| Author |
Why nerf ions? |
Veronw
Marshal
Joined: December 13, 2004
Posts: 554
|  Posted: 2010-04-04 11:54
So, what was the point in this one? 1920 gu was somehow too great a range for the supposed range/defensive faction? I would like an answer to this one, since one of the VERY FEW options for ICC dreads is to long range via ion cannons. 1200 gu now is pitiful, and within range of close to everything the enemy can lob at you, and reinforces the impossibility of ICC breaking through any kind of ugto station blob.
Wasn't thinking of K'luth, they just decloak on top of you anyways.
_________________
|
JBud
Marshal
Joined: February 26, 2008
Posts: 1900
From: Behind you.
| Posted: 2010-04-04 12:16
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-04 11:54, Veronw wrote:
So, what was the point in this one? 1920 gu was somehow too great a range for the supposed range/defensive faction? I would like an answer to this one, since one of the VERY FEW options for ICC dreads is to long range via ion cannons. 1200 gu now is pitiful, and within range of close to everything the enemy can lob at you, and reinforces the impossibility of ICC breaking through any kind of ugto station blob.
Wasn't thinking of K'luth, they just decloak on top of you anyways.
|
|
+1
_________________
[-Point Jumper-][-Privateer Elite-][-Summus Dux-][-Praeclarae-]
[img(RIP MY SIGNATURE DELETED AFTER 7 YEARS/img]
''Insisto Rector - Suivez le Guide - Tempus hostium est''
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2010-04-04 12:25
Can we make ICC into a AI fraction while were at it?
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-04-04 12:37
Whether you want to admit it or not, IC's were fired at distances no-one else could do anything about. Whilst K'luth could cloak to avoid the damage, UGTO could do little but sit there and take it like champs.
Neither is particularly balanced, so we decided to bring the difference in ranges in-line with other weapons to balance things out.
Bear in mind that the IC has zero falloff, and is VERY accurate meaning it was very powerful at 1900gu (a QST and SI lose 50% of their damage towards the extent of their range).
Remember that all core weapons ranges were nerfed.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2010-04-04 12:42 ]
_________________
|
JBud
Marshal
Joined: February 26, 2008
Posts: 1900
From: Behind you.
| Posted: 2010-04-04 13:19
QST (-200)
SI (-200)
Ion (-700)
I see a difference, don't you?
Also, UGTO are supposed to take it like champs and QQ, or jump into their optimal range to take them out, cmon now!
UGTO have special armor to block kenetic damage (ablative) what damage does the Ion cannon cause again???
this development is rediculously nerfing the already struggling ICC.
brings tears to my eyes.
_________________
[-Point Jumper-][-Privateer Elite-][-Summus Dux-][-Praeclarae-]
[img(RIP MY SIGNATURE DELETED AFTER 7 YEARS/img]
''Insisto Rector - Suivez le Guide - Tempus hostium est''
|
Kanman
Grand Admiral
Pitch Black
Joined: August 26, 2005
Posts: 1017
From: Virginia, United States
| Posted: 2010-04-04 13:21
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-04 12:37, BackSlash wrote:
(a QST and SI lose 50% of their damage towards the extent of their range).
|
|
Wait a minute. This is news to me, so can we focus on this statement for a couple seconds? At exactly what range does the damage fall to 50%? Is it a linear decrease in damage over range or is there some cut-off distance where it does 100% at some distance and then 1gu farther it does 50%?
I think for fair tactical purposes players should be given detailed datasheets for each weapon so we dont have to guess all the time.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2010-04-04 13:28
The falloff is linear over the entire range, but that doesn't mean that its doing 1% damage at 99% distance. The amount of total falloff is set separately - so you might have 1000 total damage, falloff of 400; at the end of the range its doing only 600 damage.
Though in contradiction to Jack, I don't see any falloff among the core weapons...
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2010-04-04 13:31
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-04 13:19, Scientia wrote:
QST (-200)
SI (-200)
Ion (-700)
|
|
Actually, QST's lost at least 800 Gu range, there max range where 1800 or about, now that hardly 1k
as for SI, hell i dont know what there older rang eused to be, but they always shoot point blank anyway
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
JBud
Marshal
Joined: February 26, 2008
Posts: 1900
From: Behind you.
| Posted: 2010-04-04 13:33
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-04 13:31, Zero28 wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-04 13:19, Scientia wrote:
QST (-200)
SI (-200)
Ion (-700)
|
|
Actually, QST's lost at least 800 Gu range, there max range where 1800 or about, now that hardly 1k
as for SI, hell i dont know what there older rang eused to be, but they always shoot point blank anyway
|
|
As I recall QST range was roughly 1250
And SI range was 1000
[ This Message was edited by: Scientia on 2010-04-04 13:34 ]
_________________
[-Point Jumper-][-Privateer Elite-][-Summus Dux-][-Praeclarae-]
[img(RIP MY SIGNATURE DELETED AFTER 7 YEARS/img]
''Insisto Rector - Suivez le Guide - Tempus hostium est''
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-04-04 13:35
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-04 13:28, Shigernafy wrote:
The falloff is linear over the entire range, but that doesn't mean that its doing 1% damage at 99% distance. The amount of total falloff is set separately - so you might have 1000 total damage, falloff of 400; at the end of the range its doing only 600 damage.
Though in contradiction to Jack, I don't see any falloff among the core weapons...
|
|
Last time I looked at them they had falloff, unless it was removed (which it appears it has...).
Either way, the comment still stands, the differences in ranges was brought more in-line with the differences between other weapon classes (~ 1k gu).
Differences in ranges (previous, and current) are as follows:
Ion Cannon:
Velocity: 215
Life (old): 9
Life (new): 6
Range (old): 1935 gu
Range (new): 1290 gu
Quantum Singularity Torpedo:
Velocity: 175
Life (old): 8
Life (new): 6
Range (old): 1400 gu
Range (new): 1050 gu
Stellar Insinerator:
Velocity: 165
Life (old): 6
Life (new): 5
Range (old): 990 gu
Range (new): 825 gu
So you see, the Ion Cannon is still the king. Infact, whilst it lost less, in comparison with the other two, it still has slightly more (percentile difference).
Instead of looking at the pure number losses, look at the difference between the ranges:
1935 - (535) - 1400 - (410) - 990.
1290 - (240) - 1050 - (225) - 825.
If you do the percentage differences, the differences are still the same (30%). So infact, you lose nothing. It just brings the fight closer to the 1k gu range we prefer fights to happen at (data!).
- Jack
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2010-04-04 13:46 ]
_________________
|
Veronw
Marshal
Joined: December 13, 2004
Posts: 554
| Posted: 2010-04-04 14:39
Yes, a fight range where UGTO are pretty much uncontested due to giant playerbase for them, mostly made up of Admirals+. A defensive, ranged faction should not be created to fight on an 'even level playing field'. They should be ranged, they SHOULD be able to fight at a long range uncontested, UGTO need to get their heads beat in with weapons that cant be shot down.
Stupid idea in my personal opinion, you should probably just change your labeling for the factions officially, since you appear to have done so behind the scenes already. UGTO>all.
[ This Message was edited by: Veronw on 2010-04-04 14:40 ]
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2010-04-04 14:53
But us ICC players prefer to engage at >1,500 range. Missiles and stuff shoul easily surpass 2,000gu, so UGTO can just shoot missiles at IC cannon sniping.
Even percentile changes don't really matter, Jack - the fact of the matter is that our RAIL GUNS are far better suited to ICC combat than Ion Cannons are now - in fact I'd infinitely prefer the Assault Dreadnought Ion Cannons to be replaced by Heavy Rail Guns at this point, because range is just so much more important to us.
We're not even complaining about our shield regen getting nerfed.
Now we're complaining about nerfing our ranged weaponry because UGTO likes engagements at 1,000gu. ICC doesn't. ICC sucks at close-range. This has been driven home a lot. Sure, we can fire our Torpedoes, but you'll see many ICC players actually like engagements at far-range whereas UGTO'll always jump in when they're not hugging planets.
This is a change I simply cannot reconcile as a good one. ICC is already unpopular, nerfing our advantage in range to "rail/gauss gun" as the only thing the other factions don't have is a very, very hard to understand development move.
What're the chances of just getting Rail Guns instead of Ion Cannons? Or will Rail Guns be the next "to be nerfed" weapon? Because remember ICC doesn't want to engage at as much range as possible we want to be near the UGTO so they can hammer us, too.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2010-04-04 15:29
All cannons are planned to have their ranges reduced to give missiles undisputed primacy in long range engagements. Cores were just the first to be changed. The general ranges of weapons will be tweaked to be beams, torps, cannons, cores, missiles, increasing in 200-300gu increments, up through missiles, which go out a fair bit further.
That's a simplification, but is the gist of it.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Fatal Command (CO)
Chief Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: November 27, 2002
Posts: 1159
From: Back in Texas and noticing some ppl are like canoes.....they need to be paddled.
| Posted: 2010-04-04 15:43
ok...lets look at EACH statement
Whether you want to admit it or not, IC's were fired at distances no-one else could do anything about. Whilst K'luth could cloak to avoid the damage, UGTO could do little but sit there and take it like champs.
PER the DEVELOPERS/MODS..ICC is the Defensive/Ranged faction.
As for UGTO taking it like champs.they can sit by the planet and have the sup plats and ships repair their TOTAL defensive armor with impunity.
ICC shields fail,we run or die.period.We're RANGED remember.
Remember that all core weapons ranges were nerfed.
UGTO..Close range combat ships -No effect to combat status...K'luth on top of you and UP your exhaust ships- no effect to combat status....ICC...RANGED combat- puts ICC ships in range of all UGTO/Kluth long and short range weps almost immmediately.
If you do the percentage differences, the differences are still the same (30%). So infact, you lose nothing. It just brings the fight closer to the 1k gu range we prefer fights to happen at (data!).
damage wise at close range yeah your right..not much loss...but ICC is RANGED as per Devs/Mods.
as to bringing the fight closer to the 1gu range "we " like..we means who exactly???one ONE developer plays ICC and according to him,he knew NOTHING about the core weapon changes?Every other Mod/Dev that I know of playing is UGTO...
YOU figure it out as to why it was done.But after some of the discussions I've sen and had...shortly...ICC is going to be your new AI faction at this rate.Changing em from Ranged to short ranged / in your facce combat just killed any chance of ICC surviving a fight.
thanks.
Neither is particularly balanced, so we decided to bring the difference in ranges in-line with other weapons to balance things out.
You and others back have been preaching "ships are Balanced since I camr back.Now all of a sudden,they arent?
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Command*CO* on 2010-04-04 15:48 ]
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2010-04-04 15:45
I see. That leaves an important question. Will you nerf fighters, too? Missiles (and in the past, Ion Cannons) can be countered with UGTO's own missiles, which are nothing inferior to ICC missiles, but fighters can't be efficiently countered from their range.
I suggest a 1,500gu max range from which to deploy fighters so carriers can be properly shot at without forcing people to jump or move or perform any tactical maneuvres.
--
All things serious, this means ICC's getting put back to a mediocre faction with a "long-range" tag which basically just means, "Your Dreads have missile slots of... variable utility, you need to stay at range to have an advantage over others, but that range is a difference of like 200-300gu so it's easy to overcome by enemies oh and when we say, 'Long-range Faction' we really just mean 'You have a Missile Dreadnought and others don't'."?
Really, we get the part about removing range from us because we can attack mid-range and close-range factions without getting hit - I mean that's just unfair, equality for all bros. But are you honestly going to turn ICC into a mid-range faction?
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
