Feel free to prove that it was unintended then. So far you haven't. Insisting that they took it out because it was unintended doesnt prove that they took it out because it was unintended. If it was unintended Fdev would have said so instead if saying there were looking at adding it in again at a later date. They've been pretty upfront about that kind of stuff.
State of balancing grandfathered Plasma Accelerators?
- Thread starter Bigmaec
- Start date
Feel free to prove that it was unintended then. So far you haven't. Insisting that they took it out because it was unintended doesnt prove that they took it out because it was unintended. If it was unintended Fdev would have said so instead if saying there were looking at adding it in again at a later date. They've been pretty upfront about that kind of stuff.
Not all the time, only when they intend to enforce infractions for them. It is moot regardless.
With heat transfer your cockpit is pretty much constantly frosted, so there's more than one way to skin that cat.
Obviously this will never apply to a min-maxed PVP meta build though.
Because it is all nonsense, which in itself is inherently funny.
To hit at orbiting battle range with enough damage to remove PA heat, you'd need a long range beam, and while you were aiming the beam you wouldn't be able to shoot the PAs (can't use gimbals, chaff), and a long range beam powerful enough to cool off focused PAs wouldn't leave enough capacitor to fire the same PAs. If it were that simple, we'd be doing it and the thread wouldn't exist.
Aren't PVP meta builds the entire reason we've got this thread going in the first place?
I believe Stigbob means that PvPers in general probably need to learn what is possible and work with it rather than complain about what is not possible.
The complaints about certain builds no longer being feasible is probably because they were never intended to be feasible in the first place.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Previous Plasmas and Railguns should be caught up to grade 4 so we can properly balance the game. Dmg, heat generation and powershifts for long range rails and plasma accelerators. They should be forced to update them.
Its dumb as hell to leave previous weapons in the game that have a higher effect than whats available now. This was the whole reason for a power increase anyways.
The issue here is the future balancing for more than just PVPers, because these weapons impact everyone.
Leaving these values in the game, hinders future balancing and META shifts for the future.
Lets please stop worrying about peoples feelings. And balance this game correctly.
Yours Truly,
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Its dumb as hell to leave previous weapons in the game that have a higher effect than whats available now. This was the whole reason for a power increase anyways.
The issue here is the future balancing for more than just PVPers, because these weapons impact everyone.
Leaving these values in the game, hinders future balancing and META shifts for the future.
Lets please stop worrying about peoples feelings. And balance this game correctly.
Yours Truly,
WorldsGreatestForumDad
The current live 3.x balance for PAs and Rails is fair and reasonable, the legacy weapons need to be nerfed - not the existing balance munged.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Yes RSLG that is what I am saying. Thats what previous means.
They need to be caught up to grade 4 automatically and forced to upgrade them to grade 5. Removing heat advantages and more.
This way changes and powershifts can be made later. Removing some of the RNG and rewarding skill with consistency. While still punishing heat costs.
I have a pair of older rails. I can fire them sons a guns all day. But we are also limited in future changes because of legacy weapons.
Its time to nuke Legacy Weapons.
They made it a level playing field for a reason. Lets make sure when something changes, everyone receives the same change for fairness.
Last edited:
I use mixed loadouts they are much more fun.
However with long range PA's IIRC under the old system with its random nature the shot speed wasn't a constant it varied within the set parameters per PA. Really minor differences in shot speed give you separate aiming points at long range at maneuvering targets unless the shot speeds are absolutely identical.
Under V2 (when completed) they are identical, there is only the one aiming point.
I disagree that a forced conversion is the right way to go - the legacy kit would be converted to one level lower in the 3.x system than they are in the 2.x system (which may be lower than G4 in practice).
Since the main issue seems to be the Legacy PAs - FD could simply add a "proportional" damage reduction factor to the existing legacy heat reduction engineering factors. While that would not completely mitigate the existence of legacy engineered kit it would help to offset their gains and may encourage affected users to convert.
In the context of the wider legacy engineering concerns, if FD implement forced conversion then it should be applied across the board (not just weapons) and I can see huge problems with that given the use of legacy engineered undersized kit.
Another option that would address legacy engineering as a whole would be to introduce a random chance (say 1%) of failure (e.g. unit failure requiring reboot per operation or say 5 minutes of use) with ALL legacy engineered kit.
FTR I believe that I do not have any Legacy Engineered kit anymore, it has all been converted to the 3.x standards.
Last edited:
It's a valid point, but many people did THAT many rolls to get the bonus they wanted and 1750m/s. I personally don't have any god rolled PAs, but I had plenty of shot speed matched pairs, that was always the most important consideration, as you correctly point out. The fact that it's easier nowadays to match the shot speeds does not invalidate the advantage offered by god rolled heat reducing PAs.
The virtue of shot speed is not lost on me in general. Did you know that by combining G4 long range or focused PAs with G5 long range force shell cannon results in near identical shot speed? Or that G4 long range high yield cannons have the same shot speed as G5 focused PAs? I play around with that kind of theorycrafting a lot as you well know.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
LOL
That won't provide enough power and has poor integrity.
What you are describing are called "compromises".
That is not what a "better" module would force you to do.
You're so very wrong and dug in, and it's not pretty.
Why are you trying to hijack this thread with your ridiculous, inane banter?
This thread is about how the new engineering does not meet/exceed the values of the grandfathered PAs.
If you want opine about how you like building inferior ships perhaps you should start your own thread.
If you're going to make comments about "better" and actually mean "what Stigbob likes" then you should be clear about it.
That person who you responded to wasn't talking about what you like.
That is the context here.
LOL
Come to think of it, I bet you can't even use PAs, and that's what the nonsense is all about.
Just like how PVErs can't resist posting about PVP...
Yuk yuk yuk...
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Shot speed plus thermal reduction is an advantage despite all of that, and my PA are matched within ~40 m/s.
That's quite close enough.
You're just being ridiculous.
Only if your targets sitting still.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
If you actually believe that then your ignorance is worse than I thought.
If you're just trolling please grow up.
Tiny variations in shot speed make for separate aiming points during high speed manouvres unless your weapons are matched for shot speed. Its different when it isn't just an on paper thing.
Ahahaha your ignorance on the matter is at dangerous levels. You should name your combat ship: "MODULE MALFUNCTION" lol.
Moar pls.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
And if you
a) owned any
b) knew how to use them
you'd know, like I do, that you're being ridiculous.
So no, tiny variations mean jack squat, especially for PAs...