Copy Just had a Test with Rui But he got the Hump because I said I will only use Guns when I had 2 use Torpedoes he Threw his Toys out of the Pram & kept calling me a Liar I said I had 2 or I die it is Just a Test !! I told him he is one of the Biggest liars in Town ! He has more Bullshit than a Cattle farm! 3 Chars in game Killed by NPC's 2 Avoid the Suicide rule Fast travel by Proxy & more ! Grrrrrrrrrrr!!!! Pity Poor ThanhRui he is a Solid and Righteous Geezer never Lie's How can I be so Cruel?
Capital Ship Rebalancing
- SWAT_OP-R8R
- Thread is marked as Resolved.
There are 80 replies in this Thread. The last Post () by SWAT_OP-R8R.
-
-
If you went for testing, and that was decided !! Then whats the problem, its a test and you are both trying to look at all aspects. So there can things to report back to Op. Regardless using guns, torps, or throwing rocks. Its a TEST. I will come there in my row boat, Tribbs. And you can test things out. Whats the matter with some people.
-
Hhehehe Maybe I am the Problem, ( I did say I will not use Torps that is when he Got out of his Pram) So (He is Correct that I said I will not use Missiles But I did Then the Verbal Bullshit started) so let the No Problem Rule apply He is Immune to all Criticism & blatant( that need Proof in Triplicate signed by a Moderator & varifyed by 3 Pilots all of which can Be He ) Bending of the Rules !! Bring a Fishing Rod & a Sling shot also & do not tell me that you will Not Use them. We all Know that He he shall not be Named does not lie!! So All is Fair According to He !!
Then he Tells me I Lie (WTF) this is a Outrage to me ... It was A Test not Outright WAR on a Pilot -
I think that Bombers should be a threat to a cap ship, not VHF.
It has been a suggestion, i have made too Op. A couple of times, that bombers sit idle with no game play. With respect, he pointed out, he would look at that after more important things got sorted out. I accepted that and understood. Also, realistically a fighter should not be able to take out the heavy ships by themselves. Fighters are designed to take out escorts. Bombers take out heavy ships or heavy ships take each other out. I firmly believe a bomber should be able to defend itself !! while delivering a greater payload on its target. In its present form, it can,t fights its way out of a paper bag !!!
-
-
-
let make the calculation
the ship with 4 best lv 10 : - shield damage : 2000 per second * 4 = 8000 shield damage per second
- Hull damage : 3000 /s * 4 = 12.000 hull damage per second
so easy to see how much reduation is good
Ex : reduation 80%
-shield damage : 8.000 * 20% = 1.600
-Hull damage : 12.000 *20% = 2.400
with DN 90.000 shield and 900.000 hull damage
- all shield will down in 90.000/1.600 = 56 second
- Hull down in 900.000/2.400 = 375 second
so if DN is in afk mode, take 56+ 375 = 421/60 = 7 mins ( plus more time when DN's shield re-fill and VHF runs out energy)
i did a test with 4 coaltion gating. need a hour to take shield down ( not sure thats bug or fast Regeneration of the DN)
-
we are in the middle of cap ship balancing, once sorted out we can include bombers into this equation.
you know.... one mistake at a time
I had posted previously my understanding of current situation.
With respect, he pointed out, he would look at that after more
mportant things got sorted out. I accepted that and understood.
Maybe worth an option would be to introduce new torps specifically for bombers. Ones without target tracking and specifically for one damage type, hull only or shield only.
While this sounds like a great idea, my continued concern. As expressed !! that the bomber has to able to get the payload there, and able to survive or not after doing so. Its an expressed point/suggestion, and in no way intended to be harping on over the point. That its defence is only!! 1x10 turrent and 1x9 turrent. Would not survive undocking, and first wave of level 3 npc,s. Then even consider, a more experience enemy npc or task. My understanding and its part, in game !! Is a bomber not a fighter. But needs better defence to have a chance to survive a battle.
Another point, to is,its not for podding but the cargo bay needs to collect an adequate amount of pods. To substain the torpedoes amounts needed and possible repairs, well in its task needed repairs. With 4 internal torps as pointed out are not available in a lot of places. Hence, the back up torps too take up most of cargo bay. so end point would see bankrupty more evident maybe.just one person view, and respect other players views on the subject. Contructive views, not to taken the wrong way.
-
Maybe I have been looking at this the wrong way. I was wrong in my earlier post. It seems the problem is not necessarily how long it takes for a fighter to shoot down an afk battleship, the problem is how hard it is to shoot down a fighter that is attacking a battleship. If a fighter is using strafe (let's say a skilled pilot in an Iguana), it is nigh impossible for the battleship to even hit him, and the fighter could be dancing around the battleship all day. In the real world, a fighter that comes too close to a battleship is toast in a matter of seconds. (in real life they have computer guided flak turrets and gattling turrets) If the fighter was stationary, the battleship would shoot him down in a second, based on damage output.
Maybe we need to make battleships more acccurate against fighters, instead of making them invulnerable to fighters.
This would result in a swarm of fighters still being able to kill a battleship quickly, but would make it a lot more difficult for a single fighter.
It also wouldn't mess up the balance in Inner Core and Dervon.
-
Apache made an interesting point. The thing with the battleship rebalancing is, what is our end goal? Make them more usable in pvp or for pve or for both. I believe the main aspect is the pvp.
