| Author |
Test increase to CL and Disruptors |
Tael
2nd Rear Admiral
Palestar
Joined: July 03, 2002
Posts: 3697
From: San Francisco Bay Area
|  Posted: 2006-07-20 03:35
Increase Damage on Cl's and Disruptors by 10%
Increased range on Disruptors by undisclosed ammount.
This is only a test to see if it brings the weapons back inline with the new bomb changes. these numbers are in no way permanent...
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-07-20 08:38
Good to see they're being changed,but will this mean they go back to their original design of doing more damage than disruptors up close, but doing less at long ranges?
And don't forget the HCL's!
_________________
|
Tael
2nd Rear Admiral
Palestar
Joined: July 03, 2002
Posts: 3697
From: San Francisco Bay Area
| Posted: 2006-07-20 11:22
all chems and disruptors, normal and assualt boosted.
And Cl's do more damage than disruptors, disruptors dont have fall off.
_________________
|
GothThug {C?}
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 29, 2005
Posts: 2932
| Posted: 2006-07-20 11:35
w00t!
_________________
|
Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A
| Posted: 2006-07-20 11:42
I'll test em as soon as beta is up =)
_________________
|
Bobamelius
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 2074
From: Ohio
| Posted: 2006-07-20 15:30
Only 10% ?
Doesn't sound like anything... but I guess I should try it out before complaining.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-07-20 17:01
I seem to remember you saying that Disruptors did more damage than CL's in 1.483. And they seem that way too... In 1.482 and before, they seemed to do significantly more damage at close range, but significantly less at long range..
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2006-07-22 06:40
I did a little bit of testing on this earlier in a Bomber Cruiser vs a Scarab.
Getting within 70gu I was able to take down the Scarabs armor. The damage was noticeably higher at between 30-50 gu and reasonably effective.
Trying to use the CL's at anything over 100 gu was like trying to cut a stone with a butter knife.
I was quite suprised at the lack of firepower from the Scarab, to be honest I was fully expecting to be mauled, considering the Bomber Cruiser isn't an any way designed as a combat vessel.
Part of this may be due to the Scarabs mines doing absolutely no damage whatsoever, but I would still have expected the rest of the weaponry to deliver a significantly harder punch.
Also take into account that this was a battle with a K'luth ship, which have pretty weak armor as it is. I doubt the CL's would be anywhere near as effective VS an ICC ship.
It might be worthwhile upping the repair rate on K'luth armor a little bit.
[ This Message was edited by: Drafell on 2006-07-22 06:43 ]
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-07-22 11:45
In my opinion, beams should work a little like the following:
CL:
0% gu--------------------------------------------------MAX% gu
100% ----------------- 100% ----------------------- 50%
HCL:
0% gu--------------------------------------------------MAX% gu
100% --------------------------- 100% ------------- 50%
0% gu = sitting ontop of target.
MA% gu = max range of beam.
I think this works out well. CL's hit their falloff range at about 50% of their max range, and slowly do less damage the further out they get (until they hit max, at which it should be 50% of their full damage). HCL's hit their falloff at about 75%, and then get a heavy falloff for the remainder of its range. This should make the Assault Dread do the damage it should do, considering it has a few HCL's, and the EAD should really benifit from this as it's the only real human beam ship.
I think the HCL energy usage needs to be taken a look at too, considering just 5 of them use more energy than a QST, or about the same, which is silly.
The AD already has a quite nice amount of energy usage per damage (but still needs a bit of work). The human beams still need to do more damage at 100% damage than disruptors, but obviously, less than disruptors when the falloff hits a certain level. Disruptors and AD's should go back to using more energy than human beams.
It's worked perfectly in the past before, andconsidering the fact that they should cloak after they've had one or two alpha's on the enemy, it shouldn't be any sort of nerf. It just forces them into hit and run, and should stop players thinking that K'luth should be able to duke it out. (Think about it, you're much more likely to think "Damn, my energy's low, better cloak", than "Damn, I should cloak because I've had one or two alpha's"). Obviously the K'luth beams shouldn't cost an INSANE amount of energy, just something that fits in well with their play style.
On a lighter note. The damage seems almost perfect. Some more testing Dread v Dread is needed. I went against Doran's EAD in every ship type available, and it mauled my armor, which is what it's meant to do. And my CL's did diddly squat to him  .
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2006-07-22 14:14 ]
_________________
|
Leonide
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: October 01, 2005
Posts: 1553
From: Newport News, Virginia
| Posted: 2006-07-22 17:01
i used the Carrier dread against an ICC MD, and a luthie Mandy. the ICC ship(given, it was goth.) took a good hit from my ship. but the mandy (smartin) took the CL's well. i barely damaged him, getting him to about 70-80% armor. i knwo the carrier isn't a combat ship like the BD or EAD. it seems to do a significantly less amount of damage than the BD. but what i like is the armor. it finally got fixed. i can take like two alphas from a mandy before an armor arc is depleted. but fighting them, i felt my ship was a wet noodle to a butcher knife. it jsut didn't have enough damage to at least hold my own against him. maybe it was designed this way...but being a Carrier pilot i would like a SMIDGE more combat power added to the Carrier. but then the modding isn't done in beta, so i have yet to test all P cannons/chem lazers....
