We wish you a happy ‘Cosmonautics Day’! 57 years ago, the first human flight into space took place. In honour of this event we updated the information screens at the space stations, and space satellites replaced drones. Pilots can complete a special achievement ‘Cosmonautics Day’ and take advantage of special holiday missiles.
I’m going to start by assuming the ‘increased range’ for the front blasters is an obvious typo, it must be reduced range cause even the text after it says that the range is too high.
Please, provide us with some feedback!
Why are you postponing the release of new Rank 16/17 ships?
Why are all the modules that are already available in the game, not farmable in Open Space?
This update is not worth discussing, but there are some highlights that might be important.
About the update:
Unsolved issues:
Front Blaster is more of an annoyance and a no-skill weapon. It should never have been there, to begin with.
Waz’Got is the most underused ship in PvP. You should revert back to 1250 instead of 1125 mutation points. It’s a frigate, for god’s sake!
RF Blaster needs (interceptor weapon) 15% increased fire rate and 10% more speed. I have seen not a single interceptor using this weapon for months!
Enriched electrum cap limit should be raised from 200 to 250. The 1000 ore limit is okay. Enriched monocrystals should be raised from 500-750 or 1000.
Corporate Iridium (4x50=200 Iridium in total) is still not available as a contract at each hangar!
Campaign missions are ridiculously tedious and hard to complete. A minor rework of missions is necessary! Check my suggestions.
Bring back Free loyalty contracts for all sides!
Increase (triple) the rewards for completing Open Space (Free Loyalty) tasks.
Replace Credit loot spots during the trophy search with Free Loyalty vouchers instead. (the selected hangar would determine voucher drops)
Request:
I would post a wall of text… but there isn’t anything to write about. The only notable things are redeployment (kinda) of R14 Destroyers which still are far from good in the current meta. Premium re-release of endeavour and spiral despite them being literally free a couple of months ago (idek how long ago it was now tbh, it wasn’t long ago and that’s the point) and a drastic lack of the new ships ‘around the corner’.
Basically, when do we get the new ships.
Why are Spiral and Endeavour back in a premium container despite being literally free not too long ago?
Did I ask when the new ships are yet?
When are the new ships?
Yep.
I have only one question:
When will we see the promised new ships and modules?
We were expecting them weeks ago but here we are. With nothing but exclusive premium skins for ships many players don’t have or want.
⨁ Pos:
⊟ Neg:
⭔ Q:
Text glitches in the [Star Conflict v.1.5.1d](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/36611-star-conflict-v151d/) patch notes:
Quote
Weapons
…
Kinetic Weapon
- Damage increased by 10% …
Did you mean [Kinetic supercharger] (I believe is for ECM)?
Quote
Front Blaster
- Increased range of fire
Developer comment: ‘Front Blaster has become too popular, in addition, it shoots at distances that a covert ops should not be able to reach.But it must remain a destructive weapon as befits the weapon of a covops ship’.
Should be:
Front Blaster
Developer comment: “Front Blaster has become too popular and it get bonusses at distances that a Covert Ops spacecraft weapon should not reach. But it should remain a destructive weapon, as befits the arms of a Covert Ops.”
Quote
Plasma Devastator
- Damage increased by 5%
Developer comment: ‘We carefully monitor weapon statistics and noticed that some of them have become less widespread, so we decided to bring them closer to the level of popular guns’
In the last 2 patchs, this weapon got its damage buffed.
But what if the damages are not the cause for the “Popularity” problem of this weapon? For a Non-Explosive Weapon, it’s having really correct damage but what if the “statistics” linked to its “Hitting” ability were the cause of its unpopularity?
Just now, Rakza said:
In the last 2 patchs, this weapon got its damage buffed.
But what if the damages are not the cause for the “Popularity” problem of this weapon? For a Non-Explosive Weapon, it’s having really correct damage but what if the “statistics” linked to its “Hitting” ability were the cause of its unpopularity?
indeed .
the dmg of the weapon is “fine” considering the passive ability .
but the projectile is pretty slow and doesn’t hit very often x)
1 minute ago, dreamer78 said:
indeed .
the dmg of the weapon is “fine” considering the passive ability .
but the projectile is pretty slow and doesn’t hit very often x)
This weapon is using the same dynamics as the “Plasma Harpoon”, especially concerning the “Projectile Hitbox” which is also causing a problem of “Unpopularity” on this weapon.
36 minutes ago, Rakza said:
In the last 2 patchs, this weapon got its damage buffed.
But what if the damages are not the cause for the “Popularity” problem of this weapon? For a Non-Explosive Weapon, it’s having really correct damage but what if the “statistics” linked to its “Hitting” ability were the cause of its unpopularity?
Very very good point!
The Plasma Devastator is an EM weapon for the Frigatte: Guard, right?
Projectile speed is too low. Cooldown is too short.
Idk if it was possible to give that weapon an explosion like function to make it easier to hit - but giving 0 additional explosion damage but still count as hit?
P.S. It is better than [Harpoon Plasma launcher 12] (for Reaper)
-> Same applies for some Engineer weapons (especially some Wazgot ones nobody uses, like [WazGul 17] ; and [Waz’Dum 17] is a super weapon but its hard(er) to hit to bring theoretical stats to (smaler faster) targets and for bigger targets it lack range option - but that’S what engis need because they are slow to turn, are big targets, and have more blind spots for their 4 turrets!)
Explosion would make it weaker really. At least against everything but destroyers.
33 minutes ago, avarshina said:
Very very good point!
