Page 109 of 138 FirstFirst ... 99105106107108109110111112113119 ... LastLast
Results 1,621 to 1,635 of 2058

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: 2.2 Update: Combat Balance Adjustments [UPDATED]

  1. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #1621
    Just a small update (when I've posted this I'll update the OP with the new information where appropriate) - I'm still trying to read as much of the thread as possible, but I have limits :

    We've been discussing the feedback gathered from this thread and elsewhere, and there's a few things we'd like to comment/act on before going into beta. Several other issues are still being considered, but there's nothing new to share yet.

    Plasma Accelerators
    The Buff here is probably a bit too large, the calculations for how big a penalty the switch to Absolute damage would be for non-engineered targets was done with some changes to shield resistance in mind (which we've since decided aren't a good idea), and not updated correctly. We're dropping the Damage boost from 35% to 10%. This is still a buff in all cases (of 16% sustained DPS in the smallest case), but it's baseline damage isn't high enough to make it a clear choice over alternatives against all targets.

    Shield restore from Reboot/Repair
    We agree there are potential in-combat abuses of this generally by faster ships FA-OFF boosting and then repairing, so we're making a small tweak to how this process works. Reboot/repair still behaves as normal, if you're near-stationary (below 50 m/s) when the process completes you'll get your shields back, if you're moving too fast this will disrupt the process and you'll be left shieldless.

    Burst Laser Efficiency
    A few people are validly concerned that the efficiency boost to burst lasers makes them a new de-facto choice over pulse lasers, which while they do need a buff isn't the intent. For now we're not making changes but are keeping an eye on it and would appreciate feedback when you get access. One compromise might be to give them near-equivalent efficiency but leave the burst laser as a trade of slightly more damage for substantially more heat/power.

    Fixed vs Gimbal
    Not wanting to re-ignite the argument massively, but we're going into beta with the changes as proposed. We do definitely need feedback before these changes go live though! To comment a little on the intent of the change - our (and my own) internal testing shows the decrease in PvE kill rate during bounty hunting/CZ is negligible against most targets for a relatively competent pilot (think about how much time you actually spend with the target right on the edge of your tracking arc and unable to bring it closer?), but this does make them harder to use in PvP and against abnormally evasive NPCs.

    We really do think this one needs to be tried to be fairly evaluated.

  2. #1622
    Originally Posted by Mark Allen View Post (Source)
    Plasma Accelerators
    The Buff here is probably a bit too large, the calculations for how big a penalty the switch to Absolute damage would be for non-engineered targets was done with some changes to shield resistance in mind (which we've since decided aren't a good idea), and not updated correctly. We're dropping the Damage boost from 35% to 10%. This is still a buff in all cases (of 16% sustained DPS in the smallest case), but it's baseline damage isn't high enough to make it a clear choice over alternatives against all targets.
    Welp, this puts PA back on the shelf. Sorry.

  3. #1623
    Originally Posted by Huita View Post (Source)
    Welp, this puts PA back on the shelf. Sorry.
    lol.
    Playing along with these changes, guess who I just signed up for in PowerPlay?????

  4. #1624
    PA gets the nerf hammer before it even got buffed.

  5. #1625
    And with that, I went from being excited over the combat changes to 'meh'.

  6. #1626
    Ooohhhh ... thanks for the update Mark but to me as a PvP-er, the first announcement concerning plasma still left it borderline cuz projectile velocity plus draw plus heat. I thought I still might be better off hitting continuously with laser or multi, even with the resists.

    This may well finally resolve the question against plasma.

    But, will test ...

  7. #1627
    The moment this gets released into the main game the complaints will start, and it will be put back virtually to where it was anyway. I suggest smaller steps, please anticipate the wider communitys reaction.

    I'm not going to revert to fixed because Gimballs get worse, I'll just get the better sensors & continue as before.

    Any change to allow shields to re-form faster will just become another exploit as it used to be. Absolutely no to the reboot/repair change please.

