Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Taylor Swift
Level: 1665

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:11 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: ur mums a ram
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
Max235 wrote:
I also want to point out that the PBF as a combat bot is an after the fact design. It was never designed to be a combat bot, and thinking all balance changes will be based on it being a combat bot is a fool's errand. It is an attack frigate for offensively minded capship users. As far as I'm aware, the only ships that were specifically designed as a combat bot were the Scrupling, the Crawl Wyrm, and the Equaminizer.

Also, are you fucking daft? How did you expect me to get only multifire 2 only on a ship as a FC with no augs and no gear that provided it? The PBF was conceived as a GUNNER ship from the beginning. Not a FC main ship, not a FC slave. A Gunner ship.

You are whining about a Gunner ship as a Non-Gunner. Sit down, shut up, or go fucking home.


cej1120con wrote:
I don't really care what an item was "meant" or "supposed" to be. I don't understand how a game developer could expect an item they put in a game to always be exactly what they wanted it to, that's a bit arrogant, don't you think?

You put things in game and it might turn out something close to what you want, but things can and will take on a life of their own and players often may use things in ways you didn't expect.


For example: The PBF's stats are now supposed to be a "lightly armored frigate" but what players are really going to use them as is a piece of "toilet paper".


Churchill when's the last time I reminded you that you were a cancer on this game?

_________________
Image
ImageImage

Image

I would like to think the line "excuse me but can I get a shitpost?" is fairly polite.


Wed Jul 12, 2017 7:09 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Maxathron
Level: 1724

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:16 am
Posts: 5723
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
You haven't. I don't care. You're the 1% whiner minority whose whining because his favorite toy got nerfed. I would be understandably upset, but not the point of whining on the forum.

But since you want to be a child, I'll use small words so you can understand. For the effort, the PBF offered so much to the player Gunner that you would not choose any other ship outside the Banu or the KWC. The Banu is the *best* capship in game for gunner all round, and the most rare, sought after, and expensive one. The KWC is the only capship with Deathblossom augmods, and offers a unique position as the best AoE DPS ship in game. The Banu is priceless. The KWC has a build tag of 20x greater than the PBF.

I'll let you draw your own conclusions from all the T21 and T22 Gunners that complained that when you get down to the nitty gritty, the PBF outperforms all but the best.


Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Taylor Swift
Level: 1665

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:11 pm
Posts: 3879
Location: ur mums a ram
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
FC Antuayu, geared for most DPS:

15,269 DPS, sustainable for 176.6 seconds.
Inbuilt that boosts to 20,318 DPS, for 10 seconds.
Most resistances at 62%.
Inbuilt that boosts resistances to 81% for 10 seconds.
Max Shields: 253k
Max Energy: 550k
Top speed: 125
Hull Space: 2651

FC Zeus Throne, geared for most DPS:

13,827 DPS, sustainable for 138.5 seconds.
Inbuilt fighter and missile generators and launchers.
Most resistances at 62%. Physical resistance at 81%.
Max shields: 181k
Max energy: 457k
Top speed: 110
Hull space: 2420.

FC Paxian Battle Frigate, geared for most DPS:

12,623 DPS, sustainable for 200 seconds.
No inbuilts at all.
Most resistances at 53%.
Max shields: 195k (was ~350k)
Max energy: 254k (was ~500k)
Top speed: 132
Hull Space: 1737

I don't know about you but that looks like a pretty straight forward upgrade, PBF -> ZT -> Antuayu.

Sorry if t22 is more costly than t21 is more costly than t20. Even with the original PBF stats, that's a pretty clear upgrade.

I'm going to go ahead and say it's going to be similar for gunners.

_________________
Image
ImageImage

Image

I would like to think the line "excuse me but can I get a shitpost?" is fairly polite.


Wed Jul 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Profile
Content Dev
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Hober Mallow
Level: 3878

Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:08 pm
Posts: 3123
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
cej1120con wrote:
MasterTrader wrote:
Mastodon's with fighter spam are 1 ply toilet paper? :lol:

Fighters may be squishy, but the Mastodon itself is nowhere near squishy. If the Mastodon is squishy, please explain what a Speed Demon/Sniper/Seer is?


The Mastodon itself may not be squishy, but if the fighters die, the slave banks out from launching them, and then I'm a sitting duck. An armored duck, but a sitting one nonetheless. That's the drawback of solely using fighters, that's literally the intended drawback. They do really good damage but can be wiped off of the field and the Fleet Commander is left looking a bit dumb since they dumped their entire energy bank into it. It's even more of a risk if your bots are fighter launchers as well. You have more "insurance" if your bots use weapons and you use fighters.

