2.6.1- three steps forward, one step back - Suggestions

PikAs_53

Posts: 95

Posted:
Posted: -
First of all, I must say that I am relieved to the fact that the devs took the critic serious and to what was introduced in the last patch.
With the new FM flight at least it is more fun again. It also shows, at least to me, that the critic, that was posted here was seen and taken into account. It is still not perfect, but it is also still alpha, so what! For me at the moment they are going into the right direction! Definitely the steps forward.


Some points I still have, are the issues with the weapons and the missiles.

Weapons

For the weapons I would really like to have some different approach. The point of having the muzzle velocity in the different weapons groups is again a good step forward. Still I miss the real difference between energy weapons and ballistic weapons. Mainly in the view: damage versus ammo. Beam weapons have quasi unlimited ammo but their shot weight is rather low. They are ok for me.
On the other hand a 60mm bullet from a Tarantula MK3 has a high weight, so the direct and collateral damage should be much higher than it is now and also in comparison to an energy weapon of the same size. On the other hand the ammo is heavy and will take a lot of room.

Equipting a Sabre with 4 Tarantula MK3 will mean that you have somewhere about 1400!!!! 60mm shells. Imagine size and weight of such a shell, this will be a challenge even for a small freighter, but for an agile fighter? I would say a no go.

So my request is: reduce ammo for ballistics but raise its damage accordingly (1/3 ammo but also triple the damage from them)


Missiles!


A lot is written about missiles, they are to deadly, to easy to use etc. True, but we forgot the countermeasures! Increase the amount of countermeasures for each ship to at least 60 flares and chaff or more depending on size, add additional antimissile equipment like ECM pods or blinding grenades which might take up gun space.
This way you can decide to fly either defensively and having less firepower or offensively but having less protection against missiles but a bigger firepower relying only on flight skills for defense.

My request is: leave missiles deadly and easy, but add more ways to defend against them.

All these proposals will add some additional challenge and also additional skill, and in addition the ship will be much more individualized.
P52, 85X, Herald, Cutlass Black, Buccaneer, F7C-S, F7C-M, Sabre, Vanguard, Aquila, Crucible
  • Midnight_Wolf

    Posts: 899

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    My request is: leave missiles deadly and easy, but add more ways to defend against them.

    Do you see the irony in what you wrote there?

    Starfarer Gemini (x2) │ Andromeda │ Vanguard │ Gladius │ Freelancer MIS
  • Manowars

    Posts: 1252

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Chaos_Fox:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    My request is: leave missiles deadly and easy, but add more ways to defend against them.

    Do you see the irony in what you wrote there?

    I don't see why they don't just take the approach literally every space game has, missiles detonate on shields and the blast does minor damage to the hull, so take down the shields and fire away.
    PURGE THE HERETICS, KILL THE PAGANS!
  • KristovK

    Posts: 2205

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Chaos_Fox:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    My request is: leave missiles deadly and easy, but add more ways to defend against them.

    Do you see the irony in what you wrote there?

    I don't see why they don't just take the approach literally every space game has, missiles detonate on shields and the blast does minor damage to the hull, so take down the shields and fire away.
    Shields in SC don't stop physical objects, they're designed to deal with energy, so that doesn't really work. One of the first things I thought was a big bug, shields didn't help at all when I accidently bumped into something, a safety net I'm so used to in every other space game I've ever played. Hell, in Elite: Dangerous, shields stop physical damage so well that people with super high shields can ram anything at stupid crazy velocities and take 0 damage, I've skipped my Anaconda across a planet's surface that way, so have many others.

    Than I jump into SC and discovered that shields do jack against physical damage...seriously thought it was a bug and was going to report it when I did a little digging and found out, nope, not a bug, WAI. A big WTF moment there for me but I've grown into the idea and actually kind of enjoy it now. Maybe it's because of seeing the standard shields stop physical damage being abused so often by rammers, maybe it's an old Dune holdover...
  • Manowars

    Posts: 1252

    Posted:
    Edited: by Manowars
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    Chaos_Fox:
    [hide]

    [hide]

    My request is: leave missiles deadly and easy, but add more ways to defend against them.

    Do you see the irony in what you wrote there?

    I don't see why they don't just take the approach literally every space game has, missiles detonate on shields and the blast does minor damage to the hull, so take down the shields and fire away.
    Shields in SC don't stop physical objects, they're designed to deal with energy, so that doesn't really work. One of the first things I thought was a big bug, shields didn't help at all when I accidently bumped into something, a safety net I'm so used to in every other space game I've ever played. Hell, in Elite: Dangerous, shields stop physical damage so well that people with super high shields can ram anything at stupid crazy velocities and take 0 damage, I've skipped my Anaconda across a planet's surface that way, so have many others.

    Than I jump into SC and discovered that shields do jack against physical damage...seriously thought it was a bug and was going to report it when I did a little digging and found out, nope, not a bug, WAI. A big WTF moment there for me but I've grown into the idea and actually kind of enjoy it now. Maybe it's because of seeing the standard shields stop physical damage being abused so often by rammers, maybe it's an old Dune holdover...
    Well they could just say that passing through the shield detonates the missile because of uhhh......God wanted it that way
    PURGE THE HERETICS, KILL THE PAGANS!
  • Montoya

    Posts: 2894

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Im a big fan of missile boats, years of Robotech have lead me to believe that its the best way to wipe out an entire field of enemies.

    Gimme deadly missiles!
    TEST
  • Manowars

    Posts: 1252

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Im a big fan of missile boats, years of Robotech have lead me to believe that its the best way to wipe out an entire field of enemies.

    Gimme deadly missiles!

    Ive always been a bigger fans of cannons over missiles

    battleship>cruiser
    PURGE THE HERETICS, KILL THE PAGANS!
  • Pikas62

    Posts: 69

    Posted:
    Edited: by Pikas62
    Posted:
    Edited:
    Yes, please give us stronger ballistic cannons. I also think beam weapons should be significantly faster than ballistic weapons.
    Gemini|Crucible|Aquila|Warden|Cutlass_Black|Prospector|Sabre|Super_Hornet|Ghost|Buccaneer|Herald|Titan|Merlin|85x|Dragonfly
  • JDredd

    Posts: 95

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Agreed. Energy should be considerably faster than ballistics. And ballistics should be considerably more damaging.

    It would make more sense and be more rewarding to master, and even make people opt for using separated energy and ballistics weapon groups, and have to think about their usage strategy.
    [hide]

    Yes, please give us stronger ballistic cannons. I also think beam weapons should be significantly faster than ballistic weapons.

  • TBenz

    Posts: 20296

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Agreed. Energy should be considerably faster than ballistics. And ballistics should be considerably more damaging.

    It would make more sense and be more rewarding to master, and even make people opt for using separated energy and ballistics weapon groups, and have to think about their usage strategy.

    [hide]

    Yes, please give us stronger ballistic cannons. I also think beam weapons should be significantly faster than ballistic weapons.

    If by "use sperate weapon groups" you actually mean "monoboat one type of weapon", then sure.
    What's the deal with starline food?

    BMM.gif

  • JDredd

    Posts: 95

    Posted:
    Posted:
    @TBenz I thought it was obvious I meant using one group each time, instead of monoboating. The intention would be exactly to prevent monoboating.
  • TBenz

    Posts: 20296

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    TBenz I thought it was obvious I meant using one group each time, instead of monoboating. The intention would be exactly to prevent monoboating.

    People won't do that in practice. The reason monoboating exists is because differences in projectile speeds creates too much of a spread in your PiPs to be able to fire different types of weapons at the same time. And if you aren't firing every weapon you can fit on your ship at once, you are loosing the DPS arms race.

    Now if there was actually a reason to have separate weapon groups and not just fire everything at once to maximize damage, monoboating wouldn't be an issue. But unless that happens, widening the difference in projectile speeds will just make monoboating more prevalent, and will not at all prevent it.
    What's the deal with starline food?

    BMM.gif

  • Gagarin

    Posts: 14339

    Posted:
    Edited: by Gagarin
    Posted:
    Edited:
    [hide]

    Im a big fan of missile boats, years of Robotech have lead me to believe that its the best way to wipe out an entire field of enemies.

