Is it?:
Is it?:
Please be civil. I have been somewhat lax as a moderator, but I will just start deleting (or editing) overly negative posts (regarding other players, say whatever you want about the game).
--wj
140 Comments
What else did you expect me to say?
Cobra - shared heat sink makes the secondary near-useless, as you can't fire it in a furball (its a light dogfighter, so that's where you'd expect it to be) unless you've totally desisted from using your machineguns, and if you do fire the beam your heat sink is then overloaded & you have to wait again to get your guns back. The recent advances in rocket power have taken the other lights ahead significantly & left this one behind.
Rhino, Bison, Grizzly - the recent advances in rocket and beam have made these ships liabilities. Its very difficult to approach a carrier defended by beam ships now in one of the faster bombers, to do so in these as they currently are is a waste of time.
I perfer slowing the faster and forcing more team work to get the torps in. Bombers should be able to call for help/escort (displayed both in chat and on the hud.) at the press of a button. That would help.
If we speed up the bombers I think we'll just see more of the underhand blind spot tactics that most bombers currently use.
However, the real problem is that bombers are really boring to play. I hop in one only when I have not other choice. --wj
If all you want are brute-force head-on attacks in bombers then by all means, speed up the torps and slow the arming. It will indeed make them boring to fly. Enforcing teamwork will only be possible when the game has better comms and your average player actually wants to win the mission rather than dogfighting in the middle.
Anyway, game's in Beta, people will adapt to whatever changes :)
Please don't let one voice dictate what happens to the ships.
I will say this again the ships are fine for the time being. the game types aren't around that these ships will excel in. it will be neigh impossible to create teamwork in the current game system, not without the use of vent anyway.
I ask that you hold off on these "balancing" issues and work on that map editor and get some maps out. that will totally liven things up. the bitching will quiet down. then get the social aspects going then work on ship balance if people are even complaining then (who am I kidding people will always complain ;)
bombers are not boring especially panter.agreed with more voices for tweaks etc.
.
about games type, iis not they are around ships , but the balance will change any kind of type or map playness so for the teamwork in it. i find more urgent than the add of new implement , since if that part is done well the complain will reduce drasticaly to few little matter of sense.
i must admit that the implement of maps or other ships/destroyer give more body to the game , and make it more attractive , but i prefer the less well done , than more things that need be considered afterward for find balancing , better go "step by step" and when is fixed problem the all in the add will be in placed in the proper good light.
.
However, all of these share a couple of disadvantages:
1. They are all external shots and therefore are more visible and generally easier to pick off if a defender knows what to do.
2. poor launch timing to early/late will allow many of the shots to get picked off by turrets or hit too early.
3. they are becoming well known and therefore defended.
.
To me the fun of flying a bomber only exists in trying to outwit/out fly and out luck the defenders. If you force turrets to be destroyed for bombers to be effective IMO flying a bomber becomes less fun... a chore even. (there are a number of extremely high percentage shots that can but used by removing 2 turrets and camping). But once the turrets are gone there is less skill left to be a bomber and usually turret removal is relegated to when the defense is just shutting everything else down, which even with the blind spots happens fairly often.
.
To truly make CA work (with or without blind spots) you need coordination and team work, something you will not usually get organically with out players that can communicate and play together regularly. The same can be said of CTF to some extent so in conclusion... What snubby said.
As far as I know, the game concept adopted to prioritize the team-fight, then this type of situation is extremely negative!
(sorry for any engrish)
Whenever a good defender or two are in the game, the "blind spots" count for nothing as the defense is right there to shoot torps and kill the pesky bombers. If you ever see the likes of Aeromis (Crazy Gremlin), Tororosso, Nyxy, Foxhound, Feyda, Loki, or Viking Jack (there's many others, too tired to think of them right now) in action defending a carrier, take note of what they do & how effective they are at stopping ace bomber pilots in their tracks.
Right now when both teams have good bomber pilots, good escorts/turret busters, and good defenders, CA makes for a thrilling, balanced & unpredictable contest often decided by one or two torp hits. Its probably the best gametype right now. Its not broken, why fix it.
The only thing that was comparatively broken about CA was the original Complex lain maneuver. And this was a "blind spot" issue that was in need o fixing because it was too easy to perform. Now with the inside of the carrier denied to all but the bold and the internal shot being about as low percentage as they come the narrow narrow gaps in coverage and relatively tiny aim points for the current blind spot make for the only reasonably balanced answer to an aggressive effective defense.
.
I mean a team that doesn't defend loses, a team that doesn't attack loses. A team that out plays their opponents in both wins crushingly and everything else is between. Claiming it's broken because undefended bombers are tearing up you carrier without needing to take out turrets is really missing the point. Of course part of teh issue is too many players think killing the bombers is defending, bomber bagging is secondary to the torps, watch any good defender.
.
My challenge to anyone who thinks the current blind spots are a problem, (I'm not angry this is serious give it a shot) is to hop in a bomber of your choice (i recommend the Twolf or the Panther) and try to land these "easy hits" against a competent set of defenders. it should be come ver y clear very quickly there's nothing easy about it, It's as much about where to shoot as it is when and how to approach, or staying alive long enough to make your shot.
Protip: If you want to be a better defender or attacker in Carrier Assault, try doing the opposite job for a bit.
It probably means a lot more work... and a lot more glitches... and maybe a repositioning of turrets ('cause, you know, the trench = tower shots for days) but I think it would add new dynamics to the game and make it a little more strategic. People could still use blind spots, but it wouldn't work as well as flinging nukes in areas that force them to be more exposed.
I also love how no-one rates the Bison.
New maps, new gametypes, user-friendliness (steering fix! zoomed out by default! tutorial missions!) and social features will deliver much more reward for the effort, plus you've already made a stack of changes to the ships just a couple of weeks ago, no harm in letting them bed down.
