Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 126

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. #31
    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?

    I do PVE most of the time because of internet connection problems. I do all kinds of PVE, ranging from exploration, material farming, sight seeing, to CZ and RES combat, powerplay.

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

    I try to PVP as much as I can during weekends when I get good connection. That is 1v1s, wing fights, or just flying around a CG alone/winged and engaging other combat ships. I also own heavily engineered trade ships and trade in open whenever I can, and do piracy when I feel like it.

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

    Corvette, Anaconda, Assault ship, Gunship, Viper MkIII.


    Balance Questions:

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

    The fight has just begun once shields are lost. Currently, every PVP combat encounter involves 10+ minutes of "metabreaking", the actual fights starts after the meta is broken and we're getting to hulls, modules are wrecking and SCBs are depleting.
    In PVE, I usually fly hull/shield hybrids, so I always stay unless the hull is being hammered by missiles.

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

    If enemies have missiles or other weapons specifically built to counter hulltanks, I quit. Other than that, I usually fight to death.

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

    Big ship PVP is a little bit less dull. Hulls are a little bit less paper-y. Big ships hold most of their effective health pools in form of SCBs, so the shield change has very little effect on actual balance.


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


    All the time. They're very ineffective against missiles, and basically pointless on big ships. Need a very strong buff, and armor mechanics in general are very weak. They work fine against regular weapons.
    I think hull reinforcement packages should come with some form of module protection too, because some ships don't have enough space to be able to sacrifice armor modules for module reinforcement modules.
    Armor penetration mechanics need to change, a medium multicannon would never penetrate straight through a Anaconda's armor, for example, and damage modules (especially not under 45° impact angles). That doesn't make any sense, it's like penetrating the armor of a M1A1 Abrams using a anti-infantry machinegun.

    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.

    As stated above, shield tanking ships hold most of their effective health pools in form of SCBs. The FDL, Cutter and Corvette are barely affected by the shield changes. It's not enough.

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

    It's a step towards the right direction, but armor mechanics (and prices) need to be reworked so big ships can hulltank effectively. Bigger sizes of modules need a significant increase in integrity, they're too easy to shoot down on big ships.

    General Comments

    Cannons need more ammo, 150 or more shells per hardpoint. Velocities between sizes need to match, even if it means nerfing the smaller cannon sizes.

  2. #32
    1) PvE, combat when not Sciencing, including CZ/Res and also interdictions

    2) Zero interest in PvP combat, except occasional friendly SLF jousting.

    3) Combat ship of choice is the Imperial Cutter

    4a) Yes, the fight is over once shields are low, or gone, and is the trigger to leave.
    4b) Only stay long enough to select destination and jump.

    5) Moderate impact, large without the extra pips from multicrew.

    6) I have 1 Module Reinforcement package. Just for extra time to leave when shields drop. Same with Hull Reinforcement.

    7) Too far with booster changes. It took time and effort to get these engineered, with limited game time, it is not a welcome change to have that effort rendered so ineffectual.
    Yes some limit to the extremes of stacking, but not just the boosters.

    8) Negative & Wrong Direction.
    Why not limit Shield Cell Bank & hull reinforcement stacking first, or at the same time.
    That way there is a choice of hull/module/scb, or combinations, but limited stacking if restricted to the military slots.
    Extremes of all hull reinforcement / shield cell banks filling up every slot should be looked at as well as all utility slots full of 60% boosters, but currently a bit too much of a change, without tweaking the extremes of hull tankers or flying batteries as well.

    General Comments

    These changes do not help with narrowing the gap between PvE general 'playing the game' builds, and specialised PvP combat builds, where there is little balance on the occasions that the two encounter each other, even without mismatched ship types.

    The Cutter could benefit from a slight manouverability buff too.
    “Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time”
    CMDR Darwin, Inara Profile

  3. #33
    1) Depends on what I need. If necessary - I can for a long time. I often visit hazres.

    2) Depends on a situation. And in general, rarely.

    3) Vulture, Federal Assault Ship.

    4) I will continue to fight.

