Forums » Suggestions
Border Skirmish Fixes and Suggestions
Flagship Placement
Make the placement of the HACs in the skirmish sector relevant to where players of that nation are most likely to warp in. The Itani HAC should be placed in the area that players appear when warping from O3 -> B 13 (where the Serco HAC is now). The Serco HAC should be near the zone that Serco pilots jump B 12 -> B 13.
Capital Ship Warp in
I find it odd that all capital ships be they Serco or Itani warp in the exact same spot. This results in a big fur ball at the start of the skirmish since both Connies and tridents warp in within a few hundred meters of each other, which also happens to be a few hundred meters from the Serco HAC due to the warp area used. This tends to result in a much more rapid destruction of Itani ships at least initially due to their proximity to the Serco HAC. I'd find it more reasonable that the capital ships of each side would at least warp in near their own flag ship.
Uncertain Reinforcements
In addition to the static spawn points of all the Capital ships the static re spawn time of capital ships needs adjusting. As it is after a capital ship is destroyed it's VERY easy to know when its replacement will arrive as each ship type uses an unchanging timer. Tridents are about 5 minutes, Teradons 10, while Connies are around 20 minutes. Basing the variance on the status of the battle could be interesting. Like perhaps using the status of the HAC a as a trigger, loss of a HAC's shields could cause a surge of reinforcements like Tridents, Connies, or NPC bombers to come and defend it, maybe even an emergency teradon or more reinforcements when the HAC falls to 50%.
NPC Aggression
The fighter (non capital ship) NPCs currently make no attempt to engage players allowing player controlled fighters to run around mowing dozens upon dozens of NPC craft without so much as dodging. The only NPCs which target players are the capital ships. Also the NPC fighters are extremely aggressive when engaging their targets such that they never charge up their power cell. Proms will end up fighting using a single neutron blaster because it never stopped to charge enough power to make use of its turret.
NPC bombers seem to only actively engage the Teradons, if no Teradon is present then the bombers will act just like a normal fighter attacking non capital ships. Another problem with the NPC Bombers seem to be their weapons load out, the AI is not very good at aiming the dual screamers and even when attacking a Teradon the first 2 or 3 volleys tend to miss. Another downside to the use of the screamers is that only a fraction of the launcher's ammo is actually used due to the high energy demand of firing 2 screamers and a neutron blaster without pause.
Occasionally a lone ship will leave the fur ball and try and shoot at a capital ship, shielded or not and it frequently is not a bomber. I could understand it if the shields were down so the NPC's attacks would at least have an impact.
NPC Tridents also have a bad habit of rushing the enemy HAC alone regardless of its status, lone tridents will even rush a fully shielded HAC alone.
NPC Ships
There needs to be far more variation of the ships fielded in skirmish, not just ship types but their load outs too.
Valk
Extra flares - 2 flares and 1 energy
Flare - 2 energy and 1 flare
Missile - 2 energy and 1 missile
Extra Missiles - 2 missile and 1 energy
Prom
Extra flares - 2 flares and 1 energy
Standard - 2 energy and 1 flare
Missile - 2 energy and 1 missile
Extra Missiles - 2 missile and 1 energy
Hornet Support
2 flares and 2 energy
Hornet Bomber
3 Missile and 1 energy
Ragnarok Bomber
4 Missile and 1 energy
Itani - Valks / IBGs and Generics
Serco - Proms / SVGs and Generics
Generics Fighters, Bombers, Support
Fighters - Vultures, and Centurions
Support - Warthogs and Hornets
Bombers - Ragnaroks and Hornets
[EDIT]
Giving capital ships missile launchers that fire fewer / single beefier missiles on the scale of a seeking screamer instead of the 8 mini missiles.
[EDIT 2]
Make the capital ships aware of where their turrets are. For example a Connie should know that it needs to present its broadside, not its nose to a target to inflict the most damage.
NPC Squadrons
Would be interesting to see NPC fighters spawn in squadrons instead of spawning immediately after death. NPC squadrons would fight a single target together and even retaliate if one of the squad's ships are attacked. Destroying an NPC squadron's flight leader could result in the squadron no longer acting together, causing the individual ships to fight on their own.
Small squadrons - 3 ships, 1 special and 2 generic non bombers
Big Squadrons - 6 Ships, 1 "high" end special (Valk / Prom), 2 "low" end special (ibg / svg) and 3 non bomber generics
Bomber Squadrons - 3-6 Bombers
Make the placement of the HACs in the skirmish sector relevant to where players of that nation are most likely to warp in. The Itani HAC should be placed in the area that players appear when warping from O3 -> B 13 (where the Serco HAC is now). The Serco HAC should be near the zone that Serco pilots jump B 12 -> B 13.
Capital Ship Warp in
I find it odd that all capital ships be they Serco or Itani warp in the exact same spot. This results in a big fur ball at the start of the skirmish since both Connies and tridents warp in within a few hundred meters of each other, which also happens to be a few hundred meters from the Serco HAC due to the warp area used. This tends to result in a much more rapid destruction of Itani ships at least initially due to their proximity to the Serco HAC. I'd find it more reasonable that the capital ships of each side would at least warp in near their own flag ship.
Uncertain Reinforcements
In addition to the static spawn points of all the Capital ships the static re spawn time of capital ships needs adjusting. As it is after a capital ship is destroyed it's VERY easy to know when its replacement will arrive as each ship type uses an unchanging timer. Tridents are about 5 minutes, Teradons 10, while Connies are around 20 minutes. Basing the variance on the status of the battle could be interesting. Like perhaps using the status of the HAC a as a trigger, loss of a HAC's shields could cause a surge of reinforcements like Tridents, Connies, or NPC bombers to come and defend it, maybe even an emergency teradon or more reinforcements when the HAC falls to 50%.
NPC Aggression
The fighter (non capital ship) NPCs currently make no attempt to engage players allowing player controlled fighters to run around mowing dozens upon dozens of NPC craft without so much as dodging. The only NPCs which target players are the capital ships. Also the NPC fighters are extremely aggressive when engaging their targets such that they never charge up their power cell. Proms will end up fighting using a single neutron blaster because it never stopped to charge enough power to make use of its turret.
NPC bombers seem to only actively engage the Teradons, if no Teradon is present then the bombers will act just like a normal fighter attacking non capital ships. Another problem with the NPC Bombers seem to be their weapons load out, the AI is not very good at aiming the dual screamers and even when attacking a Teradon the first 2 or 3 volleys tend to miss. Another downside to the use of the screamers is that only a fraction of the launcher's ammo is actually used due to the high energy demand of firing 2 screamers and a neutron blaster without pause.
Occasionally a lone ship will leave the fur ball and try and shoot at a capital ship, shielded or not and it frequently is not a bomber. I could understand it if the shields were down so the NPC's attacks would at least have an impact.
NPC Tridents also have a bad habit of rushing the enemy HAC alone regardless of its status, lone tridents will even rush a fully shielded HAC alone.
NPC Ships
There needs to be far more variation of the ships fielded in skirmish, not just ship types but their load outs too.
Valk
Extra flares - 2 flares and 1 energy
Flare - 2 energy and 1 flare
Missile - 2 energy and 1 missile
Extra Missiles - 2 missile and 1 energy
Prom
Extra flares - 2 flares and 1 energy
Standard - 2 energy and 1 flare
Missile - 2 energy and 1 missile
Extra Missiles - 2 missile and 1 energy
Hornet Support
2 flares and 2 energy
Hornet Bomber
3 Missile and 1 energy
Ragnarok Bomber
4 Missile and 1 energy
Itani - Valks / IBGs and Generics
Serco - Proms / SVGs and Generics
Generics Fighters, Bombers, Support
Fighters - Vultures, and Centurions
Support - Warthogs and Hornets
Bombers - Ragnaroks and Hornets
[EDIT]
Giving capital ships missile launchers that fire fewer / single beefier missiles on the scale of a seeking screamer instead of the 8 mini missiles.
[EDIT 2]
Make the capital ships aware of where their turrets are. For example a Connie should know that it needs to present its broadside, not its nose to a target to inflict the most damage.
NPC Squadrons
Would be interesting to see NPC fighters spawn in squadrons instead of spawning immediately after death. NPC squadrons would fight a single target together and even retaliate if one of the squad's ships are attacked. Destroying an NPC squadron's flight leader could result in the squadron no longer acting together, causing the individual ships to fight on their own.
Small squadrons - 3 ships, 1 special and 2 generic non bombers
Big Squadrons - 6 Ships, 1 "high" end special (Valk / Prom), 2 "low" end special (ibg / svg) and 3 non bomber generics
Bomber Squadrons - 3-6 Bombers
these are some really solid suggestions
i have also noticed much of the same behavior of the AIs during skirmish's
i have also noticed much of the same behavior of the AIs during skirmish's
aye , good analysis iry .
They are all good, and would improve the game play.
All the ships warping in near the Serco HAC is not an advantage, but rather a dis-advantage since this includes the Itani Terradon too. If there is no player at the start, or a non-bomber player this is a large minus to the serco forces. In either case, the point, as iry says, is that the cap ships should jump in near their own HAC.
One additional suggestion -- the Serco should have a station at Deneb B-12 to even out the fly back times between the Itani and Serco players in BS and in BP.
All the ships warping in near the Serco HAC is not an advantage, but rather a dis-advantage since this includes the Itani Terradon too. If there is no player at the start, or a non-bomber player this is a large minus to the serco forces. In either case, the point, as iry says, is that the cap ships should jump in near their own HAC.
One additional suggestion -- the Serco should have a station at Deneb B-12 to even out the fly back times between the Itani and Serco players in BS and in BP.
Thanks for all the feedback, please keep it coming.
A couple of things to note: Border Skirmish is a testbed for sector-driven warfare and conquest. It is not something unto itself. So.. try to think of it in the context of 5-10 different BS's possibly happening at once, across Deneb in different locales, with both Serco and Itani having stations in their respective wormhole-adjacent sectors.
This makes things like "tuning where Serco jump in from" more troublesome on a generic level. I mean, it's still useful to orient the battle in such a way that troops of a given side come in somewhere that's relevant to their side. But I guess my point is.. don't over-optimize for the current case (location, etc), try to consider the general applicability to any locale or situation (deneb war? grayspace war between corporations? Keep suggestions limited to the single-sector battle perspective, but with an eye towards it happening anywhere).
Other things, like where/how the caps warp in, lack of NPC aggression, uncertain reinforcements and all that sort of stuff are very useful to the general use case.. we need to fix that stuff moving forward, no matter how BS ends up being used. More stuff like that, the better.
Border Skirmish exists to test and tune a single "battle" instance of a larger dynamic warfare motif. We only have the one right now, because we had to do a lot of server optimization to make caps and battles less server-heavy, and still have to do some more.. plus we're expanding our server cluster for BS and BS-like warfare. So, that's why BS is what it is at present.
And in case anyone is wondering on the "timeframe", yes is is feasible to see BS expanding into "system warfare" within a matter of months. So, please, keep that feedback coming!
A couple of things to note: Border Skirmish is a testbed for sector-driven warfare and conquest. It is not something unto itself. So.. try to think of it in the context of 5-10 different BS's possibly happening at once, across Deneb in different locales, with both Serco and Itani having stations in their respective wormhole-adjacent sectors.
This makes things like "tuning where Serco jump in from" more troublesome on a generic level. I mean, it's still useful to orient the battle in such a way that troops of a given side come in somewhere that's relevant to their side. But I guess my point is.. don't over-optimize for the current case (location, etc), try to consider the general applicability to any locale or situation (deneb war? grayspace war between corporations? Keep suggestions limited to the single-sector battle perspective, but with an eye towards it happening anywhere).
Other things, like where/how the caps warp in, lack of NPC aggression, uncertain reinforcements and all that sort of stuff are very useful to the general use case.. we need to fix that stuff moving forward, no matter how BS ends up being used. More stuff like that, the better.
Border Skirmish exists to test and tune a single "battle" instance of a larger dynamic warfare motif. We only have the one right now, because we had to do a lot of server optimization to make caps and battles less server-heavy, and still have to do some more.. plus we're expanding our server cluster for BS and BS-like warfare. So, that's why BS is what it is at present.
And in case anyone is wondering on the "timeframe", yes is is feasible to see BS expanding into "system warfare" within a matter of months. So, please, keep that feedback coming!
nice, I really like the idea of system wide warefare and conflicts amongst other factions. Lots of diamonds being pulled out of the rough for the next few months it sounds like. I get the feeling I may be making a killing off moving war supplies someday. I might even be manufactoring them first.
Another suggestion: If you join the nation's military, or as will need to be the case to fix the issue in the short term (because the faction system changes are still Soon™ at this point) take a Border Skirmish mission, tank the player's standings with the opposing side, permanently.
A UIT playing for the Serco side of the skirmish should not be able to dock and use Itani ships and equipment, nor should a UIT fighting on the Itani side be able to dock in Serco space. The Itani and the Serco should have extensive intelligence over who is in which military and who is fighting on what side; it is absolutely ridiculous to expect that the Itani would let someone fighting for the Serco, against the Itani, use their ships to fight, and vice versa.
A UIT playing for the Serco side of the skirmish should not be able to dock and use Itani ships and equipment, nor should a UIT fighting on the Itani side be able to dock in Serco space. The Itani and the Serco should have extensive intelligence over who is in which military and who is fighting on what side; it is absolutely ridiculous to expect that the Itani would let someone fighting for the Serco, against the Itani, use their ships to fight, and vice versa.
I had thought you need to be hated by one side to take the missions.
A short term solution, is that when you dock on a cap ship, you gain temp kos with all opposition caps in the sector.
A short term solution, is that when you dock on a cap ship, you gain temp kos with all opposition caps in the sector.
Another alternative (not necessarily exclusive): UIT players register with the UIT to become Freelancers who are able to take combat missions (temporary KOS during mission) from either Itani or Serco but at the cost of capping their faction with both at Respected (which should preclude their ability to buy nation ships from either side).
Payment to Freelancers is inversely proportional to some metric used to determine who is currently "winning" the war; i.e., the side that is loosing will pay more out of desperation. Of course, payment to freelancers can also be supplemented directly by pilots from either nation either as insurance for the loosing side or enticement to join with the winning side.
Assuming strategic parity, such mercenaries become a necessity to both sides of the war and are thus given a certain latitude where loyalties are concerned. A guild of freelancers may, eventually, be able to offer cap ships to battles which could prove decisive.
Payment to Freelancers is inversely proportional to some metric used to determine who is currently "winning" the war; i.e., the side that is loosing will pay more out of desperation. Of course, payment to freelancers can also be supplemented directly by pilots from either nation either as insurance for the loosing side or enticement to join with the winning side.
Assuming strategic parity, such mercenaries become a necessity to both sides of the war and are thus given a certain latitude where loyalties are concerned. A guild of freelancers may, eventually, be able to offer cap ships to battles which could prove decisive.
Slightly minor but perhaps the victory text for each side should not be <force> has won the day! Since theres something like 6 battles per day.
Also in the capital ship status announcements the "Bs" seems like it should be "BS"
Also in the capital ship status announcements the "Bs" seems like it should be "BS"
Another few things... (sorry double post)
NPC Force Mix
NPC bombers, there should be many many more of them then there are now, they should also heavily prioritize capital ships. By vastly increasing the numbers of bombers to a point where they can inflict noticeable damage to NPC capital ships there will be more purpose to the pilots which fly interceptor type craft. While interceptors lacks the weapons to damage capital ship shielding themselves they would have an impact on the battle by protecting allied capital ships from packs of enemy bombers.
Range of Capital Ship Weapons
The Capital ships with their Cannon Gauss are able to hit their targets up to 2500 or so meters away. The Capital ships should make use of that range and be content with firing at the enemy capital ships in excess of 1000m instead of closing to suicidal ramming ranges of less than 500m. This makes using the capital ships for reloads and repairs very difficult, either because the ship you're trying to dock with has collided with a another, is madly trying to keep the other ship directly ahead of it or its dock is pointing directly into the cannon of an enemy capital ship.
