Star Conflict v.1.1.6 Discussion

Mercenary Center Patch Discussion
41

but thats my point, if the patriarch sits so far away, and shooting the beacon only creates a tiny aoe, all he can do is prevent the ceptor from hiding “on the beacon”, but not create the same aoe as if he hits a target. So basicly on his own, he can’t deny capturing the beacon, and most probably won’t hit anything moving from that range.

using the weapon for denial therefore becomes more tactical, needs a bit of skill and does not allow positioning “anywhere with some little LoS on the beacon”.

Other than that, I also think the damage of that weapon is atm. a bit ridiculous.

 

But you can nerf the aod yes, still all they need to do is “move the mouse over the beacon”. On the other hand if you prevent damage if no ships are hitted: all you need to do in a recon is to hide somewhere next the beacon. 

For me the best solution is removing this weapon from the tankiest ship in game. It’s really nonsense as it is now.

42

(bigger ship = longer lock-on)

Here’s another thought. What if the speed of your lock wasn’t dependent on your ship at all?

Here’s what I mean. Frigates are large and slow, so a targeting computer won’t have that much trouble getting a lock (1 second or less to lock a frigate). Fighters are not only smaller, but faster. So locking a fighter would take longer for the computer (1.75 seconds to lock a fighter). Interceptors are not only the smallest ships, they are also the fastest. So locking an Interceptor should be more difficult (even for another interceptor). So locking an interceptor should take 2.5 seconds.

Overclocking the CPU will still reduce this time by a percentage. But the lock time depends entirely on what ship type you are trying to lock.

43

Here’s another thought. What if the speed of your lock wasn’t dependent on your ship at all?

Here’s what I mean. Frigates are large and slow, so a targeting computer won’t have that much trouble getting a lock (1 second or less to lock a frigate). Fighters are not only smaller, but faster. So locking a fighter would take longer for the computer (1.75 seconds to lock a fighter). Interceptors are not only the smallest ships, they are also the fastest. So locking an Interceptor should be more difficult (even for another interceptor). So locking an interceptor should take 2.5 seconds.

Overclocking the CPU will still reduce this time by a percentage. But the lock time depends entirely on what ship type you are trying to lock.

 

This ^ is a fantastic idea.

 

Definitely a better change imo

44

It is quite ridiculous atm, especially for the current radius for the AOE. I have my Patriarch fitted for max range (like 6.5k+). At this point, I can still do considerable damage (especially to ceptors or fighters), while still making the beacon almost uncappable. At this point, it isn’t tactical, it is just broken. Being able to not only stop people from capping, but kill them from over 6k away is just ridiculous.

 

You’re right. also consider that sitting 6000ish from objectives means staying behind your lines covered with healings and buffs (engi and commands). Also you have the tank + afterburner inhibitor + mines + pulsar. Even if the damage that you deal is not so big, the fact that you are quite invulnerable it’s MEH 

45

I also agree, the new lock times kinda are a weird idea. I could understand lock-length based on target, as a change, but every ship the same targeting time somehow just feels odd.

It might nerf ECMs, yes, but for tacklers, i think the nerf is too strong; tackling is already quite a hard job, if your enemy knows what he is doing, and some ships are nearly unbreakable without a tackler or incredible group effort.

I think this idea needs refinement.

46

Ok so white noise, don’t you think you went a bit overboard with it ? I just want it back to what it was you know, like hiding the lead marker and preventing locks.

 

Right now it very nearly remove you from battle as you dont even know what you are shooting, if you can even hit it.

 

I know I’m asking way too much.

47

It’s good if you  like actual sensor supression. Hiding lead indicator but still having targeting bracket doesn’t make sense XD

48

It’s good if you  like actual sensor supression. Hiding lead indicator but still having targeting bracket doesn’t make sense XD

 

Mostly what I want is to still have IFF. Right now there’s no way to tell if you are shooting at an ally or an enemy

49

new white noise effect is so cool!

50

[SoldiersFortune](< base_url >/index.php?/user/240330-soldiersfortune/)

Good day! The ideas of changing the locking system and giving destructor to LRF are pretty promising to my taste. They will be considered for sure.

51

Guys speaking about the locking system. It is not final. We are recieving a lot of feedback from all platforms regarding it. We will add some changes as soon as the analysis is done.

52

[SoldiersFortune](< base_url >/index.php?/user/240330-soldiersfortune/)

Good day! The ideas of changing the locking system and giving destructor to LRF are pretty promising to my taste. They will be considered for sure.

