Forums » Suggestions
In some cases, weapons that have better targeting, also have increased mass.
For example, the Gat Mk I (targeting of 5.7) has a mass of 800kg, but the Gat Mak II (targeting of 31.8) has a mass of 2000kg.
Gauss Cannon's, with targeting of 11.5 clock in at 1000kg. The primary outlier of this is the Capital Cannon turret, which while only have 100kg mass, clocks in at 69.5 targeting. (All targeting data taken from the wiki).
I propose that the power cell blaster's mass be increased from 100kg to 600kg to reflect the improved auto targeting. My headcannon is that the increased mass is due to all the servos/gears and what not needed to give the weapon a larger area of fire.
Negatives will be that low mass ships will be more at a disadvantage when equipping more than one pcb.
Positives include a more accurate representation of the weapon within the rules of the galaxy already in place.
We could potentially also get a MkI PCB that weighs less but also has 5.7 targeting, but that is a topic for another suggestion thread.
For example, the Gat Mk I (targeting of 5.7) has a mass of 800kg, but the Gat Mak II (targeting of 31.8) has a mass of 2000kg.
Gauss Cannon's, with targeting of 11.5 clock in at 1000kg. The primary outlier of this is the Capital Cannon turret, which while only have 100kg mass, clocks in at 69.5 targeting. (All targeting data taken from the wiki).
I propose that the power cell blaster's mass be increased from 100kg to 600kg to reflect the improved auto targeting. My headcannon is that the increased mass is due to all the servos/gears and what not needed to give the weapon a larger area of fire.
Negatives will be that low mass ships will be more at a disadvantage when equipping more than one pcb.
Positives include a more accurate representation of the weapon within the rules of the galaxy already in place.
We could potentially also get a MkI PCB that weighs less but also has 5.7 targeting, but that is a topic for another suggestion thread.
Positives include a more accurate representation of the weapon within the rules of the galaxy already in place.
Ehh. I need a stronger reason than "makes the stats more like other weapons". I don't honestly care if the stats are similar to other weapons or not.
Particularly when you're talking about a pretty drastic nerf in usability for fighter craft.
Ehh. I need a stronger reason than "makes the stats more like other weapons". I don't honestly care if the stats are similar to other weapons or not.
Particularly when you're talking about a pretty drastic nerf in usability for fighter craft.
I'm not sure exactly what the change needs to be, but decreasing the PCB's effectiveness against light ships is a change that has been desperately needed for a long time and has been discussed several times. The PCB's job is to immobilize, and it's very good at its job. So good, in fact, that it can even be used effectively on light fighters that (with some skill from the pilot) should be able to dodge energy weapons and avoid at least total immobilization and de-weaponization. The problem is that most light ships have to rely on fast acceleration to evade attackers and energy weapons to fight back, and the PCB completely negates both of these options while requiring almost no skill to do so because of its ridiculous autoaim in combination with its velocity and rate of fire. In particular, Valkyrie variants with their 3 small ports can equip a PCB along with 2 damaging energy weapons, so they sacrifice almost none of their DPS/DPE potential to do so; at least other fighters with 2 ports require losing the ability to channel all of their energy into damage to equip a PCB.
I personally agree with the ideas in this post that reducing the PCB's autoaim would go a long way to fixing this issue without hurting its effectiveness against heavier ships and change almost nothing about how they interact with capships, but I'm open to other ideas like adding mass that make it more of a cost/tradeoff to equip a PCB in the first place.
I personally agree with the ideas in this post that reducing the PCB's autoaim would go a long way to fixing this issue without hurting its effectiveness against heavier ships and change almost nothing about how they interact with capships, but I'm open to other ideas like adding mass that make it more of a cost/tradeoff to equip a PCB in the first place.
In particular, Valkyrie variants with their 3 small ports can equip a PCB along with 2 damaging energy weapons, so they sacrifice almost none of their DPS/DPE potential to do so
Valks sacrifice 33% of their damage potential and energy usage when utilizing 1 PCB. That's far from "almost none".
