| Author |
[Beta] Dreadnaught layouts |
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
|  Posted: 2011-05-22 09:41
Quote:
| On 2011-05-22 05:37, Defiance*XO* wrote:
remove the ECCM from the AD.
AD is our only counter to Kluth, to weaken it against them is unthinkable. |
|
I support removing ECCM from AD. You think AD is the only counter to Kluth. Actually, it counters Luth who wants to use small ship. I believe you're skillful enough to see yourself ping and kill many Luth ago.
EAD and AD are both assualt class. They have enough beam and projectile to manually track hidden ship.
In exchange of ECCM, extra fore armor or shield aux or beam is acceptable.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-05-22 10:38
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 07:37, Tommas [ USF HunnyBunny ] wrote:
Icc shield is better over time you say? But what does that matter when the new combat will be a short duration? Couple of alphas and your ship is gone.
.
|
|
See. Even a Kluth player recognizes this.
Better over time, shield rotation. All of this means nothing if a single Alpha from an Uggie assault dread punches through and hulls an ICC assault dread.
Both top of the class ships, but the defensive faction has no hand at the table. The EAD holds all the aces. 
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Silent Threat { Vier }
Marshal
Anarchy's End
Joined: August 03, 2004
Posts: 278
From: Waiting...watching...
| Posted: 2011-05-22 11:56
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 05:37, Defiance*XO* wrote:
to remove the ECCM from the AD, and weaken shields all around (your suggestions would hurt more than help) would be the final nail in ICC coffin.
AD is our only counter to Kluth, to weaken it against them is unthinkable.
One MAJOR, and simple step in the right direction, would be to put the ADs other for active shield generator back. Let us test it that way.. may fix everything who knows.
|
|
I'd have to agree with Defiance here from the K'luth point of view. As long as the AD has that ECCM, I'd rather take on groups of EADs than groups of ADs anytime. That lack of ECCM is the EAD's biggest and maybe only real weakness in my opinion. If I were you, I'd want the ECCM on my AD.
_________________
|
Marius Falix
Grand Admiral
Joined: July 05, 2010
Posts: 268
From: Luyten
| Posted: 2011-05-22 18:04
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 11:56, Silent Threat { Vier } wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 05:37, Defiance*XO* wrote:
to remove the ECCM from the AD, and weaken shields all around (your suggestions would hurt more than help) would be the final nail in ICC coffin.
AD is our only counter to Kluth, to weaken it against them is unthinkable.
One MAJOR, and simple step in the right direction, would be to put the ADs other for active shield generator back. Let us test it that way.. may fix everything who knows.
|
|
I'd have to agree with Defiance here from the K'luth point of view. As long as the AD has that ECCM, I'd rather take on groups of EADs than groups of ADs anytime. That lack of ECCM is the EAD's biggest and maybe only real weakness in my opinion. If I were you, I'd want the ECCM on my AD.
|
|
+1
luth dont have a problem, they have cloak their armour problems are countered by many other buffs, cloak, AHR, faster JD and thats all they really need xD their offencive capability has rarely been called into question other than it being too strong occasionaly.
may i note that the swarm(?) missiles are incredible! can barely pick em up for my PD to bring em down, i got hit full in the fore removing a full shield and god knows how much armour. (granted this was in beta and ENH were used, however this does reflect Meta as most luth players have strong ENH loadouts)
anyway back on point of ICC shields, i do feel they are lacking, especially for the AD/stations etc but not that much for CD. its more a stop gap with most our ships to allow us to gain distance (you have to eb smart with your JD as 1. luth charge faster and 2. Ugto have same JD capability) in other words, using the shields as a buffer untill you are far enough out of range to use.
again theres problems with this. one is the tactic can be rather boring when most people want a close in epic duel to the death hence why you will see less people flying like this.
hence i suggest an "experimental shield" i dunno, you can make it exclusive to assault ships and such but god do something xD
oh and yes most ships within ICC require def mode to be on to boost our survivability even when DEF mode was designated as a quick recharge for non combat conditions.
(
also to the shields having 90% hp of armour, well yours has specialised Resistance which REALLY goes far, ours also recharges, wow yay, usefull however also an ENERGY DRAIN, for every bonus we have an equal offset so as a whole ICC is rather mediocre.
we have this, but that happens to compensate.
this has a high percantage, yet this doesnt last long. etc etc.
)
i feel ICC have been worked on wrong... just wrong, not very specific or using statistics or anything but damn, you really do notice.
[ This Message was edited by: Marius Falix on 2011-05-22 18:09 ]
_________________
“We give our lives for the lives of Humanity. May you all see better days.”
We are the Falix Brothers...
|
MarineKingPrime
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 239
From: CSS CheezyBagels
| Posted: 2011-05-22 18:19
all excellent points about ICC.
I have doubts as to whether ICC will get buffed though
_________________
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2011-05-22 18:25
UGTO armour types also have cons for their pros.
Ablative has:
+ Kinetic resistance
- Energy Resistance
No regen
Reflective has:
+ Energy resistance
- Kinetik resistance
Lower HP
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, the feeling that armour is stronger is purely a placebo effect. -10% hp and minor energy drain for the ability to have an extra 270% hp cycled to one facing is quite a large positive that we're in no hurry to change. Not forgetting defence mode!
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2011-05-22 18:32 ]
_________________
|
MarineKingPrime
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 239
From: CSS CheezyBagels
| Posted: 2011-05-22 18:31
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 18:25, Pantheon wrote:
UGTO armour types also have cons for their pros.
Ablative has:
+ Kinetic resistance
- Energy Resistance
No regen
Reflective has:
+ Energy resistance
- Kinetik resistance
Lower HP
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, the feeling that armour is stronger is purely a placebo effect. -10% hp and minor energy drain for the ability to have an extra 270% hp cycled to one facing is quite a large positive that we're in no hurry to change.
|
|
too bad kluth and ugto burn through that 270% incredibly fast.
_________________
|
Brutality
Marshal
Joined: May 25, 2009
Posts: 659
From: Alaska, USA
| Posted: 2011-05-22 18:33
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 18:25, Pantheon wrote:
UGTO armour types also have cons for their pros.
Ablative has:
+ Kinetic resistance
- Energy Resistance
No regen
Reflective has:
+ Energy resistance
- Kinetik resistance
Lower HP
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, the feeling that armour is stronger is purely a placebo effect. -10% hp and minor energy drain for the ability to have an extra 270% hp cycled to one facing is quite a large positive that we're in no hurry to change.
|
|
it doesn't matter if we are able to cycle an extra 1000% HP if the EAD can punch through most if not all of it in one alpha. Plus we are supposed to be the defensive faction and that is not the case at all in the new layouts.
[ This Message was edited by: FA-Tony*RO* on 2011-05-22 18:37 ]
_________________
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2011-05-22 18:46
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 03:07, Defiance*XO* wrote:
your dodging the issue....
ICC dread vs UGTO dread
UGTO dread has supirior defence due to specialized armor and vastly supirior offence.
UGTO dread has supirior offence.
ICC dread has better manuverability, but with fire rates of core weapons so high, thats moot.
ICC has supirior range by ~150gu... roughly 15 seconds of combat to close that gap.
++ i dont want icc dreads in 1.67 to become like icc stations in 1.66. We dont fly them because kluth, ugto counterparts are vastly supirior in both defence and offence....
Lets just say, im not going to sit idle and wach it happen. If i did, then people would ask us why we did not speak up while it was in beta.. If we speak up while its in beta, there is alwasy that one guy trying to derail everything we put forth with "you guys qq too much".
and ive not even started on ICC vs kluth... what a trainwreck that is........
Ive flown ICC since 2007 on multiple accounts. Im more than qualified to make these observations.
on this account alone, i have over 67 days of ICC play. Those making arguments against ICC havent even a third of that, as their faction no less.
Is this an issue? Yes
Do i know the fix to this issue? no
Im just stating why ICC is about to become a cruiser only faction, and how unappealing that will be to fight against.
[ This Message was edited by: Defiance*XO* on 2011-05-22 03:23 ]
|
|
UGTO have superior offense at slugger range because they're sluggers.
ICC shields are equal to armor at start, and only get better as the fight goes on.
Again superior range of 150 gu is just a number. In reality you have to factor weapon speeds, fall off, and at which range ICC can dodge.
ICC CD can easily beat the BD. Am I fine with it?
Yes.
Why?
Because it has a longer range stand off advantage, allowing it to exploit its range, the philosophy of ICC.
UGTO EAD can beat the ICC AD. Am I fine with it?
Yes.
Why?
Because assault ships are slugger ships (or in the case of kluth, assassins) and UGTO is the slugger faction.
The HC, much like the CD, can beat the BC and is more versatile than the BC overall, able to take larger and smaller ships that the BC can't. (Larger ships due to increased ability to dodge and no fall off, smaller ships because again it has more dodging power and faster weapon speeds)
Am I fine with it?
Again, yes because it is exploiting range and fast weapons, both faction advantages.
AC vs TC can go either way, depending much more largely on player experience than ships, as one has torp speed while the other has torp splash.
Are you implying you want the long range faction to beat the slugger faction at long range, mid range, and slugger ranges at the 2 most used ship classes?
Again, I'll repeat, the EAD is powerful because the UGTO weapons and layout synergize, slugger weapons on a slugger ship. The AD has standoff defences and weapons on a slugger ship. However, the CD has the same synergy as the EAD, and the HC has almost total synergy.
_________________
|
*FTL*Soulless
Marshal
Joined: June 25, 2010
Posts: 787
From: Dres-Kona
| Posted: 2011-05-22 18:59
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 18:46, SpaceAdmiral wrote:
|
|
UGTO have superior offense at slugger range because they're sluggers.
ICC shields are equal to armor at start, and only get better as the fight goes on.
Again superior range of 150 gu is just a number. In reality you have to factor weapon speeds, fall off, and at which range ICC can dodge.
ICC CD can easily beat the BD. Am I fine with it?
Yes.
Why?
Because it has a longer range stand off advantage, allowing it to exploit its range, the philosophy of ICC.
UGTO EAD can beat the ICC AD. Am I fine with it?
Yes.
Why?
Because assault ships are slugger ships (or in the case of kluth, assassins) and UGTO is the slugger faction.
The HC, much like the CD, can beat the BC and is more versatile than the BC overall, able to take larger and smaller ships that the BC can't. (Larger ships due to increased ability to dodge and no fall off, smaller ships because again it has more dodging power and faster weapon speeds)
Am I fine with it?
Again, yes because it is exploiting range and fast weapons, both faction advantages.
AC vs TC can go either way, depending much more largely on player experience than ships, as one has torp speed while the other has torp splash.
Are you implying you want the long range faction to beat the slugger faction at long range, mid range, and slugger ranges at the 2 most used ship classes?
Again, I'll repeat, the EAD is powerful because the UGTO weapons and layout synergize, slugger weapons on a slugger ship. The AD has standoff defences and weapons on a slugger ship. However, the CD has the same synergy as the EAD, and the HC has almost total synergy.
[/quote]
Shouldn't ICC be the slugger fraction due to shields...one would think but what makes sence does not apply here.
UGTO and K'Luth can just as easly dodge ICC shots at range
EAD vs AD should be a close match due to the AD being able to keep its foward guns pointed at the EAD longer than the EAD can safetly keep its foward guns pointed at the AD
Again BC can just as easly dodge as the HC
TC VS AC...only one i agree on
Not beat at close range..a close fight depending on the skill of the pilot
AD does not have standoff weapons. All that really happened was it lost CLS for torps and 1 more IC. If anything it SHOULD be better at "slugging" it out than before.
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-05-22 19:20
**Again superior range of 150 gu is just a number. In reality you have to factor weapon speeds, fall off, and at which range ICC can dodge.
this is the last time im saying it, cus im tired of sounding like a broken wrecord..