    4b) If I see that the module will soon be defective, I'm leaving. Or until at least 10-15% hull.

    5) Not influenced my style of play. Only reduced the original size of the shield, not more.

    6) If I fight against bots, then again, nothing cardinal. Modules are less likely to break down. Slightly less. Against the players, the effectiveness is slightly increased. At least they stopped breaking the engine after they broke the shield. But if too many MRP are put, my ship will be destroyed sooner.

    7) At the moment - better. But I would like to see some more nerf shields. So, continue to nerf the shields. The right decision.

    8) Positive

    I hope that my English is understandable. Thanks to Google translator.

  4. #34
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?

    Often (for mission rewards/payouts)

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

    As often as possible, mainly 1v1's, but sometimes wings... depends what occurs

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

    Viper III, Vulture, Python, 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

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

    If the fight is arranged, I stay until the end. If I'm attacked, I stay until I'm down to my last 25% hull.

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

    I've found the Conda's & Corvette's are very vulnerable. Cutters not so much.

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

    Effective against NPC's, but pretty useless against players (especially D rated ones) Pass, need to recheck

    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 - there are already counters to shield tanks (phasing sequence & cascade reverb), without strong shields, large ships are extremely vulnerable to medium sized ships.

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

    NEGATIVE

    General Comments

    When it comes to overly powerful shields, the problem only really exists with the FDL & Cutter whos base shields are way too strong (and then have loads of booster slots). Why not simply reduce their base shield values 20%?

    The result from these beta booster changes is that Anacondas and Corvettes are MORE vulnerable to attack, while the FDLs and Cutters still have large enough base shields to be OP.

    Also I think some ships should have an extra utility slot to balance the scales more, and make them more useful (iEagle, Viper IV, Cobra IV, Asp Scout, Python, T9)

  5. #35
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?

    All the time, very rarely run from combat

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

    Not seeking PvP, but when forced, and not in huge disadvantage i fight.

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

    Recently Corvette, Python before


    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?


    If i believe that i can win i stay, if not i run.

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

    Varies, if opponent in a very bad shape, will fight to the end.

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

    Not affected, i never be a fun of very fat shield

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

    Use one, can be better.

    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

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

    POSITIVE

  6. #36
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction? - Other than time spend engineering ships for combat I am taking part in combat, my Home Station is next to a very active Haz Res that I hunt at, and I take part in every war I can find.

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group? Less so than PvE but mostly because its hard to find active PvP.

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat? Corvette, Cutter, Gunship, and Conda


    4) In general, do you consider the fight lost once your shields have broken, or do you continue to fight? In the big three No I bug out once shields go down because you cant burn and outfly in them their too big so its just a matter of time before you lose modules and its over. In the medium ships losing your shields doesn't mean its over.

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw? Cracked cockpit, or module failure.

    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play? On the Beta I lost about 40-60% of the shield power on my big three so that just means I play more cautiously when in them.

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them? I have and they seem to be slightly effective, I never use less than two of them when I do use them and bring along a repair module to keep their health up, Losing modules in the big three is game over.

    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 why not buff weapons instead? seriously why does your dev team always want to nerf a problem instead of buffing a solution.

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

    General Comments: Dont push this to live your going in the wrong direction.

  7. #37
    First to know, i am more than 20 hours in beta.

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

    A lot. I also have some hopes that new "alien" enemy can make some serious challenge for me in the future update. NPC AI are well for how it is, but NPC equipment are just not enough. Not even close. Most likely i will do some CZ for missions or BGS or Powerplay. Sometimes i do some assasinations mission (could be really nice to have there a top notch opponent like it was in 2.1 beta 4 with full enginered ship). Sometimes i go for HAZ res.

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

    1v1 and with or against group. I am ready for it anytime. My participation in PvP combat is more like a some nice gameplay with a opponent that could possibly give to me some challenge. I don't like to force ppl for PvP. Well sometimes i can do it anyway.. cause why not?

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    Corvette, FAS, Gunship, FDL, Cobra Mk3.

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

    This one hardly depends on a ship i am flying. If i am flying without SLF and without crew (NPC) on board i will fight even after shield broken. If i fly on ship with a SLF and with a crew on board (NPC) i will withdraw cause the risk is to high. But that is about PvP aspect. If it is about PvE i don't care. First - NPC will never take out shield if i don't want it to. Second - NPC can hardly do anything to the hull.

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

    With a HULL BREACH mechanic in game i should withdraw after 40% hull integrity. Or in some cases if i see that enemy is trying to focus FSD.

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

    Shield did not change much. However It allow to me get rid of Overcharged grade 1 Powerplant and allow me to put some Shielded grade 5 because i can save now a lot of MW of power. Hull really make sense now. In PvE even not a well expirienced player can be alive after shield broken for a damn long time. I see this in some Multicrew by myself. In PvP hull changes are not enough still.

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

    Better than it was before. But not enouth for both PvE and PvP part of a game. Need more MORE integrity. WAY MORE. MRP should not be used in more than one module. No one will use 2 slots for 2 MRP. 700 Integrity could be enough.

    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.

    I whould say "have got it about right"


    General Comments

    You still need some correctives" like more Integrity for MRP, fixing Corrosive Shell so it's effect depend on weapon class, fixing owerpowered RESIST AUGMENTED BOOSTERS, rework Railguns Feedback Cascade, look at the High Yeld munition, more Armor raiting for others ships (not only 3 big) and it will be polished enough.

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

    Absolutly POSITIVE.
    [IMG][/IMG]

  8. #38
    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?

    I do a bit of everything, Combat Zones, Resource extraction sites, and I am quite good at interdictions. Even attacking capital ships

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

    I have only begun PvP but so far I have done a lot of 1v1s at the CG and have been in group fights as well.

    3) Which ship(s) do you frequently fly in combat?
    Federal Corvette, Federal Assault Ship, Fer-de-Lance

    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?

    If I am in a sufficiently hull tanked ship I will continue to fight.

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

    When my canopy blows out and I can't aim anymore.

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

    I have tested a multicrew corvette in a res in the beta and I can say that with 4 pips to sys, I am not really affected by the changes.

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

    I have used them and they prove to be extremely beneficial especially to hull tank ships.

    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.

    I think you guys have gotten it about right, perhaps some more refinement is needed, but you are on the right track.

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

    I think they are positive.

    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.

  9. #39
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction?

    I am frequently in long term combat CZ and/or HighRes sites, as well as frequently being interdicted.

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

    NEVER.

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

    Conda, Python, 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?

    Depends, in most scenarios regardless of in a group or not, once shields are down I withdraw, more often then not Hull damage is not something that can be adsorbed for any amount of time. Though I have tried to stick it out and fight on but once hull reaches 70% Im turning tale and running.

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

    See Answer to question 4.

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

    Massive Shield reduction and weaker hull ... not sure what your trying to do there if you are just catering to the boo who who's of the whiny PVP'ers, But ships like the FDL that solely rely on shield strength this is the completely wrong direction.

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

    Yes Ive used them, They are completely useless. The 1 time I pvp'd I ended up in a fight with a ship carrying nothing but pack hounds once my shields were down I lasted maybe 30seconds before I was dead; didn't even have a chance to escape.

    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.

    Yes; Too far. The whole idea what I thought was to be able to increase our shields via the engineers; Thus we did because you Frontier gave us that choice and now your back peddling?

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

    Negative; I basically just got that FDL engineered and now I have to sell it? It was bad enough waiting hours to bring it to what ever system I was in with a CZ now its just useless!?

    General Comments

    I'm Really not sure what you guys are trying to achieve here. You do one thing then do a complete 180 and take it in the opposite direction.

    Heres some scenarios;

    Ex1; You get interdicted, regardless of having nothing in your hold and no cargo to speak of you still get interdicted. Your flying around in an Anaconda and you get Interdicted by an Eagle (which just pisses you off) or a ASP (which is just an annoying pesk) or a Gunship. You fight this ship who used to be able to drop your shields and start chipping away at your hull. Now the tables have turned because your ship is Fully Engineered. So you get this ships shields down and get its hull to 30% you start in on the last turn for the last attack and this ******** NPC Turns tail and ... runs?!

    Ex2; You jump into some system between the bubble and Ceos and immediately get interdicted, You have no bounty, your not wanted, your not carrying anything and the system isn't anarchy or lawless, you passed those 2-4jumps ago. So this NPC starts shooting you before you have time to really react your shields are almost down. Anywhere from 1-15 minutes later your at 80% hull and hes at 20% again the NPC turns tail and runs.

    What im getting at is there is no crime & punishment system. You can be interdicted by a faction that You have been fighting For; for the last three days, you can be allied with that faction and still be interdicted by there forces. Yet the other faction that you have been Decimating wracking upwards of 500-1000 something dog tags bouncing around your cockpit yet they wont touch you in super cruise!

    This whole thing between shields and hull tanking I dont see as being complicated, More Hull means heavier weight, much more so then shields. Where shields should offer you greater protection vs all forms of damage. While hull takes most damage agaisnt the one form almost no one uses, while kinetic and thermal do almost nothing by comparison. Now personally being an engineer by trade I look at real world applications, Explosives should be an almost 1shot kill in the vacuum of space depending on yield versus mass, while kinetics should in most if not all cases shred and rip right through everything but the most dense material yet their damage fall on even small ships is a pretty big margin. While thermal should basically Melt the hull causing ships to heat and loose vast amounts of integrity.

    I dont think reducing the amount of shields and hull is the right way to go. Rather the overall resistances based on each should be looked at, reworked and rebalanced significantly. Other wise what the **** was the point of spending months on end farming all that junk to engineer in the first place!?

    *unrelated; If the current beta is released I dont see my self continuing to play. Im sorry to say but I just dont see it, spending the amount of time I did hauling all of those resources back and forth, then having to get more and repeat that again and again for every one of my ships just for it to count for nothing in a few more months ... i just dont.


    Self Appointed Community Advocate of Re-adding Engineering Details to logging and Associated API's
    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...ing-Data/page5

  10. #40
    About You:
    1) Regularly - Res hunting & CZ
    2) Not at all
    3) Vulture, FdL, Anaconda

    Balance Questions:
    4) Lost when the shields are gone
    4b) Withdraw immediately
    5) They're not as tough as they should be.
    6) Yes. Not very.
    7) WRONG DIRECTION.
    8) NEGATIVE

  11. #41
    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?


    Regularly. Most often CZ/RES style combat, but sometimes shorter term like assassination missions.

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

    Regularly. Most often in (and against) a group.

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

    Federal Gunship, Vulture, Fer De Lance. I do have an Anaconda as well that I use for combat sometimes, and I have exhaustively messed with all of the big 3 in Beta as both an attacker and defender.

    Balance Questions:


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

    It's important for me to elaborate as the answer changes whether I am in PvE or PvP.

    In PvE combat, I do not consider the fight lost once shields have broken. AI are not dangerous enough and do not seem to explicitly focus on destroying critical escape-prevention subsystems like powerplants, FSD, and thrusters.

    In PvP combat, the fight is over once shields are broken in a group situation. 1v1 you can feasibly continue to fight after shields drop.

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

    In PvE combat, I will withdraw at 50% hull or if I see myself being ganged up on in a CZ/RES without shields. In PvP, there is zero reason to stick around without shields in a group situation against competent enemies. Shields-down PvP is relegated to builds that have been made largely ineffective by nerfs and engineering (silent running vs heat nerfs for firing weapons, allowing your target's entire wing to focus you while you're silent and not firing at them, and emissive munitions) or to 1v1 situations (and even then you need to be okay with dying because it's super easy to be made a sitting duck when your shields are down even if you don't immediately die).