  8. #1628
    I was really excited to start using the PA's again.

  9. #1629
    Originally Posted by Mark Allen View Post (Source)
    Burst Laser Efficiency
    A few people are validly concerned that the efficiency boost to burst lasers makes them a new de-facto choice over pulse lasers, which while they do need a buff isn't the intent. For now we're not making changes but are keeping an eye on it and would appreciate feedback when you get access. One compromise might be to give them near-equivalent efficiency but leave the burst laser as a trade of slightly more damage for substantially more heat/power.
    Suggestion. Make burst lasers a jousting weapon.
    • somewhat less DpE than pulse lasers
    • somewhat less accuracy than pulse lasers
    • clearly superior DpS compared to pulse lasers
    • (edit) and better penetration to do short range module sniping

    This way they would be excellent against small and medium sized ships at short range and good at destroying modules. Otherwise pulses would be better.

  10. #1630
    Originally Posted by Mark Allen View Post (Source)
    Please do remember: the forums themselves are a bit of an echo chamber, the non-vocal majority of players often aren't represented publicly where you can see the information.
    Understatement of the year right here. I wish Frontier wouldn't cave, or at least appear to cave-in to the echo chamber on this forum. We haven't even had the chance to experience these changes in the beta yet. It was the same situation with the instant ship transfer.

  11. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #1631
    Originally Posted by Huita View Post (Source)
    Welp, this puts PA back on the shelf. Sorry.
    It's definitely safer to err on this side though, it it gets too powerful we get a new "king" weapon that causes problems, if it's improved but still underpowered it's annoying but doesn't actively do any harm. This is possibly an over-correction, definitely subject to feedback during beta (and I want to spend more time plasma-spitting at poor unsuspecting NPCs myself! )

  12. #1632
    Originally Posted by Mark Allen View Post (Source)
    Fixed vs Gimbal
    Not wanting to re-ignite the argument massively, but we're going into beta with the changes as proposed. We do definitely need feedback before these changes go live though! To comment a little on the intent of the change - our (and my own) internal testing shows the decrease in PvE kill rate during bounty hunting/CZ is negligible against most targets for a relatively competent pilot (think about how much time you actually spend with the target right on the edge of your tracking arc and unable to bring it closer?), but this does make them harder to use in PvP and against abnormally evasive NPCs.

    We really do think this one needs to be tried to be fairly evaluated.
    The problem is that you are trying to approach this with straight line, treating every ship as if they are the same class. By your logic B52 should have no problem taking on F16 in a dogfight. If you really wanna to make the change to the weapon systems then you need to start treating each class of ship separately. Also why not leaving the sensors for other tasks and making separate ballistic computer "module" for all weapons and targeting acquisition. Recalibrate the power and mass to accommodate new module.

  13. #1633
    Originally Posted by Mark Allen View Post (Source)
    It's definitely safer to err on this side though, it it gets too powerful we get a new "king" weapon that causes problems, if it's improved but still underpowered it's annoying but doesn't actively do any harm. This is possibly an over-correction, definitely subject to feedback during beta (and I want to spend more time plasma-spitting at poor unsuspecting NPCs myself! )
    Then why not go with the middle, say 20%, and start fine-tuning from there?

  14. #1634
    Originally Posted by punkerich View Post (Source)
    Then why not go with the middle, say 20%, and start fine-tuning from there?
    Because that would be too reasonable.

  15. #1635
    Originally Posted by Mark Allen View Post (Source)
    (which we've since decided aren't a good idea)
    Pray tell us why they aren't a good idea? Because they make bi-weaves and passive regeneration more worthwhile (notice the lack of regeneration boosting mods - reinforced even reduces it)? Because their strength isn't expressed in raw MJ numbers? Because they can make a shield more of a general purpose protection without a specific weakness to lasers (meanwhile, hulls could always be equipped to resist kinetic damage in particular)?

Page 109 of 138 FirstFirst ... 99105106107108109110111112113119 ... LastLast