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

  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
v2.16 [all branches]

#21
(2018-02-24, 10:46 PM)Zagskrag Wrote: I fear that this update is going to very heavily shift everything in favor of massive APS bricks, as the risk of a catastrophic chain detonation is now completely null.

Sacrificing a shell module and adding ejectors is still a nontrivial penalty. I agree with reducing the importance of explosiveness in APS balance, as it does not much hurt vehicles that are not already taking internal damage.
Allr andask.
Reply

#22
Are cram cannons ever going to be viable? Currently it seems like APS is just better at pretty much everything. Also, exactly how much were simple lasers nerfed? I put them on a battleship I'm making as anti-aircraft guns and I want to know if I need to change them to something else.
All the good ideas have already been thought of, so I'll think of bad ideas with hopes that one of them works out well.
Reply

#23
Simple lasers seem marginally worse than before the original rework, but they're still usable. That is a good place for them, they were a bit strong before they turned into real lasers.

I still think adding the option of guidance to CRAM would give them purpose. Currently I can't find a use either other than looks.
Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 07/04/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. No more post-processing! finally! but now I can't read the forum.
Reply

#24
(2018-02-25, 02:41 AM)Aperson Wrote: Are cram cannons ever going to be viable? Currently it seems like APS is just better at pretty much everything. Also, exactly how much were simple lasers nerfed? I put them on a battleship I'm making as anti-aircraft guns and I want to know if I need to change them to something else.

They are viable as bomb droppers for heavy bombers.
Reply

#25
(2018-02-25, 10:20 AM)Fernir Wrote:
(2018-02-25, 02:41 AM)Aperson Wrote: Are cram cannons ever going to be viable? Currently it seems like APS is just better at pretty much everything. Also, exactly how much were simple lasers nerfed? I put them on a battleship I'm making as anti-aircraft guns and I want to know if I need to change them to something else.

They are viable as bomb droppers for heavy bombers.
Then again, Lathrix did finish the Scarlet Dawn with his Plague Guard, a CRAM battleship. Against a warping spacecraft. Yeah...
There are two rules of thumb in this world:
- These warheads are great! Explosive are my favourite! Nothing beats an explosive warhead.
- If explosives aren't enough, spam more explosive. At some point they will break open.
Reply

#26
(2018-02-25, 05:28 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote: I still think adding the option of guidance to CRAM would give them purpose. Currently I can't find a use either other than looks.

That would certainly be interesting. Even if it only applied within 200m of a target. Not with much maneuverability, but enough to correct for 10-20m of miss. Maybe give that option a 50% damage penalty to keep it in line.

Then again, I'm wary to buff CRAMs because speedtanking is already a bit broken. Buffs to CRAM will disproportionately harm slower craft and further entrench the evasion meta.
Reply

#27
(2018-02-25, 05:06 PM)Arq Wrote:
(2018-02-25, 05:28 AM)Richard Dastardly Wrote: I still think adding the option of guidance to CRAM would give them purpose. Currently I can't find a use either other than looks.

That would certainly be interesting. Even if it only applied within 200m of a target. Not with much maneuverability, but enough to correct for 10-20m of miss. Maybe give that option a 50% damage penalty to keep it in line.

Then again, I'm wary to buff CRAMs because speedtanking is already a bit broken. Buffs to CRAM will disproportionately harm slower craft and further entrench the evasion meta.

Yes, guided shells ( real thing ) are as maneuverable as guided bombs, given they're basically the same thing - I'm not looking at CRAM-sized missiles here, just the ability to turn a few deg/s. You'd have to take a fair amount of the shell up to fit fins, so there's your damage penalty already.
Poke my boat! mostly pre-2.0 learning & catalogue thread - Update: Heavy & light tanks 07/04/18 for 2.1. 6 ships made 2.0 aware. No more post-processing! finally! but now I can't read the forum.
Reply

#28
(2018-02-25, 12:49 AM)Blothorn Wrote:
(2018-02-24, 10:46 PM)Zagskrag Wrote: I fear that this update is going to very heavily shift everything in favor of massive APS bricks, as the risk of a catastrophic chain detonation is now completely null.

Sacrificing a shell module and adding ejectors is still a nontrivial penalty. I agree with reducing the importance of explosiveness in APS balance, as it does not much hurt vehicles that are not already taking internal damage.

I've recommended a debuff to HE by 5-10% but the module alone was a small step.
Reviewed FtD on steam yet? It's the #1 thing you can do to help FtD, please take the time!
Bug tracker - view, "upvote", comment on and add all bugs here.
Request tracker - Request new features here.
Support - Private portal to service desk.


Reply

#29
(2018-02-25, 06:40 PM)Hikari Wrote:
(2018-02-25, 12:49 AM)Blothorn Wrote:
(2018-02-24, 10:46 PM)Zagskrag Wrote: I fear that this update is going to very heavily shift everything in favor of massive APS bricks, as the risk of a catastrophic chain detonation is now completely null.

Sacrificing a shell module and adding ejectors is still a nontrivial penalty. I agree with reducing the importance of explosiveness in APS balance, as it does not much hurt vehicles that are not already taking internal damage.

I've recommended a debuff to HE by 5-10% but the module alone was a small step.

The penalty for ejectors is:
- adding ejectors to all autoloaders
- having to place an additional shell component to the shells
We can easily make it worse by increasing the length of the shell component, for now it's quite small as it's the same length than any other fuse, but that can very easily be changed.
It is also possible to degrade a bit the characteristics of the shell when it has the emergency defuse component (for example, multiplying its velocity or HE power by 0.8).

I think that adding ejectors isn't a large penalty for large shells (6m-8m), but for the smaller one (1m-2m) it it a real problem and greatly reduce the RPM.
Having an additional shell component to each shells is a large penalty, as it directly reduce the DPS of the whole turret.
And as we can easily increase/reduce that penalty I think that it's a good move to have included that new feature.
Now, it's just a matter of some balancing.
Reply

#30
(2018-02-25, 02:41 AM)Aperson Wrote: Are cram cannons ever going to be viable? Currently it seems like APS is just better at pretty much everything. Also, exactly how much were simple lasers nerfed? I put them on a battleship I'm making as anti-aircraft guns and I want to know if I need to change them to something else.

In a lot of situations they already are viable, but bringing them on par with APS would essentially eliminate their identity. They serve an important niche in the game by allowing beginner enemies to be armed with a powerful, yet not overwhelmingly dominant weapon. At the same time they offer some excellent damage characteristics to advanced players who understand what it takes to bring them to bear. I'll agree that they can seem a bit lackluster, and i my self have complained about that in the past. But I don't think that the fixes to that (which would revolve around increasing range/hit-probability/shell speed, etc) would ever be made large enough to make them viable alternatives to APS. Reason being, you'd turn every OW and DWG CRAM ship into doom ships with nimble cannons spewing high-velocity mini-nukes.
-Do not bring forth an argument as fact that can be disproven with a 10 minute Google search.
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)