20 hours ago, g4borg said:
also koro, you have a misconception there, the buff isnt to buff “newcomers”, its to buff ships, you can also use that.
I know this. But I do not want any buffs. I just want to fly my ships, without any buffs. There is no need for steroids! I am AGAINST any BONUSES!
1 hour ago, Phoenix_Shi said:
By not letting people avoid destroyers outright if they so choose in PvP, and with general PvP balancing choices like you just put in place, you can just expect more people to quit the game, or at least the PvP portion of it. Then events to force people to do PvP, doesn’t make for better PvP, just more people in it, in fact doing that can make for worse PvP. What would make for better PvP, is more people that want to do PvP, for the sake of PvP, but it looks like your decisions are causing for there to be less, and less of those people. Again, run some polls, with good questions, to find out what people ACTUALLY think, not just what you think they do.
Well, what about Players, that supported the game through buying bundles to craft those destroyers, but now have to get in line for a limited PvP spot? Those players pretty much bought something, they might not be able to use when they have time, and they would like too.
I mean, why even pressure players through these “events” into PvP, and/or buying bundles to manufacture destroyers, but then turn around and limit their access with those destroyers? They could have at least modified the daily tasks for either PvE, or the usage of other ships in PvP too.
what was the purpose? who went to you cryin they get killed too much because the are using lower ships and play against higher ones? the mm was fine. Dependant on player’s skill and modules fitted, it was the best one yet. Now this is pure junk. now that you bring zealot to T3 it becomes as good as crus s. What is the point then? what encourages the players to try new ships when in the end the higher ships are worse/same as the previous ones? Death-ray siegfried? what were you even thinking…
imo these bonuses are not even close to being just a cosmetic change, it is quite a game-changer and the only way to realise such thing is in game is via enabling chat and looking with your mouse on that icon… nothing in hangar what would warn you that lower ranks are better than higher ones…
seriousely, since when should a synergized R5 be better than unsynergized R9… when you buy the ship, you don’t want to stick around leveling the ship so you can finally use it in pvp.
19 hours ago, Koromac said:
I know this. But I do not want any buffs. I just want to fly my ships, without any buffs. There is no need for steroids! I am AGAINST any BONUSES!
Oh you mean, you do not want your enemy ships to have buffs, as you will sit in cookie cutted R15s, anyway?
Look, those old ships can’t use modern implants, even if the battle is fought with them enabled, also they lack compatibility to modern modules, but the fleet command has developed technology, to use that missing implant bandwith to optimize resistances and damage. Basicly, for every implant you miss from the actual maximum, you get a few points bonus for damage and resistance. It’s not just a bonus by itself.
If you want linearly increasing stats for ships only, then I wonder what the problems for you were in the past. I thought this is a game, where we have a lot of choices, and where we have to try to fight the enemy, not just level up ships. Leveling up ships is finished, after a while.
With R10-R15 being all competitive against each other, which is the goal of these balance changes, and they seem unfinished yet, the game just got an immense amount of different niche ships and fitting options, and a lot of diversity on the battlefield. How is that bad news?
Even Eve revamped his whole ship lineup like this years ago, it makes no sense to have tiers of technology only “making everything better”.
Think the other way around: until now, R15 was hard to get expanded, from now on, if balance follows the “more bang for the buck or rather more sophisticated effects” idea, they can yet improve R15 to have more to offer, especially implantwise, without ever making R10-12 losing its value on the battlefield. Most R15s still dominate anyway. And the Implants until now made a big difference and were always a problem in the balance - while ship statistics still improve linearly, anyway.
1 hour ago, QACinnamonTroll said:
the mm was fine.
which one? the one where we had R9 / R12 / R15 queues? or R10 / R13 / R15 queues? constantly shifting the problem of ships getting outclassed in their own area simply no matter where lines are drawn? All people in the trying to take only max ranked ships per queue after a while, when we figure it out? constant whining of vets in T3, even if there was no T3 anymore? Long wait times for small games on giant maps? What exactly was fine in the mm, like, ever?
1 hour ago, QACinnamonTroll said:
seriousely, since when should a synergized R5 be better than unsynergized R9…
then synergize that R9. Seriously. You have more active modules, and more diverse modules to install, including things like adaptive. It takes no skill to kill something in a R9 if its lower than it, no matter how much bonuses it gets, except a few really good R8 ships. Now I understand if someone cries about his precious R15s, or about the “bad R15s” now being totally junk (like Golden Eagle), but the difference in power between R5 and R9 is just immense. Once you have synergized it, bring it to R10+, and suddenly your R9 will be able to at least try to compete with all the ships there aswell.
