Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 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. #46
    Originally Posted by Bio-Flame View Post (Source)
    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.
    Yes, in principle I could not agree more.

    In practice, though, I just don't see it ever happening now.

    In 2016 I devoted a lot of forum time to requesting the sort of changes that you mention, publishing TTK lists, and providing feedback and testing in two Betas over combat balance.

    At the end of that entire process, hit points have simply got higher.

    It's in these circumstances that I suppose I've given up: I just approach everything on the assumption that hit points will stay the same or (more likely) increase yet further. Because I don't expect the matters you set out to improve, I'm just looking at how best to deal with the situation.

    I hope I'm wrong of course. But if I'm right, this change is yet further proof of that as (indirectly) it actually increases hit points, or at least TTK, yet further.

    And to me it's of considerable concern that such a major change should take place without any formal announcement or feedback at all.

    The other day at a CG I fought an extremely skilled pilot flying a double-Pacifier Vulture. This is not a build I fear because most can't hit my Courier with it. But this guy was good. Luckily for me he ran out of ammo when I had three quarters of my hit points remaining. (This is normal.) He could have synthesised but chose to save it for bigger game and left, o7. But he could have done.

    Now that build above - a skillful build, used skillfully - has effectively just been abolished. That 1v1 against that loadout could not have happened under these rules. He'd have to leave dock with a different outfit, or stick to wing fighting. This seems very limiting to me.
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  2. #47
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    Yes, in principle I could not agree more.

    In practice, though, I just don't see it ever happening now.

    In 2016 I devoted a lot of forum time to requesting the sort of changes that you mention, publishing TTK lists, and providing feedback and testing in two Betas over combat balance.

    At the end of that entire process, hit points have simply got higher.

    It's in these circumstances that I suppose I've given up: I just approach everything on the assumption that hit points will stay the same or (more likely) increase yet further. Because I don't expect the matters you set out to improve, I'm just looking at how best to deal with the situation.

    I hope I'm wrong of course. But if I'm right, this change is yet further proof of that as (indirectly) it actually increases hit points, or at least TTK, yet further.

    And to me it's of considerable concern that such a major change should take place without any formal announcement or feedback at all.

    The other day at a CG I fought an extremely skilled pilot flying a double-Pacifier Vulture. This is not a build I fear because most can't hit my Courier with it. But this guy was good. Luckily for me he ran out of ammo when I had three quarters of my hit points remaining. (This is normal.) He could have synthesised but chose to save it for bigger game and left, o7. But he could have done.

    Now that build above - a skillful build, used skillfully - has effectively just been abolished. That 1v1 against that loadout could not have happened under these rules. He'd have to leave dock with a different outfit, or stick to wing fighting. This seems very limiting to me.
    An interesting thread with equally interesting points being made.

    Frontier have stated from the start that they're "making the game they want to play" - we're just along for the ride, looking on in fascinated horror at the things being done in the game.

    Sure, from time to time someone form FDEV pops their head into the forums and asks opinions - maybe even tries a few things and makes adjustments based on feedback - but at the end of the day, and after more than 3 years of observation, it's quite clear that FDEV are indeed "making the game THEY want to play" - which doesn't necessarily 100% fit with what everyone else wants to play. Explorers included in that surmise of course - vis-à-vis this recent piece of news regarding heatsink synthesis recipes requiring materials only found in the bubble.

    You're not alone in some frowns and consternation regarding Frontier and the eccentric design decisions it makes. (Including downright frustration and annoyance.)

  3. #48
    The synthesis timeout is probably the right thing to do in general, but I agree that without serious reductions in engineering at the top end it's just going to make 1v1 PvP even more ridiculous. On engineering probably what's needed is:
    1) Remove the OC powerplant blueprint entirely. (Replace with a lightweight plant blueprint to allow the same "more powerful plant for less mass" effect of OC, but without the "go outside ship balance" effect)
    2) Reduce the defence bonuses of shield and hull engineering considerably. I think just making the current G5 blueprints be somewhere between the current G1 and G2 blueprints, then scaling the others down accordingly, might actually be better than bringing in diminishing returns sooner - strong diminishing returns is more likely to end up in an "everyone takes the same boosters" situation (like the perennial "max 1 SCB per ship" suggestion)

    Otherwise, yes, this will be another "implementing all of A, B, C and D will balance the game // implements A and B // game balance gets worse" situation.
    Returning explorer? Need an escort to keep your data and other shinies safe? Contact Iridium Wing. Sol and Colonia.

  4. #49
    This is a good change with unfortunate side effects. Synthesis being mandatory in combat needs to be changed, but I fear that essentially removing combat synth would make kinetics and small ships non-viable

    However, I disagree with Truesilver that combat synthesis should be re-buffed. Its a dumb mechanic that doesnt address the core issue (IE too high HP, ammo too low).

    Ammo is consistently a major issue for all Kinetics in PvE as well, so this isn't just a PvP issue. I think ammo for all Kinetic weapons are too low. I would buff the ammo capacity of all weapons by 100% as an immediate measure, and look into reducing the capacity if/when shields get a balance pass

  5. #50
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    [COLOR=#E4E4E4]This removes reloading and hence weapons such as cannons and multis from 1v1 PvP, unless one is flying a ship with sufficient speed superiority to clear enemy range and maintain clearance, and is fighting a patient opponent willing to wait for 30 seconds whilst you are out of range, for as many reloads as it takes to finish the fight.
    I would like to challenge the idea that it should be normal at all to run out of ammo with any weapon during a single 1vs1 encounter. Personally, I'd see all weapons' ammo capacity significantly increased so that in-combat synthesis becomes unnecessary.

  6. #51
    As is normally always the case, all of this comes back to ridiculous shields and hit points due to SB stacking via engineers.

    Sadly FD have already proved they don't have the balls to reduce this effect, as after 2 previous attempts were whined out of exsistance by some PvE players wanting god mode (most of whom didn't even have access to the betas), they actually succeeded only in making it worse.
    My name is Cmd thefruitbat, I self nerf.

  7. #52
    What a surprise. All the children complaining about needing delays since closed beta paid off then. Great. (sarcasm). Glad to see that only the most vocal of things get changed opposed to the things that actually need changing. Ship transfer all over again. The people who don't hang out in the forum all day are the ones left in the dust thinking "I wish someone asked me".

    Why has the "ship transfer survey" sent via email been a one time thing? Why don't we get surveys for all things controversial (meaning many on both sides of the argument)? You would think the time it'd take to make and send the email would be less than a ton of staff reading every comment of every post (to account for those who think their specific synthesis comment doesn't relate to the 'synthesis' sticky). <--- No I don't mean this particular post...


    "They see me whining, and grinding, up at the goal... All of FD is lookin' at me and they already know... they're gonna _ _ _ _ me, I already know they're gonna _ _ _ _ me, yet onward I go..." -Lakon ft. Scoop Rocky Rock


    My PC Specs

    CPU:> Intel Core i7-7700k @ 4.8Ghz
    MOBO:> Asus Maximus IX Hero Z270X
    GPU:> Asus Strix GTX-1070 OC Edition
    AIO:> NZXT Kraken X62
    RAM:> G.Skill Tirdent-Z RGB DDR4-3000Mhz
    CASE:> Corsair 760T [Black]
    Monitor:> Asus VX238H 1ms 1080p

  8. #53
    Originally Posted by Mephane View Post (Source)
    I would like to challenge the idea that it should be normal at all to run out of ammo with any weapon during a single 1vs1 encounter. Personally, I'd see all weapons' ammo capacity significantly increased so that in-combat synthesis becomes unnecessary.
    Why should a ship equipped with a peashooter not run out of ammunition when taking on a well defended target?

  9. #54
    Originally Posted by Ziljan View Post (Source)
    Cool!

    Is this limited to combat damage or does crash (SRV fall) damage reset the synth progress bar as well?
    Originally Posted by subhouse07 View Post (Source)
    *Gulp* Oh my if there is a timer on SRV repair, then same-instance Srv racing is a goner. Sometimes you gotta repair like every 10 seconds because of that ghost damage.
    I guess I'll have to answer my own question, lol.

