| Author |
1.703 Feedback |
Alzek15
Admiral
Joined: October 27, 2011
Posts: 75
From: A metaverse far, far away
|  Posted: 2014-02-20 09:07
I've done what I can to recruit people, finally got one to stick and I'm proud of him for actually not giving up within ten minutes. This game can be really rough on new players so we need to do our best to help them learn.
_________________
\"Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.\" - Mark Twain
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2014-02-20 10:50
I've gotten a few people to play this but they never stay.
The only one who really stuck around for several days was Xizzdot, and she mostly did combat supply on k'luth, and earned some good credits doing it too.
The problem seems to be lack of interest, all my buddies are playing stuff like Loadout, Spiral Knights, TF2, Counterstrike, and Starbound.
The biggest issues IMO are:
Very poor flow when going from installation to playing the game for the first time.
Tutorial is a bit hidden out of the way.
Lots of stuff and no clear objective.
None of those are easy fixes.
Seems that all this game can hope to do is try and cling to the few that stick around, and appeal to the veterans.
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2014-02-20 12:25
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 09:02, Rykros1987 wrote:
I think the ICC needs some long range ENERGY based weapons.
Ablatives alright in the sense that its like a ugto trademark stance on things....endure punishment get in close and rain hell on your enemies up close.
The problem is that...I can't think of a single long range energy based weapon to counter this. Except maybe mines not sure.
Which means if we want to fight ugto ablative we have to give up evasiveness and get in close where our shields and composite just dont hold up against somoene that out dps's and out tanks the ICC. Seems like an oversight to me. Especially since all they have to do is have a good pd ship along and suddenly mines just are....bleh....
Why give a faction more evasiveness and less tanking/dps and then give the ugto a tool that forces us to be close to them to do effective damage.
So uhm... give us some long range energy based weaponry to choose instead of railguns or gauss please. >.> Valence is nice...but should we really have to dogfight them and get pummeled to death to counter ablative?
[ This Message was edited by: Rykros1987 on 2014-02-20 09:06 ]
|
This is silly. Look, UGTO might do more damage, and they may have more total HP, but they have less manueverability and range - and this is important.
ICC defenses and weapons aren't really too far from the mark from UGTO ones, but a lot of the time I just don't see ICC actually use any of their close range ships with sort of exist for a reason.
But ultimately, even though the DPS is lower, ICC only has to break through one single arc of armor to get to hull, while UGTO and Kluth both have to go entirely through all ICC shields.
Commonly what I might see is a bunch of ICC all in one type of ship, or using one type of weapon, and this makes it easy for a faction like UGTO to just put on their best advantages and wait you out.
The only reason ICC might feel they need a long range option is precisely because of the way interdictors are, which, if they are changed so that close ranged ships could get it, they should find no trouble engaging at close range.. and I know they don't. Its about positioning. and you using your advantages as well. If you attack a UGTO or KLuth ship and you have to get through all of their armor.. you're doing it wrong. Simple as that. You are wasting time and damage.
Anyone who thinks anything other than missile ships on ICC do no damage is sorely is mistaken. I just think a lot of people are stuck in an old way of thinking that ICC is a long range faction when all they have now is a range advantage. You may as well say UGTO is an EMP faction if ICC is a long range range faction.
And at the end of it, it will always come down to numbers, no matter what faction you are. Maybe if everyone didn't pile into one we would (and have seen) other factions dominate. Unless everyone has short term memory loss, which I wouldn't doubt.
_________________
|
Rykros1987
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 01, 2012
Posts: 88
From: Not in an asylum. Yet.
| Posted: 2014-02-20 13:30
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 12:25, Ent wrote:
1.This is silly. Look, UGTO might do more damage, and they may have more total HP, but they have less manueverability and range - and this is important.
2.ICC defenses and weapons aren't really too far from the mark from UGTO ones, but a lot of the time I just don't see ICC actually use any of their close range ships with sort of exist for a reason.
3.But ultimately, even though the DPS is lower, ICC only has to break through one single arc of armor to get to hull, while UGTO and Kluth both have to go entirely through all ICC shields.
4.Commonly what I might see is a bunch of ICC all in one type of ship, or using one type of weapon, and this makes it easy for a faction like UGTO to just put on their best advantages and wait you out.
5.The only reason ICC might feel they need a long range option is precisely because of the way interdictors are, which, if they are changed so that close ranged ships could get it, they should find no trouble engaging at close range.. and I know they don't. Its about positioning. and you using your advantages as well. If you attack a UGTO or KLuth ship and you have to get through all of their armor.. you're doing it wrong. Simple as that. You are wasting time and damage.
