' Wrote:Unless of course the transport captain is smart enough to keep his ship out of the range of your cruisers guns.
' Wrote:Cruisers and battleships have no CDs the last time I checkedp. If the cap has the aid of a snub with a CD you're toast.
:lol: You does not really have flown any caps right?
Well Cruisers have CDs.. And cruiser cerbs hit at 1.9k effective range, and 5k missile range and 4 k LM range- cruisers are the best transport killers possible- especially the lighter ones.
May be only sub- 2k transps have little chance of escaping from heavy cruisers facing them and trying to cruise away till the cruiser turns- problem is that they could die in meantime as well if the cruiser pilot is good enough.
' Wrote:Does it matter if it closes the gap permitting continued lane hacking and cruise disruption? It takes what, five seconds to charge a cruise engine. So in that time a transport burning 160m/s is going to get about one and a half klicks of coverage away by the time the gunboat is able to be on top of the transport again if the transport begins 1km away to start with.
The new guy have more experience then the most of the people here- such a shame. He is also right.
Giving all transps 160 speed would force pirates not to use GBs for piracy, giving lawful caps the ability to pwn the pirate transports would force the pirates not to use transports.
' Wrote:Balance issues are difficult to predict.The suggestion for eliminating Rule 6.7 should be seen as an effort to address those complaints. Whatever decision is ultimately decided on, can be undone if unforeseen problems require us to do.
Balance issues are damn easy to test and predict- you need 5-6 good people in each class involved and 1 hour time in test server/Conn. I can predict more then the half of them even before the changes got implemented.
If you want to remove the rule you can just remove it for all, if you want just to nerf pirates you can ban piracy in anything bigger the snubs, it depends what you want really. In this long topic the only motive that I saw by the dev/admin team is to remove 6.7- well do the shield thing and remove it for all- it wont harm anyone if Battleship have the same DPS like heavy GB vs transports or if the cruiser have the same DPS like light GB vs transports -so both sides- lawful and unlawful would not have this stupid grudge between each other and it would be fair for all.
(10-09-2013, 10:51 AM)Knjaz Wrote: Official faction players that are often accused of elitism, never deploy them and have those weird, immersion killing "fair fight/dueling" suicidal hobbies. (yes, i've seen enough of those lolduels, where house military with overwhelming force on the field willingly loses a pilot in a duel. ffs.)
Ok this might have been mentioned before, so please forgive me if my suggestion is daft, but how about adding cap weaponry resists to all transport shields? Dunno if it is possible, but it would seem it would be a viable way to ensure that transports don't get instagibbed, while the combat balance between the other classes and snubs/gbs vs transport remains the same.
' Wrote:Ok this might have been mentioned before, so please forgive me if my suggestion is daft, but how about adding cap weaponry resists to all transport shields? Dunno if it is possible, but it would seem it would be a viable way to ensure that transports don't get instagibbed, while the combat balance between the other classes and snubs/gbs vs transport remains the same.
It seems unlikely.
The only things moddable are those stored as information in dlls and .ini's, which to my knowledge treat damage as damage irregardless of it's source.
gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|
' Wrote:It seems unlikely.
The only things moddable are those stored as information in dlls and .ini's, which to my knowledge treat damage as damage irregardless of it's source.
(10-09-2013, 10:51 AM)Knjaz Wrote: Official faction players that are often accused of elitism, never deploy them and have those weird, immersion killing "fair fight/dueling" suicidal hobbies. (yes, i've seen enough of those lolduels, where house military with overwhelming force on the field willingly loses a pilot in a duel. ffs.)
of course, I forgot about the difference between molecular graviton and positron shields.
And since the admins here has managed to disable the diff, it follows that it would also be possible to enhance it.
gone four years, first day back: Zoners still getting shot in Theta :|
' Wrote:Balance issues are damn easy to test and predict- you need 5-6 good people in each class involved and 1 hour time in test server/Conn. I can predict more then the half of them even before the changes got implemented.
Gotta agree with Govedo on this one. It's pretty easy to even calculate most of it in own mind, inb4 testing, if you're an experienced capital ship player or just a capwhore like me that flies exclusively on caps.
Well, this is actually what many or most capital fights are about, against the vessel of similiar size - you gotta calculate how the fight will go before it starts. Capfights are often about math - unless you meet a real pro kiter on your heavy BS, but even then it's largely about math.
And yes, cruisers (heavies especially) will rape cau8 battletransports, unless specific conditions are met (dense asteroid field is one of them)
Quote:If you want to remove the rule you can just remove it for all, if you want just to nerf pirates you can ban piracy in anything bigger the snubs, it depends what you want really. In this long topic the only motive that I saw by the dev/admin team is to remove 6.7- well do the shield thing and remove it for all- it wont harm anyone if Battleship have the same DPS like heavy GB vs transports or if the cruiser have the same DPS like light GB vs transports -so both sides- lawful and unlawful would not have this stupid grudge between each other and it would be fair for all.
Are you sure it is possible to change weapon type of Cruiser and Battleship pulses? (just a question, I don't know the actual mechanics too well)
' Wrote:Balance issues are difficult to predict. There are many variables, and they run on the assumption that everyone has the same skill level and experience. That is not the case.
The goal for eliminating this rule is to eliminate OORP situations as well as to simplify the many rules that govern this server. Balance issues that come about as a result of this potential rule change can be addressed as the need may be. Worst case scenario, we go back to the original rule and chalk it up as an experiment that just didnt work. Nothing has to be permanent.
Many times, we hear complaints of how many rules there are here. The suggestion for eliminating Rule 6.7 should be seen as an effort to address those complaints. Whatever decision is ultimately decided on, can be undone if unforeseen problems require us to do.
The rule change proposed by you in the original post does not affect technical part of balance in any serious way - with one big exception.
Why it doesn't? Because, literally, pirate has to do a choice of pirating someone in front of a capship. I.e., he still got a choice to do certain actions and, most likely, die - or not to do them, stay alive and search for a new prey.
The exception I mentioned involves the use of cloaks - it will be possible to make an ambush on the pirating transport. An ambush pirate would have *no chance* to survive. it can be an Au8 cruiser - or a 260-300k regen battleship with 3 Heavy Mortars (instakilling one).
I can foresee alot of angry people that would be caught this way, thinking that they were perfectly fine and then getting instakilled next second - because they literally didn't have a choice to make, unlike in non-cloak involving encounters.
I honestly don't know how to level the grounds here without making rule too complicated, but I have something like this in mind:
Quote:"Before opening fire, capital ship should request the pirating transport to break the hostilities and give him sufficient time to response".
It can use a better wording, but you got the idea.
P.S. and I'm myself not too sure, if it's really necessary, or not.
' Wrote:i) Pirates in house space caught issuing a demand.
In that case also add:
- Trade ships caught in a system without jump gate or trade lane. To reduce the amount of idiots using Hessian/Outcast/Corsair/Nomad space as a shortcut. I cringe every time I see an unescorted 5K transie zip through Omega 5...
- Cargo ships caught carrying contraband To put the kybosh on smugglers abusing 6.7 to zip through New York for instance. Edit: Also aimed at embargorunners...
- Cargo ships within 10 K of a player base. To put the kybosh on player base supply using this rule as an undue immunity.
Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.
Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.
' Wrote:of course, I forgot about the difference between molecular graviton and positron shields.
And since the admins here has managed to disable the diff, it follows that it would also be possible to enhance it.
Weapon type, shield type, and respective damage buff or nerf can be set between mod versions - it's a few settings in the weapon INIs. These are fully moddable - we've done so with the pulse type, setting it to have no bonus or drawback to any shields.
' Wrote:The new guy have more experience then the most of the people here- such a shame. He is also right.
