FORUMS


Columen

Statistics



POSTS

Just because the problem doesn not replicate for you does not necessarily mean it is a problem experienced solely by whoever raises it. I've also had issues with Dreadnought lagging on Steam, and for no other games I play whatsoever. And no, it has nothing to with the internet I use or Steam itself.

I guess I didn't quite make my point clearly. What I mean to ask is: why cannot the refire time on disruptor beams be reduced and the disrupt duration be reduced in line with it? At least that way it fires off fast enough to give a chance at disrupting your target. And there is no guranteed disrupt by the way, I've used it several times and have been rammed/assault warped while the module was on. It's just not fast enough to counter incoming enemies, especially on an Onager, for instance.

Any partciular reason why the refire time on the module is three seconds? As opposed to the half a second refire time on stasis autobeams. Not much point in using the module with its short range and long fire time if you're trying counter plasma ram or assault blink, or the various other modules that can be used against you. A vette can literally speed up to you and hit disruptor pulse before the autobeams can react, defeating its whole purpose in a sad joke.

I've not got anything against desperate measures as an OB in and of itself; on most ships it gives the player one last chance to do some damage or get out of dodge, and even then chances of that are usually slim. The problem is when a corvette has DM it will almost always get a second life thanks to its shields' 100% damage reduction.


A vette can literally sit there with low health and not take any damage. Sure, you could suggest to use drain pulse/torpedo or any other module that will cripple the vette in some way but chances are you've already used that in the engagement. A corvette can just use all of their damage dealing modules (and guns) to kill you off because your shields, if you are not a vette, will not save you against their high damage potential.


I don't mind a vette having 100% shield damage reduction but to have it available twice in a single engagement (given it hasn't already been activated) gives the player an extremely unfair advantage - there is no strategy involved here. With DM kicking in the person can either get to cover (thrust amp/afterburners help a lot with this) or finish off the target. It'd be nice to see some change implemented that means even with DM activated a vette is not guranteed an easy escape or a free kill. There should be some risk and strategy involved.

https://www.greybox.com/dreadnought/en/forum/topic/6213/


There's a pretty detailed post by Mantissa in that thread that's helpful. Goes over modules/OBs and their effectiveness on the light artillery cruiser. Covers some tips on how to adapt your playstyle, too.

Perhaps I could have worded what I said a little better because I didn't necessarily mean it's unfair to not be able to leave your teammates a man down and still have your battle bonus - it's unfair to force players to complete a game they joined mid-match in order to retain the battle bonus they have active. That said, I do actually agree it is unfair to leave your team a man down but people at the very least should could given the option of whether or not to join a game partway through. If someone only wants to or can only play the one game in a session, they should have the ability to play a full game and earn the maximum rewards for it.


I can understand the logic behind the battle bonus not applying once it cooldowns if you are already in game (as you said, doing so would defeat its purpose) but my point there was that if you quit after a map has been selected but before the game, your cooldown resets. While that does mean leaving the team a man down the opposite is asking a person to play a game on a map they may not enjoy. Neither is fun. After all, it's not uncommon for the matchmaker to arrange games on the same map a number of times in a row. If players had the option of selecting which maps they'd prefer to play on there'd be a lower likelihood of being left a man down in the first place as matches wouldn't be arranged on maps players would be likely to drop out of.

It's really frustrating when you have waited for your Battle Bonus to cooldown and refresh and then enter a match only to find out you joined one already in play. I don't just mean a few minutes into a team deathmatch or onslaught, either. It can be well into a match, and at that point all the bonus does is make up the shortfall for what you would have earned in XP and credits if you played a full game without the bonus.


Another thing I have noticed is that if you have BB active and join a game and are in orbit selecting your ship, returning to hangar will result in the loss of your bonus and begin the cooldown - even before you have actually started a match. If a player doesn't want to play a particular map for whatever reason, it would be nice to be able quit if still in orbit without triggering the cooldown.


But after realising that I wondered how else your BB is affected and did some investigating. Turns out, if you start and play a match while your cooldown is active, and return to your hangar before your cooldown would have finished, it refreshes back to ten minutes (for veteran) for some reason. Which is unfair, considering (1) if you finish a game quicker than your cooldown lasts, you cooldown does not reset and simply continues down, and (2) if you do start a game with it cooling down and proceed to finish a match that lasts longer than however long was left on the clock, you still would not receive any bonus even thoguh it is technically active at that point.


The only reason I can think of for why this is the case is to incentivize players to play the matches to completion, whether they join partway or a map they do not like, because otherwise with such a small playerbase there wouldn't be many games to play in the first instance. But players shouldn't have to join matches midway if they do not want to, and it kinda sucks to play a map you don't like, either. It's made especially difficult for those just getting into veteran where modules cost more and the BB is needed to be able to upgrade and compete with T4s and those with OBs.


TL;DR - Maybe rework how BB resets or implement a way to select certain games because as it stands BB is too valuable for it to be resetting the way it currently does.

Requiring a lot of reworking is not a reason for why you shouldn't change something.


Slow and Steady doesn't add 1%. It's constant at 10% on whatever ship has it equipped. When you activate AA-IV, that is what stacks and it will add 81% instead of 90%. That is an important distinction. You will always have your 10% damage reduction, and you will still get a higher damage reduction with AA-IV active than someone who has the same module but not the OB.


What are these people doing that absolutely requires it? Because I have managed to tank, and tank well, in my Lorica several times with AA-III no less and without Slow and Steady or even Armorbooster Pulse. There are a lot of other techniques and modules/OBs you can use to tank instead of having 100% immunity.


Yes, and other buffs are also easily countered but that's not what we're discussing.

While I agree that there are some balancing issues with respect to stacking, I don't think hard caps/stacking limits are a good solution to the problem. The problem is how they stack.


As I understand it, when using modules and/or OBs that stack they stack additively. That means that if a dreadnought has Armor Amplifier IV, which gives a damage reduction of 90% when active, and has the Slow and Steady OB equipped, which gives a 10% damage reduction at the cost of speed, the total damage reduction becomes 100%. The fact that this is even possible is problematic; I get that dreadnoughts were built for tanking but that's taking it a little too far. Realistically, if a dreadnought can't handle the heat it should go up in flames.


If modules and OBs stacked multiplicatively instead, that would make a lot more sense. Especially when you have T3s that don't have the all similiar options for modules and OBs as a T4 ship does. Taking the above example that would mean anyone equipping both AA IV and Slow and Steady gets a total damage reduction of 91% only (0.9 damage taken multiplied by 0.1 damage taken is 0.09). This way you still have an incentive to stack modules, but you can't abuse them.

I've gotten in touch with support in any case, hopefully they can look into it more.