6.Anyone who thinks anything other than missile ships on ICC do no damage is sorely is mistaken. I just think a lot of people are stuck in an old way of thinking that ICC is a long range faction when all they have now is a range advantage. You may as well say UGTO is an EMP faction if ICC is a long range range faction.
7.And at the end of it, it will always come down to numbers, no matter what faction you are. Maybe if everyone didn't pile into one we would (and have seen) other factions dominate. Unless everyone has short term memory loss, which I wouldn't doubt.
|
1. Funny. When your at a distance maneuverability tends to not factor in much.
Especially when despite your constant salvos of cannons that enemy ship in the distance that you are fighting absorbs 50% of all the kinetic damage.
In what you are describing I think I have already addressed in my previous statement. Up close to counter it with energy weapons = out-dps'd and tanked. In the distance = they shrug off your attacks and laugh most of the time. The only thing im asking for is alternate kinds of long range weapons for versatility. THATS ALL. That's not silly that's called wanting a faction to be more versatile and NOT massively dependant on one damage type. It's not like im asking them to nerf factions or disrupt game balance massively.
2. How is this is supposed to be relevant vs simply wanting more variety for long range weapons...I have no clue.
3. Uhm...I don't think I said anything about buffing shields or GIB MORE SUPER POWERS TO MY CANNONS. So maybe you can explain this bit further.
4.Uhm...when I play I havn't really seen ICC as of late just spam one type of ship. It's usually a mix. Not that I really care im just saying: I don't see this all of one type spam that which you speak of.
5.Its strange that you try to act like you KNOW what every single person that plays this game thinks like. Has it ever occured to you that this is a strategy game and that some people might like versatility when taking the long range approach? Instead of oh look they have ablative lets all be forced to close range them.
6. What on exathra does this have to do with asking for alternative damage type weaponry for long range cannons?
7. Uhm yea...I don't see how this is a valid argument against wanting alternative types of weapons.
[ This Message was edited by: Rykros1987 on 2014-02-20 13:33 ]
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2014-02-20 13:54
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 13:30, Rykros1987 wrote:
1. Funny. When your at a distance maneuverability tends to not factor in much.
|
Again, you don't always need to fight at a distance. You have a manueverability advantage at close range.
Quote:
Especially when despite your constant salvos of cannons that enemy ship in the distance that you are fighting absorbs 50% of all the kinetic damage.
|
Then get in close, use your advantage to manueverability, target a single point. Use valence cannons, they do energy damage, and against ablative its 50% more. This would literally be doing the most damage that cannons can do at that point (720 average dps +50%).
Quote:
In what you are describing I think I have already addressed in my previous statement. Up close to counter it with energy weapons = out-dps'd and tanked.
|
Which is where you are incorrect. UGTO have more total HP, but you only need to go through 1/4th of it. You do more damage at close range with Valence cannons than they do with Particles... and even more so if they are wearing ablative, which they usually are against you.
This is the same thing with Fusion Torps and Beams.
Quote:
In the distance = they shrug off your attacks and laugh most of the time. The only thing im asking for is alternate kinds of long range weapons for versatility. THATS ALL. That's not silly that's called wanting a faction to be more versatile and NOT massively dependant on one damage type. It's not like im asking them to nerf factions or disrupt game balance massively.
|
Thats because they EXPECT you to fight at range. And you do. And so they wear ablative. And they shrug off your attacks. Instead of adapting, you throw your face into a wall again and again. Instead of removing platforms in some fashion, you let the PD shut you down. Instead of removing the interdictor so you can get in some energy weapons, you sit back and wonder why nothing does any good.
Head on, even ablative can't stop missiles. But if you let them camp and hide from them, what do you expect? Nothing is going to work 100% of the time. Take some lessons from UGTO, and use appropriate ships when appropriate.
Quote:
5.Its strange that you try to act like you KNOW what every single person that plays this game thinks like. Has it ever occured to you that this is a strategy game and that some people might like versatility when taking the long range approach? Instead of oh look they have ablative lets all be forced to close range them.
|
Nope, I just watch people play the game. Its important to do so, it helps spot problems. It is a strategy game, you see.. and in a strategy game, there is more than a long range approach. There is more than one type of weapon. That you seem to think all ICC has is kinetic weapons speaks to me that you haven't considered all of your strategic options. That you don't simply pinpoint UGTO's weak spots that are clearly evident to me - that UGTO's tankiness doesn't matter because 1/4th of their HP is only truly effective, that you don't adapt and use anything other than a "long range strategy approach". This seems to be the ONLY approach considered! You think ICC's close range abilities can't hold up after all!
But they can. And they do.
Quote:
6. What on exathra does this have to do with asking for alternative damage type weaponry for long range cannons?
|
Because cannons are just for smaller ships alone. They are not a universal solution. There are other weapons, and other weapons that are energy types. Use them.
_________________
|
Rykros1987
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 01, 2012
Posts: 88
From: Not in an asylum. Yet.
| Posted: 2014-02-20 14:14
My main point is that most factions have at least some kind of alternate damage when it comes to all aspects. Now ICC does have versatility up close. duh. I've used a assault cruiser before with sabots/heavy beams.
It's just they don't have alternate weapon choices for long range. Just kinetic this. Kinetic that. All I'm asking for is the same versatility of close up combat. Being introduced to long range as well.
There is really no reason at all that I can see for hating this idea or condemning it in any way. You havn't said anything that would suggest its a bad idea.
The only thing you keep saying is 'forget suggestions just go close range them. This game doesn't need anymore variety ev4r.'
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2014-02-20 14:32
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 14:14, Rykros1987 wrote:
My main point is that most factions have at least some kind of alternate damage when it comes to all aspects. Now ICC does have versatility up close. duh. I've used a assault cruiser before with sabots/heavy beams.
It's just they don't have alternate weapon choices for long range. Just kinetic this. Kinetic that. All I'm asking for is the same versatility of close up combat. Being introduced to long range as well.
There is really no reason at all that I can see for hating this idea or condemning it in any way. You havn't said anything that would suggest its a bad idea.
The only thing you keep saying is 'forget suggestions just go close range them. This game doesn't need anymore variety ev4r.'
|
Its not so much about variety, but about balance. There are some planned ideas for ranged energy based weapons, but that will probably be at a later date.
UGTO has those defenses for this specific reason, that ICC would solely stand at range and just attempt to bombard anything into oblivion. This (clearly) really isn't all that fun for UGTO.
In addition, ICC are far from fragile ships, and can focus all of their defenses without sacrificing their manueverability. They DO have many alternatives at this point, with many loadouts allowing for mixed damage types. It's important that they are used, and they can be used really really well. Again, and I will say it again and again, if you can get in close and focus your defenses anywhere you want and they cant, that is a big advantage. You dont have to go through all of their HP, unless you let yourself.
One of the biggest obstacles right now are interdictors, because this really limits the options ICC has - you're right, all of their long range weapons are kinetic. There are some planned, potential interdictor changes which would allow ICC to get in close, which is absolutely something ICC can be effective at. You see, there is no reason to give ICC any new weapons because the ones they have are just fine.
You see, a UGTO ship can't protect against everything, even if it has layers. This is why having ships attack up close is great, especially when ICC has a lot of long range supporting firepower. Which is all missiles are intended to be, and cannons are just for smaller ships. Every weapon has a niche, and not all of ICC"s weapons are kinetic. You will need to get in close, just like everyone else.
_________________
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2014-02-20 14:49
How about adding damage type to tooltips for weapons and damage resistance/weakness to defenses? Or at minimum give us some sort of list. Because right now the only responses we seem to get about weapon damage types are a cryptic "well MOST cannons and missiles do kinetic and MOST torpedoes and beams do energy. You have plenty of choices, you just aren't picking right weapons with no information! Good luck bwhahahaha!"
And for an aspect that affects damage a massive 50% one way or another it is way too ambiguous
Edit: yeah http://www.jack-online.co.uk/gadgets works, but the deflection and damage modifier code for defenses is a bit cryptic, and I wasn't sure if it was still being updated since some gadgets seem to be missing like the valence autocannon. Tooltips would still be nice
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2014-02-20 17:53 ]
_________________
|
Rykros1987
Fleet Admiral
Joined: October 01, 2012
Posts: 88
From: Not in an asylum. Yet.
| Posted: 2014-02-20 17:07
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 14:49, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
How about adding damage type to tooltips for weapons and damage resistance/weakness to defences. Or at minimum give us some sort of list. Because right now the only responses we seem to get about weapon damage types are a cryptic "well MOST cannons and missiles do kinetic and MOST torpedoes and beams do energy. You have plenty of choices, you just aren't picking right weapons with no information! Good luck bwhahahaha!"
And for an aspect that affects damage a massive 50% one way or another it is way too ambiguous
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2014-02-20 14:52 ]
|
I thought that the stats link was for figuring that out?  though it would be nice to have something like damage type = in the tool tip yea D:
_________________
|
Mefeng
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: June 07, 2010
Posts: 25
| Posted: 2014-02-20 17:44
Does the k'luth still have those elf (?) energy weapons that drain everything in your 4 shields in 1 alpha?
_________________
|
zamboxl
Vice Admiral
Joined: May 22, 2005
Posts: 6
| Posted: 2014-02-20 17:59
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 12:25, Ent wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 09:02, Rykros1987 wrote:
I think the ICC needs some long range ENERGY based weapons.
Ablatives alright in the sense that its like a ugto trademark stance on things....endure punishment get in close and rain hell on your enemies up close.
The problem is that...I can't think of a single long range energy based weapon to counter this. Except maybe mines not sure.
Which means if we want to fight ugto ablative we have to give up evasiveness and get in close where our shields and composite just dont hold up against somoene that out dps's and out tanks the ICC. Seems like an oversight to me. Especially since all they have to do is have a good pd ship along and suddenly mines just are....bleh....
Why give a faction more evasiveness and less tanking/dps and then give the ugto a tool that forces us to be close to them to do effective damage.
So uhm... give us some long range energy based weaponry to choose instead of railguns or gauss please. >.> Valence is nice...but should we really have to dogfight them and get pummeled to death to counter ablative?
[ This Message was edited by: Rykros1987 on 2014-02-20 09:06 ]
|
This is silly. Look, UGTO might do more damage, and they may have more total HP, but they have less manueverability and range - and this is important.
ICC defenses and weapons aren't really too far from the mark from UGTO ones, but a lot of the time I just don't see ICC actually use any of their close range ships with sort of exist for a reason.
But ultimately, even though the DPS is lower, ICC only has to break through one single arc of armor to get to hull, while UGTO and Kluth both have to go entirely through all ICC shields.
Commonly what I might see is a bunch of ICC all in one type of ship, or using one type of weapon, and this makes it easy for a faction like UGTO to just put on their best advantages and wait you out.
The only reason ICC might feel they need a long range option is precisely because of the way interdictors are, which, if they are changed so that close ranged ships could get it, they should find no trouble engaging at close range.. and I know they don't. Its about positioning. and you using your advantages as well. If you attack a UGTO or KLuth ship and you have to get through all of their armor.. you're doing it wrong. Simple as that. You are wasting time and damage.
Anyone who thinks anything other than missile ships on ICC do no damage is sorely is mistaken. I just think a lot of people are stuck in an old way of thinking that ICC is a long range faction when all they have now is a range advantage. You may as well say UGTO is an EMP faction if ICC is a long range range faction.
And at the end of it, it will always come down to numbers, no matter what faction you are. Maybe if everyone didn't pile into one we would (and have seen) other factions dominate. Unless everyone has short term memory loss, which I wouldn't doubt.
|
u do know that the resons you see a bunch of icc in the same type of ship is because they have very few ships combat worthy that actually do more than just tickle ugto ships right
_________________
|
Mefeng
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: June 07, 2010
Posts: 25
| Posted: 2014-02-20 17:59
Sure ICC weapons do damage, they do a little damage here and there unless ICC players outnumber the other factions.
I think it was Fridge who mentioned this before but UGTO doesn't really need to use ablative armor, because even their reflective armor is pretty tough against ICC weapons. Well regardless of who said this, it's true. It IS pretty tough. Try it out and see for yourself. Personally, I think standard armor is so tough there's almost no need to go ablative.
You guys keep talking about manueverability: OH we just need to kill off 1/4 of their armor and we can penetrate their hull. Um what?
Any competent player will know how to rotate their ship.
"But UGTO has a slower turnrate then ICC!" OK, so let's assume you are flying an ICC cruiser, facing off against an UGTO cruiser with it's front facing your front. You are 700 GU out. UGTO turns right. So now, you are facing the ship's left side- full hp. So the ICC can catch up to the UGTO ship, get in front of it, and kill it from the front? How does this have anything to do with the slightly lower turnrate a UGTO ship has?
And please, I'd like a demonstration of this.
I guess this balance in 1.7 is supposed to be defined as nobody being able to kill anyone without being massively outnumbered. Pretty "fun" right?
_________________
|
Mefeng
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: June 07, 2010
Posts: 25
| Posted: 2014-02-20 18:06
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 17:59, zamboxl wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 12:25, Ent wrote:
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 09:02, Rykros1987 wrote:
I think the ICC needs some long range ENERGY based weapons.
Ablatives alright in the sense that its like a ugto trademark stance on things....endure punishment get in close and rain hell on your enemies up close.
The problem is that...I can't think of a single long range energy based weapon to counter this. Except maybe mines not sure.
Which means if we want to fight ugto ablative we have to give up evasiveness and get in close where our shields and composite just dont hold up against somoene that out dps's and out tanks the ICC. Seems like an oversight to me. Especially since all they have to do is have a good pd ship along and suddenly mines just are....bleh....
Why give a faction more evasiveness and less tanking/dps and then give the ugto a tool that forces us to be close to them to do effective damage.
So uhm... give us some long range energy based weaponry to choose instead of railguns or gauss please. >.> Valence is nice...but should we really have to dogfight them and get pummeled to death to counter ablative?
[ This Message was edited by: Rykros1987 on 2014-02-20 09:06 ]
|
This is silly. Look, UGTO might do more damage, and they may have more total HP, but they have less manueverability and range - and this is important.
ICC defenses and weapons aren't really too far from the mark from UGTO ones, but a lot of the time I just don't see ICC actually use any of their close range ships with sort of exist for a reason.
But ultimately, even though the DPS is lower, ICC only has to break through one single arc of armor to get to hull, while UGTO and Kluth both have to go entirely through all ICC shields.
Commonly what I might see is a bunch of ICC all in one type of ship, or using one type of weapon, and this makes it easy for a faction like UGTO to just put on their best advantages and wait you out.
The only reason ICC might feel they need a long range option is precisely because of the way interdictors are, which, if they are changed so that close ranged ships could get it, they should find no trouble engaging at close range.. and I know they don't. Its about positioning. and you using your advantages as well. If you attack a UGTO or KLuth ship and you have to get through all of their armor.. you're doing it wrong. Simple as that. You are wasting time and damage.
Anyone who thinks anything other than missile ships on ICC do no damage is sorely is mistaken. I just think a lot of people are stuck in an old way of thinking that ICC is a long range faction when all they have now is a range advantage. You may as well say UGTO is an EMP faction if ICC is a long range range faction.
And at the end of it, it will always come down to numbers, no matter what faction you are. Maybe if everyone didn't pile into one we would (and have seen) other factions dominate. Unless everyone has short term memory loss, which I wouldn't doubt.
|
u do know that the resons you see a bunch of icc in the same type of ship is because they have very few ships combat worthy that actually do more than just tickle ugto ships right
|
Seriously, our shields are a joke. Especially if k'luth still have those energy sucking weapons... I can't comment on the chitin nerf because I haven't been playing recently but beforehand, k'luth armor was soooo tough to crack with the ICC weapons that in almost every case, a k'luth would breach an ICC's hull before the reverse could happen, this is with pretty much every ship (?)
I had to refit every single combat ship's auxiliary gens with shields in order to stay alive in a fight.
The storm cruiser was the best. Ahhh yes...
_________________
|
Fluttershy
Fleet Admiral
Joined: September 24, 2011
Posts: 778
From: Fluttershy
| Posted: 2014-02-20 20:08
Is ICCs maneuverability advantage really enough to let them punch through armor?
It really seems like something that only a skillfull player with a lot of forethought could manage to make use of, and even then, things tend to fall apart in group battles where you'll be getting shot from all directions.
Through testing, it seems to be that even if ICC focuses on a single arc, while they DO hit hull first, the enemy shortly catches up and obliterates their hull in a fraction of the time.
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2014-02-20 20:13
Quote:
On 2014-02-20 20:08, Fluttershy wrote:
Is ICCs maneuverability advantage really enough to let them punch through armor?
It really seems like something that only a skillfull player with a lot of forethought could manage to make use of, and even then, things tend to fall apart in group battles where you'll be getting shot from all directions.
Through testing, it seems to be that even if ICC focuses on a single arc, while they DO hit hull first, the enemy shortly catches up and obliterates their hull in a fraction of the time.
|
I really wouldn't think that it was so complex a thought to simply damage on arc at a time. But then you might say the entire game has those layers of ocmplexity.
Through testing? Not enough details really there. In my experience, ICC can use its defense better with its arcs, and they can use that advantage because they dont really need to use as much firepower to get to hull. Its up to the skill of the pilot.
If you're not, then you're done for. The entire game is much like that now.
[ This Message was edited by: Ent on 2014-02-20 20:17 ]
_________________
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
