Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
03-16-2011, 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
Glad your psychic abilities are doing so well but I'm still curiuos as to a response that addresses the questions I have asked.
There is nothing psychic about it. You could care less about a balanced, enjoyable game. I've looked through your post history a number of times and they are 100% self-indulgent. Your only thought, ever, is for your own play style and you refuse to see any imbalance in the game unless it is limiting YOUR ability to win 100% of the time.

This is why I do not address anything in your posts. There isn't any point. You will not give any opposing viewpoint a fair consideration and you will not even fully read the replies.

This is only my opinion, however you have earned it from me and will therefore be forced to deal with it in my threads.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
03-16-2011, 09:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alastor_Forthright View Post
This is an incredibly mature and on the whole reasonable take on this. I am a Defiant captain, the cloak, and my speed, are a heavy part of my game play style, so I am coming from you from the opposite perspective. If I am indeed preforming my buff, decloak, assault attack and get tractored, a semple evasive, is enough to break. Sometime this does make me feel a bit... broken. Do not get me wrong, I enjoy winning and dislike being destroyed as most, but when a build specificly built to deal with individuals of my play style is so easily overcome by a single buff, it feels like I've lost a bit of the pride I should gain from a kill or successful evade.

To this point the only times i've ever been stopped in my tracks have been by multi-tractors. Tractoring by multiple mines, or ships at the same time. But even then, due to my build, an Evasive, alpha, omega, battery pop will see me 30km away in 5 seconds. This is not much of an exaduration as some of you might imagine, speed is my chief power setting and I can in short bursts break my "Full Impulse" speed limit while buffing. Allowing me to even chase down fleeing opponents of my own and nab them.

That said, If I pop my Evasive, alpha, omega, EngBat combo I fully expect to break free of the tractor or tractors holding me down. But, I do think there should be a downside to that. I'm recalling this at 6am, after a day of no sleep so i may be wrong but I do recall that if a small ship fights a tractorbeam of a larger ship it takes stress damage and can even blow out its engines. So iff a ship like my Defiant Retro pops all those buffs, and breaks free of a multi-hold, I imagine there should be some hull stress and damage done to me. Probably not enough to cripple me outright, but something to offset the ability to break free.

TL;DR I agree with the OP, and I'm a 'raider' player of sorts.
Thank you for your input.

The mechanics I suggested are intended to provide a sliding-scale of damage based on abilities used and directed at BOTH parties during an engagement. I specifically avoided mentioning anti-tractor abilities such as APO, PH, APA in my previous post because I didn't feel ready to fully address them before and didn't want to make the idea so wordy as to be unreadable.

IMHO all attack patterns are maneuvers, and as such should require that you be in motion to take effect. It is my opinion that they should not operate if your engines are disabled or you are being held immobile. I have given this a LOT of thought because I too use APO, APA and other attack patterns in my tactical and raider builds (VA Tac in Defiant Retro/Lt. Gen Sci Hvy BoP captain) and I know their utility. IF, however, the attack pattern is engaged before a tractor beam or other hold is initiated then the target should retain immunity and be unaffected by a hold skill such as TB. Only a direct counter should provide complete immunity to the tractor beam once a hold is initiated (ex: PH, JS, PSW). In all builds I believe that you must sacrifice some immunities to gain some advantages and there should be balance in the way that skills operate. The choice of an advanced escort vs. a tactical escort retrofit should center around that third science slot enabling the captain to provide himself with immunities to science abilities (or offensive science abilities if preferred). As it stands now, there really isn't any significant advantage since existing tactical and universal skills provide those same immunities.

It is my belief that the random-chance for damage to either player will provide that same moment of hesitation in a captain that is portrayed in Star Trek when a captain is being held in a tractor beam, gravitational or subspace anomaly where they know they are about to take a terrible risk but maybe... just maybe it will pay off and save their ship or even let them pull a victory out of a disaster.

Understand, My difficulty with the game is not that my choice of builds is ineffective, but rather that there is no choice of builds or skills by which any federation ship can make a raider attack a risk. The only possible way for a raider to die in an attack (presently) is if they are facing enough firepower to kill them more quickly than they can mash skills, or if they do something horribly stupid.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
03-16-2011, 09:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RStoney View Post
Guess I should add into my post -- the hull damage portion would be only for those using Evasives/battery, etc for escaping. Because you are trying to 'force' your way out.

If you use Polarize Hull or APO to escape, that is 'nullifying' the tractor effect, and well...on your way you go, and you shouldn't incur any damage.
Agreed about PH, but as I said in another reply I think APO should have the effect only if initiated before a hold, not after. HOWEVER with that said I think that the damage boost to APO should remain the same while the immunity to hold should be extended to a longer duration since it is an attack pattern and should last long enough for the attack run to end. In my mind's eye I envision this as maneuvering in such a way that establishing a tractor lock is nearly impossible (excessive speed variations with diving and weaving towards the target, false signal EW jamming and transmissions that push the deflector to it's max, etc...) and as such could not be initiated AFTER a tractor lock is already established.

In my scenario APO would be engaged right at the start of an attack run instead of being saved as a response to hold maneuvers and provide immunity for the duration of the attack, approximately 10 seconds. It would be combined with CRF or CSV, HY, TT,

It is my sincere belief that attack patterns should encourage raider and escort captains to make fast attack runs and limit the current practice of slowing down or stopping with cannons trained on target and just firing excessively. I should point out that in experienced engagements this is a moot point since no experienced raider captain or prey would allow their opponent the opportunity to stop moving and still retain any chance of success.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
03-17-2011, 05:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyLeach View Post
There is nothing psychic about it. You could care less about a balanced, enjoyable game. I've looked through your post history a number of times and they are 100% self-indulgent. Your only thought, ever, is for your own play style and you refuse to see any imbalance in the game unless it is limiting YOUR ability to win 100% of the time.
.
Well thanks for the honest opinion, though I consider my posts to be anti-fed indulgent as I find many threads attempting to curl an advantage into thier factions fold. Especially concerning the BoP and its gameplay characteristics.

Your opening post strikes me as such a post since you only seem concerned on how "raiders" are primarily able to escape your well-layed traps. Hence my seeing your ideas as only damaging another play style to support your own better. Prove me wrong. Show me this not an attack on the "OP" perception that many feds hold for the BoP and I will gladly listen to what you say.

1) If Attacks Patterns are going to be rendered ineffective after TB is in effect, then what of the option of targeting the TB emitters on the holding vessel? A tactic used in the genre before.

2) Will your damage concept only inflict damage if said held vessel attempts to flee using EVM, EngBatt? WHy is mass/size of holding vessel an issue if its the strength of the emmitted TB beam that actually hold said held vessel in place? Should not size be a factor only if one vessel is trying to pull anaother using TB?
How will your proposed changes keep a player from TBing a target and then attempting to destroy said target by towing it to death or starting a TB tug-of-war to death between two vessel?

In retrospect, how does a TB actually inflict hul damage? The beam itself is not grabbing siad vessel by latching onto just a small section of the hull but is grabbing the vessel like two largew hands and holding it in the center of them. Said vessel is not ripping away and thefore taking the chance of having some of its hull plating removed when it fights the TB using bruteforce. If its infact hull stress from the twisting of a the ships keel so to speak under the stress of the engines pushing at full power against the TB lock.

3) How do shields play into this concept? If shields offer protection from the high energy of attack weapons, why do they not contribute to a vessel ability to more easily evade TB?

4) Why stuns? I can understand hull stress damage but not losing a subsystem without knowing in advance that one is about to blow a system beforehand and having the ability to stop attempting a brute force escape.

5) Your concept depends heavily on the fact that a vessel shouldn't be able to brute force thier way out of a TB attack. So how is engine power going to actually play a part in the escape dynamics? If your beam is low Aux powered and my Engines are at max power is my "%" chance of taking any hull damage going to be lowered accordingly? Subsystem disables?

I actually do want a balanced and enjoyable game, just not one balanced to anybodys particular advantage at the sake of someone elses gameplay.
And while your ideas have merit, you've greatly removed the ingame counters to TB and left the player with only PH to reliably escape a TB attack/hold and opened them to a heavy hull attack for a class of vessels with the lowest hull ingame.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
03-17-2011, 06:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
Well thanks for the honest opinion, though I consider my posts to be anti-fed indulgent as I find many threads attempting to curl an advantage into thier factions fold. Especially concerning the BoP and its gameplay characteristics.

Your opening post strikes me as such a post since you only seem concerned on how "raiders" are primarily able to escape your well-layed traps. Hence my seeing your ideas as only damaging another play style to support your own better. Prove me wrong. Show me this not an attack on the "OP" perception that many feds hold for the BoP and I will gladly listen to what you say.

1) If Attacks Patterns are going to be rendered ineffective after TB is in effect, then what of the option of targeting the TB emitters on the holding vessel? A tactic used in the genre before.

2) Will your damage concept only inflict damage if said held vessel attempts to flee using EVM, EngBatt? WHy is mass/size of holding vessel an issue if its the strength of the emmitted TB beam that actually hold said held vessel in place? Should not size be a factor only if one vessel is trying to pull anaother using TB?
How will your proposed changes keep a player from TBing a target and then attempting to destroy said target by towing it to death or starting a TB tug-of-war to death between two vessel?

In retrospect, how does a TB actually inflict hul damage? The beam itself is not grabbing siad vessel by latching onto just a small section of the hull but is grabbing the vessel like two largew hands and holding it in the center of them. Said vessel is not ripping away and thefore taking the chance of having some of its hull plating removed when it fights the TB using bruteforce. If its infact hull stress from the twisting of a the ships keel so to speak under the stress of the engines pushing at full power against the TB lock.

3) How do shields play into this concept? If shields offer protection from the high energy of attack weapons, why do they not contribute to a vessel ability to more easily evade TB?

4) Why stuns? I can understand hull stress damage but not losing a subsystem without knowing in advance that one is about to blow a system beforehand and having the ability to stop attempting a brute force escape.

5) Your concept depends heavily on the fact that a vessel shouldn't be able to brute force thier way out of a TB attack. So how is engine power going to actually play a part in the escape dynamics? If your beam is low Aux powered and my Engines are at max power is my "%" chance of taking any hull damage going to be lowered accordingly? Subsystem disables?

I actually do want a balanced and enjoyable game, just not one balanced to anybodys particular advantage at the sake of someone elses gameplay.
And while your ideas have merit, you've greatly removed the ingame counters to TB and left the player with only PH to reliably escape a TB attack/hold and opened them to a heavy hull attack for a class of vessels with the lowest hull ingame.
Since your reply is cogent, I will respond with tentative hope for a reasonable dialogue. First, understand that while you reply to nearly every thread in this forum, most others do not. For this reason I believe that I understand your apparent belief that all posters must first gain your approval before your attention. Unfortunately this leaves your average reply biased and ill-informed. Perhaps this can go some distance towards explaining your equally apparent failure to fully read the posts to which you reply.

RE 1.) The game mechanic does not allow for specific hardware targeting. I would love to see this in the game and would extend this desire to allow for damaged and/or destroyed hardware rather than hardware binding. Since this comes dangerously close to a redesign of the game, however, we must (for now) be content to live with auxiliary subsystem targeting which would render tractor beams ineffective but is itself an ineffective tactic most of the time due to it's lack of duration and ease of counter. For the most part, if this were to be implemented I would push for beams to be the only subsystem-targeting-capable weapon type with a possible allowance for a very low chance of success on cannon disables.

RE 2.) Mass/Size of the holding vessel is referenced in my post due to Cryptic's use of this as a limiting factor already in TB mechanics and does not stem from cannon. Cannon is unclear on precisely how TB mechanics are to work, as the device is a beam and not a field one is lead to assume that it operates, at least in part, more like a teather than a field effect; thus the mass + power variable in the equation. Perhaps mass should determine how much power is required to offset the holding capability. Perhaps mass should determine how much engine power is required to supplement auxiliary power in order to hold. I honestly do not know the Cryptic design philosophy here, merely that mass of holding and trapped vessel play a part in hold effectiveness.

Thus the mechanic of the tactic must be determined before the type of damage inflicted can be determined. My assumption is/was that the hull stress was between the engines and their moorings or perhaps to affected sections of the hull (i.e. dorsal/aft) with the unaffected (i.e. bow/ventral).

RE 3.) They have no effect and never have. I do not know why, merely that they do not.

RE 4.) One does know that one is going to be putting excessive strain on a system if that system is about to be used far in excess of it's design tollerance. A TB is not meant to be an offensive weapon, and engines are not, strictly speaking, designed to be pushed at maximum against a counterbalancing force but instead meant to move the vessel through free space at high velocity. With that said, I allowed for increasing risk based on increasing strain. One would assume that at initiation of such a maneuver warnings would be ignored and that one is hoping for the best outcome the entire time with no margin for imminent failure warnings.

