| Author |
[Beta] Dreadnaught layouts |
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
|  Posted: 2011-05-24 04:52
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 03:21, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 03:15, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 01:36, FA-Tony*RO* wrote:
how does the AD fit into this then?
|
|
More firepower than EAD, less def/armor than EAD.
|
|
I hightly doub't anyone except ICC would like your idea Kenny. The thing is, ICC is supposed to be the defensive faction.
|
|
Unfortunately the AD now has less firepower and less defence than the EAD. So I think my idea sounds a lot better than the status quo! 
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2011-05-24 05:20
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 04:52, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 03:21, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 03:15, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 01:36, FA-Tony*RO* wrote:
how does the AD fit into this then?
|
|
More firepower than EAD, less def/armor than EAD.
|
|
I hightly doub't anyone except ICC would like your idea Kenny. The thing is, ICC is supposed to be the defensive faction.
|
|
Unfortunately the AD now has less firepower and less defence than the EAD. So I think my idea sounds a lot better than the status quo!
|
|
The AD has better defence, but it has horrible attack compared to the EAD, mainly because weapons and layout don't synchronize well as an assault ship.
Shields are burned quickly. People state that 270% shields are also burned quickly. Well, armor is also burned quickly but the EAD burns shields faster than the AD can burn armor. This is because the EAD which has
-slugger weapons which are slower but do more damage, but not to the extent of kluth like
-Almost everything pointed forward, allowing more points for more fore weapons
-Decent defence, will proly be burned just like shields if 2 EADs had an FF war
The AD has
-Torps and ICs that hit better than the UGTO counterparts at range, but up close the only advantage is less FF splashing
-Better defence although its attack hardly makes up for it
-Better arcs, meaning less fore weapons
-Many ICC forget that they also have armor below those shields, so shields may be burned but your armor isn't even touched yet
If the AD got UGTO weps it would proly win, cuz then the damage difference wouldn't be so great and shields can compensate. AD will also win if more fore power is made, which is the case in release.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-05-24 06:28
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 05:20, SpaceAdmiral wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 04:52, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 03:21, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 03:15, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 01:36, FA-Tony*RO* wrote:
how does the AD fit into this then?
|
|
More firepower than EAD, less def/armor than EAD.
|
|
I hightly doub't anyone except ICC would like your idea Kenny. The thing is, ICC is supposed to be the defensive faction.
|
|
Unfortunately the AD now has less firepower and less defence than the EAD. So I think my idea sounds a lot better than the status quo!
|
|
The AD has better defence, but it has horrible attack compared to the EAD, mainly because weapons and layout don't synchronize well as an assault ship.
Shields are burned quickly. People state that 270% shields are also burned quickly. Well, armor is also burned quickly but the EAD burns shields faster than the AD can burn armor. This is because the EAD which has
-slugger weapons which are slower but do more damage, but not to the extent of kluth like
-Almost everything pointed forward, allowing more points for more fore weapons
-Decent defence, will proly be burned just like shields if 2 EADs had an FF war
The AD has
-Torps and ICs that hit better than the UGTO counterparts at range, but up close the only advantage is less FF splashing
-Better defence although its attack hardly makes up for it
-Better arcs, meaning less fore weapons
-Many ICC forget that they also have armor below those shields, so shields may be burned but your armor isn't even touched yet
If the AD got UGTO weps it would proly win, cuz then the damage difference wouldn't be so great and shields can compensate. AD will also win if more fore power is made, which is the case in release.
|
|
We've tested it.
Take a Siphon and alpha an EAD, frontal. It takes 3 to 4 alphas to burn through. The AD would be hulled in 2 alphas. You won't be able to transfer shields fast enough to counter that.
That's why we've long known that ICC as a defensive faction is broken. By definition, the AD should be the toughest ship out there, even without rotating shields.
You can look at a few options:
- Shields need to be stronger. In other words, without rotation, shields + armor should on an AD be perhaps 25% stronger than the EAD.
- Shields should rotate or transfer between arcs faster, or in bigger "steps".
Or....
- Shields should have a faster regeneration rate (like Kluth armor) to make up for their weakness
But in any case, the AD needs to have its weapons loadout strengthen to bring its burst damage to within 15% of the EAD.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
*FTL*Soulless
Marshal
Joined: June 25, 2010
Posts: 787
From: Dres-Kona
| Posted: 2011-05-24 06:59
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 05:20, SpaceAdmiral wrote:
The AD has better defence, but it has horrible attack compared to the EAD, mainly because weapons and layout don't synchronize well as an assault ship.
Shields are burned quickly. People state that 270% shields are also burned quickly. Well, armor is also burned quickly but the EAD burns shields faster than the AD can burn armor. This is because the EAD which has
-slugger weapons which are slower but do more damage, but not to the extent of kluth like
-Almost everything pointed forward, allowing more points for more fore weapons
-Decent defence, will proly be burned just like shields if 2 EADs had an FF war
The AD has
-Torps and ICs that hit better than the UGTO counterparts at range, but up close the only advantage is less FF splashing
-Better defence although its attack hardly makes up for it
-Better arcs, meaning less fore weapons
-Many ICC forget that they also have armor below those shields, so shields may be burned but your armor isn't even touched yet
If the AD got UGTO weps it would proly win, cuz then the damage difference wouldn't be so great and shields can compensate. AD will also win if more fore power is made, which is the case in release.
|
|
How does the AD have better defence if it can get hulled in 1 alpha by either a Siphon or EAD and EAD it takes at least 2 with Siphon?
ummm if shields are 0% your armor is gonna take damage takes damage. How does range help if those QSTs till do a high amout of damage?
the AD would not win if it got monkie weps because its weak defence would crumple just as fast. If you put a larger cannon on a Sherman tank it is still a Sherman. This is like the Sherman Vs the Panzer (even though it shouldn't be) during WW2. The panzer could 1 shot the Sherman from almost any range while the sherman has to get withen 600 yards(I think) and shot at the Panzers weaker side armor
Thats your historical reference for the day
--ohh kenny having more shields transered at a time only means you delay getting hulled by a couple secs before All your shields are burned through
[ This Message was edited by: Soulless *ADM* on 2011-05-24 07:11 ]
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.
|
Dakili
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 07, 2007
Posts: 86
From: Quebec
| Posted: 2011-05-24 07:40
We could actually increase the ratio rate of shields on dreadnought? Which would increase their totap HP on dreadnought without making any changes in the shields at all that could affect any other ship classes. This way, ICC dreads could take more damage but would take more time to recharge? I think the best way to make them more defensive would be to increase the hp of shields.
Making a new type of shield would make too much changes on all other classes of ship and could be unbanlanced for certain ships.
So amyone thing that idea is good?
_________________
Would you be quite gentle as to take this coffee cup in the face and get knocked uncounscious my dear friend.
|
Pakhos[+R]
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: May 31, 2002
Posts: 1352
From: Clean room lab
| Posted: 2011-05-24 09:41
Or we can increase by 10% each resistance on shields. That would be eaiser for devs instead of adding removing more gagdets on AD.
_________________
* Josef hands [PB]Quantium the Golden GothThug award for best melodrama in a miniseries...
[-GTN-]BackSlash: "Azreal is a master of showing me what is horribly broken in the game."
|
Dakili
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 07, 2007
Posts: 86
From: Quebec
| Posted: 2011-05-24 09:48
Im not saying on adding shields. Im just saying to actually change the Ratio on the shield for dreadnought. That would make the shields stronger. I doub't it's that hard (Well I know it's kind of hard but would be easier then adding devices or changing the values of the resistance of shields)
+ If you do change the value of the shields or anything, that change would probably apply on the other ship classes as well. Including cruisers, destroyers, frigs and etc even though they ARE balanced right now.
I think right now we should just wait for the devs to answer. Seeing what they entend to do.
_________________
Would you be quite gentle as to take this coffee cup in the face and get knocked uncounscious my dear friend.
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-05-24 09:59
Shields are just as weak overall no matter what ship they're on, it's just most people don't say anything about smaller ships because it's harder to hit them and most people don't test them because they're more focused on DN/Station.
Even I forgot to post results of Cruiser tests, but now that I'm thinking about it I'll do that before I forget again.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2011-05-24 10:21
I'll say this again...
Shields have 90% (give or take a few percentile) of the HP standard armour has at all levels. Givint it 10% resistance would just increase it's HP by 10%, as would increasing its HP.
We are not about to increase anything on the shields. Everything has to have a con for each pro. Shields regenerate MUCH faster than armour and they can be rotated to give 270% more hp on one arc, which the other factions cannot do. This will not be changed.
I have just commited a change to beta (which should be in roughly 5 minutes after this post) which increased the rotation rate of shields from 10% to 50%. This should aid in that initial burst damage, and allow ICC players to move their shields around faster in combat.
Those making statements without trying beta will simply have their posts removed to aid in helping us read the topic for useful replies, and to avoid confusion from other players.
The amount of damage other ships do is entirely speculative until we balance out many of the weapons we are tweaking daily. For example, I am still tweaking beam damage, and since the EAD is much more reliant on beams than the AD, lowering the beams damage will affect the EAD much more.
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2011-05-24 10:32 ]
_________________
|
Ants
Chief Marshal
Joined: February 11, 2005
Posts: 315
From: Canada
| Posted: 2011-05-24 10:43
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 10:21, Pantheon wrote:
I'll say this again...
Shields have 90% (give or take a few percentile) of the HP standard armour has at all levels. Givint it 10% resistance would just increase it's HP by 10%, as would increasing its HP.
We are not about to increase anything on the shields. Everything has to have a con for each pro. Shields regenerate MUCH faster than armour and they can be rotated to give 270% more hp on one arc, which the other factions cannot do. This will not be changed.
I have just commited a change to beta (which should be in roughly 5 minutes after this post) which increased the rotation rate of shields from 10% to 50%. This should aid in that initial burst damage, and allow ICC players to move their shields around faster in combat.
Those making statements without trying beta will simply have their posts removed to aid in helping us read the topic for useful replies, and to avoid confusion from other players.
The amount of damage other ships do is entirely speculative until we balance out many of the weapons we are tweaking daily. For example, I am still tweaking beam damage, and since the EAD is much more reliant on beams than the AD, lowering the beams damage will affect the EAD much more.
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2011-05-24 10:32 ]
|
|
I see my post was deleted.
I am in beta almost daily testing all factions.
If you check you logs you will see my accounts logging in to beta almost every day, there is no reason to delete my posts.
_________________
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2011-05-24 11:00
Uh, it seems I may have mistakenly deleted your post. My bad  .
_________________
|
µOmniVore
Grand Admiral
Joined: September 13, 2006
Posts: 171
| Posted: 2011-05-24 11:42
I haven't tested the new shield rotation settings yet but, people are forgetting about aux shield gens, the ICC hate them because they are mapped to the same keys as your shields to when you rotate your draining your shields in favor for the arc you choose as well as the ASG. i simply say don't give them key bindings.
As a mostly ICC player i can say that i am loving the new Cruisers(all of them), MD, Cdread, and thats it. like most players i have issues with the AD simply because its an assault ship that can't assault. IMO in order to give the AD some more fire power i suggest removing like 3 torps in favor of 2 more ion cannons, why cause if the ICC are supposed to be the ranged defensive faction then the AD's bit should be at as long a range as possible. The EAD is really good i am not saying the AD should be equal to the EAD just the AD should be a long range EAD not per-say but what the EAD can do up close the AD should be able to do at range.
The MD is great its the perfect Missile dread Please don't nerf the Harpex missiles they OWN. But the K'luth with their stealth missiles makes them the missile faction now simply cause they can launch missiles then cloak, since ECCM/ECM ranges have been reduced pulse lasers, or for that matter any lasers have a hard time intercepting them. Solution ships that defend, the CD,HC,ED should all have scanners so that it's at least balanced.
Also the MD minimal range in its missiles is a joke 424gu is outrageous i suggest 125gu - 250gu and do the same for the K'luth MD cause as it stand the K'luth MD can cloak get behind you decloak fire its missiles at a very close range(=no time to intercept) and cloak again while the MD is constantly exposed.
I am loving the strike Cruiser it's is intended to replace the AD in my opinion since it has range and speed(with enhancements it can only get better) my only problem with it is why not give it the uni-armor that stations currently have and 4 arcs of shields, instead if no aft armor.
Last the ICC Command carrier is a Joke, why, like many have said it's is a larger engineer with fighters if that is the case it should have 10 fighters 2 build drones and 1 reload drone since it's not mainly for fighting. the UGTO CC is aw-some in comparison it has many torps fighters and cannons. it's a EAD with out all the beams. if it has such a Strong offense i say it should only have 6 fighters 1 build drone and 1 reload. I know the command carriers are strategic ships but they should only have enough weapons to get rid of ai ships if a player wants to fight then they get a combat ship.
As a question of merit since i currently own 2 or 3 build enhancements are they coming back and if not am i gonna get a credit refund for the ones i currently have.
_________________
When we fail to dream we fail as a society.
|
Okkam
Marshal
Joined: February 06, 2008
Posts: 157
From: Dorset
| Posted: 2011-05-24 13:11
Ok, i'll state this quickly and move on.
Can we please, for the love of god, stop talking about which is better, the EAD or the AD. This isn't a two ship showdown so move on and accept the changes, comment on what you believe should be changed and thats it. Don't waste valuable time in this thread debating the ability of the EAD and AD going at it.
That being said, the seige dreadnaught really really needs to be looked at. I cannot see it being useful EVER. Those Planetary Cruise missiles do absolutely nothing to planets in comparison to normal bombs, and at that they have lower speed, and ammunition as the normal anti ship missiles.
If you state that the seige dreadnaught doesn't have to use the Planetary missiles then in that argument I put forward WHY BOTHER FLYING IT?
We already have a missile dreadnaught... shockingly it is called the Missile Dreadnaught.
Seriously, can the seige dreadnaught be changed to mirvs?
_________________
When the universe collapses and dies there will be 3 survivors; Tyr Anasazi, the cockroaches and Dylan Hunt trying to save the cockroaches...
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-05-24 13:26
You can switch PSMs out for Mirvs or Neutrons at a planet, but yeah, that should not be a requirement for getting any use out of the ship.
The issue with PSMs is that they explode before actually hitting a target, Jim looked at them yesterday and said he couldn't see any reason why they would do that, but there's obviously something wrong with them when you can launch a dozen full salvos (that's 84 PSMs) at a single structure or infantry unit and have it do 0 damage.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2011-05-24 15:05
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-24 13:26, Talien wrote:
You can switch PSMs out for Mirvs or Neutrons at a planet, but yeah, that should not be a requirement for getting any use out of the ship.
The issue with PSMs is that they explode before actually hitting a target, Jim looked at them yesterday and said he couldn't see any reason why they would do that, but there's obviously something wrong with them when you can launch a dozen full salvos (that's 84 PSMs) at a single structure or infantry unit and have it do 0 damage.
|
|
Tested in beta just now - they hit the planet just fine for me. Make sure you have multi-core support disabled in setup if your machine doesn't support accurate timing.
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
