| Author |
General Discussion: 1.670 (Beta) |
Fatal Mack Bolan(WildCards_58th)*COM*
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: June 12, 2010
Posts: 184
From: home planet: Exathra
|  Posted: 2011-05-01 10:43
i am mildly disappointed that the the engies no longer have at the minimum even a single railgun/pcannon/psi cannon, other than that +1 on the engie/tranny redesigns...............
_________________
1st recorded subscription activation 8-17-01 (under a different name & email)
20 years of playing this mo'-fo....amazing isn't it ?
119 on prestige list..
R.I.P. Stephen Hawking
R.I.P. sean connery
R.I.P. adam west
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-05-01 10:43
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-01 06:22, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Hmm. After a bit of thought, I kinda agree w Jack abt the AM splash. I've been damaged by my own torps in near point blank attacks too many times.
Only downside is that those torps that I manually detonate as they miss the target won't be so effective anymore.
|
|
10 gu is about the width of a cruiser, so it's not tiny!
_________________
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-05-01 11:12
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-01 10:43, BackSlash wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-01 06:22, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Hmm. After a bit of thought, I kinda agree w Jack abt the AM splash. I've been damaged by my own torps in near point blank attacks too many times.
Only downside is that those torps that I manually detonate as they miss the target won't be so effective anymore.
|
|
10 gu is about the width of a cruiser, so it's not tiny!
|
|
Compared to 30gu of the proton torp, it's tiny.
BTW, which ship/faction uses the Pn Torp?
And also, it does travel faster than the AM torp doesn't it (rhetorical question)?
What's the damage?
I would have hoped that the torp that travels the slowest should have an advantage in damage and splash. It just doesn't make sense that something that is more powerful has less splash. Get what I mean?
Quote:
| Speed:
AM: 60 gu/s
PN: 65 gu/s
FN: 80 gu/s
Range:
AM: 480 gu
PN: 560 gu
FN: 640 gu
Splash:
AM: 10 gu
PN: 30 go (currently 50, but will be tuned down to 30)
FN: 10 gu
|
|
There's a disparity somewhere here.
FT, faster torp, least damage? smallest splash.
AM, slowest torp, it should have the highest damage and biggest splash.
Pn, looks to be the middle-of-the-road thing, but the splash is way too big
In short. 10gu for the AM is acceptable. But 30gu for the PT is a bit unbalanced don't you think?
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2011-05-01 11:20 ]
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-05-01 12:52
There was a disparity, and that was with the P torp being utter toss. So I gave it some splash, and it seems to be performing well.
You state AM should have the highest damage and highest splash - but why? It needed the splash when they were slow, but since they're not slow anymore, they don't need it, plus I doubt you want to be killing yourself.
Not to forget that the AM torp is 30% more powerful than the Proton torp...
So there's your reasons. 5 gu/s is not enough to warant it having 30% less damage, which is why we gave it the largest splash.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2011-05-01 12:56 ]
_________________
|
SpaceAdmiral
Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010
Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2011-05-01 14:22
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-01 07:59, Enterprise wrote:
Am I going to be a ship that can only fire against larger targets or do heavy close range damage? (Strike Cruiser, Assault Cruiser, Torp Cruiser, Scale) Am I going to fly a well rounded ship but not too heavy on damage or too light on defense? (Battle Cruiser, Heavy Cruiser)
-Ent
|
|
Actually, the scale seems more like an assault oriented heavy/battle cruiser.
It has 6 heavy psi cannons, 8 torps, and 6 disruptors. This is a heavier weapon layout than the other cruisers and they mostly point forward, but the cannon/torp layout shares more similarities with the heavy/battle cruisers than they do with they assault/torp cruiser.
_________________
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2011-05-01 14:52
Quote:
|
- Halved the damage and doubled the fire rate of all core weapons (Stellar Incinerator, QST, Ion Cannon) - effectively reduces single volley damage while keeping the overall DPS of these weapons. Ammo has been adjusted where applicable.
|
|
Surely the opposite is needed.
Core weapons are the Grand daddy's of the cannons.
There designed to get past the thick armour and hull of Capital ship/Dreadnoughts and stations.
Increasing rof will lead to them hitting smaller ships easier as they'll be more of them to dodge.
Ion's now make walls of undodgeable fire. where as before you could somewhat "dupe" them into the other direction. but now they fire so fast that they are following your dodging path even more precisly. This is the same for krill's SI and probably the Uggies EAD.
Sure this means there is more, bigger bangs = more action.
But it's not needed.
Plus no word on velocity bug?
[ This Message was edited by: The Fridge on 2011-05-01 16:29 ]
_________________
|
JBud
Marshal
Joined: February 26, 2008
Posts: 1900
From: Behind you.
| Posted: 2011-05-03 13:14
Pulse waves and flux waves are now safe to use in large fleets, check the latest updates added to the OP!
I'm really happy about this update, it's bothered me for years when I'm at 30% hull and a fellow UGTO fluxes my jumpdrive offline.