Btw I'm not presuming to tell you what to do or anything, I think you're doing an excellent job particularly given the recent circumstances.
I was saying that the nighthawk should be more expensive because it's a specialist ship and only used effectively by good players. Good players are probably willing to spend more.
Concentrate on social features, maps game types and steering fixs. Snubby pointed out to me yesterday that he dosn't really care about ship balancing, he was just angry at me bringing up a point that takes your attention away from important things.
Of course I think balancing is important but hey, I have all of Praetorians against me on that point.
.
Another thing too — there's about 20-odd Praetorian members, with 4 - 5 currently on a break from the game due to them waiting for clan-support or tertiary studies over the summer period. So please, Xron, don't just assume the entire squadron is "against (you)" on that point. Half of them aren't even aware of the debate that's going on.
.
There's also a few of us watching the debate with some bemusement, and I know for myself personally I find both sides of the argument confusing. However, I think that's more to do with only having literally flown/unlocked/upgraded 50% of the available ships, so I wouldn't know or feel fully qualified in making a judgement call of 1 ship's role/ability vs another.
.
It's good that you love the game, and it's *also* good, I think, that you have a different opinion and aren't hesitant in supporting it. Just pick the timing of when to push for re-balancing fixes so WJ doesn't get buddy-bumped by the community.
.
Right now I think social features, full-screen, and other quality of life fixes will do more for the shelf-life of the game and the satisfaction level of a *majority* of the player-base who aren't vocal like you guys, who don't make posts to agree/disagree, who don't visit these forums. People just want to fly, and they'll want to do it with their friends because they'll have more fun that way (and when asking friends to join it's more fun for new players to be co-op with their mates, rather than versus, I'm sure).
.
The Moon Breakers Vent community is slightly different in this regard, and creates a different kind of player. I don't think the majority of us care if it's with/against (don't get me wrong, it'd be bloody NICE to group up properly), but because it's like yer all crammed onto the living room at a mate's place, drinking and talking garbage while you shoot each other to bits, we're still having fun.
.
To any new players lurking/reading this — don't hesitate to hop on vent (http://moonbreakers.forumotion.com/t8-vent-server-info) and ask anyone in there or on the forums for some tips and 1-on-1 training/demonstrations. We won't know unless you speak up!
.
If you need a place/person to start: Ask/Look for [Prætor] Jazzycat, US-West/East/Australia/Euro-West during Australian-EastCoast night-time (6-12pm) or US-East Coast early mornings (3-9am?). Or ask any of the [Praetor] or [DHMS] guys if I'm in-game/idling online. I don't mind taking a game or two to help you out.
Holy crap I went off topic.... =_=V Move Along Pilot!!
So don't worry about distracting me. --wj
how should we post the chance requests ?
like numbers , percentage of increase , or else (simply by general concepts) ... ?
Please do something about the premium ships, even just the tiniest decrease in stats. Snubby keeps telling me to "Stop bitching, learn to fly and buy a Merlin." He dosn't even argue about balance, he knows that it's unbalanced just as much as I do. He just thinks that everyone should use the best ship.
I will buy all of the premium ships if you nerf them in any way, but right now, I can barley play the game, it's just noobs in mamba's and ace's in merlins, if I'm lucky there will be a few players like Loki who like the different ships as well, but more often than not there isn't.
And don't think it's just me, it's just that all the players that dislike the imbalance don't get as far as the forums. I was trying to get a buddy mine into the game and he gets killed a four times in a row by a four strip player, he says, "Let me guess, he's got the most upgraded ship"
I say "Well no, upgrades do crap all, he's just good... though he is flying a viper"
Then my friend goes quite for a few moments while he looks at the light fighter screen. He then says {sigh}"I'm going to go play a TF2, that's free to play done right."
The worst part is I couldn't think of anything to say to him.
Right now your worried about alienating the players who have spent their money on the premium ships, what about all the players who are currently being alienated by the premium ships mere presence.
TF2 and League of Legends are two of the most successful free2play games. Neither of these to games allow a player to be more powerful by spending real money, hell in TF2 the default weapons are normally the best (with a few exceptions). They just allow players more choices and vanity items by spending money.
The other forum goers will pick apart my argument, they will post their disagreements below, please ignore them and think about what I have said. Premium ships are losing you money, not the other way around.
If a newbie flies in a Mamba and comes up against a decent 4 stripe in a Mamba (what does 4 stripe mean anyway? Precious little - lets say he's a vet player though) ... what do you think will happen? The newbie will die 9 times out of 10, perhaps 10 out of 10, as this is a skill & experience based game. Furthermore, the vet's mamba is likely to be fully upgraded, which the n00b can't match until they've racked up over 200,000 cred.
There are design defects in the game that make it extra difficult for the newbie. One is that by default they're not zoomed all the way out, so are working with a smaller field of vision than the vet player - and there's nothing telling them that they need to play zoomed out.
Another is a point you yourself raised Xron - the odd method of calculating turning speed depending on the mouse and the window size. Instead of it being a circle calculated to fit within the user's window size, with max turn in all directions as you move the mouse to the limits of the circle, its a rectangular setup with greater movement to the corners and sides. Another thing users don't know and need to find the hard way, yet leaves them at a disadvantage as they can't turn as hard as the vet who knows the tricks.
Its even worse - with the default zoom setting, you cannot achieve max turn rate. It can only be done by being zoomed out.
So the uninformed newbie is on a hiding to nothing already when they enter the game, regardless of what ships they or their opponents are flying. If you want the game to be more newbie friendly, the above "features" need to be addressed before anything else.
Secondly, like it or not there's a precedent been set here. The game has been designed along the lines of paying for "better" ships, and since December last year a lot of players have done exactly that through either real money or hard earned cred. Nerf those ships, and risk alienating a large chunk of the player base.
Lastly, yes you have a right to your viewpoint which you've expressed eloquently over & over again. You are not, however, the sole arbiter of truth, and its rather astounding to read you say that you're right & everyone who disagrees with you should be ignored. Really?
And of course you totally missed the point I made, I was trying to tell my friend all these tricks but he stopped playing for what he said was "Blatant elitism" in the hanger.
Of course skill matters more than ships, but no one likes it when their being killed be someone with better of both.
He playes WoTanks. Has more money I have ever earned, and he does not pay a cent for his loved game.
So what will you say?
And another factor: he like 3D Shooter and WE like 4D Shooter. Though he playes it for me.
And that is also a factor. If he does not like it like you, he is also not interested like you.
And what longshot says is also right.
Just a bit of an off day can turn a pilot in a Nighthawk to somebody who's providing a pretty light show for other players. If you think drifting in a Mamba is bad try aiming a Nighthawk beam cannon.
2. then social, then the rest.
The problem at the moment is that most people assume that a bomber with high kills must be a "torp spammer" when in reality most of my kills come from people underestimating how much damage the machine guns can actually do.
Not to mention there are plenty of other little tricks you can do in a bomber that you can't in any most other ships because of the high health pool such as deliberately hitting asteroids/carrier to increase turn speed or put you in a better position to start firing. I don't think there is a ship that can beat a bomber in a head on fight even though so many people try.
It's main flaw is the wide spread of it's machine gun pattern means an Mamba can literally fly between your two streams of fire. Rather than speed the tweaks I'd give the Grizzly are rapid turning speed and fixing the machine gun parallax. I want bombers that are different from each other in surprising ways.
I have heard many complaints about the Cobra lately, which is disappointing as it's a favorite of mine;
"The cobra has been deleted and replaced with a banana"
"I bet a banana's more effective too."
"Why all the hate on the Cobra?"
"Lack of a secondary due to shared heat sink."
"It's "ok" if only using the MGs, but the beam cannon is off-limits seeing as it neuters you when used"
"Increasing the heat capacity wouldn't really do it.
My favorite idea would be to increase the heat dissipation to 250. Nice and simple. Potent MGs and a usable beam.
A more difficult fix would be to add a separate beam weapon with a fixed 4-5 second cooldown and half/no heat generation, and change the cobra's secondary to that. First idea is more fun, really."
Hopefully it could be an easy fix; I really do like the ship :)
- Loki
It's an okay brawler for a LF, due to the high heatsink capacity. Not a superior one due to durability and speed. Mamba, honestly, shits all over it in CQC.
Laser is pretty much limited to potshots at 2km. Anything with a tracking missile can use it at pretty much any time, and rockets are supreme for turret busting (plus surprise rocket sandwich).
Laser being unavailable pretty much all the time makes it a poor secondary. Increasing the heat dissipation (to 250) would increase the availability of the secondary as well as making it nastier in close combat.
It sounds like the buff you had planned is exactly what is being requested.
i would like see 2 bombers/fighter , with a third kind of torpedo , more good in turn rate , less in shield and with a torp made for fight , lower time for charging , but half the damage.
those could be the b7 , and another eventually , grizly , timberwolf or bison. all these i see as major tweeks...
fh-90 work very good now for kill bombers , and seems also vs other ships too.
1 vhf with 3 machine gun ...could be the fh-200 but with a speed medium way between fh-250 and the a80 , with same shields as now
fh-100 need imo or keep the good fire rate but with much higher cooldown , or maybe better much higher speed , a vfhf (very fast heavy fighter) that would be good with the idea of interception duty ...a good sprint in the medium short range , with few higher shield eventually.
m3 and nighthawk still need cooldown for beam , since they are slower than krait already.
one ship to add , or chge totally one of the light fighter with a wave weapons (sonic or magnetic, or as your fantasy fit for the side-ww2 ) that "create a slower field when hit the target ...intended to slower the light fighters in they intercept duty...good for ctf and ca type especially.
H2H/Stingray - Increase AB speed to improve ability to intercept bombers.
Cobra - see posts below.
Kingfisher - Needs something. Dunno what.
Misc bombers - Yeah, stuff, whatever. :bombers: Except the panther.
g5 do well damage and resist as well, but as it not easy get all cannon shots to the target especially from far , i would siggest an increased acceleration+fuelpumpor speed, to reach a the good proximity to use it easyer.
stingray is quite near to premium ship now , better buff the hammerhead for interception also as second way for that ...g5 power at low rate , hammerhead fast rate ...
by looking better maybe g5 with fuel pump mostly and fh100 with acceleration/speed or boost.
about a 80 , the thing i found mostly lack is the ipossibility of missile to turn where the cross aim is...they tend to go too straight befor be able to turn to the target, such powerfull and resistent ship , i think is right go slow and must be more stationary fighter ...also a better turn rate would help to reduce the the point about missile directioning.
It's not bad at anything, it just doesn't stand out much. I think I just need to play with it more.
Only one thing with the Kingfisher's stats stand-out.
From Nighthawk to Kingfisher to Merlin, there is an ascension in stats in regards to handling and speed:
| Max Speed | 90.00 |
100.80 |
97.00 |
108.60 |
105.00 |
117.60 |
| Turn Rate | 9.50 |
9.50 |
10.00 |
10.00 |
10.50 |
10.50 |
| Afterburner | 180.00 |
181.80 |
194.00 |
217.30 |
210.00 |
235.20
|
| Acceleration | 95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
95.00 |
105.00 |
105.00 |
All I can think is give it 100 acceleration so it feels a bit less sluggish. Even then it's not really needed, nor would it make much difference.
I'm currently going through all my lesser used ships and testing them out in all scenarios. (Dogfight with a Nighthawk, Escort with a Viper etc.)
I'm hoping Bear McCreary finishes his contest soon and lets me know if I won a free ship key or two. That way I can test more of them.
The exception to this is if your ship's max speed is also very high, like the Sidewinder, Viper, or Krait. The Piranha's high refill rate makes it very efficient when using afterburner.
