Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 211
11-18-2010, 08:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleacoe View Post
It's funny how everyone yells nerf when their class cant dominate the other two. I have a lvl 51 toon in all three classes, and other than the sci class being a bit weak in a 1 vs 1 battle, I think the balance is ok.
the average tac in an escort can NOT take on the average cruiser in a 1v1.
that's really what sparked a lot of the conflict in this thread

and MANY cruiser caotains ADMIT it!!!

then they say "you SHOULD require moe then 1 escort to take on a cruiser"
so if cruiers even admit it... that blows you little statement right out of the window....

and obviously things ARENT balanced
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 212
11-19-2010, 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Saw Zorena's Carrier Video, and I think she proves that Klingon Carriers are in a need of nerfing.
I actually question this can be used as a proof. What if someone had actually gone after Zorena?

Quote:
My word, given all these things, Space combat altogether needs revamped. And people ridiculed my ideas? Yeah, good luck with fixing all this with the current system.
It still sounds a lot easier to tweak these things then throwing everything away and start again.
I roll my eyes in your general direction. :p

Quote:
The new Mini-Carrier Klingon ships.
There is a problem with them?

Quote:
The Buff Stacking is need of nerfing.
So what? Some nerfs and rebalances will always be necessary. You think that if you can create a new system, you suddenly don't need to do that?

Quote:
Shields need somekind of balancing, where they dont drop so easily but yet in a way they arn't turtleshells of immunity.
Oh, that really requires us to throw everything away. It would be unpossible to increase shield capacities and reduce the amount of resistance one can get, for example.

Quote:
Cannon Builds vs Beam Builds.

The new reward buffs.
I don't even see why this is a problem?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 213
11-20-2010, 01:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict View Post
I like your idea here, but wouldn't the chance to hit a target moving across your vector be something below 100%?? With a 160% chance to hit there would be no misses. or, am I missing something? Additionally, I would think that distance would have to be factor; the more distant a target the more difficult to hit. Yes?
absolutely the main factor would be the tracking multiplier .5 is extremely high, .05, in EvE .5 small turrets, .1 medium, and large .05 base (not accurate #'s) but you get the the idea the larger the weapons sytem the smaller the tracking multiplier the greater the margin of error. missiles in that game use a similar mechanic but employ explosion radious and explosion velocity vs. the signature radious of the enemy and the speed. i believe torps should share this. different torps would have different attributes to them like wepons take the plasma torp. faster speed slower explosion, so they would be better suited for stationary targets, wound then kill, or takle kill. i love plasma weapons i used the romulans in starfleet battles and in orions pirates. the plasma high yield needs the hp of the ammount of damage they do,*they are gimp now* they also need to lose hp as they follow the target and thier volley damage needs to upped by double and recharge as well. IMO

Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict View Post
Agreed. Any bupkiss can pop an engine battery and evasive and be out of range in 2 - 3s. The only compensating factor here is that once a weapon is fired while the target is in range the beam/torp continues with it out of range.

While I like your idea here don't you think that adding 50 - 100% to weapons range you will require a corresponding increase in map size? If range for weapons is extended are the ranges for heals extended was well?
absolutely, when i was tribble the size of one sector block on tribble now should be the size of a small map.
this would give sides a little more ralley time for cordinated assaults.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict View Post
The plan to talk before each match would be nice, but would require cryptic to integrate a voice chat system AND supposes that members would own and use a mic. How many play XBox and get in a multi-player where half the team is mic silent? I think the same would happen here.[/color]
agreed VOIP is needed i liked APB's VOIP system the best so far, but cryptic would have to make a unique one that would allow players to set up team communications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict View Post
We're looking for balance amongst the ship classes. By example, one of the ideas includes adding hull to each ship. So, no, we're not looking for a nerf.
reciently i posted this when i was on the test server screwing around waiting for the new episodes.

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=185327


i came to the conclusion that the main thing that sets the ships and ranks apart, what really over powers the frigs is the BO's and the fact smaller ships don not have natural game defence mechanic such as signature radious and speed.
these are my findings have a look

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...CJy6w5cM#gid=0

notice that while in dry dock and in space the gap between defaul and level 51 are not that bad.
i believe that the BO power configurations along with the lack of natural speed and size defence mechanics really set the ship classes apart.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 214
11-20-2010, 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .Spartan View Post
I and several others begged for that type of system in CB but our efforts fell on deaf ears. Anyway, for what it is worth, I think 10k should be the marginal range and 20k the max range.
i know i was one of them, i still am.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 215
11-20-2010, 01:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by D-Rek View Post
this would be awesome.

incidentally, SEVERAL times in TNG fighting has taken place at 20km.
as far as attributes go, this all seems to make sense, but it would be a bear to impliment and balance.
but it's worth looking into.
yes it would, it took CCP a very long time to add some of the attributes, and forumals, but the benifite is faster game play, comfortably fleet battles can be in the hundreds because all the hit ratios are done with the same formula damage ratios are done with the same formula.
i was reading a developer blod from one of the devs from ccp and thats one of the ways they are able to support single shard game play. problem is it starts to fall appart when the population hits 1500 in the same system
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 216
11-20-2010, 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lbuckius View Post
i know i was one of them, i still am.
We can only hope Dan and crew are not so deaf...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 217
11-20-2010, 04:05 PM
I was thinking more about the target area presented and I don' think the circumferential calculation would be correct. Looking at a ship from the side you see a circle. So, I was thinking, wouldn't the area of a circle (Pi*r^2) be more the correct calculation? (I actually think that shields are more an ovoid (Pi*A*B) than a circle; especially, in larger ships.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 218
11-20-2010, 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tranceaddict View Post
I was thinking more about the target area presented and I don' think the circumferential calculation would be correct. Looking at a ship from the side you see a circle. So, I was thinking, wouldn't the area of a circle (Pi*r^2) be more the correct calculation? (I actually think that shields are more an ovoid (Pi*A*B) than a circle; especially, in larger ships.)
now i feel like nub your right would be the area i got mathed lol
to revise then the bop has a lenght of 110 say it has a hieght of 26

Pi * 55* 13
2245 meters sig radious shield mainance and efficiency skills reduce the sig radious of the ship and also the ships parrent skill escort and such.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 219
11-22-2010, 06:56 PM
good idea... very interesting... but off course!

balance suggestions?

reaction to dev posting?

if you need a reminder about where we are in discussion or where the current PvP/PvE ship balance is currently at... please refer to the helpful chart below!!!!

I
I
I
I
I
V
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:40 AM.