It also seems like more would be added to the battle if the capital ships would fight in at ranges of 1000+ m not the few hundred m that fighters must close to due their relatively short weapons range. While a fighter is easily capable of dodging even broadsides of the cannon gauss from beyond 750m, the same is not true for a capital ship and the turret targeting AI should reflect this, and target based on the weapons effectiveness. Something like 0-2000m for enemy capital ships, 0- 750 for fighters and 0 - 1400m for the heavier bomber type craft.
Basically the turrets should prefer shooting at other capital ships over small craft and prefer shooting bombers over fighters, but not so much that they will completely ignore nearby bombers and fighters which are well within effective range.
NPC Force Mix
NPC bombers, there should be many many more of them then there are now, they should also heavily prioritize capital ships. By vastly increasing the numbers of bombers to a point where they can inflict noticeable damage to NPC capital ships there will be more purpose to the pilots which fly interceptor type craft. While interceptors lacks the weapons to damage capital ship shielding themselves they would have an impact on the battle by protecting allied capital ships from packs of enemy bombers.
Range of Capital Ship Weapons
The Capital ships with their Cannon Gauss are able to hit their targets up to 2500 or so meters away. The Capital ships should make use of that range and be content with firing at the enemy capital ships in excess of 1000m instead of closing to suicidal ramming ranges of less than 500m. This makes using the capital ships for reloads and repairs very difficult, either because the ship you're trying to dock with has collided with a another, is madly trying to keep the other ship directly ahead of it or its dock is pointing directly into the cannon of an enemy capital ship.
It also seems like more would be added to the battle if the capital ships would fight in at ranges of 1000+ m not the few hundred m that fighters must close to due their relatively short weapons range. While a fighter is easily capable of dodging even broadsides of the cannon gauss from beyond 750m, the same is not true for a capital ship and the turret targeting AI should reflect this, and target based on the weapons effectiveness. Something like 0-2000m for enemy capital ships, 0- 750 for fighters and 0 - 1400m for the heavier bomber type craft.
Basically the turrets should prefer shooting at other capital ships over small craft and prefer shooting bombers over fighters, but not so much that they will completely ignore nearby bombers and fighters which are well within effective range.
Faction Standing Issues
Currently, UIT pilots can fight for either nation during the skirmish as long as they can sign up for that nation's military.
However, no restrictions on standing are made -- UIT pilots with high standing on both sides can fight for one side using the equipment of the other. This makes no sense. Why would the Itani let a UIT pilot have access to their ships, equipment and/or stations if the UIT pilot is fighting for the Serco military? Why would the Serco let the UIT pilot use their stuff if the UIT is fighting for the Itani?
Joining the military should be a conscious and permanent choice with regard to faction standing. If someone joins the Itani military they should be permanently KOS with the Serco Dominion, and vice versa.
As far as implementation goes, I suggest that in the short term, taking the military signup mission tanks your standing with the other nation to KOS, but can be fixed by botting and trading, (like a normal standing hit for killing someone in the NFZ)... and taking the Border Skirmish (or Border Battle) tanks the player's standing with the other nation to KOS for the duration of the mission (like the temporary KOS flag used in the NFZ).
In the long term, use the flag created from taking the military signup mission to permanently fix the player's standing with the opposing nation at KOS.
Currently, UIT pilots can fight for either nation during the skirmish as long as they can sign up for that nation's military.
However, no restrictions on standing are made -- UIT pilots with high standing on both sides can fight for one side using the equipment of the other. This makes no sense. Why would the Itani let a UIT pilot have access to their ships, equipment and/or stations if the UIT pilot is fighting for the Serco military? Why would the Serco let the UIT pilot use their stuff if the UIT is fighting for the Itani?
Joining the military should be a conscious and permanent choice with regard to faction standing. If someone joins the Itani military they should be permanently KOS with the Serco Dominion, and vice versa.
As far as implementation goes, I suggest that in the short term, taking the military signup mission tanks your standing with the other nation to KOS, but can be fixed by botting and trading, (like a normal standing hit for killing someone in the NFZ)... and taking the Border Skirmish (or Border Battle) tanks the player's standing with the other nation to KOS for the duration of the mission (like the temporary KOS flag used in the NFZ).
