In light of the recent patch that changed the scaling of the healing modules, I suggest that the same philosophy should apply to more abilities. For an example, let’s look at Plasma Web. As it is now, it’s decent against interceptors, weak against fighters and almost pointless against frigates. Buffing it in a static manner to be effective against frigates would make it overpowered against interceptors. This is where different scaling comes in. Have it do more damage depending on the target class, same for interceptor, more for fighter, a lot more for frigate.
Other abilities that different scaling should apply to:
I like this concept of scaling different offensive capabilities, and I think it should be done in some way, but it must be looked very closely what is it going to affect and in which degree.
I see what your saying but no. If i shoot a rat with a pellet gun the rat dies. It does not scale if I shoot an elephant. It just pisses off the elephant.
Simply no. What you want to do is to make interceptors even more OP. So, lets do the oposit also, since slow to frigs is pointless (like the tackler slowing habilities) since the firgs are slower, lets make it increase its effectiveness on smaller targets, so an int moves slower than a frig when used on it… Se what happens? What you want is to make ints more powerfull, not scale it correctly. Correctly speaking an interceptor should be obliterated with a torpedo to the face, but no, the magical emergency barrier saves them.
Basically lets see… A sniper shot should kill the interceptor about a dozen times, because the concentrated laser would simply turn an int to a pulp, but hey, NO!! EB again.
Lets continue to scale aswell the frigs, then we have the already dominating frigballs, imagine if pulsars made 10x more dammage on frigs, we would see the return of the guardballs (as if the styxballs currently arent enough).
Your proposed scaling is a complete waste of time, since it would bring even further unbalance to a game that already has its balance issues. ANd again, i didnt see anything you proposed to afect the interceptor in a negative way, since to your point of view it would scale UP to bigger ships, so inties would take same low dammage from pulsars and such, and that shows your baised point of view towards favoring interceptors. So you dont even deserve the attention of the comunity with such a ridiculous proposal.
I think he wants it to reduce only 1 resist on inties, and 100o0o00000000 on frigs.
I see what your saying but no. If i shoot a rat with a pellet gun the rat dies. It does not scale if I shoot an elephant. It just pisses off the elephant.
I like my elephant.
Perfect response! The purpose of bigger ships is to be more tankier, with the ridiculous proposals he made he wants to nullfy the bases of a frig just because he want to kill a frig without having to aim at it by using web.
I see what your saying but no. If i shoot a rat with a pellet gun the rat dies. It does not scale if I shoot an elephant. It just pisses off the elephant.
I like my elephant.
My cellphone also charges to full faster than an electric car from the same power outlet, should they undo the healing reduction change? Note that I agree with the reduced healing on smaller ships. If you want a fluffy explanation then the Plasma Web covers the shields/hull and starts burning. More surface covered = more damage. There you go.
Simply no. What you want to do is to make interceptors even more OP. So, lets do the oposit also, since slow to frigs is pointless (like the tackler slowing habilities) since the firgs are slower, lets make it increase its effectiveness on smaller targets, so an int moves slower than a frig when used on it… Se what happens? What you want is to make ints more powerfull, not scale it correctly. Correctly speaking an interceptor should be obliterated with a torpedo to the face, but no, the magical emergency barrier saves them.
Basically lets see… A sniper shot should kill the interceptor about a dozen times, because the concentrated laser would simply turn an int to a pulp, but hey, NO!! EB again.
Lets continue to scale aswell the frigs, then we have the already dominating frigballs, imagine if pulsars made 10x more dammage on frigs, we would see the return of the guardballs (as if the styxballs currently arent enough).
Your proposed scaling is a complete waste of time, since it would bring even further unbalance to a game that already has its balance issues. ANd again, i didnt see anything you proposed to afect the interceptor in a negative way, since to your point of view it would scale UP to bigger ships, so inties would take same low dammage from pulsars and such, and that shows your baised point of view towards favoring interceptors. So you dont even deserve the attention of the comunity with such a ridiculous proposal.
I agree that since they increased non-AB max speed and reduced AB effect so that the end result is the same, interceptors can relatively ignore snares. By all means, have slows affect interceptors more.
Correctly speaking, a nuke would annihilate frigates and interceptors alike in the entire battlefield.
Last time I checked good snipers could one shot interceptors, if you think EB is too good post your opinions on it.
Regarding Web and Pulsar, please realize that:
They are both Damage over Time effects.
They don’t stack with themselves.
There is a lot of middle ground between “barely overcomes natural shield regeneration” and “brings a Guard 100-0 over the duration”.
My cellphone also charges to full faster than an electric car from the same power outlet, should they undo the healing reduction change? Note that I agree with the reduced healing on smaller ships. If you want a fluffy explanation then the Plasma Web covers the shields/hull and starts burning. More surface covered = more damage. There you go.
The thing you are not understanding is, using your own example: Yes, it has more surface to be covered, but why should an interceptor be able to carry a device to engulf the entire surface? The more surface also means that for covering it up it would use more energy, if the energy spec is maintained, as the interceptor doesnt get more powerfull when using it on a frig, then the same web would have to stretch to a bigger surface, thus reducing it’s effect instead of increasing it. It would be the same comparison if you took 1g of butter to cover up a slice of bread, and using the same amount to cover a tennis square. The amount of butter would be the same, but the surface is bigger, but does the area gets more buttered on the tennis square? No, so why should a fixed power weapon do more dammage just because it has to spread into bigger surface? It is just not logical.
I agree that since they increased non-AB max speed and reduced AB effect so that the end result is the same, interceptors can relatively ignore snares. By all means, have slows affect interceptors more.
Interceptors already move like a turtle when tackled (engine inhibitor and the other one that turns off the afterburner) If the slows were increased it wouldnt change anything, but change the CD of the prime snare hability of a tackler and inties would see all hell breaking lose. Comparing: The tackler spends less energy to stop a mosquito than to stop a whale, so it recharges faster. Using same scaling as you proposed, but not the way you intended of course.
Correctly speaking, a nuke would annihilate frigates and interceptors alike in the entire battlefield.
Would it? If we apply the laws of physics, the interceptor would receive a BRUTAL dammage and be launched towards the nearest rock at thousands of m/s, which would create a G-force so big the pilot would be crushed and thus, killed. The frig, depending on the strenght of its shields and armour would receive dammage proportional to the size of the nuke (by size = power) and the pilot wouldnt be submited to super acceleration and killed due to G-force, so, Frigs win, unless you put the nuke inside the frig…
Last time I checked good snipers could one shot interceptors, if you think EB is too good post your opinions on it.
EB is fine i guess, but most interceptors will take 2 shots because of the EB.
Regarding Web and Pulsar, please realize that:
They are both Damage over Time effects.
They don’t stack with themselves.
There is a lot of middle ground between “barely overcomes natural shield regeneration” and “brings a Guard 100-0 over the duration”.
Basically what you want is that an small ant to be able to penetrate a rhynoceros skin and cause so much dammage that the rhynoceros has to run away in fear, thats what you want when you said to scale the dammage of the web.
Basically what you want is that an small ant to be able to penetrate a rhynoceros skin and cause so much dammage that the rhynoceros has to run away in fear, thats what you want when you said to scale the dammage of the web.
T5 Plasma Web with Mk IV weapon: 4619 thermal damage (resistances apply) over 10 seconds, 60 seconds cooldown.
T5 Mk IV Parasitic Remodulator: 7425 shields drained (with no resistance to the best of my knowledge) over 10 seconds, 27.2 seconds cooldown.
I can see it now, If Web did, for example 8000 damage (pre-resistances) to a Guard, then Guards would be running away from CovOps just like they are currently running away from Recon.
Role wise it might make more sense to give plasma web, which work well against inties, to the tackler which is supposed to counter them. Then you give the chameleon, which is useless against interceptors to the covert ops, the supposed sneaky role.
I do love plasma web on my CO though, it just have so many uses beside the damage.
