View Thread
 May i add some suggestions
|
|
| vladimir3d |
Posted on 08-09-2007 17:54
|
 Posts: 52 Joined: May 10 2007 |
may i add some suggestions that in my opinion would benefit PDS, without risking being wrapped in a tin-foil and shot out of trinity cannon?
Hope is a first step on a road of disappointment.
|
|
|
|
| Tristan |
Posted on 08-09-2007 18:03
|
|
Posts: 304 Joined: June 28 2006 |
Yes? The PDS crew is very accepting of constructive feedback. And as long as it's not like, "here's a suggestion, burn in hell" I don't see any reason why a suggestion would be taken negatively. |
|
|
|
| vladimir3d |
Posted on 08-09-2007 18:24
|
|
Posts: 52 Joined: May 10 2007 |
Well i downloaded and played latest PDS on my pc, and to say the truth after 4 hours i feel discombobulated. Almost every ship in the game is capable of building smaller craft and carries loads of armament. So do the lowest of the low strike craft. In full honestly, i found that confusing when in the middle of fighting. So my suggestion is to backtrack to original hw2 a bit and simplify the entire ship tree. Aka, have more dedicated ships for dedicated roles rather than huge super-fortress vessels that can perform 20 different jobs in 20 different environments. Hope is a first step on a road of disappointment.
|
|
|
|
| vladimir3d |
Posted on 09-09-2007 03:49
|
|
Posts: 52 Joined: May 10 2007 |
Few quick other notes. The graphics of a scout and heavy interceptor are unimpressive at best, can they be changed for graphics of a strike fighter found in TFS? <=- was that your model Hope is a first step on a road of disappointment.
|
|
|
|
| DoubleForte |
Posted on 09-09-2007 04:04
|
|
Posts: 96 Joined: July 08 2007 |
I like how the Avenger looks, personally, unless it is voted on unanamously I dont think we ought to change it. |
|
|
|
| Komo val |
Posted on 09-09-2007 11:59
|
|
Posts: 392 Joined: September 27 2006 |
I also find no problem with the Avenger, it's actually one of the best looking models imported into HW2 if you ask me. On the specialization aspect. You don't have specialization in real world (Like the Nimitz carrier is best countered with submarines and those with destroyers), you have approximate specializations like fire support assault and so on. Like in PDS. Specialization doesn't exist in the real world plus you don't want to waste money on something that can perform only one job. A good example of this is the Taiidani Lone ranger which is meant purely for support and won't do well in an assault. Also those who played PDS v7 might find your comment about over armed ship slightly funny (as ships have been significantly de-weaponized in v11). |
|
|
|
| vladimir3d |
Posted on 09-09-2007 16:36
|
|
Posts: 52 Joined: May 10 2007 |
i couldn't disagree more. Over-generalization brings up the thought of - what is the point of building ship A if i can just build lots of ship Bs. Thats what made original vanilla HW2 popular - it was a game of rock/paper/scissors not a rock vs a larger rock Hope is a first step on a road of disappointment.