The Plasma Devastator is an EM weapon for the Frigatte: Guard, right?
Projectile speed is too low. Cooldown is too short.
Idk if it was possible to give that weapon an explosion like function to make it easier to hit - but giving 0 additional explosion damage?
Yes, It’s the Special Alligator-C and TRex MkII Weapon.
Considering the base Overheating speed 8 seconds and 120 Base Round Per Minute : In the best scenario (Immobile Target and you are not moving so you don’t loose any shot due to a barrel unable to fire) it’s meaning 16 Shots before complete overheating, you would need 5 shots to reach the +30% Crit Chance, so 11 Shots with the full Crit buff remaining.
It’s a non explosive weapon so we have to address the degressive yeld on Optimal Range which is 33% of Max Range.
Optimal Range would be at 2680m And Projectile speed being 2750m/s.
Heck, that’s not a lot.
Let’s imagine we are on a T-Rex MkII! And not too dumb so we decide to go with Crit Chance and Projectile Speed > Max Range by using One Acceleration Coil and the “Alpha Inhibitor WPS-FS2” and got 25.5% Chance Crit and 4263 m/s Projectile speed.
So yeah, if the critical chance buff was easier to keep or apply, we would not need any buff Damage on the weapon.
33 minutes ago, Rakza said:
Yes, It’s the Special Alligator-C and TRex MkII Weapon.
Considering the base Overheating speed 8 seconds and 120 Base Round Per Minute : In the best scenario (Immobile Target and you are not moving so you don’t loose any shot due to a barrel unable to fire) it’s meaning 16 Shots before complete overheating, you would need 5 shots to reach the +30% Crit Chance, so 11 Shots with the full Crit buff remaining.
It’s a non explosive weapon so we have to address the degressive yeld on Optimal Range which is 33% of Max Range.
Optimal Range would be at 2680m And Projectile speed being 2750m/s.
Heck, that’s not a lot.
Yes! Stats look ok, but not much effectiveness in real battles!
This cycling through the 4 main gun mounts (inherited from the [Coil mortar]: “… Projectiles are fired from each weapon barrel in quick succession. The barrel does not fire if it’s in the deadzone.”) is so annoying, especially in defending from incoming attacking interceptors or mobile fighters like Stingray, and against the coming very close up Aliens in Open Space with their huge homing spheres! In combination with bad turn its annoying. Think: the rotation is on left side main gun mount but you are trying to hit the enemy on right side, which is just in the dead zone at that moment, enemy is changing to left side and now the barrel on right side is to have its turn: you would not hit 1!
I also argue that the frigate have more deadzone then fighters on interceptors due to their bigger size, but I am not really sure (interceptors also have the cycling through the 2 main gun mounts/barrels, I think on some guns)
That’s why I support in principal that the NY18 has the 8 mounts (4 on top, 4 on bottom half-saucer) because I would reason, there should be a way to lower the specs of each individual main gun mount (‘barrel’) so not let get op, in principle as an experient at least should be ok (I know some are upset by this, sorry). For that’s what frigates trade off against mobility and speed.
I’ve learned something : “… non explosive weapon so we have to address the degressive yeld on Optimal Range which is 33% of[f] Max Range…” - 33% off of max range or 66% of max range that’s interesting, very good to know!
With the low ping and fps circumstances I usually avoid non-explosive weapons like lasers (WL-13EL emitter) and kinetics (Waz’Dum) on my Engineers, that’s why I still love the [Eclipse launcher] (hull repair) and the [Th’ak’Len] (shield repair). The latter should have self heal like the former ; ). [Eclipse launcher] could get damage bonus plus range buff as well, and [Th’ak’Len] could benefit from projectile speed and RPM buff.
P.S.: This “… Optimal Range which is 33% of[f] Max Range” - is especially pulling my nerves, when I try to face the >6km gunships-campers with their lasers, when I come close the more damage they do, and the damage from that >6km is insane- these build should be called supressor-class ; )
2 minutes ago, avarshina said:
've learned something : “… non explosive weapon so we have to address the degressive yeld on Optimal Range which is 33% of[f] Max Range…” - 33% off of max range or 66% of max range that’s interesting, very good to know!
Why do you think “Horizon Module” and “Neurocontroller Albatross” are mentionning “Optimal and Maximum Range”?
2 minutes ago, Rakza said:
Why do you think “Horizon Module” and “Neurocontroller Albatross” are mentionning “Optimal and Maximum Range”?
yes yes … that I know, but not the exact stats “… 33% off of max range” - and I know that explosion damage is not effected by this range degression : )
And: it should be a range-span not a particular range-point: something to tweak, like expand that max range-span?
Just now, avarshina said:
yes yes … that I know, but not the exact stats “… 33% off of max range”
There is an explosive Weapon which is not following the “Barrel Rotation Mechanics” that most of other explosive weapons have.
It’s starting with Decons… and finish with …Structor.
The Flux Phaser / Guided Thermosphere are another ones but a bit particular due to their “Guiding” Mechanics
53 minutes ago, Rakza said:
There is an explosive Weapon which is not following the “Barrel Rotation Mechanics” that most of other explosive weapons have.
It’s starting with Decons… and finish with …Structor. …
 … why does the weapon description not say that [Deconstructor] has explosion damage and how much?
Which one is the Deconstructor?
6 minutes ago, Rakza said:
Which one is the Deconstructor?
1 minute ago, xKostyan said:
I’m too poor to buy a a legal Photoshop
And that’s ‘Paint.Exe’