    Gimme deadly missiles!

    Great, time for another Org battle.

    Gotta re-mortgage the star base a 4th time to buy enough missiles and torpedoes.



    Give me handwavium-powered reactors and energy cannons any day of the week.
    Around 75% of my posts are from an iPhone / iPad and auto-correct stinks. So my spelling and grammar probably stink as well.
  • KnightArrow

    Posts: 457

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Well said. +
    [hide]

    [hide]

    TBenz I thought it was obvious I meant using one group each time, instead of monoboating. The intention would be exactly to prevent monoboating.

    People won't do that in practice. The reason monoboating exists is because differences in projectile speeds creates too much of a spread in your PiPs to be able to fire different types of weapons at the same time. And if you aren't firing every weapon you can fit on your ship at once, you are loosing the DPS arms race.

    Now if there was actually a reason to have separate weapon groups and not just fire everything at once to maximize damage, monoboating wouldn't be an issue. But unless that happens, widening the difference in projectile speeds will just make monoboating more prevalent, and will not at all prevent it.
    Well said. +42
    photo star1.png
  • spankybus

    Posts: 452

    Posted:
    Edited: by spankybus
    Posted:
    Edited:
    I would like to see energy weapons inflict additional effects to counter their low damage.

    Under a sustained barrage of energy weapons, systems should start to overload and behave strangely...thrusters for randomly, radar turns off and in, controls stop responding (fly-by-wire systems reset)

    Effects should be randomized and intermittent. Ships should be able to buy different polymer hull coatings that mitigate certain types of system anomalies, but perhaps make others more potent.

    If this is already happening, my bad. Haven't played in a bit. But it just got to the point were I only carried projectiles as energy weapons were just too weak. Who cares if its ammo is free if you are always exploding in firefights with another who's packing projectiles.

    I'd like to see energy weapons have a real reason to exist.
    SC_Spankybus_Signature.png
  • Tweaked

    Posts: 68

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I would like to see energy weapons inflict additional effects to counter their low damage.

    Under a sustained barrage of energy weapons, systems should start to overload and behave strangely...thrusters for randomly, radar turns off and in, controls stop responding (fly-by-wire systems reset)

    Effects should be randomized and intermittent. Ships should be able to buy different polymer hull coatings that mitigate certain types of system anomalies, but perhaps make others more potent.

    If this is already happening, my bad. Haven't played in a bit. But it just got to the point were I only carried projectiles as energy weapons were just too weak. Who cares if its ammo is free if you are always exploding in firefights with another who's packing projectiles.

    I'd like to see energy weapons have a real reason to exist.

    They do, infinite ammo. In arena Commander infinite ammo is a non-issue. In a persistent universe ammo count will matter.
    "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
  • SirKyle

    Posts: 3085

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]


    So my request is: reduce ammo for ballistics but raise its damage accordingly (1/3 ammo but also triple the damage from them)

    I don't like it. Reducing ammo but improving damage will only lead to ballistics being more heavily favored. I mean the bottom line when people pick their guns is usually dps. People will be getting 1 shot even easier by monoboating hornets and sabers. Yet less ammo means less trigger time which is less fun.
    "Thou shalt respect all weakness, and shalt constitute thyself defender of them" -3rd commandment of chivalry
    KyleSig_zpsfbdc0ezb.gif
  • IMWeasel

    Posts: 15478

    Posted:
    Posted:
    Sitting in computer chair pushing some buttons
    1159922.jpg

  • ArtosCZ

    Posts: 162

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Shields in SC don't stop physical objects

    And that´s the problem...
    Good mood won't solve all your problems, but pisses off so many people that it is worth holding on to it.
  • Third

    Posts: 13856

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    Sitting in computer chair pushing some a shitload of buttons

