Jump to content

TobiwanKenobi

Member
  • Posts

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TobiwanKenobi

  1. My pvp ship can stop in 0.7 SU when traveling at 44k if it does a flip-and-burn. Tactical map will be valuable to pvpers for sure.
  2. The asteroid stuff seems like an improvement. But not really what I was hoping for myself when I heard that asteroid hunting was going to get a rework. I've always wanted the DSAT coordinate system to be replaced with a DSAT that works like the scanner/direction scanner tools that are used for mining. That's a neat mechanic that requires some skill and intuition, and now it's barely used. Seems like a waste. Tracking down an asteroid could work just like tracking down an ore node. I see some pvpers think that the removal of the discovered column will make it hard to find miners and kill them. But we haven't seen how the new roid spawning will work. If the roids are continuously despawing/respawning, there might only ever be 20-30 spawned roids and it will actually be easier to find miners. The tactical map is cool as well but I hope you guys do it better than Elite Dangerous did it. Theirs can definitely be improved. No need for the varying distances between concentric circles. They should have even spacing every 50km so that players can properly see how far away a contact is with just a glance at the map. The contact icons should indicate the direction of travel and facing of the contact. (markers should as well) The plane altitude lines should be dashed when below the plane. There should be an indication of radar range at the top/bottom of the sphere in the form of a vertical circle that shows where the limits are. I also hope that Lua wizards will have access to the data that the tactical map uses so that they can build user-made tactical maps into their hud.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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'.
  13. 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)
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. @NQ-Entropy L-cores are weak in the current pvp meta. I have an idea about how to make them more powerful(but not too powerful) while also adding some neat complexity to ship design in DU, and without taking away from the viability of S and M cores. _____________________________________________________________ PROBLEMS: 1. Right now, having a light ship is valuable in pvp. Being light not only gives you good accel, it gives you a higher max speed. Having high accel and max speed allows you to withdraw and vent, run away, catch slower targets, dictate battlefield positioning, or just travel faster. L-cores are naturally much heavier, so they suffer here. 2. Being small is also important. Having smaller cross section means less enemy hit chance, which makes you harder to kill. Tiny S-cores with a M-shield can tank just as well or better than big L-shield armored L-cores. So again L-cores are penalized for having naturally larger cross section. _____________________________________________________________ SOLUTION: My idea is that NQ add a new mechanic that rewards having higher mass and cross section: Shield stability. Shield stability: Higher construct mass and volume would make your shield tougher - a separate damage modifier that reduces incoming damage like resistances do. _____________________________________________________________ RULES: The mass and volume bonuses would be on separate curves, then added into one shield stability value, listed as a base value of 100% - a damage reduction multiplier of 1. High shield stability values might be 150% - a damage reduction multiplier of 0.666(33.33% damage reduction, which gives an effective hp bonus of +50%). Both curves would never allow shield stability to get anywhere near 200% (damage reduction multiplier of 0.5) so that a smaller shield could never achieve the same effective hp as a shield of one size larger. The mass and volume bonuses would be small at the low end of the curve. The mass and volume curves would have diminishing returns at the high end so that players can't just scale their shield stability to infinity. The floor of the mass bonus curve would start at the standard mass of a L-shield(125t). The floor of the volume bonus curve would start at the volume of a L-shield(646m³). The bonus scale would be the same for all shield sizes. L shields on heavy/voluminous ships would get good value, but standard-sized S and XS ships would get little to no value from this system, since they would have to achieve extreme masses (in the multi-kiloton range) and volumes to achieve high shield stability values. Shield stability would be calculated dynamically, so it would decrease throughout a fight as fuel is burned, ammo is used, and especially as voxel is destroyed. _____________________________________________________________ EXAMPLE VALUES: (obviously NQ would have to decide the proper curves and bonuses) A ship with 5,000t mass and 3000m² x 500m² x 1500m² cross section values (a very big boi) gets a shield stability value of 147% - a shield damage reduction multiplier of 0.68. With this shield stability value, a Rare Active Shield Generator L now gets an effective hp increase from 10,000,000 to 14,700,000. So it has significantly stronger shields along with a large amount of CCS from voxel. It's now a tough nut to crack for S ships, but likely very slow and easier to hit for L and M guns. EXAMPLE GRAPH: _____________________________________________________________ NOTES: This mechanic would add more choice and variety to pvp ship design. It would allow builders to make more stylized designs that normally would be too voluminous. L-cores would be good at killing other L-cores since their guns would actually do better dps to large targets than smaller guns would. They would target each other in fleet fights. The shield stability mechanic would also make haulers naturally tougher to kill, giving them a better chance to fend off pirates and survive. This would also indirectly add value to voxel, as the mass of additional voxel would simultaneously increase effective shield hp. Heavy voxels especially might become more attractive. CONCLUSION: This shield stability mechanic isn't meant to make L-cores into invincible dreadnaughts, but to give them a solid bonus to survivability in the same way that small ships get bonuses - just reversed. My hope is that it would add potential to L-core multi-crew capital ships in stationary fleet fights. These tough, heavy, expensive ships would still be a liability in cost to build and operate, as they should be, but if properly supported and utilized they could measure up to the current light/fast S-core and M-core meta. I've tried to think through many scenarios with this mechanic to try to find problems, but I'm only one brain. Does anyone see any issues?
  18. As of Mercury patch, delivered in June 2022, this problem has been FIXED. Positional desync is now very minimal. No more teleports and very little jitter.
  19. Currently L-cores aren't an attractive option to use in pvp. This is because: L-cores have less dps than M and S cores against standard cross sections. (L-cores don't exceed the dps of M-cores of the same weapon type until the target is above ~1600m² cross section) L-cores have less mobility due to their weapons and ammo being heavier. L-cores have less effective shield hp due to their guns being larger in cross section. L-cores cost more to build, warp, and operate than smaller ships. I've thought of a few ideas to address some of these shortcomings. To give L weapons more offensive clout without making them too strong, increase their alpha strike damage. Double their hit damage, but also double cycle time. This allows them to better take advantage of brief opportunities to land a hit and improves their ability to focus fire with many L-cores on a single target and attempt to eliminate it in one salvo, which would make them scary in large numbers. For example: a maxed damage exotic L railgun would do 505k damage per hit rather than the current 253k, but would fire every 19.4 seconds rather than the current 9.7 seconds. This might sound scary, but considering the low chance to hit of L weapons, the actual alpha damage would usually only be 1-2 hits of a salvo. (L ammo mass and volume values would also have to be doubled so that L-cores don't gain a ton of value in ammo efficiency and magazine size. Though maybe that might not be so bad.) To increase L-core utility, give L guns the ability to knock ships around; their hits apply torque to targets. This knocks the target off course and disrupts the steadiness of their aim which could make them lose dps by exceeding optimal tracking values. These pushes shouldn't be so strong that the target can't even fly - just small bumps that shove their orientation by 1-5 degrees in a random direction. In this way L-cores would be good support fire. You couldn't ignore them. L-cannons especially, with their higher rate of fire, would continuously knock around targets. Give L-cores more value from voxels. Give them a solid bonus to voxel hp and ccs - maybe +25-50%. This allows them to be tanky in a different way than smaller ships. (NOTE: I do see a problem with this - players could build on a L dynamic core and fit it with M-guns. I can't think of a way to solve that besides removing the ability to fit down-sized guns on larger cores. It makes things complicated by allowing L-cores to be too versatile - able to fit point defense S-cannons to deal with S-cores that get too close rather than having to rely on S-core support ships to drive them away, etc.) I think these changes could give L-cores a niche on the battlefield without taking away from the roles of other ship sizes. L-cores would be a powerful support dps tool - one that is difficult to remove from the battlefield.
  20. Because this method provides another quanta sink for the game and a cute passive income for those that train into it.
  21. Guys, these fees and taxes are not only necessary, they're beneficial to you. The game needs quanta sinks. Without them there will be inflation and everything costs more. You lose purchasing power either way. Remember when hematite cost more than 100 q/L? This was because missions were pumping billions per day into the economy. Now missions are nerfed. People think of them as pointless - why would I want to fly 7 hours for a only 8M quanta? But after the wipe things will be different. If inflation is kept down missions remain relevant. A XL package mission might be enough to buy a M-core ship, or whole megaliter of T1 ore. But only if quanta is leaving the economy down the drain of sinks. The players demanded cheaper territory taxes and NQ gave it to them. Now NQ has to make it up in other areas. They have metrics about the quanta coming into and leaving the game, and they know how much sink and how much faucet they need. This system is smart because it continues to be a cost burden to industrialists for as long as they continue to play, rather than one lump sum for an expensive schematic that never needs to be replaced. In this way, the economy remains steady. No mega-industrialist who bought every schematic in the game 2 years ago and now provides 25% of the elements needed for the whole playerbase. They will have to rely on you to produce their items, buying your schematics from the market. So you can recoup the costs of producing the schematics by just selling them on the market. The market value will never be below the cost to produce unless the item is just completely unwanted. So in a way, this system is actually an EASY INCOME for players. Just use your slots to produce desirable schematics and sell them on the market. Free money for you.
  22. I don't think the PvP community asked for it. The adjustor nerf for heavy ships was an unexpected part of a multi-prong attempt by NQ to make heavy L-cores no longer the defacto meta ship. And it worked - these days M-cores and Scores are supreme. Light Scores can easily outmaneuver heavy Lcores by getting close and orbiting them, or just jousting back and forth at close range, forcing the Lcore to do 180s. This is a great way to balance ship size because it depends on player skill to execute and counter, not just stats. So I really like it. But I don't think it should affect ships in atmo.
  23. NQ has been doing great with their recent changes to PvP and I just wanted to show @NQ-Entropyhow clean it is right now. The desync fixes made it so much better. So here's a little video of a fight I participated in last week. (Side note: have you guys ever considered an options wheel for combat actions such as engage, disengage, reload, etc? This right clicking on a marker/widget stuff is pretty awkward.)
  24. Nice update. A lot of great changes. PvP desync seems to have been fixed. I did a brief test today with a friend and saw zero problems. Hopefully it holds up in large scale fights. If NQ has actually completely solved the problem, then PvP is going to be so much more fun for me. Thanks NQ. Build box grid hiding is the cherry on top.
×
×
  • Create New...