MasterTrader wrote:
3 augs on the PBF is flatout busted, it's literally a Heavy Fighter at that point. And when you add in the Bank bonuses it had it's both a Heavy Fighter/Freighter and a Dreadnought at the same time.


I don't think you understand.
PBF's resistances:
Image

EFDN's resistances:
Image

That difference in resistances is a lot bigger of a deal in real settings than you seem to think it is.
You're ignoring the shield and energy bank bonuses,
and you didn't compare it to a Heavy Fighter with similar stats. The PBF is like an Equanimizer/Reaver/Juju/etc. and a Dreadnought smashed together, with some stats given up on one end or the other in return for others.


MasterTrader wrote:
It's flat out busted, and if FC combat bots at the end game don't feel good in comparison to Wild Bots... maybe it's because Wild Bots were busted.

FC combat bots at the end game don't feel good in comparison to Wild Bots. Literally any other t20 bot other than the original PBF and the Mastodon are complete shit for an FC and I would not use their blueprints to wipe my own ass.

PBFs were the only thing keeping combat bots useful for FCs after the MF bot nerf. Now combat bots are all pointless and shit. So I guess that leads to this:

MasterTrader wrote:
Or maybe bots need to be looked at.

Yes.
as topbuzz said:

sabre198 wrote:
was jeff shocked that every other slave was a piece of shit


Combat bots are trashed right now and I can't make them useful on any class other than FC.
If Combat Bots at the end game don't feel useful help us make them feel useful, give examples of the damage potential/survivability of PBFs versus other combat bots and try to explain what you want. Keep in mind that trying to get other combat bots to act like PBF is asking for us to make them BUSTED,
because PBF's quitely literally got the best of both worlds.

I want to point out that plenty of people, Shield Monkeys especially, got along just fine using 2 Lion combat bots/3 Scrupling combat bots for a very long time. Those bots would most assuredly be used if the PBF never existed. In regards to fighters feeling better than using Combat Bots, we're aware of that.


Now compare those stats to an equivalent Tech 20 Heavy Fighter. I said it is a combination of a Heavy Fighter/Freighter with a Capital Ship. The resistances it has are padded by the Bank bonuses. Even though it's HARDER to keep alive via healing that a Dreadnought, it's still massively tankier than a comparable Heavy Fighter.

cej1120con wrote:
FC Antuayu, geared for most DPS:

15,269 DPS, sustainable for 176.6 seconds.
Inbuilt that boosts to 20,318 DPS, for 10 seconds.
Most resistances at 62%.
Inbuilt that boosts resistances to 81% for 10 seconds.
Max Shields: 253k
Max Energy: 550k
Top speed: 125
Hull Space: 2651

FC Zeus Throne, geared for most DPS:

13,827 DPS, sustainable for 138.5 seconds.
Inbuilt fighter and missile generators and launchers.
Most resistances at 62%. Physical resistance at 81%.
Max shields: 181k
Max energy: 457k
Top speed: 110
Hull space: 2420.

FC Paxian Battle Frigate, geared for most DPS:

12,623 DPS, sustainable for 200 seconds.
No inbuilts at all.
Most resistances at 53%.
Max shields: 195k (was ~350k)
Max energy: 254k (was ~500k)
Top speed: 132
Hull Space: 1737

I don't know about you but that looks like a pretty straight forward upgrade, PBF -> ZT -> Antuayu.

Sorry if t22 is more costly than t21 is more costly than t20. Even with the original PBF stats, that's a pretty clear upgrade.

I'm going to go ahead and say it's going to be similar for gunners.


First, you didn't provide any augmenters/baseline gear for your comparisons so how am I supposed to know what your comparing? Second, you're basing this off of FLEET Commander! That class has very low personal DPS stats, the class was designed not to do very much personal damage. It's not going to scale as well with DPS augmenters as another class would. Oh, and no you are not right. It's not the same for Gunner. Churchill's example is roughly consistent with the relationship between PBF DPS potential vs T22 capital ship DPS potential we as a development team calculated.

_________________
Image


Wed Jul 12, 2017 9:38 pm
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Bad at Games
Level: 4135

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:48 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Behind you
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
FCs have the best tears, followed by Snipers. Nom nom!

_________________
anilv wrote:
Antilzah wrote:
But Scyron also said Bad at Games class is pretty good at group content.


We can code an exception for BaG. I'll let Jey know.


Image


Wed Jul 12, 2017 10:42 pm
Profile
Member
User avatar
Team: Resident Evil
Rank: Officer
Main: topbuzzz
Level: 4589

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:31 pm
Posts: 4331
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
So remember then when your screens are full of ugly efdn slaves that was churchills work.

_________________
Image


Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:05 am
Profile WWW
Member
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Officer
Main: uss brown
Level: 4251

Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:12 pm
Posts: 115
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
sabre198 wrote:
So remember then when your screens are full of ugly efdn slaves that was churchills work.

RE confirmed for best team after PBF nerf now.

_________________
50% nerfs =/= ruined
It's not the new augs fault, must be the 10 year old ships fault!


Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:21 am
Profile
Online
Team: Second Flight
Rank: Director
Main: Doran!
Level: 3418

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:00 pm
Posts: 32
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
Is it possible for aura generators to only apply to ships which are combat bots, while also affecting self only? That would allow for the power of the third augmenter to be removed without ruining the ship completely as a DPS bot.

Another idea could be inbuilt combat and trade controlbots.


Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:02 am
Profile
Member
User avatar
Team: Resident Evil
Rank: Officer
Main: topbuzzz
Level: 4589

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:31 pm
Posts: 4331
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
MasterTrader wrote:
First, you didn't provide any augmenters/baseline gear for your comparisons

from the people who never ever provide stats when they make changes :roll:

_________________
Image


Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:19 am
Profile WWW
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Officer
Main: Daedalus
Level: 9242

Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:57 pm
Posts: 4724
Location: Kuratovo, Russia
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
I posted this somewhere else on the forum and I can see it's appropriate to post it here as well.

Tomzta09 wrote:
cej1120con wrote:
I want to know what the hell Jeff thought for the past SIX years this ship was in the game with no change.

And again, it has WEAK RESISTS. It might have that high augmods, but it has weaker resistances.


I would like to know as well, he's had a lot of odd, random game changing thoughts recently with all of these bizarre changes, no?

This is something people seem to have forgotten. The PBF is not the Prawn, it was never even close to being the Prawn. If anything the PBF was what the Prawn should have been and was the only way it could have possibly worked. Regardless of the 3rd aug slot and the built in shield/energy bonuses, the tankiest PBFs were fragile as hell. It's a bit out of the ordinary having a high end capital ship with 3 aug slots just like with a 4 aug slot Heavy Fighter. To compensate for the third slot, you had quite possibly the worst resistances you could imagine, terrible hull space and a big loss of ROF built in. All of this made the PBF reasonably balanced, there were no PBFs outclassing every other ship to the point where every Gunner was in a PBF now were they? Whereas the balancing around the Prawns 4th slot was purely based on the difficulty of the blueprint at the time, when it should have been much weaker resistances e.g. 0 - 20%, crap hull space and crap built in stats. This is why the PBF was balanced almost perfectly the way it was. This recent nerf has just signed another useful part of the game into the dustbin of history.

_________________
Image

Image

Image
Image


Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:53 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Councilor
Main: DreadLordNaf
Level: 4824

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 658
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
This change suffers from the same logic as some recent other ones: No one on the dev team actually plays with some of these ships/classes on a regular basis.

I dont mean that they dont own a gunner/FC/PBF or occasionally use it on a run, but there a difference between owning one and playing it on a daily basis. It is the reason I could tell with a few seconds of logging on this uni that my thrust on my FC was bugged. It took a microsecond longer to do a forward thrust turn maneuver that I have done hundreds of time. This microsecond longer registered as odd in my SS muscle memory from logging on regularly, from DGing and doing content daily as an FC for years. And of because I could detect this I did some digging and testing and it was me who discovered and reported that the new zen skills for FC (which give thrust) were not working properly as a result of this level of knowledge with the playstyle of the class.

If you cant login and tell pretty quickly that a major stat is off, it means you dont play the class enough.<---- Major class or specific ship based game changes should at minimum solicit input from players that have this level of familiarity. You dont need to agree with us or even reach any kind of consensus with us. But based on the reason behind many recent changes, it feels like you guys dont even have full info and are making changes based on flawed assumptions.

The reasoning for the PBF change seems to be based on ivory tower spreadsheet balancing and not actual gameplay. If you had for example explained to a small group of players who had used PBFs for years that you felt it was overpowered and messing up the ship progression line, we could've informed you of the following:

-that while gunners use them, the biggest users of PBFs over the last few years were FCs using them as slaves, and hence they would be the most affected.
-that with the introduction of mastodons and fighter revamp PBFs were now second tier slaves with an inferior DPS to Mast-fighters. They were instantly discarded when someone got a Mast.
-that PBF slaves pre-nerf were some of the squishiest slaves around. They went down like paper in higher end content, even in regular high end normal perispace DGs against ohms and Stellas.
^Hence, any adjustments to it, if you dont want to make it even MORE useless than it has already become, should probably not involve reducing shields or resist.

While this change actually affects me less, since like a normal rationale FC I stopped using PBFs this uni since they are worthless as slaves now, the logic behind this change is actually worse than the change to MF bots. With MF bots you took a highly used item, then nerfed it so bad people went from always using it to never using it, basically destroying a long-time game concept that was associated with SS from the beginning.

With the PBF though you took a ship that was already on the way out in terms of its most high volume usage, and made it even more useless... All because a few gunners used it? Who cares. The gunners I saw using it were in stasis half the time anyway because of how flimsy the ship was when we did any real content....


Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:17 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Maxathron
Level: 1724

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:16 am
Posts: 5723
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
PBF users are mainly FCs because the bulk of the gunners are T21+. If you've got full T21+ skills...why are you using a T20 ship? The run of the mill player is confused. If said T20 ship is for the most part better than your T21+ ship...why did you spend the money to get the T21+ ship? It's not like bribing EF/TR for Banu location and bribing them again to not kill you is free. Anddddd, for a ship that makes a 20% upgrade in terms of DPS for 1000% more cost.


Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:44 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Councilor
Main: DreadLordNaf
Level: 4824

Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:33 am
Posts: 658
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
Max235 wrote:
PBF users are mainly FCs because the bulk of the gunners are T21+. If you've got full T21+ skills...why are you using a T20 ship? The run of the mill player is confused. If said T20 ship is for the most part better than your T21+ ship...why did you spend the money to get the T21+ ship? It's not like bribing EF/TR for Banu location and bribing them again to not kill you is free. Anddddd, for a ship that makes a 20% upgrade in terms of DPS for 1000% more cost.


Oh shit I didnt realize this... I hope no one notices that one the best rad weapon in the game is actually t20. Or that the tankiest Cap ship setup is actually two t21 augs, not t22, or that the best auto tracking mining weap used by most zerks is only t20, or the other bajillion instances of items like this..

*Dreadlordnaf wakes up tomorrow and sees in patch notes that all of these have now been nerfed.


Sat Jul 15, 2017 8:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Maxathron
Level: 1724

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:16 am
Posts: 5723
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
Gunners opting to use dual Emp Rays over dual ARPADs or RNF Lasers or Heph Mauls?

Get out of here.


Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:10 am
Profile
User avatar
Team: Star Revolution X
Rank: Operator
Main: Septagons Titan
Level: 2312

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:37 pm
Posts: 653
Location: Floof
Post Re: The PBF change was probably one of the most pointless an
Max235 wrote:
PBF users are mainly FCs because the bulk of the gunners are T21+. If you've got full T21+ skills...why are you using a T20 ship? The run of the mill player is confused. If said T20 ship is for the most part better than your T21+ ship...why did you spend the money to get the T21+ ship? It's not like bribing EF/TR for Banu location and bribing them again to not kill you is free. Anddddd, for a ship that makes a 20% upgrade in terms of DPS for 1000% more cost.


Tell me, what is wrong with having ships at earlier techs being more useful in some cases than T21/T22 ships?

Since people are so fond of using EVE as an excuse to try and justify multiclienting, why can't I say that SS should take a note from EVE and make ships that aren't the bleeding edge good or useful in their own ways?

Seriously, I get that basically the entirety of the game below T20 has been reduced to nothing more than a hurdle the developers intend people to skip over, but why can't a T20 ship be better in some situations than a T21 ship? At the very least I think the ship upgrade system should be extended to all the techs currently in the game, not least because most of the best looking ships in the game are at T20 or below.

Anyway, off topic but something that's been bothering me for years. It also doesn't help that I'd really rather use anything that is not T22, since every T22 ship I've seen is horribly ugly. In comparison, some of the ships below T20 have incredibly unique or cool models, or neat supers and inbuilts that never get seen and are wasted basically.


Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:16 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.