 

I don’t know about giving destructor to LRFs. Destructor damage output is currently insane in guards, which are really bad in DPS. I cannot imagine what a Black Dragon with a damage AND range build can do with the destructor.

 

Instead of a guard firing at the beacon from 7 km, we will have a LRF firing at the beacon from 7 km, doing 50% more damage, AND cloaked.

53

You will just have to spam microlocator :slight_smile: Then when you target the lrf everything will get adaptive camo due to ir pulsar :stuck_out_tongue:

54

Destructor on LRF classes is a bad choice.

The best option is, to change the weapon stats, like Eviscerador suggested.

55

That or do something about the insane range builds.

56

I don’t know about giving destructor to LRFs. Destructor damage output is currently insane in guards, which are really bad in DPS. I cannot imagine what a Black Dragon with a damage AND range build can do with the destructor.

That or do something about the insane range builds.

 

If the Destructor was given to LRFs, the damage would have to be nerfed a bit, for sure. 6 turrets vs 4 turrets = big jump in overall damage. I’m sure the developers realize this, and would change the damage accordingly.

 

As far as range, that’s anyone’s guess. But I would support a reduction to the weapon’s range.

 

Last idea: What if the Destructor’s AOE (provided it was given to the LRF class) decreased with range? In other words, the farther away you are from the target, the smaller the AOE effect. So, a ship sitting at 7,000m can still hit individual ships, but the AOE effect around the beacon doesn’t exist. Whereas, the same ship sitting 3,000m from the beacon has an AOE effect of 100m, and the same ship sitting at 1,000m has an AOE effect of 250m?

 

That way it is possible to deny a capture if you are right next to the beacon, but at the peril of your own life.

 

EDIT: Only potential flaw with this formula would be if the range of the AOE effect increased to Infinity at 1 meter from the beacon. Team gets LRF right next to beacon, LRF unleashed Destructor on beacon, every enemy ship on the map dies. Just a potential exploit to be aware of…

57

But you can nerf the aod yes, still all they need to do is “move the mouse over the beacon”. On the other hand if you prevent damage if no ships are hitted: all you need to do in a recon is to hide somewhere next the beacon. 

For me the best solution is removing this weapon from the tankiest ship in game. It’s really nonsense as it is now.

That or do something about the insane range builds.

I do not think it would be “move mouse over beacon”; atm. it’s pretty easy to select an angle of attack where your concern is more your own safety, than actually hitting a target besides the beacon.

all you have to do is shoot the beacon itself. I could move “my mouse over the beacon” with a lot of weapons, like beams or heavy blasters, and also create range fits, but this isn’t really the actual problem, it’s a hypothetical problem.

The problem is, it is simply shooting the beacon itself. This is the main problem.

As is however beacon hugging, which this weapon does prevent.

take that away - and hitting will be much harder, and the guard has to come way closer

but anyway, you mean they should nerf the range of that thing. I am allright with that. Either that or the damage.

better nerf it too hard for a while than keeping it around for months is the only thing i don’t want.

–

No pls don’t give LRF more. It’s bad enough you have so many useless LRFs using up all the space in the ship tree. if it would have an alternative usecase, kind of like an attack frigate, maybe, but even if you would change the role, the weapon still needs a changed mechanic.

58

Nerf horizons! (again) Firing at 4k+ should give the weapon almost 0 damage, especially on guards…

I would like to say make horizons not stackable, but this would nerf other builds which are very viable such as the long range gravy slowing tackler.

Maybe the AOE radius could decrease with distance from target, just like the damage? So to fully stop a beacon cap, the guard would have to be 1-2k away.

59

I suggest do following with the Destructor:

The closer you are, the bigger is the AoE Radius / Damage, Max Radius 650m

That would maybe make people players going closer or they are useless.

Because Guards should be AT the beacon and protect their teammates and kill stuff, not sitting 7km away and click left mouse button continously, it’s boring, prevents the beacon gameplay and is just lame.

60

I suggest do following with the Destructor:

The closer you are, the bigger is the AoE Radius / Damage, Max Radius 650m

That would maybe make people players going closer or they are useless.

Because Guards should be AT the beacon and protect their teammates and kill stuff, not sitting 7km away and click left mouse button continously, it’s boring, prevents the beacon gameplay and is just lame.

Brilliant! I fully support this. If I hadn’t run out of upvotes for today I’d give you one, hah