Im speaking strictly on AD vs EAD here, not even coinsidering siphon.
AD vs EAD range supiriority is only 150GU.
***Are you implying you want the long range faction to beat the slugger faction at long range, mid range, and slugger ranges at the 2 most used ship classes?
Hell nO!
I WANT IT TO NOT BE SO ONE SIDED!! even beyond skill, EAD will win every engagement of equal numbers.
I think its bonkers, that the EAD can so affectivly negate ICC>
1. Ablative armor ensures we have a hard time at long range.
2. Vastly supirior offence ensures we die nicely at close range.
I just dont want UGTO to have a "I WIN" ship.
hell currently equal numbers of Stations vs EADS would end in icc being slaughtered.
our only move? Pull HCs and SCs and peck you to death. We will see if you continue to sing your song with 22 icc pilots tearing your EAD fleet asunder without you being able to even return fire.
your responce? Get smaller ships. The area where ICC really dominates in.
so yea, its fine the way it is, dont fix our dreads. screw em.
[ This Message was edited by: Defiance*XO* on 2011-05-22 19:36 ]
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-05-22 20:36
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 19:20, Defiance*XO* wrote:
our only move? Pull HCs and SCs and peck you to death. We will see if you continue to sing your song with 22 icc pilots tearing your EAD fleet asunder without you being able to even return fire.
your responce? Get smaller ships. The area where ICC really dominates in.
so yea, its fine the way it is, dont fix our dreads. screw em.
|
|
The only thing you said that I don't agree with is this. The SC is not a good counter to Dreadnoughts because when it gets targeted it has to move away and can no longer use approximately 80% of it's firepower. It's a gimmick ship and is really only good against shrooms, but I expect stations to be used less with the new layouts, partly because of the speed reduction for stations, but mostly because of how well the new Combat Dreadnought does against them.
The HC however does very well against just about any target, as does the new Border Cruiser provided it doesn't get point jumped.
Actually speaking of the Combat Dread, why does it have 1 HCL?
[ This Message was edited by: Talien on 2011-05-22 20:40 ]
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-05-22 20:58
SC is a great ship, it has same ammount of guns on rear as HC. its brodside only has 3 heavy guns, but the front has a total of 7 launchers. Im sure imaginations will lead you to the appropriate enh to maximize this ships performance. The HC will shine in more situations for sure, but ranged engagements go hands down to teh SC.
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
Marius Falix
Grand Admiral
Joined: July 05, 2010
Posts: 268
From: Luyten
| Posted: 2011-05-22 21:00
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 20:36, Talien wrote:
Actually speaking of the Combat Dread, why does it have 1 HCL?
[ This Message was edited by: Talien on 2011-05-22 20:40 ]
|
|
my belief is for tracking cloaking ships, beem sweeps or just for burning away at smaller ships which can evade its cannons.
however Official response would be nice
_________________
“We give our lives for the lives of Humanity. May you all see better days.”
We are the Falix Brothers...
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-05-22 21:32
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-22 20:58, Defiance*XO* wrote:
SC is a great ship, it has same ammount of guns on rear as HC. its brodside only has 3 heavy guns, but the front has a total of 7 launchers. Im sure imaginations will lead you to the appropriate enh to maximize this ships performance. The HC will shine in more situations for sure, but ranged engagements go hands down to teh SC.
|
|
Yeah, like I said, in the few situations where it can USE that firepower (against shrooms) it'll do good. It will, however, be a primary target and most likely won't be able to for very long.
I'll say it again, and keep saying it, the original config of 5 Ions and Frigate-style armor (front/rear only) was the best balanced. The only change it needed was changing the 3 tri arc Ions to 1 of them fore only arc, 1 f/r, and 1 f/l, and adding a couple cannons to cover the points. It'd have given it 2 Ions each side instead of 4, 0 rear coverage, and very low combat endurance. The irony is it was changed because some people felt 5 Ions was too much firepower, but the current layout has even more firepower and better defense at the expense of coverage.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