    Fixed

    ;p

    pit%20test_zpsymuwyjlh.jpg
    ht_zpsodwpasdc.jpg
  • The_Don

    Posts: 1810

    Posted:
    Posted:
    I sure hope they'll introduce armor as well with item 2.0. Atm every larger piece of a ship just has HP and once they reach 0 it falls off, which in some cases makes like no sense at all and seems fairly random...
    Meanwhile before we can really talk ballistics and rocket ballance, we need 3.0, because it's also a question of how much it costs. How much ammo you can transport is of no consequence at all, because first you could theoretically store more in any ship that has storage and if it costs 1000 bucks to shoot a freighter that has a value of 500, not so many people will do it, even if they have ammo for 10000 bucks stored... Limiting people too much on this end will just make it annoying to maintain combat ships, that already are limited in flexibility. For missiles it's even worse, because you'll probably pay dearly for the overkill in damage and if you blasted the enemy, you'll only sell metal scraps...

    Now what I just wrote doesn't really ballance it completely, but I ask myself a little, do we need 100% ballance regarding average dps/alpha? The military today shoots rockets that cost 100k a piece, to kill like a few people. You could shoot each of them in the head with a cheap small calibre rifle, which would safe you a bundle, but they don't call it the military because they shop when the price is 50% off to get the best kills per € ratio...

    I accept we can't go that much overaboard in a game, but I would accept monoboating and rocket spamming to be a valid tactic, if you want to search and destroy respectively play competitively in AC. I guess spray and pray won't get you far anyway, so actually getting the shots where they belong is still skill based.
    On that end I hope for an option where I can manually adjust the focal point of gimbals too, so I can hit with shots that have different velocities and even generate a spread with that if I want to. I also hope energy based weapons will get more valuable once CIG works in the whole power network. While ballistics mostly go through shields, that also means they don't damage them, which in turn means, the person fired on saves on power to recharge his shields, which he could put into his other ship systems, maybe evening the odds that way. Energy weapons burn the armor right off the ships once the shields are down, which probably won't stay a visual effect only, but will damage underlying systems...

    Btw. One thing I'd also like for manual aiming, is a button to target the enemy in front of me, instead of the one closest to me...

    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone.
  • Tsumiki-Akami

    Posts: 1304

    Posted:
    Posted:
    [hide]

    I sure hope they'll introduce armor as well with item 2.0. Atm every larger piece of a ship just has HP and once they reach 0 it falls off, which in some cases makes like no sense at all and seems fairly random...
    Meanwhile before we can really talk ballistics and rocket ballance, we need 3.0, because it's also a question of how much it costs. How much ammo you can transport is of no consequence at all, because first you could theoretically store more in any ship that has storage and if it costs 1000 bucks to shoot a freighter that has a value of 500, not so many people will do it, even if they have ammo for 10000 bucks stored... Limiting people too much on this end will just make it annoying to maintain combat ships, that already are limited in flexibility. For missiles it's even worse, because you'll probably pay dearly for the overkill in damage and if you blasted the enemy, you'll only sell metal scraps...

    Now what I just wrote doesn't really ballance it completely, but I ask myself a little, do we need 100% ballance regarding average dps/alpha? The military today shoots rockets that cost 100k a piece, to kill like a few people. You could shoot each of them in the head with a cheap small calibre rifle, which would safe you a bundle, but they don't call it the military because they shop when the price is 50% off to get the best kills per € ratio...

    I accept we can't go that much overaboard in a game, but I would accept monoboating and rocket spamming to be a valid tactic, if you want to search and destroy respectively play competitively in AC. I guess spray and pray won't get you far anyway, so actually getting the shots where they belong is still skill based.
    On that end I hope for an option where I can manually adjust the focal point of gimbals too, so I can hit with shots that have different velocities and even generate a spread with that if I want to. I also hope energy based weapons will get more valuable once CIG works in the whole power network. While ballistics mostly go through shields, that also means they don't damage them, which in turn means, the person fired on saves on power to recharge his shields, which he could put into his other ship systems, maybe evening the odds that way. Energy weapons burn the armor right off the ships once the shields are down, which probably won't stay a visual effect only, but will damage underlying systems...

    Btw. One thing I'd also like for manual aiming, is a button to target the enemy in front of me, instead of the one closest to me...

    R key is to target ahead
    Easy does not mean better, Challenging does not mean impossible.
Sign In or Register to comment.