| Author |
New Engine and Defense Changes (1.674) |
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
|  Posted: 2012-06-29 15:50
How fast does AHR repair Organic and Chitin?
This is relevant, because the repair rates you show are just the self repair of the gadget, not when AHR is being taken into consideration.
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-06-29 20:19
Quote:
|
On 2012-06-29 15:50, Fluttershy wrote:
How fast does AHR repair Organic and Chitin?
This is relevant, because the repair rates you show are just the self repair of the gadget, not when AHR is being taken into consideration.
|
|
AHR repairs 1/600th of the maximum amount of the armor every second
This makes the repair rates per combat ship class as follows:
Chitin:
Scout: (1.0 * (35,000 + (10,000*2))) / 600 + 25 = 116
Frigate: (1.0 * (35,000 + (10,000*3))) / 600 + 25 = 133
Destroyer: (1.0 * (35,000 + (10,000*4))) / 600 + 25 = 150
Cruiser: (1.1 * (35,000 + (10,000*5))) / 600 + 25 = 180
Dread: (1.3 * (35,000 + (10,000*6))) / 600 + 25 = 230
S. Dread: (1.4 * (35,000 + (10,000*7))) / 600 + 25 = 270
Station: (1.9 * (35,000 + (10,000*10))) / 600 + 25 = 490
Organic:
Scout: (1.0 * (25,500 + (8,000*2))) / 600 + 50 = 119
Frigate: (1.0 * (25,500 + (8,000*3))) / 600 + 50 = 131
Destroyer: (1.0 * (25,500 + (8,000*4))) / 600 + 50 = 145
Cruiser: (1.1 * (25,500 + (8,000*5))) / 600 + 50 = 170
Dread: (1.3 * (25,500 + (8,000*6))) / 600 + 50 = 209
S. Dread: (1.4 * (25,500 + (8,000*7))) / 600 + 50 = 240
Station: (1.9 * (25,500 + (8,000*10))) / 600 + 50 = 384
Edit: This has been nerfed in beta. The above values for out of combat repair rates. In-combat repair rates for auto-repair have been cut in half (so it'd be 1/1200th the maximum amount of the armor every second for AHR).
[ This Message was edited by: Fattierob on 2012-06-30 08:14 ]
_________________
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2012-06-30 00:48
tested mandible (organic armor, 6/12 psitorps) vs 3 ICC ai heavy cruisers at Ran (icc planet, depot but no defences)
armor seemed like a half-inch thick layer of mud - one scratch and it comes off. the heavy cruisers took out 40-50% of each armor plate with single fore alphas. it felt like i was fully dependent on the hull strength in the entire 10-minute fight.
shields are slightly easier to damage now. a full torpedo and SI attack seemed to nearly eliminate one shield arc. shield rotation could greatly improve the survivability of icc cruisers. on average, i had to deal with 1 - 1.5 shields worth of arc.
composite armor was a piece of cake. torpedo-SI alpha tore through the armor and into the hull.
psi torps were good tools of destruction. their multiple projectiles had a decent hit chance vs the ai dodging. amtorps missed completely. 2 psitorp attacks with 4-5 amtorp attacks were the core of my damage potential.
my attack pattern was of shooting 2-3 projectile alphas (15 seconds) and cloaking for hull repairs (40-60 seconds) and power regen. armor regen was almost a joke, no matter how much i would have repaired, 3 arcs of armor would be down in the 10-15 seconds of engagement. and after each attack run, i would have a net loss of 5-20% hull strength.
i did 8 attack runs - 2 each on the 3 cruisers, and another 2 on a fourth cruiser that spawned from icc homegate. i killed 2 of the 3 original targets, and the new target as well but the survivor killed me on my 8th attack run (cloak broken due to subsystem damage). before that last run, i had about 20% hull.
between attack runs, the cruiser's active shields were regenerating well. also the planet repaired their armor nicely. hull repair was average.
the whole fight took place at 200 (ADis range) to 400 (psitorp) ranges. the range was often in my favour.
EDIT:- the description for chitinous armor still says its resistant to psi and kinetic. might be worth updating it. organic-chit armor is still not possible.
EDIT:- ugto armor and weapon testing, icc sabot testing
assault destroyer (full reflective armor, 3/6 ion torpedoes) vs 3 ai parasite cruisers
reflective armor felt nearly indestructible. fought 3 parasites and received about 12 beam alpha strikes. 1 alpha took down only 30-40% reflective armor, and 7 of them made me a tank vs beam-heavy parasites. coupled with the long recharge of disruptors and ADis, i needed to only sit still to effectively combat (and destroy) 2 of 3 parasites.
ion torpedo tracking is a bit hard to guess. it works fine at a distance, where ships turn only 10-20 degrees and then fly straight to me. but it can easily miss when enemy ships are running away. proton torps hit at close range where ions sometimes missed. mid-range (200-400 gu) ions hit slightly more accurately than proton torps. and when both of them hit, their point of impact varied by only 5-10 gu.
reflective armor regeneration is respectable, possibly able to sustain 1 parasite alpha every 1.5-2 minutes.
damage testing - assault destroyer (full reflective armor, 3/6 ion torpedoes, 6/8 ERL) vs jazzaman in battle dread (full ablative armor) vs brutality in assault dread (8/12 sabot rockets)
proton torpedoes had variable damage (2.5-4% to dread ablative, 6% to superdread composite) while ion torpedoes had stable damage (3-3.5% to dread ablative, 5% to superdread composite).
sabot rockets also have stable damage (4% to dread ablative, 25% to destroyer reflective). additionally, they have no splash damage.
extended range laser damage is interesting. it deals 1.5% damage to superdread composite at 500 gu range, ~1% damage at 350 gu range and 0.8% damage at 100 gu range. reverse falloff?
their cooldown time is 15 seconds, so damage is very less compared to chemical lasers (5 second cooldown).
damage of ERL at 500 gu is nearly equal to damage of SCL at 50 gu.
[ This Message was edited by: Raje on 2012-06-30 03:28 ]
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2012-07-03 11:47
OK, I got another question.
What is the hitpoint repair rate of AHR on ship hulls?
If I'm not mistaken, hull is 100% to all damage types, right?
K'luth get hulled a lot, but that hull repair really highers their effectiveness when up against ships that deal in small but constant hits.
They're virtually impenetrable if they spread the damage out, and can easily cloak if the damage begins to outdo the rate at which they can repair.
Sorry, but 1 player being an unstoppable force against 5 players in smaller ships is bs
[ This Message was edited by: Fluttershy on 2012-07-03 11:53 ]
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-07-03 14:22
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-03 11:47, Fluttershy wrote:
OK, I got another question.
What is the hitpoint repair rate of AHR on ship hulls?
|
|
AHR Repairs 1/1200th of the hull (1/600th out of combat) every second, just like gadgets and armor in beta
For a dreadnought this is around 866 hull per second (1,040,000 / 1200), cruiser is around 338 (406,400 / 1200). Station is 2056 per second (2,468,100 / 1200) for either Damage Control or AHR.
_________________
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2012-07-06 10:52
Deleted off-topic replies (had gotten ridiculous). Please stay on-topic.
_________________
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2012-08-23 17:48
Can you clarify engine energy production decay? From what I gather from the graph you posted, the decrease in energy that engines produce is linear from full stop to the engines top speed, correct?
So if you have any sort of engine speed enhancement like a trail or engine tuner and go over the normal max speed is engine energy production always 0 until you get back to normal ranges regardless of engine? Or does it actually go negative(i.e. engines drain energy).
So for example if I am traveling 25gu/s in a cruiser my engine energy production will be the same as if I am traveling 27gu/s and 29gu/s (that is 0 eps at all 3 speeds)
Edit: I also feel that reactive shields should use even less energy than they currently do as they had their regen and resistances severely cut. The only real advantage of reactives is now their energy use and it doesn't seem that significantly different from the other types of shields.
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2012-08-23 18:20 ]
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-08-23 19:20
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-23 17:48, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
Can you clarify engine energy production decay? From what I gather from the graph you posted, the decrease in energy that engines produce is linear from full stop to the engines top speed, correct?
So if you have any sort of engine speed enhancement like a trail or engine tuner and go over the normal max speed is engine energy production always 0 until you get back to normal ranges regardless of engine? Or does it actually go negative(i.e. engines drain energy).
So for example if I am traveling 25gu/s in a cruiser my engine energy production will be the same as if I am traveling 27gu/s and 29gu/s (that is 0 eps at all 3 speeds)
|
|
Energy production is the inverse of your maximum speed, whatever your maximum speed is. That is to say, at 25% of your maximum speed, you will produce 75% of maxium energy. 50% produces 50% and 75% max speed only produces 25% of maximum energy.
That is why speed enhancements are amazing: If your top speed is 20 gu/s and it is normally 15 gu/s, and you are traveling 15 gu/s with the enhancements you are generating (5/20)*100% -> 25% of your maximum energy when without those enhancements you would generate none.
Quote:
|
Edit: I also feel that reactive shields should use even less energy than they currently do as they had their regen and resistances severely cut. The only real advantage of reactives is now their energy use and it doesn't seem that significantly different from the other types of shields.
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2012-08-23 18:20 ]
|
|
They also produce less signature then other shields. But yes, I am planning some changes to shields and armor in general
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2012-08-23 22:12
Quote:
| On 2012-06-01 17:54, Fattierob wrote:
K'luth Chitin Armor
[i]Health: 35,000 + (19,500 * level) -> 35000 + (10,000 * level)
Repair Rate per second: 40 -> 25
All resists have been changed to 100% (was previously weird percents across the board)
Special: Mass penality is increased by 50% compared to normal armors. Adds 2 signature |
|
Dear Fattie, the penality is really high.
I had all Chitin on Brood in beta and its mobility was like a colony.
Since Chitin Armor's HP is higher than Organic, Chitin itself is heavier. As a consequences, the ship produces broadcast higher signature to move the heavier ship. This penalty is like doubling the natural penalty.
I hope the special ought to be like: mass penality is increased by 25% compared to normal armors. Adds 1 signature.
[ This Message was edited by: chlorophyll on 2012-08-23 22:17 ]
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-08-24 07:25
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-23 22:12, chlorophyll wrote:
Dear Fattie, the penality is really high.
I had all Chitin on Brood in beta and its mobility was like a colony.
Since Chitin Armor's HP is higher than Organic, Chitin itself is heavier. As a consequences, the ship produces broadcast higher signature to move the heavier ship. This penalty is like doubling the natural penalty.
I hope the special ought to be like: mass penality is increased by 25% compared to normal armors. Adds 1 signature.
|
|
I complete forgot to check the numbers on this, so this is totally my bad. I had intended to reduce the mass penalty and make the signature penalty based off of the health ratio (so at low health it's be less)
It's possible I botched the mass calculation somehow, i'll look at it later today (or ask somebody to, at least)
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2012-08-24 09:38
Quote:
| On 2012-08-24 07:25, Fattierob wrote:
I had intended to reduce the mass penalty and make the signature penalty based off of the health ratio (so at low health it's be less) |
|
You're awesome Fattierob.
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-08-24 18:53
I checked my math and it turns out I accidently was doubling the mass penality, so i'm changing it to where I wanted it to be (1.5 times, not 2.0 times).
I've also changed the signature penality to 1.5 * (Current health percentage) instead of the flat 2.0 signature, so at full health it gives you 1.5 signature, half health is .75, etc.
_________________
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2012-08-24 19:11
Quote:
|
On 2012-08-23 19:20, Fattierob wrote:
Stuff
|
|
Thanks, that's way better than I expected!
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-08-25 13:31
Reactives needs a description update, mousing over the gadget in game still has the previous desc.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