_________________
captain of the ICC Assault Cruiser C.S.S. Sledgehammer
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-07-22 17:14
Carriers are not combat ships, they are there to fullfill the support roll, and are not meant to be at the front of any assault, and are only meant to dish out fighter damage. The longer the fight goes on, the more fighters out on the field, the more damage you do. That's where your damage is, not within your weapons. Please try and understand what your ship is designed for.
None of what came out of that test was fair, seeing as the Mandable is a battle-class ship, the Missile Dread is a long range missile platform, just like the Carrier Dread is a long range fighter platform. All of those ships are used for different things, and acuired at different ranks, so the test was useless, and any results you got from it (unless uberly wrong) are pretty much useless too.
The Carrier and Missile Dreads are meant to be used in tandem with other ships and are only suited for fleet work, or rather, are only intended for fleet work. If you're using them 1v1, then you deserve to be shot, as they are not designed to be able to do that.
Not to mention Carrier and Missile dreads are useless versus Kluth because they can cloak, and then the missiles explode, and the fighters return.
NEITHER of them are meant for close combat, just try and remember this in the future.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash *Jack* on 2006-07-22 17:18 ]
_________________
|
Tael
2nd Rear Admiral
Palestar
Joined: July 03, 2002
Posts: 3697
From: San Francisco Bay Area
| Posted: 2006-07-26 14:24
Lowered disruptor damage and tweaked Cl damage (both regular and heavy/assault).
Disruptors now do the same level of damage at all ranges as a comparable CL does at 50% of its range.
Beyond the CL's 50% range damage decreases dramatically, within its 50% range they do considerable more damage than Disruptors.
Disruptors are keeping their increased range for the time being though range does not affect their power or damage.
Therefore, at close range CL's are more devestating, while at Range Disruptors do more damage.
These changes will be in the next beta update...
_________________
|
Ragglock
Marshal
BIOnics Industry Syndicate
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1955
From: Denmark
| Posted: 2006-07-27 03:29
cl more dammage than disruptors at close range ????
excuse me should that not be the other way around ?
i thaught that we where aiming to make kluth more fast in battling armor down at expence of armor rating and energy drain.
cant exactly understand why to lower dammage on disrupters .
its not logic to make the few weapons they have weaker than the human counterparts at close range.
i tryed a few same class to class combat and in no instance i could go more than a few rounds against the human ships before i had to cloake either to recharge energy or rapair hull dammage , same time the human ships at most had 25 % - 35 to the armor or/and shild and seamed to have the armor selfrepair faster than the organic.
to get a hit on any ship of same class ftm you need to be in combat uncloaked for an very long time, goes againts the decloak strike cloake way, when human ships dont take hull dammage before you had 10 or more alphas on them dont you think.
and before you start up let me remark im not talking dred vs dred, more all ships below that range.
[ This Message was edited by: Ragglock on 2006-07-27 05:54 ]
_________________
P:@12 C:$38
LOVE the smell of human flesh in the morning smells like MVictory
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2006-07-27 05:59
Don't forget that CL's do A LOT less at long range.
_________________
|
Smartin
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 04, 2005
Posts: 1107
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2006-07-27 07:35
I also am a bit confused by all this. I thought that the K'luth was meant to be a short range, hit do lots of damage, and then claok faction. Witch to all my knowledge of kluth it is. I also know Jack has always said that UGTO is a medium range faction that is meant to stay in the battle longer and do damage over time.
Knowing all of the above why would you make UGTO have a beam(short range) ships that do massive damage up close? That seems to make them an excellent medium range combat ship with excellent short range power. Infact they are stronger at short range then K'luth. Kluths whole plan of attack is short range. Thats why are torps are slower and everything we have is suppose to do more damage.
I understand the concept of ruptors not having fall off witch is cool, and I understand that after getting 50% out of CL range they loose their power but still why make UGTO more deadly up close the K'luth? Perhaps we need more testing but at this piont I don't fully understand the why were going in this direction but am very willing learn why and help in testing any way I can.
I think CL should do more damage then they do in current release. From what I see they are worthless in 483 besdides PD. I think that K'luth need to do more damage though over time. Especially ships like the scale is primarly all beams so it will be forced to get close. What I can see happening is K'luth players seeing UGTO with massive armor and beams ships and once again K'luth being a fleet no one has any desire to fly.
_________________
DarkSpace Community Website
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