Giving all transps 160 speed would force pirates not to use GBs for piracy, giving lawful caps the ability to pwn the pirate transports would force the pirates not to use transports.
How brilliantly shortsighted, true to form. Now then, combine a pirate transport with two bombers and field your combination of trader and cruiser against this. Who will win that? Two options: Risky, the bombers nova the trader into oblivion and the transport scoops up the goodies while trying to dodge cruiser fire. Not risky: Let the transport go, bombers waste the cruiser while the transports simply run out of range.
That you apparantly still prefer to do solo piracy, and that that becomes harder, is too bad.
Quote:Balance issues are damn easy to test and predict- you need 5-6 good people in each class involved and 1 hour time in test server/Conn. I can predict more then the half of them even before the changes got implemented.
If you want to remove the rule you can just remove it for all, if you want just to nerf pirates you can ban piracy in anything bigger the snubs, it depends what you want really. In this long topic the only motive that I saw by the dev/admin team is to remove 6.7- well do the shield thing and remove it for all- it wont harm anyone if Battleship have the same DPS like heavy GB vs transports or if the cruiser have the same DPS like light GB vs transports -so both sides- lawful and unlawful would not have this stupid grudge between each other and it would be fair for all.
I'd switch it around - make gunboats actually perform according to their class. Pulse and razor consume less energy and their turrets would need to be turning a lot slower. Standard Turrets do half damage, while the projectile speed drastically goes up (and the range a little bit too). This makes them lethal versus snubs, as they should be, but have about the same DPS as transports for turret-only. Pulse and razor combinations can then be used for gunboats that prefer to take on hardened targets - such as transports. But those will be less effective in dealing with snubs as the turrets simply won't turn fast enough.
We're not after banning anything. But if you go at it solo, expect to have a rough time. Gunboats are support craft, or intended as such. Not "spam this and you can't be beaten" craft.
Wide awake in a world that sleeps, enduring thoughts, enduring scenes. The knowledge of what is yet to come.
From a time when all seems lost, from a dead man to a world, without restraint, unafraid and free.
Mostly retired Discovery member. May still visit from time to time.
' Wrote:Weapon type, shield type, and respective damage buff or nerf can be set between mod versions - it's a few settings in the weapon INIs. These are fully moddable - we've done so with the pulse type, setting it to have no bonus or drawback to any shields.
This is what I tried to explain in 2-3 posts already- why not to remove the rule and add specific shields for transps and specific guns for caps that cannnot do much dps to transp - then remove 6.7 completely. It would fix mechanic issue using game mechanics. Piracy and killing pirates in caps should be no problem if the caps can deliver the same dps as gb to transps.
(10-09-2013, 10:51 AM)Knjaz Wrote: Official faction players that are often accused of elitism, never deploy them and have those weird, immersion killing "fair fight/dueling" suicidal hobbies. (yes, i've seen enough of those lolduels, where house military with overwhelming force on the field willingly loses a pilot in a duel. ffs.)
' Wrote:In that case also add:
- Trade ships caught in a system without jump gate or trade lane. To reduce the amount of idiots using Hessian/Outcast/Corsair/Nomad space as a shortcut. I cringe every time I see an unescorted 5K transie zip through Omega 5...
I wonder what Zoners would think about all of that? :D
But it's not just Lower Omegas and all of Omicrons, but also Baffin, Coronado, Orkney, Lewis, Tau 37. These are the first that came to my mind.
' Wrote:- Cargo ships caught carrying contraband To put the kybosh on smugglers abusing 6.7 to zip through New York for instance.
Uhm, why punish smugglers? They're not too different from traders, after all. Their routes aren't that much more profitable, either.
Quote:- Cargo ships within 10 K of a player base. To put the kybosh on player base supply using this rule as an undue immunity.
Player bases can be located anywhere, and this is too easy to abuse.
...with corsair/hessian cruisers pirating everyone that comes out of O7 JGs in O3, or near Oberhausen. For example.