Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Alpha

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

TobiwanKenobi's Achievements

  1. Missiles and lasers do need some help though. Some features that define them, make them unique. My suggestion would be that lasers take no ammo, but can overheat. This would make laser setups effectively lighter, cheaper to operate, and give them unlimited endurance in a long battle. Missiles are good only in very niche situations for their supreme burst dps. If NQ wants to keep that as a feature of missiles, I think they should make missiles better at it, because currently cannons have almost as much burst dps as missiles but far better sustained dps. But I don't think missiles should be a space shotgun.
  2. It's a good thing NQ takes player feedback with a grain of salt and carefully considers what the best course might be. Because most of you guys have a shaky assessment of the meta. S-core cannon boats are good, yes. But only when piloted well(which most players seem unable to do), and only in small scale fights. Believe it or not, they are not the ultimate meta ship. I'm not going to tell you what is though. I'll show you later. Railguns are the best weapon in the game. Players just aren't using them right. Every rail pilot I've fought has done nothing to try to stay away from my cannons. They just blindly point at me and fire until I'm right in their face. Rails take twice as long to kill a target, yes. But they have the incredible advantage of range, which can't be overvalued - especially in high-speed S-core fights. You have to be patient and set up good situations to fire out of effective cannon range. Get more accel. Use it properly. The range of rails also allows them to focus fire better. The more ships you have, the more potent rails become. Rails are and always will be the king of fleet fights.
  3. Voxel won't do anything for S ships. Shields down = S dead or disabled. Anyway, artificially limiting elements by core size is the wrong way to go. Better to have an energy system that limits elements by forcing the builder to make trade-offs. If a S-core wants a L-shield, it can only fit a partial set of S guns. If a M-core wants a L-shield, it can only fit one set of M guns and one set of S guns - not two sets M guns, with two L radars. Fit limitations based on an energy system would be much more dynamic and interesting than just shoe-horning ships into specific builds. Until we get something like that, I'd prefer it if element selection remained more free. I don't even see a reason to limit gun sizes to core size right now as well, since having L guns doesn't give an inherent advantage like it used to.
  4. This is where I disagree. S-cores have 1/3 of the survivability of a ship with a L-shield and some voxel armor. S-cores die very quickly when focused. They do have a lot of advantages, but they're so fragile. If they had to use S shields they would die in 30 seconds of being targeted by even a few ships. Same thing with M cores with M shield. They would die so fast. And don't forget to list the other big disadvantage of S-cores: Short range Also, these items aren't advantages that are exclusive to S-cores: Take advantage of better chance of hitting Take advantage of better tracking Since L and M cores can equip S weapons as well. IMO, S-cores are very easily countered just by equipping M-cores and L-cores with a backup set of S cannons. Getting attacked by S-cores that are too close to hit? Just switch to your S cannon gunner seat and drive them away easily. Any M- or L-core that doesn't have a set of S weapons just isn't complete.
  5. I disagree entirely. M shield is the only thing keeping S-cores remotely competitive. They already have less than half of the effective hp of a L-shield M-core, even when accounting for cross section and hit chances. Limiting shield sizes to core size will just make the time-to-kill even lower. Ships already die very quickly. Limiting shield size to core size will halve the time-to-kill. The voxel buffs are more than enough to make M-cores and L-cores dominant again. I think the new dominant meta ship is a 600t M-core with a L-shield. So much hp, good dps, and you can have S-weapons on a backup seat to deal with S-cores. I think we just need XL shields for L-cores. 20M hp, about 500t.
  6. Good job NQ. Thanks for listening to the feedback. The new max speed changes bring M-core and L-core pvp ships into a better position compared to S-cores, and single-package mission running will be less painful. The rotation changes feel really nice as well. My M-core hauler doesn't feel stiff and annoying to fly anymore. Just wanted to express my appreciation. Keep up the great work.
  7. Ehh, that might be a bit much. Maybe for some of the really hard ones it would be okay, like for achieving Billionaire, but some of those level 5 achievements are pretty easy to complete.
  8. NQ, the talent point rewards for achievements are so tiny that they might as well not exist. Yet these achievements could be a fun and rewarding activity to pursue if they gave meaningful rewards. An easy way to increase player engagement and give them 'something to do' would be to increase these rewards by A LOT. It would also motivate people to learn other parts of the game that they haven't yet experienced. Examples: First Blood - Destroy 1 ship of size XS: 120pts --> 5000pts (about one hour worth of training) Master Gunner - Shoot all types, variants, and sizes of ammo: 3240pts --> 50,000pts (about ten hours worth of training) Factory Master - Have at least 50 industry units running simultaneously: 1080pts --> 25,000pts Speed Freak - Reach max speed for the first time: 120pts --> 5000pts Billionaire - Reach 1B in your wallet: 9720pts --> 129,600pts (a full day of training) Expert Miner - Extract ore from 20 different planets or moons: 9270pts --> 129,600pts etc. etc. Give us rewards that we can be excited about and achievements will be fun! It will give players lots of things to do at launch and encourage them to experience all the game has to offer.
  9. Some of these suggestions take things in a direction that NQ has specifically led us away from. ----------------------------------------- - nerf weapon damage by about 50% This would greatly increase base time to kill and draw fights out to extreme lengths. We don't want fights where two forces just shoot at each other a lot, get no kills, and leave the fight when fuel gets low. This is why NQ nerfed voxel in the first place, and then nerfed shields in Athena patch. And you think that this would make L-cores stronger, but really it will just make the S-cores unkillable as they will easily be able to run and escape death even with ten ships shooting at them. - suppress cross section as a reference This definitely shouldn't happen. Ship design in DU is already super simplistic. Why cast out the one mechanic that grants a little complexity? The cross section:hit chance mechanic is also good because it affects how you pilot in combat - trying to keep your narrow face towards incoming heavy fire. I know you're not talking about taking it away entirely, but it's in a good place right now. We just need a similar mechanic in opposition to it. Something like this: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/25023-pvp-mechanic-idea-how-to-give-l-cores-more-potential-shield-stability/#comment-188567 - re-implement lock by core as it was at the beginning of beta - keep weapon lock by core Again, this will make small cores even stronger. At any time they'll be able to just leave the lock range of the L and M-cores and vent back up to 100%. And I don't know what lock ranges you're suggesting, but if you're talking about making it so L-cores can't lock onto small cores until they get close, the L-cores will be even weaker. L weapons have terrible tracking. It's already pretty easy for a S-core to evade L and M weapons by just staying within 10km. - also lock shield by core I don't think this is a good solution because again, it reduces ship design complexity and variety. Rather than lock elements to core sizes, NQ needs to implement a power system that forces ship designers to make choices about what they want the ship to be. ----------------------------------------- I know many people want L-cores to be strong again, but NQ needs to see how the voxel changes affect balance first. They even said they're not going to make too many changes at once. The last thing we need is for the battlefield to be all L-cores again. At least we have some variety right now.
  10. You're doing the math here wrong, my dude. Proper way of calculating the ehp would be: 4500 divided by 0.35(the fraction of damage the voxel is actually receiving after resistances) = 12857ehp The unit mass is the kg per m3. The hp:m3 is the column labeled 'hitpoints'.
  11. Yes, we absolutely need a range of hp:mass for different material types or light materials will be inferior based on having poor hp:volume values. Not to mention the fact that these mass changes are breaking existing lightweight designs. I really don't want to have to make my light low-ccs pvp ships out of wood and concrete... Example values: very light = 90 hp:kg (best hp:mass but worst hp:volume) light = 60 hp:kg heavy = 45 hp:kg very heavy = 30 hp:kg (worst hp:mass but best hp:volume)
  12. This is why they introduced CCS. Now it doesn't matter how much you repair your elements - your CCS will still run out and you'll be cored even with plenty of voxel left, your core intact, and every element at 100%. So there's a soft limit on voxel tanking, and element tanking isn't broken. Which is good. Fights should be quick. No ship should survive for 30+ minutes with multiple enemies shooting at them.
  13. I don't think we should want the old school 'engineer' as a necessary role in battles. People are playing for fun, and the number of people who want to play hold-left-click whackamole will be few. So unless the way people repair elements changes, the shield tanking meta is more fun for everyone. But NQ has already hinted at the addition of a repair weapon, so I can see that being the answer to voxel tanking. If these repair weapons have variants or ammo types that can either recharge shields or restore voxel and element hp, they would do the job and be more fun. As for incentivizing multicrew, this shield stability mechanic does do that in part. It rewards the extra mass and volume of more sets of guns. But having all these gunners on one ship still won't be an efficient use of avatars. It will still be better to divide up into separate ships. And it will stay that way until a single avatar can have an equal amount of power as part a multicrew ship as they would by being in a solo ship. The only way that will happen is by making it so that extra players can power up the shield in some way. Because there are only two ways a player can contribute a significant amount of potential to a fight - by manning a gunner seat or by carrying a shield.
  14. For sure - this doesn't solve the problem of multicrew being an inefficient use of players. I'm hoping an energy system or something will solve that. Even though shield stability is a shield-centric mechanic, it actually shifts the meta more towards voxel tanking with L-cores. It makes voxel more viable by giving bonuses for having lots of voxel, rather than having to stick to the 'nano' meta. I see certain people wanting for L-cores to mainly voxel tank, and I agree there need to be some adjustments to voxel as armor in terms of stats and mechanics(and a complete overhaul of element hp), but I think it's never going to be desirable to rely on voxel to absorb incoming fire. It will always be a bad situation to have your shield go down, because regardless of how tough your voxel is, your exposed elements are still going to get damaged and destroyed.
  • Create New...