Not a member yet? Why not Sign up today
Create an account  

Poll: What do you think about the suggestion?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Good idea
50.00%
4 50.00%
Bad idea
50.00%
4 50.00%
Total 8 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

  • 3 Vote(s) - 2.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
APS caliber-based damage exponent change for: kinetic/HE/HEAT/HESH/EMP

#11
(2017-08-08, 09:45 AM)Tyr3n Wrote: @Gladyon: i mean you save quite literally space, given the performance per time is equal. A small DPS cannon needs a smaller barbette and less deck space than an equally potent 500mm derp gun.

@Lincrono: I can:t complain about the performance of most of my shells, 200m HESH can mess up Alcazars, 150mm Sabot plows through 2 layers of sabot and so on and so forth...
HEAT is way less over the top than before, frag did only need a few adjustments to be viable again.

However, the times where my main batteries shredder a Bulwark in 30 seconds are over, hopefully.

Nevertheless, I am torn apart between my inner replicant and a balance friend...

Theoretically, a shell of a destroyer or light cruiser (reasonably designed after "historic"-ish designs) shouldn't even leave dent in the armor belt of a battleship. That was the historic dude...the balancer doesn't see a problem fulfilling this wish and at the same time giving the destroyer considerable firepower against soft targets (ultra light aircraft and such)...

Well aware of how reality worked. Taking things that far even most BB duals should end in a draw. Actual hit rates were extremely low, and when hits were landed chances were the ship struck would walk away from it. Neither of those mechanics make for a healthy game.

As for 'soft targets' there are none. so few things in this game fall under that niche that to relegate entire classes of ships and weapons to 'killing soft targets' effectively removes them from play. If that's the direction people want to go, then fine, rename the game battleships, set the min block count to 10k and be done with it. Otherwise, we should strive to allow the widest possible selection of viable play styles, weapons, and vehicle classes because that's what sandbox games are built upon.

Players should be asking 'Can i do this' not 'will the game allow me to do this.' Within reason obviously. And currently bad mechanics have effectively eliminated smaller craft from play, even against each other because the weapons they typically mount: missiles, and sub 100mm APS guns are dealing negligible damage to fairly mundane armor, like 2m steel. and that's not accounting for shields, small LAMs, and decoys which further reduce this already too low damage. The health of the game for mid-weight and heavy-weight vehicles/weapons has improved, but the health of light-weight vehicles has taken a dive.

Furthermore, i'm worried about the impact to new players. They're going to arrive into a game that's already hard and struggle more than ever to put together a working first vehicle because the current scaling places those smaller systems at a significant disadvantage, even against other small systems.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply

#12
Some objections to small vehicles being bad:
- averaging/prediction is so bad compared to acceleration that it's borderline impossible to hit them, even with lasers
- you can fit a 500mm APS or a small PAC on a 500 block flyer if that's your fancy, those work pretty well
- 2-4 HE/ballast/magnet torpedobombs are surprisingly good, only against ships though

On the whole yep, agreed on the no soft targets and don't use low calibers part.
Reply

#13
At some point there was accuracy penalty for high fire rate. It could solve 500mm MGs issue.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)