I can't quiet remember if you already mentioned it OP, but could we just increase the shield capacity of battleships and not touch the dmg modifier? I think it would cause less issue for the npc part as well. I think you mention that the hull hp can't really be increase, which is fine I think, since Sci-fi logic kinda makes sense (shields down=ship starts taking dmg, life support down=kaboom). Anyways, could you just confirm to me that a shield increase of 300% (i think maybe even more, to simulate the 80% dmg reduction of weapons to shields). This might be a more valiable way to approach it?
Regarding the battleship vs VHF, I mean i get it that usually the battleship would blast the VHF into pieces in seconds, but the VHF alone shouldn't be able to kill it anyways, having a squadron to take down a battleship is kinda okay. Now, to make it easier for the battleship, could it be possible OP, to take the code or the "homing misile" part of the cruisse disruptor misiles (not sure if I named them right), and put them in a new type of turret/gun for the battleship to have to combat VHF.
I hope I haven't wondered off to much of the main topic or made some crazy ideas.
Cheers!
-
Maybe I have been looking at this the wrong way. I was wrong in my earlier post. It seems the problem is not necessarily how long it takes for a fighter to shoot down an afk battleship, the problem is how hard it is to shoot down a fighter that is attacking a battleship. If a fighter is using strafe (let's say a skilled pilot in an Iguana), it is nigh impossible for the battleship to even hit him, and the fighter could be dancing around the battleship all day. In the real world, a fighter that comes too close to a battleship is toast in a matter of seconds. (in real life they have computer guided flak turrets and gattling turrets) If the fighter was stationary, the battleship would shoot him down in a second, based on damage output.
Maybe we need to make battleships more acccurate against fighters, instead of making them invulnerable to fighters.
This would result in a swarm of fighters still being able to kill a battleship quickly, but would make it a lot more difficult for a single fighter.
It also wouldn't mess up the balance in Inner Core and Dervon.
This is my personal point of view after observing how players exploited game mechanics for 18 years meanwhile:
If you make it easy for a battleship to kill a fighter then there will be players which park their battleships in certain locations and start shooting other players out of the sky just for the reason that he/she can. If it is possible people will do it. Once it happens people get angry, start crying and leave the server.
That is why I proposed to separate fighter gameplay from cap ship gameplay, making it hard for both sides to kill the other ship class. It would maybe even motivate people to switch ship classes depending on the situation.
Display MoreApache made an interesting point. The thing with the battleship rebalancing is, what is our end goal? Make them more usable in pvp or for pve or for both. I believe the main aspect is the pvp.
I can't quiet remember if you already mentioned it OP, but could we just increase the shield capacity of battleships and not touch the dmg modifier? I think it would cause less issue for the npc part as well. I think you mention that the hull hp can't really be increase, which is fine I think, since Sci-fi logic kinda makes sense (shields down=ship starts taking dmg, life support down=kaboom). Anyways, could you just confirm to me that a shield increase of 300% (i think maybe even more, to simulate the 80% dmg reduction of weapons to shields). This might be a more valiable way to approach it?
Regarding the battleship vs VHF, I mean i get it that usually the battleship would blast the VHF into pieces in seconds, but the VHF alone shouldn't be able to kill it anyways, having a squadron to take down a battleship is kinda okay. Now, to make it easier for the battleship, could it be possible OP, to take the code or the "homing misile" part of the cruisse disruptor misiles (not sure if I named them right), and put them in a new type of turret/gun for the battleship to have to combat VHF.
I hope I haven't wondered off to much of the main topic or made some crazy ideas.
Cheers!
Just increasing the shield capacity in terms of figther vs cap ship has very little difference to what we currently try to do with the damage reduction on shields.
e.g. (a very rough example)
- a 100.000 capacity shield vs 10.000 dps weapon damage = 10 seconds drain time
- a 100.000 capacity shield with 80% absorption rate on a 10.000 dps weapon = 50 seconds drain time
- a 100.000 capacity shield increased to 500.000 capacity and no absorption on a 10.000 dps weapon = 50 seconds drain time
The result is the same in this specific case (figther vs cap). But a flat increase of the shield capacity offers no option to have a different balancing between ship classes.
e.g. you would need a bomber with insanely high DPS weapons to cause damage to a 500k shield and these insanely powerful weapons vaporize any other small ship in a fraction of a second.
That is why the damage reduction method is more flexible. You have the option to balance ship classes based on their shield types. This option is hard to balance but at least it is possible. A flat boost to the capacity of the shields does not offer such an option.
Especially for NPCs... a 500k shield remains a 5x increase for their weapons to overcome. There is no benefit in that.
-
Apache. Can you tell me how many players can destroy Cap ship by his VHF? and how many cant, just 0.01% player can do it
BTW i agree with OP at post above
-
So. I've made some tests today with both cruiser and a gunboat. Turns out the 80% damage reduction brings both cap ships in the fragile state. On the first encountered wave of ancients the shield dropped to two bars left before i could destroy even one ship, i had to retreat. With the gunboat it's even worse. On the first wave of nomads in FP7 near the gate i was left with no shield and two and a half bars hull left, i had no time to engage and i had to quickly dock out. I know this came out because the 95% was causing problems with bs, but without it the other cap ships are becoming easy to kill again. So i wonder if it's possible to keep them both at 95 if not then to 90% while for the bs might be kept 80 or to the value the other players finds it reasonable. I'm not gonna argue for what have or what should not have be. Again it's only a suggestion and i'm just giving my report.
