Target Lock Breaker spamming needs adjusted ASAP
- Thread starter Miko
- Start date
Sounds about right... need to fight that guy that looked at you funny? Grab 4 or 5 of your biggest, strongest friends, have one of them pull a pillow case over his head while the other 3 or 4 hold him and you beat on him until you're sure he gets how tough you really are.
Removing all weapon special effects (maybe except such, that don't affect the target, such as auto-loader, plasma slug etc.) would be sufficient, since its mostly special effects which are constantly causing balancing problems.
I use my Cutter in PvP, and TLB was a huge problem for me at first. To solve it, I use 2 imperial hammers, 1 fixed beam, and 4 turrets at fire at will.
I don't even target a foe with TLB. The Cutter is the only big ship capable of getting tons of distance on a foe. This allows the Cutter to utilize fixed weapons very easily against a more agile opponent.
Powderpanic
Banned
Biggest problem with ED today.. Engineering..
Remove that and start over.
/thread
Remove that and start over.
/thread
There are times when you will be outmatched by a wing of opponents; it's a different story when a single ship can effectively shut down an entire ship class (Large Ships) with liberal application/usage of TLB, dispersal (thinking Advanced Plasma Accelerators here) and Chaff - unless said ship class specifically tailors their loadout to deal with these threats (hence Truesilver's point): use Fixed weapons and try to hit your target (which generally will be smaller and far more agile than you are), or use turrets set to Fire at Will, which AFAIK won't be affected by TLB.
That's more or less what I've concluded as well - several fixed weapons complemented with some turrets set to Fire at Will. I haven't tested my Cutter in PVP yet - 3500 MJs on an 8A Prismatic shield with bad resistances (forgot to Engineer it lol) and a 40.6k Credit rebuy aren't exactly a good mix with PA's and Rails out there - hence why I'm looking at small ships first [wacky]
It's good for being a temporary punching bag - all I really need when escorting my friends as they learn the ropes.
(To be honest, between your comment and Truesilver's recent video showcasing a 5 Railgun Cutter, I'm tempted to resurrect that 7-Hammer Stealth Cutter concept I Coriolis'd up some time ago and maaaaay have shot a Thargoid with - BRING ON THE HEAT!)
Maybe a corvette would travel with small and medium escorts, to deal with the smaller ships
In my post on the first page I said that TLB needed a variable cooldown immunity added, and suggested that this scale by sensor size and grade of the target.
Thinking about it a bit more, actually TLB needs two variables to be compared on each successful strike, as with feedback cascade.
In its second, Live 2.1, iteration, feedback cascade caused 90% SCB loss on any size of SCB by any hit by any size of rail gun. In other words, any hit applied the special in full.
That unsophisticated position is where TLB is now. And of course where many other specials are now, such as corrosive or emissive.
In 2.2 feedback cascade was altered so that the game now checks the damage of the rail gun applying the special against the SCB size before applying a scaled reduction based upon those two variables. This is much better game design, imo.
I would therefore be supportive of TLB (and other specials as noted) receiving the same treatment. In other words, a Cmdr packing a c4 PA with TLB who manages to hit a Courier with it should get quite a decent period of TLB as his reward. A guy who merely lulz-macros four c2 PA's using fire groups to spam continuous TLB against a T-10 ... not so much.
I really think the above, 'two variables' approach is the way forwards for specials like corrosive also. I suspect that with infinite resource available, Frontier would agree. They have basically said as much a couple of times.
The problem of course is that all of this takes Developer time, player feedback and rebalances. But that, I'm afraid, was not a problem created by the customers. Literally nobody asked for the specials (I have never seen one single post on the forums asking for them, on either forum, ever) and they should have been scaled before 2.1 was released. They still should be. And, I think, probably will be. One day.
Thinking about it a bit more, actually TLB needs two variables to be compared on each successful strike, as with feedback cascade.
In its second, Live 2.1, iteration, feedback cascade caused 90% SCB loss on any size of SCB by any hit by any size of rail gun. In other words, any hit applied the special in full.
That unsophisticated position is where TLB is now. And of course where many other specials are now, such as corrosive or emissive.
In 2.2 feedback cascade was altered so that the game now checks the damage of the rail gun applying the special against the SCB size before applying a scaled reduction based upon those two variables. This is much better game design, imo.
I would therefore be supportive of TLB (and other specials as noted) receiving the same treatment. In other words, a Cmdr packing a c4 PA with TLB who manages to hit a Courier with it should get quite a decent period of TLB as his reward. A guy who merely lulz-macros four c2 PA's using fire groups to spam continuous TLB against a T-10 ... not so much.
I really think the above, 'two variables' approach is the way forwards for specials like corrosive also. I suspect that with infinite resource available, Frontier would agree. They have basically said as much a couple of times.
The problem of course is that all of this takes Developer time, player feedback and rebalances. But that, I'm afraid, was not a problem created by the customers. Literally nobody asked for the specials (I have never seen one single post on the forums asking for them, on either forum, ever) and they should have been scaled before 2.1 was released. They still should be. And, I think, probably will be. One day.
For your information if you would care to pay attention, I did run. I made it clear I couldn't fight efficiently in such a scenario. You'd think being in a Corvette you could at least attempt to tackle your foes, right?
Again, missing the point and the emphasis on my request for this to be adjusted. I'm not screaming nerf here.
Try flying evasively in a Corvette or Cutter. I'm sorry, but FAS, FDL and the upcoming Chieftain will laugh at your attempts, and having ZERO lock on your foes will make it near impossible for you to ever be able to fight back with any degree of efficiency. As I said, upto two targets at most, if they're not both using target lock breaker, makes it a bit more manageable. Three or more and it's pointless even being at CG's in a big ship.
But if you love this effect then by all means, go deliberately pit yourself against it since it seems to be fun for you.
Yeah, pretty much agree with that. Or experimental effects should at least come with some serious downsides.
Try flying evasively in a Corvette or Cutter. I'm sorry, but FAS, FDL and the upcoming Chieftain will laugh at your attempts, and having ZERO lock on your foes will make it near impossible for you to ever be able to fight back with any degree of efficiency. As I said, upto two targets at most, if they're not both using target lock breaker, makes it a bit more manageable. Three or more and it's pointless even being at CG's in a big ship.
But if you love this effect then by all means, go deliberately pit yourself against it since it seems to be fun for you.
Why do you assume flying big ships means not able to be evasive at all?
Of course you can't get fdl-level evasiveness and you can't dodge every pa shot, but that doesn't mean you should abandon your mobility for good, face-tanking multiple opponents simply means you will have to run or die very soon, and a lot of inexperienced pilots can land shots on you easily and continuously if you don't try your best at flying evasively.
Move your pips, use your lateral and vertical thrusters, time you boost and turn off the flight assist if you want to.
And any ship is pointless if you are caught alone by 3 or more, unless your skill outmatches theirs greatly, instead of "my ship is 10 times more expensive than theirs".
Is it just me or shouldn't 2 ships (or 3 or more) ALWAYS absolutely dominate Combat vs a single opponent anyway?
The fact that they don't automatically WITHOUT Engineering should be the issue...NOT that TLB makes wings overpowered...
The fact that they don't automatically WITHOUT Engineering should be the issue...NOT that TLB makes wings overpowered...
should they?
FDEV thinks different.
considering they put a massive thermal reduction on super penetrator, shieldbreaker and plasma slugs for the railgun,
removed many hard penalties from many blueprints to bring the new stuff in line with god-rolled equip.
i think when 3.0 hits, TLB will be the least of your problems in PvP
Yeah 3.0 is going to make things worse in terms of crazy op builds, but it will make things better by allowing those builds to be (semi) easily gotten by anyone willing to put in a moderate amount of work, instead of requiring lots of intense grinding and a whole lot of luck. I would have preferred them to rebalance everything instead and just forget about grandfathering, but that would make too much sense.
Absolutely.
Lanchester applies hence a single ship against two opponents would have to be 4 times more powerful / skillful. Against 3 opponents 9 times more.
I don't think that big and expensive ships should have an I win button just because they are big and expensive. There should be counters for those who fight in smaller ships.
I will praise the gods that don't exist if FD ever offer TS a job.
So much sense here guys.