| Author |
[1.7] Beta Feedback |
Cold Death
Admiral
Joined: July 24, 2011
Posts: 106
From: Right behind you...
|  Posted: 2013-08-29 02:41
Quote:
On 2013-08-28 18:34, Terra Nova wrote:
is there a possibilty for introducing a Missile Corvette? i think a layout like this would be a decent setup (yes i know , this setup is the ICC version) :
1x Local ECM
3x Anti-Radar Missile (missile frig has like 6 - 8 light missiles so 3 is fair)
1x Pulse Beam
1x Reactive Shield (left,right,fore,aft)
1x Composite Armor (left,right,fore,aft)
2x Ion Engine (i think that standard for most frigates/corvettes)
1x Auxillary Reactor
it would be a good ship for raiding transports , engineers and supply ships
or harassing heavy attack ships. cruisers , dreads , stations ( en masse )
[ This Message was edited by: Terra Nova on 2013-08-28 19:27 ]
|
The problem is that the only ship class a missile corvette would be effective against is another corvette, because they don't have as much PD. However, they are damn fast, so you'd have a really hard time hitting one successfully.
_________________
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2013-08-29 03:05
They *could* have a missile type which does half the damage but costs half the layout points, then they'd fullfill their role as an anti-destroyer skirmisher.
Maybe not quite half the points, but to the extent that they could use 6-5 missiles as frigates do, but with less damage per missile and even higher turn rate.
By the way... station cruise missiles = RIP everything
Dread - dead at any range it attempts to engage from
Cruiser - On very very thin ice, even if it manages staying at 680gu
Destroyer - Slightly better at evading the cannons, but 1 hit KO from missiles
Frigate - Can't really put out enough firepower to scratch it, missile splash lethal
Scouts - Maybe bring 10 and you'll kill a station sometime this year :U
^This is when the station has no escorts and isn't even near a planet.
_________________
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-08-29 09:21
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 03:05, Fluttershy wrote:
They *could* have a missile type which does half the damage but costs half the layout points, then they'd fullfill their role as an anti-destroyer skirmisher.
Maybe not quite half the points, but to the extent that they could use 6-5 missiles as frigates do, but with less damage per missile and even higher turn rate.
By the way... station cruise missiles = RIP everything
Dread - dead at any range it attempts to engage from
Cruiser - On very very thin ice, even if it manages staying at 680gu
Destroyer - Slightly better at evading the cannons, but 1 hit KO from missiles
Frigate - Can't really put out enough firepower to scratch it, missile splash lethal
Scouts - Maybe bring 10 and you'll kill a station sometime this year :U
^This is when the station has no escorts and isn't even near a planet.
|
I do believe you are talking 1v1. It would be foolish for anyone to engage a battle station 1v1 at long range with its new missiles unless they had an ecm cloak.
-Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2013-08-29 10:19
when luth disruptors go outta range, or there firing arc, they still loop the firing noice, and the weapon points are still lit up as if they are firing.
_________________
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-08-29 10:24
There is a rather serious problem, in my view, regarding build drone enhancements. I am not sure if this is intentional but the drones appear to be reducing the time it takes to build by 70-80% when the enhancements are applied. Along with 3 of the new engineer auras this results in ludicrously short build times. Trader of destiny and I tested this and he was able to construct 3 ICC offense base IIs in around 45 seconds. and a shield generator would literally be finished in 5 seconds. I am relatively certain that building planets is not supposed to take that short of a time. Is this intentional? If so I would point out that this can result in being able to finish a planet in almost no time flat. The only barrier would be the rate at which tech and pop grows. Additionally this test was conducted with the tier 1 ICC engineer which has only 1 build drone. with the tier 3 the results would probably be more startling.
Additionally, while I applaud the new build speed not affecting how much prestige you lose based on speed of the structure built this causes prestige to go up by about 10, every 3-5 seconds. I am again not sure if this was intentional or not but it results in very fast press gain whiile building planets.
I humbly suggest that this be reviewed before release.
-Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
Valiant Wolf
Admiral
Joined: March 20, 2010
Posts: 15
| Posted: 2013-08-29 10:50
Couple of things about the wormhole device that I picked up on while flying an ICC Command Carrier (I'd be using a UGTO CD were the layout updated):
> The device tooltip only dispalys the device name; I assume that at some point things like cooldown, energy consumption and min/maximum range will be shown too.
> The device can no longer be refitted on said command ships in favour of a HMA or Tachyon Drive or whatever; personally I just want to know if this is intentional or not (I hardly fly them without the WHD myself, but for the sake of others).
> Wormholes cannot be used to travel between sectors; This might not have been such a problem in the old map, but in the new map there are 13 sectors, at least 6 of which people will want to use wormholes between.