    No. Taking crash damage in the SRV doesn't reset the hull repair progress bar. SRV racing will be changed by the fact that you can only repair once every 30 seconds, and arguably it needed that change.

    Tbh, I like this change. Synth before was just too easy. I think one positive change they could make would be to give a multicrew co-pilot a synth mini-game so that they could focus on incrementally synthezising in a way that could't be reset. Of course that would mean giving crew members access to your mats... maybe Grade 1 only?

  10. #55
    I'd like to see FD approach some players' desire for more Material & Data storage limits increased by changing the overall limit to a per-item limit, say 50 of each item (or whatever limit equates to X number of synths where X is the number of synths FD thinks is "balanced"). So instead of accumulating 1000 iron, carbon, sulpher, whatever mats are needed for your particular synthesising needs, you can never get more than X number of refills until you have to go get more of the mats you need for your style of play. This would limit the number of refills during PvP and please those wanting more space for collecting the mats they need to play the RNGineer wheel of fortune. Would this have any affect?
    "I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos." - Albert Einstein, on the randomness of quantum mechanics

    Elite Dangerous Lead Designer's most recent games:
    Kinect Star Wars (2012) (Senior Designer)
    Haze (2008) (Lead Designer)

  11. #56
    Originally Posted by Truesilver View Post (Source)
    I have just tested the new synthesis reload and interruption mechanics in Beta 2.4 Version 4. (They are in, although have not been included in any version of the Patch Notes.)

    I do not have the mats to test the new utility reloads (chaff and heatsinks).

    However I have tested kinetic weapon synthesis reload in basic, standard and premium versions.

    In every case the result is the same (no variation so far as I can see by weapon or grade of synthesis): synthesising ammunition takes 30 seconds.

    Furthermore, the synthesis is instantly reset to zero (without loss of materials) by taking any weapon fire (including to shields) within the 30 second window.

    In other words, it is now impossible to synthesise ammunition whilst in range of an enemy (unless perhaps one was flying a small ship with heroic levels of evasion, against a Cmdr armed with fixed weapons beyond his current level of ability).

    Ammo reserves have not been buffed and remain precisely the same as before.

    This removes reloading and hence weapons such as cannons and multis from 1v1 PvP, unless one is flying a ship with sufficient speed superiority to clear enemy range and maintain clearance, and is fighting a patient opponent willing to wait for 30 seconds whilst you are out of range, for as many reloads as it takes to finish the fight.

    In practice, I expect that 1v1's that already take 20 to 40 mins will now either be abandoned earlier or start to take 30 mins to 60 mins, being fought over a series of 'rounds' ... bi-weaves recharging whilst synthesis reloading is performed.

    If we move more towards laser-based builds (an existing trend already, admittedly) TTK will simply increase by the same if not a greater margin due to reduced DPE.

    Some reload weapons (most obviously plasma) that come with a high damage pool will obviously be less affected than (e.g.) cannons, the latter being effectively removed. And RIP the rapid fire Pacifier / Frag Cannon...?

    Sandro has suggested reducing the time delay for weapon (as opposed to utility) reloads:





    I would observe again that this might be fine for those of us who fly Couriers in PvP (we would be able to make good use of a short window, in a light build) but will be of absolutely no use to ships such as the Big 3. Synthesis is abolished 1v1, so far as they are concerned, because they take fire pretty much continuously.
    I actually quite appreciate the 30 second timeframe for ammo but yes it is a bit long. Reducing it to 10 seconds for some blueprints like multicannons that are meant to be spammed or basically any sustained weapon but burst weaponary such as plasmas or railguns that are generally insanely powerful should remain at 30 second timers and be interrupted by damage.
    Including fragment cannons here and missiles. Cannons can go down to 15 and mines too but weapons which are balanced with ammo pools should not be spammed and used with caution. This is the only resource management we have left since hitpoint inflation and uber fast pwoer distributor recharge rates. I myself am lucky enough to benefit from a 45% recharge PD with -4% capacity.