_________________
[-Point Jumper-][-Privateer Elite-][-Summus Dux-][-Praeclarae-]
[img(RIP MY SIGNATURE DELETED AFTER 7 YEARS/img]
''Insisto Rector - Suivez le Guide - Tempus hostium est''
|
Pakhos[+R]
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: May 31, 2002
Posts: 1352
From: Clean room lab
| Posted: 2011-05-03 13:32
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-30 20:59, BackSlash wrote:
After some consideration, I figured it wasn't in K'luths best interest to have high splash. Since they fight so close to the enemy (sometimes on-top), a lot of the damage they would have dealt would be reflected.
The splash was originally on there due to the speed of the AM torp (ranges were marginally different back in the day). Since you now have increased speed, it becomes less of an issue of hitting the enemy, and more of an issue of dealing damage to yourself. Since you're engaging at close ranges (or should be), having the splash remain in there doesn't make sense.
Due to the speed and range of F torps, they don't require a splash. However due to the lower speed of the P torps (only 5 gu/s faster than the AM) and the 20%~ less damage compared to the AM torp, it makes sense to give the P torp some splash, since they're expected to be used further out in engagements when compared to the K'luth.
As of now, all of these changes are mostly tests, but from the hour or so Jim and I spent in beta, they seem REALLY comfortable after them.
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2011-04-30 21:02 ]
|
|
I dont totaly agree with you. You are right about "Dreads" when they are top of another ship. But for cruiser close combat isnt that bad . Also cruisers easly burn out from splash range.
Since Am torps are the slowest they are easier to dodge . Thats why there is a manual detonation and kluth will need that. Just setting am torps splash range to 10 gu will effect destroyers like claw , and all new cruisers which wont let us to deal torp damage on other faction cruiser because they will dodge all.
I think splash ranges should be Am = 30 gu P =20gu and F =10.
In other words , easier to dodge should have more splash radius.
_________________
* 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."
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-05-03 13:38
I pretty much doubled the speed of AM torps on cruisers and up, so the splash isn't waranted anymore.
_________________
|
Delando
Marshal
Joined: May 04, 2007
Posts: 260
| Posted: 2011-05-04 12:51
Hmm, would doubling the fire rate on Core weapon increase the effectiveness of Manual fire to "track" the flight path of cloaked ships?
And would reducing 1/2 dmg on Core weapons reduce the effectiveness of the first Alpha strike of the Krill? (Right now it's able to decloak, Aphla strike/kill a tranny, and cloak.)
If the above 2 conditions are true, plz do something to balance.
_________________
|
MarineKingPrime
Marshal
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: October 04, 2010
Posts: 239
From: CSS CheezyBagels
| Posted: 2011-05-04 15:16
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 12:51, Delando wrote:
Hmm, would doubling the fire rate on Core weapon increase the effectiveness of Manual fire to "track" the flight path of cloaked ships?
And would reducing 1/2 dmg on Core weapons reduce the effectiveness of the first Alpha strike of the Krill? (Right now it's able to decloak, Aphla strike/kill a tranny, and cloak.)
If the above 2 conditions are true, plz do something to balance.
|
|
krill was overpowered anyway.
why was pulse wave nerfed?
[ This Message was edited by: darksmaster923 (3IC) on 2011-05-04 15:17 ]
_________________
|
Zero28
Grand Admiral
Joined: August 25, 2006
Posts: 591
| Posted: 2011-05-04 15:32
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 15:16, darksmaster923 (3IC) wrote:
|
|
krill was overpowered anyway.
[/quote]
i loled
i think it would be for the best, let have the noob a chance
_________________
19:33:51 [ZION]GothThug {C?}: "Zero..you are DS's hero"
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-05-04 16:06
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 15:16, darksmaster923 (3IC) wrote:
why was pulse wave nerfed?
|
|
To address this we need to talk about a problem which the new layouts brought to light.
All weapons have a point value with the new layout scheme, based on their intended usefulness. When we changed a lot of ships, what we saw were that ships with a heavy use of a certain weapon weren't as useful as we had thought (Torpedoes for example). We're addressing this by buffing or nerfing the weapons to where their point value reflects their usefulness.
Back to why Pulse was 'nerfed'.
Pulse, Flux, and Cloak are considered the special weapons of each faction. Cloak is by far the most used, with Flux being the least, and Pulse sitting somewhere inbetween. Hence, it doesn't make sense they're the same sort of cost.
So, I removed the friendly damaging effect of Pulse and Flux to increase their use on the battlefield. Originally Flux was causing more negative than possitive (you ended up tons of FF for a chance of knocking out some systems), and you had ICC players screaming not to use Pulse if there were any friendly ships with Fighters or Missiles. Overall, they weren't very good special weapons at times, especially when compared to Cloak and AHR.
As I mentioned, I removed the 'affects friendlies' portion of both weapons to increase the number of times you can use these on the battlefield, and their usefulness in general. When we did this for the Pulse Wave, we noticed that it became a godlike anti-projectile weapon. To fix this, I decided to add a chance to knock down a projectile, rather than kill all of them.
