Combat Zone buffed?

[Hacker#451563]

Do me a favor and bump this would you? I don't want to look like a butt and it's on the 5th page back now.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ps-in-CZ-do-not-count-toward-massacre-targets

Noticed the same thing myself, added too, and bumped your ticket.

 

[Aashenfox]

To Confirm:

(1) You gain or lose no influence with either side despite what it may tell you after winning or losing a combat 'Round'

(2) Your wins and losses DO NOT count towards winning or losing a war of any type (Civil or Expansion) only Combat Bonds being handed in will do this.

(3) The Combat Zone 'Massacre Missions' are working but don't contribute to the chance of winning or losing the war beyond the accumulation of Combat Bonds.


In Conclusion: Hitting Low Intensity CZs repeatedly and handing your tally in afterwards is the best way to win the battles for that day and thus, the overall war if you can keep it up for a few days.



I've been testing this since the beta and after the update and my chosen faction has been in wars almost continuously so I'm 100% certain of the information I've posted.

We know this. Regarding 1 I assume you meant reputation? Because factions at war are now influence locked, influence doesn't affect the progress of the war, only the winning bar in the right console. Winning the scenario does precious little to affect this and missions too. But this bar isn't pushed by influence, some new unit, we call it 'points' But yeh if you meant reputation I agree. And this is as it should be. Frankly it's scary to imagine becoming hostile at every station in a system when your faction is fighting a retreat. So let's hope that's intended and the red herring dialogs at the end of the scenario is just a placeholder or mistake.

Re: conclusion, it doesn't matter if you hit low, medium or high intensity, the optimal method is to kill 3 ships for about 100k bonds and hand in, as it has always been.

Thanks gents for the bump!

 

[Jmanis]

So it's the same Influence for winning a round regardless of the "intensity" rating?

Assuming for a moment that any of the BGS influence mechanics work at all?

I've noticed no difference. The higher intensity CZs might count more than a low intensity, but the low intensity are so quick and easy to win compared to the others it makes no sense - in my opinion - to even consider doing medium or high intensity CZs. The special ops NPCs and other side-quest NPCs are so ridiculously overpowered that they are simply a waste of time for basically no reward. (A good example of how broken the whole engineering, defensive modules and in the end the whole combat system is.)

That's an interesting question.

Regarding the CZ ship buff... I like it. It would probably be a good idea to buff the combat bonds payouts, too, though.... tenfold would be reasonable, to make it a bit more competitive with Haz RES bounty payouts.

I don't know if anyone's actually measured the efficacy of doing low, med or high, but in terms of effort, I average (in minutes) 5-10 for low intensity, 10-20 for medium intensity and 30-45 for high intensity. Historically, BGS effects have been on a increasing scale (in arbitrary units) of Low = 1, Med = 2, High = 4 (i.e next step up would be 8). Again, I don't know if that holds in 3.3's BGS, presume it does since things such as transactional effects still exist, suggesting there's never been a complete mechanical overhaul... but with that ratio, it seems balanced enough in my opinion, and my bonds match to boot (250-300k for low, 400-600 for medium, 800-1.2m for high)

Re: conclusion, it doesn't matter if you hit low, medium or high intensity, the optimal method is to kill 3 ships for about 100k bonds and hand in, as it has always been.

See, I don't think anyone can really hand-on-heart confirm anything at the moment... only just recently a post suggested that bonds do nothing, and that it's only resolving CZs that matters. Definitely not standing here saying "You're wrong", just advertising caution of claiming anything as being "the single effective technique" given how chaotic things are at the moment.

 

[Auronio]

Do we have an equally sound understanding of election mechanics currently post 3.3?

Is it just turn in number x of missions or of mission types a/b/c per day to win the day or do more conditions need to be met?
From my / our experience it really looks to be simple like number missions, trades and maybe bounties though we are not sure and particularly not about the quantity required.

 

[Auronio]

I don't know if anyone's actually measured the efficacy of doing low, med or high, but in terms of effort, I average (in minutes) 5-10 for low intensity, 10-20 for medium intensity and 30-45 for high intensity. Historically, BGS effects have been on a increasing scale (in arbitrary units) of Low = 1, Med = 2, High = 4 (i.e next step up would be 8). Again, I don't know if that holds in 3.3's BGS, presume it does since things such as transactional effects still exist, suggesting there's never been a complete mechanical overhaul... but with that ratio, it seems balanced enough in my opinion, and my bonds match to boot (250-300k for low, 400-600 for medium, 800-1.2m for high)



See, I don't think anyone can really hand-on-heart confirm anything at the moment... only just recently a post suggested that bonds do nothing, and that it's only resolving CZs that matters. Definitely not standing here saying "You're wrong", just advertising caution of claiming anything as being "the single effective technique" given how chaotic things are at the moment.

Interesting read.
In fact I experience it differently. High ones the easiest for me.
That might be due to flying my Corvette cause in low and medium I have more small targets against me such as iCouriers, iEagles, Vultures, Vipers, Asps etc. where in High (currently fighting against an Imperial faction) I have Pythons, Clippers and Cutters who might be more tanky but way easier to catch.
Yesterday it took me exactly half an hour to finish two High intensity CZs in a row including two visits to the nearby station for combat bond delivery.

With regards to whether still the pure transactional logic applies (do a few kills, hand in, go back rinse and repeat) or whether finishing the battle scenario is helpful in addtion - I like the new way cause it provides way more fun than before.
I do not wanna grind CZs, I would like to enjoy them.

The new mechanic guarantees the latter.

 

[Aashenfox]

I timed my scenario completions as well. 8 mins for a low, 12 mins for a med and about 20 for a high (varies a lot, 15-25). I've become pretty efficient. If anyone is thinking 'how'? It;s probably the feedback railguns..but basically, these are the loadouts I recommend for fast clears...

FGS:

Large G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Medium G5 OC multicannon corrosive
Medium G5 OC multicannon corrosive (I'm aware two corrosives don't stack. On the FGS, the side mediums are pretty much side specific, i.e. the right one only really hits stuff in front and to the right and the left only hits stuff in front and to the left, so by having two corrosives here, you cover the ENTIRE frontal hemisphere with the corrosive debuff)
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade

DON'T take a fighter! Every time it gets killed (which will be every 90 seconds tops), its kill counts toward scenario completion for the other side. SLFs have always been a liability in CZs, now they are positively obstructive to the victory.

This relies on being able to effectively use the feedback railguns to immediately cancel shield cells, and this is really the secret to clearing these fast. If you're no good with railguns, then change the 2 medium corrosives to autoloader, and put two more small OC multicannons in the small slots, one with corrosive and one with emissive (because they use heatsinks after cells you can lose time on target).

Alternative Alliance Challenger loadout

Large G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Small G5 OC multicannon corrosive
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade

Again if railguns aren't your cup of tea, use two more small G5 OC multicannons, one with emissive and the other with incendiary, no changes to the rest.

I promise you will tear stuff up so fast you'll actually giggle. Dakka is KING!!

And bear in mind, even thouh I CAN clear them that fast, I wouldn't. Cos clearing them at all, even the 8 mins of a low, is at least twice longer than it takes to kill three ships and hand in. Shame. To fix this FD should make the scenario count for the same number of points as the transaction. So clearing the scenario provides exactly double the points of killing three ships and making a transaction, that would balance it out I believe (but only for very efficient pilots).

P.S. If anyone's wondering why G3 short range on the railguns, it's because you don't really need the damage from the railguns, they are there for cancelling the shield cells of the NPC you are currently dogfighting, so since you're using multicannons you aren't going to be too far away from your target, so I figure 2km range seems reasonable and the decent extra damage is just a bonus. I also advocate using long range to remove the falloff, but NPCs don't fly that well, you should be close enough to get the benefit of the short range mod without falling foul of the fall off.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

I timed my scenario completions as well. 8 mins for a low, 12 mins for a med and about 20 for a high (varies a lot, 15-25). I've become pretty efficient. If anyone is thinking 'how'? It;s probably the feedback railguns..but basically, these are the loadouts I recommend for fast clears...

FGS:

Large G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Medium G5 OC multicannon corrosive
Medium G5 OC multicannon corrosive (I'm aware two corrosives don't stack. On the FGS, the side mediums are pretty much side specific, i.e. the right one only really hits stuff in front and to the right and the left only hits stuff in front and to the left, so by having two corrosives here, you cover the ENTIRE frontal hemisphere with the corrosive debuff)
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade

This relies on being able to effectively use the feedback railguns to immediately cancel shield cells, and this is really the secret to clearing these fast. IF you're no good with railguns, then change the 2 medium corrosives to autoloader, and put two more small OC multicannons in the small slots, one with corrosive and one with emissive (because they use heatsinks after cells you can lose time on target).

Alternative Alliance Challenger loadout

Large G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Small G5 OC multicannon corrosive
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade

Again if railguns aren't your cup of tea, use two more small G5 OC multicannons, one with emissive and the other with incendiary, no changes to the rest.

