanes).

This is how the aircraft carrier.came to replace the battleship as the primary fleet vessel in modern navies.

I don't really see why folks think that just because you're in the future and it's outer space, none of this matters anymore.

Bombers being able to kill fighters is largely dependent on the skill of the pilot, not the ship. And those pilots who.are very good at killing snubs with bombers are also generally good at killing folks using other ships as well. Again...that's a player skill issue, not a bomber is too OP issue.

Well that is how i kill most of my Bounty Claims

With a Snac

(03-04-2014, 09:40 PM)Freeroamer Wrote: [ -> ]Bad Idea

-_-

Ahh, yes.. When you put it like that, I can totally see how that idea would mess everything up.
I'm glad that you took the time to explain where you think I went wrong, that helped a lot.
A oneliner and a frogface really cleared things up.

(Apply sarcastic tone where you see fit. I apologize if this constitues harassment or abuse, but honestly..)

First off, It may not seem like it, but I do actually appreciate the input. I just wished it would be more related to the actual suggested mechanics rather than an explanation on why the bombers are not OP.

(03-04-2014, 09:48 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: [ -> ]People thought HMS Titanic was untouchable, and a non-warship iceberg proved otherwise.

Really? Really?

(03-04-2014, 09:48 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: [ -> ]There have been several other historical instances where seemingly unsinkable warships were attacked and destroyed by much smaller, cheaper ships (airplanes).

Maybe, but I don't think that it's the rule as much as the exception. And usually it would take a bit more than one or two planes. Agreed?
From Wiki on the sinking of Bismarck
--"By 10:00, Tovey's two battleships had fired over 700 main battery shells, many at very close range; Bismarck had been reduced to a shambles..."
--"The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits..."
I must concede that it was a torpedoplane that delivered the last blow, but it shouldn't really get all the credit.

(03-04-2014, 09:48 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: [ -> ]This is how the aircraft carrier.came to replace the battleship as the primary fleet vessel in modern navies.

Not entirely.. After WW2 the importance of air superiority in general was realized and since the planes at the time had limited range, a mobile platform was needed.
But that's another point.

(03-04-2014, 09:48 PM)Highland Laddie Wrote: [ -> ]Bombers being able to kill fighters is largely dependent on the skill of the pilot, not the ship. And those pilots who.are very good at killing snubs with bombers are also generally good at killing folks using other ships as well. Again...that's a player skill issue, not a bomber is too OP issue.

As long as 20 mio worth of bombers can take out a 5-600 mio BS, I believe they are OP. Even though it may require a skilled pilot, just the fact that it can be done makes it OP imo. I mean, I can't see the problem with a good player outclassing others with a vehicle that would be a realistic match or an actual *swarm* of bombers being able to down a BS.

Yeah, capital ship balance is kind of silly. There are a number of factors in play here.

On one hand, you don't want battleships to be the ultimate ship. Otherwise, no one would bother flying anything else.
On the other hand, you do want battleships to be useful.

And yes, Highland, you can totally argue that irl, carriers are more useful than battleships. However, this isn't RL, this is a game. There are a lot of factors to consider.
-The intent is for every player to have fun
-Every ship should be useful
-Unlike in RL, both BS and Carriers have little purpose right now. There's no fuel or other logistical needs that justify a Carrier other than jumping. And there aren't any large targets for battleships to kill, except POBS (and how often do you attack one of those?) and other battleships.

Disco has this odd paper/scissors/rock balance, where any given class is good at killing one class but weak against another class. Except the only class battleship is good at killing is itself. As currently implemented, everything else is either too fast to hit and will kill you, or too fast to hit and will run away.

This is how I think it should work (roughly):
Fighter is good against fighter and bomber
Bomber is good against bomber and battleship
Gunboat is good against gunboat and bomber
Cruiser is good against cruiser and gunboat
Battleship is good against battleship and cruiser

Obviously there are some overlaps here that I didn't list. Bombers are also good against cruisers, gunboats are also good against fighters. But imo, every class should be good against itself and at least one other class. All of this is already in place except for the BS being good against cruisers. For this, they would need some long-range, high-projectile-speed turrets, suited specifically for this purpose in that their turret rotation speed is slow. I really don't see why a cruiser can both out-run and out-gun a battleship. Heck, even gunboats are out-gunning battleships. It's kind of ridiculous.

I would also discourage trying to balance battleships by making it expensive for them to die. Sometimes ships die from bizarre circumstances/glitches, or they get rammed by npcs, or they die trying to undock from a planet. Remember that (ideally) these ships are also people's characters, often the ones they put the most time and effort into developing. They want to play them, not leave them gathering dust on a base for fear of having to pay the repair bill.

(03-04-2014, 10:47 PM)Trogdor Wrote: [ -> ]On one hand, you don't want battleships to be the ultimate ship. Otherwise, no one would bother flying anything else.
On the other hand, you do want battleships to be useful.

I 100% see the point in this. Though I choose to believe that most people are here for more reasons than only to have the biggest and baddest ship.
Personally, I don't think I'll get a BS anytime soon. I have no use or desire for it yet, but I just think they lack that 'Epic' feel.

(03-04-2014, 10:47 PM)Trogdor Wrote: [ -> ]Disco has this odd paper/scissors/rock balance, where any given class is good at killing one class but weak against another class.

It just seem to me that a good pilot an a bomber is a match for almost anything.
No other shipclasses have that abilty as far as I've seen.
I'm not advocating making the bomber useless, maybe just making it's main opponents Transports, Gunboats and Carriers Cruisers at max.

(03-04-2014, 10:47 PM)Trogdor Wrote: [ -> ]I would also discourage trying to balance battleships by making it expensive for them to die. Sometimes ships die from bizarre circumstances/glitches, or they get rammed by npcs, or they die trying to undock from a planet. Remember that (ideally) these ships are also people's characters, often the ones they put the most time and effort into developing. They want to play them, not leave them gathering dust on a base for fear of having to pay the repair bill.

I get your point. I was actually thinking that people would be patient enough to wait for an admin to look into the case if it was lost in a glitch, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Besides, I'm not sure of the amount of extra work it would create. Don't want to add to that.

My thinking was that It might curb the unintended use of BS's. If there's a chance you might loose big, people would think twice before engaging in combat.