    The interruption of synthing ammo solves a part of the oneshot vs sustained builds imbalance. The most extreme examples are a full laser build vs a rapid fire screening frag build which lives from the ability to have infinite ammo, prefareably premium.
    Actually there should be a way to surpress the 15%/30% damage boost from premium ammo in PvP but keep it in PvE. For example with a weapon mod for railguns, palsmas or missiles (dumbfire only) that remove the damage boost from synth for a couple of seconds.

    Don't get me wrong here, I dislike the hitpoint inflation but the solution must not be to grind materials which has nothing to do with combat and shifting the value from skill to material and financial resources further away.

    You have always been a supporter of skill based PvP but how can you support synthesis that basically stands for material based combat over skill based combat?


    Sandro has my full support for this change and I must admit that this is a really good step into the right direction. The next step is to adress the premium ammo vs vanilla ammo and laser matchups. Having a 30% dmg boost vs a full laser build is more than significant.
    Commander Crimson Kaim, hunting imperials since 3301!
    > Video logs <

    Loyal Federation Supporter



  12. #57
    Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape View Post (Source)
    This is a good change with unfortunate side effects. Synthesis being mandatory in combat needs to be changed, but I fear that essentially removing combat synth would make kinetics and small ships non-viable

    However, I disagree with Truesilver that combat synthesis should be re-buffed. Its a dumb mechanic that doesnt address the core issue (IE too high HP, ammo too low).

    Ammo is consistently a major issue for all Kinetics in PvE as well, so this isn't just a PvP issue. I think ammo for all Kinetic weapons are too low. I would buff the ammo capacity of all weapons by 100% as an immediate measure, and look into reducing the capacity if/when shields get a balance pass

    Says someone who uses multiple basic synth vs my SLFs

    But yes, hitpoint inflation (as I have stated in my previous post here) is the major issue. Let alone the core nature of the engineers upgrading ships instead of actual modifying it so that everything comes with a tardeoff and does not gain total value/power. Want 100% more damage per shot? Add a 50% RoF penalty. DPS remains the same (good for plasmas and other low ammo clip weapons like cannons or missiles).
    Want more speed? Add an agility penalty ... or more agility at the cost of maximum (boost) speed. Add flat values so ship balancing is not abused (for example the Cutter ... a 20% agility penalty for a 20% boost speed buff is basically a 0% agility penalty for a 20% ship boost buff. Reduce boost speed buff according to agility of target ship).

    With that in mind, 2.0 and 2.1 still needs the rebelance pass part two. The first balance pass allowed for multiple ships and builds to be viable in PvP instead of everyone flying the meta-FDL with 3 MCs, a FCR and an emissive seeker missile or corrosive MC. Obviously stacking boosters and reinforced shields.

    The second rebalance pass should reduce total hitpoints ONLY FOR ENGINEERED SHIPS while adding tardeoffs to weapon mods and boosters and HRPs. Mass is not a tradeoff for a hull tank. Further discussions with the community is needed to solve a good bunch of issues at once. But first we need FD to work on that imbalance issue so our points are actually taken into account for the next patch .. and not for a distant patch in 1-2 years. Today we finally fixed the heat weapon abuse from 2.1. That just took approximately one year.

    One full year.
    Commander Crimson Kaim, hunting imperials since 3301!
    > Video logs <

    Loyal Federation Supporter



  13. #58
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Why should a ship equipped with a peashooter not run out of ammunition when taking on a well defended target?
    In my case, I wouldn't consider a pair of G5 overcharged Pacifier frag cannons (backed up by feedback cascade rails) to be "peashooters". They are among the highest DPS weapons in the game, and shred most non-overengineered ships in seconds. Lasers actually do less damage, so the tedious fight can go on even longer. Not sure that's a good thing.

  14. #59
    Originally Posted by Crimson Kaim View Post (Source)
    You have always been a supporter of skill based PvP but how can you support synthesis that basically stands for material based combat over skill based combat?
    Because Crimson, I'm also a supporter of an interesting and diverse weapon set and reducing TTK!

    Here is the complete list of weapons that are now 'critically endangered' and at risk of extinction from 1v1 PvP:

    WEAPON
    FDev
    Shield
    Hull
    RoF DPS
    DPSvS
    DPSvH
    Draw
    EPS DPE
    EvS
    EvH
    ShSp APV WEAPON
    c4 Cannon - f
    83.1
    49.9
    99.7
    0.4 31.6
    19.0
    37.9
    1.61
    0.64 51.61
    29.69 59.22 900 90 c4 Cannon - f
    c4 Cannon - g
    56.5 34.0 67.9 0.4 22.6 13.6 27.1 1.72
    0.69 32.85 19.71 39.28 750 90 c4 Cannon - g
    c4 Multi - f
    4.6
    2.76
    5.52
    3.0 28.0
    16.8
    33.6
    0.24
    0.72 19.17
    23.33
    46.67
    1600 68 c4 Multi - f
    c4 Multi - g
    3.5
    2.1
    4.2
    3.4 23.3
    13.98
    27.96
    0.37
    1.26 9.46
    11.1
    22.2
    1600 68 c4 Multi - g
    c3 Cannon - f
    55.6 33.4 66.7 0.4 23.4 14.0 28.1 1.07
    0.43 51.96 32.56 65.12 959 70 c3 Cannon - f
    c3 Cannon - g
    37.4 22.4 44.9 0.4 16.5 9.9 19.8 1.14
    0.46 32.81 21.52 43.04 800 70 c3 Cannon - g
    c3 Cannon - t
    30.3 18.2 36.4 0.4 11.2 6.7 13.4 0.53
    0.21 57.17 31.90 63.81 800 70 c3 Cannon - t
    c3 Frag - f
    4.6
    2.76
    5.52
    4.5 249.3
    149.6
    299.2
    0.57
    2.57 8.07 58.2 116.4 667 45 c3 Frag - f
    c3 Pacifier
    4.0
    2.04
    4.8
    4.5 216.0
    129.6
    259.2
    0.57
    2.57 7.02
    50.4
    100.9
    1000 45 c3 Pacifier
    c3 Frag - g
    3.8
    2.28
    4.56 4.8 215.4 129.2 258.5 0.81
    3.89 4.69 33.2 66.4 667 45 c3 Frag - g
    c3 Frag - t
    3.0
    1.80 3.6 4.0 143.3 86.0 172.0 0.37
    1.48 8.11 58.1 116.2 667 45 c3 Frag - t
    c3 Multi - f
    3.9
    2.34
    4.68
    5.9 23.1
    13.86
    27.72
    0.18
    1.06 21.67
    13.08
    26.15
    1600 54 c3 Multi - f
    c3 Multi - g
    2.8
    1.68
    3.36
    6.7 18.9
    11.34
    22.68
    0.25
    1.68 11.2
    6.75
    13.5
    1600 54 c3 Multi - g
    c2 Cannon - f
    36.9 22.1 44.3 0.5 17.0 10.20 20.40 0.70
    0.35 52.71
    29.14 58.29
    1051 50 c2 Cannon - f
    c2 Cannon - g
    25.5 13.5 27.0 0.5 12.3 7.4 14.8 0.75
    0.38 34.0
    19.73 39.47 875 50 c2 Cannon - g
    c2 Cannon - t
    19.8
    11.88 23.76 0.4 8.01
    4.81 9.61 0.34
    0.14 58.24 34.36 68.71 875 50 c2 Cannon - t
    c2 Frag - f
    3.0
    1.80 3.6 5.0 179.1 107.5 214.9 0.37
    1.85 8.11 58.11
    116.22
    667 30 c2 Frag - f
    c2 Frag - g
    2.3
    1.38
    2.76
    5.3 143.6
    86.2
    172.3
    0.49
    2.6 4.7
    33.15
    66.3
    667 30 c2 Frag - g
    c2 Frag - t
    1.7
    1.02
    2.04 4.3 87.1 52.3 104.5 0.21
    0.90 8.09 58.1 116.2 667 30 c2 Frag - t
    c2 Multi - f
    2.2
    1.32
    2.64
    7.1 15.6
    9.36
    18.72
    0.11
    0.78 20.0
    12.0
    24.0
    1600 37 c2 Multi - f
    c2 Multi - g
    1.6
    0.96
    1.92
    7.7 12.6
    7.56
    15.12
    0.14
    1.08 11.43
    7.0
    14.0
    1600 37 c2 Multi - g
    c2 Multi - t
    1.2
    0.72
    1.44
    6.2 7.3
    4.38
    8.76
    0.06
    0.37 20.0
    11.84
    23.68
    1600 37 c2 Multi - t
    c1 Cannon - f
    22.5 13.5 27.0 0.5 11.3 6.78 13.56 0.46
    0.23 48.91 29.48 58.96 1200 35 c1 Cannon - f
    c1 Cannon - g
    15.9 9.54 19.08 0.5 8.3 4.98 9.96 0.48
    0.24 33.13 20.75 41.50 1000 35 c1 Cannon - g
    c1 Cannon - t
    12.8 7.68 15.36 0.4 5.56
    3.34 6.67 0.22
    0.09 58.18 37.11 74.22 1000 35 c1 Cannon - t
    c1 Frag - f
    1.4
    0.84
    1.68
    5.6 95.3
    57.2
    114.4
    0.21
    1.18 6.67
    48.5
    96.9
    667 20 c1 Frag - f
    c1 Frag - g
    1.0
    0.6
    1.2
    5.9 71.3
    42.8
    85.6
    0.26
    1.53 3.85
    28.0
    55.9 667 20 c1 Frag - g
    c1 Frag - t
    0.7
    0.42
    0.84
    4.8 39.4
    23.6
    47.3
    0.10
    0.48 7.0
    49.2
    98.3
    667 20 c1 Frag - t
    c1 Multi - f
    1.1
    0.66
    1.32
    7.7 8.6
    5.16
    10.32
    0.06
    0.46 18.33
    11.22
    22.43
    1600 22 c1 Multi - f
    c1 Enforcer
    2.9
    1.74 3.48 4.3 12.4 7.4 14.9 0.12
    0.52 24.17 14.23 28.65 1800 30 c1 Enforcer
    c1 Multi - g
    0.8
    0.48
    0.96
    8.3 6.8
    4.08
    8.16
    0.07
    0.58 11.43
    7.03
    14.06
    1600 22 c1 Multi - g
    c1 Multi - t
    0.6
    0.36
    0.72
    7.1 4.0
    2.4
    4.8
    0.03
    0.21 20.0
    11.43
    22.86
    1600 22 c1 Multi - t
    WEAPON FDev Shield Hull RoF DPS DPSvS DPSvH Draw EPS DPE EvS EvH ShSp APV WEAPON

    WEAPON
    FDev
    Shield
    Hull
    RoF DPS
    DPSvS
    DPSvH
    Draw
    EPS DPE
    EvS
    EvH
    ShSp APV WEAPON
    Missile - df
    50.0
    25.0
    70.0
    0.5 25.0
    12.5
    35.0
    0.24
    0.12 208.3
    104.2
    291.7
    750 60 Missile - df
    Missile - hs
    40.0
    20.0
    56.0
    0.3 13.3
    6.7
    18.6
    0.24
    0.07 166.7
    95.7
    265.7
    625 60 Missile - hs
    Pack hound
    7.5 [x4]
    3.75
    10.5
    2.0 60.0
    30.0
    84.0
    0.24
    0.48 31.25
    62.5
    175.0
    600 60 Pack hound
    Mine 44.0 31.94 55.18 1.0 44.0 31.94 55.18 - - - - - - 60 Mine
    Shock Mine 32.0 23.23 40.13 1.0 32.0 23.23 40.13 - - - - - - 60 Shock Mine
    WEAPON FDev Shield Hull RoF DPS DPSvS DPSvH Draw EPS DPE EvS EvH ShSp APV WEAPON



    Heh ...

    I know you can make the argument for keeping a multi to apply the corrosive debuff, or a high yield cannon for the finish (if they ever start working properly, if indeed they're bugged) or missiles for a finish against hardpoints but ... it's not like the old days when it might be worth keeping kinetic back to shred the hull. With equal resistances against thermal and kinetic, the reality is we are looking at a shift away from kinetic. On a small ship you have speed but lack ammo reserves, on a big ship you have ammo reserves but can never synthesise, ever. On a medium, ofc somewhere in between.

    The ultimate effect is simply to push us more towards a pulse'n'rail meta: not a bad thing, I love both those weapons personally, but a huge loss in terms of balance and diversity across the weapon set as a whole. And of course, as ever, DPE goes down and TTK goes up.

    Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape View Post (Source)
    This is a good change with unfortunate side effects. Synthesis being mandatory in combat needs to be changed, but I fear that essentially removing combat synth would make kinetics and small ships non-viable.
    Yes.

    Originally Posted by Alexander the Grape View Post (Source)
    However, I disagree with Truesilver that combat synthesis should be re-buffed. Its a dumb mechanic that doesnt address the core issue (IE too high HP, ammo too low).

    Ammo is consistently a major issue for all Kinetics in PvE as well, so this isn't just a PvP issue. I think ammo for all Kinetic weapons are too low. I would buff the ammo capacity of all weapons by 100% as an immediate measure, and look into reducing the capacity if/when shields get a balance pass
    I agree, but will we get these things? And what should happen until we do, if we ever do?

    Originally Posted by Droid8Apple View Post (Source)
    What a surprise. All the children complaining about needing delays since closed beta paid off then. Great. (sarcasm).
    Yes, the process followed has gone awry here. Frontier's engagement with the player base on some issues such as the Powerplay / PFB interaction has been amazing but on synthesis, all that happened is this:

    (a) Beta opens, heat sink and chaff synthesis revealed;

    (b) Players say in a separate (not official) thread that infinite chaff will make gimbals extinct in PvP;

    (c) Sandro responded with the suggestion about delay and reset and I replied in that thread, as quoted in the OP.

    There's nothing wrong with any of the above but since then the matter hasn't been further discussed or tested: no Patch Notes, no formal announcement, no official thread, no feedback. In short I basically think that, busy as they undoubtedly are, the Devs have got a bit ahead of themselves on this one. This could probably all be sorted out to (almost) everyone's satisfaction. I hope that there will be further revisions made as 2.4 goes Live.

    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    Sure, from time to time someone form FDEV pops their head into the forums and asks opinions - maybe even tries a few things and makes adjustments based on feedback - but at the end of the day, and after more than 3 years of observation, it's quite clear that FDEV are indeed "making the game THEY want to play" - which doesn't necessarily 100% fit with what everyone else wants to play. Explorers included in that surmise of course - vis-à-vis this recent piece of news regarding heatsink synthesis recipes requiring materials only found in the bubble.

    You're not alone in some frowns and consternation regarding Frontier and the eccentric design decisions it makes. (Including downright frustration and annoyance.)
    My own guess - and of course it can't be more than that - is that this one may actually be nothing more than the unintended consequence of change rather briskly made and with limited consultation as above, i.e.:

    Infinite chaff making gimbals extinct 1v1 - now fixed!

    Infinite synthesis reset making kinetic extinct 1v1 - ... now broken!


    Although Beta is ending, hopefully there can still be some dialogue / revisions on this.
    Federal Vigilante PvP Executioner Friend and Supporter of Adle's Armada

  15. #60
    The problem is PvP taking 20-40 minutes, not restricting synthesis during combat.

    There's plenty of simple solutions to the excessive PvP lengths which have already been discussed, which to summerise involve simply applying diminishing returns to the combination of SYS pips, shield resistance and booster resistance (so that combined resistance is never more than about 50%, where it you can currently push it to 80% once you multiply SYS pips etc), and also applying the same interruption effect on synthesis to shield cell banks (i.e. giving all weapons feedback cascade).

    Allowing synthesis during combat comes with a number of issues, namely, removes the balance of low sys usage for kinetics against limited ammo. It's not a fix. FD should just apply the changes I mentioned above an fix both problems.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast