Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567
Results 91 to 102 of 102

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: 2.3 Shield Booster and Ship Armour Changes Feedback Thread Pt. 2

  1. #91
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?
    Minimal amount

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?
    Most of the time since beta (OLD BETA 2 years ago). Mostly 1v1. Wing fights often. My team (BIG) took part in two seasons of PvP league and finished runners up in our group.

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    DBS

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?
    I dont use shield. Im a silent runner, hull tank. I always fight

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?
    Never in 1v1. DBS is cheap to die in.

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?
    The have made my C1 enforcer cannons useless. I run 4 reverbarating cascades on my C2 slots and 2 enforcers on C1. Due to increased hull hardness of the big3 any small ship with c1 hardpoints has been made obsolete.

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?
    Relatively useful to protect my canopy. I still prefer hull reinforcments.

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.
    WRONG for me
    ABOUT RIGHT for most PvP meta players
    I use reverberating cascade torpedoes so shields were not a problem for me.
    You have just increased the time i need to chip at the hull with c1 weapons.

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?
    NEGATIVE for small ships.
    POSITIVE for medium/large

    General Comments
    As a small ship PvP-er I think I am the forgotten one caught between the anvil (FDL meta players) and the hammer (Big 3 Robigo runners). This patch is going to destroy the small ship DPS vs big ships hulls, because the unimaginative FDL meta owners complained that they could not destroy shields on Big3. Original, skilled, small ship Cmdr's are the biggest loosers here. FIGHT FOR SMALL SHIPS!


  2. #92
    Volunteer Moderator Slopey's Avatar
    PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!!!

    Please only post in the format requested in the OP! Posts which are not in that format, will be removed. For discussion/debate, please use a different topic, rather than this one which should be used only to supply the requested information, in the appropriate format.

    Many thanks.

  3. This is the last staff post in this thread. #93
    Hi all, non-template posts will now cease in this thread.

    Moderators have been instructed to remove and infract such posts. Such posts that do not post in accordance to the template on Sandro's first post will be moderated. Thank you.
    - Brett C / bc
    AKA: Forum Manager, Webmaster, Community Assistant/Manager, Social Media.
    Planet Coaster: Website - Forums - Twitter - Facebook - Instagram - Youtube - Reddit
    Elite Dangerous: Website - Forums - Twitter - Facebook - Instagram - Youtube - Reddit
    Frontier: Website - Jobs - News

  4. #94
    About me

    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?
    My Combat experience is a mixture of everything in PvE

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?
    PvP is extremly rare and I generally avoid it.

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    Vulture and Eagle


    Balance Questions:
    Specific topics we'd like concise feedback for:

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?
    I continue to fight

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?
    When hull is down to 20% or if it's close, to the death.

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?
    Not much as I don't fly them. Not a big fan of the bigger ships.

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?
    Yes I have, and found them useful. But to be honest I didn't really see the purpose of having a brand new module for them. Their benefits should have been added to bullkhead upgrades and Hull reinforcements instead as sure thier purpose is to sheild these modules anyway.

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.
    A mixture of not gone far enough and wrong direction. I think the issue actually lies within the enginner upgrades themselves. Some are just far too powerful. They should have been set up as a much smaller upgrade at level 5 and below, and then if thought the upgrade is too small, it would be much easier to make them slighly better to balance, then having to take away.

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?
    Very much Positive.

    General Comments
    A space for feedback on other topics. Please keep it focussed on the changes made during this beta, wider discussion belongs in other threads.

    While I think the updates are positive as a whole, I think engineers really needs to be looked at as well as shield boosters and SCB's.

  5. #95
    About You:
    I'm obsessed with stealth builds I love them. I have my smuggling/trading corvette down to 900m target lock range; whilst still keeping it able to repel pvp attacks. I've put probably put 100 hours into engineering this ship. The thrusters for example took 100 rolls to get right.
    I like PVP, I use my engineered FDL for pvp fights, both in wings and 1v1 - but it's pvp with friends who I know and trust; I never pvp with strangers.


    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?
    Quite a bit; long duration Hazres and CZ mostly; 100ships killed or run out of ammo. I do this both solo and in a wing where I look after my friends with healing beams (I haven't tested the healing beams yet! i'll do that next)

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?
    PVP 1v1 and Wing vs Wing.

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    Engineered Ships: FDL, Sidewinder, Corvette (defence only)
    Non-RNG'd Ships: DBS, Viper3

    Balance Questions:
    Specific topics we'd like concise feedback for:

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?