I promise you will tear stuff up so fast you'll actually giggle. Dakka is KING!!

And bear in mind, even thouh I CAN clear them that fast, I wouldn't. Cos it's still not optimal. Shame.

P.S. If anyone's wondering why G3 short range on the railguns, it's because you don't really need the damage from the railguns, they are there for cancelling shield cells, of the person you are currently dogfighting, you are dogfighting with multicannons you aren't going to be too far away from your target, so I figure 2km range seems reasonable and the decent extra damage is just a bonus. I also advocate using long range to remove the falloff, but NPCs don't fly that well, you should be close enough to get the benefit of the short range mod without falling foul of the fall off.

its all nice if it works

if i didn't just really hate multicannons, and kinda suck with frags...
why can't cannons work too? (obviously because they got ripped of their OP corrosive equivalent called "high yield")

 

[Aashenfox]

its all nice if it works

if i didn't just really hate multicannons, and kinda suck with frags...
why can't cannons work too? (obviously because they got ripped of their OP corrosive equivalent called "high yield")

It really works

Cannons have 2 disadvantages, no thermal damage mod (you really need this in pve it makes a big difference to shield stripping) and the universal effect that as rate of fire goes down, misses hurt more, and cannons are a fair whack slower than multis in flight, so they miss a fair bit more often.

Give dakka another chance. I bet it's more fun than you remember.

 

[Aashenfox]

Another way that works for fast completions, but I don't find that much fun myself, is a challenger or chieftain with again all frags except a couple of feedback railguns, but that means to be efficient you'll be going after only Asps and larger, which have more health, so prolong the fight, it balances out really. But spamming frags into those t10s at point blank range is super satisfying. Chasing down vipers with rails and frags, not so much.

 

[Auronio]

I timed my scenario completions as well. 8 mins for a low, 12 mins for a med and about 20 for a high (varies a lot, 15-25). I've become pretty efficient. If anyone is thinking 'how'? It;s probably the feedback railguns..but basically, these are the loadouts I recommend for fast clears...

FGS:

Large G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Medium G5 OC multicannon corrosive
Medium G5 OC multicannon corrosive (I'm aware two corrosives don't stack. On the FGS, the side mediums are pretty much side specific, i.e. the right one only really hits stuff in front and to the right and the left only hits stuff in front and to the left, so by having two corrosives here, you cover the ENTIRE frontal hemisphere with the corrosive debuff)
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade

DON'T take a fighter! Every time it gets killed (which will be every 90 seconds tops), its kill counts toward scenario completion for the other side. SLFs have always been a liability in CZs, now they are positively obstructive to the victory.

This relies on being able to effectively use the feedback railguns to immediately cancel shield cells, and this is really the secret to clearing these fast. If you're no good with railguns, then change the 2 medium corrosives to autoloader, and put two more small OC multicannons in the small slots, one with corrosive and one with emissive (because they use heatsinks after cells you can lose time on target).

Alternative Alliance Challenger loadout

Large G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon incendiary
Medium G5 OC multicannon autoloader
Small G5 OC multicannon corrosive
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade
Small G3 short range Railgun Feedback Cascade

Again if railguns aren't your cup of tea, use two more small G5 OC multicannons, one with emissive and the other with incendiary, no changes to the rest.

I promise you will tear stuff up so fast you'll actually giggle. Dakka is KING!!

And bear in mind, even thouh I CAN clear them that fast, I wouldn't. Cos it's still not optimal. Shame.

P.S. If anyone's wondering why G3 short range on the railguns, it's because you don't really need the damage from the railguns, they are there for cancelling shield cells, of the person you are currently dogfighting, you are dogfighting with multicannons you aren't going to be too far away from your target, so I figure 2km range seems reasonable and the decent extra damage is just a bonus. I also advocate using long range to remove the falloff, but NPCs don't fly that well, you should be close enough to get the benefit of the short range mod without falling foul of the fall off.

In that case of course I can't hold back and need to share my Vette hardpoint loadout which - at least for me - turns out to be very efficient.
Very classic and maybe newbie oriented but it works for me.

Huge, large and small all efficient beams and the two mediums efficient multi-cannons.
Beams melt the shields, multis together with beams take care of the rest.
Beams with flow control, multis with corrosive shells (yes, both).
All fixed.

Before I must read the reply that corrosive don't stack, yes, I know, however having only one corrosive means you need to be with exactly that multi on target in order to benefit from the effect. Which at least for me is not always the case. But I have a good/better chance that at least one of my multis hits and that way it always will be one with corrosive shells.