What’s the real problem here? I really don’t get it. Is there any explanation why you guys find this bad, I mean except “DO NOT WANT”
I understand QQ about Survival (especially because on some maps its never fair, and its far too often in the rotation) or QQ about destros (because honestly, they are just very new and not really balanced in imho), but seriously, having this replacement implants create a way more interesting lategame, nothing more.
How is it fair, that some ships have less implants, less good stats, but have to compete against other ships that are always better? it sounds like a pyramid scheme, not a game to be honest.
Well, except for the Capture the Beacons it’s not too bad.
20 hours ago, Ironquest said:
22 hours ago, Phoenix_Shi said:
Then events to force people to do PvP, doesn’t make for better PvP,
I mean, why even pressure players through these “events” into PvP, and/or buying bundles to manufacture destroyers, but then turn around and limit their access with those destroyers? They could have at least modified the daily tasks for either PvE, or the usage of other ships in PvP too.
You are more than welcome to create suggestion about this in proper subforum. No, I am not criticizing the idea, just I told you guys on TS to create one and instead of that you two keep posting about this in random threads for few weeks now. If you want to anyone from dev team to notice that, PLEASE, PLEASE use proper subforum.
G4 : Problem isn’t the buff by itself, but how illogic and unbalanced it is.
If the goal is to make 3 rank instead of 15 to make everyone fight on the level then it’s not how they should do it.
Why not just give the implants and higher rank mods to everyone ? It would be “perfect” balance directly.
Instead they choosed the lazy option of giving decreasing buff with level to everyone, creating a LOT of balance problem.
You did not fix the destroyer limit, I am in a battle as of this post with 4, so yea fix that.
5 hours ago, IFreakinLoveBass said:
You did not fix the destroyer limit, I am in a battle as of this post with 4, so yea fix that.
Post bug report.
Destroyer limit is a great thing. However it should be variable. Only one per team is the game is small, maybe going to two or three if the game is big. This limit also needs to apply to weekend tourney and league (not sure if it does already).
19 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
creating a LOT of balance problem.
What balance problems?
If I look at it as a whole, the destroyers influence too much to tell the ship balance is currently responsible for the overall game balance. But thats more because beacon denial is real.
But in ship vs. ship fights, where Destros are not involved, I did not notice any good ship losing prominence, while many underused ships gained prominence. The few exceptions are R15s and R14s which were underused before aswell.
Adjustments to this can only be made by them collecting data. Some of the implants now make more sense depending on what rank of ship you fly, e.g. Empire R1. Generally, there are a lot more ships available now to certain niches of gameplay, all in one playground. It reduces cookie cutting a lot, if there are many cookies to cut.
Also, I do not see any illogical part in it, as it’s a replacement buff for the missing implants, which you cannot choose.
For being a generalized system as it is, it actually performs quite well imho, lots of close games lately. And as said, the most frustration for me comes from Survival (even if I win a lot of them) and Destroyer area damage canceling beacon capture. I whish locking that beacon would cancel such area damage.
Edit: and the ± rule which is confusing me now.
1 hour ago, g4borg said:
What balance problems?
If I look at it as a whole, the destroyers influence too much to tell the ship balance is currently responsible for the overall game balance. But thats more because beacon denial is real.
But in ship vs. ship fights, where Destros are not involved, I did not notice any good ship losing prominence, while many underused ships gained prominence. The few exceptions are R15s and R14s which were underused before aswell.
Adjustments to this can only be made by them collecting data. Some of the implants now make more sense depending on what rank of ship you fly, e.g. Empire R1. Generally, there are a lot more ships available now to certain niches of gameplay, all in one playground. It reduces cookie cutting a lot, if there are many cookies to cut.
Also, I do not see any illogical part in it, as it’s a replacement buff for the missing implants, which you cannot choose.
For being a generalized system as it is, it actually performs quite well imho, lots of close games lately. And as said, the most frustration for me comes from Survival (even if I win a lot of them) and Destroyer area damage canceling beacon capture. I whish locking that beacon would cancel such area damage.
You don’t see the balance problem because skill is part of it too.
But let’s use some maths. I’ll take as an example two similar ships, one r10 and one r15.
Prometheus Fire vs Spark.
Why them ? Because it’s the first that came to my mind, and they have similar layout.
Okey, let’s start…
| Prometheus fire | Spark | Difference (approx in %)
Hull strength | 7636 | 8392 | 10%
Shield | 4865 | 5349 | 10%
Speed | ------------ Same for both ------------------ | 0%
Resistances | ------------ Same for both ------------------ | 0%
Sensors | ------------ Same for both ------------------ | 0%
Lock time | ------------ Same for both ------------------ | 0%
Energy caps | 743 | 855 | 15%
Energy regen | 144 | 165.6 | 15%
That’s it for base stats.
Now, for layout, they have nearly the same :
both have 1 motor, one capacitor, 2 hull, 3 CPU.
Then prometheus have one shield slot, and Spark have one capacitor + hull.
Spark have one bonus slot.
Next is the difference in active modules :
Special - Same stats. Consume 10% more energy for spark
Crit buff - Same stats. 35s cooldown for prom, 42s for spark. Consume 10% more energy for spark
Speed buff - Same stats. 35s cooldown for prom, 42s for spark. Consume 10% more energy for spark
Reboot - Same stats. 38s cooldown for prom, 46s for spark. Consume 10% more energy for spark
Purge - Same again, lower cooldown for prom. Higher erergy cost for spark.
So we can say that the spark energy bonus of 15% is nearly negated by the higher energy cost, and prom have 15-20% lower cooldown
Now guns (base stats) :
Ion - 2934 DPS for spark. 2689 for prom (10%)
Too lazy to finish, they all have 10% difference.
Then we add implants.
So, what spark have that prom don’t is usually :
8% firerate
7% damage if under 50% max speed
Either 5% cd reduction per kill or 10-15% damage buff with some conditions.
r14 implant
3% gun damage or 5% hull/shield strength
To summarize spark have approximately :
10% more hull/shield
10% DPS and 8% firerate, and under conditions up to 23% damage.
15% more energy but consume 10% more.
15-20% more cooldown
And one bonus passive slot.
But then, in PvP, prometeus fire have a permanent buff 55 resistance to everything while spark have only a 20 resist buff
1% hull/shield strength is equals to 1 hull/shield resistance (and resist is better for healing).
Prom have 35 more resistance. Spark can compensate hull by equipping a galvanized armor (with a rotation malus), but can’t compensate shield.
Here, they have approximately the same tanking, but prom is more mobile and easier to heal (more resist less strength). +1 for prometheus fire here.
Then come damages :
Spark can have up to 40% more damage if he is going at less then 50% of his max speed, and killed someone in the last 10 seconds. Else it’s only a 18% more damage.
While prometheus fire get a permanent 40% damage buff with no condition at all.
Prometheus also have 15-20% less cooldown.
Easy to understand that the overhaul DPS of prometheus fire is bigger then Spark DPS. +1 for prometheus too.
2-0
Prometheus win.
Same tank, more mobile, more DPS.
This is obviously only approximations, but still a fact,
Even tho i hate reading walls of texts (shift+enter is better than just enter #nohate) he has a point.
new system pvp = terrible ------- but thx , no be more pay money for this game, and be find something new ------- when r11 witch bosters have same firepower like r15 ---- no sense play
To make my life easier i did not use Crystal plate (that i only have at r15 and cant fit on a PromFire).
Since i only have r13 Ions and bubbles, I made similar builds for ions.
vs
Part 1 - Survivability
So the the tablet at the bottom calculates survivability of the ship per dmg type (Crit/Explosions are to be ignored here, since no modifications are present)
Prometheus Fire has 55 resistances points included into calculations. Values that truly represents survivability of a ship are on EHP rows for hull, shields and Combined.
As you can see for yourself Sparks Hull, even after “OMG OP BONUSES!1!1” is slightly tankier than Prom’s
Then there are Commands Hull auras and R9-1 implant WILL increase Sparks survivability MORE than Prometheus fire due to the higher HP volume. While engineers heals slightly better for recovering Prom
R15 Hull heal > R13 by 600 hp too
R14 implant even though on a length CD still is a life saver.
On other Hand Prometheus F has better shield tanking even though those are Empire ships, on all R10-11 Shield tanking is actually worth looking at as complementary to a Hull tanking while in R15 shields are just pointless, and at that point it is a Competitive choice to bring a shield booster instead of a Combat Reboot, making a ship very sustainable while on Spark you gonna opt out to a classic Combat Reboot or Coating type of play
Of right, PromX get bit more speed due to a Armor plate, which is meh unless going bubbles, but then you will not put armor plate on bubbles to begin with.
I don’t see how PromF is an imbalance better than Spark, it provides a different type of play, it gives an alternative with less customization yet on par, which is great, this is what variety in battles is all about and it is great for people that are still leveling.
Yes there are some ships that were always bad at R15 (cough Golden Eagle cough) those became even worse, but that is an exception from the rule.
Imho Tanking bonus is just about right, maybe abit reduced for higher ranks - sure, greatly reduced for Destroyers - absolutely, but overall this is awesome.
Now for Damage:
NOTES:
“+Conditional implants” are the r12 and r13 net you 17% of conditional dmg, i used Overdrive/Overcharge examples based on conditional dmg, since without those PromF and Spark haev pretty much the same dmg.
I subtracted 5% flat from DMG bonuses for Horizons, i do know that it is not how it works exactly, but final difference is next to nothing
This is ONLY for a MINIMAL dmg of Ions, befor Resistance ignore kicks in
Things like command Valkyrie and Command Buff will yield much higher results to Sparks than Prometheus Fire, under Overdrive/Aiming Overcharge
I ignored Overheat/Cooldown cycles because i think i spent way too much time on all of this, and i was to damn lazy to properly extrapolate since I did not have a formula at hand to work out Overdrive effect on it.
I hope i don’t have to explain the table and it is self explanatory ”)
Forgot to add in dmg Booster for credits into both calculations, w/e
It is clear that Spark does more dmg than Prometheus Fire on average and as a burst and comes down how you handle and build your ship.
And missiles do more dmg, and all of your weapons have more range/projectile speed.
So yeah, i don’t see how I would go back and equip a Prometheus Fire over spark in majority of my builds and game play styles.
So far all the “All of this make no sense! Low ranked ships are outperforming r15s! R15s are useless why on earth would I use that” only applicable to a small amount of exceptions and Destroyers.
Let’s do less of “The sky is falling” and do more “Why Destroyers have same bonuses as other ships”, or let’s do math, that is fun too.
You take into account the difference between ships, which is why you have different numbers.
I used base values because the +30strafe/8extra damage/thermal resist/extra hull slot are ship specific.
And even like that you had to take into account the conditional implants for the damage.
If prom had the exact same build with the exact same passives, he would be more powerful.
BTW prom in this build have a far better energy management and less cooldown.
So more uptime with overcharge
Fact is that prometheus fire is more oriented on mobility (strafe bonus) and more “Burst in, get out, regen” (shield/cooldown) .
While Spark is heavy tank (3 hull slots + thermal resist) heavy damage (biggest damage passive in your game).
But even like that, in the end prometheus fire have nearly the same taking as Spark (and is easier to heal) while still having more mobility (strafe and speed in this example) AND better energy management (same regen, consume 10% less).
If prometheus had an hull slot instead of shield slot, he would tank more.
For damages, it’s a bit harder to come close to spark since spark have an extra capacitor and damage passive.
Still, the only way for spark to have more damage is to stand still and have killed someone in the last 10 seconds.
Really specific don’t you think ?
And in the end your graph forget one thing : Prometheus have cooldown reduction.
It have 15% more uptime with overcharge, which represent a BIG dps boost.
For a ship that focus mainly on mobility, I think it comes a bit too close to a ship that focus on tank/damage.
TBH , a more fair comparaison would be between Prometheus fire and Mjollnir with the same layout.
Or go ahead, and compare Orelus to Spark.
Orelus have acces to the same mod as spark, and have the same number of slots, 3 hull slots 2 capacitors, 2 CPU (but 10% crit passive) 1 shield 1 motor.
The only difference between them is that Spark have r13 passive +20 resist, while Orelus have 20% damage and 50 resist buff.
If you manage to prove that spark is better then orelus, I’ll give you a cookie.
4 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
You take into account the difference between ships, which is why you have different numbers.
You do realise that how this game works? Games are not determined in a spherical vacuum laboratory with a comparison against a spread sheet, whenever you talk about things you must take into the account as many internal and external factors as possible.
4 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
And even like that you had to take into account the conditional implants for the damage.
And here i though you are good with numbers, oh wait you are not.
No I did not had to take into account condition dmg, which btw is up for most of the game if you play it right, even without conditional dmg, overcharge will produce higher dmg burst on Spark due to crit dmg modules.
Prometheus Fire doing relatively same dmg as a Spark is a best case scenario for Prometheus Fire and a worst case scenario for Spark, which almost never happens in actual battle these days, because you always have Commands and plenty of targets to kill. And then there is a Survival that will amplify the dmg output difference even further.
4 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
If prom had the exact same build with the exact same passives, he would be more powerful.
Why in the world would it have a same build, that is the whole point of this, it can not have same builds, you must compare real, playable scenarios, builds I provided are not something imaginary or wanna be assemblies, these are practical setup that you can take into the game.
4 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
BTW prom in this build have a far better energy management and less cooldown.
So more uptime with overcharge
Yes, and then No, because you never use Overcharge by CD, good pilot will used when needed and not when it is becomes available, a lot of the time you are not in a position to use overcharge/overdrive, so while yes lower cd is great it is not as significant as you trying to make it to be and at the end it is exactly what me and g4 are trying to say - IT IS A DIFFERENT GAMEPLAY STYLE.
3 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
Fact is that prometheus fire is more oriented on mobility (strafe bonus) and more “Burst in, get out, regen” (shield/cooldown) .
While Shield booster is a valid option on a Prometheus Fire it does not make it better at burst gameplay, burst gameplay is defined by a dmg output in a short period of time and that is where spark sparks, strafe bonus is much more useful to a medium range builds like ions or rails than to a close range too, aka continuous dmg out put and shield booster follows this - constant usage of cover while utilising constant stream of shield regen. Again it is different Spark can do this just as well but in different way.
3 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
But even like that, in the end prometheus fire have nearly the same taking as Spark (and is easier to heal) while still having more mobility (strafe and speed in this example) AND better energy management (same regen, consume 10% less).
If prometheus had an hull slot instead of shield slot, he would tank more.
It is an Ions build, you can play spark with negative regeneration and it will have next to no affect on your game play performance, it does not matter really same for speed - this is not designed for that, and when you need to speed you always have a engine boost.
It does not have that passive slot, let it go.
3 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
For damages, it’s a bit harder to come close to spark since spark have an extra capacitor and damage passive.
Still, the only way for spark to have more damage is to stand still and have killed someone in the last 10 seconds.
Really specific don’t you think ?
are you serious?
It does not to have stay still - look at the implant description again, you can freely strafe and get the bonus running
I do not use 13-2 implant, i have 13-1 /13-3 with new game sizes 13-3 racks up max bonus within a minute of a battle and r14+Combat reboot helps you live where PromF would have died
It does not need conditional implants to do higher dmg - own boosts and friendly commands will make it go far.
3 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
And in the end your graph forget one thing : Prometheus have cooldown reduction.
It have 15% more uptime with overcharge, which represent a BIG dps boost.
For a ship that focus mainly on mobility, I think it comes a bit too close to a ship that focus on tank/damage.
Of so now it comes close, rather than being flat better? Make up your mind. Coming close IS FINE and GOOD, that is the whole reason of this thing. I am not changing my spark for prometheus fire, but for someone who just entered the R10 Prom Fire allows some performance leverage against sparks.
3 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
TBH , a more fair comparaison would be between Prometheus fire and Mjollnir with the same layout.
No it would not the whole point of a Mjolnir is to NOT have a same build and tune it in a specific area to the max. If anything you should’ve compared Prometheus Fire to Lightbringer.
P.S. none of this involves a promised 20 resistance points to R15s
3 hours ago, Swifter43021 said:
Or go ahead, and compare Orelus to Spark.
Orelus have acces to the same mod as spark, and have the same number of slots, 3 hull slots 2 capacitors, 2 CPU (but 10% crit passive) 1 shield 1 motor.
The only difference between them is that Spark have r13 passive +20 resist, while Orelus have 20% damage and 50 resist buff.
If you manage to prove that spark is better then orelus, I’ll give you a cookie.
OR how about you do it? Maybe for once you will have a proper data backing up your claims. And why are you jumping form “Oh r10s are so much better than r15!” to “do the math for r12 vs r15”? On top of that we all already agreed that 11-13s need a bit more tuning with bonuses values.
And even without math, example from my last game - R14 implant saved my Spark 3 times in a CTB which allowed me to win the game, if i would’ve lost a spark it would be a definite loss due to my other ships not being as proficient in that situation.
You do know you can equip both Spark and Orelus into the same lineup, right? Fit each to its strengths and go at it.