Battle start
Added hints about the aim of each game mode
This is a good thing, however, it is sometimes hard to read, because of the ‘glowing effect’. The intensive blue colour is hard to read on some maps, especially when glowing. And since the message isn’t displayed for long, sometimes I couldn’t read it all :S
Perhaps just remove the glowing effect? It is irritating. Would be easier to read if it was simply displayed as a simple text line.
Minimum point before the patch : 4000 efficiency points
And this guy with 58 assistances…
And Why the AMS do not reward the pilote? Using this module save players/beacons/Drones but no reward…
Gauss seems fine, the damage increase is balanced by the crit loss and increased charge time.
I would just like some confirmation that Sector Conquest is still “end game” content for “high level” players, because right now the current system is neither of those things. The most successful Corps are the ones who have a snowflakes chance in hell of winning a Corp vs Corp fight, whereas the Corps that are able to rock up and break faces are resigned to carrying the refuge.
The new changes just make it worse. Now all the Zerg have to do is rush one beacon, capture it, and they get profit. It rewards bad pilots while not adding any significant bonus to the good pilots, since their performance is being dragged down as mentioned.
The worst part is when you have to sacrifice yourself to give time to zerg to rush a beacon.
No matter how you look it, the efficiency rewarding is broken as this scenario is possible:
=> Lesson: if you buff/debuff, don’t shoot.
…And that Lesson doesn’t sound right.
There might be other things with the efficiency points that you want to look into and thus get more statistics, but this above described scenario is broken, and cannot be the final product. And the statistics you collect will be “corrupted” by this error that you are likely to fix anyways.
Yes, this is esthetic issue, but those matter too. It is thematically strange to reward more for only giving passive buffs, and reward less if you additionally also actively make damage in addition to the passive buffing. It is just thematically broken.
The new changes just make it worse. Now all the Zerg have to do is rush one beacon, capture it, and they get profit.
I don’t see the problem, the game has ALWAYS rewarded losing more than winning, so…
The worst part is when you have to sacrifice yourself to give time to zerg to rush a beacon.
We are working on a feature that should prevent this kind of situations.
We are working on a feature that should prevent this kind of situations.
My Inquisitor S thank you !
I am surprised i dont see word “gauss” waaaaay more often in this thread, did any of you look into it, seriously, look at it especialy in higher tiers.
I might finally try a gauss tackler. I still need to grind the fed fighters.
It partially was, but we needed statistics from ‘big game’
If I recall correctly, Fleet Strength was added before it was shown to make sure it worked properly. Why wasn’t it done with synergy, but calculated in the background and used only for statistics?
I would just like some confirmation that Sector Conquest is still “end game” content for “high level” players, because right now the current system is neither of those things. The most successful Corps are the ones who have a snowflakes chance in hell of winning a Corp vs Corp fight, whereas the Corps that are able to rock up and break faces are resigned to carrying the refuge.
The new changes just make it worse. Now all the Zerg have to do is rush one beacon, capture it, and they get profit. It rewards bad pilots while not adding any significant bonus to the good pilots, since their performance is being dragged down as mentioned.
mmm… yes and no. I don’t really agree…
SecConq is endgame anyway, coz b4 that t5 was pointless. So I think it’s a place for the higher builds and ultimate builds. That’s the meaning of the end game. I don’t think devs wanted it to be a champions league! I’m sure clans war will something like that 
About the rage vs zerg and pugs i wouldn’t say they r all bad pilots or useless… Most of the subject shuldn’ be about “i’m good they r s…t” Simply u r well fitted squads with good builds, and random players are not playng squad with no TS… That’s a huge difference. If u try to be collaborative and more kind with pugs, i’m sure u’ll get better results anyway.
Try to consider that some of thoose pugs are often really helpful. So many times i’ve seen many of them saving the sector won coz they were the only ones defending last beacon vs enemies rushers while the kill squad was capturing and collecting kills… Yeah maybe it’s not so exciting… but someone got to do that! And that helps a lot too! Too many times I’ve seen easy win turning to loss for that rason…
Yes many random players camp in the back, but most of them when matched with a squad simply follow the squad tactic and are very helpful and usefu too… Have u ever tried thinking like that?
If u were right i’m sure u wouldn’t mind to stay in a four man killing squad of your own and been matched in SectConq match vs 8 or 12 pugs… kind of 4 (killing squad) vs 8 or 12 pugs. U r a killing squad made by the best players in game so better having a killing squad alone vs rest of pugs… IMHO that would be the only solution to solve your issues… So u won’t share your points with anybody else…
But i’m not sure u’ll be getting easy win in that way anymore…or do u really think that a 4 men killing squad should be matched vs 4 random players…?
All of this just to explain that this patch is a big step forward imho and i find SectConq quite balanced 
I might finally try a gauss tackler. I still need to grind the fed fighters.
If I recall correctly, Fleet Strength was added before it was shown to make sure it worked properly. Why wasn’t it done with synergy, but calculated in the background and used only for statistics?
Different kind of mechanics, different kind of code, what can be tested subtle is tested this way, other things are installed and tested with updates.
My Inquisitor S thank you !
Actually… there’re more than one features to solve this kind of problem being tested as we speak. But you’ve never seen me telling you this :013j:
Actually… there’re more than one features to solve this kind of problem being tested as we speak. But you’ve never seen me telling you this :013j:
/ObiwanKenobi “This is not the features you’re looking for”
My current observations from playing is the scoring system is a bit wanky.
Sure, the more damage you do the more points you get, but there has to be a minimum score.
Getting a 1 or a 15 or low numbers is discouraging and the game play mechanics turn to “Just debuff them to get the most points, let some one else get the kill.”
I say for assisting the kill, there should be a minimum score of 25, and anything higher then that is all up to the player.
Also, LOL at the voting system, Its awesome.
25? Try 40. Minimum for a kill should be 60. Buffs and Debuffs should be upped to around 40 per as well.
Actually… there’re more than one features to solve this kind of problem being tested as we speak. But you’ve never seen me telling you this :013j:
That is EXACTLY the kind of thing we DO want to hear. No spoilers, but saying “we have this or that undergoing tests to see what happens” is perfectly fine. It nullifies any and all secrecy bull and actually gets US, the community, to trust the devs a bit more.
The voting system is a bit useless in its current form.
I definitely would deny people from voting their own clan members AND their own squad members.
In current system the value of those “likes” is already inflated to useless, those have lot of likes whose squad buddies or clan members just flood those likes.
Other option would be, that the votes actually indicate relation, one player can only give one “vote” for/against one each player: after each game, player can switch his opinion on some player between good / neutral / bad. Vote remains until you meet him again, where you can change your vote again (old vote is removed, new one takes its place).
But it would take long time to go through every player in the game, so I don’t see this being reasonable.
That is EXACTLY the kind of thing we DO want to hear. No spoilers, but saying “we have this or that undergoing tests to see what happens” is perfectly fine. It nullifies any and all secrecy bull and actually gets US, the community, to trust the devs a bit more.
True, but I do appreciate on the update on the explanation on WHY certain changes were done. Thanks again Antibus and those that help write it.
25? Try 40. Minimum for a kill should be 60. Buffs and Debuffs should be upped to around 40 per as well.
Well remember we could try this solution,
40 minimum effectiveness points + Actual damage = synergy gained.
Example:
40 points for the assist and I did around 25% of the total damage
40 + 25 = 65 Points
40 points for the assist but I only did 1% of the total damage
40 + 1 = 41 points
If you do more than 50% damage then nothing changes, you gain the normal amount of points.
Lets say I do 75% of the damage - 70 points!
Debuffs and heals = 40 points minimum
With this solution, it would seem more fair and still require effort to rank in the points.
Actually, my thoughts were of doing it like this:
1-40% damage = 40pt assist.
41% or more = xpt assist, where x is damage dealt.
Kills are the same, but with +50% reward on top.