I dont get it why did Cannon waste so much time coding Player Bases, Cloaks and Jumpdrives in C++ for Freelancer only to now to have the tech nerfed to the point where it is not useable anymore?
I last played here 8 months ago before my ban during which time I then had a BS Cloak that was able to engage cloak after a minute and no damage from enemy fire could disrupt the cloaking process although you could still be tracked by CDs if you were in range. If your telling me now that during the cloaking sequence one hit from enemy fire will stop the cloak from engaging then whats the point?
If so Cannon then just delete these tech from 4.87 code, no point in giving people half a cloak or half a jumpdrive. ITS ALL OR NOTHING!!!!!!
Thats whats wrong with disco and part of the reason why its dying slowly, disco brings out new innovative things in its mod: Bases, Cloaks, Jumpdrives then half way through some RP Idiot cries out about new equipment hurting RP and then it gets nerfed.
Then the same people cry when they see discovery population in decline, go figure????
Explanation for that is simple. Jump drive distance = 1 jump plus cruise, with a very low chance of a hostile encounter or other forms of interaction. Main trader distance is generally at least 5 jumps.
Jump drives were intended to allow fleets mobility. They were never intended to make trade riskless. Especially barge-jumping is an issue, as the barge has crap maneuverability, which is suddenly buffed to the extreme with a jumping ship.
Without people moving goods on the lanes or smuggling routes, there are fewer targets for cargostealers. Pirates get bored and bugger off, leaving fewer targets for police. They too get bored and go somewhere else. At the moment, "somewhere else" is the Nommicrons. Moving cargo via the lanes is how cargo is intended to be moved.
Yes, this is likely to generate a surplus of large jumpdrives, and prolly a surplus of Zoner Carriers on the open market as well. No, I do not see that as a problem, since the folk who have those ships aren't short on credits.
[Edit] @BlackWidow: If you had bothered to read this thread fully, you'd have noticed that the current implementation was bugged, and we're now working to fix those bugs. The CD -not- disrupting the cloak was the bug. The cloak is intended as a surprise attack tactical option, NOT an "olol if anyone shoots at me I'll just cloak you'll never blue me I have too much hull to be instakilled" type of tool.
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.
(03-21-2013, 12:27 PM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: Explanation for that is simple. Jump drive distance = 1 jump plus cruise, with a very low chance of a hostile encounter or other forms of interaction. Main trader distance is generally at least 5 jumps.
Jump drives were intended to allow fleets mobility. They were never intended to make trade riskless. Especially barge-jumping is an issue, as the barge has crap maneuverability, which is suddenly buffed to the extreme with a jumping ship.
Without people moving goods on the lanes or smuggling routes, there are fewer targets for cargostealers. Pirates get bored and bugger off, leaving fewer targets for police. They too get bored and go somewhere else. At the moment, "somewhere else" is the Nommicrons. Moving cargo via the lanes is how cargo is intended to be moved.
Yes, this is likely to generate a surplus of large jumpdrives, and prolly a surplus of Zoner Carriers on the open market as well. No, I do not see that as a problem, since the folk who have those ships aren't short on credits.
[Edit] @BlackWidow: If you had bothered to read this thread fully, you'd have noticed that the current implementation was bugged, and we're now working to fix those bugs. The CD -not- disrupting the cloak was the bug. The cloak is intended as a surprise attack tactical option, NOT an "olol if anyone shoots at me I'll just cloak you'll never blue me I have too much hull to be instakilled" type of tool.
So enemy fire is intended to disrupt cloaking sequence?
(03-21-2013, 08:29 AM)AeternusDoleo Wrote: The main problem with cloaks was that they have no countermeasure, which led to cloaking becoming a "no blue for you" 100% safety, especially for transports and large ships. This was never intended to be the case. EVERY option in Discovery, including cloaks and jumpdrives, is supposed to have a countermeasure. For the cloaks, this was disruptor effect.
Multiple people, experienced in capital ship warafare, explained, multiple times, that cloaking and escaping is extremely hard, if not outright impossible on capital ships, against an opponent that knows what he's doing. (and has a cruiser on the field in case of escaping BS, preferably) Unless being done near the jumphole/jumpgates.
Transports are different case due to ship size/cargo capacity ratio, and I agree it's hard to catch one, without instakilling it with cloaking BS.
I'm not arguing against a CD disruption, merely pointing out incorrect information that you provided.
Cloak CD disruption, basically, won't bring much changes to the cloak mechanics of Capital warfare, except for moving everyone on the same skill level in terms of dealing with cloakers.
Because, well, cloaked caps could be killed before with a good chance, now they can be killed with 100% chance. Caps didn't have much chances to escape before (against proper opponents), caps won't have any chances to escape now. (except for JH/JG instances)
(03-21-2013, 12:37 PM)BLACKWIDOW Wrote: So enemy fire is intended to disrupt cloaking sequence?
(03-21-2013, 12:24 PM)BLACKWIDOW Wrote: I dont get it why did Cannon waste so much time coding Player Bases, Cloaks and Jumpdrives in C++ for Freelancer only to now to have the tech nerfed to the point where it is not useable anymore?
I think you overlook an important point. When you have money in the game what are you going to do? Else then boredom after a while? Cannon brought with this a goal. Its nothing new that people like to build objects. Make something of their own. It brought a lot of traffic and activity for building bases and it still does. So for this i have to disagree with you. Its just that the game is not proper ballanced maybe, but not that this is a waste of time.
User was banned for: Permbanned
Time left: (Permanent)
(03-21-2013, 12:24 PM)BLACKWIDOW Wrote: I dont get it why did Cannon waste so much time coding Player Bases, Cloaks and Jumpdrives in C++ for Freelancer only to now to have the tech nerfed to the point where it is not useable anymore?
I think you overlook an important point. When you have money in the game what are you going to do? Else then boredom after a while? Cannon brought with this a goal. Its nothing new that people like to build objects. Make something of their own. It brought a lot of traffic and activity for building bases and it still does. So for this i have to disagree with you. Its just that the game is not proper ballanced maybe, but not that this is a waste of time.
(03-21-2013, 12:37 PM)BLACKWIDOW Wrote: So enemy fire is intended to disrupt cloaking sequence?
No. Only a cruise disruptor effect. Still working on that.
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.
Simply: give only anti-cloak effect for Incapacitator Torpedo and BS flaks.
And bombers\gb can stop enemy - most of them caps. And BS flaks will be as detecting (radius) weapon and stop cloaking weapon.
for fighter - leave destruction of bombers.If fighter will take role of bombers(fight with enemy capships) - then we can remove bombers from game. fighters have their enemies,and this enemies not BSs.
(03-20-2013, 03:46 PM)Knjaz Wrote: What I'm trying to point out here - possibly, Devteam as a whole might need to get a better insight on the game mechanics themselves or get new experienced people for the balance team. (don't propose myself here, don't play that often, lately, and alrdy beta-testing another non-FL project) Low scale (1x1's, 2x2's ,etc) and large scale snub fights, low and large scale snub/gb fights, same for cruisers, battleships, combined arms, different weight categories of same class (lights vs heavies, etc), in the open, in asteroids, with differnet loadouts etc.
Well, I have behind my belt what is now over 4 years of FL PvP on pretty much any and all sides of any fight. I also cooperate with many pros and experienced people, and contrary to what some may believe I do fish for feedback in the balance forum and incorporate useful suggestions into my plan. So I'd say we are covered with that.
But let me tell you a story that is indirectly related to cloaks. Back in the old days of 4.84 we used to have bombers that could take on any fighter, bomber or capship 1v1 and have a decent to large chance of winning. There was one bomber in particular (the red cat) that was the size of roughly a heavy fighter, had the agility of a VHF and 2 torp slots both of which could mount a razor or an SN. It could also mount fighter weapons. But before that got nerfed people were talking a lot about the BHG GS which was the size of a fighter and at that point could mount and fire 6 gb missiles and have half of a reactor left (6 gb missiles would basically instakill a fighter). Do you want to know what the rationale presented by some people was for us not to nerf the BHG GS? It is fine because they can kill it in a red cat just fine. Of course both of these ships got nerfed in the end, but my point is: just because you can get fluke kills on something that is overpowered doesn't mean it's not overpowered.
Cloaking battleship is (or was) easy mode. You disagree, a bunch of people disagrees, I'm sorry but this change was necessary. Now cloaks can be used for surprise attacks and not endless cloak and re-engage.
![[Image: bhglogo.png]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/ff494/Ilya_Gorunov/bhglogo.png)