| Author |
[1.7] Beta Feedback |
Code Red
Chief Marshal
Non Omnis Moriar
Joined: September 08, 2007
Posts: 184
|  Posted: 2013-08-18 13:45
I have to say after some quick testing today that the new UGTO BS is very much fit for purpose , excellent mix of weapons and ranges !!! nice work
Also I am loving the UGTO Tercio cruiser this will be my ship of choice when 1.7 hits , the mines new mechanic of moving towards the enemy ship is excellent and makes minelaying an excellent fleet tactic.
All round 1.7 is going to force players to mix and match ship classes and types to win and this can only be applauded as a good move for DS !!!
_________________
Code Red, For winning in the 1RA Fleet Wars event, here's your coupon for a week.
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2013-08-18 13:48
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 12:22, Zero28 wrote:
honestly, Id rather see cannons get a damage buff and a reduced velocity to be good at ship equal size And Beams damage nerf to be good at hitting small fast ships, since there accurate
the other way around hardly makes sense. Id never design weapon made to kill a ship that can easily dodge it, as it Skins my hide with no effort
(id also enjoy seeing cannon be actual cannons instead of submachine guns, you know when they fire they go BOOM, BOOM lol, thats just me thou)
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2013-08-18 14:20 ]
|
There is actually some logic to this...
K'Luth are going to use beams to instagib small ships anyways, because they have the capability to get in close range twice, once by JD and again by cloak.
Maybe not with the nightshade due to JD time, but the Parasite or Drainer will do a hefty chunk of damage before the smaller target can shake them or jump out a safe distance from a battle.
From testing, I've noticed they tend to have more flexibility with how they use their roles, with torpedoes being well suited for same-class ships, and lasers being good for smaller ships than them.
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2013-08-18 13:59
All command dread should have tri arc tractor and sole arc mining beam to start bombing/capturing/building task when there is no base.
UGTO command dread lackes Wormhole. Intentionally? It has 3 ECCM and no aura. Are all command dread supposed to have any aura?
The new Battle Station is very powerful. 501-699gu is its weakest range. Take around 7-8 missle salvo to kill another green Battle Station. It ables to kill Node which does not have PD on.
When there are several minelayering dreads in game and they start dropping mania at a destroyer, the homing mines will never stop.
The homing feature is very frustrated. They will head to a target which is 70k away in 15 minutes. That's pretty funny. I like homing a lot but ... I think it should be removed. There are potential exploitations.
Pirate and MI are merged into MI faction. I believe it to avoid them hitting each other. Nice plan.
[ This Message was edited by: DiepLuc on 2013-08-18 14:13 ]
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2013-08-18 14:21
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 13:59, DiepLuc wrote:
All command dread should have tri arc tractor and sole arc mining beam to start bombing/capturing/building task when there is no base.
UGTO command dread lackes Wormhole. Intentionally? It has 3 ECCM and no aura. Are all command dread supposed to have any aura?
The new Battle Station is very powerful. 501-699gu is its weakest range. Take around 7-8 missle salvo to kill another green Battle Station. It ables to kill Node which does not have PD on.
When there are several minelayering dreads in game and they start dropping mania at a destroyer, the homing mines will never stop.
The homing feature is very frustrated. They will head to a target which is 70k away in 15 minutes. That's pretty funny. I like homing a lot but ... I think it should be removed. There are potential exploitations.
Pirate and MI are merged into MI faction. I believe it to avoid them hitting each other. Nice plan.
[ This Message was edited by: Zero28 on 2013-08-18 14:22 ]
|
Command Dread hasn't been changed yet, THe loadout is still the old one
ALso mines homign is fun, but they cant Catch anything beside a station. ANd frankly, They will be PDed all the time
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2013-08-18 18:25
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 13:48, Fluttershy wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 12:22, Zero28 wrote:
honestly, Id rather see cannons get a damage buff and a reduced velocity to be good at ship equal size And Beams damage nerf to be good at hitting small fast ships, since there accurate
the other way around hardly makes sense. Id never design weapon made to kill a ship that can easily dodge it, as it Skins my hide with no effort
(id also enjoy seeing cannon be actual cannons instead of submachine guns, you know when they fire they go BOOM, BOOM lol, thats just me thou)
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2013-08-18 14:20 ]
|
There is actually some logic to this...
K'Luth are going to use beams to instagib small ships anyways, because they have the capability to get in close range twice, once by JD and again by cloak.
Maybe not with the nightshade due to JD time, but the Parasite or Drainer will do a hefty chunk of damage before the smaller target can shake them or jump out a safe distance from a battle.
From testing, I've noticed they tend to have more flexibility with how they use their roles, with torpedoes being well suited for same-class ships, and lasers being good for smaller ships than them.
|
Their cloak is also rendered useless quickly by a decent amounts of EWAR and they have extremely thin armor.
If you decide to stick it out in the middle of nowhere waiting for a Kluth dread to give them the perfect opportunity to kill you, well.
Can't balance stupid.
There's good reasons why we went with beams to target same size ships.
Beams are 100% accurate. Giving them to big ships to be able to kill ships smaller than them is...
Well, first you would have to make those bigger ships faster to keep up with those smaller ships to actually get in range to hit them. Then you need to give them the energy to be able to target, kill, and keep moving.
And you need to make sure that their damage is balanced enough they don't give big ships instagib abilities against smaller ships, but that would still be more than enough damage with hybrids to take on ships of similar size, which wont be a problem because of all that energy. So now we have to balance all those other weapons and values to make sure that hose line up correctly and give other ships meaningful roles.
This quickly grows out of control as players overwhelmingly switch to beam based hybrids as they can be effective against every ship type without sacrificing any kind of speed, mobility, armor, or energy.
So either you get beams that work in most scenarios that we intend them to or we make you broken ships.
Also give us another year so to redo the values and layouts.
-Ent
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2013-08-18 18:54
All im saying is that Cannons for smaller ships is Not right. A cannon Cruiser will hardly hit a Moving destroyer thats pelting it away much easier (cannon works best on slower target than itself)
Just like a dread will hardly hit a cruiser zipping around it , even Less if it manage to stay on its rear
i just feel it needs somethign different
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2013-08-18 19:20
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 18:54, Zero28 wrote:
All im saying is that Cannons for smaller ships is Not right. A cannon Cruiser will hardly hit a Moving destroyer thats pelting it away much easier (cannon works best on slower target than itself)
Just like a dread will hardly hit a cruiser zipping around it , even Less if it manage to stay on its rear
i just feel it needs somethign different
|
Are you saying this is something you tested in beta or is this something that is speculation?.
Because I haven't had trouble hitting anything.
-Ent
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2013-08-20 01:13
Something seems not quite right with mass in beta, especially on everything smaller than Dreadnoughts. Turn rate takes a major dive with 1 armor and isn't consistent after.
ICC Scout with 1 armor plate, turn rate of 41
UGTO Scout with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 25 (dubya tee eff mate)
UGTO Scout with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 31
Kluth Scout with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 33
Kluth Scout with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 34
ICC Frigate with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 24
ICC Frigate with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 24
ICC Frigate with 2 armor plates, turn rate of 25
ICC Frigate with 1 armor plate, turn rate of 26
ICC Frigate with 0 armor plates, turn rate of 28
UGTO Frigate with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 18 (dubya tee eff mate)
UGTO Frigate with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 17
UGTO Frigate with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 20
UGTO Frigate with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 21
Kluth Frigate with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 21
Kluth Frigate with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 22
Kluth Frigate with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 23
Kluth Frigate wtih 4 armor plates, turn rate of 24
ICC Destroyer with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 17
ICC Destroyer with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 20
ICC Destroyer with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 20
ICC Destroyer with 2 armor plates, turn rate of 20
ICC Destroyer with 0 armor plates, turn rate of 23
UGTO Destroyer with 10 armor plates, turn rate of 14
UGTO Destroyer with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 15
UGTO Destroyer with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 15
UGTO Destroyer with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 16
Kluth Destroyer with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 17
Kluth Destroyer with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 17
Kluth Destroyer with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 18
Kluth Destroyer with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 18
ICC Cruiser with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 14
ICC Cruiser with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 14
ICC Cruiser with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 16
ICC Cruiser with 2 armor plates, turn rate of 16
ICC Cruiser with 1 armor plate, turn rate of 17
UGTO Cruiser with 10 armor plates, turn rate of 11
UGTO Cruiser with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 12
UGTO Cruiser with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 12
Kluth Cruiser with 10 armor plates, turn rate of 13
Kluth Cruiser with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 13
Kluth Cruiser with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 14
Kluth Cruiser with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 14
Now compare to turn rates in release, supposedly only Dreadnoughts themselves had mass added in 1.7 beta, but it doesn't add up unless armor also had mass added.
ICC Scouts have no armor in release, turn rate of 44
UGTO Scouts have 4 armor, turn rate of 31
Kluth Scouts have 3 armor, turn rate of 39
ICC Frigate with 2 armor plates, turn rate of 26
ICC Frigate with 1 armor plate, turn rate of 27
UGTO Frigate with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 20
UGTO Frigate with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 21
Kluth Frigate with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 24
Kluth Frigate with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 25
ICC Destroyer with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 19
ICC Destroyer with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 20
UGTO Destroyer with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 16
UGTO Destroyer with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 17
Kluth Destroyer with 8 armor plates, turn rte of 18
Kluth Destroyer with 7 armor plates, turn rte of 19
ICC Cruiser with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 16
ICC Cruiser with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 17
UGTO Cruiser with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 13
UGTO Cruiser with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 14
Kluth Cruisers have 7 armor plates, turn rate of 15
Some ships are closer to their release counterparts than others, but overall turn rates are lower in beta for ships of the same class with the same amount of armor. Some are still worse in the same class with less armor.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Terra Nova
Fleet Admiral
Joined: February 15, 2013
Posts: 29
From: Tau Volantis
| Posted: 2013-08-20 01:27
just a annoyance but why the UGTO Torp fighter called B-29? that was a real aircraft so why not a name change like B-82?