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

    The big 3 changes are good, but subsystems/modules are too vulnerable/easy to destroy still (Particularly powerplant, thrusters, and FSD). The engineer recipes that reinforce modules (sturdy weapon, armored thrusters, etc) are an order of magnitude less effective than the performance increasing ones, and are still probably going to be taken out in short order. This includes with MRP's/HRP's. This is with regard to flying the ship myself in PvE and both flying as and against these ships in PvP. In PvE I noticed increased TTK on big ships when the shields dropped, but not to a huge degree (though it should be noted I build my PvE ships with cannons, plasmas, etc, so I am using weapons that punch above their weight, rather than the seemingly standard multicannon/laser builds).

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

    Yes. They are good, but the protection they give per internal slot used is rather low (that is to say, they are perhaps not good *enough*). Yes, they reduce your damage to modules by a significant degree, but because they get destroyed (and because module health in general is so low, particularly on critical modules), this is a temporary measure. Bringing an AFMU to be able to continually repair them is often not worth giving up an extra HRP or other module, and is tedious due to the nature of how AFMU's work. In a 1v1 situation they feel reasonably alright, if a bit underpowered, but in a wing fight you can expect to lose them almost instantly. Some weapons (super pen rails for example) can completely destroy a MRP in one hit by nature of them hitting multiple internal components at once and doing disproportionate amounts of damage to the MRP.

    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

    You have got the shield changes alone about right, and the hardness increase on the big 3 feels right as well. However, I feel that there is still significant work to be done - if shields are going to be weaker, hybrid shield/hull builds and shieldless builds need a way to be made more viable. As it stands, it's too easy to pick off critical modules, even with all the changes made to help with that.

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

    Positive (but more needs to be done).

    General Comments:

    Module health across the board on all ships needs to be increased, and the engineer recipes that increase module durability need to be much more effective. They need to have some other benefits added to make them not worse than a stock module at everything but durability. For example, if a thruster mod is going to give increased integrity and mass, then it should also give enough of an increase to thruster power to counteract the increased mass so that your performance doesn't go *down* compared to a stock module; these engineers are eccentric mad scientist genius types, aren't they? I could make an armored car by sticking a bunch of overlapping cast iron frying pans to it with some duct tape; it'd be heavier but it'd protect me real well. For the specialized materials these guys want, you'd think if they were armoring my drives, they'd be prototyping some experimental prototype composite or something that was super strong WHILE ALSO being super light, not just taping some more metal on there and not doing anything else - or at the very least, you'd expect them to be like "Well, that'll hold together better now, let's tweak the fuel flow now since hell, it won't shake itself apart on you now at least".

    You should have dirty drives (which are all in, max speed, max heat, max powerhungry), clean drives (which are slightly less speed, less heat, more power efficient), and armored drives (which are heavy, durable, and *SHOULD* confer enough of a boost to offset the mass increase, and then also increase thrust over unmodded by about 2/3 of what Clean drives would). Same logic should apply to things like FSD mods; right now the mass increase is essentially always just a net loss to jump range and speed without secondary effects, and the added durability just isn't enough. Having 125% more integrity means nothing when your drive weighs 50% more before secondary effects that you might not even get; nevermind the penalty to optimized mass on top of this. Plus, a max rolled 125% integrity FSD goes down in just a couple hits still, even with MRP's in place. A shielded FSD roll should confer At least 300% integrity (at maximum, G5), 50% mass increase, and Optimal mass should *increase* by up to 30%. This sounds like a lot but with the mass increase, you're going to get a significantly smaller jump range boost than you otherwise would. This would have the pleasant side effect of combat ships not being stuck with 6ly jump ranges when fitted for max durability.

    Get rid of some of the more useless Engineer recipes. FSD Boot Time? Come on, make that something interesting as a middle ground for people who don't want super long range/fragility or the added durability/weight. Fuel Efficient FSD or something that is useful and convenient to increase total range without straight increasing jump range. Right now, Engineering has some problems (aside from the grindy RNG scavenger hunt that it is); it's a bit plagued by it being a trap for newer or less knowledgeable players in some ways - certain recipes are simply the wrong choice. Everything should be equally useful with trade-offs.

    Some other possible suggestions:

    - MRP's no longer get destroyed. They apply to all modules, and stacking them adds diminishing returns. D weighs less than E, but gives a little less protection.

    - Bulkheads additionally increase module health by the same percentage that they increase hull integrity. The fancy bulkheads (Mirrored/Reactive) should give a flat % of damage reduction to modules (on top of their thermal or kinetic resistances) to make their insane prices more justified for the protection they give. Alternately, have them add more integrity than basic military grade bulkheads do, rather than the same but with added resistances.

    These changes should allow for a balance pass on hardness and other stats of some other ships. The big 3 are in a good place aside from module damage still being too high overall, but they are way higher than anything else is after these changes. Some ships could stand to be higher hardness than they are now, while still being below the big 3. It would also allow for a more clear idea of what developers want ships to be, in terms of their niche - hull focused or shield focused. Right now (and currently after the 2.3 beta changes as well) shield focused ships are straight better in every situation.

    If MRP's are kept the way they are now, please consider allowing the AFMU to be set up so that it will always repair the lowest health module you have. The A is for automatic, after all, but right now it's all manual. A manual version that functions as is but uses less power and carries more ammunition would be a good trade-off I think if the automatic version repaired stuff automatically but had less ammunition.

    If you want to avoid accidentally going in the opposite direction (where we're plinking through enormous hulls instead of enormous shields), maybe consider:

    - Shields regenerate much faster when broken. I know this was tweaked up already, but if hull damage and module damage is going to remain as is, then I think shields going up and down multiple times in a tough engagement is a good idea, even if that tough engagement is only a minute or two.

    - SCB's work while shields are down to bring them back towards reforming faster (proportionate to the amount of MJ of regen the SCB gives).

    - Consider adding a new Shield Booster recipe that increases shield regen speed at the cost of reduced shield increase. (Say, an A rated booster with the best roll would add 10% to shields (instead of 20%) but then also increase the regeneration speed by 10%. I'm going to make an additional unpopular suggestion and say that these should replace resistance augmented boosters, because no matter the changes made to Heavy Duty boosters, they aren't the problem on their own. Huge shields on their own aren't the problem, it's huge shields that are also 60% or more resistant to all 3 types of damage. What SHOULD be the balanced counter to this (PA's) is not, because PA's ignoring resistances fully was walked back along with some of their increased damage.

    Finally and most importantly, please don't give in to hyperbole from people who are saying their ships are useless now. They aren't useless, a ship with the game's strongest shields will still have the game's strongest shields, and if they are coming across as useless and dying more now, then it is further evidence that shields were too strong. This is a change you really need to stand your ground on for the health of the game.

  12. #42
    Name: CMDR Sphinx2k

    1) Significant for me, my primary content playing this game. Long duration RES and CZ work depending on community goals or rep grinding.
    2) No PVP whatsoever, except CQC before it became a ghost town. (Change it so you can queue in game?)
    3) Federal Corvette with a Ship Launched Fighter and about 11M CR rebuy.

    4) Normally yes, especially if under attack from multiple targets at once in a RES or CZ - survival is just not possible even with different load-outs including 2.3 beta 3. If a 1v1 fight it depends on the situation but afterwards huge shields take forever to rebuild (even bi-weaves) which is fair enough otherwise they would be OP. No point engaging the next target, usually return to base for re-arm/repair instead.
    5) With the changes in 2.3 beta saw a 35% drop in shield strength for my build, reconfiguring resistances for a maximum of 4 boosters on my Corvette instead of stacking 6 boosters - I am finding it still getting getting destroyed easier in CZ's than it was in 2.2 - especially where multiple targets engaging you at once.
    6) Tried using MRP's on the Corvette, while it may help against module malfunctions as your ship is running for it's life after the shields drop, if you have too much aggro on you the ship blows up just the same before it can jump. Also all that extra weight is painful on an already FSD hamstrung ship like the Corvette.
    7) I think this is wrong direction, diminishing returns formulas that players have to research offline are a bad idea for games. Reduce slots or power plant sizes instead?
    8) Negative effect for big ship players like me, it may have been aimed at crazy FDL builds and the like but I am not a PVP player. Regarding the "chipping away" complaints - if a smaller ship PVP player engages a large ship player on their own they should expect a hard time to crack it's shield - they need to bring a mate or two to take it down or if they are attacked by one simply avoid/escape the fight.