    In my FDL... If my shields are unrecoverable I bail - I generally start thinking about high waking at 30% shields. Even with all the extra modules etc; I'm not taking the risk. (I have credits for 75 FDL rebuys)
    My Corvette is G5 engineered trader on live 2000mj of shields - which is enough to prevent a single pvp g5 gank attacks with a safety margin - but I have to high wake straight away. Not really any margin for delay.

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?
    Little ships> PVP: I fight until the rebuy screen. PVE: bail at shields broken to save bounties etc.


    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?
    Corvette: MJ build have been reduced to 1300mj - during a single pvp g5 gank attack shields were next to nothing on high wake - absolutely zero margin for delay.
    Corvette: After switching to RA build the shields were not enough and hull damage started before the higwake counter - I've already sacrificed a class 7 slot for shields, I have two HRPs in the military slots. I don't want to sacrifice even more cargo space. Shields are my life.

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?
    I've used them on live; they're okay but I don't trust them.

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

    WRONG DIRECTION
    If you're serious about this and want to fix huge shields, then forget about shield booster changes; if people want to suffer the huge recharge times let them it's deterrent enough for large MJ builds... A far better solution is to limit people to ONE Shield Cell Bank per ship. You can load up a corvette with 15,000mj of shield boosters, admittedly without enough heat-sinks you'll cook the ship but in a pinch it's available. People only have to power two SCB at a time. Yes there are engineering rail gun mods to break SCB; but not everyone has them and they shouldn't be made mandatory. In my opinion Limiting their up-front shields is a mute point, there are downsides to having them; and removing almost unlimited SCB fast recharge will create further deterrent. And actually thinking about it; if you can all but cap out MJ shields with 2x 64% Grade5 HD boosters (with Prismatics HD-G5 2300mj) and then you have 6 slots free for heat sinks; so it's not as crazy of an idea as I first thought. 24 heatsinks RNGd gives you 48 SCB charges; if you fill up all the class 7,6,5 slots with SCB that gives you 36 SCB charges. So yes - SCB is still a huge problem.

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?
    NEGATIVE - they don't address the fact people will continue to use SCB to extend battles long past the point where the battle should have ended and they reduce the benefits of other Heavily engineered builds (FDL, Traders)

    General Comments
    Again I'm going to post my 2.3 Beta graph of my FDL Build - the SCB vastly outweigh the shield MJ - this in my opinion should be the other way around. Strong shields with SCB as a fail-safe resort to help you escape. Currently people are ShieldCellBank tanking. It shouldn't be a thing. (effective shields includes SCB) - although I know some python fliers who'll be VERY unhappy if SCB are nerfed. But they are more over powering than shield boosters.

    CMDR Inyahin - Paladin Consortium | Federal Corvette - Stealth Smuggling Build

  6. #96
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?

    50% of time in PVE and long duration

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?

    5% of time with short intense bursts of action

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?

    Corvette, Anaconda, FDL & Courier

    Balance Questions:
    Specific topics we'd like concise feedback for:

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?

    Varies, depends on fight intensity. Typically I retreat and regroup/recharge before shields go down

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?

    If continuing after shields are down it depends on the number of ships engaging and rate of hull/module damage

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?

    Reduces time in CZ and makes it easier to pick off noncombat big ships. Especially inexperienced players who ranked up or earned credits quickly

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?

    Good at protecting against damage. Specifically shield breaker torpedoes

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

    Gone too far and wrong direction. Big ships should be hard to kill and require a time investment. Unles you makena build specific to big ship hunting.

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?

    Negative

    General Comments

  7. #97
    About You:
    (to help us understand your Point of view for the other questions)

    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?

    1) A Lot, duration depends on my mood

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?

    2) Significantly, i love PvP

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?

    3) FDL, Corvette, FAS, Cutter, Vulture and type 7

    Balance Questions:
    Specific topics we'd like concise feedback for:

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?


    4) Depends on ship i fly, if its a billion credit corvette NOPE, anyone can quick snipe my slow moving ship and its gg

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?

    4b) If i am flying FAS, i continue to fight , its pretty agile with FAO, not easy to snipe my modules

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?

    5) By a Huge margin, you know there is a reason why a cutter or vette costs a billion + (i do agree that cutter AND FDL have OP shields)



    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?