I think the PCB is far from requiring a nerf. It was a long journey of buffs to get where it is now, so its current stats have lots established rationale behind them.
Valks sacrifice 33% of their damage potential and energy usage when utilizing 1 PCB. That's far from "almost none".
I think the PCB is far from requiring a nerf. It was a long journey of buffs to get where it is now, so its current stats have lots established rationale behind them.
I've also been reading back through the old threads, and some contentions are certainly evident..
For instance, this post from 2022 states:
Who said it's purpose was for chasing? Nobody. It's an immobilizer to be used however anyone wants to use it.
This doesn't really jive very well with the same poster's original contention for why the auto-aim should be increased, from back in 2019:
PCBs have too high an energy cost when you take into account the fact that you almost always have to use it while simultaneously turbo-ing.
If you're "always" using it while turboing, it's definitely "for chasing".
That is definitely also the reason why it was created in the first place. Now, I have nothing against "emergent" use-cases and unforeseen gameplay benefits and so on, not all content has to be used the way it was expected. The issue here is more of whether this "new" usage case is really of sufficient benefit or not.
This game always has techniques that crop up that have to be evaluated over time. Going back to the early-days, it's not like "rocket ramming" was an illegitimate combat tactic. It was just kind of.. stupid, and tended to be abused, and we eventually mitigated it.
Beyond that, there's also a pretty reasonable suggestion to also change the shot color to purple, to at least avoid conflating the PCB visually with other weapons. That has no "balance" impact at all, it just improves battle awareness, and I can't imagine there's any justifiable reason to not do that, at the very least.
So, to recap:
1) We should probably change the shot-color to something unique.
2) PCBs were created for chasing, and everyone here knows that, let's not try to "retcon" some new BS there (but we can still debate the merits of emergent usages).
3) If PCBs are excessively stupid in fighter-vs-fighter combat scenarios (and that's still an "if"), then we need to do the absolute minimum to mitigate that particular issue.
I'm not sure that the OP's mass increase lives up to #3, a six-fold mass increase seems like a lot. But, I welcome on-going discussion about whether there is really a balance issue here, and/or possible solutions.
For instance, this post from 2022 states:
Who said it's purpose was for chasing? Nobody. It's an immobilizer to be used however anyone wants to use it.
This doesn't really jive very well with the same poster's original contention for why the auto-aim should be increased, from back in 2019:
PCBs have too high an energy cost when you take into account the fact that you almost always have to use it while simultaneously turbo-ing.
If you're "always" using it while turboing, it's definitely "for chasing".
That is definitely also the reason why it was created in the first place. Now, I have nothing against "emergent" use-cases and unforeseen gameplay benefits and so on, not all content has to be used the way it was expected. The issue here is more of whether this "new" usage case is really of sufficient benefit or not.
This game always has techniques that crop up that have to be evaluated over time. Going back to the early-days, it's not like "rocket ramming" was an illegitimate combat tactic. It was just kind of.. stupid, and tended to be abused, and we eventually mitigated it.
Beyond that, there's also a pretty reasonable suggestion to also change the shot color to purple, to at least avoid conflating the PCB visually with other weapons. That has no "balance" impact at all, it just improves battle awareness, and I can't imagine there's any justifiable reason to not do that, at the very least.
So, to recap:
1) We should probably change the shot-color to something unique.
2) PCBs were created for chasing, and everyone here knows that, let's not try to "retcon" some new BS there (but we can still debate the merits of emergent usages).
3) If PCBs are excessively stupid in fighter-vs-fighter combat scenarios (and that's still an "if"), then we need to do the absolute minimum to mitigate that particular issue.
I'm not sure that the OP's mass increase lives up to #3, a six-fold mass increase seems like a lot. But, I welcome on-going discussion about whether there is really a balance issue here, and/or possible solutions.
PCB are well balanced as they are.
They are tricky to use in dogfighings with light ships.
1) you are already sacrificing one small port and deal less damage then your oponent
2)the autoaim has already been nerfed to the point a REV-C can easily dodge PCB streams
3) when you want to hit a light ship you need long burst of PCB which is depleting your battery and prevents you to deal damage with other energy weapons
4) it takes a lot of practice due to the PCB autoaim to aim correctly with the secondary weapon
so i give the OP a -1
They are tricky to use in dogfighings with light ships.
1) you are already sacrificing one small port and deal less damage then your oponent
2)the autoaim has already been nerfed to the point a REV-C can easily dodge PCB streams
3) when you want to hit a light ship you need long burst of PCB which is depleting your battery and prevents you to deal damage with other energy weapons
4) it takes a lot of practice due to the PCB autoaim to aim correctly with the secondary weapon
so i give the OP a -1
My immediate reply to you last night apparently got lost to the abyss. So I'll rewrite from memory and add to it:
Currently Ships with 3+ small ports can equip 3+ power cell blasters. There is no grid requirements preventing them from doing so.(I swore there was an old suggestion that grid be increased, but with the exception of my MkII suggestion, i can't find it ). A four sp port ship has the potential (when equipped with an IHDPC with 4 pcbs all on the same trigger. NOT chain fired) to unlesh 240 drain per salvo. With each salvo costing 32 energy, this means that ship with that loadout can fire about 15 salvos. With the delay at 0.16 s, those 15 salvos will be finished in 2.4 seconds, and they will unleash 3600 drain. Which is like, what 90% of what a single gravity mine delivers.
And because the pcb is not an ammo based weapon, it can do that over and over. In unmonitored space, victim pilots can just fire at will and kill pcb users before the aggressors become a problem. In monitored space, however, victim pilots must wait to be fired upon first before making their defense. That means, in monitored space, something like a capital ship can be almost instantly drained if turboing in less than 5 seconds. That is pretty powerful. Example of a hornet pulling a Goliath (momentarily) out of turbo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_xEIoy-Pp0
I know one argument is that this is fine, because the weapon does no damage, this is the tradeoff the user endures. Heck, in previous threads I tried to argue that the PCB doing no damage means it shouldn't violate the nfz, but I got shot down using that argument. What we have now is the idea that power drain is a type of damage. A pilot equipping a pcb is not giving up the ability to do damage, but is instead giving up the ability to damage armor with one or more of their weapon ports; they will still be doing a type of damage.
To balance the PCB a bit, I went with mass. Why mass? Because with a higher mass, aggressor ships equipping multiple PCBs will be a smidge easier to hit because their mass will be a bit higher. The PCB will otherwise remain unaffected with how powerful it is. I know Inc stated that a six fold is a lot but I disagree. Now if the PCB had clocked in at 400kg and I asked for 2400kg, then that would have been nuts. But 600kg is the same mass of a neut MK I/II. Pilots are already effective in combat with that weapon's mass. Only the most lightweight ships are really going to take notice. A grey hound with a pcb is still going to be able to accelerate fine with 500kg additional mass.
The question i put out there is: should a powerful weapon with near top of the class auto aim weigh only 100kg. I answer no. If the PCB had rail gun auto aim, I'd be fine with the 100kg because then the use of this weapon would involve a higher degree of skill. A pilot can almost just +shoot2 and forget with the current auto aim. 600kg is fair, and still means the weapon is incredibly dangerous.
edit:
Response to
the autoaim has already been nerfed to the point a REV-C can easily dodge PCB streams
The autoaim was actually buffed, not nerfed. The current auto aim matches the gat II.
Currently Ships with 3+ small ports can equip 3+ power cell blasters. There is no grid requirements preventing them from doing so.(I swore there was an old suggestion that grid be increased, but with the exception of my MkII suggestion, i can't find it ). A four sp port ship has the potential (when equipped with an IHDPC with 4 pcbs all on the same trigger. NOT chain fired) to unlesh 240 drain per salvo. With each salvo costing 32 energy, this means that ship with that loadout can fire about 15 salvos. With the delay at 0.16 s, those 15 salvos will be finished in 2.4 seconds, and they will unleash 3600 drain. Which is like, what 90% of what a single gravity mine delivers.
And because the pcb is not an ammo based weapon, it can do that over and over. In unmonitored space, victim pilots can just fire at will and kill pcb users before the aggressors become a problem. In monitored space, however, victim pilots must wait to be fired upon first before making their defense. That means, in monitored space, something like a capital ship can be almost instantly drained if turboing in less than 5 seconds. That is pretty powerful. Example of a hornet pulling a Goliath (momentarily) out of turbo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_xEIoy-Pp0
I know one argument is that this is fine, because the weapon does no damage, this is the tradeoff the user endures. Heck, in previous threads I tried to argue that the PCB doing no damage means it shouldn't violate the nfz, but I got shot down using that argument. What we have now is the idea that power drain is a type of damage. A pilot equipping a pcb is not giving up the ability to do damage, but is instead giving up the ability to damage armor with one or more of their weapon ports; they will still be doing a type of damage.
To balance the PCB a bit, I went with mass. Why mass? Because with a higher mass, aggressor ships equipping multiple PCBs will be a smidge easier to hit because their mass will be a bit higher. The PCB will otherwise remain unaffected with how powerful it is. I know Inc stated that a six fold is a lot but I disagree. Now if the PCB had clocked in at 400kg and I asked for 2400kg, then that would have been nuts. But 600kg is the same mass of a neut MK I/II. Pilots are already effective in combat with that weapon's mass. Only the most lightweight ships are really going to take notice. A grey hound with a pcb is still going to be able to accelerate fine with 500kg additional mass.
The question i put out there is: should a powerful weapon with near top of the class auto aim weigh only 100kg. I answer no. If the PCB had rail gun auto aim, I'd be fine with the 100kg because then the use of this weapon would involve a higher degree of skill. A pilot can almost just +shoot2 and forget with the current auto aim. 600kg is fair, and still means the weapon is incredibly dangerous.
edit:
Response to
the autoaim has already been nerfed to the point a REV-C can easily dodge PCB streams
The autoaim was actually buffed, not nerfed. The current auto aim matches the gat II.
@jakP
In the OP you basically said the reason for this suggestion was to make it a "more accurate representation of the weapon within the rules of the galaxy already in place" (whatever that means).
In the post above you reveal this is really all about giving more protection to those piloting capital ships in monitored space, and lets be specific: SOLO pilots (without escorts).
So my question is: why is nerfing light ship maneuverability when using PCB universe-wide an acceptable tradeoff for giving player capships in monitored space more defensive capability?
Get some friends to cover your butt, or don't fly... or do and risk it. If someone can tri-PCB you, the only thing you have to be afraid of is if they have their own friend backing THEM up providing offensive capability. They can't damage you at all without help from other players.
In the OP you basically said the reason for this suggestion was to make it a "more accurate representation of the weapon within the rules of the galaxy already in place" (whatever that means).
In the post above you reveal this is really all about giving more protection to those piloting capital ships in monitored space, and lets be specific: SOLO pilots (without escorts).
So my question is: why is nerfing light ship maneuverability when using PCB universe-wide an acceptable tradeoff for giving player capships in monitored space more defensive capability?
Get some friends to cover your butt, or don't fly... or do and risk it. If someone can tri-PCB you, the only thing you have to be afraid of is if they have their own friend backing THEM up providing offensive capability. They can't damage you at all without help from other players.
The nerf wss on the range not the AA ok.
1) you need to get close to the capship to PCB it
2) capital canon are not disabled by PCBs, that's how prevent unrats from killing your cappy
3) you can still maneuver the cappy to have the turret kill the PCB guy
Seems you are trying tto fix a very particular situation with a solution that will impact single PCB userr in chasing.
Still -1.
I would prefer a solution forbidding you to equip more than 1 PCB on a ship.
1) you need to get close to the capship to PCB it
2) capital canon are not disabled by PCBs, that's how prevent unrats from killing your cappy
3) you can still maneuver the cappy to have the turret kill the PCB guy
Seems you are trying tto fix a very particular situation with a solution that will impact single PCB userr in chasing.