    Notes:

    Not a fan of hull tanking at all in the huge ships. Expensive ships are expensive to replace and repair. Hull tanking modules and armor, repair units, etc all add extra weight for a ship that is already suffering low FSD ranges (despite engineering), so they are usually the first to get dropped.

    Largest ships move slow, as such should have big shields that are hard to crack while they lumber around trying to align to their target. Taking away a lot of their safety net makes them less appealing to fly in to combat, which is really only what the Corvette is good at.

    Hidden diminished returns for items that should be behaving in their planned way is not a new solution for ship balance in my honest opinion. The original (ingenious) game mechanic of huge, expensive and heavy power plants required to run crazy builds always came at a cost, or even power plant slot size restrictions (which is famous on the Vulture), always kept things in check. My Corvette only runs a 7A plant in a class 8 slot and many other D rated modules simply because of the weight affecting its poor jump range.

    I understand that Engineers has thrown a lot of that original ship slot balancing out of the window, but maybe the ship slots can be re-visited instead - especially for any ships that are showing crazy numbers on recent builds. Things like reducing utility slots or lowering power plant sizes? or just dropping all engineer modifications from boosters to save the headache? or some other "in plain sight" approach instead.

    Thanks for listening. Good Luck.

  13. #43
    1) How much do you participate in PvE combat? If significant, is that long-duration CZ/Res or shorter term engagements such as interdiction? 90 % res

    2) How much do you participate in PvP combat? If significant, how often is that 1v1 or with a Group? none

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


    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? Yes not worth the rebuy or repair.

    4b) If you continue to fight once your shields are broken, when/if do you decide to withdraw? If that happens 50 percent hull.


    5) How have you found that the shield/hull changes to the "Big 3" ('Conda, Cutter, Corvette) have affected your play? Will leave battle if shields go down or just wait for them to recharge

    6) Have you used Module Reinforcement Packages? If so, how effective have you found them? use them but never let shields go down

    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. Buff the npc.

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

  14. #44
    1.) I participate in PvE 100%, i don't PVP ever, it's long duration CZ/RES
    2.) none
    3.) Anaconda
    4.) I continue to fight once my shields are broken, but i stay more defensive and on alert.
    4b.) when my hull is around 50% or lower
    5.) i don't know, i just feel like there is an issue when a fully upgraded shield with shield boosters on a 'conda loses a ring and a half to an NPC FAS
    6.) nope.
    7.) going in the wrong direction
    8.) negative

  15. #45
    1) Large ammounts, primarily BGS based combat, so CZ's general bounty hunting, missions and RES farming.

    2) Relatively large ammounts, though had slightly less time for it lately. Mainly wing fights player group vs. player group.

    3) Federal Corvette, FDL, Vulture, Viper, DBE and DBX.


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

    4) Against players, yes. emissive munitions and missiles, specially packhounds, mean instant death in PvP. In PvE it's currently very difficult to find enough enemies to have a risk of losing shields, NPC's also don't target subsystems or spam missiles enough to actually disable your ship.

    4b) n/A

    5) No significant difference, on big ships bigger emphasis on SCB's as opposed to base shields.

    6) Mechanically they work OK, bigger issue is the unavoidable missile spam. Bigger ships have difficulties also avoiding shots from piercing weapons so they tend to deplete pretty fast protecting "useless" modules.

    7) not far enough

    8) positive

    General Comments:

    Even with these changes it's still better to double down on shields, specially on big ships. Small ships and most mediums are unable to carry any extra utilities without crippling their shields at the moment. Missile defense seems too unreliable in general, so any small or medium relying on hull is just instantly dead if someone brings emissive + missiles.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast