Forums » Suggestions

Powercell Blaster Buff (mk2)

12»
Apr 07, 2015 greenwall link
Recent changes to the game in update 1.8.331 have caused the effectiveness of the Powercell Blaster to be reduced. Namely the removal of the blind spots of the trident turrets. There no longer is a place to fly your ship in close enough proximity to a Trident to avoid fire while shooting a powercell blaster. Since a powercell blaster requires constant bombardment to stop a trident (especially one equipped with a THC), Trident captains now have a very effective and foolproof way to avoid capture.

THUS

The Powercell Blaster stats must be reconsidered. Let's not beat around the bush -- the only application of a power cell blaster is to chase Tridents. This tomfoolery put forward by ARF in other related threads about it having other applications against smaller ships is bullshit. Nobody uses them in that way because it's completely ineffective. The PCB must be considered as an Anti-Trident add-on.

Power Cell Blaster
Drain: 60 (currently 50)
Velocity: 215 (currently 150)
Energy: 8/blast (10/blast)
Delay: 0.16s (unchanged)
Mass: 100kg (unchanged)
Grid: 4 (unchanged)
Apr 07, 2015 Savet link
+1

I would also suggest adding some weight and damage so they can be a viable weapon on their own, but not completely replace the raven in the ultra-light weapon category.
Apr 07, 2015 biretak link
+1 this with more +1's to the AWAC Multi Sector Radar addon in anther post would create a whole new hunting dimension to vo! :)
Apr 08, 2015 Pizzasgood link
+1

However, your justification for why this buff should happen is broken. The "removal" of Trident blindspots was an unintentional consequence of fixing the behavior of AA on turrets. Incarnate has already said that the ability for the Auto Aim to exceed the turret's FOV is a bug which they should fix. Therefor it's a temporary situation which does not warrant making changes to weapons.

(I'm just in favor of making the PCB more effective regardless.)
Apr 08, 2015 greenwall link
I agree either way it should be buffed.
Apr 08, 2015 meridian link
-1 to the velocity increase, which isn't needed to hit the broadside of a trident. As you said yourself, it shouldn't be effective against smaller class vessels.
Apr 08, 2015 abortretryfail link
Tridents blind spots were too big before, but now the Capgauss A/A cone is totally broken. I'm sure the devs will fix that soon.

+1 to buff the PCB's drain amount from 50 -> 60

Buffing the velocity serves no purpose other than to make it effective against smaller, faster ships. If that's what you're suggesting, say so. If you can't hit a target the size of a Trident with a weapon that goes 150m/s, you're clearly doing something horribly wrong.
Apr 08, 2015 cnaw link
Instead of buffing the current pcb, why not create a new large port PCB that deals with the heavy trident batteries more effectively? And to make that more interesting, make it a manufactured item.
Apr 08, 2015 greenwall link
Excuse me, but how is being able to hit a non-trident ship a bad consequence? I didn't say it "shouldn't" be effective against smaller class vessels, but rather it should be seen as an anti-trident weapon, as that is it's only real application. Making it shoot as fast as a widowmaker isn't going to be enough for people to use it against smaller ships, because you are still giving up a weapons port to use it. It easier and more preferable to kill an escaping non-capital ship than to slow it down, thus using a damage causing weapon is still preferable over PCBs for smaller ships.

The notion that it should have no effect against any other ship aside from Tridents is stupid both from a gameplay perspective and also from a logical perspective.

The velocity buff was originally meant to help with the increased strafing that was necessary from the turret issue, but it has application despite that. Namely, it increases the range and reach, which is helpful when chasing a fleeing trident.
Apr 08, 2015 abortretryfail link
If the only application for it is to chase Tridents, then the velocity of it is fine right now. Even dodging turret fire it's not hard to hit something the size of an asteroid with a 150m/s weapon.

If you want longer range, ask for that. The Plasma HX has longer range than most other blasters but only 160m/s speed with a longer time-out.

If you want to make it effective against smaller ships, say so. Don't just suggest a change that will make it extremely effective against smaller ships but act like that's not what you want, that just comes off as disingenuous.
Apr 08, 2015 Sieger link
+1 to the OP

Disingenuous, ARF? Really? This is the Suggestions Forum, not a court. It's a game. While I think that Greenwall did not intend to "hide" any "secret intentions", it would still be his good right to do it. It is obvious that such a buff would not only make hitting Tridents easier.

Anyhow, I think in order to make a useful PCB version for small-ship combat situations, it takes different measures. Simply raising the velocity won't do the trick.
Apr 08, 2015 greenwall link
heh, I think ARF's just angry I called out his bullshit. Incarnate lets buff the PCB!
Apr 08, 2015 joylessjoker link
I smell some old bitterness here.. perhaps carrying over from when greenie was rejected from the ITAN leadership?
Apr 08, 2015 Roda Slane link
Accelerated Power Cell Blaster (specific faction here)
Required Level 4/4/-/-/-

Small port weapon:
Drain: 50 (unchanged)
Velocity: 200 (vs 150) <--
Energy: 10/blast (unchanged)
Delay: 0.16s (unchanged)
Mass: 600kg (vs 100kg) <--
Grid: 4 (unchanged)
Cost: 60,000c (vs 10,000?) <--

note about original suggestion: having 215 velocity on a 100kg weapon is overpowered. as the velocity goes up, some other compromise should be made. in this case, i have increased the mass. I am concerned about situations where a very light ship can drain a medium class ship from beyond gat range.

Edit: I would like this to be a new weapon added to the game, and keep the existing PCB as is.
Apr 08, 2015 greenwall link
I am concerned about situations where a very light ship can drain a medium class ship from beyond gat range.

You are idiot then. Nobody is going to fly around draining ships of their energy when it leaves them no energy left to do any damage or turbo with. There is ZERO concern for this being used in any effective manner against a non capital ship PvP. Anyone who asserts otherwise is out of touch with the game.

The PCB isn't used against non capital ships in PvP for the same reason repair modules aren't: they aren't worth losing a damage-causing weapon for. It's why nobody flies around with them preloaded... they are only brought out if an enemy trident is detected nearby. I would hold that the OP still doesn't make the PCB valuable enough to lose a weapons port -- unless you are chasing a trident.

The additional velocity is very much needed. Chasing a trident that has gotten even a small headstart on it's turbo makes the PCB pretty much useless if a trident has a THC. With a fully charged THC it requires at LEAST 83 constant shots from a PCB to stop it from turboing. This would require two people with heavy or IHD cells -- and even then they would only be able to stop a stopped or slow-moving trident like that if they were both lucky enough to coordinate a full onslaught of PCB shots simultaneously -- assuming they don't miss any shots while they are flying, in which case it becomes even more difficult with the recharge rate of 150/s. If that trident happens to be on half turbo speed or more then there is no chance in hell of catching it, since the PCB's range is less than 500m (and a moving trident will quickly get out of range since you can't turbo to maintain your distance - causing many of your shots to miss).

Increased velocity allows the PCB to hit faster and more accurately and at higher speeds and ranges. These are characteristics of something you'd expect from a pursuit weapon, especially one that causes ZERO damage.

I thinking multiple classes of the PCB are a good idea -- even with one causing light damage as Savet proposed. But honestly that's beyond the scope of this suggestion. This is about making what currently exists useful, because it's not.
Apr 08, 2015 abortretryfail link
heh, I think ARF's just angry I called out his bullshit.

What bullshit? You said this is really only for Tridents, but hitting them with it isn't the problem. It's draining them fast enough to make it worthwhile, preventing a jump. There's no reason to have higher velocity except to hit smaller, faster moving targets. If you need extra range you'll get better results by just increasing the projectile timeout like how the Plasma HX does it.

Like I said before:
+1 to buff the PCB's drain amount from 50 -> 60
Apr 08, 2015 greenwall link
There's no reason to have higher velocity except to hit smaller, faster moving targets.

Sure there is.. you are just refusing to acknowledge it.
Apr 09, 2015 Ore link
Girls, girls.. I'd like to remind you that no PCBs were used in last night's destruction of the Litter Box and Tissue Box. You both need to get out of your tridents more.
Apr 09, 2015 Roda Slane link
@greenwall: you are making statements that you can not back up in game. I am sure you know much more than me, about flying a cap ship. other than that, i find it humorous that you would challenge my statements in regards to vo pvp. there is no reason to have a velocity of 215, other than to fight ships smaller than a trident. unless you have recently become some kind of pvp god on par with panther, peytros, niki, nahnin, kmet, electricity, or me, don't pretend to know what the hell you are talking about.
Apr 09, 2015 greenwall link
Reasons for higher velocity PCBs other than to fight smallers ships:

-Increase accuracy against tridents at larger ranges, especially when strafing or rolling (which is not helped by simply increasing the timeout).
-Increase effectiveness against tridents at larger ranges (i.e. the ability to turn away from a dogfight and more quickly apply a PCB)
-Increased chance of hitting a fleeing trident before it jumps.

There ya go.

@Roda, your statements in regards to PVP are based on a fear of the unknown, whereas mine are based on the actual use, and observation of others using, the Power Cell Blaster (which directly contradicts your assertion I can't back them up in game). I haven't seen you in game in a long long time, nor when I have seen you in game are you ever there for very long -- so I can't really see how you can have an opinion on my pvp skills. But, more importantly, the fact that you think one has to be a pvp "god" to be able to have a legitimate opinion on pvp application of weapons shows you are just trying to play the elitist card and not have a discussion based on facts.

@Ore -- they weren't used because PCBs suck. Thanks for proving my point.