Welcome aboard Visitor...

Daily Screenshot

Server Costs Target

Time running out!

54% of target met.

Latest Topics

- Anyone still playing from a decade ago or longer? »
- Game still active. NICE! »
- Password resett »
- Darkspace Idea/Opinion Submission Thread »
- Rank Bug maybe? »
- Next patch .... »
- Nobody will remember me...but. »
- 22 years...asking for help from one community to another »
- DS on Ubuntu? »
- Medal Breakpoints »

Development Blog

- Roadmap »
- Hello strangers, it’s been a while... »
- State of DarkSpace Development »
- Potential planetary interdictor changes! »
- The Silent Cartographer »

Combat Kills

Combat kills in last 24 hours:
No kills today... yet.

Upcoming Events

- Weekly DarkSpace
03/30/24 +1.9 Days

Search

Anniversaries

No anniversaries today.

Social Media

Why not join us on Discord for a chat, or follow us on Twitter or Facebook for more information and fan updates?

Network

DarkSpace
DarkSpace - Beta
Palestar

[FAQ
Forum Index » » English (General) » » Kluth beams, and UGTO SS
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
 Author Kluth beams, and UGTO SS
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
Posted: 2011-08-03 00:34   
Quote:

On 2011-08-02 23:10, Kenny_Naboo[+R] wrote:

1.
- All beams (including human beams) were buffed across the board.
- Kluth beams have always been more powerful than human beams, and they don't have fall off.... but boy do they run through the ship's reserve like a hot knife through butter
- Kluth ships in general are beam heavy
Multiply all 3 factors together and you know why a Kluth beam strike will drill a massive hole in your paintjob.

You can go to Beta, and get your ICC AD and beam alpha your own dessies to see the effect too. It won't be as bad as being drilled by a Siphon, but you will see that it hurts too.


2.
SS.
Latest hotfix = +25% armor for UGTO (and ICC too... but that's beside the point here) and -10% weap power for ICC.
Now, take a baseline figure of 1.00 for the Rel 1.670 before the hotfix.
Your weaps are now 0.9/1.25=72% as effective against the uggies prior to the hotfix. That's a 28% decrease in weap effectiveness.

But that's OK, because 10% is 'minor'. Unfortunately, once you've added the 25%, it isn't anymore, is it?



I know all about the beam buffs, but having tested Parasite vs. HC before the hotfix I can say with 100% certainty it was NOT like that. Yes, the smaller luth ships needed a slight boost to make them more worth using, but whether this resulted from Disruptors getting a damage buff, shields getting a damage resistance nerf, or shields getting a HP nerf, something was drastically changed. The last time I participated in a HC vs Parasite test, the Parasite would run out of energy before being able to get through shields+armor on a HC, now it's like the shields and armor aren't even there. It's nice to see a Parasite is something more than just a minor annoyance but it's a bit much to see them doing damage comparable to a Siphon.

I know all about the UGTO buff+ICC nerf as well, but again, something has drastically changed because before this hotfix it was not THAT hard to damage a Station. 10% damage reduction should not account for this much difference, unless repair rates scale with total armor amount and get faster the more total armor something has, or standard armor got some kind of damage resistance in addition to extra HP I just don't see what could have been changed to have THAT big of an effect on it.

And yes, like Soulless pointed out, ICC Composite Armor and UGTO Standard Armor are now two completely different gadgets and not just the same one with different names, so Standard was changed while Composite was left alone.
[ This Message was edited by: Talien on 2011-08-03 00:35 ]
_________________
Adapt or die.

Whiterin
Fleet Admiral

Joined: November 15, 2007
Posts: 146
Posted: 2011-08-03 06:02   
I have brought up the issue of Kluth beams a few times, and every time I am told by either devs, or people claiming to be, and Kluth players that I am wrong and that it is balanced and that Kluth is actually at a disadvantage because they don't have enough energy. I was even told there was the consideration of nerfing ICC shields. ICC is already weaker then the other two factions, and we are not able to hold as many systems as the other two. We are being beaten back, and then we get a nerf? When I bring it up... people basically scoff at the idea of ICC not being OP for some reason. An example, I have used a few times, but will use again is as follows:

I had a few encounters with a Kluth dessy... I am using a Combat Dessy. I hit the Kluth dessy with 4-5 FULL alphas, point blank. It takes 10-12% armor damage. He hits me 2 or 3 times NOT EVEN WITH ALPHA, and I am already taking Hull damage. I know Kluth weapons are supposedly supposed to be more powerful, because they can't get off as many shots... but that is so far off balance it's laughable. I shouldn't have to shoot a ship 100 times to kill it when he can kill me in 4-5 hits.

Several people have told me that ICC will always beat a Kluth... that's complete and utter rubbish as everyone, admit it or not, can see. I have also been told that ICC does much better sustained damage. Well that's all good and nice, but it's not very useful if we die in 20 seconds now is it?

If Kluth weapons are going to be THAT powerful... how about giving them a 10 or 15 second recharge time? Seems like it would be pleanty fair to be considering the massive difference in damage they do.

Even with the new UGTO buff... it's FAR more even then facing a Kluth.

But again... every time I, or anyone else bring it up, staff and Kluth players just seem to make a joke out of it. ICC players are already low, all you're doing by making it this unbalanced is pushing more away.

Already since the patch, I have, and forgive the language, seen two players on ICC say:
"?!$~~$@@ this, ICC sucks, I am going back to luth".

I like this game, I really do. It's why I came back to it, and why I am so adamant about these issues. I don't hate the game, and I don't think it should be unbalanced just because I play ICC. I know each faction should have it's strengths and weaknesses, but come on... this is just too much.
_________________


Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar


Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
Posted: 2011-08-03 06:25   
No idea what some of you are talking about. There was no stealth nerf to ICC or stealth buff to K'Luth. Just your imaginations going wild.
_________________


CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light


Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
Posted: 2011-08-03 07:11   
nvm.

Ill keep it to myself
[ This Message was edited by: *XO*Defiance on 2011-08-03 08:20 ]
_________________
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: 2011-08-03 07:15   
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 06:25, Pantheon wrote:
No idea what some of you are talking about. There was no stealth nerf to ICC or stealth buff to K'Luth. Just your imaginations going wild.




Then care to explain the changes in defence for ICC ships after the hotfix?
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.


  Email *FTL*Soulless
Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2011-08-03 07:21   
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 07:15, Soulless *ADM* wrote:

Then care to explain the changes in defence for ICC ships after the hotfix?




Changes to ICC defences by the hotfix:

None.

People talked about changing ICC's armour and shields, but ultimately nothing was changed as the development log and all the developers I've spoken to have said.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


*FTL*Soulless
Marshal

Joined: June 25, 2010
Posts: 787
From: Dres-Kona
Posted: 2011-08-03 07:26   
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 07:21, Gejaheline wrote:
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 07:15, Soulless *ADM* wrote:

Then care to explain the changes in defence for ICC ships after the hotfix?




Changes to ICC defences by the hotfix:

None.

People talked about changing ICC's armour and shields, but ultimately nothing was changed as the development log and all the developers I've spoken to have said.




Obviously some Was changed because there is a drastic change in the Deffence for ICC. Read Tailens first post

Tailen if ya can put up the date Before the hotfix to compare with after
_________________
We are Back from the shadows.


  Email *FTL*Soulless
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar


Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
Posted: 2011-08-03 07:59   
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 07:15, Soulless *ADM* wrote:
Then care to explain the changes in defence for ICC ships after the hotfix?




Your imagination.

Believe what you want, but there was no change to any of the ICC defences in this hotfix whatsoever, and no changes to K'Luth damage.

The /tinfoil in this place gets more hilarious by the day. Now we have players imagining changes that don't exist .

[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2011-08-03 08:01 ]
_________________


Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse


Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
Posted: 2011-08-03 10:00   
Quote:

On 2011-08-02 15:28, Talien wrote:
Tested in beta Parasite vs HC and UGTO BC, all ships with no enhancements:

2 alphas to hull a HC with reactive shields
3 alphas to hull a HC with active shields

4 alphas to hull a BC with standard armor
3 alphas to hull a BC with ablative armor
8 alphas to hull a BC with reflective armor

And now on to the SS, once again it can outrepair damage from multiple ships. 2 Border Cruisers were unable to damage one faster than it was repairing with only it's single repair drone and Damage Control gadget with standard armor.

We tried vs. Ablative too it's armor was barely taking any damage from both ships, it was only down to 90% by the time we were halfway out of ammo.



to add to this some facts which obviously haven't been changed in any hotfix/patch since about 1.530

active shields have around 80-90% of standard armor strength, and probably somewhere around 1.5x hp regeneration. if standard armor repairs 1% hp every 5 seconds, then going by maths it would take active shields around 1.5 minutes at best to equal standard armor strength.

1.5 minutes is a lot of time to endure damage if you're playing in 1.67, where the focus is on fast-paced combat.

another thing worth giving attention is resistance to damage.
shields can resist 15% energy damage and 15% psi damage, giving them about 118% effectiveness vs beams and 107-118% vs psi (kluth weapons have both psi and kinetic/energy)
ugto armors have regeneration penalty in exchange of high damage resistance. 50% resistance to a type of damage results in 200% effectiveness (and in practice also gives 200% regeneration, way higher than active shield's 1.5*118%=154%).

on the note of resistance comes flux and emp damage. shields have lower strength than armor, and even so it is weak to flux damage (about 20% if im right) which makes flux weapons 125% more effective vs shields. flux even has damage bonus vs hull! weapon with 2 types of bonuses is a great asset for ugto, reason why their EADs seem so powerful vs icc.

tl;dr - i suggest decrease in damage resistance of special armor, increase in energy resistance of shields, conversion of psi resistance to kinetic resistance (its more stable than psi) and increase in regeneration of active and reactive shields.

by the way, most of the calculations are based off facts from the devlog, strength of active shields is an estimate, and its mostly effective for explaining my point. tyvm for reading this.
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.


SPaRTaN Z
Chief Marshal

Joined: June 26, 2009
Posts: 235
Posted: 2011-08-03 10:25   
Quote:

On 2011-08-02 15:28, Talien wrote:
Kluth beams seem to have gotten a buff with this hotfix, I'd seen people talking about having 1 alpha from a luth Destroyer blow through a full shield arc and eat into armor on a Heavy Cruiser, which was not happening prior to the hotfix.

Tested in beta Parasite vs HC and UGTO BC, all ships with no enhancements:

2 alphas to hull a HC with reactive shields
3 alphas to hull a HC with active shields

4 alphas to hull a BC with standard armor
3 alphas to hull a BC with ablative armor
8 alphas to hull a BC with reflective armor

Used to be it took a Siphon 2-3 alphas to hull a HC or BC, but now a Parasite can do it. Something is not quite right.


And now on to the SS, once again it can outrepair damage from multiple ships. Had this happen in MV yesterday then rechecked it in beta earlier today with the same result, 2 Border Cruisers were unable to damage one faster than it was repairing with only it's single repair drone and Damage Control gadget with standard armor. All 3 ships stock config with no enhancements, SS was rotating.

We tried vs. Ablative too and it was beyond a joke, it didn't even have to rotate and it's armor was barely taking any damage from both ships, it was only down to 90% by the time we were halfway out of ammo, which was around 5 minutes.

Tested ICC SS vs 2 Battle Cruisers from 800 GU, all stock ships meaning aux shields on the SS, and even at max effective range shields were taking more damage than defense mode let them regen. Composite armor was likewise unable to stand up to 2 BCs at max range with reload+Damage Control while rotating. Tried 1 BC vs the SS at closer range (300-600 GU) and the single BC was able to peel off all shielding and eat into armor within a few minutes even with defense mode running. I neglected to time it so I can't be sure exactly how long it took, but it seemed to be around 6-7 minutes.




2 Scouts = 1 Frigate
2 Frigates = 1 Dessie
2 Cruisers = 1 Station?

I believe this is why we have leveled weapons.

2 Dreads = 1 Station
_________________


Gejaheline
Fleet Admiral
Galactic Navy


Joined: March 19, 2005
Posts: 1127
From: UGTO MUNIN HQ, Mars
Posted: 2011-08-03 10:29   
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 10:00, Brahmastra wrote:
ugto armors have regeneration penalty in exchange of high damage resistance. 50% resistance to a type of damage results in 200% effectiveness (and in practice also gives 200% regeneration, way higher than active shield's 1.5*118%=154%).



Point of fact: You can't compare armour and shield regeneration like that because they have different base regeneration rates (which is what those percentage values apply to), different HP values (which are not changed by resistances), and different damage types (since I'm fairly sure that ablative armour is the only armour type to have 50% resistance to anything, and it's kinetic rather than the energy resistances of shields).

1% armour HP does not equal 1% shield HP; they have different HP totals.

1 second of armour regeneration does not equal 1 second of shield regeneration; they have different regeneration speeds.

1% greater armour regeneration does not equal 1% greater shield regeneration; percentages are multipliers, in this case applied to shield and armour regeneration which are different numbers.

If I pulled two random numbers out of the air for shield and armour regeneration, and increased them both by 10%, they would not both increase by the same amount.

Armour: Regenerates (made-up number warning) 1HP/sec. Increase by 10% = 1.1HP/sec, an increase of 0.1HP/sec.
Shields: Regenerates (made-up-number warning) 2 HP/sec. Increase by 10% = 2.2HP/sec, an increase of 0.2 HP/sec.

0.1 does not equal 0.2.

Ablative armour's 50% reduction in kinetic damage inflicted does indeed make it 100% more effective than its HP total would suggest with regards to how much damage it can take, but that doesn't affect how fast it regenerates from 0% since its base hitpoints do not change based on what damage it has taken.

Additionally, while you could argue that its effective hitpoints in the context of kinetic damage is 100% faster because it gains two effective HP for each actual HP regained, you can't say it regenerates faster than shields because it doesn't actually naturally regenerate at all, so zero times two is still zero. Other forms of UGTO armour that do regenerate do so very slowly, and typically do not beat ICC shield regeneration regardless of how you're measuring their effective hitpoints.
_________________
[Darkspace Moderator] [Galactic Navy Fleet Officer]


Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse


Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
Posted: 2011-08-03 11:45   
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 10:29, Gejaheline wrote:
Point of fact: You can't compare armour and shield regeneration like that because they have different base regeneration rates, different HP values, and different damage types (since I'm fairly sure that ablative armour is the only armour type to have 50% resistance to anything).

Ablative armour's 50% reduction in kinetic damage inflicted does indeed make it 100% more effective, but that doesn't affect how fast it regenerates from 0%.

Additionally, while you could argue that its effective hitpoints in the context of kinetic damage is 100% faster because it gains two effective HP for each actual HP regained, you can't say it regenerates faster than shields because it doesn't actually naturally regenerate at all, so zero times two is still zero.


i wasnt saying 1% shield hp = 1% armor hp...i was just saying ~90% armor hp=100% active shield hp...and im not even sure if its 90% or 80%

about ugto armor..reflective armor has 50% energy resistance (takes only 50% dmg from beams) and -37.5% kinetic resistance (137.5% dmg taken from projectiles).

even though ablative armor doesnt regen it has a lot of hp to stand its own against damage for reasonably good time. extra hp for no regen means its perfect for short battles. like, perfect. no weaknesses, big strength, max hp of all defense devices and extra-effective with repair drones.

sry if i confused you...
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.


lemiwinks
Midshipman

Joined: September 13, 2010
Posts: 4
Posted: 2011-08-03 11:59   
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 07:59, Pantheon wrote:
Quote:

On 2011-08-03 07:15, Soulless *ADM* wrote:
Then care to explain the changes in defence for ICC ships after the hotfix?




Your imagination.

Believe what you want, but there was no change to any of the ICC defences in this hotfix whatsoever, and no changes to K'Luth damage.

The /tinfoil in this place gets more hilarious by the day. Now we have players imagining changes that don't exist .

[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2011-08-03 08:01 ]


the old backslash would just remove all the entries he dident like......how the mighty have fallen

and dont you dare touch this one or i'll poke geja's cat in the eye with a stick ha
_________________


CM7
Midshipman
Faster than Light


Joined: October 15, 2009
Posts: 1812
Posted: 2011-08-03 13:38   
Just got done testing ICC heavy Cruiser Vs Scale and parisite (individualy)

I must say the fights were VERY VERY VERY even. IV actualy NEVER seen Kluth and ICC cruisers soo close in performance befor.


Yes i still believe Kluth small ships are putting out more damage after the hotfix.

No! This turns out to actualy be a good thing. A Great thing.
_________________
Defiance and Opposition, a tribute to teamwork. I will remember always
339,144

Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights


Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
Posted: 2011-08-03 13:42   
Data gathered in release and in beta does not support your assurances that nothing has been changed. Something is different, we just are not sure exactly what it is yet, as a Parasite most assuredly could NOT do comparable damage to a Siphon pre hotfix.


Siphon vs. AD, both stock layouts with no enh:

1 disruptor did 4% damage to one shield arc, 1 assault disruptor did 10% damage to one shield arc.

1 beam alpha (disruptors+assault disruptors, ELF not used) to the side of an AD burned through shields and left it with less than 20% armor, 2 easily hulled it.

3 beam alphas to the front to hull the AD .

1 full alpha to the side nearly hulled it, less than 10% armor left.

2 full alphas to the front hulled it.


Siphon vs HC, both stock layouts with no enh:

1 disruptor did 5% damage to one shield arc, 1 assault disruptor did 15% damage to one shield arc

2 beam alphas hulled it, 1 killed the shields and did around 45% armor damage




Parasite (me) vs. HC (Defiance), both stock layouts with no enh. Combat scenario, Parasite started cloaked and had the first strike advantage

As long as AHR held I was easily able to keep up with def mode shield regen and burn through shields+armor each pass, his hull was down to 50% by the time AHR ran out, then the cloak bug reared it's ugly head. He was still able to target me, according to him I was uncloaked the whole time even though I had it on cooldown, when I uncloaked he saw me cloak.

Compare this to the previous HC vs Parasite test we did where a Parasite wasn't even able to get through a single armor arc on a HC.



Scale (me) vs. HC (Defiance), both stock layouts with no enh.

HC was down to 14% hull when I finally died, very possible a Scale could've won vs HC if the Scale had it's previous layout with the extra cannons instead of 2 ECM, or if either of us had done even one thing differently.


Either I'm that much better a pilot than anyone else who has tested Kluth Cruisers vs ICC Cruisers, or something has indeed changed. Since I have less than 20 hours flying experience with luth ships I'm betting on the latter.




ELF test:

1 ELF on a Siphon drained not quite 5 energy from an AD, and actually uses a small amount of energy while it's on cooldown. 1 ELF does not even cover the energy use from 1 Assault Disruptor. ELF are currently nothing but filler to use extra points in a layout and have next to no actual use in combat, 6 ELF on a Siphon barely drain 30 energy even against a target with no shields and no armor on the arc being hit. Even 3 Siphons all firing ELF at the same target would only drain 90 energy from it, which would not be enough to affect the outcome of combat since those same 3 Siphons will have killed it long before they'd drain it's energy away.


1 ELF on a Siphon drained not quite 4 energy from a HC. Does it scale based on the energy pool of the target, less energy target has=less energy drained?




Will be in beta again later for more.
_________________
Adapt or die.

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 Next Page )
Page created in 0.024512 seconds.


Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Palestar Inc. All rights reserved worldwide.
Terms of use - DarkSpace is a Registered Trademark of PALESTAR