Still -1.
I would prefer a solution forbidding you to equip more than 1 PCB on a ship.
I would prefer a solution forbidding you to equip more than 1 PCB on a ship.
That is basically what Grid Power is for? I imagine we could use that to mitigate multiple PCBs, if that's part of the issue.
But, a challenge here seems to be identifying exactly what the problem is that we're trying to solve.
To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and that "the PCB is fine as it is", I think at the very least it needs to have a unique shot-color to help delineate usage in combat and let adversaries make different choices.
But, beyond that, we need to be pretty concrete on exactly what it is we're trying to fix, and why.
That is basically what Grid Power is for? I imagine we could use that to mitigate multiple PCBs, if that's part of the issue.
But, a challenge here seems to be identifying exactly what the problem is that we're trying to solve.
To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a problem, and that "the PCB is fine as it is", I think at the very least it needs to have a unique shot-color to help delineate usage in combat and let adversaries make different choices.
But, beyond that, we need to be pretty concrete on exactly what it is we're trying to fix, and why.
Well the problem is "simple": It's too good at what it does.
Turning the AA down halfway between the gat/gauss it would still retain more than enough oomf whilst not being cheesy as hell currently it's... a little bit much.
Turning the AA down halfway between the gat/gauss it would still retain more than enough oomf whilst not being cheesy as hell currently it's... a little bit much.
*a challenge here seems to be identifying exactly what the problem is that we're trying to solve*
The problem I'm talking about is not about the PCB's interaction with capships, it is specifically to do with its interaction with light fighters. I think it should be possible to dodge a PCB in a light fighter enough to either escape or fight back, and currently it is not. If you get caught in a situation where a PCB pilot that doesn't want you to escape is close enough to you and you are out of energy, you are very likely stuck there without the capability of effectively defending yourself until you die.
*the autoaim has already been nerfed to the point a REV-C can easily dodge PCB streams*
No, it has not. I'm sure spidey or myself would be happy to demonstrate the silliness of a PCB in light fighter combat to anyone who's still not sure.
*Valks sacrifice 33% of their damage potential and energy usage when utilizing 1 PCB. That's far from "almost none".*
It's very easy to equip 2 energy weapons that will more than fully use your energy, so to say that you're sacrificing 33% of your damage potential is disingenuous. You could equip a flare of some kind to get more damage potential, but flares are really heavy and you sacrifice a lot of chasing potential when you equip them. The PCB being 100kg means you can just throw it on without sacrificing much if you were planning on flying a light valk anyway.
The problem I'm talking about is not about the PCB's interaction with capships, it is specifically to do with its interaction with light fighters. I think it should be possible to dodge a PCB in a light fighter enough to either escape or fight back, and currently it is not. If you get caught in a situation where a PCB pilot that doesn't want you to escape is close enough to you and you are out of energy, you are very likely stuck there without the capability of effectively defending yourself until you die.
*the autoaim has already been nerfed to the point a REV-C can easily dodge PCB streams*
No, it has not. I'm sure spidey or myself would be happy to demonstrate the silliness of a PCB in light fighter combat to anyone who's still not sure.
*Valks sacrifice 33% of their damage potential and energy usage when utilizing 1 PCB. That's far from "almost none".*
It's very easy to equip 2 energy weapons that will more than fully use your energy, so to say that you're sacrificing 33% of your damage potential is disingenuous. You could equip a flare of some kind to get more damage potential, but flares are really heavy and you sacrifice a lot of chasing potential when you equip them. The PCB being 100kg means you can just throw it on without sacrificing much if you were planning on flying a light valk anyway.
Yerp.
It is impossible to pin down a Rev-C/IBSG with a PCB with most hogs, vultures and even another centurion. And it is quite easy to escape it in a corvult or svg.
For me it is perflectly balanced.
If you cannot escape in a Valk or a prom, well that's a downside for already too powerful ships, deal with the inconvenience and anticipate your opponent with distance control and/or equip an star/iceflare..
