FORUMS


UNYU - Hypervolt

Statistics



POSTS


  1. The UI is getting overhauled, and the arrows updated with it

  2. You unlock the ship as a stepping stone to the next ship, you are not halted in progression in any way. Its like finding a one hundred dollar bill on your way to the supermarket- you get to the market at the same time, but pick up the 100 dollars on the way (yes, you have to research it, but it is not that expensive)

  3. Again, UI update

  4. Again... UI update

  5. This is a common complaint. The devs have hinted at, but not confirmed, fixing it, but considering how often players point it out I think its safe to assume that it will be at least looked at. Overall, all modules are upgrades over the previous ones, the downsides just make them play different (ie, rapid fire IV is still more damage than rapid fire III, even if you do have power to weapons). But I do agree on this one I would like them to be reverse compatible too

  6. ... UI update


I hope you are still having fun despite these issues. see you in the skies, captain o7! hope this helps

I feel like any module ever should have the option to use all unlocked teirs, even if the mod is a straight upgrade. There are many other reasons that you might want to use a T3 mod over a T4 mod, such as puting yourself level to people on your squad or custom matchmaking, etc. I agree 110%


Especially mods that change the gameplay, the best example being rapid fire mode for artilleries, should be reverse-compatable, even if the T4 mod is technically better just my 2 cents


Though I dont really know what is wrong with AA4

To be fair, having a full team of any single ship is not gonna end well for the oposing players. Eight Onagers could wipe anyone out instantly just by tagging them, eight corvettes could swarm any enemy player within seconds, eight destroyers can bust through enemy lines no problem. The issue is negated because it just is not practical- the likelyhood that 1) everyone has and chooses the same ship, with the same loadout and 2) everyone is coordinated as if they are on a skype call and 3) noone needs or wants to grind or play something else is extraordinarilly unlikely. Yes, it happens with squads, but that gameplay is usually frowned upon to the point where said squad will be targeted by the entire enemy team the moment they know what is going on.


Now, to the other point- tacs healing eachother I'm iffy on this one. When I play tac, it is easy to find their weak spots. Not only do they have to look at a ship to heal it, but anything other than a one-on-one match is not helped by tacs all that much. It is also worth mentioning that tacs have been nerfed flat in the past few updates- that doesnt mean they dont need a nother nerf, but they might want to consider something else to avoid bias, especially since the tac meta seems to be rooted within people who don't know how to counter them.


On the yes, nerf them side, tacs should not be able to survive an assault from a ship that is made for combat. If your tac is built as a battleship, go for it- but tacs made for healling can literally negate all damage they take before new damage is dealt. I want to make sure people know what I'm talking about so I'm gonna put some arbitrary numbers here:


Lets say the enemy ship can deal 1000 damage per second, and it is firing at a dread, being healed by a tac, which is healing 800 health per second. This is fine- even more maybe, as this is a tac's job: keep things alive, but not heal damage that was rightfully dealt. Where it gets interesting is modules- if the tac pops a beam amp, then the dread can heal back up for a short period of time, meaning that it is not unkillable, rather, harder to be killed.


The false issue arises when tacs can heal faster than damage is dealt, when no modules on the healler or the heallie are in play. This means that, with good cover, the tac and dread are invulnerable, which is not fair unless the dread is targeted by more than one target- which is, again, fine, because that is team strategy- what the game is made for. It is also worth noting, that to heal this much, a tac must get close to its ally and thus out of cover.


The real issue arises when tacs web eachother, as you said. I know this is a roundabout way of saying "I agree," but I want to explain why to other people so it doesn't just sound like I'm not acknowlaging that other people have a different opinion- because they do


In any game, not just Dreadnought, heallers should not be able to heal other heallers. This causes a huge amount of issues that I will vaguely list here:


1- Healballing (which we all know)


2- Meta Builds and other frowned upon tactics


3- Less variety in gameplay for the majority of the playerbase, once things catch on


4- Unkillable ships that can make other ships unkillable (this arises from the fact that the Aion specifically can also damage enemies, I will get to this in a moment)


5- Removing what should be a weakness of the ship and making it its strength (ie, tacs have low health- which doesnt matter if they can heal eachother. Same would go for dreadnoughts flying around like corvettes)


6- Removing variety from between matches (see point 3)


7- In this game, reducing the amount of variety in the other ships being played in the game (the tacs take up a slot)


8- Developing strategies to prevent it will only lead to more "false issues"


9- In a developing community such as this, turning players away


10- Bandwagons (see point 2 and 3)


11- Fixing with too many nerfs will only lead to bias


12- toxicity in the community


13- Pushing playstyles of all ships into undesired territory


14- Causing every other ship to be modded for anti-healball (see points 3 and 13)
and a few more, which other people might be able to point out.


The point is, solving one seemingly non-issue solves 14+ real issues- and I'm not saying its simple, but the first step to solving a problem, is sorting out what problems are actual problems. Tactical cruisers are not over powered, the ships around them are.


And to close off, I'm going to put my stance into a real-world issue (and bash the devs a bit, sorry )


Me, and an ally who was not voice chatting me, both in stock T3 Oberon Tacs, were confronted with a jutland. Jutlands dont deal a ton of damage, but keep in mind that none of the three players in this scenario were unexperienced (I'd seen the person in the Jutland playing Monarch in legendary) and the jutland obviously had a set loadout. My ally tac might have had a few upgrades as well, but not much if anything. We literally sat there with zero coordination whatsoever, one person healled the other as they beammed down the jutland, under fire from its secondaries at under two kilometers. If the jutland switched its target, we switched roles. Though it took some time, we destroyed him and left the skirmish without a scratch on our stock T3 tacs. Now to bash: I know someone will point this out- the devs have stated before that they wanted to make sure every ship on its own could handle a one-on-one battle with the right loadout- and I agree to an extent.


First of all, they said "with the right loadout"- I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that the stock T3 tac has the right loadout to take down a Jutland. Second, they did say one-on-one, and this was one-on-two, so I must give credit where credit is due.


Now heres where I disagree- every ship has to have a weakness. Though artilleries can stand up against corvettes, the corvette will most likely win seven times out of ten, give or take. Having at least one tac healing another, especially with communications via mic, there is no weakness because the tac's weakness (its low healthpool) is a non-issue. You can't make a jutland perminately move fast or make an Onager fire in a 360 degree arc- those weaknesses are hardcoded to balance the game. Same with tacs- they have a weakness, it is just one that can be negated through an encouraged gameplay style, if that makes sense. Non-unorthodox methods.


That being said, I would highly suggest that tacs not be able to heal other tacs, as well as themselves as fast. When this gameplay is not abused, they work fine within the game's intentions. I would gladly give them a slight speed boost or even health per second boost against other ships if it meant that they healed eachother at a slightly slower rate, maybe 50%.


I know this was long but if anyone made it down here, then hello and thanks for reading. I know not everyone has the same opinions, but heres my two cents. Also if you respond to this please state which parts you read


Sovereign_Praetor#8062 posted (#post-224789) said:


Hello DN community! I`ve spent a pretty significant amount of time playing in the new Conquest mode and I wanted to drop my two cents on it. Some of this has probably been said, but here goes anyway.


I believe that this mode gives a distinct advantage to fast ship classes like Corvettes and destroyers like the Vindicta. The sheer amount of ground that these vessels can cover in a short amount of time means that they will always be the first to capture either the A or B point. The absurd rate at which Corvettes can cap means that only the fastest ships even have a sliver of hope of getting some of those points as well. Sitting in a circle for a few seconds nets you 500 points; an obscene reward for almost no effort. This doesn`t even take into account the fact that doing this 3-4 times nets you a further 700 points thanks the Conqueror ribbon. Since the points change hands frequently due to Corvettes simply flying back and forth between objectives, their scores are padded quickly. This leaves the slower ships to do what? Move up and engage the enemy team, sure, but considering how little you get for kills and other combat actions, these players will never have as much of an opportunity to have high scoring games. Since score is related to XP gain, this mode unfairly rewards the fast ships in comparison to their slower brethren.


I believe that this is reflected in the absolutely ridiculous numbers of corvettes and Vindictas that will appear in any given Conquest match as compared to any other ship. It has not been unusual for me to see at least 3 Vindis and 2+ corvettes per team. This is a meta that cannot be ignored and the scores are often expectedly skewed, with all of the top scorers in those fast ships. I can score over 3500 points per game in my Vindicta by occasionally capping points, killing a few enemies, and mostly just exerting control over the battlefield. Trying the same thing in a slower Dreadnought or Destroyer just does not seem as likely and you would have to work much harder to achieve the same results. I have fun in those games, but I can imagine people grinding their slower ships will not share my enjoyment. Sure I can strongpoint the middle of the map and control it in my Jutland or Monarch, but even with that my score will most likely always be lower than the fast ships continuously capping points.


Anyway that`s all I have for now. Feel free to discuss and hopefully the Devs will see this.


Cheers and good luck out there, Captains!



As you said- most of this has been stated before as such, the conquest gamemode's scoring system (as well as the game's scoring for all the modes) is being reworked before steam, if I recall correctly.


Now that that is out of the way- I wanna give my two cents as well:


I want to start with a disclaimer- I am not the most competative, I could honestly care less about score. I think I want you to know this because I think you are saying the gamemode favors fast ships in terms of the scoreboard, rather than in terms of gameplay- which I do agree with almost 100%- capturing control points offers a little too much credit I will agree.


However- in terms of gameplay, that is a corvette's job. Trust me when I tell you from experience, corvettes are almost useless in conquest after the first minute or so, unless your team is desperate for a control point. The way the game works, you are required to have control points to maintain territory, but NOT to claim it. That being said, plop an arty on your control point and you should be relatively solid. I sometimes claim a point at the beginning of the game by entering as a corvette, but will switch after I (inevitably) die


And heres the thing- the faster a ship is, the less territory it can gain. It might seem at first like faster=more territory, but the massive radius on some of the slower ships easilly compensates for speed. I see people all the time who can capture almost the entire map just by warping into the middle with a jutland. It is also important to note that you need to be within range of a friendly ship in order to maintain territory, meaning faster ships have the disadvantage of wandering off and claiming no territory whatsoever. Now might be a good time to mention that corvettes already don't claim territory at all.


TLDR: IMO the gameplay is fine just the way it is, faster ships have their weaknesses. But yes, scoring could use an update (which it is getting soon)


Crusher48#5118 posted (#post-224598) said:


IMO, conquest's minimap is excellent in all gamemodes. Just replace the territory indicators with icons for each side's command ships (or nothing in the case of TDM modes), and you have a workable system that's far better than the current excuse for a minimap we have right now. For bonus points, pings could appear on the map so that you have a much easier time finding the ship that's requesting healing.



I personally do not like the conquest minimap. For the conquest gamemode, it is fantastic as it allows you to view the entirety of the map and therefor how much territory you have captured, given that that is the objective of the gamemode. However, in TDM and Onslaught, it would bug me that the whole map is shown even though only ships within line of sight can be seen on it. Without your ship being centered to coordinate the minimap, the whole map being shown would be a huge waste of negative space. Not only that, but it would make it unnecesarilly difficult to find your ship in the cluster of ships that is shown on the zoomed out map (conquest mode is already frustrating for artillery cruisers that rely on the zoomed-in map to see corvettes coming up behind them). I do agree the minimap needs some changes, I would like to see terrain desplayed on it, but this (IMO) would not be a very smart move.


