Author |
New Cruiser Layouts |
Kenny_Naboo Marshal Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010 Posts: 3823 From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-04-28 13:37  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 10:26, Talien wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 09:15, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
Devs,
When I was on beta yesterday, the ICC Jump cruiser had 5 Ion Cannons and very little else. Including no armor.
Was this changed?
Here's my opinion. The Strike Cruiser is a standoff weapon. Long ranged powerful weaps, and lacking in dogfighting capabilities. What it should be is fast, even at the expense of armor. Its role is to provide fleet fire support, targetting and outranging the enemy's dreads and stations.
Bring back the initial config please. It makes more sense that way. It shd be a fast moving standoff ship, not a ponderous half-assed assault cruiser.
Last. Torps.
As observed, torps seem to be broken. Both the AM and fusion. They don't seem to do nearly enough damage as they're supposed to. Buff them please.
|
|
SC is being changed because someone used a full load of weapon condensers and discovered that spamming ions with a high RoF will destroy things quickly. That just means +48% RoF is broken and not the ship itself since the same thing can still be done with an AD, which also has torps to spam with higher RoF. I'm surprised nobody has done it before but I guess it's because with limited ammo it just means you'll run out twice as fast.
AM torps especially, they're slower than Proton/Fusion but barely do more damage. I never understood why so many Kluth players complained about how bad AM torps are until I tried Claw/Nymph and watched Dreadnoughts dodge the torps, let alone anything smaller. Fusion could use a bit of a damage boost but at least they have a (slightly) better chance of hitting something, but really, torps could use a speed and damage boost across the board.
|
|
The SC is now rather pointless don't you think? It was fine with 5 ICs. Yes it may have been powerful if enhanced, but ICC needs a ship with bite, doesn't it??
Besides, it is powerful at arm's length, but when point-jumped, the tables will quickly turn as it is fragile up close. I think that is a good tradeoff.
As for torps, they need damage and a slight speed bump. Add the auto-tracking and all should be well. Auto tracking won't do much good if the torps can be overtaken by a tortoise with a sprained ankle....
_________________ ... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Talien Marshal Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010 Posts: 2044 From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-04-28 13:44  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 11:01, Shigernafy wrote:
Re: Enhancement stacking - this is why either maxes on a given effect would be helpful (ie, max of 30% of a given boost), or tradeoffs. If you fired 48% faster but had 50% less ammo, for example, or 35% higher power drain, I think that particular combo would be a little less egregious (and thereby worth of nerfing to avoid).
I still maintain that enhancements are fundamentally imbalanced, but people hate math and downsides, so there you go
|
|
Yeah, lots of people have been saying the same things about having a plus and a minus to balance them out, but changing existing enhancements would rightly tick off whoever's using them since suddenly they're not getting what they paid for. Only way around that would be to create new enhancements with the desired effects and replace the ones in the buy menu and drop lists with the new ones, that way people keep what they've already paid for and any new ones that are purchased or acquired as drops are the ones that have been changed.
Of course, simply putting a limit on the amount of bonus you can get would probably work just as well and be simpler to do.
_________________ Adapt or die.
|
DiepLuc Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010 Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2011-04-28 15:45  
Quote:
| - Torpedo damage has been increased by roughly 10%.
- Torpedo projectiles now slightly track their target. |
|
May we have torpedo speed and range increased by roughly 10% too? Thanks.
I was shock when I drive TC. It's even weaker than BC.
Btw, you guys should not miss MC, 7 phoenix has pretty damage (don't count SC with IC).
There are errors with missles too: disappear while flying; sometime can't fit Phoenix.
MC with 7 full arcs missles is great but I think the minimum ranges of new missles are a bit far. Decrease the minimum & maximum range roughtly 10% may you?
There is also a problem with range:
- Raptor Missile
Minimum Range: 374 Gu
Maximum Range: 1540 Gu
- Ion Tracker Missile
Minimum Range: 430 Gu
Maximum Range: 1785 Gu
- Phoenix Missile
Minimum Range: 399 Gu
Maximum Range: 1900 Gu
We can see 374 < 430 > 399 and 1540 < 1785 < 1900. Why is Phoenix minimum range is shorter than IT?
Medium missles are powerful, but I notice they're slow. Are medium missles faster than small missles? They may be the #1 factor that help player boost FF rank with such flying shape. Would be best if they fly above the ship instead of surround.
Wish you have more time, Draf.
_________________
|
*FTL*Soulless Marshal
Joined: June 25, 2010 Posts: 787 From: Dres-Kona
| Posted: 2011-04-28 17:39  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 13:37, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
The SC is now rather pointless don't you think? It was fine with 5 ICs. Yes it may have been powerful if enhanced, but ICC needs a ship with bite, doesn't it??
Besides, it is powerful at arm's length, but when point-jumped, the tables will quickly turn as it is fragile up close. I think that is a good tradeoff.
