This game needs fast new kind of combat system...

[Tumppi]

Results: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5152875/astro-attacker-morbius_jupiter-results.png

[norill]

nah, its ok. if i ever had a station i wouldnt like to wake up one day and see there is only a pile of rubble left of it. this way one can react if the timer is long enough. but maybe battles could be sped up if both sides agree with this.

[Morgwen Dubhspiriag]

I agree on that.  Maybe add in a new Tech -- Tactical Deployment.

With it,  each level could modify the init time as other Techs do.
Naturally, I feel we should have a Minimum set.

How to implement or suggest level values I can not do since I
don't understand enough about how the Init Combat time is
determined. -- must re-read AG Combat area.

But regardless.  I think a modification of some sort would be helpful
and beneficial to all.

[Tumppi]

Well i was actually saying that this game needs more ways to cooperate with other people and take multiple ships to one battle...

Now its stypid that you can win ship with 200k weapons and 200k shields... unlimited number of ships below that...

All ships/stations/surface sould fight on same fight...

[Antilak]

nah, its ok. if i ever had a station i wouldnt like to wake up one day and see there is only a pile of rubble left of it. this way one can react if the timer is long enough. but maybe battles could be sped up if both sides agree with this.

I agree with this. This is not a fast paced game and shouldn't be. It'd change many things if it tried to be. So just changing this one thing would not be enough. A slew of other things would have to be changed too.

Giving the defender time to react is NOT bad. Players attacking at odd hours or ninja-killing in other pvp games is hte source of much grief and one of the major reasons pvp in games tends to be strictly controlled.

It's already not fair with the massive power ratings of some players.

I somtimes play in Wurm Online - on the pvp servers - and in that game other players can destroy in minutes what has taken you hours or days to build. And it takes longer to repair a lot of things than to build them!! Of course, there're similar mechanics in that game to protect the defender, but sometimes it's wholly inadaquate.

So ya I'm very much in support of giving substantially more favor to the defender than the attacker. Any kind of anti-griefing code is going to help extend the life of this game and keep players from rage quitting.

But I tend to be against too many safe areas or "instanced" areas. I like pvp open world gameplay.

PS: I am a new player. So please ignore me if desired. I may be wrong about this.

[JamJulLison]

nah, its ok. if i ever had a station i wouldnt like to wake up one day and see there is only a pile of rubble left of it. this way one can react if the timer is long enough. but maybe battles could be sped up if both sides agree with this.

I agree with this. This is not a fast paced game and shouldn't be. It'd change many things if it tried to be. So just changing this one thing would not be enough. A slew of other things would have to be changed too.

Giving the defender time to react is NOT bad. Players attacking at odd hours or ninja-killing in other pvp games is hte source of much grief and one of the major reasons pvp in games tends to be strictly controlled.

It's already not fair with the massive power ratings of some players.

I somtimes play in Wurm Online - on the pvp servers - and in that game other players can destroy in minutes what has taken you hours or days to build. And it takes longer to repair a lot of things than to build them!! Of course, there're similar mechanics in that game to protect the defender, but sometimes it's wholly inadaquate.

So ya I'm very much in support of giving substantially more favor to the defender than the attacker. Any kind of anti-griefing code is going to help extend the life of this game and keep players from rage quitting.

But I tend to be against too many safe areas or "instanced" areas. I like pvp open world gameplay.

PS: I am a new player. So please ignore me if desired. I may be wrong about this.

That attack timer actually isn't bad.  You should see how bad it gets for a lot of us.  I can agree it being good to give someone time to defend themselves but the whole timer system needs a huge overall.

[Irredrache]

Could handle this the way that RTS games handle a pausing option with multiple players. The timer defaults to whatever time is given, but if both players check a box agreeing to speed it up, then when the second player checks the box, the battle happens. This way, mutually agreed upon battles could be sped up, but nobody being beaten down by a superior foe gets screwed (except by the spending of QPs, as it is now).

[JamJulLison]

Could handle this the way that RTS games handle a pausing option with multiple players. The timer defaults to whatever time is given, but if both players check a box agreeing to speed it up, then when the second player checks the box, the battle happens. This way, mutually agreed upon battles could be sped up, but nobody being beaten down by a superior foe gets screwed (except by the spending of QPs, as it is now).

Most people aren't going to agree to that on both sides though. Something really needs to be done.

[Antilak]

Could handle this the way that RTS games handle a pausing option with multiple players. The timer defaults to whatever time is given, but if both players check a box agreeing to speed it up, then when the second player checks the box, the battle happens. This way, mutually agreed upon battles could be sped up, but nobody being beaten down by a superior foe gets screwed (except by the spending of QPs, as it is now).

Most people aren't going to agree to that on both sides though. Something really needs to be done.

Could you elaborate on why my last post wasn't good?

You said the attack timer isn't bad but then said it was??? Thanks in advance.