As for whoever was asking how conquest scoring works, I believe that your ship must be in range of a captured control point to sustain territory that it creates (your ship always has a bubble of territory around it, but the bubble only stays claimed if your ship is near a captured control point or another friendly ship). Every ten seconds, the territory your team has is added to your score. This is why control points are important to capture, but not necessarily needed to gain territory or points. Thats how I understand it anyways


WaveRider#4219 posted (#post-224560) said:



UNYU - Hypervolt#4192 posted (#post-224559) said:


I play PC, but they work the same-


As many people have said, don't buy a hero ship expecting to play it well. Their cosmetics are fun to collect if you are willing to spend the money, but their loadouts are intentionally not great, because the developers want to avoid P2W (in my opinion, this is a good thing). However, it can be fun sometimes to challenge yourself with the set builds (and get rewarded with the free xp) and even see what certain modules do, if you get the hero ship before unlocking the modules and officer briefings that are on it



P2W usually means you buy something that other players can't get through game and that is better. As far as I am aware allowing a Hero ship to have the same option for modules as every other ship in game is not P2W - it just makes them equal rather than sub-optimal (IMO).



Yes, I meant that it is a good thing that hero ships are not P2W

I play PC, but they work the same-


As many people have said, don't buy a hero ship expecting to play it well. Their cosmetics are fun to collect if you are willing to spend the money, but their loadouts are intentionally not great, because the developers want to avoid P2W (in my opinion, this is a good thing). However, it can be fun sometimes to challenge yourself with the set builds (and get rewarded with the free xp) and even see what certain modules do, if you get the hero ship before unlocking the modules and officer briefings that are on it

I think the main thing to keep in check is just using tactics that are frowned upon (ie, corvette squads, DM ramming builds, etc.) in a deliberate effort to stomp other players. The community is far from toxic, which is a good thing, I only see poor sportsmanship every twenty games or so, if that . The amount of "GG" after every game, despite pubstomping, has been at an all time high as well. We just gotta keep it up!


Like NOTAVALIDTARGET said, UNYU plays T1 healing matches in recruit every once in a while. We help new players, answer their questions, and spread the forum page and discord link to them. Ive seen about two to three people a game join the discord whenever we do that, which is a fun and easy way to expand the community. I bet if every clan did something similar, there would be a lot less new players going into veteran with no clue what they are doing.


A little help goes a long way, and I think the community can do that more than any game tutorial can

It is also likely that those T4s were squaded- especially depending on the clan, some of these squads can be quite, how should I put it, aware of the fact that they are exploiting the system.


I wont go into P2W because you know my stance from the discord you can have your opinions but let me have mine


If the devs are listening, though, I think a BIG step in the right direction would be bringing OBs back down to T3. Many of the imbalance complaints began once they moved them up to T4, and I do not think that is a coincidence.

Okey, so I'm back from my vacation and had some things to clarify from my previous posts (and some things I didn't know myself either, so hopefuly I'm saying all this correctly)


Back when I got whatever many xp I said before, from what I have gathered, that was durring the xp event and when we had elite status from the community challenge. I knew some of my numbers seemed off and that is definitely why! So if I confused anyone (including myself ) then that is my bad!


The double xp weekend gave double xp and I also got the +100% bonus from Elite Status (which means I doubled twice, or quadroupled, my xp from those games) so yes, the game was an outlier, but the grouping of games I had over that weekend were all outliers- the one I got 18 kills on exeeding those by about 5k xp


So long story short- the group of games I was looking at when I made that post are unreliable as they took place during the xp event, but for a more accurate representation of what I get per game you can probably take a quarter to a half of what I said before.


Sorry for any confusion I might have caused, I just figured this out myself as I was playing a few games just now either way, this forum seems to have gotten a bit off track so maybe I'm beating a dead horse but for anyone who still cares... yah there it is. (ps, I still don't think the grind is all that bad but whatever )