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.

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

- Torpedo damage has been increased by roughly 10%.
- Torpedo projectiles now slightly track their target.

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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 ]

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.