_________________
 I am become Death , Destroyer of Worlds
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2013-08-20 02:28
Quote:
On 2013-08-20 01:27, Terra Nova wrote:
just a annoyance but why the UGTO Torp fighter called B-29? that was a real aircraft so why not a name change like B-82?
|
It's just a naming convention.
We had the F4 Corsair in WW2, and we had the F4 Phantom in the Vietnam war era. What's your point really?
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Iwancoppa
Fleet Admiral
Joined: November 15, 2008
Posts: 709
| Posted: 2013-08-20 04:18
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 19:20, Enterprise wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 18:54, Zero28 wrote:
All im saying is that Cannons for smaller ships is Not right. A cannon Cruiser will hardly hit a Moving destroyer thats pelting it away much easier (cannon works best on slower target than itself)
Just like a dread will hardly hit a cruiser zipping around it , even Less if it manage to stay on its rear
i just feel it needs somethign different
|
Are you saying this is something you tested in beta or is this something that is speculation?.
Because I haven't had trouble hitting anything.
-Ent
|
Hitting does not equal effective damage transmission. It's well known and easily testable that cannons are easy to evade, especially at long range or in smaller vessels.
Trying to use an evadeable weapons system against a smaller, more agile target is pure idiocy.
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2013-08-20 04:58
Quote:
On 2013-08-20 04:18, iwancoppa wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 19:20, Enterprise wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-08-18 18:54, Zero28 wrote:
All im saying is that Cannons for smaller ships is Not right. A cannon Cruiser will hardly hit a Moving destroyer thats pelting it away much easier (cannon works best on slower target than itself)
Just like a dread will hardly hit a cruiser zipping around it , even Less if it manage to stay on its rear
i just feel it needs somethign different
|
Are you saying this is something you tested in beta or is this something that is speculation?.
Because I haven't had trouble hitting anything.
-Ent
|
Hitting does not equal effective damage transmission. It's well known and easily testable that cannons are easy to evade, especially at long range or in smaller vessels.
Trying to use an evadeable weapons system against a smaller, more agile target is pure idiocy.
|
That's what beams are for.
Otherwise, you could use cannons from head on or a tailshot.
If we made cannon projectiles travel fast, it would also be a double edged sword. That would mean a Battle/Combat dread would be able to hit any small ship easily too.
And all projectile speeds are fixed by type, in case you're thinking of asking for slower travelling projectiles for larger ships.
Edit: I stand corrected, they do travel faster for smaller ships.
Face it. You can't win them all sometimes. Just live with it.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2013-08-20 09:16 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2013-08-20 06:28
One thing I think you guys are not keeping in mind is that cannons are not supposed to be effective against all smaller ships, they're supposed to be effective against ships that are one size smaller than you. So if you're in a Dreadnought, you should be expecting your cannons to be good at hitting Cruisers, but not so good at hitting Destroyers, Frigates and Scouts.
And for the record, cannons got a MAJOR buff to their projectile velocity nearly three months ago. It now scales with level, giving smaller ships faster projectiles. Take the Railgun, for example:
Old velocity: 175 gu/sec at all levels
New velocity:
- Level 2 (Scouts): 400 gu/sec
- Level 3 (Frigates): 350 gu/sec
- Level 4 (Destroyers): 300 gu/sec
- Level 5 (Cruisers): 250 gu/sec
- Level 6 (Dreadnoughts): 200 gu/sec
The bigger the ship, the larger the hitbox and the slower it flies and turns, so the less velocity you need to hit it at range. Sure, Beams have 100% accuracy, but a short range and high energy use. If you're a big ship attacking a smaller one, you have a much harder time keeping it in range of beams. Cannons have a greater effective range against your intended targets, and far less energy use, so you can go faster while firing them.
"But I can always point-jump them!" Sure, sure. You just point-jumped a Destroyer in your Assault Dread and vaporized him. Congratulations. Your jumpdrive will now take more than two minutes to recharge, during which time you're stuck there. Oh, and look, the enemy just revealed a Missile Dread parked 1500 gu away. Sure would've been nice if you could jump out to him. Hope your point-defenses are up.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2013-08-20 07:12
Quote:
On 2013-08-20 06:28, Jim Starluck wrote:
Hope your point-defenses are up.
|
If you even have any >:)
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2013-08-20 09:15
Well, I stand corrected. Smaller ships do have faster cannon projectiles. So in the end, there shouldn't be QQ at all.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo on 2013-08-20 09:17 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
