| Author |
New Cruiser Layouts |
Alcedo
Chief Marshal
*Renegade Space Marines*
Joined: June 03, 2010
Posts: 136
|  Posted: 2011-04-28 03:36
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-27 12:22, Gejaheline wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-27 11:20, *Alcedo* wrote:
The new TC is a disappointment. Proton torpedo's are some of the least usefull weapons in the game because of their low speed. Fitting the TC almost exclusively with Protons limits the ship's uses...
|
|
*Blink*
TC. Torpedo cruiser.
Quote:
| I would have prefered less torpedo's and more Heavy Cannons or Heavy Lasers, or a mixture of both. |
|
Torpedo. Cruiser.
For, you know, killing large, slow targets.
Specialised role and everything.
As for the other roles, I am yet to test them personally in combat, but on paper they look pretty good in principle. Keep the feedback coming!
|
|
I don't have a problem with the new TC. It looks like an interesting new ship. Although the 3 rearward firing torpedos is a bit of a waste (the current TC can fire 8 forward as well as 3 Heavy Cannons, while the new one can fire 11 torpedos forward).
I would have liked to see it as an addition to the UGTO fleet (not a replacement). How about keeping the current TC, remove 2 or 3 torpedos, add a HCL and/or Heavy Cannon and rename it (Elite Assault Cruiser?).
With the new layout the UGTO will have only the Battle Cruiser to take on other Cruisers and below. Currently the TC can be used for that role, but with the new layout it will be too specialized. The UGTO will lack an Assualt type Cruiser.
I just would like to see the UGTO with an Assault type Cruiser that can take on other Cruisers or below as well.
_________________
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2011-04-28 06:09
Sorry, the new versions are all balanced against each other, so keeping an old version would throw that off. They're all made to be replacements.
And if you want to engage small ships, maybe try a small ship? Most ships are designed to attack their class or higher, not lower, so you really need to downgauge to effectively counter smaller ships.
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-04-28 07:11
I also want to add I like the new descriptions but some of them made me lol.
Quote:
|
M-239A Strike Cruiser
The Strike Cruiser is among the final iterations of the M-230 series, with the M-240 hull slated for use in all future cruiser lines. Designed as a heavy tactical support ship, the Strike Cruiser carries three capital-grade ion cannons--weapons normally found only on dreadnoughts and battle stations. The sheer size of the guns leaves room for only a single reactor, so accomodate their power needs the M-239A has had its shield generators removed. Reinforced armor helps it stand up to enemy fire, but this means it is slower and less maneuverable than most ICC ships. A modest railgun battery backs up the spinal guns and provides some close-range defense. All in all it is a distinctly unusual addition to the ICC lineup, but its firepower is brutally effective.
|
|
There is no way in hell this thing will survive first contact.
No shields? No energy so it can't move? Weapons that require range? Its like a target that says sit still so an enemy dread and point jump you and kill you in a single alpha. Or a single cruiser to circle your ship, dodging your cannon fire. The original actually had potential. Now its just another ICC cruiser bound for obscurity.
Quote:
|
Piercer
The Piercer carries the K'Luth version of a human jump disruptor, meaning it fills the same tactical role as human Interdictor Cruisers. Unlike human Interdictors, however, the Piercer is expected to get up close and personal with the ships it is entrapping. In addition to a modest disruptor armament, it carries a pair of ELF Beams that it can use to drain energy from enemy ships in order to keep its jump disruptor running at high speeds. Between these capabilities and the cloaking device standard on all K'luth ships, the Piercer is a very hard ship for humans to escape from.
|
|
Quote:
|
Parasite
A specialist Carnivore, the Parasite is the larger, more powerful brother of the Drainer-class Predator. It carries ELF Beams to drain enemy ships of energy and a staggeringly heavy disruptor armament to finish off damaged targets. Like the Drainer, this ship is ideal for chasing down damaged targets that attempt to withdraw from an engagement. To this end it is often paired with smaller, faster Raptors or Hunters to locate its prey if they jump clear of the battle. Parasites are also sometimes seen in the company of Piercers, taking advantage of their ability to pin a target in place.
|
|
These two ships are good examples (as well as the strike cruiser) which sound amazing on paper but in practice aren't so well thought out.
First off, no good dictor pilot in its right mind would get close enough to fire on an enemy. Not one. Your job is to stay the hell away from enemy fire, not get so close that you get obliterated. And it will - the Piercer has practically no defense. One good shot and its gone. Maybe if some of the mechanics of the game were different (like stop effing putting weapons on rear arcs, and making it so that turning required forward thrust aka moving) it would actually be effective but otherwise it just makes itself a big target. The elf beams WOULD however, work in an unorthodox way by draining energy from nearby FRIENDLY ships in order to keep its batteries up.
Secondly, the Parasite is another good on paper bad in practice ship. Its weapons armament sounds fearsome but beams are notorious for being giant energy hogs. The most this ship would be good for is pinning down smaller ships, or chasing down dictors. Two ships that almost never see the light of day. Otherwise unless beams get some kind of boost in damage, any ship relying on them is ineffective at best.
Then you have the ELF beam. This thing.. could have its potential. But certain people in Developer circles insist on keeping specialist weapons like Flux Cannons and Elf beams time and time again in the zone of useless because of how much they used to be abused. I personally like an approach other than do as much damage as possible, you should be able to completely disable a ship, thats the point of such weapons. But they get no love, and because of that any ship that has them is automatically obscure. Once faction specialist weapons get some kind of love again, then maybe these ships would be worth flying.
I say this because I remember when fluxing and elfing ships actually disabled them, and it was a good sound tactic. The problem was that it was too easy to mod them on otherwise combat ships. I would not mind ships that were absolutely dedicated to disabling ships - flux boats and elf boats, but without any offensive firepower. Their entire role being to help keep ships weakened. Tactical approaches like this might cause some people to cry but if it were balanced right like above, I think it would be great to have.
As usualy though, the rest of the layouts seem fine with the small exception of why the hell anyone puts offensive weapons on rear arcs. Really guys, I think we all know that foreward firepower is everything everyone wants. Yes, it makes rear arcs vulnerable but then I think they should be. I'd rather not see another set of layouts where a ship isn't good enough because it can only fire half of its weapons at once. It is neither practical nor is it fun gameplay wise to expect a player to constantly rotate his ship to get a miniscule amount of extra DPS. Lets try going for a simplified approach.
Take a torpedo boat for example. Make all of its torpedos at least fore, and make a good half or so tri arc. At least then it makes using the ship useful, it can bring all of its armament to bear when attacking and at least half while manuevering but none while retreating. There is no, none, not one practical point, to having weapons that are offensive on a rear arc. Not. One. Not one tactical situation, not one single opportunity would justify using your rear weapons. Your enemies armor/shield regen will just laugh at it.
Thats the point. Can we please stop this trend? Its aggravating that alot of ships have this annoying habit of having its primary armament have those few extra guns that for seemingly no reason, only fire backwards. You might as well remove them and save the trouble. Put something more useful on, like a plate of armor. Anything. Anything but that stupid, pointless addition like a single particle cannon attached to a rear arc that will never in a million years provide a single bit of help in reality.
I know you guys stick to a points system and I know that it involves number crunching but I've gotten to the point of being sick of such obvious design flaws in ships that make them useless. I like the idea of specializing ships, but all it takes is for one ship to be better at everything than the others because it lacks those flaws for the rest to be completley obscure.
I guess I'm just rooting for common sense over mathematical forumlas here.
-Ent
-Ent
_________________
|
Borgie
Chief Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: August 15, 2005
Posts: 2256
From: close by
| Posted: 2011-04-28 08:36
i dunno i have finshed off targets with the rear facing SI on the krill. also fooling around witht he arcs on the new tc those rear facing torps are awsome. its gonna come in real handy as your turning away from your target to redrect fire to another arc.
_________________
|
Gerlach
Marshal
Joined: May 07, 2010
Posts: 78
| Posted: 2011-04-28 08:52
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 07:11, Enterprise wrote:
...about rear facing weapons...
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 08:36, Borgie wrote:
i dunno i have finshed off targets with the rear facing SI on the krill. also fooling around witht he arcs on the new tc those rear facing torps are awsome. its gonna come in real handy as your turning away from your target to redrect fire to another arc.
|
|
Was about to write something similar on this topic. I find rear facing weapons very useful especially on large slow moving ships, where a lighter opponent will most likely try to outmanoeuvre you. With this change, the TCs most vulnerable weak spot was somewhat patched. Of course you want to dish out as much damage as you can from your forward guns while doing an attack run, but rear weapons allow you to pound some more as you disengage. Or repel an annoying ship on your tail.
I use to do this too on my HC which can dish out effective fire in all arcs except for rear which is covered only by 3 light guns and 2 lasers. With the new layout, it will do one hell of damage to the front along with drastically improved broadsides. I think rear guns are just as vital as guns on any other facing and not just on combat type ships.
[ This Message was edited by: Gerlach on 2011-04-28 08:54 ]
_________________
ICC in a nutshell
UGTO in a nutshell
\"I'M HEAVY METAL \\m/>_<\\m/ !!\"
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2011-04-28 09:15
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.
Next, Kluth Piercer. Please lose the ELF n give it 2 PSIs. No dico pilot in his right mind would approach an enemy ship, even one class down.
Now, Parasite. I'm afraid this ship has become rather pointless. Beams are marginally effective against shields or armor. Remember, in most cases the Parasite is the first cruiser for Kluth players ranking up. An all beam ship won't fare well. It needs at least 3 cannons to stay relevant.
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.
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-04-28 09:32
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 08:52, Gerlach wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 07:11, Enterprise wrote:
...about rear facing weapons...
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 08:36, Borgie wrote:
i dunno i have finshed off targets with the rear facing SI on the krill. also fooling around witht he arcs on the new tc those rear facing torps are awsome. its gonna come in real handy as your turning away from your target to redrect fire to another arc.
|
|
Was about to write something similar on this topic. I find rear facing weapons very useful especially on large slow moving ships, where a lighter opponent will most likely try to outmanoeuvre you. With this change, the TCs most vulnerable weak spot was somewhat patched. Of course you want to dish out as much damage as you can from your forward guns while doing an attack run, but rear weapons allow you to pound some more as you disengage. Or repel an annoying ship on your tail.
I use to do this too on my HC which can dish out effective fire in all arcs except for rear which is covered only by 3 light guns and 2 lasers. With the new layout, it will do one hell of damage to the front along with drastically improved broadsides. I think rear guns are just as vital as guns on any other facing and not just on combat type ships.
[ This Message was edited by: Gerlach on 2011-04-28 08:54 ]
|
|
I don't find cherry picked scenarios as much of a justification.
Your rear weapon firing was just barely added on damage compared to the huge amount of firepower that is dished out on the fore weapons. Anyone can do the math. How does two railguns on the back compare to the full payload you just delivered to the front? You're not hurting the enemy, you're just pecking at them as you run away. Its worthless.
I'd rather have those extra weapons pointed at my enemy as I go to do damage, and when I run away not wasting my time pecking at their armor. I can count one or two times out of hundreds of battles those rear weapons actually made a difference. They don't. I don't cherry pick. I remember all the times they didn't help, and when I was retreating it was doing the smart thing and e-jumping. Two torpedos and a rear laser isn't going to do a damn thing to someone on your tail. People have such selective memories. Do you remember all the times it didn't do any good? Of course not.
I just remember all the times it didn't do any good because of nice it would have been if those two extra torpedo slots had actually been on my fore mount on my attack run instead of when I was directly running away and lobbing a few torpedos was as effective as throwing a paper airplane at them.
Get rid of rear offensive weapons.
-Ent
_________________
|
Gerlach
Marshal
Joined: May 07, 2010
Posts: 78
| Posted: 2011-04-28 10:12
But of course I remember using my rear guns, it happens a bit too often for my taste, but it's somewhat a part of my playstyle. I've been chased by enemy ships countless times, using my rear guns and broadsides to retaliate while gaining range. BTW, did you actually notice, those two torpedoes count towards broadsides as well?
And another thing. Maybe you didn't notice the damage output of all cruisers just increased dramatically. I find rear guns as a usefull tool to cover your behind as well as a way to not make them too powerful.
[ This Message was edited by: Gerlach on 2011-04-28 10:14 ]
_________________
ICC in a nutshell
UGTO in a nutshell
\"I'M HEAVY METAL \\m/>_<\\m/ !!\"
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2011-04-28 10:26
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.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Xavier I. Agamemnon
Grand Admiral
Exathra Alliance Fleet
Joined: October 12, 2010
Posts: 357
From: Babylon5
| Posted: 2011-04-28 10:30
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.
|
|
that what i have been saying aboout it, it not ment for close combat. anything like a krill can kill it or assult type cruiser
_________________
Xavier I. Agamemnon
CD/I.C.S Spartacus
HC/I.C.S Athena
CDD/I.C.S Achilles
Leader of the Exathra Alliance Fleet.
|
Shigernafy
Admiral
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 5726
From: The Land of Taxation without Representation
| Posted: 2011-04-28 11:01
Ent, I can agree with weapons that are exclusively rear arc, but I believe all these have at least one other arc available. As pointed out, they are available for broadsides and could see utility in a cramped battlefield, for example.
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
_________________
* [S.W]AdmBito @55321 Sent \"I dunno; the French had a few missteps. But they're on the right track, one headbutt at a time.\"
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2011-04-28 11:04
Quote:
|
On 2011-04-28 10:12, Gerlach wrote:
But of course I remember using my rear guns, it happens a bit too often for my taste, but it's somewhat a part of my playstyle. I've been chased by enemy ships countless times, using my rear guns and broadsides to retaliate while gaining range. BTW, did you actually notice, those two torpedoes count towards broadsides as well?
And another thing. Maybe you didn't notice the damage output of all cruisers just increased dramatically. I find rear guns as a usefull tool to cover your behind as well as a way to not make them too powerful.
[ This Message was edited by: Enterprise on 2011-04-28 12:02 ]
|
|
But they don't cover anything, they just do pitiful damage that makes your enemy think its actually getting hurt when its not. I'm not talking about broadsides here, I'm talking about rear arcs.
You don't use rear arcs nearly as much as you do side and fore arcs. I'm not talking about those. I'm not talking about the shots you make on your side, I'm talking about that narrow 90 degree angle that you almost never on, and if you are, you aren't doing damage. Ever. Its simply not possible to do with a few guns. If you think so, just keep running at that angle and hitting spacebar and kill your enemy. Oh wait, you don't. Go figure.
Maybe its because those rear arcs don't do a damn bit of damage. Your broadsides do, and your fores definitely, but your rear? No. Don't try to mix the three up. There is a narrow, narrow point of time when you are actually shooting straight up rear, and its almost never. And its because you're running.
Rear arcs are only suitable for three things : defense (shields/armor), PD, and gaining range. You aren't running away to do damage. You just aren't. You're running away because you're trying not to die. Running away perpendicular isn't using your rear arc, its using your side arc. And thats not really running away. Thats just extending range while doing decent damage.
Make ships either broadside heavy or fore heavy or a mix of the two. But get rid of those stupid two railguns that might just happen to be on the rear of a ship. Thats just bad design, and I can't see how anyone can rationalize it when they can have it pointed more often in the direction that you're most likely trying to attack someone - at the front or at the side.
Also,
Quote:
|
Ent, I can agree with weapons that are exclusively rear arc, but I believe all these have at least one other arc available. As pointed out, they are available for broadsides and could see utility in a cramped battlefield, for example.
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
|
|
I don't find it much of an excuse that because it has an additional side arc that it justifies it being a rear arc. There is just no use to having a rear arc offensive weapon. It goes against its nature, if you're firing from the rear you're running away. Thats not fighting offensively at all.
The utility comes from forcing a player to fight broadside or fore, and the rear is yes, "exposed" but it is already. It keeps weapons more streamlines and it makes more sense flat out to have all the weapons that all offensive weapons be brought to bear.
I also agree that enhancements are overpowered, and probably the likely reasons that such combinations are thrown in. I wouldn't mind drawbacks to enhancements but that got taken out quick.
I'd still rather finally have some kind of I don't know, sense to the way layouts work. Attacking is for the fore and the sides, the rear is for defense. You can't fight defensively from the back, never. Even the a Claw can take out a Battle Dreadnaught by staying on its rear. Which isn't such a bad thing, positioning is everything.
The point is, if its not going to be effective shooting backwards, it might as well be effective forwards. Thats all I'm going for, if you want it to have a broadside slot too, fine. If you want to limit DPS, switch it out for a beam I can at least use for PD. but don't give me a pcannon or a torpedo or a QST or a missile that fires to the rear, because it serves no practical purpose. Too much experience on the battlefield has told me that battles are won by attacking the enemy, from the side or the front, not by running away. Turn those rear/side cannons into fore/side cannons, or just fore, if you want to really limit it. But ever since they started showing up, its just been lost DPS.
I'd personally rather have no gun at all than an extra cannon that serves no purpose on the battlefield.
-Ent
_________________
|
The Fridge
Chief Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: December 13, 2008
Posts: 559
From: In Your Fridge, Eating your Foods.
| Posted: 2011-04-28 11:10
Yer i blame the +48%, and maybe the number of ion's could of been kept at 5 while reducing their arcs.
Something like
2 (F/R) Ion's
2 (F/L) Ion's
1 (F/L/R) Ion.
(F/R/L) Armour (No rear)
Maybe remove some lasers till there's about 2 left.
The rest could be a gun mount or EW slot.
Seemes more reasonable, then the previous set up that had 3 Tri arc ion's.
But ahwell, still load more testing to be done on some of the ships.
Edit:
Dictors can last more then 5-6 minutes at 20gu/s all factions.
And testing with the SC a bit more, when the aux gen is removed (aux shield turned off) Power consumption is far greater, would also suggest that armour is removed and it gains more shields to drain even more power.
Removal of the Auxillary gadget completly and if space needs to be filled one extra EW slot can be a option, otherwise i see no problem with just not filling that extra space with anything if it means the ship will be balanced.
That way the ship retains the ICC's shields and has the huge power consumption to make it useless in a prolonged skirmish with a smaller or similar sized ship ( although that last point is pure speculation)
[ This Message was edited by: The Fridge on 2011-04-28 12:25 ]
_________________
|
Xpander
Chief Marshal
Portuguese Space Invaders
Joined: February 19, 2011
Posts: 32
From: Portugal
| Posted: 2011-04-28 12:32
hey to all
I ve been in beta to see the new cruiser layouts...
i ve notice that luth has no missile cruiser now
will Palestar add some more cruisers on the luth cruiser list ??
or will be like this and we have no missile cruiser??
and the layouts r only for cruisers or all ships r gonna be changed ??
X
_________________
|
Jim Starluck
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: October 22, 2001
Posts: 2232
From: Cincinnati, OH
| Posted: 2011-04-28 12:39
If you want to fly ships with little to no rear weapons, Ent, stick with K'luth. The most they get in aft firepower is their 2 Full-arc Disruptors.
Human ships, however, do not have the luxury of being able to disappear when an enemy gets on their tail and stays there, so they need to be able to do at least some damage to an enemy behind them--especially the larger ones that turn slower. And as Shigernafy pointed out, very few of these weapons you're complaining about are Rear-arc only.
Furthermore, fore-arc firepower is not entirely the end all, be all of weapon layouts. A number of the new Cruisers have heavy broadside firepower as well, as will many of the upcoming Dreadnoughts. I'm not going to make every single weapon on every single ship at least partly fore, because it unbalances them. In some cases I want to increase the firepower on the sides but not the front, but single-arc broadside weapons don't fill up that many points, so I also give them an aft-arc to have a little more utility.
The bottom line here is that if I went and removed every single Aft arc for every weapon other than beams on the new Cruisers, not a one of them would get additional forward firepower instead. Forward firepower is not the holy grail you paint it as.
_________________
If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger space battleship and try again.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
