FORUMS


PC GAME UPDATE 1.11 BALANCING SPOTLIGHT - FEEDBACK THREAD



Posted: //
Feb. 2, 2018, 12:58 a.m.



Since module path is now removed please also decrease the price of the modules at the bottom part of the tree now. As someone who doesn't have all day to play, I'd hate to unlock only one module out of 17 that I have to have during a week's play even when I have elite.


Posted: //
Feb. 2, 2018, 1:05 a.m.



I highly agree.


The community should not be afraid of the developers- The developers should be afraid of their community. carrier

^I want to believe^

https://youtu.be/z_Gd9-IfYzw


Posted: //
Feb. 2, 2018, 2:18 a.m.


Updated //
Feb. 2, 2018, 2:28 a.m.

One of my biggest gripes about the tech tree system is the lack of customizability for a fresh ship in a line that starts at T4. For ship lines that start earlier, you've always had the option to carry a loadout you like from T2 onto your new T3, and from your T3 on to your new T4. Something I'd like to see is, for the first ship in a line (Ballista, Jutland, Palos, Kreshnik, Dola, Koschei, Gravis, Fulgora, and Vindicta) to have a selection of T-1 modules that the player would have had a choice from if the ship started a tier earlier. Even with the removal of the tree structure, you still need to grind through several games with the unchangeable stock loadout before getting more desireable modules for a brand new ship line. This will be even more noticeable with the new loadout system, as these ships wont even be able to utilize additional loadout options until the player actually has unlocked the options.

As a player who loves the light tactical line, I'm pleased with the changes to speed. It's always felt a very slow and unresponsive ship, requiring Engine Rigger to have a hope of chasing anything down. However, I am of the opinion that the ship still wont be able to fulfil the role of effectively hunting down corvettes, simply due to the lack of options to lock them down and tear them apart; typically, you can only do one or the other. The tac will still be highly dependant on their team to bring a good corvette down; all that more speed does is assist in bringing down those 'vettes that narrowly escape.


Posted: //
Feb. 3, 2018, 12:49 a.m.



maybe add downtime for change of loadout say 30 sec

Sun Warrior#5036 posted (#post-207824) said:

So I really like the secondary loadout for every ship but does this mean that premium ships will also be getting a secondary loadout as well?


Posted: //
Feb. 6, 2018, 1:33 a.m.


Updated //
March 16, 2018, 5:53 p.m.

New changes sound good. Some thoughts...

Theme 1: More variety for Tier III ships
  • Overall the new update sounds good. Should be interesting and certainly a welcome boost for the new player base. Not changing research costs is welcomed—but as another commenter noted it still needs a slight increase or an adjustment to the reward formula (or event scoreing thresholds)—as hitting the wall is still a little steep. However, there maybe little now to differentiate between a t3-t4—except in speed advantage—trading health and more modules over damage—so I’m a little conflicted on this one…lol.

  • Secondary loadouts seem like a good idea. Although, part of the challenge was to outfit a fleet to have at least “some” counters to other classes. I think it will be good—but we’ll see where it turns out.

Theme 2: Mines

“The original idea for mines was to create a module that would restrict enemy movement. The problem with the mines up until now was, that they did not spread out far enough to fulfill that task. A minefield gave the impression of a grapevine which resulted in situations where a single Dreadnought could pass through them clearing the entire field which defeated its purpose. We did not want mines to be overcome that easily – especially if the clearing ship was not even destroyed in the process (which was often the case for Dreadnoughts). To achieve this, we made a few changes to the way mines work. They will now spread out further when being deployed. Mines will remain active longer after the ship that laid them has been destroyed and their health has been buffed, which will make them withstand a pulse, for example. Some mines now also have a higher effect and are triggered faster.”

  • Theme 2 feels like a mixed bag. The overall change to Artillery Cruiser Mines—having them spread out is a welcomed addition. Although, they are already tricky to use (spread—in addition to landing in proximity distance)—activation distance may help with this. However, there’s no real “area targeting” to make an actual area denial system—other than to target a ship and launch. Perhaps with the new changes will address—sadly, I suspect it will need a true area targeting system at some point to make it more strategic in nature (certainly, a challenge for the space maps). If Mine Catapult works as intended (update 1.11) the additional changes to damage may not need to be implemented until a later update. (See Theme 3 for additional remarks)

“We also adjusted the Corvette mines that were often used like unguided bombs - which was not intended - to act more like actual mines. Another thing we changed are the mines that are planted by bombers. Of all Dreadnought modules, the bombers were your least favorite – especially when compared to fighters and interceptors. What bombers are doing is placing mines in an area of their owner’s choice and unfortunately, these mines were really not that good. Therefore we buffed these mines quite a bit and are hoping that this will increase the bombers’ popularity.”

  • Not sure if corvette mines were really an issue for most players? Certainly, it will affect the way DN Bomber Module “bombs” will deploy. Should be interesting. Although, I suspect the unintended result will be fewer creative uses for corvette mines.