I should also mention that, and by no means does this mean it was changed so UGTO could be uber, we also discovered that a number of UGTO ships (namely the Missile-based ones) were totally useless against ICC because of the Pulse Wave. This goes some way to remedy that issue, and to restore glorious balance into the game!
- Jack
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2011-05-04 16:07 ]
_________________
|
Reznor
Marshal
Joined: March 29, 2010
Posts: 316
| Posted: 2011-05-04 16:14
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 16:06, BackSlash wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-05-04 15:16, darksmaster923 (3IC) wrote:
why was pulse wave nerfed?
|
|
To address this we need to talk about a problem which the new layouts brought to light.
All weapons have a point value with the new layout scheme, based on their intended usefulness. When we changed a lot of ships, what we saw were that ships with a heavy use of a certain weapon weren't as useful as we had thought (Torpedoes for example). We're addressing this by buffing or nerfing the weapons to where their point value reflects their usefulness.
Back to why Pulse was 'nerfed'.
Pulse, Flux, and Cloak are considered the special weapons of each faction. Cloak is by far the most used, with Flux being the least, and Pulse sitting somewhere inbetween. Hence, it doesn't make sense they're the same sort of cost.
So, I removed the friendly damaging effect of Pulse and Flux to increase their use on the battlefield. Originally Flux was causing more negative than possitive (you ended up tons of FF for a chance of knocking out some systems), and you had ICC players screaming not to use Pulse if there were any friendly ships with Fighters or Missiles. Overall, they weren't very good special weapons at times, especially when compared to Cloak and AHR.
As I mentioned, I removed the 'affects friendlies' portion of both weapons to increase the number of times you can use these on the battlefield, and their usefulness in general. When we did this for the Pulse Wave, we noticed that it became a godlike anti-projectile weapon. To fix this, I decided to add a chance to knock down a projectile, rather than kill all of them.
I should also mention that, and by no means does this mean it was changed so UGTO could be uber, we also discovered that a number of UGTO ships (namely the Missile-based ones) were totally useless against ICC because of the Pulse Wave. This goes some way to remedy that issue, and to restore glorious balance into the game!
- Jack
[ This Message was edited by: BackSlash on 2011-05-04 16:07 ]
|
|
Pulse beams make us almost immune to missiles anyway. I always have 4 of them on my HC (and will continue this) and only use the pulse shield against fighters (can kill fighters at double the range of my beams) . It will make ICC station spam more viable tho, as the only way to attack at extreme range is via missiles/fighters. So now ICC stations can fire back without gimping themselves.
Problem is, ICC is the only faction that missile spams. K'luth don't need it, and UGTO fire them cuz they have them.
Would be kinda neat if pulse shields revealed cloaked ships tho, like it interfered with the cloak field  . Gonna happen? Nope.
_________________
Indictor: 1. To accuse of wrongdoing
Interdictor: (DS) A planetary emplacement or Cruiser Class vessel capable of preventing FTL travel in a certain radius.
|
Ray[OU]
Marshal
Joined: December 07, 2010
Posts: 189
From: Some where in deep space, From another galaxy. [Origin Unknown]
| Posted: 2011-05-04 16:36
THE COMMAND CARRIER
the ICC CC or the ugto version and brood are all good ships tho i havent had a look at the new layouts for the ugto and luth layouts i almost crapped myself and died when i saw the new layout for the icc CC and honestly if they release the new layout for the CC i will be mad and prob thro my computer out the window really lets looks at the fine things bout this fine well crafted ship and first off ill tell you you can say wat you want bout me you can call me noob at dumb names and stuff say wat ever you want but i love the CC its a fine ship that serves great perpose i just love this ship wat other ship can single handedly take out a planet cap it and rebuild it i mean really the CC is the only one and the ugto and luth version of it its got bombs on it for taken out def and power its got build drones to build the planet altho i will admit its weak in fire power and die easly by swarms of AI (from XP) but really the new layout just makes it a giant enggy no rail guns no nothin just 2 reload drones and some beams and 3 ecm the current CC has 1 build drone 2 ecm possible and a scanner yes i wud like it to have 2 build drones and 3 ecm and a scanner WITH its rail guns i mean its a good ship how it is if i kud fight for this ship i wud but i have no say in this and the devs will prob just ignor this some of you may agree wit me some of you will criticis me for it but i stand by the CC i cant do anything bout it cuz if i challenge the devs on this they will just band me but i say now that i love the CC and i wish it not to be changed at all if its not gotta be wat i sugested
PS i love you ICC Comand Carrier <3 they will change the CC and ill be heart broken but ill always remeber it the way i used it to take down planets cap them and rebuild them 
its a ship that performs more then 1 role 1)bomber 2)carrier 3)engineer
and im sure theres more im just so sad right now to name others with the new layout the fuction of the CC will be 1)engineer 2)carrier idk bout you but itll be less roles then it has now
[ This Message was edited by: Grand Admiral Ray [OU] on 2011-05-04 16:43 ]
_________________
The Absence of a signature means that the Above Entity simply does not care.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