> Additionally, trying to create a wormhole to another sector is bugged; doing so creates a single wormhole gate which upon entry acts like a homegate, but can also be used as a location from which one can spawn ships. I don't want to be attacking a command dread to have it jump into a wormhole and come back out as a fully repaired assault dread.
Oh, and I got bored, so I made a map of the new multiverse. Tell me if I've got anything wrong.
Thanks,
~Wolf
_________________
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2013-08-29 10:56
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 10:24, Sheraton *XO* wrote:
There is a rather serious problem, in my view, regarding build drone enhancements. I am not sure if this is intentional but the drones appear to be reducing the time it takes to build by 70-80% when the enhancements are applied. Along with 3 of the new engineer auras this results in ludicrously short build times. Trader of destiny and I tested this and he was able to construct 3 ICC offense base IIs in around 45 seconds. and a shield generator would literally be finished in 5 seconds. I am relatively certain that building planets is not supposed to take that short of a time. Is this intentional? If so I would point out that this can result in being able to finish a planet in almost no time flat. The only barrier would be the rate at which tech and pop grows. Additionally this test was conducted with the tier 1 ICC engineer which has only 1 build drone. with the tier 3 the results would probably be more startling.
Additionally, while I applaud the new build speed not affecting how much prestige you lose based on speed of the structure built this causes prestige to go up by about 10, every 3-5 seconds. I am again not sure if this was intentional or not but it results in very fast press gain whiile building planets.
I humbly suggest that this be reviewed before release.
-Sheraton
|
Yeah, with a 3 drone engineer, fully enhanced, that thing puts up platforms in something like 10 seconds.
On the other hand, those enhancements are not cheap, have 20 durabilty, and engineers are fragile.
_________________
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-08-29 11:01
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 10:56, Fluttershy wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 10:24, Sheraton *XO* wrote:
There is a rather serious problem, in my view, regarding build drone enhancements. I am not sure if this is intentional but the drones appear to be reducing the time it takes to build by 70-80% when the enhancements are applied. Along with 3 of the new engineer auras this results in ludicrously short build times. Trader of destiny and I tested this and he was able to construct 3 ICC offense base IIs in around 45 seconds. and a shield generator would literally be finished in 5 seconds. I am relatively certain that building planets is not supposed to take that short of a time. Is this intentional? If so I would point out that this can result in being able to finish a planet in almost no time flat. The only barrier would be the rate at which tech and pop grows. Additionally this test was conducted with the tier 1 ICC engineer which has only 1 build drone. with the tier 3 the results would probably be more startling.
Additionally, while I applaud the new build speed not affecting how much prestige you lose based on speed of the structure built this causes prestige to go up by about 10, every 3-5 seconds. I am again not sure if this was intentional or not but it results in very fast press gain whiile building planets.
I humbly suggest that this be reviewed before release.
-Sheraton
|
Yeah, with a 3 drone engineer, fully enhanced, that thing puts up platforms in something like 10 seconds.
On the other hand, those enhancements are not cheap, have 20 durabilty, and engineers are fragile.
|
Platforms are not particularly the issue I was concerned with so much as the drastic time reduction in building planets when coupled with the auras and build drones but I suppose the time would also apply to platforms as well.
-Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2013-08-29 20:21
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 10:50, Valiant Wolf[S-2] wrote:
The device can no longer be refitted on said command ships in favour of a HMA or Tachyon Drive or whatever; personally I just want to know if this is intentional or not (I hardly fly them without the WHD myself, but for the sake of others).
|
Amy Cpmmand ship that has it's new layout will have both a standard jump drive and a Wormhole device, you don't have to pick and choose which one anymore.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2013-08-29 20:58
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 20:21, Talien wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 10:50, Valiant Wolf[S-2] wrote:
The device can no longer be refitted on said command ships in favour of a HMA or Tachyon Drive or whatever; personally I just want to know if this is intentional or not (I hardly fly them without the WHD myself, but for the sake of others).
|
Amy Cpmmand ship that has it's new layout will have both a standard jump drive and a Wormhole device, you don't have to pick and choose which one anymore.
|
And HMAs are purely for use on Stations now. Regular Command ships use the standard Jumpdrives like everything else.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2013-08-29 22:13
Quote:
On 2013-08-29 10:50, Valiant Wolf[S-2] wrote:
Couple of things about the wormhole device that I picked up on while flying an ICC Command Carrier (I'd be using a UGTO CD were the layout updated):
> The device tooltip only dispalys the device name; I assume that at some point things like cooldown, energy consumption and min/maximum range will be shown too.
> The device can no longer be refitted on said command ships in favour of a HMA or Tachyon Drive or whatever; personally I just want to know if this is intentional or not (I hardly fly them without the WHD myself, but for the sake of others).
> Wormholes cannot be used to travel between sectors; This might not have been such a problem in the old map, but in the new map there are 13 sectors, at least 6 of which people will want to use wormholes between.