RE 5.) Not so. My premise is that brute force should run a high chance of both escape and damage. As I said in my post: yes, high power vs. low power should result in high chance of success/low chance of damage (target), low chance of escape low chance of damage (target), high chance of hold failure low chance of damage (holder), etc... I had thought I had explained this clearly, should you have further questions concerning specifics I would be happy to attempt to clarify.

This is true, I have attempted to open them to a danger they do not presently face. This is because there is no risk involved for a raider unless they are attacking a vessel with high DPS potential (escort) or a very large number of vessels with combined high DPS potential. I hardly think the game balanced when the raider has the option to exhaust all methods of attack without any risk of retaliation except by a single game mechanic: raw DPS. At present, without high DPS a raider can, at any time and at complete leasure decide to disengage, wait, then re-engage at a time and place of their choosing. They cannot be chased down by any class of ship unless they are foolish enough to stop running after their initial burst of speed since they are the fastest class of ship in the game.

While all other ships can presently run, none of them can actually escape or catch a determined raider since it is much faster. In this way complete domination of an essential piece of the battle mechanic: the choice of time and location of engagement, is given entirely to the raider class with no risk whatsoever of being outmaneuvered and outplayed.

The essense of the argument is that if I preserve EVM -or- Deuterium and EngBatt I retain immunity to effective counterattack. I have no fear of failure save that of failure to destroy my target. In essense: unlimited mulligans.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
03-17-2011, 08:14 AM
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyLeach View Post
First, understand that while you reply to nearly every thread in this forum, most others do not. For this reason I believe that I understand your apparent belief that all posters must first gain your approval before your attention.
I surf them wilst working and I don't understand the "gain approval " remark.

Quote:
Unfortunately this leaves your average reply biased and ill-informed. Perhaps this can go some distance towards explaining your equally apparent failure to fully read the posts to which you reply.
I read and post wislt working so often my attention is divided.

Quote:
RE 1.) The game mechanic does not allow for specific hardware targeting. I would love to see this in the game and would extend this desire to allow for damaged and/or destroyed hardware rather than hardware binding.
Since the concept of "hangar targeting" is being looked into a similiar option may be possible for TB emitters.
Quote:
Since this comes dangerously close to a redesign of the game, however, we must (for now) be content to live with auxiliary subsystem targeting which would render tractor beams ineffective but is itself an ineffective tactic most of the time due to it's lack of duration and ease of counter.
I did not think of the Aux disable option as a possible counter to TB.
Quote:
For the most part, if this were to be implemented I would push for beams to be the only subsystem-targeting-capable weapon type with a possible allowance for a very low chance of success on cannon disables.
Interesting idea for canon precise targeting but I do not think if implemented such would be a good idea as a whole as it takes from using beams for that purpose. While they idea of targeting the TB emitters should be possible with cannons as an option to counter, the idea of cannons being able to use BTSS abilities is possibly unbalancing.

Quote:
RE 2.) Mass/Size of the holding vessel is referenced in my post due to Cryptic's use of this as a limiting factor already in TB mechanics and does not stem from cannon. Cannon is unclear on precisely how TB mechanics are to work, as the device is a beam and not a field one is lead to assume that it operates, at least in part, more like a teather than a field effect; thus the mass + power variable in the equation. Perhaps mass should determine how much power is required to offset the holding capability. Perhaps mass should determine how much engine power is required to supplement auxiliary power in order to hold. I honestly do not know the Cryptic design philosophy here, merely that mass of holding and trapped vessel play a part in hold effectiveness.
Clear TB mechanics would be needed-yes. Though I thought it was a "cupping" energy field that holds one instead of a tethered effect. If tethered then vessel mass would be a factor is escaping. If a "cupping" effect then the power put into Aux should be the only factor I think. Though I like the idea that mass should be a factor is required power needed to TB a target to a stand still.

Quote:
Thus the mechanic of the tactic must be determined before the type of damage inflicted can be determined. My assumption is/was that the hull stress was between the engines and their moorings or perhaps to affected sections of the hull (i.e. dorsal/aft) with the unaffected (i.e. bow/ventral).
Such was my thinking as well. That the TB is not ripping pieces off a vessel in an attempt to hold it in place, but the vessel is suffering stresses due to it trying to move with no applicable motion happening. This figures into my system strain warnings below.

Quote:
RE 3.) They have no effect and never have. I do not know why, merely that they do not.
I ask becuase the genre has shown on accassion (if memory serves) that the use of a shifting polarity of the shields has kept TB from locking onto a vessel before and am curiuos as to why this is not a factor ingame.

Quote:
RE 4.) One does know that one is going to be putting excessive strain on a system if that system is about to be used far in excess of it's design tollerance. A TB is not meant to be an offensive weapon, and engines are not, strictly speaking, designed to be pushed at maximum against a counterbalancing force but instead meant to move the vessel through free space at high velocity. With that said, I allowed for increasing risk based on increasing strain. One would assume that at initiation of such a maneuver warnings would be ignored and that one is hoping for the best outcome the entire time with no margin for imminent failure warnings.
I would think that the first warning would be ignored but further warnings should give the player the option to cease attempting to "brute" ones way to escape in liue of damaging the engines. This could be represented by an escalating damage potential as oppossed to a given % chance per second of attempt to suffer damage. Of course factors like Engpower of the target versus the Aux power of the TB should be a factor as well.

Quote:
RE 5.) Not so. My premise is that brute force should run a high chance of both escape and damage. As I said in my post: yes, high power vs. low power should result in high chance of success/low chance of damage (target), low chance of escape low chance of damage (target), high chance of hold failure low chance of damage (holder), etc... I had thought I had explained this clearly, should you have further questions concerning specifics I would be happy to attempt to clarify.
No that covers the concern of that aspect of your idea. Not knowing the base damage of GW3 confused my understanding of how you proposed the level of damage that TB would inflict at diffrent power levels.

Quote:
This is true, I have attempted to open them to a danger they do not presently face. This is because there is no risk involved for a raider unless they are attacking a vessel with high DPS potential (escort) or a very large number of vessels with combined high DPS potential. I hardly think the game balanced when the raider has the option to exhaust all methods of attack without any risk of retaliation except by a single game mechanic: raw DPS. At present, without high DPS a raider can, at any time and at complete leasure decide to disengage, wait, then re-engage at a time and place of their choosing. They cannot be chased down by any class of ship unless they are foolish enough to stop running after their initial burst of speed since they are the fastest class of ship in the game.

While all other ships can presently run, none of them can actually escape or catch a determined raider since it is much faster. In this way complete domination of an essential piece of the battle mechanic: the choice of time and location of engagement, is given entirely to the raider class with no risk whatsoever of being outmaneuvered and outplayed.
I disagree on your reasoning in the HnR tactics used by escorts/Raiders and how they are unbalanced in favor of these vessels.
This tactic is the only reason escorts exist, to hit from surprise if possible, hit hard, stay moving to insure a higher survival and to escape at the discretion of the captain. The speed of these vessel is the offset to their low survivablity in combat. If cruiser could whip around and chase down escorts then escorts would not be needed on the field of battle.
While I think TB may need some review of its effectiveness in holding a target, I do not wish to see the escort/raider class lose one of their few tactics to a potential new attack form.

Quote:
The essense of the argument is that if I preserve EVM -or- Deuterium and EngBatt I retain immunity to effective counterattack. I have no fear of failure save that of failure to destroy my target. In essense: unlimited mulligans.
Such a source of "mulligans" does not insure a victory by any means, especially ina 1vs1 encounter and hardly does more than let a Raider/Escort do what it was designed for; to harras and enemy and hopefully overcome them.
Its a defense for those vessels that don't always have the option to use self heals to survive the duration of combat against an opponent that holds the advatange in a combat of attrition.
I've never noticed any great advantage from being able to escape that better determined victory for a Escort/Raider other than hopefully not dying as my health dropped and being able to turn at just past 10km to try again or flee to get help for a heavily defended foe.
While you feel my aims are selfish from my posting history towards retaining and advantage, AI think they are merely my attempt to not let them get taken away unfairly.
A new mechanic to not make breaking TB so easy without forethought to how is fine, taking hull damage to an extent in the brute force attempt is also fine (still don't like subsystem damage as a possiblity) but losing the ability to Hit-N-Run is a gamebreaking event for those whom rely on it to succeed and survive.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
03-17-2011, 09:44 AM
[quote=Roach;3436485]
Quote:
I surf them wilst working and I don't understand the "gain approval " remark.

*snip*

... but losing the ability to Hit-N-Run is a gamebreaking event for those whom rely on it to succeed and survive.
My response was in reference to your own words, in which you indicated a clear prejudice against posts addressing balance issues.

We both agree on the last point. I do not wish to see this either, I am merely seeking a way to build a very specific custom-made counter to the HnR tactic. This build would not be effective against most other builds, and as such would not run the risk of ending the effectiveness of the HnR tactic, merely put an element of risk into it which would encourage more varied responses.

The idea is that if you are off in Kerrat or some PvP and you see a science ship then you know that there is a chance that this science ship could be a risky target. It may crumple and die with a simple paired BoP attack involving PSW, however it might counter your every move and trap you. It may be a partial counter from which you can escape with minimal injury, but if correctly built it could completely stop you in your tracks and end your adventures.

My personal philosophy is that there should be no "win buttons", no flawless builds, no perfect strategies. For every build philosophy there should be a build to counter it or at the least level the playing field. I have come so far as to be able to guarantee my survival in an HnR 2v2 or 2v1 encounter, but even in 3fv2k and 4fv2k I cannot find a build which can provide any type of deterrence since the only time that the federation can actually win the engagement (i.e. destroy the BoP(s)) is in the case of a failure or mistake on the part of the Klingons. (note: I am excluding escorts and all-science tractor builds from the 3v2 and 4v2 scenarios since they do carry the potential of boosting DPS and/or combined max tractor power to the point where the BoP cannot escape fast enough to avoid destruction. I am instead talking about a mixture of science and/or cruisers.)

In this is the core of this debate: a very singular specific and targeted anti-HNR build which would deter the tactic ONLY in the case where this build shows up. It is my sincere desire that an entire team heavily biased towards this build would find itself in trouble when facing a different scenario such as cruisers and carriers or anti-science builds.

One more clarification: it is my belief that in a 1fv2k scenario where the science ship is anti HnR and the 2k are HnR equiped BoP or Raptor/Bop the engagement can go either way based on skill. In any scenario which involves equal or greater numbers on the side of the non-HnR team with a specific counter to HnR in the mix, the advantage (not a guarantee, just an advantage) should be with the better prepared team.

Right now, the best possible *expected* result is merely a stalemate. This in no way includes mistakes made and assumes that all players play at optimal effectiveness. Mistakes can and should always tip the balance.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
03-17-2011, 10:09 AM
[quote=SkyLeach;3436715]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
My response was in reference to your own words, in which you indicated a clear prejudice against posts addressing balance issues.
anti-fed indulgent and anti-balance are not a mutual description.
My posts tend to be agressive towards any posting that claims a KDF vessel to be OP due to its design in the game.
Had you first post not seemed so Anti-BoP and more towards TB needs a buff to counter run tactics, then my first posting would've held a different tenor to it.
What can I say, after a year or more of seeing posts on its OP nature come form the fedside but never seeing the OP when its used KDF side considering the BoP has never recieved a buff or nerf to it directly, I am hesitant to believe any post that says otherwise as being non-biased and have become once-bitten-twice-shy.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
03-17-2011, 10:23 AM
if the 'raider' escapes godspeed to it. in my experience raiders only escape constantly if the other team lacks firepower (i.e. escorts) entirely, or the escorts arn't on the ball. There are hard shutdowns to raiders; mainly PSW. A Subnuke and Target Engines double whammy works wonders as well.

we all know tractor II and III are pointless. That could use changing but it's not a problem for the game per se. I've suggested increased range, power drain, and engine-power scaling effects in the past. Apparently we're going to get power drain on tractors from Duty Officers so there is that.

All the complicated stuff in the OP is too much though. Random disables under certain circumstances? Eh. Keep It Simple, Stupid and all that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
03-18-2011, 01:25 AM
I doubt the test results of EM and EngBat alone breaking Tractor Beam.

I fly a tac/fleet escort and from my PvP experience you need atleast a an APO + EM to break a tractor and get a reasonalbe distance.

If your are hit from multiple tractors - which is a common scenario at the moment - even APO will not break the movement impairing effects. If you hit EM in such a situation it is wasted, as the distance gained from the than somewhat increased "escape speed" is much to small.

Add GW, chroniton mines and torps, Target Eng to that and you will create a raiders nightmare.
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 06:03 AM.