As for torps, they need damage and a slight speed bump. Add the auto-tracking and all should be well. Auto tracking won't do much good if the torps can be overtaken by a tortoise with a sprained ankle....
|
|
Kenny you have it right. While flying one beta, i jumped through the gate in to ICC space cause i had 20 shots left in each gun..... and was killed by an Luth AI dessie at close range. All that happened before my JD was 75% charged. Point is the SC has to be supported or its dust if anything point jumps it
_________________ We are Back from the shadows.
|
SpaceAdmiral Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010 Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2011-04-28 17:50  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 08:13, Talien wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 07:11, *Alcedo* wrote:
So UGTO won't have a Assault type Cruiser anymore?
Am I the only one who see this lack?
|
|
Assault Destroyer.
|
|
Assault =/= small ships
With a small ship you want to be able to dodge and weave around larger ships' fire. This is made possible by range and and even arcs of the "combat/heavy" and "battle/gunboat" line of ships. The last thing you want is to be facing the enemy for a prolonged time in a small ship.
When using a heavy cruiser/ combat destroyer you try to maintain near max range vs larger ships. You then dodge any enemy fire and fight back using even weapon arcs.
The same goes for BC and Gunboat, however here you want to find the closest range possible where you can still dodge. This is because of pcannon's falloff, gunboats can dodge rails/IC at around 500 gu.
With an assault ship you are forced to stay at maximum 500 gu from the target to constantly fire torps. Even worse, you have to face the enemy, thus you either drive closer to the jaws of death or you do pathetic broadsides. It is possible to do "bombing runs" but the lower dps vs battle/combat line plus the added difficulty/danger result in not many using them.
Cruisers are sturdy enough to be assault types, as well as dreads. However, destroyers are a bit too fragile for this role, but I will experiment to see if I can try to find how to utilize them better.
_________________
|
Talien Marshal Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010 Posts: 2044 From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-04-28 18:04  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 17:50, SpaceAdmiral wrote:
Assault =/= small ships
With a small ship you want to be able to dodge and weave around larger ships' fire. This is made possible by range and and even arcs of the "combat/heavy" and "battle/gunboat" line of ships. The last thing you want is to be facing the enemy for a prolonged time in a small ship.
When using a heavy cruiser/ combat destroyer you try to maintain near max range vs larger ships. You then dodge any enemy fire and fight back using even weapon arcs.
The same goes for BC and Gunboat, however here you want to find the closest range possible where you can still dodge. This is because of pcannon's falloff, gunboats can dodge rails/IC at around 500 gu.
With an assault ship you are forced to stay at maximum 500 gu from the target to constantly fire torps. Even worse, you have to face the enemy, thus you either drive closer to the jaws of death or you do pathetic broadsides. It is possible to do "bombing runs" but the lower dps vs battle/combat line plus the added difficulty/danger result in not many using them.
Cruisers are sturdy enough to be assault types, as well as dreads. However, destroyers are a bit too fragile for this role, but I will experiment to see if I can try to find how to utilize them better.
|
|
Chances are no, you won't be taking on Dreadnoughts with an Assault Destroyer, that's what the TC is for. They are, however, very well suited to quickly killing anything it's own size or smaller, and with the proper armor they are also perfectly capable of going up against Cruisers at close range given a competent pilot. They also make good Interdictor killers.
Granted I haven't flown an Assault Destroyer in quite a while but that's what I did with it last time I did use one.
_________________ Adapt or die.
|
Kenny_Naboo Marshal Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010 Posts: 3823 From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-04-28 22:00  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 17:39, GA Soulless wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 13:37, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:
The SC is now rather pointless don't you think? It was fine with 5 ICs. Yes it may have been powerful if enhanced, but ICC needs a ship with bite, doesn't it??
Besides, it is powerful at arm's length, but when point-jumped, the tables will quickly turn as it is fragile up close. I think that is a good tradeoff.
As for torps, they need damage and a slight speed bump. Add the auto-tracking and all should be well. Auto tracking won't do much good if the torps can be overtaken by a tortoise with a sprained ankle....
|
|
Kenny you have it right. While flying one beta, i jumped through the gate in to ICC space cause i had 20 shots left in each gun..... and was killed by an Luth AI dessie at close range. All that happened before my JD was 75% charged. Point is the SC has to be supported or its dust if anything point jumps it
|
|
I observed that too when I tested a Scale vs an SC in beta the other day.
The SC can kill any cruiser easily if you are not attentive. But if you should jump that SC and pummel it up close, it usually has to run or be toast very quickly.
Devs,
Please restore the SC back to its original config of 5 ICs and no armor.
Don't screw the ICC over again. They need a ship that can hit hard from far, and run fast. The SC in that config is it.
The SC is the ICC's answer to both Kluth and UGTO dread/station spam.
[ This Message was edited by: Kenny_Naboo[+R] on 2011-04-28 22:44 ]
_________________ ... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
BackSlash Marshal Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003 Posts: 11183 From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2011-04-29 12:27  
If people keep being an ass and posting useless, stupid, and unrespectful comments, those comments will simply disapear!
Please stay on topic and continue meaningful and useful dialog about the new ship layouts. Please engage your brain before posting.
_________________
|
Pakhos[+R] Chief Marshal Pitch Black
Joined: May 31, 2002 Posts: 1352 From: Clean room lab
| Posted: 2011-04-29 16:13  
Border cruiser: This ship asks for a forum QQ war in future if it stays like that. Ship has 3 EW slots. Ship's base signal is 9.8 . Fitted with 3 ECM signal can be reduced to -6.6 in deep space. Great range, thats what scares me. Negative signal + great range = NURF THE MISSILE FRIG! . This ship can sit out of eccm range which is 1500 gu and someone intelligent gather 10 people with same fit(uber negative signal, yay for kluth) , ugtos are gonna cry a river.
Assault cruiser : Great layout , there is a small problem. 8 range enhancements on that ship will make torps range improved against qst and si range. Anything above dread wont be able to tackle assault cruisers. (excluiding point jump every one and then).
Rest of the icc cruisers are good.
[ This Message was edited by: Pakhos[+R] on 2011-04-29 16:14 ]
_________________ * 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."
|
Jim Starluck Marshal Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001 Posts: 2232 From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2011-04-29 16:26  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-29 16:13, Pakhos[+R] wrote:
Border cruiser: This ship asks for a forum QQ war in future if it stays like that. Ship has 3 EW slots. Ship's base signal is 9.8 . Fitted with 3 ECM signal can be reduced to -6.6 in deep space. Great range, thats what scares me. Negative signal + great range = NURF THE MISSILE FRIG! . This ship can sit out of eccm range which is 1500 gu and someone intelligent gather 10 people with same fit(uber negative signal, yay for kluth) , ugtos are gonna cry a river. |
|
UGTO have never had problems with spotting ECM'd ships and jumping into range. They tried it with Missile Frigates, but had trouble catching them because they were so darn fast and could jump away. Cruisers are bigger and slower, so they won't have that option.
Quote:
| Assault cruiser : Great layout , there is a small problem. 8 range enhancements on that ship will make torps range improved against qst and si range. Anything above dread wont be able to tackle assault cruisers. (excluiding point jump every one and then).
Rest of the icc cruisers are good. |
|
That's not a problem at all. It means players will be encouraged to use smaller ships to cover their Dreadnoughts from attack. That's something we Developers want to see more often.
_________________ If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
*Obsidian Shadow* Grand Admiral
Joined: January 03, 2010 Posts: 316
| Posted: 2011-04-29 16:50  
i agree..now we are going to see some serious tactical play now that we have these layouts else people are just going to die i think Devs have done an awesome job with these layouts and imo certainly worth the wait.
_________________
|
SpaceAdmiral Grand Admiral
Joined: May 05, 2010 Posts: 1005
| Posted: 2011-04-29 17:45  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-29 16:13, Pakhos[+R] wrote:
Border cruiser: This ship asks for a forum QQ war in future if it stays like that. Ship has 3 EW slots. Ship's base signal is 9.8 . Fitted with 3 ECM signal can be reduced to -6.6 in deep space. Great range, thats what scares me. Negative signal + great range = NURF THE MISSILE FRIG! . This ship can sit out of eccm range which is 1500 gu and someone intelligent gather 10 people with same fit(uber negative signal, yay for kluth) , ugtos are gonna cry a river.
Assault cruiser : Great layout , there is a small problem. 8 range enhancements on that ship will make torps range improved against qst and si range. Anything above dread wont be able to tackle assault cruisers. (excluiding point jump every one and then).
Rest of the icc cruisers are good.
[ This Message was edited by: Pakhos[+R] on 2011-04-29 16:14 ]
|
|
As Jim said, many could easily target and locate missile frigs. The problem is you need a scout to pursue their jumps, as a smart missile frig would wait till his jd is charged before firing. They also had much longer range than a border cruiser.
_________________
|
Incinarator Chief Marshal
Joined: May 24, 2010 Posts: 237
| Posted: 2011-04-29 18:02  
One of the larger problems with the missile frigates was that if someone found you and point jumped you (in a dread) they could probably kill you with one shot. With a cruiser this would not be nearly so easy, and running away from a dread with a cruiser would hurt, but wouldn't be impossible or even very damaging if you flew cautiously. Just because you found the missile cruiser doesn't mean you have killed it.
_________________ I be rebuilding your planets!
|
CM7 Midshipman Faster than Light
Joined: October 15, 2009 Posts: 1812
| Posted: 2011-04-29 18:24  
I read above where we icc have a cruiser with 5 ic and no armor?
that just sounds half assed. Kinda like the pirate faction. And dont need a K'luth player that sucked when pb switched to icc telling us what we need. no offence ken.
_________________ Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144
|
*FTL*Soulless Marshal
Joined: June 25, 2010 Posts: 787 From: Dres-Kona
| Posted: 2011-04-29 18:38  
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-29 18:24, Defiance*XO* wrote:
I read above where we icc have a cruiser with 5 ic and no armor?
that just sounds half assed. Kinda like the pirate faction. And dont need a K'luth player that sucked when pb switched to icc telling us what we need. no offence ken.
|
|
ti had no side armor, and only one aux gen so energy would be an issue...not to mention that it needs COVER
[ This Message was edited by: GA Soulless on 2011-04-29 18:42 ]
_________________ We are Back from the shadows.
|