Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 129

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Synthesis 30 second delay and damage interruption removes reloading during combat

  1. #31
    Originally Posted by Bio-Flame View Post (Source)
    Do you really think Kin weapons are supposed to NOT be balanced against having to need ammo?
    This is the major issue. Ammo weapons are supposed to have limited ammo. It's why they have such overwhelming damage-to-energy ratios. Using energy weapons just becomes foolish when you can synthesize away the intended drawback.

    However it's still bizarre to me that anyone should need synthesis for 1v1 combat. Shield values are still way too high in this game and the 'pure' damage change to plasma was an outright foolish bandaid fix. The bright ideas to put resistances behind boosters and massive MJ increases -without proportional power demands- are the real culprit issues. We keep repeating this but some goofus remains adamantly suborn over his design choice. Since 2.1, I've refused to even touch PvP anymore over how messy this development has gone.

    Not being able to synthesize ammo during a fight is a reasonable game rule, but it needs support from reasonable booster changes. Without it, they'll just keep tacking on more ridiculous bandaid fixes until the short-sighted stop complaining about it.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by CMDR_Cosmicspacehead View Post (Source)
    Here's a quick suggestion, for ammo synthesis.

    Basic ammo: 5 second timer.
    Standard ammo: 15 second timer.
    Premium ammo: 30 second timer.

    ?

    CMDR Cosmic Spacehead
    Looks good to me!

    Originally Posted by goemon View Post (Source)
    to me it looks like double-penalizing synthesis.
    @goemon, I really respect your even-handed take on the forums and yes you are right.

    Originally Posted by Bio-Flame View Post (Source)
    Truesilver, I don't have real experience with PvP.

    That being said, conceptually, it seems that ammo-dependent weapons were balanced with that ammo limition in mind. They usually have lower Distr Draw compared to laser weapons.
    I don't think it was ever intended that Kinnetic weapons to be "ammo-free" like they are now, because if not for that ammo limitation, they are strictly better than laser weapons.


    In my mind, I 've always thought that game design-wise, FDev intented laser to be used against shields, Kin weapons against hulls and the synthesis to be used as a means to not having to go to a station to resupply all the time.
    The fact that 1vs1 PvP is using the synthesis to basically change this design was probably not intended. The fact that PvE and larger scale PvP are also using kin weapons without this limitation is also probably not intended and most likely, a problem for FDev.
    @Bio-Flame you are simultaneously 100% correct and 2 years out of date.

    You have described 2015, when the game balance was amazingly good.

    Basically, we had to equip thermal weapons (so mainly lasers, though sometimes rails) to take down the enemy's shields.

    How big those shields were would be a function of how much resource the guy had put into weapons. Because of very limited powerplant resources, on most ships if you wanted good weapons, the trade off was bad shields, or vice versa.

    Once the shield dropped, 90% of the hit point pool was exhausted. Then you used kinetic against the trivial hull.

    The whole fight, win or lose, took between 3 mins and 5 mins.

    Now, instead, welcome to 2017 PvP.

    20 to 40 mins TTK. Blind, dumb, skill-free hp grinding.

    Resistances are equal, across thermal and kinetic (and slightly higher against explosive) so forget damage type.

    Hit points are beyond insane. Forget any prior game about bursting through the other guy's SCB at the crucial moment. All of that has been washed away.

    No, all that is left is a dumb slog, pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew-pew for hours against dumb shields.

    After half an hour the guy who thinks he's losing pretends some kind of excuse about having to help his wingmen or his wife getting home, and leaves.

    Yes, it could be better. And was, in earlier game versions.

    Originally Posted by CMDR Ilmari View Post (Source)
    Yeah, but then we got engineers, and now it doesn't really matter which weapon you use / it's plasma / it's a feedback cascade rail because the opponent is chugging SCB's.

    Hitpoint power creep is very real and the TTK is either too long or too short; introducing sharp diminishing returns on (at least) booster stacks would be a start, but it is a pickle.

    Point being, you shouldn't have to reload. Or maybe it's fun to fire 400 shots of plasma at a target? Or have your finger cramp emptying MC clip after MC clip?
    This ^^ guy gets it.
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    Looks good to me!



    @goemon, I really respect your even-handed take on the forums and yes you are right.



    @Bio-Flame you are simultaneously 100% correct and 2 years out of date.

    You have described 2015, when the game balance was amazingly good.

    Basically, we had to equip thermal weapons (so mainly lasers, though sometimes rails) to take down the enemy's shields.

    How big those shields were would be a function of how much resource the guy had put into weapons. Because of very limited powerplant resources, on most ships if you wanted good weapons, the trade off was bad shields, or vice versa.

    Once the shield dropped, 90% of the hit point pool was exhausted. Then you used kinetic against the trivial hull.

    The whole fight, win or lose, took between 3 mins and 5 mins.

    Now, instead, welcome to 2017 PvP.

    20 to 40 mins TTK. Blind, dumb, skill-free hp grinding.

    Resistances are equal, across thermal and kinetic (and slightly higher against explosive) so forget damage type.

    Hit points are beyond insane. Forget any prior game about bursting through the other guy's SCB at the crucial moment. All of that has been washed away.
    Truesilver:
    I understand where you're coming from. I really do.

    But despite understanding what you mean, I still think that the way to go is NOT to balance for 1vs PvP but for the whole game. This is key. Nothing against 1vs1 PvP nor do I tihnk it should be left to rot. Quite the contrary.


    But if you have the big picture in your mind then clearly, it's not intended for Kin weapons do be free of ammo limitations. Clearly! Surely you know this.
    So, FDev must stop that, making everyone use laser for shields, and kin for hulls and THEN!... then they can start balancing the uber shields, uber resistances and uber hulls.


    The answer is not, imo, to "use another wrong to correct a wrong" (loosely translated). That's never the way to go.
    Surely you know what you propose cannot be the way to go. Basically, as it is now, ammo weapons don't have the limitions of ammo and STILL get to keep their advantages of very low distributor draw.
    It can't be so, imo.


    Again: balance the weapons, make Kin ammos actually require ammo and then keep tweaking shields, resistances, etc...

  4. #34
    Originally Posted by Bio-Flame View Post (Source)
    Do you really think Kin weapons are supposed to NOT be balanced against having to need ammo?
    Of course ammo should be a balance to kinetics.

    Let me be clear, I don't think this is a bad change, I think it's a bad change without other changes in place.

    PvP fights can be incredibly long. By itself this change only exacerbates the issue. I don't see the benefit of the change outweighing the costs. So at this point it's hard to support it.

    If the massive EHP of ships weren't so high to cause fights to be as long as they are, requiring mid-combat synthesis reloads or having even longer fights when you utilise lasers, this change would make more sense.

    You can't just focus on an individual change and conclude it is good or bad without considering the context and the impacts it will have.

    Making ammo reserves relevant = good

    Making ammo reserves relevant for PvP only, making PvP combat even longer, while ammo reserves still aren't relevant in PvE = not good

    Let me ask you this, do you really think this change would do more good than harm?

  5. #35
    Yes, I do think that this change will be a positive one for the overall health of the game as a whole.
    Both in the short term and in the long run.


    BTW, I think it's clear from what I've posted that I also believe that further changes might/will be necessary, namely to shield stacking, resistances stacking, etc...
    And I agree that this change should be part of a bigger, more comprehensive change to the game's balance.

  6. #36
    So, explorers hate heat sink materials requirement.

    And combat hate the time requirement.

    Don't traders need a reason to hate synthesis too? Or do they just ignore it anyway?

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by Teh Smoo View Post (Source)
    So, explorers hate heat sink materials requirement.

    And combat hate the time requirement.

    Don't traders need a reason to hate synthesis too? Or do they just ignore it anyway?
    Traders don't care because it's a non issue for them.
    Quitting the game to play the forum full time.

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by Bio-Flame View Post (Source)
    Yes, I do think that this change will be a positive one for the overall health of the game as a whole.
    This change influences combat. Combat is either PvE or PvP.

    The cooldown isn't irrelevant in PvE, thus ammo reserves remain irrelevant. The cooldown is relevant in PvP, ammo becomes relevant and as a result fights become much longer.

    PvP gets worse and PvE doesn't change. So far the overall health, accounting for both PvP and PvE, has suffered. Where is the upside? More players using lasers and hating every second of it, or players refusing to engage with the content outright? Doesn't sound like an upside to me.

    Originally Posted by Bio-Flame View Post (Source)
    BTW, I think it's clear from what I've posted that I also believe that further changes might/will be necessary, namely to shield stacking, resistances stacking, etc...
    And I agree that this change should be part of a bigger, more comprehensive change to the game's balance.
    Is it unreasonable to suggest that this change should be delayed until other changes are in place or can be rolled out simultaneously?

  9. #39
    Originally Posted by jasonbarron View Post (Source)
    Traders don't care because it's a non issue for them.
    You haven't seen me chain heatsinks to keep "silent running" going.

  10. #40
    Perhaps reduce the timer. Even so, if ammo based weapons is no longer able to burst down a player ship from ammunition stock, is this a problem with rearm, a problem with the ammo count for the archetype or a problem with the current impenetrable shield situation.

    Look synthesis is important. But let's be honest. If a PVP fight with canons or MC means at least one reload, or worse more than one; then either there is an issue with the weapon archetype or the ammo count. So do you ignore those input values, and just reduce the timer until we are back at square one, or?

    Yeah it's got to be workable, but where is the actual problem; because I don't actually think it's synthesis changes, so much as what this is implicitly showing. Gun ammo vs shield is out. This is ostensibly because of huge shield gains with nary a thought over ammo.

    Synthesis of ammo has just hidden an issue that's been in plain sight for a long time, and went off the deep end with engineering. Weapon archetypes are used fundamentally differently now because Frontier decided they could be. Synthesis shouldn't really be the go-to solution to solve that.

    PVP is litterally now a war of attrition. It's more who runs out of bullets first. Not really who gets the upper hand, it's do I have enough bullet for a 30-40 minute fight because it's now just some sort of Mexican Standoff, in space. Seems to me, that's your problem. The trick is to know is this because not enough bullets? Or too much of the thing the bullets are trying to break?

    Also before someone pipes up with "use the right gun"; Frontier elected to make pretty much any gun the right one, but seem to have decided ammo based should carry the best advantages. Presumably because of ammo limit. But this is in a game with synthesis. I have no idea what message Frontier is sending. I am unsure they do now, either.
    cmdr kofeyh | http://twitch.tv/kofeyh | "The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." – Citizen G'Kar

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by NascentChemist View Post (Source)
    You haven't seen me chain heatsinks to keep "silent running" going.
    I also haven't seen you synth up some heatsinks instead of just buying more in a station.

    For that matter, I haven't seen you dancing around in a pink tutu, singing "I'm a little teapot" off-key!

  12. #42
    Of course you didn't see me, that's the point of silent running.

  13. #43
    Originally Posted by NascentChemist View Post (Source)
    Of course you didn't see me, that's the point of silent running.
    Can't shoot what you can't see.
    cmdr kofeyh | http://twitch.tv/kofeyh | "The universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." – Citizen G'Kar

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Can't shoot what you can't see.
    Humbug! What the enemy cannot see, they cannot learn to fear!

  15. #45
    Well, I gotta admit, that change sounds good to me. As senhor Maynard has pointed out, it will make ammo limitations relavent again.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast