This thread(Read: Wall of text) is meant as a way to give my feedback, and see how others think about my thoughts, and what your thoughts are if you disagree with my thoughts. Be constructive and don’t just rage and don’t go off topic. Bring actual arguments! My feedback might not have any importance in when to do it, but they are what I think should be changed or added anyway.
I will try to put my thoughts in tiers, as well as in chapters. Each chapter will have his own poll. So I suggest voting after you have read a chapter and then read on etc.
Right now the Matchmaking is a bit of a touchy subject, but an important one anyway.
As we all know the matchmaking is not perfect, and should see some changes.
The things I suggest are:
T1: Gets their own queue. No T2 or T3’s in there.
T2: Can be put against R7, but no higher
T3: Can be put against R10, but no higher
T4: Will not be put against T5
T5: Get’s their own queue, no T4 or T3’s in there.
Instead, teams should be balanced by putting squads against each other.
So a 4 man T3 NASA squad would always have a 4 man enemy T3 squad on the enemy team, this might increase waiting times for them but it’s better than fighting T5’s I’d say.
And the issue is more likely to be resolved when more people join then with the current matchmaker which would just put even more T1’s against T3’s.
I partially agree with this point. Let me add that highly skilled pilots may also be matched with the squad lines, however there must ALWAYS* be an even amount of squads of the same amount of people on both sides.**
*it also means if one team has 1x 4man team the other can have 2x 3man team or 1x 2man and 1x 3man - i cannot decide this alone
**reason for this type of mix is that type of pilots can at least handle themselves, understand the concept of teamplay and stick with the squads in their team - i also cannot decide this alone tho
Agreed. Highly skilled players should have a higher chance to end up against 4 man squads then complete newbies in the tier.
[http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/21590-petition-for-empire-engineer-progression/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/21590-petition-for-empire-engineer-progression/)
This is what I would like to see. Each factions main ships in R1/3, R4/6, R7/9, R10/12 and R13/15 with their secondaries being in R2, R5, R8, R11 and R14.
Ofcourse the shown picture is not perfect, due to T2 ship models in T3, but that is simple replacement of ship positions, but his idea is good and gets my support.(Which I have suggested myself several times already)
The current ship tree is kind of bad, a lot of bad ship places and no logic in how it was put together. The only good thing it has is the links from different roles to their other roles that makes you able to try out new roles without leveling their whole lineup.
Partially agreed. There is one point i’d throw at the surface: some sort of… diversity? I don’t know how to call it, but making them all identical as such can get rather dull. The ship tree needs more suggestions.
If i were to choose alone i would 101% choose Kine’s way of ship line progression, no questions asked.
Here’s Kine’s tier-less ship tree suggestion: [http://forum.star-co…specialization/](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/21070-tier-less-specialization/)
It is more than reasonable.
Although it is true that diversity might lack in that case, is that really what we want? In <0.8.0 we had a really nice ship tree that I heard no complaints about.(Beyond that some ships their special was really crap in comparison to it’s counterpart) And I would like to see that restored in a slight way, which with mine(And residente’s) tree would be done. And it would show the difference between factions more than now, where feds actually got a R9 gunship which empire doesn’t have.(DLC and premium not counted)
It is true that in the current system of tiers, ranks and faction specific ships your approach does have a logic behind. However, my thoughts are that if you look at it from another perspective and remove this system and keep only faction specific ship classes, Kine’s system is better.
Let me detail:
First off, the current style is linear. Changing ship ranks and types (and corresponding module slots) will keep that linear progression, you just look from left (T1) to right (T5) on the same ship line.
Then if we look at Kine’s design, that one can evolve infinitely into more diversified branches on the same class of ship which can lead to complete customization, and even cross-specializing. You won’t look from left to right, you will look from left to a network of progression lines to the right (well, sort of). Do not add only progression to that, but ship bonus choice as a manner of custom application - be warned: this approach needs incredibly extensive balancing.
