|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 16 posts ] |
|
Damage Cap on planets Review.
Author |
Message |
John Falls
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:50 pm Posts: 1010
|
I've looked at the damage caps on planets.
Its a maximum of 20, Regardless. what really i think is harsh. Specially when you have a planet with 50,000 Defense with 5,000 Population.
Its just stupid. 1-5 damage maximum, 1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1.
So how about this? instead of 20 max damage cap regardless. can we have a 10% or 5% of the population cap.
This means, if your population increases. so does the damage cap. Its the same with all the other damage caps. Shouldn't this be the same?
This would be a most fair on all the planets. if you have 5,000 population with 50,000 defense. you'll never hit the 10% cap of 500. But people will be able to take down the population in a reasonable amount of time.
5% cap might be even better.
~John Falls~
_________________ Give Respect To Gain Respect, Never Demand it, Treat Others, How you would like to be treated, Manners Doesn't cost anything, Those who dont follow these rules, aren't worth knowing, Member of The Unknown.~John Falls~
|
Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:06 pm |
|
 |
ICBLF
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:52 pm Posts: 1663 Location: where the dead ships dwell
|
Damage caps should not be based on hit points (and population is essentially the planet's HP). Otherwise why add more HP if it just makes the HP worth less the more you add?
_________________ 
|
Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:27 pm |
|
 |
KJReed
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:08 am Posts: 3142
|
This makes about as much sense as going back to the hull based damage cap.
The point of adding pop is so it takes awhile and some energy to get down.
Go find some bio vaps, or alert it and get help.
|
Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:07 pm |
|
 |
Uy23e
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:04 am Posts: 1998
|
-1 It would be stupid to make it based on population, makes no sense. One of the factor of whether a planet is worth taking would be the difficulty of getting it, nothing wrong with that.
now, what I would like to see would be make it based on size, where VT can have 10 and MC have 30-40. based on the "logic" of damage cap, that would make sense.
_________________ 当所有传奇写下第一个篇章 原来所谓英雄也和我们一样 私は一発の銃弾、銃弾は人の心を持たない。故に、何も考えない。ただ、目的に向かって飛ぶだけ
|
Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:12 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|

John Falls wrote: I've looked at the damage caps on planets.
Its a maximum of 20, Regardless. what really i think is harsh. Specially when you have a planet with 50,000 Defense with 5,000 Population.
Its just stupid. 1-5 damage maximum, 1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1.
So how about this? instead of 20 max damage cap regardless. can we have a 10% or 5% of the population cap.
This means, if your population increases. so does the damage cap. Its the same with all the other damage caps. Shouldn't this be the same?
This would be a most fair on all the planets. if you have 5,000 population with 50,000 defense. you'll never hit the 10% cap of 500. But people will be able to take down the population in a reasonable amount of time.
5% cap might be even better.
~John Falls~ If the damage cap is 25 times what it is now, you would do 25 times as much damage. Thus, if you would have been doing 10 damage before, you would now be doing 250. Thus, doubling the planet's population would double the enemy's damage, and that would render population worthless.
|
Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:15 pm |
|
 |
asquall
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:22 am Posts: 1121
|
Uy23e wrote: now, what I would like to see would be make it based on size, where VT can have 10 and MC have 30-40. based on the "logic" of damage cap, that would make sense. this, would be better (although... who will colonize 'very tiny', and moreover, invade it? lololololol)
|
Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:12 am |
|
 |
Sereomontis
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:15 pm Posts: 476
|
asquall wrote: Uy23e wrote: now, what I would like to see would be make it based on size, where VT can have 10 and MC have 30-40. based on the "logic" of damage cap, that would make sense. this, would be better (although... who will colonize 'very tiny', and moreover, invade it? lololololol) Yeah, dont think ive ever seen an occupied Very Tiny. Though max pop damage based on size would be better than the system we have now.
|
Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:33 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
Uy23e wrote: now, what I would like to see would be make it based on size, where VT can have 10 and MC have 30-40. based on the "logic" of damage cap, that would make sense. Actually, it wouldn't. That idea for damage cap works with ships because ships can be excessively small, and can more easily avoid enemy fire. This could never be the case with a planet; a planet could never avoid enemy fire.
|
Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:41 pm |
|
 |
icarium81
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 2:15 am Posts: 3056
|
if you dont like your damage ability on the planets you have on scan, then you need more attack.. seems like a simple enough solution. really some of the ideas lately are just very very dumb.
_________________ This is my dog, Icarium, It was a very windy day. Leader of Icariums Fate, level 6 base 
|
Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:24 pm |
|
 |
KJReed
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:08 am Posts: 3142
|
FerrusManus wrote: Uy23e wrote: now, what I would like to see would be make it based on size, where VT can have 10 and MC have 30-40. based on the "logic" of damage cap, that would make sense. Actually, it wouldn't. That idea for damage cap works with ships because ships can be excessively small, and can more easily avoid enemy fire. This could never be the case with a planet; a planet could never avoid enemy fire. Actually it does. Cap logic is based off of a smaller cross section. A smaller ships ability to avoid damage is reflected in the damage formula (includes the cap in it as cross section would increase with size)
|
Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:56 pm |
|
 |
thunderbolta
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 11:01 am Posts: 5825 Location: Zolar
|
Um, smaller planets should have a higher damage cap because the population density would be greater. It would work in the opposite way to ship decks...
|
Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:40 pm |
|
 |
asquall
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:22 am Posts: 1121
|
thunderbolta wrote: Um, smaller planets should have a higher damage cap because the population density would be greater. It would work in the opposite way to ship decks... this make sense  so maybe the cap will be : max pop/constant, where the constant will be going from 20 to 1 from very tiny to mega colossal ? ----- Oh well, it's going to give bigger planets more bonuses  ----- I hope there will be something pop up that make smaller planets more attractive.
|
Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:31 am |
|
 |
KJReed
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 1:08 am Posts: 3142
|
thunderbolta wrote: Um, smaller planets should have a higher damage cap because the population density would be greater. It would work in the opposite way to ship decks... thats assuming pop is the same which is not necessarily, or even likely true.
|
Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:04 am |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
KJReed wrote: FerrusManus wrote: Uy23e wrote: now, what I would like to see would be make it based on size, where VT can have 10 and MC have 30-40. based on the "logic" of damage cap, that would make sense. Actually, it wouldn't. That idea for damage cap works with ships because ships can be excessively small, and can more easily avoid enemy fire. This could never be the case with a planet; a planet could never avoid enemy fire. Actually it does. Cap logic is based off of a smaller cross section. A smaller ships ability to avoid damage is reflected in the damage formula (includes the cap in it as cross section would increase with size) Yes, the ship's ability to avoid damage is included in the formula as the damage cap. A planet can't avoid damage, and even small planets are much larger than small ships, so it doesn't make sense just based on the "logic" of the damage cap.
|
Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:58 am |
|
 |
Uy23e
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 12:04 am Posts: 1998
|

FerrusManus wrote: KJReed wrote: FerrusManus wrote: Actually, it wouldn't. That idea for damage cap works with ships because ships can be excessively small, and can more easily avoid enemy fire. This could never be the case with a planet; a planet could never avoid enemy fire.
Actually it does. Cap logic is based off of a smaller cross section. A smaller ships ability to avoid damage is reflected in the damage formula (includes the cap in it as cross section would increase with size) Yes, the ship's ability to avoid damage is included in the formula as the damage cap. A planet can't avoid damage, and even small planets are much larger than small ships, so it doesn't make sense just based on the "logic" of the damage cap. small planets are much larger than small ships yes but is small planets larger than large ships? And while ship def is "mobility" planet def is "shield", given the same amount of shield power (via same amount of generators etc) wont's small planets have a more concentrated shield? i.e. when total power is the same, smaller area means more power/area.
_________________ 当所有传奇写下第一个篇章 原来所谓英雄也和我们一样 私は一発の銃弾、銃弾は人の心を持たない。故に、何も考えない。ただ、目的に向かって飛ぶだけ
|
Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:34 pm |
|
 |
FerrusManus
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 12:32 am Posts: 4524
|
Uy23e wrote: And while ship def is "mobility" planet def is "shield", given the same amount of shield power (via same amount of generators etc) wont's small planets have a more concentrated shield? i.e. when total power is the same, smaller area means more power/area. We have no way of knowing if that's how it works.
|
Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:03 pm |
|
 |
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 16 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 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
|
|