> Additionally, trying to create a wormhole to another sector is bugged; doing so creates a single wormhole gate which upon entry acts like a homegate, but can also be used as a location from which one can spawn ships. I don't want to be attacking a command dread to have it jump into a wormhole and come back out as a fully repaired assault dread.
Oh, and I got bored, so I made a map of the new multiverse. Tell me if I've got anything wrong.
Thanks,
~Wolf
|
-Tooltip is made By Pantheon, Maybe he hasn't workd on that on yet
-As said, The command ships Now carry both WH and jumpdrives
-Worm has a lognr ange, but it is limited. Beside, you probably wouldn't cross it either with normal JD. You'd run out of fuel first. Multiples Wh jumps woudl be required
-This can be tricky, With the new map, We have to get used to the Server Gates. My guess ypu probably attemtped to jump from a sector to another wich are in different servers. Thus it acted as a homegate since there was no Exit point in the server you were in. Probably a bug
[ This Message was edited by: Zero28 on 2013-08-29 22:13 ]
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2013-08-31 16:02
In beta, the difference between the Cruisers and Destroyers seem very slight.
As far as size and maneuverability, destroyers have a very slight advantage, 5+ speed, +2 turn rate, and are maybe 20% smaller?
Overall, cruisers seem to have the best mix of coverage, toughness, and maneuverability.
I really can't see the point of using destroyers over frigates or cruisers unless they had some special benefit for their lack of EWar and overall being a "meh" in-between ship.
I'm sure Sheraton will disagree 
_________________
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-08-31 16:28
Quote:
On 2013-08-31 16:02, Fluttershy wrote:
In beta, the difference between the Cruisers and Destroyers seem very slight.
As far as size and maneuverability, destroyers have a very slight advantage, 5+ speed, +2 turn rate, and are maybe 20% smaller?
Overall, cruisers seem to have the best mix of coverage, toughness, and maneuverability.
I really can't see the point of using destroyers over frigates or cruisers unless they had some special benefit for their lack of EWar and overall being a "meh" in-between ship.
I'm sure Sheraton will disagree
|
Yes I do disagree, and I am trully growing tired of having to belabor the point. Cruisers now have increased armor. This decreases the manueverability of the ship. Your desire for E-war on each ship is itself pointless since with proper piloting of a destroyer, most weapons fire can be evaded, this makes E-war either ECM or ECCM Superfluous. As to the issue of toughness, if a ship cannot hit you to begin with the actual hull and armor of your ship is irrelevant. Right now a heavy cruiser turns at about 16 in Release or thereabout. It turns much slower in beta and you need to get a 33% increase to the turn rate just to get the cruiser back to the turn rate it has now in release. This means that they will be much slower and harder to turn in 1.7 and further increases the advantage of smaller ships like destroyers who can stay in the blind spot of enemy ships longer than a cruiser or a dread can. I really dislike having to belabor this point over and over again but destroyers are not a weak ship and neither are they "meh" ships as you so casually put it. Properly piloted a destroyer can remove dreads from the field as efficiently if not moreso than any dread or cruiser and they can survive for longer periods on the battlefield because of the their manueverability.
-The VERY Annoyed Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2013-08-31 16:33
Quote:
On 2013-08-31 16:02, Fluttershy wrote:
maybe 20% smaller?
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 09:58, Jim Starluck wrote:
Example hitbox radii:
- Scouts: 1 gu
- Frigates: 3 gu
- Destroyers: 4.5 gu
- Cruisers: 6 gu
- Dreadnoughts: 18 gu
- Stations: 30 gu
|
Quote:
On 2013-08-30 09:58, Jim Starluck wrote:
Example hitbox radii:
- Scouts: 1 gu
- Frigates: 3 gu
- Destroyers: 4.5 gu
- Cruisers: 6 gu
- Dreadnoughts: 18 gu
- Stations: 30 gu
|
This is the number in game.
This is the number from blueprint: ICC, UGTO, K'Luth.
As you can calculate, the rate of diameter between new destroyer and new cruiser in game is 3/4 and in blueprint is 9/19 (human). The rate of diameter between dread and station in game is 3/5 and in blueprint is 5/12 (k'luth). In summary, in blueprint, the smaller ship is smaller than half of the bigger ship; in game, the bigger ship is not twice as bigger as the smaller ship.
But size doesn't matter! What concerns is the mass of the ship.
I feel like the future dread is as heavy as the current station because their acceleration is similarly slow.
_________________
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2013-08-31 19:25
Those blueprints are irrelevant. They were fanart made years and years ago. We discarded them as a reference for scaling purposes earlier this year, when the decision was made to give all ships of the same type an equal hitbox, rather than try to fit each model precisely to the charts.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
