Engineers Shield Booster rebanlancing/Speacial effects more speacialised to dealing with shields

TheMegaTurnip

Banned
T
So 3.0 is out and a new set of engineering conundrums appears..

It seems though under the new engineering system the shield boosters provide disproportionate bonus' when compared to HRP's, Is it possible to have boosters work on a diminishing return basis? I'm not saying shields should be flimsy when I post this, but some measure of equality between the usefulness of hull and shielding would be nice.

The other issue I'd like to raise is the volume of hull counters vs shield counters. This appears imbalanced as hell offering missiles, explosive rounds, module f@*Kery and rails that act as though you have no armour at all to name but a few.. Where as Vs shielding we get torps/mines which rely almost exclusively on your opponent's stupidity, Phasing, which is like drip feeding damage (even by un-engineered standards of direct hull damage) and Feedback which is fine until the SCB is modified and then the charge up time is very short, almost too short to allow multiple ral strikes, or you arent running a very high DPS loadout as the modified bank/shield combo will likely out do any damage applied from a lesser ship even with the reduced charge. It would be nice to see some new special effects that make weapons more effective against modified shields (incendiary rounds being useless as most engineered ships have 50% resistance values across the board)

This is an extreme example I am aware but it seems at this stage of the engineering (what with fast charge shields/fast booot SCB's) even the 2.1 beta Feedback Cas' would be more in line with the requirements of an effect to lessen the impact the new uber shields have on gameplay, for one it would certainly be a mechanic that detters big ships preying on smaller ones, of which there are a scant few. This is jst an example however, it would be nice to hear if the community has any ideas/thoughts as well as it being something I fell the Devs should look at :)
 

CMDR BOSLEY

C
There was a beta where diminshing returns for boosters coupled with increased hull hardness for large ships was tested and it worked well but too many people cried so it didn't make it through. They also tested weapon tracking being tied to sensors which was really good but it also didn't make the cut.

The current effect you mentioned i think could use a minor buff and some new one would definitely be cool.

However, I don't think hull and shields should ever be on par. Shields are designed to protect hull it, which means you ship needs the vulnerability that it currently does other wise shields serve no purpose.

Ships relying on hull like the chiefain are incredibly tanky and most quite agile so it's not as if they are helpless, and with the combination of TLB and Disperal they and avoid a lot damage.
 
Last edited:

Nero Tacitus

Nero Tacitus
As mentioned, it was tested, people complained, FDev redacted.

I agree that hulls and shields aren't even remotely comparable in the punishment they can take (you haven't even mentioned 4 SYS PIPs giving an additional 60% damage reduction), but this may well be by design, will shields being the important factor and hull simply giving you some time to run.

Personally, I think the large ships need a hardness buff, PA/Rail and to a lesser extent missile pierce values should be lowered and corrosive should simply be removed from the game (or changed entirely). Hulls would regain some degree of relevance then.
 

Grisnir

G
Nero Tacitus said:
As mentioned, it was tested, people complained, FDev redacted.

I agree that hulls and shields aren't even remotely comparable in the punishment they can take (you haven't even mentioned 4 SYS PIPs giving an additional 60% damage reduction), but this may well be by design, will shields being the important factor and hull simply giving you some time to run.

Personally, I think the large ships need a hardness buff, PA/Rail and to a lesser extent missile pierce values should be lowered and corrosive should simply be removed from the game (or changed entirely). Hulls would regain some degree of relevance then.
Click to expand...

Large ships don't need a hardness buff but rather moduls need a health buff or/and the malfunctions threshold must be much higher
 

Nero Tacitus

Nero Tacitus
A) Hardness is a global damage reduction to hull. Less hull damage = less breach chance/damage = less module damage.
B) Run some Module Reinforcement Packages.
C) When did we start talking about hull tanks?
 

Herbrand

Herbrand
You are absolutely correct - engineered Shields / Shield Boosters are ridiculously overpowered in this game, and nerfing them would make the game much more interesting.
 

Kilostream

Kilostream
Herbrand said:
You are absolutely correct - engineered Shields / Shield Boosters are ridiculously overpowered in this game, and nerfing them would make the game much more interesting.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't, it'd just make the fights shorter - with engineering 3.0, everybody gets the same stat, so the playing field is already level.
The win or loss is down to selecting the right modules and the right modifications, and other things such as how co-ordinated your wing is, whether you've fitted your ships individually, or co-ordinated your fittings so your wing can deliver a weapons suite that none of you could have done alone.
 

TheMegaTurnip

Banned
T
Kilostream said:
No it wouldn't, it'd just make the fights shorter - with engineering 3.0, everybody gets the same stat, so the playing field is already level.
The win or loss is down to selecting the right modules and the right modifications, and other things such as how co-ordinated your wing is, whether you've fitted your ships individually, or co-ordinated your fittings so your wing can deliver a weapons suite that none of you could have done alone.
Click to expand...

I didnt mean nerfed to oblivion nerfed just to a level playing feild so both hull tanks and shield tanks are viable obtions, as it satnds the counters to hull far out weigh the counters to shields, though the flechette laucher is a step in the right direction after testing it myself. It's still very one sided at the moment even with them mind. If we don't get more special effects/modules geared to shield counters (admittedly experimentals would be preferable for all i'd imagine) They do need a small reduction, maybe on the cost of total cap when buffing resistance ad vice versa, 35/40% resistances and a maxed out cap shield with the new experiementals and SCB's with fast spool and the one that increases charge time and a big ship is near impossible to waste even with ships geared to the purpose. A good example of this bein the vulture, even in the last engineering iteration in was unfit for its designed purpose as a big ship killer, now it can be laughed off in a 1v1 simply because most of the weapons capable of dealing sufficient dps rely on a limited ammo pool. Shields need fixing be it in efficient counters or a small nerf, or a really small nerf and some new effects would be better. It's just a matter of the capability gap with shield tank vs hull tank is now very far out of balance.
 

Frenotx

Frenotx
TheMegaTurnip said:
So 3.0 is out and a new set of engineering conundrums appears..

It seems though under the new engineering system the shield boosters provide disproportionate bonus' when compared to HRP's, Is it possible to have boosters work on a diminishing return basis? I'm not saying shields should be flimsy when I post this, but some measure of equality between the usefulness of hull and shielding would be nice.

The other issue I'd like to raise is the volume of hull counters vs shield counters. This appears imbalanced as hell offering missiles, explosive rounds, module f@*Kery and rails that act as though you have no armour at all to name but a few.. Where as Vs shielding we get torps/mines which rely almost exclusively on your opponent's stupidity, Phasing, which is like drip feeding damage (even by un-engineered standards of direct hull damage) and Feedback which is fine until the SCB is modified and then the charge up time is very short, almost too short to allow multiple ral strikes, or you arent running a very high DPS loadout as the modified bank/shield combo will likely out do any damage applied from a lesser ship even with the reduced charge. It would be nice to see some new special effects that make weapons more effective against modified shields (incendiary rounds being useless as most engineered ships have 50% resistance values across the board)

This is an extreme example I am aware but it seems at this stage of the engineering (what with fast charge shields/fast booot SCB's) even the 2.1 beta Feedback Cas' would be more in line with the requirements of an effect to lessen the impact the new uber shields have on gameplay, for one it would certainly be a mechanic that detters big ships preying on smaller ones, of which there are a scant few. This is jst an example however, it would be nice to hear if the community has any ideas/thoughts as well as it being something I fell the Devs should look at :)
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see how things played out if shield boosters were changed to add flat HP (like hull reinforcement modules) instead of % HP. Resistances would still need to be looked at (much like they already need to be looked at with HRPs, too), but it would level out the shield-size playing field a bit and make a ship's base shield value a little more relevant.
 

Herbrand

Herbrand
Kilostream said:
No it wouldn't, it'd just make the fights shorter - with engineering 3.0, everybody gets the same stat, so the playing field is already level.
The win or loss is down to selecting the right modules and the right modifications, and other things such as how co-ordinated your wing is, whether you've fitted your ships individually, or co-ordinated your fittings so your wing can deliver a weapons suite that none of you could have done alone.
Click to expand...

Well yes, and IMO it should - currently shield tank duels can take around ~20 minutes for fully engineered ships, that's a tad too long really...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom