| Author |
Discussion about the state of ICC |
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
|  Posted: 2014-02-01 17:58
Let me start off saying that I am not claiming ICC is underpowered or calling any other factions overpowered, I just want to air some grievances that many ICC players have regarding certain changes since 1.6 and recently 1.7, and hopefully start a discussion and not a flame war. I am a dedicated ICC player so please do not think I am saying the other factions do not have issues. I am simply most familiar with the frustrations of the ICC. With that said here we go:
1. Missiles: When 1.7 came out ICC was the king of missiles and a lot of our power came from this. It made our battle station incredible. It made the missile dreadnaught and line dreadnaught feared engines of destruction, which was great because our other dreads were underwhelming (more on this later). We were able to make up for the lackluster power of our cannons, beams, and torpedoes with the might of our missiles. But then in 1.701 missiles were butchered. The damage was massively cut, the accuracy was massively cut, the minimum range was massively increased and the firing angles were changed to the worst possible configurations. 1.703 has fixed this a little bit and missiles at least somewhat work again, but the firing angles are still bullsnap and if you are not facing a dread at the right angle when you fire, they will still miss about half the time. But now the problem is that ICC missiles no longer really feel special.
ICC dread grade strike missiles: 11s reload, 3.5 energy, 2750gu range, 600gu arming range, 7920-13200 damage. Comes out to 720-1200DPS.
UGTO dread grade strike missiles: 11s reload, 4.4 energy, 2500gu range, 600gu arming range, 6600-19800 damage. Comes out to 600-1800DPS.
They are essentially equivalent to UGTO missiles with a token increase in range. UGTO missiles even have significantly more maximum damage potential.
2. Pulse Shield: Related to missiles and ICC long range superiority. Maybe the pulse shield was a little too strong in 1.7 with the PD reduction. But the current iteration is a bit too much. A 50% chance to destroy a projectile within 300gu every 90 seconds is bordering on insulting.
3. Resistances/shields/armor: So you took away all resistances shields had and gave composite armor a bit of EMP resistance. Great. But not really. Looking past the fact that our shields have less HP to start with in addition to no resistances, there are certain problems with relying fully on composite armor for EMP resistance. For example the ships which don’t have composite armor get absolutely annihilated by EMP damage. For example the strike carrier, or the rear arc of the Line Dread. This was also at the same time UGTO got an armor resistant to kinetic energy that has high HP and a high regen. Most missiles and cannons deal kinetic damage. What weapons compose the majority of the ICC arsenal? Missiles and cannons.
4. ECM: So a bunch of ICC ships have enough ECM to maintain a negative sig, and they give up a lot of energy and gadget slots to do so. Too bad it is still incredibly easy to go out and find them based on where their weapons/fighters are coming from. And since moving massively increases visual detection now you can’t really move even though you need to move to keep your location a secret. Catch 22. The massive 1080gu visual detection on dreads at full throttle and the strike carrier come to mind. If it wasn’t for those times we were fighting luth and we could swap out all of those for ECCM I would far prefer another gadget.
5. Dread Design: ICC dreads are…. Not great. The line dread is really the only good ICC dread which is why it has by far the most usage by ICC players. The combat dread is decent but will lose at short/medium range. We lack a good balanced versatile cannon/torpedo dreadnaught.
To help illustrate my point, let’s take a focused look at the ICC Assault Dreadnaught and why it went from arguably the best ship in the game to a ship nobody wants to fly.
So the equivalent UGTO dread, the halbard dread does anywhere between 5.4% and 51.8% more DPS than the Assault Dread, and that isn’t even accounting for the increased beam falloff ICC suffer. So the AD will get spanked. But Chewy Squirrel! The UGTO are meant to win in a close range battle with the ICC, you may say. Of course they are, and this was also true in 1.6 when the AD was actually used. So what changed? Well in 1.6 the AD would lose at close range as well but it also embodied one of the design philosophies of the ICC in that it was versatile. It could engage a target most effectively at close range but it could also engage a target fairly well at medium range and still do decently against a target even at long range(with its generous ion cannons). So while it would lose at close range with a UGTO assault ship, it wouldn’t lose too terribly, and when at medium/long range it was better than that UGTO assault ship. Balance! But now, the AD loses at close range and is completely ineffective at medium/long range, putting it in the category of “why bother” at best and “death trap” at worst.
6. T3 grievances: So the T3 cruiser and T3 destroyer were fixed in 1.702. But I think the T3 frigate and T3 dread also need to be looked at. The Sniper frigate is a line frigate with 3 more ECMs and staggering energy problems. It can’t use more than 1 of its 3 roles without sucking itself dry. The best use I found for it is an area ECM/ECCM boat with very minimal offensive abilities. And it also still somehow manages to miss other ships with its missiles, which is incredibly frustrating. IMO the only ships frigate grade missiles should have a chance of missing should be corvettes, other frigates, and rarely destroyers.
The Strike carrier firstly has the issue of a lack of composite armor allowing it to be completely disabled by EMP in almost no time at all. Secondly it has terrible weapon arcs. Only 8 cannons can be fired at a time, along with 6 fighters. Pretty terrible DPS. Perhaps a similar treatment as the strike cruiser could fix it, by giving it limited Ion Cannon firing arcs so that it could at least bring more of its firepower to bear at once. Thirdly, the ECM issue in point 4.
As a completely separate and minor point, why is it that only 2 ICC ships have Ion Cannons? It is our best weapon and it is nowhere to be found.
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2014-02-01 18:01 ]
_________________
|
Marshalrol
Chief Marshal
Joined: August 29, 2007
Posts: 18
From: Nassau,Bahamas
| Posted: 2014-02-02 10:40
I would have to agree relating ICC this is a huge problem just hope in near future this is address.
_________________
|
Orkan [OO-XII]
Grand Admiral
The Myrmidon Legion
Joined: April 22, 2010
Posts: 201
From: A Point Perfectly Computed Yet Never Repeating
| Posted: 2014-02-02 21:37
I also maintain that if ICC weapons are to remain at such a low DPS then increase the shield HP across the board or give different shields a resistance to energy or kinetic weapons in the same manner that UGTO armour is resistant to energy or kinetic weapons.
I do not mind the fact that ICC has the lowest damage output but as the game description in the manual describes them as 'tough nuts to crack' I feel that things have shifted too much since that was true.
Balance should mean that ships of the same class and type should be able to, at dead-stop mid-range face off, fire at each other and mutually destroy each other at the same time. This would mean that for a ship to destroy its 'true' equal superior piloting and fire accuracy as well as systems management would enable a 'better' pilot to defeat another in a ship of equal type and class.
1.70* is a version which seems to be ideal for battles of 20 per faction, perhaps that then results in a balanced battlefield. Even 10 vs 10 vs 10 is a great but incredibly rarely seen balanced battle. Those are unrealistic numbers at present. In reality even on the weekend numbers are more like 6 per faction on average, and that would be good day. At quiet times it is literally a ghost-town with say 4-7 people online spread across all factions.
In any case it seems to me as if 2 ICC ships are roughly equal to 1 K'Luth or 1 UGTO ship of the same class both in damage output and defensive strength. If I am wrong please correct me. It just seems that way when flying.
when flying ICC jumping is part of the necessary survival mechanic. Jumping as ICC is a way to prolong combat (use regen) and then reengage. So called 'duelling' without jumping in most if not all ICC ships results in the opponent destroying the ICC ship if the pilots are of equal skill.
I wonder what the result would be if all faction ai only could be pitted against one another. The results would be interesting. I have a feeling that most ICC ships would be destroyed by their UGTO and K'Luth ai opponents. Has a test of this nature ever been carried out with the 'jump' script disabled?
ICC ships should have the lowest weapon output which they do but have a much greater defensive nature.
What seems to have happened is that the armour values of the other two factions has slowly been creeping up and up and that the initial defensive advantage that ICC is supposed to have is now only slightly numerically greater that in actual combat they are actually weaker as their weapons damage has either stayed the same or been reduced over time. (now sabots and missiles)
Due to all round faction armour buffs (even the latest chitin 'nerf' is not 'nerf' enough I feel) ICC ships feel combat ineffective and need to have great superior numbers to break even or make progress in the battlespace. When ICC make territorial progress it is almost always because there are more ICC online than any opponents, even then one defending UGTO or K'Luth player can delay an assault with great effectiveness around their own planet and dico.
Damage output on most ships is so minimal that even when working as a highly coordinated team (4 or more on one) damage dealt is soooo slow.
We were using two Storm cruisers one time (great ships may I add when in range) on a single UGTO player battle cruiser and massing fire on their rear arc but still no cigar and the player managed to jump with little problem when they felt it was time to leave. This was outside of a dico.
A Combat dread (which is one of the best of the ICC dreads) can fire at an enemy transport for ages and most of the time the transport can jump away without being destroyed and I'm talking ai!
The changes to out of combat shield recharge are great but I feel that in the end in order to balance things properly either overall shield HP should be increased or in combat recharge doubled from where it is at present or shields should have resistances.
Regarding Ion cannons, at least 2 more ship types should have them.
one destroyer and one cruiser if not the destroyer then one more dread, say flagship or assault.
Does a tier 3 K'Luth destroyer have Stellar incinerators still?
Also perhaps the range for railguns could be extended to 3000-2500gu if the damage is to stay where it is. This would miss all but the slowest of targets in anycase and would give the rails a better use rather than a low 250gu range advantage which evaporates in one second when two ships close for combat.
ICC is an incredibly weak faction at present.
[ This Message was edited by: Orkan [OO-XII] on 2014-02-03 08:06 ]
_________________
![Email Orkan [OO-XII]](http://www1.palestar.com/gamecq/phpBB/images/email.gif)
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2014-02-02 21:42
So you've described the current situation. How would you improve it?
_________________
|
Jhomes
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 22, 2013
Posts: 92
| Posted: 2014-02-03 01:01
I want to start off by saying that I love this game. I started off in the 1.6 era and was hooked instantly. Since then I have played nearly everyday and have learned everything there is to know about this game and kept up with all the changes and had to adapt as any experienced player learns to do. This was my first and main account however i have a character in each faction in order to fully enjoy and understand this game. Also i feel i should make clear that It goes without saying that i have deep respect for all of the developers and moderators that make this game possible because without them i would not have a game to love.
Ok now that that is understood...I am extremeley disapointed in the developers and moderators that are in charge of this game. Time and time again we are not taken seriously and given answers that are insulting when we point out problems to them. I was recently told (by ENT) that no icc ships have any problems and that quote "Trust me, ICC is just fine".
how can you guys say this when we have a huge list of ships that not only lack the weapon damage but the weapon ammo to destroy simple targets. Our frigate class ships are all nearly completeley useless except for 3 of them and 2 of those are the same ship (line frigate and sniper frigate which i will get to later). The patrol frigate for example is a standard tier 1 combat ship with 2 heavy and 2 light railguns. This ship does so little damage that targets no matter small or large regen faster than you can damage them and the frigates carry so little ammo that fighting even the smallest target is futile. This same theme repeats itself in nearly every icc frigate and as a result there is no one using them. No one using a ship because its useless is 100% a problem with icc ships.
List of ships with problems
FRIGATES
1. Sensor Frigate- PROBLEM- damage/ammo) useful ewar abilities however countered with lack of ammo and damage to attack target with its 2 heavy 1 light gauss guns. This ship is rarely seen in use.
2. Patrol Frigate- PROBLEM- very low damage/ammo) a sadly useless ship lacking the damage or ammo required to attack even a ship of its own size.
This ship is rarely seen in use.
3. Sabre Frigate- PROBLEM- very high risk/low damage) 1 heavy beam 2 regulars beams, 4 instead of 1 PD pulse beams, ship which must risk very close contact to attack but then finds it cannot deal enough damage to stop even a ship of its own size. actually less firepower than the supposed lesser lance frigate. I have never seen this ship in use.
3. Lance Frigate- PROBLEM- very high risk/low damage) 7 beam lasers... as we know 4 standard lasers=1 heavy beam so despite technically having more firepower than the sabre it still suffers the same fate when attempting to attack even ships of its own size. I have never seen this ship in use.
4. Missile Frigate- PROBLEM- low energy production) runs out of energy very early in combat due to its single aux reactor. This ship is in use.
5. Sniper Frigate/Mline Frigate- PROBLEM- deja vu) these 2 ships are exactly the same in every single way except the tier 3 sniper frigate has 3 extra ecms which it cannot use in combat without dropping its energy to 0 in seconds. Just like the mline, the sniper has 3 heavy gauss guns along with 5 missiles, however the gauss guns arcs are terrible and are side fire only. This makes sense in the tier 2 mline frigate because it is tier 2 and must expect tradeoffs, but is unacceptable in a tier 3 frigate when ugto and kluth tier 3 frigates are far superior ships. dropping the gauss guns on the sniper and refitting with a single forward only ion cannon is a quick and easy fix without adding or subtracting significant firepower. I personally use the sniper frigate and it needs to be changed.
The frigates not listed here have use in some situations.
DESTROYERS
1. Patrol Destroyer- PROBLEM- low damage) standard tier 1 combat ship with 3 heavy railguns and 4 light, less than impressive fire arcs leads to low damage to enemy targets. Struggles to engage even frigate sized ships. This ship is rarely seen in use.
2. Combat Destroyer-PROBLEM- poor fire arcs) classic cannon torpedo combination should be effective but is crippled by poor fire arcs. Ship has 10 torpedos but can only fire 6 forward, 3 on each side and 4 backwards. One of many examples of looking good on paper until fire arcs are revealed.
This ship is in use.
3. Minelayer Destroyer-PROBLEM- very poor fire arcs/armor placement)
ship with 12 torpedos but only can fire a max of 6 at once, armor x3 placed on sides and back with only shields in the front makes for ackward combat when attempting to engage anything with both mines and torpedos
This ship is rarely seen in use.
4. Interceptor Destroyer-PROBLEM- high risk/low damage) 1 heavy beam 7 standard beam lasers is enough to engage enemy ship but the damage is far too low for the high risk of close combat. I have never seen this ship in use.
5. Escort Destroyer-PROBLEM- useless) a ship with point defense as its main use however it being a small ship still means the amount of PD beams is small and not useful enough on its own. I have never seen this ship in use.
The destroyers not mentioned here are able to compensate for any problems.
Cruisers
1. Light Cruiser-PROBLEM- low damage) featuring 6 heavy railguns as only armament this ship struggles to engage anything larger than a destroyer no matter the weapon configuration you choose. (btw ugto interceptor cruiser has same problem) 6 heavy guns alone is just not enough. This ship is in use.
2. Heavy Cruiser-PROBLEM- poor forward fire arc) technically not a bad ship but is equipped with 12 torpedos yet can only fire 4 forward and 8 on each side. traditionally good icc broadside fire but only firing 4 forward and 2 backwards is quite a large tradeoff. Another example of looking better on paper than in gameplay. This ship is in use.
Cruisers not mentioned here have no problems worth mentioning individually.
Dreadnoughts
1. Assault Dreadnought-PROBLEM- poor armor placement/lacks firepower of equivilant enemy ships) armor x5 with second plate in front may seem good but dreadnought low turn rate makes very vuln to close attack. Far less firepower and defense than equivilant ships of other factions leads to Assault dread losing close combat battles with cruisers and dreadnoughts very often. Very limited use makes Assault Dreadnought merely a shadow of its former versitile self. This ship is rarely seen in use.
2. Heavy Missile Dreadnought-PROBLEM- defense/offense) less missiles and less armor than the standard missile dreadnought makes this ships title a bit odd, the heavy missile dreadnought features ecms to attempt to be stealthed while attacking. However missile range and signature increase of recharging missiles makes this ship nothing but a Heavy burden.
I have never seen this ship in use.
3. Flagship Dreadnought-PROBLEM- basic armament lacking appropriate capital weapons) command ship featuring great electronic systems and priceless wormhole device yet its 14 railgun armament is uninspired. Simply a large amount of the most basic icc weapon proves ineffective and unintimidating when trading blows with so called equivilant enemy ships.
This ship is in use.
4. Strike Carrier-PROBLEM- basic armament lacking appropriate capital weapons/EMP vuln) another high rank ship equipped with large amount of low rank basic heavy railguns. Lacks capital ion cannon weapons appropriate for such a difficult to attain trophy. Complete lack of composite armor means the shields transfer emp damage directly to the hull devastating ship systems quickly and disabling ship beyond repair.
This ship is rarely seen in use. (due to high rank mostly)
5. Line Dreadnought-PROBLEM- none really  this is another icc dreadnought making the 4th that has a large amount of basic icc railguns. but the need for them to be replaced or augmented with capital ion cannons is canceled by the fact that is has a brutal missile payload. i mentioned this ship only to show that its fine to have many basic heavy railguns when its not the only main weapon. This ship is unofficially the favorite of icc and is a common site.
That concludes my list of PROBLEM ships.
Now to cover the universal ICC problem.
ICC weapon damage is too low. We have all been saying this for a long time but have been told time and time again that we do more damage per second. This is not true and i am not sure why i am still hearing this. Even if i ignore the math it is very obvious when playing other factions that icc weapons take much longer to destroy enemys than ugto or kluth. Now kluth do massive damage and that is expected, and they carry more weapons per ship than ugto or icc. I want to focus on the railgun/particle cannon for now. Ill start with an easy to understand example. Using an ICC heavy cruiser i attack an UGTO supply platform from 1000 gu using only my railguns. I hit the platform with a single round of fire. That is 3 heavy railguns and 2 light railguns. The platform takes damage of 1-2% off of total armor. Now i repeat this with an ugto cousin the battle cruiser. i fire at the same UGTO supply platform using particle cannons only, that is 4 heavy particle cannons which is equivilant to the 3 heavy 2 light of the heavy cruiser. At 1000 gu the platforms takes damage of 3% and at 90 gu the platform takes 4-5% damage from a single round of the 4 particle cannons. Even with maximum falloff in place the particle cannon damage is greater. The recharge times on railguns and particle cannons differ by only 1 second. This is but 1 simple example of the difference in weapon damage i have countless other examples that do not need to be presented as this is easy to see for yourselves and any experienced player would already know this. This same damage difference applies for all of our weapons compared with the ugto equivilant. I have been told that range is supposed to be icc advantage but anyone who has played this game knows that even a dreadnought can dodge a railgun from 1200 max range and combat takes place anywhere from 100-600 somwher around there. A pathetic 200 extra range that a railgun has over a particle cannon is not an advantage when the particle cannon still does more even when maximum falloff is in place.
The simple fact is that ICC cannot compete with ugto or kluth in battle we lack the ship variety, the ship quality and most importently the weapon damage. This falls on you developers you did this and need to admit the mistake already. Its not a big deal just please acknowledge this before ICC is gone completeley. I recently was told the system layouts are changing again and that ICC will have territory back when that happens but if nothing is done to FIX ICC then what will prevent this from immediatley happening again? This is not just one persons opinion, ICC needs help, all of the experienced ICC players feel this way. I dont know why you guys do not see it, but i hoped if anything I may have shed a little light on some of the reasons we are being slaughtered. Unless the goal is to rid Darkspace of ICC and have only 2 factions somthing MUST be done right away.
THANK YOU TO ANYONE WHO READ THIS FAR AND TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY. I had no fun at all writing this. I hate doing this but I love this game and I want what we all want. A better Darkspace for all.
thanks.
Jason (Jhomes)
_________________
|
Orkan [OO-XII]
Grand Admiral
The Myrmidon Legion
Joined: April 22, 2010
Posts: 201
From: A Point Perfectly Computed Yet Never Repeating
| Posted: 2014-02-03 07:36
Actually for E-war the sensor frigate is my personal favourite. It is not a combat ship in the slightest and solely is great for e-war. It trumps a scout and sniper easily.
Its only weakness in a seek role is it's lack of beacon. Ideally it should be paired with a scout for this. However with even 4 players on hunting Luth for example which commander is going to water down ICC firepower even further by asking two pilots to run ewar.
They may find what they are looking for, but then they'll have to just look at it as it either escapes or mows them down. : P
As I stated earlier with 20 pilots online per faction ewar would be great, we would see Sensor Frigates and veils which enhanced the deadliness of any attached fleet, as it is numbers are just way too low and ICC are forced to trade a keen nose for blunt weapons to try to fight back and hold their own.
To be honest I'm done with tier 2 ships mainly because they don't give me the raw firepower or defenses I need to stay level. Why fly an assault cruiser if a storm cruiser performs better at close combat. The shields of the storm mean you can stay in combat for as long as you need. An assault has to run soon cos it's defenses (shield and armour just can't stand up to close combat versus UGTO and their EMP and Luth and their close range disruptors.
I find I like the Light cruiser cos of its arc coverage and it is actually a great sniper with great shielding - It can hold its own against a krill but it cannot hope to do much damage quickly. The Light Cruiser is underrated by pilots least of all because its name is actually a misnomer. This is a great cruiser to take out plats around a planet which still has its dico up without entering that dangerous field. It will seem to take forever though.
With valance cannons its actually good up close too, especially with ships whose armour is weak to energy weapons.
Tier one ships are where it's at, a jack of all trades is a master of none.
_________________
|
Forger of Destiny
Chief Marshal
We Kick Arse
Joined: October 10, 2009
Posts: 826
| Posted: 2014-02-03 08:34
seems people are mostly mentioning the ICC cannon ships here.
cannon types are intended to fight ships of lower class. a light cruiser should be used against some kind of destroyer, not a dreadnought, in general.
i note here, that ICC torpedo ships seem to have their share of respect, bar the AD (due to beam role on a dread) and heavy cruiser (due to cannon role). way to go, tempest cruiser and torpedo dread!
_________________
Forging legends and lives outside till naught remains inside.
|
Pantheon
Marshal
Palestar
Joined: May 29, 2001
Posts: 1789
| Posted: 2014-02-03 08:45
I don't see defence numbers here. Suspiciously overlooked. Same with falloff.
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2014-02-03 08:45 ]
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2014-02-03 09:37
Quote:
On 2014-02-03 08:45, Pantheon wrote:
I don't see defence numbers here. Suspiciously overlooked. Same with falloff.
[ This Message was edited by: Pantheon on 2014-02-03 08:45 ]
|
This is because UGTO and KLuth's single biggest weakness is that you only need to through 1/4th of the armor to get to the hull. For ICC, you need to go through all their shields.
In addition, ICC ships can fit Auxillary Shields which provide a significant boost to overall ship HP and regen, thereby putting any ship that can fit them at a higher HP threshold than other ships of the same class.
ICC weapons have no falloff on all but Valence cannons and the greatest range. What they lack in volley damage they can make up for in DPS and energy efficiency. Ammo is restrictive on purpose. Most of the complaints listed with ships offer no specific instances of why they are not good for their intended role (for example, frigates have no inherent risk due to zero prestige loss, and specific ships fill specific roles). I see nothing of the sort.
UGTO can counter a majority of ICC's range based weaponry which provides much lower risk by fitting ablative which reduces their damage by 50%, but Valence cannons and Fusion Torps and beam weapons deal energy damage which can counter this.
UGTO also can use EMP (and Kluth can use ELF) to deal 50% more damage to shields, although EMP and ELF based weapons do less damage overall.
-Ent
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2014-02-03 09:50
Rock is over powered. Paper is balanced - Scissors
If all you look at is one stat (in this case DPS), UGTO missiles come out. Hey look, UGTO missiles cost more energy to fire. That means it's more cost expensive for a UGTO ship to fire missiles compared to an ICC one. Maybe...maybe that means an ICC missile ship can be more maneuverable then a UGTO missile ship. I mean, that's not like the faction design or anything.
Quote:
2. Pulse Shield
Hey can we just completely negate everybody's long range advantage except our own? Please? With one ship? Like it used to be?
|
Yeaaaah no. Maybe something higher then 50% is warranted but where do we place it? 60%? 70%?
Quote:
3. Resistances/shields/armor:
|
Okay so you obviously have no idea how effective hp works. Let me explain. Armor with 10,000 hp and 0% kinetic resistance has the same EHP a ship with 5,000 hp and 50% kinetic resistance. Also what armor does the UGTO have that has high HP, regen, *and* kinetic resistance? With numbers please.
Quote:
But but they're using armor specifically meant to reduce kinetic damage and all of our damage is kinetic
|
.....So stop using purely kinetic weapons. Weapons that deal mixed damage (ie: kinetic AND energy) will not suffer as much as a resistance then pure kinetic. Most weapons in the game are kinetic, for all factions.
Quote:
4. ECM:
ECM isn't cloak WHAT DO?
|
.......
Quote:
5. Dread Design:
Hey the UGTO assault dread does more DPS at REALLY close range (<250gu because of the HCL range, nevermind that HCL has HUGE falloff and everything) then the ICC Assault dread. ALSO JUST IGNORE THE LACK OF FALLOFF AND ASSUME EVERYTHING DOES MAX DAMAGE BECAUSE THAT ALWAYS HAPPENS. OH AND NEVERMIND THE FACT THE UGTO DREAD TAKES TWICE AS MUCH ENERGY THEN I DOTO DO POSSIBLY 50% MORE DAMAGE AT SUPER CLOSE RANGE.
Also it's now ineffective at medium range but i'm not going to say why or anything.
|
?????????????
Quote:
6. T3 grievances:
THE ONLY LEGITIMATE COMPLAINT AND POSSIBLE ISSUE IN THIS ENTIRE POST
|
okay they'll probably get looked at
Quote:
Carrier DPS too weak, only 8 cannons and six fighters????
and why it take damage so easily????
|
I can't tell if you're being serious here or not so i'm going to pretend you're joking. Can you explain to me why you think a carrier should be heavily armored and have more non-fighter weapons on it again?
tl;dr:
[ This Message was edited by: Fattierob on 2014-02-03 10:01 ]
_________________
|
Chewy Squirrel
Chief Marshal
Joined: January 27, 2003
Posts: 304
From: NYC
| Posted: 2014-02-03 11:00
Quote:
1. Missiles:
If all you look at is one stat (in this case DPS), UGTO missiles come out. Hey look, UGTO missiles cost more energy to fire. That means it's more cost expensive for a UGTO ship to fire missiles compared to an ICC one. Maybe...maybe that means an ICC missile ship can be more maneuverable then a UGTO missile ship. I mean, that's not like the faction design or anything.
|
I was under the impression that the reason ICC weapons cost less energy to fire was because of the energy shields take. Which is why in lore ICC ships use projectile and not energy weapons to save on power. A ship with 4 shields uses .4 en/s, the production of 1 and 1/3 aux generators. A ship with 8 shields uses .8en/s, a massive 2 and 2/3 aux generators. So the lower energy of missiles seems like a necessity more than a bonus since UGTO do not have the innate drain of shields and therefore can afford more energy to missiles.
Quote:
2. Pulse Shield
Hey can we just completely negate everybody's long range advantage except our own? Please? With one ship? Like it used to be?
|
I am not asking for that. At least up its range and let it hit fighters again. The 300gu range is crippling even for missiles defence. Hell timing it so that missiles are within 300gu given the speed they travel at requires active concentration and timing it so that all 3 volleys of skirmish missiles are within 300gu is damn near impossible.
Quote:
3. Resistances/shields/armor:
Okay so you obviously have no idea how effective hp works. Let me explain. Armor with 10,000 hp and 0% kinetic resistance has the same EHP a ship with 5,000 hp and 50% kinetic resistance. Also what armor does the UGTO have that has high HP, regen, *and* kinetic resistance? With numbers please.
|
I know exactly how effective HP works. I have no idea what your argument is. ICC shields have less HP and no resistances so there is no EHP math that makes them come out ahead.
also:
Copy and pasted straight from the dev log:
- Ablative Armor
-- High HP
-- Fast regen
-- High mass
-- Bonus resistance to Kinetic damage
-- Weak resistance to Energy damage
Quote:
But but they're using armor specifically meant to reduce kinetic damage and all of our damage is kinetic
.....So stop using purely kinetic weapons. Weapons that deal mixed damage (ie: kinetic AND energy) will not suffer as much as a resistance then pure kinetic. Most weapons in the game are kinetic, for all factions.
|
All long range weapons are kinetic. I thought ICC was supposed to be the long range faction? I actually had no idea that the resistance of ablative was set to 50% of kinetic. You say our pulse shield used to eliminate other factions long range advantage by taking out 50% of projectiles regularly. Well UGTO armor eliminates our faction long range advantage by negating 50% of the damage we deal.
Quote:
4. ECM:
ECM isn't cloak WHAT DO?
.......
|
I don't know how to make a counter counter argument to this because there was no counter argument
Quote:
5. Dread Design:
Hey the UGTO assault dread does more DPS at REALLY close range (<250gu because of the HCL range, nevermind that HCL has HUGE falloff and everything) then the ICC Assault dread. ALSO JUST IGNORE THE LACK OF FALLOFF AND ASSUME EVERYTHING DOES MAX DAMAGE BECAUSE THAT ALWAYS HAPPENS. OH AND NEVERMIND THE FACT THE UGTO DREAD TAKES TWICE AS MUCH ENERGY THEN I DOTO DO POSSIBLY 50% MORE DAMAGE AT SUPER CLOSE RANGE.
Also it's now ineffective at medium range but i'm not going to say why or anything.
|
In 1.6 it looked something like this:
Assault dread:
Short range: Good
Medium range: Pretty Good
Long range: Decent
EAD:
Short range: Excellent
Medium range: Decent
Long range: Poor
In 1.7 its more like
Assault dread:
Short range: Good
Medium Range: Ineffective
Long Range: Ineffective
Halbard Dread:
Short Range: Excellent
Medium Range: Ineffective
Long Range: Ineffective
The AD used to be more versatile which made up for it losing in a 1v1 with other assault ships.
Quote:
Carrier DPS too weak, only 8 cannons and six fighters????
and why it take damage so easily????
I can't tell if you're being serious here or not so i'm going to pretend you're joking. Can you explain to me why you think a carrier should be heavily armored and have more non-fighter weapons on it again?
|
It should be armored because of the silly way EMP damage currently works vs ICC in that composite armor is our only protection.
And its only 1/3 carrier. It is also 1/3 gunboat and 1/3 ewar. That also makes it 2/3 combat so it should at least have a decent DPS. I'm not exacty asking for more weapons, just more usable weapons.
[ This Message was edited by: Chewy Squirrel on 2014-02-03 11:01 ]
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2014-02-03 11:34
Okay now we're getting somewhere
Quote:
On 2014-02-03 11:00, Chewy Squirrel wrote:
I was under the impression that the reason ICC weapons cost less energy to fire was because of the energy shields take. Which is why in lore ICC ships use projectile and not energy weapons to save on power. A ship with 4 shields uses .4 en/s, the production of 1 and 1/3 aux generators. A ship with 8 shields uses .8en/s, a massive 2 and 2/3 aux generators. So the lower energy of missiles seems like a necessity more than a bonus since UGTO do not have the innate drain of shields and therefore can afford more energy to missiles.
|
ICC weapons cost less energy to fire because energy is maneuverability (specifically, energy regeneration and max energy). That's the idea, so they can they more maneuverable then their counterparts. It's *not* to make up for the energy drain of shields. It's to make them more maneuverable. Maybe shields are draining too much? I don't know but this is a more concrete and arguable concept
Quote:
I am not asking for that. At least up its range and let it hit fighters again. The 300gu range is crippling even for missiles defence. Hell timing it so that missiles are within 300gu given the speed they travel at requires active concentration and timing it so that all 3 volleys of skirmish missiles are within 300gu is damn near impossible.
|
Legitimate complaint but i'm not well versed on the reasons for the pulse shield "nerf" way back when.
Quote:
I know exactly how effective HP works. I have no idea what your argument is. ICC shields have less HP and no resistances so there is no EHP math that makes them come out ahead.
|
Exactly. ICC shields have more effect EHP then previous versions because their math *was* incorrectly done. Remember reactive shields having HALF the hp cost but only 20% damage reduction making them utterly useless? I don't know what precisely Jim did to the shields since 1.7 but things are a lot more stable then before
Quote:
Copy and pasted straight from the dev log:
- Ablative Armor
-- High HP
-- Fast regen
-- High mass
-- Bonus resistance to Kinetic damage
-- Weak resistance to Energy damage
|
These aren't numbers. These are words.
Also see the line "High Mass"? That makes them even less maneuverable.
Quote:
All long range weapons are kinetic. I thought ICC was supposed to be the long range faction? I actually had no idea that the resistance of ablative was set to 50% of kinetic. You say our pulse shield used to eliminate other factions long range advantage by taking out 50% of projectiles regularly. Well UGTO armor eliminates our faction long range advantage by negating 50% of the damage we deal.
|
I never said the resistance of kinetic was set to 50%. I was making an example. And not ALL long range weapons are kinetic, most of them are part kinetic at the very least.
If UGTO armor 'negates' your faction advantage then your long range 'negates' their close range damage faction advantage. That's not a very strong argument to go down
Quote:
I don't know how to make a counter counter argument to this because there was no counter argument
|
That's my line. You're complaining that ECM doesn't make the ship magically disappear. I don't know what you want me to say about that. Or what you want
Quote:
In 1.7 its more like
Assault dread:
Short range: Good
Medium Range: Ineffective
Long Range: Ineffective
|
What makes you say this? Because you believe the torpedoes are ineffective at medium range? or is it something?
Quote:
It should be armored because of the silly way EMP damage currently works vs ICC in that composite armor is our only protection.
And its only 1/3 carrier. It is also 1/3 gunboat and 1/3 ewar. That also makes it 2/3 combat so it should at least have a decent DPS. I'm not exacty asking for more weapons, just more usable weapons.
|
Just because something is listed as "Carrier/gunboat/ewar" doesn't mean it's precisely split 33% amongst those lines. This is also a valid complaint, but I believe carriers get an armor reduction in the 'strategem' part of designing a ship so that is probably why you're missing something like a full plate of EMP. Hopefully Jim can comment on that more, but I can't.
also thank you for taking the time to more fully flesh out your complaints. I hate it when people just rant about things that are broken but don't offer any ideas as to why it's broken or any suggestions to fix it.
[ This Message was edited by: Fattierob on 2014-02-03 11:35 ]
_________________
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Raven Warriors
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2014-02-03 11:40
Ablative armor does negate 50% of kinetic damage, and take 50% extra damage from energy weapons.
Reflective does the converse.
Ablative armor regens at the same rate that Composite Armor does. Shields far outpace both.
Shields also do suffer a natural penalty to EMP weapons, but again those EMP weapons do lower base damage as well.
While ICC weapons do have more range, they also have a lot of close range ships that can be serious tanks without sacrificing arc coverage or manueverability. UGTO does a lot of in your face damage but they can't sustain it, and you can outmanuever their sluggish ships easier.
Remember, you only actually have to penetrate a single arc. Not altogether hard to do.
[ This Message was edited by: Ent on 2014-02-03 11:42 ]
_________________
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2014-02-03 13:49
Quote:
On 2014-02-03 11:40, Ent wrote:
Ablative armor does negate 50% of kinetic damage, and take 50% extra damage from energy weapons.
|
whoops, shows how much I know about defense changes since Jim took them over.
_________________
|
Fatal Mack Bolan(WildCards_58th)*COM*
Marshal
Fatal Squadron
Joined: June 12, 2010
Posts: 184
From: home planet: Exathra
| Posted: 2014-02-03 16:28
from my point of view: simply put val cannons have fall-off, right ???? then they shouldn't need an ammo counter. they do energy damage , right ???? then they
shouldn't have an ammo counter. and how the tell can you tow a platform with no aft tractor, simple solution: 1 aft tractor that CAN NOT be swapped with a mining beam. call it a utility tractor or something,but make 1 tractor slot to face aft.
as far as r-guns go, either 1) increase ammo amounts OR 2) increase r-gun damage.
personally i generally have no complaint with gauss guns but maybe increase their ammo count too to make ppl that do use them happier.
overall thats my contribution for now.
*****peace*****
[ This Message was edited by: Fatal Mack Bolan(WildCards_58th)*COM* on 2014-02-03 22:31 ]
_________________
1st recorded subscription activation 8-17-01 (under a different name & email)
20 years of playing this mo'-fo....amazing isn't it ?
119 on prestige list..
R.I.P. Stephen Hawking
R.I.P. sean connery
R.I.P. adam west
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