Mamba & Timberwolf/Panther have low-ish acceleration and high boost speed and coast longer vs Cobra & Merlin's (& most heavies) higher acceleration and relatively low boost speed.
Conclusion: some ships just have better afterburner performance, which doesn't change the fact that when you run out, you are dead.
Really the boost system needs a bit of a rework, but I don't think thats important enough to bring up now.
Okay It seems I've lost this one and your dead set on speeding up bombers.
If you do you will also have to make the stingray hammerhead and kingfisher faster, as it stands they can't keep with the panther, and when a anti bomber interceptor can't keep up for its most important prey... well.
Please don't make me lose all faith in game balancing.
what about a rethink of this kind:
- Torrent can only been destroyed by HGun, MGun and Beam as the MGs are to low powered to penetereate them faster that ,01% per Shot
- So only 2 LF, 1MF, 2 HF, and only Bombers are capable of taking the torrents down.
. For that all bombers are alowed refitted with H/L-Guns like this:
I. LGun
II. Timberwolf 2x LGun
III. Grizly : 2x HG/2 LGun
IV. Bison: 2x HG
V. Panther 1HG/1x LGun or 2x Beam
So nothing must be deleted, and all have their existence right.
AND This is the point where you can bring in the FLAG :)
Ever looked Wing Commander the film?
"So fighters, thanks for the escort, from now on it is the bombers part!" (German to English translation ;)
- giving the Grsly and Boson 2-3x Shield and making them slower refits the things as Panther and Timber have still their roles of fast hit Bombers
To force team play games are role based:
1. CA:
- Bombers only can destroy Torrents and Carrier, the need only support to live long to reach the destination ;)
- Teams Without Torp-Hit gains only kill bonus of 10 C per kill
- Torrent destuction 500 C/torrent for the destroyer and 100 c for Team.
2. S&D:
- Bomber-Kills count only 10 C - Torrents 500 (it is still good to take them out for Mates to fight near enemy)
Because in POINT 1. they are all upgraded and it is not justified to have them much in field.
- Killing each Bombers Count 500 C for the HOLE enemy team! (let them be hated, the noobs)
- Destroying Enemy Carrier negates all points for your team, so bombers are still punished.
- In this approach people are FORCED TO TRAIN flying SKILLS.
3. CTF:
ALL things FUN are allowed, just dont loose your head :)
Would that be a good approach?
And XRON:
here you can have you rollplaying style with real life skill combined. People have same Tools, it is only theirs skills / fast reaction which gives them the boost.
The only thing I would like for my A-80 ist that the targeting does not loose when someone flys before my target or a torpedo is firing AND that the range of tracking is as long as the upgrades 1750 m ?? or so ;)
Correct me if I'm wrong.
you want to:
- Make turrets immune to Machine Guns
- To give most bombers cannons.
- Change the scoring systems in all game mode
Though I do think bombers need to be reworked a lot. At this point in time all the bombers are very similar.
As for the turrets being immune to MGs. Well I think they need to be weaker to cannons but still killable by MGs seeing as drifting around turrets in a mamba is THE FUNNEST thing.
yes, correct. It was one of your critics that no body palys his part
By this changing every ship and player has his role, and they must take every needed ship in the specific scenario to maximize their credits.
In real world scenario you have your carrier, with interceptors, bombers, multirolle fighters and rescue helis.... well in MB we have no rescue, it would come to late ;)
And I know no one would like Bombers with cannon, but bombers are like A-10 Thunderbolt II. Only one porpose: close range attack.
And besides it would help to get all them bomber-pilots away near you own carrier.
I hate too see them standing still there to intercept enemy (in a CA-Mission) when even one torpedo can change the entire situation.
That also forces the bomberpilots in S&D to switch to fighters. Ever tried to hit a LF with cannons ..., I tried and every time I switch to MGs... It also encourage them to "PLAY" with Mamba.
And I want to encourage the Cannon-Flyers to also take this ships to help the bombers, specualy the ACE-Pilots you do not like to see in Merlin and Viper and FH-250. They also are forced to takes standard ships and are killable like others...
Therefor the Permium ships also become their rifhts. Killing small nasty fighters and H-Torrent buster Fighters and bombers...
...and all was balanced again and they played happy to a new century ... or so would my tale ends ;)
if you see, it is only changing the MG against cannons and configuring the torrent scripts.
And changing the stats of only 2 Bombers for not deleting them.
I think my idea ist the least coding and maximizig the result.
The rest ist still the same !!!
However, some spelling tips:
"is" not "ist"
"turret" not "torrent
"maximizing" not "maximizig"
I like the idea of a EMP rocket (it should slow down turning rather than a total shut down) but Double Fast Cannons?
It says that the Kingfisher is the lightest ship to have one cannon, I doubt you'd be able to fit two on a med ship.
I did this a couple weeks ago on the Forumotion site. I played with the specs a little bit. But basically it was built off the Kingfisher if I recall right. Basically this ship's main purpose is Bomber Killer. The ship flies up on the Bomber fires off the EM Tracking Missile. The missile hits and the fire control, steering, AB, Throttle, etc... shuts off and the ship goes dead in Space for 2-5 seconds, while the twin Fast Cannons light up the ship. With a slow recharge rate for the missiles it wouldn't be overbearing. This ship would be awesome against Nuke Spammers and may deter their use. Additionally the EM Tracking Missile should be slower than other missiles, made essentially only for Bombers. Yes you could fire them at fighters, but the majority would be able to outrun them, those poor Barracuda pilots would have nightmares about this ship :D, Sorry Ferc Polo.
It is also a solution...
I think your version is overpowered and most people will then use ist in S&D ... if you hate bombers in S&D like me, then you go mad with this one on top of torpedo spammers...
And by the way, taking down bombers, is the job of last 3 LFs, 2 MF, all HF. I think you should think more about bomber fighters:
They don't bomb when they must (in CA) and are always there, when they are not needed (S&D). This is what I moslty see.
Don't you think so?
(meduim ships are to light to have duel fast cannon)
All the rest fighters are nearly fine the way they are, maybe only speed and stealth (Nighthawk) changes.
It raeps Merlins, Vipers, and all kinds of fish.
The Kingfisher wins.
PLEASE DON'T TAKE MY SUNSHINE AWAY. ;-;
I would be sad if you took it away. :c
Seriously, it's probably the best interceptor now.
So... are we seriously gonna go through all the ships and bring them up to be balance with premium... cause I'm all for that.
If so, the Kingfisher gets Xron's Seal of Balance Approval (tm)
Okay the way I see it, the ships which are actually up there with the Premium ships are:
The Krait
The New Kingfisher
The Barracuda
Maybe the Nighthawk
Maybe the Sidewinder
So next up the Cobra... or did you buff that too, I didn't check.
Though seeing as it was underpowered compared to the normal ships, it might use some more buffing later on.
The afterburner speed is second only to the Sidewinder and Viper. Combined with slightly below average acceleration and max speed, its powerful afterburners yield the perfect combination for drifting sideways around asteroids and turrets for (relatively) long periods, something limited in the Viper and Sidewinder by their high acceleration stat.
Technically it's nice and balanced as well. The Fast Cannon is a glorified pea-shooter; when upgraded, it has a fairly low 627dps compared to the Mamba's 840dps and the Merlin's 1260dps. The low DPS rating and slow firing speed gives it a slight disadvantage in quick and close dogfights with light fighters, but this is made up for with a 5% bonus damage effect and a quick reloading rocket secondary that makes taking out heavy fighters and bombers even easier than before.
The Kingfisher is now extremely well suited for chasing people down or navigating rocks as tightly as you can, shooting people as they helplessly try to follow you. Out in wide open space, a Merlin with its tracking missiles and triple MGs might win in a dogfight against a Kingfisher. Get near some rocks though, and there is only the slimmest of chances that the Kingfisher could possibly lose, considering pilots of equal skill. It simply handles too well.
I like the variety that's coming into the game, but the pricing no longer reflects the relative strengths & weaknesses of each ship.
i agreed once again with you :-)
i'm thinking to wait for your post befor i do myself lol.
g5 still need or a better boosting time or fast fire rate , not much of both but , still not balanced with others. edit: i sow now the changes , now is better , by the way to look both speed related and fire rate too upgraded.
would really the merlin have a value of 1000k when the nighthawk is less than 100k , or the stingray 150k ?
to go with balance the right way at least they should have a value where the "worst" is 75% credits value than the "best".
i agreed , but as it is now i not use likely.
you know what , i see sometimes the beem seed to be aimed frontally , sometime right straght to the ships , sometimes , fully nonsense i hit ships firing back of them...i meen cannno you have always same point where to aim , same thing with machinguns, why the beam not....
beside also visually sometimes the ray of beam looks (formally lead nearby ) like go elswhere than the target , sometimes not , it visually match effectivly instead of formally.
So what sort of price are we looking at? Around 300 thousand with the easier ships being a bit cheaper and the more specilist ships being a tad more expensive?
I *might* make some ships more expensive within a range of 2-3x (especially ships with high dps/burst) --wj
nothing sucks more than capping your upgrades and then finding out you dislike the way you've done it.
i can't agreed more with these two last posts of yours.further buy with new credits fix (atm i'm upgrading a bit the fool , next i will unlock 1 ship ).
if you are around it
1. could you also build in selling or deactivating a ship to not take it by mistake?
2. Leting move favorite Ships to the top?
I have now all ships, and sometimes in the hast i choose the wrong ones ...
i don't get the meens , rewind an upgrade since one choose only some of them have sense , but how can une buy a ship for error?, or you meen you choose the wrong ship in the hangar befor enter battle ?
2. Now that I have all above, I sometime miss clock on taking one.
When I have fast change from my Panther to Swordfish to Merlin to Viper ..
So why shouldn't I have them on first place to take it them fast ?
The Krait I would not sell, but it is so useless, I only take it in some actions when there are enough Veteran, i can focus on joy than do the work for newbies...
So in my list Krait will end at the last place...
So I can change the ordering.
Still want a Merlin though.
Love the new Kingfisher, first ship i ever picked up, flew it every day until I could afford a merlin.
Now is Better!
Thank you MB.
While dual machine guns are rated as having 34% more DPS than a singly mounted fast cannon, in practice it takes nearly 50% longer, and in one case even up to 67% longer, to destroy a ship with a fast cannon compared to dual machine guns. Further, as I understand it the 5% bonus damage effect of the fast cannon is only observed against targets with more than 2800 shield points remaining, effectively making it irrelevant against all fighter craft.
Increasing fast cannon damage by 10 points would raise the singly mounted version's DPS to 672dps on paper, taking it up from 75% to 80% of the dual machine guns' 840dps. This would also yield the added effect of having the difference in time single fast cannons and dual machine guns take to destroy ships more closely reflect their difference in DPS. Dual machine guns would then be 25% stronger than a fast cannon, but the fast cannon would have on average a much more reasonable 27% increase in time to destroy fighter craft over dual machine guns.
When viewed as effective DPS, a 150 damage fast cannon ironically reflects the intended DPS of a 140 damage fast cannon (627dps) more closely than the 140 version itself.
Table of a ship's shield points divided by the total time required to destroy it.
| [Effective Fast Cannon DPS] | [150 - Effective Fast Cannon DPS] | |
| Mamba | 627 | 627 |
| Sidewinder | 628 | 628 |
| Cobra/Krait | 502 | 669 |
| Viper | 527 | 658 |
| Nighthawk/Kingfisher | 587 | 587 |
| Merlin | 573 | 669 |
| Stingray | 585 | 639 |
| HH/Piranha/SFish | 627 | 627 |
| Barracuda | 627 | 669 |
| Average | 587 | 641 |
Table of the number of hits and the total time required to destroy a ship.
| Ship | Shields | Bullet Hits | Dual M.Gun Time | Triple M.Gun Time | Quad M.Gun Time | Fast Cannon Hits | Fast Cannon Time | Dual Fast Cannon Time | 150 - Fast Cannon Hits | 150 - Fast Cannon Time | 150 - Dual F.Cannon Time |
| Mamba | 560 | 13 | 0.696 | 0.464 | 0.348 | 4 | 0.893 | 0.446 | 4 | 0.893 | 0.446 |
| Sidewinder | 280 | 7 | 0.375 | 0.25 | 0.188 | 2 | 0.446 | 0.223 | 2 | 0.446 | 0.223 |
| Cobra/Krait | 448 | 10 | 0.536 | 0.357 | 0.268 | 4 | 0.893 | 0.446 | 3 | 0.67 | 0.335 |
| Viper | 588 | 14 | 0.75 | 0.5 | 0.375 | 5 | 1.116 | 0.558 | 4 | 0.893 | 0.446 |
| Nhwk/Kfishr | 918 | 21 | 1.125 | 0.75 | 0.563 | 7 | 1.563 | 0.781 | 7 | 1.563 | 0.781 |
| Merlin | 896 | 20 | 1.071 | 0.714 | 0.536 | 7 | 1.563 | 0.781 | 6 | 1.339 | 0.67 |
| Stingray | 1,568 | 35 | 1.875 | 1.25 | 0.938 | 12 | 2.679 | 1.339 | 11 | 2.455 | 1.228 |
| HH/Piranha/SFish | 1,120 | 25 | 1.339 | 0.893 | 0.67 | 8 | 1.786 | 0.893 | 8 | 1.786 | 0.893 |
| Barracuda | 2,240 | 50 | 2.679 | 1.786 | 1.339 | 16 | 3.571 | 1.786 | 15 | 3.348 | 1.674 |
maybe i understood bad, but... a quest
if you talk about change the cannons kind damage , why should change also the beams kind as i see in those tablets infos ?
have they relation inbetween them ?
.
beside this , you sayd in previus post that a g5 can eat all fish and also the merlin viper... why them make it even more deadly ?
than we need again too increase mambas ? and maybe others too ...?
probably is better wait a bit more for testing further , especially if the destroyer will be inserted later on , would need again to check balances maybe...i am for a wait for this atm..and i think we need more a tweek about bombers atm , some should be worked for fight support with different torps kind (lower damage , maybe lower range , and lower charging time ) , and some more worked for carrier assoult (possibly with a torp that can damage carrier only , maybe by avoid space detonation for those kind of torps ).
Kittiara and I ran a test today & found that a fully upgraded, fully healthy Panther can be reduced to 4 bars of health by a dual rocket strike & beam hit from a Krait, and a second hit kills it - all over in 3 seconds. The amount of weapons that do proportional damage now has made a mockery of shields ... is this something the devs foresaw and were trying to achieve?
Perhaps rockets could have percentage damage removed and replaced by a significant static damage boost instead of a percentage of remaining health, or change it to a reduced percentage of total health for consistency; every other game I've ever played shows consistent damage, regardless of what you attack. Could possibly use another speed buff as well; against moving targets, they still seem good out to only 300 to 400m, and that's if you're really good at rocket sniping & detonation. Against most Sidewinders or Vipers, they're best used as point-defense weapons (by spamming the left-click to detonate and hope you deal damage).
-Machine Guns/Heavy Cannon/Fast Cannon/Tracking Missiles/Turrets affect Shields and Hull equally
- Rockets/Beam Cannon/Heavy Beam Cannon bypass shields and only affect Hull (would require a possible reduction in damage dealt by each weapon)
- Torpedoes only affect Shields except on a direct hit
Personaly I like how it currently is, nice, simple and very dogfighty, no need to worry about what weapon does the right kind of damage just shoot the *******
Ex.
Mamba has 350 Shields and 150 Hull (theoretical only; based off of 500 shields for existing Mamba stats)
Rockets do 200 damage with a 75/25 split on damage.
A rocket launched and detonated near a Mamba deals 150 damage to the shields and 50 damage to the hull, leaving the Mamba at 200/100. The Mamba takes a couple hits from Machine guns (2 bullets), reducing the shields to 110.
The next rocket fired at the Mamba deals 150 damage to shields, wiping them out and the remaining 40 points of damage are applied to the hull, as is the other 50. The Mamba now has 10 Hull points left. If they manage to escape, they will regenerate their full 350 shields, but their total HP is now 360 until repairs are made.
So unlike the current system, upgrades will each have a fixed, significant effect, but you will only be able to pick a fraction of the available ones. --wj
If you fly against another pilot who still has his hull when you don't, he has a advantage.
But if you plan to make the hull rather insignificant compared to the shield... so be it.
I would suggest a VERY slow hull regeneration though.
X-Wing: focusing shield to front and back
I-War: A triangle between Shield, Weapon and Engine
nothing has been told if the hull and shield will be seen as separate line bars of heath yet.
could also be not afawk.
in my first impression i thought was only one bar of health made by both hull and shield , only that a part react in a way , the other part react differently (or it could at least).
the post of wj spoke about a parameter add.
Well, I don't really think that panther's are under-powered. And Kraits were intended to have the highest burst damage potential. Kraits themselves are torn apart instantly by anything with a laser (and in less than 3 seconds by anything with a real weapon). Life is short for most ships. A Panther's are very difficult to kill otherwise. The Krait is working as intended.
Now I am in favor of increasing the health of all ships (by adding a non-regenerating hull damage parameter. --wj
Don't like the non regenerating hull damage idea wj. It's never fun flying around a wounded ship.
I DON'T think upping the health of all ships is a good idea, would make the game seem slower.
the good point of the non regenerating hull is that can be treated separately with the damge of weapons.
the hull could take example different kind of damage than the regenerating shields.
just for guess.
Seems that this would detract from the WW dog fighter feel.
Not sure if everything needs a health buff, though that may be because I've been around for a while and know exactly what it takes to bring each ship down...
the carrier that regenerate seems sane idea but won't help the game play.
already is used to escape from pusuers since the carrier do the job of help with theyr internal turrets.
it is interessting and I dont think it has a great change to the whole game.
(Could you implement an A-Wing for me then ;) )
Questions:
1. Hull repair on fly above/through own carrier ?
2. if damage under 50% there is smoke all the time (yes would be good)?
3. Shield regeneration (yes)?
Consequence:
If all the above are yes, then there is no need for hull-upgrades on any ships except the one who are killed one shoot by Beams and Baracuda.
I just wanted to be fair one time ;)
I'm going to address the issues with bombers, as well as the advantages they have. My first and largest complaint about bombers is that they seem counter-intuitive. Taking a look at a fully upgraded Rhino, you have a distance of 2240.00 m that the torpedo can travel before it simply vanishes. In the Panther (which I only have one upgrade in nuke range) the distance is increased to 2666.40m. But in order to successfully get a bomb off, nine times out of ten you have to race around the carrier, launch AND defend a nuke with your ship to ensure it gets off. The distance upgrades on the nuke is practically useless for CA, which I believe is what bombers were originally intended for. (I may be mistaken in this regard and if so I apologize). Even in a search and destroy mission, bombers are forced to get right into a furball to launch a nuke because launching it from a distance simply alerts the enemies of its presence, enabling them plenty of time to escape, or engage it to destroy it from a safe distance before it reaches its intended destination. To be perfectly blunt, the current design of the torpedo is too fragile and takes to long to travel its intended distance/target to be in any way shape or form effective except in close range proximity.
Below the entire argument is based on a CA game, please do not bring CTF of S&D into the following while reading.
Suggested Alternatives for upgrading torpedo:
1. Decreased reload time.
2. Increased speed of the launched Torpedo.
3. Protective shielding around the Torpedo, enabling it to take several hits before successfully being destroyed.
4. Decreasing the arming time of the torpedo by .20 seconds for every upgrade, meaning fully upgraded, it goes from taking five seconds to arm to four seconds.
(( My personal opinion is that torpedo's should be faster. Not a lot faster, but fast enough that we are forced to launch from a distance rather than kissing the enemy carrier and having to find tiny Death-Star like weak-points to shoot at. Given the current methods of pilots, it would probably be kinder to give us mines which we can magnetically attach to the carrier that take five seconds to arm/detonate. This forces defenders to fly all over the ship rather than just looking in those 2-3 hiding places that people are aware of. ))
1A - Being able to launch more nukes more often will also force enemy pilots to waste more time taking them out rather than taking you out.
1B - The drawback to launching Torpedo's in such a rapid fashion is that people may never have time to take you out, or being forced to decide between getting the torpedo or leaving it to take you down.
1C - More than one defender would be needed to take out a bomber quickly. One to handle the Torpedo's that are fired, one to focus purely on the bomber.
1 Conclusion: Decreasing the reload time of Torpedo is primarily an advantage to the bomber, and may overall make bombers somewhat too powerful. However, ships such as the Krait, Nighthawk, Kingfisher, and the Swordfish are adept at killing bombers quickly. (If there are other ships adept at killing bombers please let me know and I will edit this post to include them if possible.)
2A - This will further increase the need to having to destroy turrets to successfully destroy the enemy carrier, rather than ignoring them as pro bombers are able too.
2B -This can be seen as both an advantage and disadvantage: Bombers depending on the map type will be given several more hiding places to launch torpedo's from, which means the torpedo's travel distance will be important to consider again. How close do I get? How far away can I successfully hit from?
2C - Defenders will be required to leave the relative safety of their carrier and attempt the engage the bombers from their distant hiding places, or try to take out the speedy torpedo's as they approach. Both are risky, as Torpedo's can be detonated prematurely.
2D - One argument can be made that if bombers can launch from such far away positions safely, that it will diminish the overall skill required of bomber pilots. I would like to remind all bombers that their Torpedo button is their secondary weapon. Bombers may not have the turn rate of a Merlin or the drift of a Mamba, but that does not mean your guns are by any stretch useless. If someone is taking out your torpedoes before they can hit the carrier, ask for help or find a different rock to launch from. Never EVER launch repeatedly from the same position if your position has been compromised.
2 Conclusion - Faster Torpedo's open up the approach of bombing the target from a distance, rather than having to protect the slow and delicate seedlings you want to help blossom into a white flower of destruction. There are as many advantages and disadvantages to faster torpedoes, that I can not possibly hope to conceive them all without first hand experiencing them.
3A - Protective shielding around torpedoes means defenders will have to spend more time taking the torpedo down, allowing the bomber to speed further and further away from them to try and get into position to launch another nuke from. Alternatively, if they choose to defend and protect the torpedo, it will be less frustrating if one lucky bullet kills the torpedo. Standard torpedo should be able to take two-four hits from bullets, One from missile of any ship if successfully hit, and one from successful hits from beam cannons. Upgrading can increase the torpedoes overall protective shielding from bullets but missiles and beam cannons should always be able to successfully one shot a torpedo given their destructive firepower.
3B - This allows bombers to be less picky about the ideal area to launch their torpedoes from and toward. Obviously some locations will be better than others for a variety of reasons but at ultimately it opens up more of the carrier to attack.
3C - As this is a skilled based game, a defender should not spray and pray their weapons in the hopes to take out a torpedo before it hits something. That said, this will teach new players to better aim their guns to take out torpedoes more effectively, or pay the ultimate price when they fail.
3 Conclusion. Shielded Torpedoes could be incredibly overpowered, I do recognize the potential in this. It should be strongly advised that if this idea is to be considered, then Torpedo's should not be 'defendable' by launching them and then using the bombers boost to have the torpedo fly inside of it. If after one to two seconds, the bomber is in any way touching the torpedo or too close to it, then torpedo should then disappear before it can even be fully armed. These Torpedoes are, to be blunt, Nuclear armed weapons. When you launch a nuclear based weapon, your first instinct should be to GET THE F*** OUT OF THERE! (Torpedoes should cause damage to friends and foes alike when detonated, but that's another topic all together.)
4A - Decreasing the arming time of Torpedoes as upgrades will only encourage more bombers to get closer to the carrier before launching.
4B - Defenders will have less time to take out a torpedo before its fully armed, allowing bombers to prematurely detonate if necessary.
4 Conclusion - Makes the torpedo upgrades more valuable when purchased, and also adds another tough decision to bomber pilots when purchasing upgrades for their ships.
Finally, we come to the end of this wall of text. Disagree or agree with me on any and all of the points, but I will stand firm on my point in this alone: Torpedoes in one fashion or another are in a dire need of some form of an upgrade. All the other ships have been effectively upgraded in damage, speed or afterburner speed, making it easier than ever to catch up to slow moving torpedoes. This means that all bomber ships (Excluding the Panther again) are obsolete in a CA mission when the carrier is well defended, which it usually is during prime time. What this means is even if you take town every turret on the enemy carrier, its still possible you may never land a torpedo on the enemy, since even a partially upgraded Mamba can Zip from the front end of the carrier to the back in a relatively short time span.
don't work almost any of above.
can we speek about this in forum chat or vet ?
I see where you're coming from, in that bombers are capable of landing hits (I like your Death Star weak-spot analogy, very apt) with all turrets still in play, but also that if a carrier is properly defended it can be near impossible to land hits even with turrets down.
The answer to a good defense would be better teamwork from the attacking team - fighters trailing the bombers to pick off defenders who swoop on them, bombers arriving in a synchronised fashion from multiple angles, etc. This kind of co-ordination cannot be organised in the game as its pretty much impossible to communicate on the fly - Vent provides that & with squadron support we may find this aspect of the game improve.
But I digress - would your suggested changes improve this? I'm not sure. It'd certainly change the dynamic, but if you're in a team that isn't working together bombers will still struggle to land hits, perhaps even more so as they'd be away from the carrier & therefore turret-busting fighters would find it harder to evade defenders.
To succeed in a bomber right now against a good defense (a poor defense is a walk in the park) you do have to be inventive, sneaky, persistent, calm under fire, evasive, unpredictable, have a good knowledge of the different shot angles & be able to time your flight patterns to arrive at them on time to release.
With the proposed changes this would be different. Hanging close to the carrier would no longer pay dividends, so bombers would be off taking pot-shots from the asteroids & otherwise hiding or scurrying back to friendly fighters. Personally I'm not sure that'd be nearly as much fun as flying a bomber is now, but if changes like that happened I'd still give it a go - if it made it boring I guess I'd revert to turret busting or bomber hunting.
Much of the game has changed in just the few weeks I've been playing it. When I started playing, the Rhino was something of a viable ship for a CA game. Now when i try to fly a rhino at the enemy carrier, I have to rely more on luck being able to get to it quickly enough to get a nuke off than skill.
Take the ecosystem effect, you change one small part of an ecosystem you're going to have a chain of events you never saw forthcoming. I see you mentioned below that a fully upgraded Panther was taken out by a Krait in the span of three seconds. Was there ANYTHING remotely possible of doing that to a panther a month ago? I honestly don't know the answer to that. The point is, the ecosystem of the game has changed, and Torpedoes and to a lesser extent, the bombers need to be updated to be able to survive in this changing environment, or even less people are going to be flying bombers and the idea of Carrier assault is going to go from Bombing the carrier to hitting it with as many bullets/cannons/missiles as you can before you die.
Edit: Just to clarify, I say again 'updated'. They need to be tweaked. I will not be drawn into a buff/nerf argument regarding bombers, that is not my stance. If a tweak is regarded as a buff, so be it but even if it's a nerf, so long as it addresses the mechanics of the game-play I think that is the more important aspect of this discussion.
This right here. To learn all of this right now only takes a little practice and willingness to try different tactics. A Panther is unnecessary (I don't have one) for any of this. Try out everything mentioned in this quote from Longshot and you'll be able to score half or more of the required hits. For a good idea of how to do this, try chasing an ace around your carrier a bit ;)
you give best comments.
all agreed.
As I said, speed up after charging would be enough.
not at all.
The way they are are good.
I had a game were both sides were realy good. (with Morto and Belshirash and some others I saw rank 4)
I could only hit in the last 3 minutes,which for my taste made the game real fun and challenging.
It was a challenge for me to take their virginity and make a hole through theier tight defence ;)
In that time the could also make a hit, so that the last 3 minutes were a hell of fun for me as Seelenlos :)
Only thing I could find good it to allow the torpedos have an exponential Speed up after the are charged!
Flying my Grizzly I'm taking long torpedo shots from inside the broken moon and circling around under cover to take a second shot. This forces defenders to do two things; chase the torpedo down and kill it and draw them off the carrier to find the bomber. If there's a second or third bomber doing this they have to fly around in circles trying to get long shot torps and a Panther will fly right past them. If they're all chasing Panthers, Nighthawks and Mambas a torp has a chance to slip past.
The long-shot can be used even very early in a Carrier Assault where there are light and medium fighters strafing and keeping the turrets busy chasing rockets. In these scenarios faster torpedos would start ending the games very quickly as they would have a much smaller intercept window where turrets could get them.
Just because a tactic is used doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Links
Community stats
- 1,091People
- 931Feedback
- 6,495Comments
- 5,578Votes
- 1Staff