  • I think the damage and debuff times are a welcomed improvment but may still need tweeking. In part due to to the fragile nature of "Fighters/Bombers/Interceptors" in general vs. experienced players—in addition to having long cooldown times. The increase in activation range for the “bombs” may “fix” some of the inherent issues—hopefully, they won't blow themselves up in the process. (See: Fighters, Bombers, Interceptors—Keeping AI intact, in Beta Feedback)

Theme 3: Player Feedback

"Right now the mine catapult is so powerful, a well-placed shot can take out an entire command ship at once. We think that this is just too much. Artillery Cruisers also feature highly effective disruptor beams that enable an experienced player to cover and protect their entire team. These two modules at the Artillery Cruisers’ disposal made them into extremely versatile vehicles, that were becoming just a bit too versatile."

  • Again—feels like a mixed bag. Part of the challenge was the lack of mine spread to create a “field” or “area denial”. In addition to lack of targeting options—other than guessing at it’s maximum range or targeting a ship. Mines (as of 1.10) essentially “blob” in a general location—if they are struck—the likelihood of taking all damage at once was significant. IF they have a useful spread in the new 1.11 update, the damage reduction may not be needed since the likelihood of hitting all the mines at once will be reduced.

"As a first step, we reduced the range of the disruptor beams…We will now evaluate the “Artys” and will make additional changes if necessary."

Artillery Crusier Auto Beams IV-V: Range / Move to Tactical Cruiser?

  • Range for all AC Auto Beams (in general) seems to be an issue. However, I feel this is more of a 2 part issue. Imho, 2km-1.75km "feels" appropriate—1.5km "seems" a little harsh as pulses are now 1.2km. Maybe split the difference? However, as stated it does make AC’s very difficult to approach or counter.

  • On the other hand, it seems kind of perverse to have Auto Beams on an Artillery Crusier. The module seems more appropriate on a Tactical Cruiser—as they already employ the technology into the design. I submit, it would make Tactical Cruisers more “Tactical” and provide more options other than repair support—placing a little more emphasis in those other core roles.

  • Perhaps, replacing Artillery Crusier Auto Beams with other modules—more in line with AC’s role. (Ex. maybe different types of Bomb "debuff" Catapults or Purge/Stasis/Scrambler Catapult "type" of debuffs? Maybe a Stasis or Scrambler Shot w/ blast radius? Armor Piercing Shot? Idk—ideas welcome.)

Overall, sounds like some interesting changes.


Posted: //
Feb. 7, 2018, 3:03 p.m.



Lymceh#8349 posted (#post-208072) said:

One of my biggest gripes about the tech tree system is the lack of customizability for a fresh ship in a line that starts at T4. For ship lines that start earlier, you've always had the option to carry a loadout you like from T2 onto your new T3, and from your T3 on to your new T4. Something I'd like to see is, for the first ship in a line (Ballista, Jutland, Palos, Kreshnik, Dola, Koschei, Gravis, Fulgora, and Vindicta) to have a selection of T-1 modules that the player would have had a choice from if the ship started a tier earlier. Even with the removal of the tree structure, you still need to grind through several games with the unchangeable stock loadout before getting more desireable modules for a brand new ship line. This will be even more noticeable with the new loadout system, as these ships wont even be able to utilize additional loadout options until the player actually has unlocked the options.

As a player who loves the light tactical line, I'm pleased with the changes to speed. It's always felt a very slow and unresponsive ship, requiring Engine Rigger to have a hope of chasing anything down. However, I am of the opinion that the ship still wont be able to fulfil the role of effectively hunting down corvettes, simply due to the lack of options to lock them down and tear them apart; typically, you can only do one or the other. The tac will still be highly dependant on their team to bring a good corvette down; all that more speed does is assist in bringing down those 'vettes that narrowly escape.

I agree 100% if you have modules unlocked from a previous tier then you should ne able yo use them rather than the stock load out.


Posted: //
Feb. 13, 2018, 11:57 p.m.



Just a quick question, haven't played in a long while, do you still have to mash the "W" key to continue to move forward or did they finally listen to my idea of just setting a speed like in World of warships and not having to worry about keeping your finger on the "W" key??


Posted: //
Feb. 14, 2018, 10:32 a.m.



[Pendragon1951#7451]

Just a quick question, haven't played in a long while, do you still have to mash the "W" key to continue to move forward or did they finally listen to my idea of just setting a speed like in World of warships and not having to worry about keeping your finger on the "W" key??

No cruise control, still have to press W.


Recruit Engineer


Posted: //
Feb. 14, 2018, 10:38 a.m.



Jawayne#8001 posted (#post-210623) said:

[Pendragon1951#7451]

Just a quick question, haven't played in a long while, do you still have to mash the "W" key to continue to move forward or did they finally listen to my idea of just setting a speed like in World of warships and not having to worry about keeping your finger on the "W" key??

No cruise control, still have to press W.

Which is beautiful. I do not like strategy games, and I do not like point and click controls.


The community should not be afraid of the developers- The developers should be afraid of their community. carrier

^I want to believe^

https://youtu.be/z_Gd9-IfYzw


Posted: //
March 22, 2018, 7:04 p.m.



hello friends, ejection speed tempest missiles for destroyer is to slow you can be hit most of the time by your own missiles can devs improve that ????

best regards harry

This forum is restricted, posts cannot be made.