Experience System.

[Nebula_Class_Ftw]

posted on October 25th, 2011, 10:21 pm

Last edited by Nebula_Class_Ftw on October 25th, 2011, 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Keeping a ship alive longer give it more experience besides what it already gets from kills? Sounds OP.
I would go for survival xp under the condition that each experience point gained by being alive is also lost when it kills something and only so much percent of a level being gained from staying alive (this way you get a smal advantage, and maybe can pull off a rankup or two if you rescue a ship that already got kills.) Otherwise, the disparity in power between smaller ships and newly-made one vs. older and larger ones would just be too much and make comebacks too hard and techup rushes (and the Borg, if their experience were to work in any kind of power-increasing way) too powerful.

posted on October 25th, 2011, 11:03 pm

It would be keeping a ship alive, when its taking a ton of damage.  It would be damage based, not time.  And no nebula, Ive already stated this, but perhaps i didnt make it as clear as i should of.  This is not on top of the current system, your right, that would be OP. 

This would work with the current system, by either diving it into offensive and defensive rank ups, or could be combined in a different way if their was a better idea.  The whole point of this is too make it perhaps a little more balanced, and to help rank-up those races/players who do not get the raiding kills, or the quick cloak kills.  In fact its point is to help the newly made ships by providing an incentive to the player to really keep them alive.

posted on October 25th, 2011, 11:05 pm

Wouldn't a damage dealt xp system make a bit more sense anyway?* The longer it lasts, the more it'll deal and the more it'll deal, the better it'll be. Rather than the whole promotion on kill thing which generally means the last to land the hit gets the point.
Though, I guess an experience boost from using abilities would be nice if at all possible. And maybe, it could apply to miners as well. Of course the raiders would probably just love that.

*I think it could be set as a multitude of the ship's own dps rate. So after it's been fighting for a certain amount of time, DING!

*Snip*

Or they could take their defeats and learn from them?

posted on October 26th, 2011, 12:59 am

Would mean you could probably farm experience off turrets... send in some ships, take damage, repair, repeat. 

posted on October 26th, 2011, 1:11 am

True, but im sure somthing could be worked out to negate abuse of that....

posted on October 26th, 2011, 3:03 am

Maybe facing automated systems teaches you less, so the ship receives very limited experience from facing turrets (capped to a low amount.)

posted on October 26th, 2011, 3:40 am

level up the base Generix then upgrade; it keeps its level when it gets a refit

Good idea

Singularity gen is worth every penny.

Hell yeah, I would never dispute that!


I think that this would be good on certain support vessels that are hard to ever get to rank up because, well, they aren't COMBAT vessels so much.
Scouts, GEN refit, etc...

posted on October 26th, 2011, 5:35 am

If the scope of this game were running just a few ships, then yeah, maybe, this kind of XP subdivision might be cool, but this is a FLEET game, so the benefits of this change would be tiny compared to the huge amount of work required to get it working.

[ray320]

posted on October 26th, 2011, 5:48 am

Last edited by ray320 on October 26th, 2011, 6:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Well the idea is that this would affect all of the ships in the game.

posted on October 26th, 2011, 6:03 am

Yes, Ray, I know it would affect every ship, but not in a particularly big way. If you start splitting up XP into sub-groups, you'll find that the differences between each rank end up being tiny.

Also, only the most obsessive players would notice the difference, as when you've got fleets of ships to control, knowing that one ship is on Offensive Rank 3 and Defensive Rank 2, whilst one is O1D3, the next O5D1, O4D2, it's just too much information.

It doesn't need to be complicated to be good. Keep it simple.

[kainalu]

posted on October 26th, 2011, 6:23 am

Last edited by kainalu on October 26th, 2011, 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

It doesn't need to be complicated to be good. Keep it simple.

Not to be contrary, but the current Fleet Operations is orders of magnitude more complicated than the original "biggest ship wins" Armada 2, and it Flippin WORKS 

I think that if this did get implemented, as complicated as it would already be, maybe if a ship is used and promoted in a DEFENSIVE role, it will get DEFENSIVE bonuses and specials, and the opposite for OFFENSIVE roles, bonuses, and specials.  No one argues it would take massive work, but if done right over the correct period of time, it could add another layer of depth and strategy to the game.

Crappy example :

sovvie at 6th DEFENSIVE rank : extended engineering, Abl. armor, (that blue engine disabler thing)

Sovvie at 6th OFFENSIVE rank : type XV phasers, ACS torpedoes, Vollyfire Torpedoes

[Atlantis]

posted on October 26th, 2011, 6:50 am

Last edited by Atlantis on October 26th, 2011, 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Not to be contrary, but the current Fleet Operations is orders of magnitude more complicated than the original "biggest ship wins" Armada 2, and it Flippin WORKS 

Yes, it does work, but that does not mean that 'more complicated = better'.

The more complicated stuff works because it has real effects, or adds new features that can be used by the player. In this suggestion, the effects would be small and can't really be used.

I think that if this did get implemented, as complicated as it would already be, maybe if a ship is used and promoted in a DEFENSIVE role, it will get DEFENSIVE bonuses and specials, and the opposite for OFFENSIVE roles, bonuses, and specials.  No one argues it would take massive work, but if done right over the correct period of time, it could add another layer of depth and strategy to the game.

Crappy example :

sovvie at 6th DEFENSIVE rank : extended engineering, Abl. armor, (that blue engine disabler thing)

Sovvie at 6th OFFENSIVE rank : type XV phasers, ACS torpedoes, Vollyfire Torpedoes

Imagine the following:

You have three fleets of 30 ships each. Mixtures of all kinds of ships, balanced fleet, etc. Some of them have got these offensive bonuses, some have got the defensive bonuses, for whatever reasons.

Your fleet engages the enemy's fleet. Are you really going to make use of the advantages that each of your 90 ships has?

No.

You've described possibilities for rank 6's for the Sovereign. That is a very extreme example, and the closest you will ever get to a real difference from this system. For most of your fleet, the Rank 2 and Rank 3 Sabres, Monsoons, and/or Intrepids, the effects will be practically negligible.

The current XP system simply increases the stats in general, adds weapons, whatever, that just makes the ship better in battle. That's all XP needs to do. THAT is what I mean by "keep it simple".

posted on October 26th, 2011, 6:58 am

well i would like to see things like non combat ships gaining xp but id prefere them to gain it for doing there tasks,

however i do think its a bit mean that only the ship that deals the death blow gets all the xp but guess it would be too hard to code a fairer way

posted on October 26th, 2011, 7:05 am

we are indeed working on a more advanced experience systems, but i don't hink multiple fields to rank up in (like off and def) or civil ships that rank up would fit to Fleet Operations gameplay

posted on October 26th, 2011, 7:52 am

Nice to know Optec.  The inspiration behind the idea was not necessarily, or specifically to split it into offensive and defense.  The main inspiration, was just recognition that different perhaps races should rank up, and gain experience in different ways, as currently the rank up system can favor particular races and play styles.