I will make a detailed photoshop image when i get the time (probably only next weekend) explaining the massive potential Kine’s suggestion actually has if you wish. Especially now that dreadnoughts are at the door (i think) and we will probably see bigger ships than frigates maybe or new classes. At least i hope so.
Well, do we really want to make such a major change so close to release? I think this game was made with a Rank/Tier system for a reason. It is easy to balance(If the devs know what they are doing), easy to see new players from old players and most important of all: You have a real feeling of progression, which is fairly important I’d say to keeping interest in a game. Not to mention it is really easy to see begin content from end content.
With Kine’s system, it looks very confusing(I admit, I only skimmed his topic), and at this stage in the game I’m not sure if it is a good thing to do. Since as you said it requires major (re)balancing, and with their intend to release Soon(™), or rather this year, I don’t think it is the right choice to make for them.
His system has a really nice possibilities, with the great possiblity of metagaming which is always interesting for players. But only if the game was built on that system and not right before release.
For me, credits are quite hard to come by(I like spending them) so the 9m ship prices of T5 are insanity for me personally. But the ship prices are only so high because of the mk1 module fits that are on them. The mk1 fits are generally quite bad and not needed at all for the more advanced players.
This would simply be done by adding the option when buying a ship, to buy without the mk1 prefit. This would severely reduce ship prices and make the more advanced players in here waste less credits on unneeded things.
Or remove prefits beyond T2. T2 ships are not that pricey yet, because of their few slots and relatively low module costs. But beyond that you really start to feel the costs of the mk1 modules you won’t use.
In the end, you will have to farm just as much to have the mk1 fit and be useful with it, but if you already got several mk1 mods(Or better) for the ship, you would be able to save yourself a lot of credits that would otherwise be wasted.
If I were to buy my R15 Jericho guard(Inquisitor S), I would have to spend 8.990.000. But after I get that ship, I will transport all my modules from my Inquisitor to my Inquisitor S. Which means that most, if not all of the ship’s prefit gets replaced with modules I already had. Which just makes it a waste to have bought the extra mk1 modules.
Fully agreed. Removal or as an option with price difference when buying the ship. Any will do.
How about this: each ship comes with two prices: blank and prefitted. If you’re new to the game, tier or ship role, and you choose to purchase the blank ship, the system prompts you to buy the prefitted version. If you already have the required modules but you click on ‘buy prefitted’, the system reminds you that you already have modules and asks for confirmation.
Which is what both me and Astraal have suggested as well. But I agree.
I think I am not the only one when I say that some ship bonuses are useless, or just make a ship far worse in comparison to ships a rank, or even 2 ranks lower, or worse in comparison to the other faction’s same role ship. Although that is a personal opinion, I’d like to see changes in this.
For example by removing ship bonuses altogether(Which I’d imagine would making balancing much easier)
or adjusting them so each ship has a bonus and there are no “useless” ships because of missing or plain terrible bonuses.(I’m looking at you Garm)
Although this is a personal preference, I will name it:
Take the Silent fox vs bear for example.
The silent fox gets a 50% range increase on tackler modules.
The bear gets a 20% energy reduction on tackler modules
The only reason I would pick the bear over the silent fox, is because of the slot layout due to silent fox being a R7 and missing several slots in comparison to the bear.
There are indeed many badly selected and placed ship bonuses in a lot of spots. But if you look at Wolf vs Wolf-M you can see a difference that actually does make sense to play a R8 over a R9 in some cases. My greatest concern on gunships is that sniper types start and end at the Wolf. If you have the money and really want to you can get the Kalah earlier. Over those 2, there is no other fighter worth fitting that way. And if you do, you’re doing it wrong.
And so on. There’s quite a lot to discuss at this topic.
Gunships in general work fine with gauss cannons, even the Wolf M, and especially tacklers work fine with them.
Not necesarily referring only to Gauss, but in general. Keeping the discussion at Gauss for now, the Wolf in my view has the upper hand in long range and precision because of the bonus speed it gets, having almost nothing to sacrifice for that while the other ships waste precious slots only to reach the same ranges and effectiveness, whereas the Wolf is left with lots of customization room, because that is simply it’s very core specialization - long range sniping with railguns. I for one would love to see this ship’s core gameplay extended into other tiers. Ofc, i agree with you that tacklers and other gunships do well with Gauss when it comes to applying heavier damage where they win over the Wolf, but when it comes to long range and precision, the Wolf wins (commands don’t count and if people fit them with Gauss they should immediately go back down to T2 and re-learn their properties) and that’s where the difference actually comes. So imagine 2 out of many scenarios: too many enemy interceptors? Wolf ftw! Too many frigates and fighters? W-M ftw! There’s the incentive to play the lower ranked ship in my view.
Fair enough, the wolf is better with gauss than the Wolf M for hitting moving targets, although the wolf M can get a bigger range(2x horizon) but I admit I’d rather put rails on the Wolf and singularity on the Wolf-M(Which I have done myself)
This chunk here is only going to be relevant if we ignore Kine’s tierless progression, which I feel is a very viable option. Ships at the start of the tier could be given some kind of stronger bonus to compensate for the lack of modules and implants. The present bonuses… just don’t quite work. That said, I do prefer Kine’s version. It’s a much more elegant solution to progression and build diversity.
As I said somewhere further down below in a reaction to Astraal, I don’t think such a major rework will be agreed to by the devs this late in development and this close to release, since it will put back release by several months at the very least.
But there needs to be some change in ship bonuses to make all ships worth it, instead of some ships being complete pains to fly.
For ship balance, I mean how ships themselves work.(Or don’t)
For example(There are many more like it), the federation Kite R9 Covert Ops. Due to a lack of slots(Or simply a terrible slot layout) it does not an Emergency Barrier, even though it is the role that has to get the closest to enemies to use its modules effectively, but with such low health and no emergency barrier, it is very easy to die before you can fulfill your purpose. A LRF dropping mines will nearly or will kill you before your plasma arc has run its course. While an extra second of live could change that by giving you a chance to run away before your life is completely ended.
Role balance, hard one. I’d say that fighters are in a pretty good situation in all tiers. They are never useless, and don’t really lose out on certain tiers.
In T1, I’d say things are pretty balanced. Every ship can kill each other without a problem
In T2, it didn’t change much from T1, exept that frigates are a bit on the weak side.
In T3, interceptors become more noticeable, and frigates start having a good tank.
In T4, frigates start having a really good tank, and interceptors lose a bit of their power in comparison, but they are useful.
In T5, interceptors become even weaker in comparison due to frigates getting more tank, especially the Jericho guards.
I would not mind seeing a nerf to the ability to fit insane buffers on guards. 3x Shield Projection Splitter makes you have a lot of shield, which in my eyes should not be possible since the phase shield makes it an actually good idea to do that. Perhabs limit the Shield Projection Splitter to 1/2 per ship max?
This is a huge can of worms… we’ve always been talking about adjusting values for individual tiers instead of across-the-board changes. This deserves its own thread.
Feel free to do so?
-Guard’s modules are mostly in a fine place, the Mass Propulsion Inhibitor does require a nerf to it’s range by another 10% as well as the signature masking. But beyond that they are in a good place.
-The engineer warp gate should get a CD reduce, a 2-3 minute CD is a lot for such a module, making it mostly a 1 time use thing for most of the match, causing it to be used only as a way to escape death for
people instead of actually helping their team move.
-LRF, are fine. Since the AMS got fixed, torpedo spam is no longer a problem.
-Gunship, modules are fine as well.
-Command, I’d like to see their range slightly nerfed to something like 3km/3.2km/3.4km/3.5km(mk1/mk2/mk3/mk4) and see the range boost go on some ships that give them a nearly 7km boost range.
-Tackler, mostly fine. A slight nerf to inhibitor beam is warranted. Since now it can reach very large distances on certain ship(module range boost again)
-Recon, mostly fine. Parasitic Remodulator could do with a slight nerf to shield transferred.
-Covert ops, Fine as is.
-ECM, Fine as is
Gotta point out that the Recon spy drones do need a duration reduction. Also, their scouting modules (more referring to the micro locator actually) should have their mechanics changed as to show the ships in their range, not kicking them in the balls and removing their cloak / camo etc. That will also solve the problem where the stealth modules go into cooldown with no effect.
Also, i’m still confused that the one actualy ECM module (white noise gen) resides on the CO ships instead of ECM. I can also see a conflict in this with the LRFs. I mean… why do they have that anti-locking module? THAT is the proper CO module for it’s purpose of operating behind the enemy lines. That mod being on LRFs is just… out of logic.
So at this point i would:
-swap White Noise Generator from CO to ECM (and remove Stasis Generator to compensate? dunno)
-swap the IR whatever named anti-lock module from all LRFs to CO
-design another special mod for LRFs
How could I forget about the spy drones…They do indeed need a duration reduction. And I agree with your point about the micro locator as well.
And I think that the current actives work pretty nicely, I think that if we were to give the ECM WNJ that people would just whine about not being able to lock. Because ECM.
I have to admit though, that I would not hate to see the stasis go(Though I would prefer it to stay myself)
This is a belief vs belief approach. If we take it to… dunno, an academic approach maybe (?) then that would be it from my point of view. Tweaking can come right after to solve the surely to appear imbalances.
I’m not too sure, right now there are counters to stasis(R2 implant, CPU modifier, some implants) while there are no counters to WNJ, and WNJ has a bigger effect IMO than stasis, especially when combined with 20% duration bonus and ion diffuser and energy neutralizer.
Currently, I like covops the way they are: they sneak into the enemy ranks and perform surgical strikes to disable key targets. They lack the brute power of gunships or the lockdown capabilities of the ECM, but they are able to infiltrate the enemy formation and apply their (comparatively weaker) disables or damage.
If the role of the covops is to sneak in, apply burst damage, and GTFO, then the WNJ shouldn’t be a covops module. In this case the differences between inty roles should be more properly defined: ECMs will have (almost) sole access to disables. That is to say, an ECM can be fitted either for strong disabling, or weaker disables but greater range to strike the centre of the enemy formation → diversity within a role without infringing on another role.
For my feeling most classes got a good place in their role currently, and that simple tweaking is necessary to make it all good, but everyone has their own views and opinions on the matter.
[http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/21359-main-weapon-balance/?hl=main+weapon](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/21359-main-weapon-balance/?hl=main+weapon)
Although an older thread of mine, it does still apply and my thoughts have not changed exept for the coil mortar, which I will have to do more testing with before I can give feedback on it.
Agreeing with this.
I’ll add that there could be more weapons designed… Or rather brought back. I love(d) the Heavy Plasma from 0.8 more than the current Singularity Cannon or Positron Cannon for example. The Heavy Railguns were also a very nice choice. Dunno what to say about the Heavy Lasers.
Positron = Hail plasma. It just changed name and mechanic(Barrels! and high spread at first shot).
I personally don’t miss the old weapons, since there weren’t a lot of viable weapons.(Heavy plasma, railguns and lasers were terrible in a lot of cases)
Positron is in no way the Heavy Plasma
I tried it and it’s far away from how i played them. And i actually used Heavy Plasma to hunt intys in my command quite effectively, tho it’s base design was anti-fighter and anti-frigate.
You misunderstood, the Hail Plasma was the Sniper plasma before 8.0(Or was it 9.0?)
They got similar stats exept that Positron got slow barrels while firing and large spread before firing.
-Recon, the proximity mine needs a nerf to damage done with it. It does >10k damage which is an insta-kill against some ships, and a lot of damage against all ships.
-Engineer, the attack drone is now a defense drone. It barely(If it all) moves, but beyond that does fine. I would like to see it become useful once more beyond sitting there and waiting for someone to pop up.
Other inties and fighters and frigates’s special role missiles are fine.
The cruise missile.In my eyes it is a bad missile since it is only one, has bad flying and maneuvering speed. I think it’s maneuvering speed should get buffed to make it easier to use.
The torpedo… It needs to become more visible, right now it is a stealthy missile which is very hard to spot from the front. But beyond that it is fine.
The other missiles are fine.
Agreed. Especially on Recon mines. Come on… one tiny mine overpowering the minefield. Really?
I’d like the R15 credits/synergy bonuses become available at T1, or in a choose a faction way like in the past. so it is a step up from the beginning instead of only at the end.
Beyond that I think implants are mostly fine which offer choices for your own preferences.
Should solve tier-rushing, but it will cause all ships below R15 lose a part of their current benefits.
Could you explain? How would ships <R15 lose benefits by making the bonuses start at T1?
Well, if you replace R15 implants with R1 implants, what are you going to do with the existing R1 implants? The only way out i see in this case (as per your suggestion so far) is to move all implants 1 rank up, and R15 replaced in R1. That means if i fly a R9 ship, whatever the R9 implant was for it will be lost because it would become a R10, all while the R1 implant will be a simple ‘% boost to this kind of progression item’. Either that or i did not understand well. Basically i would create a R0 implant set and move only the progression bonuses you get at current R15 implants there.
I fear you misunderstood what I meant.
I meant that only the credit/synergy bonuses would come on the R1 implants, while the weapon bonus/health bonus/missile bonus would stay where it is at.
So just like the R15 implants got 2 bonuses, then the R1 would have the 2 implant bonuses(Hull+credit/synergy)(Anti-explosion/Anticrit + Hull/Shield)(Hull resists+Synergy) while the R15 ends up with 1(Weapon bonus/Health bonus/Missile bonus)
I’m not sure about loyalty, since I haven’t really played with the newest patch yet. But I didn’t notice an increase in contract availability in PVE?
Credit income could do with a boost as well if the mk1 prefits dont become an option. Since getting credits is fairly hard for anyone not using premium. And even those using premium will have trouble with it to buy T5 ships without becoming bored in PVE.
Loyalty needs a boost once more. I can understand the last update with free contract changing, but since it takes ~1…1.30 hours to complete a set, you’d have to play between 6-9 hours / day to make that effective at least to the level of pre-0.9.8. I mean, dude… come on…
Mostly in a good spot now. But upgrade kits should be worth more. I have yet to see an upgrade kit above 10k sellworth, so I am just hoarding them now instead of selling them for credits like I used to.
‘No loot’ spots need removal / reduction. It also needs to properly reward the more effective players.
Agreed to 1st point.
2nd point I disagree with. This would just make commands and engineers and recons even more likely to turn up to farm massive efficiency, and just a bad system under current assist mechanics.
I see your point, missed that one. It could use some mechanic to make a difference tho. I wouldn’t have anything against equal chances either tbh.
A mechanic change is needed I agree. But only thing I can think of is reduction in points for buffs/debuffs. While damage assist and kill stays at the same points.
And this is why I made this thread, since we can point each other on missed things and talk about what would work and what wouldn’t.
I think the costs for most things is a bit over the top.
Especially customization. The double price for black/red makes no sense and should get reduced. If people were spending a lot of GS on it, then it’s all for the better since they are actually spending it!
Premium prices are fine.
Boosters could do with a price decrease. In the past they were affordable and worth it, now they are a massive credit sink if you use it, which makes them not really worth it. The GS boosters are mostly fine, though I can’t help but feel a slight decrease in their price might help as well.
I am missing a place where I can see all the useful information about this game. Like the thread by TheVoyd
[http://forum.star-conflict.com/index.php?/topic/21307-useful-unlisted-things/?hl=thevoyd#entry225967](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/21307-useful-unlisted-things/?hl=thevoyd#entry225967)
That kind of information should be easily accessible either ingame or on the forums through a button in the tabs.(Where we can also see forum rules etc.)
My thoughts go to the wiki page, but i haven’t got a single clue how to operate there. There’s also a massive lack of incentive from players to update it with stuff. I can easily guess a bunch of reasons why.
That was it! Thanks for reading and tell me your feelings!