| Author |
[1.7] Soft-release Feedback |
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
|  Posted: 2013-10-16 08:22
Everything is just so well described!
[ This Message was edited by: Azreal on 2013-10-23 16:00 ]
_________________
bucket link
|
Ravendark
Marshal
Sanity Assassins
Joined: July 01, 2010
Posts: 443
| Posted: 2013-10-16 09:12
-one of reactor on nest is shown as diruptor.
[ This Message was edited by: Ravendark on 2013-10-16 09:35 ]
_________________
|
Sheraton*XO*
Chief Marshal
Faster than Light
Joined: January 18, 2013
Posts: 482
From: Keel Mountains
| Posted: 2013-10-16 09:39
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 08:22, Azreal wrote:
Just a minor issue, but a desription for the new platforms would be helpful. For 'Luth anyways, most names aren't indicative of function.
And, I'm almost biting my hand as I say this, but ARE YOU SURE you want a bomber dread like that (the luth one) in my hands? I can smoke a 100% shielded planet and still clean the troops off, all while sipping daintily on a glass of red wine. Just making sure.
|
It's not like the rest of us can't do likewise.
-Sheraton
_________________
Twilit Keel Mountains traversed at last we met a dragon who spoke thus: \"Sheraton am I who interprets the signs.\"
|
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
| Posted: 2013-10-16 10:08
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 09:39, Sheraton *XO* wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 08:22, Azreal wrote:
Just a minor issue, but a desription for the new platforms would be helpful. For 'Luth anyways, most names aren't indicative of function.
And, I'm almost biting my hand as I say this, but ARE YOU SURE you want a bomber dread like that (the luth one) in my hands? I can smoke a 100% shielded planet and still clean the troops off, all while sipping daintily on a glass of red wine. Just making sure.
|
It's not like the rest of us can't do likewise.
-Sheraton
|
The problem w/ the K'luth bomber dread is that it can cloak, so it has far more survivability than its counterparts. Also, K'luth ECM spam...is K'luth ECM spam. See last post on 2nd page.
[ This Message was edited by: Mylith on 2013-10-16 10:10 ]
_________________
http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7
|
Mylith
Grand Admiral
Faster than Light
Joined: July 19, 2011
Posts: 507
From: Hivarin, CD+36*15693
| Posted: 2013-10-16 10:12
One more thing: Targeted chat(/t chat message) that you send to another player is white, just like the lobby chat from ingame. Targeted chat that you receive is the correct light blue. Is this a bug or intended?
_________________
http://twitter.com/DarkSpace7
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2013-10-16 10:14
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 10:08, Mylith wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 09:39, Sheraton *XO* wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 08:22, Azreal wrote:
Just a minor issue, but a desription for the new platforms would be helpful. For 'Luth anyways, most names aren't indicative of function.
And, I'm almost biting my hand as I say this, but ARE YOU SURE you want a bomber dread like that (the luth one) in my hands? I can smoke a 100% shielded planet and still clean the troops off, all while sipping daintily on a glass of red wine. Just making sure.
|
It's not like the rest of us can't do likewise.
-Sheraton
|
The problem w/ the K'luth bomber dread is that it can cloak, so it has far more survivability than its counterparts. Also, K'luth ECM spam...is K'luth ECM spam. See last post on 2nd page.
[ This Message was edited by: Mylith on 2013-10-16 10:10 ]
|
The problem with the Kluth bomber is the people don't build ECCM on planets. Or try to defend them really.
-Ent
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2013-10-16 11:00
Reposted from the beta feedback thread because it's still a relevant issue regarding turn rates before and after armor mass reduction. Unless, of course, I really am the only one who actually cares about this.
Release=1.6, I didn't feel like going through and editing that change in each line.
Turn rate comparison:
ICC Scout with 1 armor plate, turn rate of 42, previously 41
ICC Scout with no armor, turn rate of 44 (release only)
UGTO Scout with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 30, previously 25
UGTO Scout with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 36, previously 31, release 31
Kluth Scout with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 38, previously 33
Kluth Scout with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 40, previously 34
Kluth Scout with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 39 (release only)
ICC Frigate with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 25, previously 24
ICC Frigate with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 26, previously 24,
ICC Frigate with 2 armor plates, turn rate of 26, previously 25, release 26
ICC Frigate with 1 armor plate, turn rate of 27, previously 26, release 27
ICC Frigate with 0 armor plates, turn rate of 28, previously 28
UGTO Frigate with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 22, previously 17
UGTO Frigate with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 23, previously 18
UGTO Frigate with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 23, previously 20, release 20
UGTO Frigate with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 24, previously 21, release 21
Kluth Frigate with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 24, previously 21
Kluth Frigate with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 25, previously 22
Kluth Frigate with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 25, previously 23, release 24
Kluth Frigate wtih 4 armor plates, turn rate of 26, previously 24, release 25
ICC Destroyer with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 20 (Apparently one got an extra armor plate added since my last test. Or I just missed it the first time, either way.)
ICC Destroyer with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 20, previously 17
ICC Destroyer with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 20, previously 20, release 19
ICC Destroyer with 3 armor plates, turn rate of 21, previously 20, release 20
ICC Destroyer with 2 armor plates, turn rate of 21, previously 20
ICC Destroyer with 0 armor plates, turn rate of 23, previously 23
UGTO Destroyer with 10 armor plates, turn rate of 17, previously 14
UGTO Destroyer with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 18, previously 15
UGTO Destroyer with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 18, previously 15, release 16
UGTO Destroyer with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 19, previously 16, release 17
Kluth Destroyer with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 19, previously 17
Kluth Destroyer with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 20, previously 17, release 18
Kluth Destroyer with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 20, previously 18, release 19
Kluth Destroyer with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 20, previously 18
ICC Cruiser with 6 armor plates, turn rate of 16, previously 14
ICC Cruiser with 5 armor plates, turn rate of 16, previously 14
ICC Cruiser with 4 armor plates, turn rate of 16 (release only)
ICC Cruiser with 3 armor plates,turn rate of 17, previously 16
ICC Cruiser with 2 armor plates, turn rate of 17, previously 16
ICC Cruiser with 1 armor plate, turn rate of 17, previously 17
ICC Cruiser with no armor, turn rate of 22 (release only)
UGTO Cruiser with 10 armor plates, turn rate of 14, previously 11,
UGTO Cruiser with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 14, previously 12
UGTO Cruiser with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 14, previously 12, release 13
UGTO Cruiser with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 14 (release only)
Kluth Cruiser with 10 armor plates, turn rate of 15, previously 13
Kluth Cruiser with 9 armor plates, turn rate of 15, previously 13
Kluth Cruiser with 8 armor plates, turn rate of 16, previously 14
Kluth Cruiser with 7 armor plates, turn rate of 16, previously 14, release 15
As we can see most UGTO and Kluth ships got a substantial boost to turn rate due to the armor mass reduction, this is good as the turn rates for Kluth ships were rather bad and utterly abysmal for UGTO and they needed a bit of a boost.
However, UGTO and Kluth now have better turn rates than in release while ICC is about the same, and with Destroyers and Cruisers some are almost or even just as maneuverable as ICC ships that have less armor. It seems something is still a bit off. Most notably, to me at least, is the difference between no armor and just 1 plate of armor causing such a huge decrease in turn rate for ICC Cruisers.
To put it in perspective a bit:
ICC Scout: No armor, 44. 1 armor, 42.
ICC Frigate: No armor, 28. 1 armor, 27.
ICC Destroyer: No armor, 23. 1 armor, 21.
ICC Cruiser: No armor, 22. 1 armor, 17.
That single armor plate cuts turn rate by 5 (unchanged from before armor mass was lowered), but 5 more armor plates only reduces it by an additional 1 degree per second. Compare to a Kluth Cruiser with 7 armor plates having a turn rate of 16 or UGTO with 10 having a turn rate of 14.
Raising armor mass a bit so the difference in turn rates between factions isn't so negligible would be good. It was horrible before the armor mass reduction but it seems to have gone too far in the other direction.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Valiant Wolf
Admiral
Joined: March 20, 2010
Posts: 15
| Posted: 2013-10-16 12:42
Got on about half an hour ago to find there had been a hotfix which seems to have solved the age-old chat duplication bug, so kudos to whoever fixed that. That being said, I wanted to raise an issue regarding the changes to the gates in Critium 32 Major A.
Before the hotfix Critium had no connection to Andosia and instead had two sector gates to Ursa Minor (one of the rank restricted sectors), and from experience the gate linking to Cephid Prime worked as intended.
On the current release candidate the gate linking to Cephid Prime has been removed and another gate linking to Andosia has been introduced. However, upon attempting to navigate to either Andosia or R33 from Critium and vice-versa, ships are pathfinding via Williams 22 and Cephid Prime, passing through a rank restricted server and inhibiting the use of higher rank ships; instead ships should be pathfinding through the obvious gate between Critium and Andosia, bypassing the rank restriction and shortening the trip by more than one jump. To add to this issue, the gate between Critium and Andosia is bugged, and attempting to fly through it with any ship will disconnect the player and despawn their ship.
I can understand the reallocation of the gates in Critium, but it has only caused more problems and I hope this issue is addressed as swiftly as the chat duplication was (not counting the years it existed before 1.7). Personally I thought that the placement of Critium and it's lack of links gave it a niche, defendable position that required either the sacrifice of higher rank ships or good teamplay to launch an assault to or from it.
Thanks,
~Wolf
[ This Message was edited by: Valiant Wolf[S-2] on 2013-10-16 13:02 ]
_________________
|
Walrus of Apathy
Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: August 07, 2005
Posts: 466
From: Dorans Basement
| Posted: 2013-10-16 14:02
I've fixed the reactor on the Nest and made platform descriptions more descriptive to their actual function.
_________________
|
-xTc- ExisT
Chief Marshal
Army Of Darkness
Joined: March 20, 2010
Posts: 534
From: Red Lobster
| Posted: 2013-10-16 14:03
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 08:14, Mylith wrote:
K'luth ECM+cloak seems to be slightly overpowered, personally I'd think the ECM could use something like a 5% effectiveness nerf(or slightly buff ECCM).
|
I don't think so.
ECM + cloak is very powerful, but on the opposite, ECCM against cloak is EXTREMELY painful. Once our sig hits high levels it is usually game over unless we destroy the eccm FAST or bring our own ecm.
_________________
*Connection lost, attempting reconnect in 30 seconds....
Do you really want to just pay bills until you die?
|
Kenny_Naboo
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: January 11, 2010
Posts: 3823
From: LobsterTown
| Posted: 2013-10-16 14:54
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 10:14, Ent wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 10:08, Mylith wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 09:39, Sheraton *XO* wrote:
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 08:22, Azreal wrote:
Just a minor issue, but a desription for the new platforms would be helpful. For 'Luth anyways, most names aren't indicative of function.
And, I'm almost biting my hand as I say this, but ARE YOU SURE you want a bomber dread like that (the luth one) in my hands? I can smoke a 100% shielded planet and still clean the troops off, all while sipping daintily on a glass of red wine. Just making sure.
|
It's not like the rest of us can't do likewise.
-Sheraton
|
The problem w/ the K'luth bomber dread is that it can cloak, so it has far more survivability than its counterparts. Also, K'luth ECM spam...is K'luth ECM spam. See last post on 2nd page.
[ This Message was edited by: Mylith on 2013-10-16 10:10 ]
|
The problem with the Kluth bomber is the people don't build ECCM on planets. Or try to defend them really.
-Ent
|
Exactly. In a high ECCM environment, and with a dico in place, the bomber dread is extremely vulnerable, cloak nonwithstanding.
The Clavate is a much better choice in these circumstances. I have 6 local ECMs to cover my tracks, and I can simply drop bombs with relative impunity
_________________
... in space, no one can hear you scream.....
|
-xTc- ExisT
Chief Marshal
Army Of Darkness
Joined: March 20, 2010
Posts: 534
From: Red Lobster
| Posted: 2013-10-16 16:31
I'm not a big fan of the bomber dread either, on any faction.
Sure, it's a good counter to planetary shields, but you can't counter the bomber dread itself.
By the time you respond to the planet it's bombing it's usually too late and your planet is wrecked.
But it is what it is, adapt and overcome;)
_________________
*Connection lost, attempting reconnect in 30 seconds....
Do you really want to just pay bills until you die?
|
Terra Nova
Fleet Admiral
Joined: February 15, 2013
Posts: 29
From: Tau Volantis
| Posted: 2013-10-16 21:36
i was playing Scenario and i saw a AI destroyer and a AI Cruiser!
i thought there wasent gunna be any powerful AI in scenario
also why Plasma Cannon does just as much dmg to shields as it does armor? Plasma cannons should do atleast 25% less dmg to shields but 25% to armor and same with Psi cannons , 25% less dmg to armor but 25% more to Shields, a ganglia with all plasma cannons should crap dmg to a ICC dread but is feard by anyone in a UGTO dread
[ This Message was edited by: Terra Nova on 2013-10-16 22:30 ]
_________________
 I am become Death , Destroyer of Worlds
|
Scorched Soul[+R]
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: November 14, 2005
Posts: 378
From: USA, NJ, Princeton
| Posted: 2013-10-16 23:55
Quote:
On 2013-10-16 16:31, -xTc-.xisT *XO* wrote:
I'm not a big fan of the bomber dread either, on any faction.
Sure, it's a good counter to planetary shields, but you can't counter the bomber dread itself.
By the time you respond to the planet it's bombing it's usually too late and your planet is wrecked.
But it is what it is, adapt and overcome;)
|
I am of the opposite stance in that now you will have to build a planet every now and again. I liked the system way back where you could nuke a planet flat as a pancake in 30 seconds flat, because every time you logged into the MV who owned what was totally different, although the game mechanics were more than a little different and the player base was slightly larger.
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2013-10-17 00:20
Remember that Bomber Dreadnoughts have diddly in the way of weaponry. Quickly jumping one with a PD ship, even just a Frigate, is enough to effectively shut it down as it won't be able to do much of anything about you following it and PDing it's bombs right after they're launched. You don't need to blow it up to get rid of one as a threat and about the only thing it can do to hurt you is SD in your face.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