    6) Yeah! i did, didnt found them effective, specially against super pen rail ammo


    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

    7) This cannot be any more wrong than this, the problem exist with 2 ships only cutter and insanely OP FDL, don't punish entire pond for couple of fishes

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?

    8) EXTREMELY NEGATIVE, i will explain below

    General Comments
    A space for feedback on other topics. Please keep it focused on the changes made during this beta, wider discussion belongs in other threads.[/QUOTE]

    Please DO READ
    I am the guy who submitted diminishing shield stack suggestion Ticket earlier this year so i think i am responsible for all this mess, customer representative told me that he forwarded that idea to design team xD, now back to the point There is a reason why big ships costs a billion credits, endless grinding for ranks and etc not even taking engineer grinding into account, i have a suggestion, you can counter massive cutter and FDL op shield by making hull tanking viable, big ships suppose to have big armor, big costs, big rebuy, big hull and big shields too! and crappy maneuverability, how about you redo module malfunction algorithm for these big 3 ?

    1) Corvette - MUST NEED Strongest hull and armor, its a warship man, it can even jump, on top of rear admiral rank
    2) Conda - 400ton, highest dps, and does everything exceptional, seriously lol
    3) Cutter,- needs a base shield nerf, same with FDL that costs less then 1/4

  8. #98
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?
    Frequently

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?
    Rarely (due to rebuy costs for Cutter!)

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    Cutter

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?
    Lost when the shields are broken

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?

    Withdraw at about 80% - 70% (due to the 17mill rebuy of the cutter!)

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?
    Negative

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?
    Haven't used them.

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.
    Way too far in the wrong direction. The big 3 should be very difficult to kill! They are "end game ships" that players have worked hard to invest in, and they are some of the biggest ships players can currently fly. They should almost be seen as the equivalent of player controlled capital ships at this point in the games development.

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?
    NEGATIVE -

    General Comments

    - Don't nerf the big 3 they have been earned through grinding, hours of gameplay. They already have expensive modules, lower maneuverability and ridiculous rebuy costs - and now you want to make it easier for a single viper to kill them?

    - Elite Dangerous will never be a combat game with a 17 mill rebuy for your cutter! Get rid of the rebuy and maybe people will be less tetchy about "re-balancing". I mean after hours of playing to get the ranks, then being killed in combat and taken back to the last port and having to hire new crew is punishment enough.

    - Stop "re-balancing"! The big 3 should be solid to fight, I'm sure the logic at the start of ED was that it was going to take multiple fighters to bring them down? Where has that logic gone? Surely it still stands and is now more appealing with wings?

  9. #99
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?
    Long term for Rez and yes to the rest.

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?
    Rarely

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    Anaconda – Corvette - Cutter - Fdl

    Balance Questions:
    Specific topics we'd like concise feedback for:

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?
    Continue to finish current fight in Res, Still leave quickly when in a CZ.

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?
    Depends on type and number of opponents. Usually before being attack if in CZ. If in a Res zone then will stay until hull is 75% or less

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?
    Changed from a M/J based build to a resistance based build and bi-weaves for a faster recharge.

    Play improved overall. As with less shields I have to fly better


    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?
    Somewhat useful.

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.
    N/A - Don't pvp very often or well and NPC's don't seem to have massive shields.

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?
    Neutral PvP and PvE are very different ways in which the game can be played. I think this will just increase the gulf between them. Open will become even emptier as PvE'rs migrate to PG’s and SOLO.

    General Comments
    Higher ranking NPC’s could do with being tougher, but not just giving/making them super efficient with engineered weapons, how about better flight skills for one.

    Haz res needs to be actually hazardous i.e more, bigger wings, tougher opponents and a faster spawn rate. Perhaps they even attack you, just for being there or zapping their faction members.
    Rebuy costs are ridiculously high. I think this contributes to why folks don’t want to risk ships. The rebuy for my Cutter is around 36,000,000 mil which takes a while to earn.

  10. #100
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?
    99.99% Both long and short. Res Sites and CZ, and interdictions when I'm trading.

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?
    Except to test fits with friends .01% of the time, and never in Open, ever.

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    Python and Anaconda


    Balance Questions:
    Specific topics we'd like concise feedback for:

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?
    Generally, I consider the fight costs too high to continue once shields go down. Even with a good ship, hull tanking while being mass-locked in a CZ or Res makes for a hairy escape as is. Even in an Anaconda with modified sheilds and boosters, I can still get overwhelmed, and often I'm more than halfway through my hull by the time I jump out.

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?
    Rarely, I'll continue to fight into hull but only if I feel victory is pretty certain (AKA Confident that I can get him down before I hit 50% hull, or burn through both of my MRPs).

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?
    Definitely. In my Anaconda, I feel that 200 shield HP makes the difference between getting hull damage or not, in a CZ. Literally, I dropped down 200 on my shields for other utility slots, and found the shields too squishy if I get focused by the NPC ships in the zone.

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?
    Module Reinforcement Packages are useful ONLY for escaping. Module destruction is the #1 reason why people get popped trying to escape conflict alive. I have 2 of them, and they almost always are completely nuked between the time I retract hardpoints and jump out.

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.
    Gone Too Far, in my opinion. Making heavily engineered shields takes a MASSIVE grindy time sink. Taking that away from people is a big reason to force people to stop playing. There is so many other ways to accomplish what you seek.0

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL? Mostly Negative.

    General Comments
    A space for feedback on other topics. Please keep it focused on the changes made during this beta, wider discussion belongs in other threads.

    I've been on the receiving end of shield nerfs in other games, Eve Online to be precise. I spend a year grinding my shield skills only to have them nerfed to the point that I was no longer effective. Your avid engineerers and PvPers are just going to find a new meta to circumvent the nerf you created, (like going more armor tanking freeing up those slots for other diabolical set ups). Point simple, even a necessary nerf will harm your community and leave a bad taste in peoples mouths. Even those who heavily engineer sheilds. You have to be creative. If sheilds take too long PvP, give people unique tools to handle shield tanks.

    Suggestion: 1. Try reducing shield regeneration based on heat levels, as would happen inside actual capacitors or electric circuits. IRL, hot electronics function awful. This could also affect systems, weapons, et cetera forcing more use of heatsinks, decreasing
    people's dependency on shield boosters. You have a heat penalty for shield cell banks, why not stacked shield boosters? Also, perhaps overheating should damage shields/deplete capacitors.
    2. Increase the efficiency of thermal shield attacks, especially for engineered weapons, to make them better equipped against sheilds (lasers mainly, but any weapon that has thermal damage). This could work hand in hand with heat degeneracy in circuitry on your vessel.
    3. Add offensive shield modifications, where ramming causes an energy discharge to puncture shields. The idea behind this is to use your shields as battering rams. This works on both the offensive and defensive side of things. People already are battering ramming other ships as a combat technique. Just take what people are doing and roll with it. The idea behind shield battering gives a slight advantage to smaller ships, or big ships with good pilots/engines.

    These means are probably not mutually exclusive here, there are likely many other ways. Buff before nerf, if must nerf, do it creatively where it's less "Direct".

  11. #101
    About You:

    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?


    0% PvE.

    I almost never participate in PvE combat (except for short min/maxed Engineer material gathering).

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group?


    I am 100% PvP. I only do PvP, or Engineering for PvP.

    For almost a year I have been 100% 1v1 but before that I winged extensively, being at one time Adle's Armada's only EU-time PvP Administrator. I appeared six times in the winged PvP League, including all matches of the first season, which we won undefeated.

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?

    Now: Courier and Fer-de-Lance.
    Previously: Anaconda, Clipper, Federal Assault Ship, Diamond Back Scout in addition to above.

    Balance Questions:
    Specific topics we'd like concise feedback for:

    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight?


    In Courier: I often fight on, awaiting bi-weave reform.
    In Fer-de-Lance: I fly shieldless!

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw?


    1v1, at around 20% hull.

    (Winged it would be earlier, around 40% unless group victory hung in the balance.)

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play?

    They do not much directly affect my play, because I very rarely duel against these ships.

    They will make it slightly more difficult for me to kill Powerplay enemy 'soft target' Cmdrs who are in the Big 3.

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them?


    MRP's are in the right place now, in Beta.

    I have not only used MRP's but have tested them extensively under controlled conditions and published the results on the forums. I have been delaying this feedback due to a pending further round of testing but am posting now in case it becomes too late.

    The buffed MRP's are in the right place. On Big 3, combined with additional Hull Hardness, they will make the risk of unduly swift module destruction, even in winged combat, entirely manageable. BEFORE the MRP buff it took 10 huge plasma accelerator hits on the Powerplant of a fully modded Corvette to reduce it to 0%, for example.