|
|
|
|
| Tristan |
Posted on 09-09-2007 20:36
|
|
Posts: 304 Joined: June 28 2006 |
Uh, you think stock HW2 is some complex science? And not rock vs larger rock? Then why is it, exactly, that massing battlecruisers is far, far, far, far, far, far more RU efficient than building just about anything else? I think PDS 11 has a lot of specialized units. But it's not as simple as "bullets kill fighters, lasers kill corvettes, missiles kill frigates, ions kill cap ships." Rather, the outcome is going to vary drastically in every single situation. For instance, you're Hiigaran and have spent your resources on several flights of LSF. LSF definitely have the most bang for their buck in terms of multirole consistent firepower, and if you set them up right, they'll inevitably rip anything to shreds. But if you charge them into a barrage of missiles/torps, guaranteed you're going to lose most, or even all of them before they even engage. Now, if you spent those RU in Avengers, you'd possibly be able to shrug off the missile barrage, since they're by far the most highly armored fighters and use a wide formation. The only issue with them is, they severely lack long-range firepower. While highly survivable, they only really excel close-in. And since they lack considerable 'splash' damage, they're poor subsystem and first-strike fighters. So, for first-strike capability, you get some Ballistic Thunderbolts. I could go on like this, but it's turning into a rant. My point is, is that ships in PDS11 are specialized. Just not in the way you're looking for. Specialization has to do with range, splash damage min/maxing, first-strike capability, damage-per-second, high-stress survivability, turreted firepower vs fixed, subsystem disablers, and so forth. --- As for "Over-generalization brings up the thought of - what is the point of building ship A if i can just build lots of ship Bs.", that was true in past PDS'. Strikecraft were tremendously underpowered, and cap ships had so much armor and such a high repair-rate that they could easily negate any damage strikecraft incurred in the first place. Things have changed. -- A lot. A combination of ships is required if you're going to get anywhere in 11. How much have you played? You can't just build strikecraft and expect to win against a mixed fleet. Nor can you build cap ships and expect the same. Versatility is necessary. And - if you want super specialists, play the Taiidani. After one game I guarantee you that you'll have all the specialization you can handle. Edited by Tristan on 09-09-2007 20:43 |
|
|
|
| Tristan |
Posted on 09-09-2007 20:42
|
|
Posts: 304 Joined: June 28 2006 |
Just to be clear, we're talking about PDS7 right? Because if you're saying PDS11 isn't about specializing, and is a 'one ship win' gametype, I don't know what you're inhaling. Edited by Tristan on 09-09-2007 20:43 |
|
|
|
| Komo val |
Posted on 09-09-2007 21:24
|
|
Posts: 392 Joined: September 27 2006 |
Yes you can build lots of ships B to counter ships A, but you will be more cost-effective and lose less ships if you combine. And as Tristan says battlecruiser rushes are unstoppable in hw2. In PDS although you don't have rock-paper-scissors, every ship has it's weakness: Vaygr battleships. Heavy firepower and long range, but frontal firing arc, easily outflanked. Majiirian-Heavy firepower with good coverage however main turrets have low turn rate. Liir'hra- Good all around ship that suffers from relatively thin armor. .... So you see even if there is no r-p-s a lone ship is easy target, as it would be in stock hw2. |
|
|
|
| vladimir3d |
Posted on 09-09-2007 21:37
|
|
Posts: 52 Joined: May 10 2007 |
is there a tutorial where i can try to make my own mod, but with using some of the PDS models? its for myself, not for public distribution - who should i ask about permissions? Hope is a first step on a road of disappointment.
|
|
|
|
| TheSizzler |
Posted on 09-09-2007 23:35
|
|
Posts: 54 Joined: January 10 2007 |
Vladimir, what you want isn't PDS. You see, in PDS you actually have to think. In vanilla HW2, all you had to do was see what kind of ships the enemy had, then build yours accordingly. In PDS, however, you actually have to think when building your ships. And honestly, I like it better when you can't build ships. In real life, do you see Nimitzs churning out squadrons of F-18s in meer minutes? No. What about destroyers in five minutes? Still no. (IIRC so far record time is just about three days or something.) In short: PDS isn't for you. |
|
|
|
| HisDivineShadow |
Posted on 10-09-2007 01:05