-1 to OP still.
For me it is perflectly balanced.
If you cannot escape in a Valk or a prom, well that's a downside for already too powerful ships, deal with the inconvenience and anticipate your opponent with distance control and/or equip an star/iceflare..
-1 to OP still.
I've decided to do the following, tweaking but a little conservatively:
- Changing AA from 0.85 to 0.90. This is a nerf, but still pretty good: Gauss AA is 0.98. The PCB used to be 0.995.
- Increasing mass from 100kg to 300kg. This is obviously still pretty damned light, but enough that using multiple PCBs will be a little less trivial of a choice. I would rather try some small mass tweaks, rather than hitting the thing with a grid-power hammer, forcing it to one-per-ship and reducing its flexibility.
- Changing the shot visual to something "more" unique, probably purple. This requires a client patch update, I can't do this on-the-fly (I don't think I have a purple shot in the client now, or I could). The rest of the updates are immediate as-of this post. (EDIT: I just used the purple one from the posi, so we'll see how that goes, and if need be we can look at trying to make it more-unique still).
As with everything I do, various people will say I did too much, or too little, or whatever. We'll see how it goes, and if it sucks, we can talk about it again later.
- Changing AA from 0.85 to 0.90. This is a nerf, but still pretty good: Gauss AA is 0.98. The PCB used to be 0.995.
- Increasing mass from 100kg to 300kg. This is obviously still pretty damned light, but enough that using multiple PCBs will be a little less trivial of a choice. I would rather try some small mass tweaks, rather than hitting the thing with a grid-power hammer, forcing it to one-per-ship and reducing its flexibility.
- Changing the shot visual to something "more" unique, probably purple. This requires a client patch update, I can't do this on-the-fly (I don't think I have a purple shot in the client now, or I could). The rest of the updates are immediate as-of this post. (EDIT: I just used the purple one from the posi, so we'll see how that goes, and if need be we can look at trying to make it more-unique still).
As with everything I do, various people will say I did too much, or too little, or whatever. We'll see how it goes, and if it sucks, we can talk about it again later.
Shot color I think should be something like gat mk2 color. Because we don't have a sp energy weapon that shoots of that bright blue color & we don't need to confuse if enemy has a Positron or a pcb....
Because if you made its shots look like posi, well you didn't solve the problem. It's still the same problem just now that it matches Positrons instead of ion blasters.
Because if you made its shots look like posi, well you didn't solve the problem. It's still the same problem just now that it matches Positrons instead of ion blasters.
Thanks Inc! Will give feed back after a couple weeks.
Because if you made its shots look like posi, well you didn't solve the problem. It's still the same problem just now that it matches Positrons instead of ion blasters.
I know that, but it is also an effect that is more easily "tinted" in a future update to the originally Suggested color (purple), since I would just have to modulate the white parts to be more saturated purple.
(And it's not like you had previously offered your suggestion of the gat2 effect).
But, really, I should have just noted Luxen's earlier suggestion about the level-2 charged cannon effect. I ended up independently reaching the same conclusion, but I used our analytics to objectively determine what weapon had the least presence in PvP (and it's the second-level of the charged cannon).
So, whatever, now it's the level-2 charged cannon thing (pink?), and I'm just not going to worry about customizing it for now. We'll see how that goes.
I know that, but it is also an effect that is more easily "tinted" in a future update to the originally Suggested color (purple), since I would just have to modulate the white parts to be more saturated purple.
(And it's not like you had previously offered your suggestion of the gat2 effect).
But, really, I should have just noted Luxen's earlier suggestion about the level-2 charged cannon effect. I ended up independently reaching the same conclusion, but I used our analytics to objectively determine what weapon had the least presence in PvP (and it's the second-level of the charged cannon).
So, whatever, now it's the level-2 charged cannon thing (pink?), and I'm just not going to worry about customizing it for now. We'll see how that goes.
Aw, I was hoping the PCB got put at 2500kg. I liked that idea! *grin*
whoop whoop sakura blasters!