    On Fer-de-Lance, flying shieldless in nineteen 1v1 Beta duels against comparable ships, I have not experienced ANY significant module damage. I was at first using one 4D but then dropped to a single 2D MRP.

    I do not however think that MRP's are over-powered now because shields down combat remains risky with very low total health compared to shields up, and susceptibility to corrosive, scramble spectrum, super-penetration and (against external modules) packhounds + emissive.

    7) We want to reduce the amount of time in combat spent chipping away at exceptionally large shields. With these changes, do you think we have GONE TO FAR, NOT GONE FAR ENOUGH, have got it ABOUT RIGHT or are going in the WRONG DIRECTION.

    About right on Corvette and Anaconda.

    Not gone far enough on Cutter.

    Not gone far enough on Fer-de-Lance.

    8) After playing with these changes, do you consider the overall effect of these changes to be POSITIVE, NEGATIVE or NEUTRAL?

    Neutral to positive.

    The changes move broadly in the right direction, but are to a large extent aimed at the wrong targets. See below.

    General Comments
    A space for feedback on other topics. Please keep it focussed on the changes made during this beta, wider discussion belongs in other threads.


    I am concerned that there is a failure to address or (no offence!) perhaps even understand the true causes of defensive power creep, or EFFECTIVE (not 'on paper') hit point inflation.

    The true problem is not slow ships like the Corvette or Anaconda, or for that matter Python or Dropship.

    It is the combination of ...

    (1) Very high shield and hull resistances; and

    (2) Either a large shield, or a very high regen shield, or both;

    ... on ...

    (3) A very FAST ship, with g5 dirty drives

    ... that is leading to duels between experienced 1v1 pilots like me frequently taking over 15 minutes.

    The worst offenders are the Cutter, Clipper, Fer-de-Lance, Courier and Viper III. All of these ships, if properly outfitted and flown, are capable of prolonging a duel that would have taken 3 minutes before 2.1 into the 15 to 20 minute region, with considerably less skill on the part of the pilots, because burst damage, module sniping and all other 'leveraging momentary advantage' skills are either erased or mitigated by the endlessly refilling hit point pools.

    Active shield regen in particular needs a look: I suggest at least doubling the cooldown period after taking fire, before active regen re-commences.

    Passive regen can be very quick ... which would be fine but for the fact that the shield is stretched over a highly resistant, MRP'd hull and many Cmdrs will use their g5 dirty drives speed to avoid significant damage until their shield comes back up.

    I really hope that the Developers will take a look at how the 1v1 game has been diminished.

    As it is, with Overcharged nerfed, Phasing nerfed, Rapid Fire nerfed, Feedback cascade nerfed (and expecting another nerf) and Corrosive expecting a nerf, while Shield Regen has been buffed and MRP's have been buffed, it just seems as though hit point inflation continues to worsen.

    The instant changes do not address the above much, if at all. Although the shielded Fer-de-Lance takes a minor hit it is very minor and the Cutter will remain as invulnerable (by reason of speed, relative to Corvette and Anaconda) as before.

    I should add that I have won every single one of the nineteen Beta medium ship duels I mentioned, 19-0. The only reason I say this is so you understand that this is constructive criticism from a player who has adapted very successfully to the hit-point-inflated game but still believes that it has headed in the wrong direction.

    However, I would like to thank Sandro and Mark and team for not letting these matters of balance lie. Thanks guys. Keep at it!

    o7
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  12. #102
    1. CZ's all the time

    2. I fight in pvp lots

    3. Anaconda

    4. I don't stick around after shields pop. Too much for a rebuy

    5. Absolute trash. I used to tank 5-6 ships which was fun and spend like an hour in the CZ's until I ran out of ammo. This is how I feel the big ships should be. Now 1-2 ships and I start having problems.

    6.Barely effective at all, still get module sniped

    7. People can already take out shields with reverb torps and now they can just do it with regular weapons. FAIL. Big 3 should have more power than any of the other ships as the cost of rebuy and cost of aquisition is much higher. I've spent nearly a billion credits and now someone in a 30 million credit vulture can do signifigant damage. PA's and Rails are op.

    8. TERRIBLE. HUGE MISTAKE. LOSING INTEREST IN EVEN PLAYING DUE TO SPENDING HUNDREDS OF HOURS PERFECTING MY SHIP TO A CERTAIN SET UP TO HAVE IT ALL WASTED NOW.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567