|
 Posts: 29 Joined: July 10 2007 |
being treated as if you are a fool for expressing a different view point will eventually cause this mod to stagnate and wither so he has a different take on tactics and weapons, ship classes, etc why is that so bad? i looked at his drawings, he is a talented artist..it s a shame that because he wonders if things could not be done differently he is made to feel like a imbecile or he is in the wrong modding community its kinda silly to imply that anything in this mod mirrors anything in the real world...this is all based on a game with hyperdrives and weapons like ion cannons and plasma cannons..in other words science fiction...perhaps a little more bit of open minded thought towards suggestions, and less ridicule is in order but what the hell do i know :sigh: |
|
|
|
| yasotay |
Posted on 10-09-2007 01:09
|
 Posts: 637 Joined: September 09 2005 |
Sizzler - take a rest, I do agree that PDS is more intense than basic HW2 but we actually used to have a tutorial...about three years ago. The truth is there is no current manual, that I know of. vladimir3d - the best thing I can recommend to you is to try out different ships in the one on one to test out how they work. While there is no direct rock-paper-scissors, there are no uber-ships either. |
|
|
|
| Komo val |
Posted on 10-09-2007 13:48
|
|
Posts: 392 Joined: September 27 2006 |
TheSizzler:I'm sure you immediately knew what to do as soon as you started playing (sarcastic). I myself have played PDS since v4 and i still have to get used to knew stuff. HisDivineShadow: I agree with you that everyone should have their opinion on tactics and stuff. PDS never had r-p-s approach and I hope it never will. Speaking of SF, there are also no r-p-s aproach in any sf book-movie that i read-watched. And ridicule? Indicate one of my, tristan's or any other post with ridicule except for the above mentioned. vladimir3d: yasotays suggestions are very good. you don't need to have permission if your modifying the files for your own use. There are good tutorials on relicforums and karos graveyard, you should look there. |
|
|
|
| HisDivineShadow |
Posted on 10-09-2007 18:27
|
|
Posts: 29 Joined: July 10 2007 |
BZZZT....POOF dissapears in a puff of smoke......
Edited by HisDivineShadow on 10-09-2007 18:47 |
|
|
|
| Tristan |
Posted on 10-09-2007 23:12
|
|
Posts: 304 Joined: June 28 2006 |
Quote HisDivineShadow wrote: BZZZT....POOF dissapears in a puff of smoke...... What... ? |
|
|
|
| HisDivineShadow |
Posted on 11-09-2007 00:03
|
|
Posts: 29 Joined: July 10 2007 |
Quote Just to be clear, we're talking about PDS7 right? Because if you're saying PDS11 isn't about specializing, and is a 'one ship win' gametype, I don't know what you're inhaling. Quote komo....see above copy/paste for further examples of "ridicule" posted by others than the sizzler |
|
|
|
| TheSizzler |
Posted on 11-09-2007 00:31
|
|
Posts: 54 Joined: January 10 2007 |
I apologize since my previous came out rather rude, but when I downloaded PDS, I at the least knew that it was something a lot more intensive and different than standard HW2. From what vladimir said, it sounded like he didn't really know what PDS was when he downloaded it. |
|
|
|
| TelQuessir |
Posted on 11-09-2007 01:29
|
 Posts: 2598 Joined: August 30 2005 |
Gentlemen it's our job to teach others the difference between a wargame and an easy to handle real time strategy of today's world. The former tries to simulate on the computer the horrid mess that is a real-world-like battlefield, in our case based loosely on existing naval and air warfare concepts. Someone who hasn't played things like Harpoon and Combat Mission, or its simpler forms such as Jane's Fleet Command and Microsoft Close Combat, will go WTF at some of our logic. Sizzler isn't being disrespectful. He is just stating the reality of the game. To HisDivineShadow - as I will repeat myself many times in future, it is a managerial decision since V5 to limit PDS's consumer base to further develop our interests in SF wargaming. A 50 person dev team in PDS V3-5 didn't give us much in the form of progress. A 5 person part-time, ad-hoc "organisation" with temporary staffing today is achieving 10 times more. If you want to say Sizzler is being rude, so is Vladimir. I have no problems with directness as it gets things across much faster than in a pink world. As such I have no problems with their posts, and ask all of you to continue the discussion and keep it on topic. Thank you. Edited by TelQuessir on 11-09-2007 01:28 |
|
|
|
| Jump to Forum |