Referenceing other games like Masters of Orion 2 and my common ideas. Nukes are not the "power weapon" anymore. They are not as dealy in space. I assumed the basic missile used from caps is a nuke. Yep nukes for fighters, and fighters drop nukes on battleships.
Plus shields, and point defence cannons. I just dont see the missle grid as a credible threat. Heck when shields are up, I'd say the missles just make nice light.
On Gammu however we have surface to orbit energy cannons geo thermally powered and magnetically deflected any way we need it. We dont even have crops to sacrifice on weapons.
I do think though
retreat = 2 hour system ban unless cleared by victor.
death = 4 hour system ban ".
Home system = unlimited (FIGHTERS/not bombers) on ban even in defeat. Caps 1 hour.
Shared systems = losers restricted to the immediate area of thier base. ie: Omega 15 JunkersRhinelandBHG.
Planetary defense grids are silly in the world of Freelancer. Let's look at a few proposals:
1. Missiles. You're kidding, right? Using actual rockets to lift tiny payloads -- sure, there's no way that a bunch of warships that just blew away a whole fleet that was already IN space would be able to pick those off during boost phase.... C'mon, you gotta do better than that.
2. Defense shield. It wouldn't drive away anyone. Moreover, energy fields require generators that increase in power in proportion to the cube of the size of the field. Take the energy required for a fihgter-sized (100 feet circumference) shield. The Earth is about 417,000 feet wider at its surface. The energy required to shield an Earth-sized planet is therefore about 72,000,000,000,000,000 times as much as for a simple fighter shield. That's a figure in the QUADRILLIONS for Americans (mere TRILLIONS for most Europeans). If the size of the generator is proportional to its power output, we're looking at Moon-sized generators for even a weak planetary shield.
3. Rail guns and other high-velocity projectiles. There's this thing called an atmosphere. As things move through it, they generate friction. The larger the projectile, the more friction (it increases with area, so it's a square relationship). High velocity = disintegration of smaller projectiles before hitting anything on the other side of the atmosphere. Look at what happens to meteorites. They have to be truly huge to survive the atmosphere, and even then they generate huge shockwaves as they move through it. Trying to fire a projectile the size of a city block would be difficult enough -- but now think of what happens when the proposed "Space Cannon" actually fires -- the local effect on the SURFACE of the planet is the equivalent of a small-yield nuclear explosion. So I doubt throwing things upward at high velocity is feasible.
But enough talk about feasibility. Consider this: the planetary defenses didn't look all that impressive in the Coalition-Alliance war, so if they exist in FL, it must be due to some new technical advance. Yet what we see are really incremental advances in technology rather than quantum leaps over the earlier times. Moreover, the only areas with generators in the SP campaign -- even Nomad areas! -- are small in size: the top of Tekagi's Arch and the entrace to the Dyson sphere.
It seems plain that throughout the SP campaign, then, the main defense for any system is its fleet, backed up by stationary weapons platforms and bases in space. We can always just make stuff up if we feel like it, but don't pretend these ideas are some natural consequences of the Discovery world.
I go by abbamouse, but my characters are the Cryer researcher Daniel Moss, the very boring and ordinary trader John Smith, the borderline-insane civilian Mr Joker, and a Bundschuh activist who goes by the alias Rosa Luxemburg. I am not them and they are not me.
If one can imagine up a Planetary Defense Grid, I can imagine up an Orbital Bombardment Flotilla quite effectively too, I must say. And... planets can't dodge for beans. Battleships at long range can.
Trust the players not to take the piss on this one. Noone camps for extended periods, really. This is simply unnecessary.
' Wrote:Lets not get personal here Akumabito. Rules always need reveiw and revision. This is a good way of talking rule that many are confused by.
Nothing personal about it. The idea of planetary defense grids to allow factions to ignore the rule against re engagement is silly, and from what I've seen that rule is ignored often enough anyway, and factions don't seem to mind members who violate it.
' Wrote:Nothing personal about it. The idea of planetary defense grids to allow factions to ignore the rule against re engagement is silly, and from what I've seen that rule is ignored often enough anyway, and factions don't seem to mind members who violate it.
I'll get very upset with any member of the Rogues that breaks that rule for whatever reason. They'll be kicked. End of story.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
when the original concept of the revision is meant to prevent base campers. - there is a little excerpt from the discussion about non-factioned players and factioned players. - it was about this way .....
when you have the power to enforce your will, you can do so as long as it is within the rules. ( in short, you can do what you can do )
so when a battleship stands in orbit and has a hell lot of fun camping the base - while the defenders cannot deploy a force needed to take it down...... it is simply bad luck.
of course this fact ruins ppls roleplay - when they are facing a 4 hours lock out on all their chars that might interact with the winner, especially when its about defending their home. but it is still in RP. when an enemy battleship could not be stopped before it reached the outer orbit of a planet, - the defenders were obviously lacking. ( or not online - but taking care of having enough defenders online is as much metagaming as is checking that no one is there to defend - the difference is only that the former is sportive and the later is unfair )
about roleplayed planetary defense grids. - that is as much hypothetical as an osiris cloaking device. - i wonder how many outcasts stop firing on an osiris battleship in full battle, just cause the osiris announced "CLOAKING THE SHIP!" - its still there.... will the attackers stop shooting at it, - even if the battleship stopped firing? - i do not know... but you can answer it yourself... .
the planetary defense grid is the same thing. - it is not there. it can be roleplayed, but in order to roleplay this, it needs both parties to RP it. how many attacking forces have retreated cause the outcasts command has announced "LAUNCHING ICBM DEFENSE MISSILES!" ... .
but about the revision as such....
it works - on a server where there are only factions. it works on events and on battles that have a clear start and end. - it fails when a battle is dragged all across a system, when a battle is taking longer than expected, when people come, people go. - in short... it fails when a battle is fully dynamic. - when you don t know when the defenders are defeated and when the attackers are defeated.
for example - what will you do when ... the defender only has one light fighter left. - the attacker has one cruiser left. - the cruiser is damaged to only 5% hull left - no bats, no bots - but invulnerable to the light fighter due to its shields. - the light fighter dodged at the max weapon range of the cruiser - impossible for the cruiser to destroy or chase.
has any of those won? - both cannot win this situation - both are waiting for reinforcements. - but is it really a draw? - the cruiser is of course MUCH stronger than the defender. it can basicly ignore the fighter and start attacking the primary target ( the planet for example ) - does that mean the defenders are gone?
such a rule leaves room for interpretation. - and interpretation in a rule is not always a good thing, cause it causes discussions and uncertainty.
the 4 hours death rule is OK as such. what needs to be changed is the retreat rule. - the retreating is not punished as much as the death of a char... but still too much. - imo, someone that retreated should be allowed to re-engage at any given time, even in the same system. - as long as he did not dock / repair ( suicide is no option, cause he is still considered to be in pvp, so any death would mean a pvp death ) - that way.... repair ships might be more useful.... and a defender can undock, dodge and retreat into safety without having to withdraw from his defense for 4 hours untill the camper left.
the downside is that capital ships can cruise away when their shields are down, gaining a great advantage over smaller ships - however, it does not strengthen the warships much, but only their longevity. it makes them fairly invulnerable to a small forces though ( even to a bomber wing ) - so that suggestion is not working well, too, i daresay.
anyway - dejavu much? - i think we had discussions about this several times already. - if the whole 4 hours is too much - why not simply put the death penalty to 1 hour. or allow re-engagement of ANY kind in a factions home-system ( that would reflect the massive defense army and manpower - but it would make an assault nearly impossible )
Quote:anyway - dejavu much? - i think we had discussions about this several times already. - if the whole 4 hours is too much - why not simply put the death penalty to 1 hour. or allow re-engagement of ANY kind in a factions home-system ( that would reflect the massive defense army and manpower - but it would make an assault nearly impossible )
It keeps getting discussed because it needs changing in some way.
As far as I know (and im still new here) the rules hasn't kept up with
the community and needs to be looked at again.
And as always Jinx, you have some good points to bring to the table.
Perhaps we need to expand this rule so that it isn't just one or two sentences?
But since this rule in particular is a hot topic, and is often debated, maybe we
need certain black and white things of what you are and aren't allowed to do?
Personally I would love to see the 4 hour rule gone. It's too much. Sometimes
the attacker tractors my escape pod in, sometimes doesn't and many times we
are friendly. But that's just a small pet want.
And the ambiguity and interpretations are some reasons why we need to split it
up into pvp engagements, and pirating engagements and other things also.
Lets get the rules sorted out so that there is no room for rule breakers, but is
flexible enough to cater to all the Roles in Disco.
Perhaps making a list of possible engagement scenarios would help,
so that we can see where it gets invoked?
I just took a squizz at the rules again and they are clear enough,
when taken all together...with common sense and decency to other players
but it's a lot to take in all at once.
Sovereign Wrote:Seek fun and you shall find it. Seek stuff to Q_Q about and you'll find that, too. I choose to have fun.
Hmm, a Planetary Defence grid... perhaps, but a dozen or more weapon platforms surrounding each planet is more likely.
They can fire what I call Blanket fire weapons - missiles which just do area damage, like AAK AAK fire.
That prevents ships from approaching/camping any base...
Of course you should be still able to bring a cap ship to take out the missile defence...
Perhaps Igiss can add 20-30 missile defence platforms near planets and large bases - have them fire some
ultra fast missile with massive damage hits... Planetary defence grid - Missile style:)(much more feasible and likely that a shield grid)
<span style="font-family:Century Gothic">Spec - Independent Trader</span> Small Transport - Hauling without earning
Current Status: Inactive - Too Much Work and Travel
' Wrote:Perhaps Igiss can add 20-30 missile defence platforms near planets and large bases - have them fire some
ultra fast missile with massive damage hits... Planetary defence grid - Missile style:)(much more feasible and likely that a shield grid)
Isn't lag enough of an issue already?
Nothing is broken, if someone can beat you in front of your own base they can stay there for four hours. Works fine.
To be honest although I can see the point of "giving the winners the enjoyment of victory"/"spreading propaganda", this is after all supposed to be in-RP and, as the OP says, in-RP any ships which remained above Manhattan for any length of time would be vapourised. Not because of a planetary defense grid, but because the house militaries are (in-RP, based on the singleplayer) actually phenomenally powerful, and wouldn't just have a few fighters and the odd gunboat (the typical participants in a New York skirmish) to defend their capital planet.
No longer active online due to a dwindling amount of non-PvP (trading, pirating, mining, etc.) fun in the new version.