In the long term, use the flag created from taking the military signup mission to permanently fix the player's standing with the opposing nation at KOS.
I agree with the signup mission tanking the opposing faction, the temp kos makes sense except people can easily buy a bunch of ships and move them before the mission starts. Perhaps, make it only able to bot up to neutral after the signup tanks the standing. This would remove the issue of the ship mongering entirely, people may have ships stocked already but they'll run out now heh or not use them double heh. Just my two cents.
Me, iry, Arlina and Freeman were playing BS today at 1800 GMT, and all noticed the much increased concussion of the gauss cannons even on the smaller frigates.
I would suggest only having the concussion on the larger HACs and connies. I don't think a "Trident Frigate that is 1/10 the size and has 5% of the armor should have the same size gauss turret and affect as the larger connie and HACs." Quoting iry from chat.
On several occasions you'd get hit and be sent spinning around, get hit several times more and killed before even recovering. Again, no complaints for these turrets on the HAC and Connies as you'd expect them to have more fire power and potent armament than the frigates.
I would suggest only having the concussion on the larger HACs and connies. I don't think a "Trident Frigate that is 1/10 the size and has 5% of the armor should have the same size gauss turret and affect as the larger connie and HACs." Quoting iry from chat.
On several occasions you'd get hit and be sent spinning around, get hit several times more and killed before even recovering. Again, no complaints for these turrets on the HAC and Connies as you'd expect them to have more fire power and potent armament than the frigates.
Forward firing main guns on HACs would be nice (a la The Teradon) or fully embrace the meaning of broadsides and have cap ships turn 90 degrees to unleash hell. It's rather amusing to see two heavily armed cap ships nose to nose doing no real damage to each other.
Active distance control could definitely be better unless doctrine dictates suicide runs as the norm (they do seem to work - Trident kamikaze attacks). iry's suggestion of 2000m+ for cap ships would be a good place to start.
General approval for iry's other comments as well regarding NPC mix and target prioritization.
Active distance control could definitely be better unless doctrine dictates suicide runs as the norm (they do seem to work - Trident kamikaze attacks). iry's suggestion of 2000m+ for cap ships would be a good place to start.
General approval for iry's other comments as well regarding NPC mix and target prioritization.
You may want to look at where the player ships warp in at too. My son did his very first BS today and enjoyed it .... for the 15 sec or so that he lasted. He warped in right next to a Seco CapShip and became an expanding ball of dust shortly there after.
No, in B5 they just detect when someone is powering up weapons...They wouldn't be 'pinged' since all ships with some kind of sensors are constantly taking readings :P
One thing that surprises me is that yes, the gauss on capships is usable against fighters and bombers, but it isnt a true anti-fighter weapon due to it's slow speed and easiness to dodge. So, why dont cap ships have smaller turrets that use positron blasters or phase cannons, etc.
Also, I have noticed that the HAC's tend to stay as far away from eachother as possible (in the few BS's that I have seen.) Why? They are Heavy ASSAULT Cruisers, they should be leading the charge.
Anyway, they are just my two cents.
Also, I have noticed that the HAC's tend to stay as far away from eachother as possible (in the few BS's that I have seen.) Why? They are Heavy ASSAULT Cruisers, they should be leading the charge.
Anyway, they are just my two cents.
Fighters are not as large a threat to a HAC as bombers so the long-range gauss turrets make more sense. Friendly fire might also be a problem with high rate-of-fire turrets.
Also, HACs in Border Skirmish act as heavily armed mobile stations from which attacks are launched rather than actual assault ships. The Teradon with its cannons and the Trident with its missiles are the heavy hitters with the Constellation providing support. This is not to say that HACs couldn't be used more offensively, just that they aren't in BS.
Also, HACs in Border Skirmish act as heavily armed mobile stations from which attacks are launched rather than actual assault ships. The Teradon with its cannons and the Trident with its missiles are the heavy hitters with the Constellation providing support. This is not to say that HACs couldn't be used more offensively, just that they aren't in BS.