Usually 4 pips on weapons and 2 on sys when firing on target and when losing the target 4 on sys and 2 on weapons to support the shield recharging. More or less rolling around the axes of my vessel and only putting 4 into engines when I need to hunt one which gets out of my 3 km beam range.
(Yes, I know that technique would make me an easy prey in PvP but it's CZs we are talking about.)

Simple concept, simple outcome.
o7

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

DON'T take a fighter! Every time it gets killed (which will be every 90 seconds tops), its kill counts toward scenario completion for the other side. SLFs have always been a liability in CZs, now they are positively obstructive to the victory.

Lol that's hilarious. I was only doing the CZs for 2 reasons, one to train up a harmless SLF and the other mat farming (mostly mission reward, but I occasionally checked the large ship corpses for drops). And my #1 goal was counterproductive. Explains how some battles quickly turned against me. I am however now the proud owner of a Master level NPC on the cheap pay.

I'm so happy I don't care about BGS anymore. I really don't know how you guys can stand its repetitive arbitrariness, but I do respect the breadth of knowledge you've built up.

FWIW I also found dakka dakka effective, although I was running a vette build. I had to synth an alarming amount though (suppose this isn't a problem in the kill 3 ships ->wake out->cash bond approach).

The small and medium ships I just dakka'ed through their SCBs, the large ships I usually broke their shields with huge PAs + dakka + ram before they were even able to apply SCB. But on a chally/FGS probably could have railed them no problem.

Agreed on cannons if gimballed - I find they are useless without at least long range 2, preferably long range 3 to match MC velocity.

Fixed cannons I find aim is no problem, pretty similar to PA (I've even used force shell to *reduce* velocity to match PA for a chief build once). But that's a PvP thing not PvE, fixed cannon PvE seems unwise.

Turret cannons are just decoration, I experimented with these for a while for dispersal field effect, I don't think they ever hit once.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

currently i'm using an anaconda with two sturdy imperial hammer in the med slots.
dunno why, but with no other ship i had such a high precision with hammers...

huge multicannon for corrosive, and because its the only MC without spin-up time.
and because i had them in storage when i bought the conda - 3 focused pulse turrets, 2 emissive, 1 concordant sequence for wing support.

its not the fastest CZ killer ship, but i like "hammering" down those NPCs

and no, my last test with multicannons is just a few weeks old. no i dont like them.

for me the biggest issue with an all-cannon-build is: someone at FDEV thought he had to give every cannon size a a different projectile speed.
so all fixed is not possible if you have to mix them.

shock cannons would be an alternative, but for being pre-engineered weapons, they simply lack 70-80% damage potential of regular cannons.
clearly an oversight by FDEV.

 

[Aashenfox]

In that case of course I can't hold back and need to share my Vette hardpoint loadout which - at least for me - turns out to be very efficient.
Very classic and maybe newbie oriented but it works for me.

Huge, large and small all efficient beams and the two mediums efficient multi-cannons.
Beams melt the shields, multis together with beams take care of the rest.
Beams with flow control, multis with corrosive shells (yes, both).
All fixed.

Before I must read the reply that corrosive don't stack, yes, I know, however having only one corrosive means you need to be with exactly that multi on target in order to benefit from the effect. Which at least for me is not always the case. But I have a good/better chance that at least one of my multis hits and that way it always will be one with corrosive shells.

Usually 4 pips on weapons and 2 on sys when firing on target and when losing the target 4 on sys and 2 on weapons to support the shield recharging. More or less rolling around the axes of my vessel and only putting 4 into engines when I need to hunt one which gets out of my 3 km beam range.
(Yes, I know that technique would make me an easy prey in PvP but it's CZs we are talking about.)

Simple concept, simple outcome.
o7

Yeh its cool how people reach the same effects in so many different ways. Since I started pvping seriously, I just never use lasers any more (not that they aren't effective in pvp, they can be), the trouble with them in pve is as you mentioned yourself, 4 pips to weapons... Still, in a vette, that's not an issue, so swings and roundabouts. One of the nice things about the loadouts I mentioned is that they can be run with 3-1-2 pips all day long. Just point and shoot. I have a corvette which is even more effective in CZs, but it feels like a big fish in a small bowl in the CZs, I prefer to flit about engaging and disengaging in a medium ship.

Regarding corrosive on more than one hardpoint, I agree if you have the spare hardpoint, the debuff uptime is more than worth the loss of ammo, despite not stacking.

 

[Aashenfox]

Lol that's hilarious. I was only doing the CZs for 2 reasons, one to train up a harmless SLF and the other mat farming (mostly mission reward, but I occasionally checked the large ship corpses for drops). And my #1 goal was counterproductive. Explains how some battles quickly turned against me. I am however now the proud owner of a Master level NPC on the cheap pay.

I'm so happy I don't care about BGS anymore. I really don't know how you guys can stand its repetitive arbitrariness, but I do respect the breadth of knowledge you've built up.

FWIW I also found dakka dakka effective, although I was running a vette build. I had to synth an alarming amount though (suppose this isn't a problem in the kill 3 ships ->wake out->cash bond approach).

The small and medium ships I just dakka'ed through their SCBs, the large ships I usually broke their shields with huge PAs + dakka + ram before they were even able to apply SCB. But on a chally/FGS probably could have railed them no problem.

Agreed on cannons if gimballed - I find they are useless without at least long range 2, preferably long range 3 to match MC velocity.

Fixed cannons I find aim is no problem, pretty similar to PA (I've even used force shell to *reduce* velocity to match PA for a chief build once). But that's a PvP thing not PvE, fixed cannon PvE seems unwise.

Turret cannons are just decoration, I experimented with these for a while for dispersal field effect, I don't think they ever hit once.

Worth mentioining I suppose that a G5 long range MEDIUM (only medium) cannon with FORCE SHELL (and only force shell) has almost the exact same shot speed as a G5 focused or long range PA. It;s good if you want a damaging weapon in a medium hardpoint that will compliment and can be fired with the PAs without using much extra cap or heat. Plus, in pvp, it's hella annoying for the opponent, to get hit with a TLB PA AND a force shell cannon at the same, lose target and facing direction. Heh.

Try Short range on the multicannons if you aren't already, you won't run out of ammo again (because when you're firing only inside 2km you won't really ever miss) and it does more damage than overcharged. Don't use it on the incendiaries though, stick to overcharged for incendiary and emissive due to heat build up.

 

[Aashenfox]

currently i'm using an anaconda with two sturdy imperial hammer in the med slots.
dunno why, but with no other ship i had such a high precision with hammers...

huge multicannon for corrosive, and because its the only MC without spin-up time.
and because i had them in storage when i bought the conda - 3 focused pulse turrets, 2 emissive, 1 concordant sequence for wing support.

its not the fastest CZ killer ship, but i like "hammering" down those NPCs

and no, my last test with multicannons is just a few weeks old. no i dont like them.

for me the biggest issue with an all-cannon-build is: someone at FDEV thought he had to give every cannon size a a different projectile speed.
so all fixed is not possible if you have to mix them.

shock cannons would be an alternative, but for being pre-engineered weapons, they simply lack 70-80% damage potential of regular cannons.
clearly an oversight by FDEV.

Cool beans I'm always telling my squadron members, the most effective wepoans loadout in any situation is the one you feel most comfortable using.

 

[TheMegaTurnip]

Did Pve Actually become more than a turkey shoot? I'll be back with the news at 6..

 

[Aashenfox]

Did Pve Actually become more than a turkey shoot? I'll be back with the news at 6..

CZs are an entirely different kettle of fish now. Still not THAT challenging for good pilots, but the enemies have decent engineering now, and a lot more time-to-live. They are also adept at pulling a brave sir robin, but that's ok cos it still helps your side win victory.

 

[Vasco Sapien]

Just a quick question: did combat zones get a buff in 3.3? I know that there is now new mechanics involved with combat zones like spec ops and a kill counter bar, but while the ships aren't dealing more damage, they seem to me that they can take a lot more punishment. My Anaconda used to be able to melt though a combat zone targets hull, now it takes far longer. Did they buff their hulls/HPs?

I noticed this also. My corvette is a MC gunship and typically rips through NPC ships. But i got involved in the last CZ CG and i killed half as many ships before my mags ran dry. i noticed the NPC ships lingered longer, when usually they are eviscerated pretty fast.

 

[[VR] Goooost]

Don't forget the new thing that makes conflict zones way tougher- they end. Before, you'd take some licks to shift the tide of the battle, and then sort of ride the wave of being on a winning team. Now, you get your team into a good spot and the enemy retreats. There's no free ride.

 

[Auronio]

Don't forget the new thing that makes conflict zones way tougher- they end. Before, you'd take some licks to shift the tide of the battle, and then sort of ride the wave of being on a winning team. Now, you get your team into a good spot and the enemy retreats. There's no free ride.

That's not really an issue imho. As there are always multiple CZs in a system for the same war you just low wake and head over to the next. Or even get back to the one you just left. When the defeated enemy retreats low wake, repair, refuel, refill, get back in again and - voila - new set of opponents and rinse and repeat.