Forums » Suggestions
ships should have to be deshielded before pcbs take effect. shields should protect you from pcb.
+1
Makes sense to me +1
Yep, I don't see why a shield shouldn't block all damage (including pcb) +1
I would agree; if shields resist other forms of energy weapons, why should pcb be able to penetrate to affect the battery of a ship. +1
+1
+1 for a single pcb but 3 or 4 pcb should get through with reduced drain
This makes so much sense. Icebucket gave a good point. PCBs are op now, especially with turret bots. Also its a joke a single player can pin a capship down.
So
Definitely +1
So
Definitely +1
+10.
-1
Nah. It's not a damage-weapon. It's a drain weapon. shields are, ostensibly, connected to the ship's electrical grid or something... so PCB should definitely affect the ship.
Nah. It's not a damage-weapon. It's a drain weapon. shields are, ostensibly, connected to the ship's electrical grid or something... so PCB should definitely affect the ship.
A major influence to the existence and evolution of the PCB, was explicitly to make it possible to halt the movements of otherwise extremely-overpowered capital ships. Or, as TRS put the question back in 2014:
It's also odd that PC blasters work through them. They're.. shields.. which means they.. shield... If we're going to have weapon effects go through the shield then why do we have shields?
And Lecter responded:
Because we have so many other weapons that don't go through them. Making a PCB an anti-shield weapon makes perfect sense. If trident pilots want to be able to sport serious shields, they should remain vulnerable to weapons that prevent their over-shielded toys from doing what they do best: running.
Then there's also Pizza's commentary from the same thread:
I have no issue with the idea of somebody stopping my trident with a PCB. I'll simply get out and kill them.
So.. for the moment, let's put aside all the "hand waving" arguments about "realism" and how we think weapons from thousands of years in the future "would work", and distill this down to actual game design, which is the more specific goal of Suggestions:
Completely nullifying the effects of PCBs with capship shields would put us right back to capships being, effectively, mobile invulnerable battle-stations, which could jump away with impunity and lose attackers with relative ease (or ignore them entirely). That's why PCBs were added. So.. why would we remove them?
Capships are not any less-overpowered than they were back then. The swarm turret change (from a month ago) is basically irrelevant, because a solo attacker is still hard-pressed to do meaningful damage (while aso PCBing), while the Capship pilot can choose to launch and kill them. It's still "advantage: capship".
I do have long-term plans around broadening capship-related combat, both in making them more vulnerable in some situations, and also giving them more nuanced defenses. The PCB was the "best I could do", years back, with very limited dev-time, to give some level of limited Achilles-heel to the otherwise-overpowered capship construct that was, arguably, added to the game too-early.
It's also worth remembering that we did try other things, like limiting ammo on Swarm Turrets in the past, and reverted it due to explosively angry community response.
Also its a joke a single player can pin a capship down.
Okay, because this is more of a "perceptual" comment, built around a mental-model of expectation, I'll challenge that in-kind.. have you seen what Somali pirates use to attack large freighters?
Or, as I recently commented in another thread:
I have slowly evolved and improved many different aspects of capships (a lot of it last year, more of it this year), all the while telling people "it's a @#$@ing freighter, people".
So, this all goes a bit beyond the scope of this thread, into a larger discussion of capships. But, Tridents and Goliaths will probably always have some cause to worry about individual enemy pilots. Not necessarily face imminent and certain death, but concern.
The above also does not rule-out PCB changes. But, I'm certainly not going to eliminate the PCB from effectively the use-case that generated them, without some really robust reasoning.
It's also odd that PC blasters work through them. They're.. shields.. which means they.. shield... If we're going to have weapon effects go through the shield then why do we have shields?
And Lecter responded:
Because we have so many other weapons that don't go through them. Making a PCB an anti-shield weapon makes perfect sense. If trident pilots want to be able to sport serious shields, they should remain vulnerable to weapons that prevent their over-shielded toys from doing what they do best: running.
Then there's also Pizza's commentary from the same thread:
I have no issue with the idea of somebody stopping my trident with a PCB. I'll simply get out and kill them.
So.. for the moment, let's put aside all the "hand waving" arguments about "realism" and how we think weapons from thousands of years in the future "would work", and distill this down to actual game design, which is the more specific goal of Suggestions:
Completely nullifying the effects of PCBs with capship shields would put us right back to capships being, effectively, mobile invulnerable battle-stations, which could jump away with impunity and lose attackers with relative ease (or ignore them entirely). That's why PCBs were added. So.. why would we remove them?
Capships are not any less-overpowered than they were back then. The swarm turret change (from a month ago) is basically irrelevant, because a solo attacker is still hard-pressed to do meaningful damage (while aso PCBing), while the Capship pilot can choose to launch and kill them. It's still "advantage: capship".
I do have long-term plans around broadening capship-related combat, both in making them more vulnerable in some situations, and also giving them more nuanced defenses. The PCB was the "best I could do", years back, with very limited dev-time, to give some level of limited Achilles-heel to the otherwise-overpowered capship construct that was, arguably, added to the game too-early.
It's also worth remembering that we did try other things, like limiting ammo on Swarm Turrets in the past, and reverted it due to explosively angry community response.
Also its a joke a single player can pin a capship down.
Okay, because this is more of a "perceptual" comment, built around a mental-model of expectation, I'll challenge that in-kind.. have you seen what Somali pirates use to attack large freighters?
Or, as I recently commented in another thread:
I have slowly evolved and improved many different aspects of capships (a lot of it last year, more of it this year), all the while telling people "it's a @#$@ing freighter, people".
So, this all goes a bit beyond the scope of this thread, into a larger discussion of capships. But, Tridents and Goliaths will probably always have some cause to worry about individual enemy pilots. Not necessarily face imminent and certain death, but concern.
The above also does not rule-out PCB changes. But, I'm certainly not going to eliminate the PCB from effectively the use-case that generated them, without some really robust reasoning.
PCBs shouldnt be removed!
But...
Any ppl who flies them all day knows how easy to pin ships down. If you cannot kill the attacker, thats certain death almost, because most griefers call for help and gank capships with ease, while the capship pilot sits in a helpless pinned down pinata what cannot even fire back. The buff of capcannons and the adding of non-energy using weapons like Arillery or close ranged Autocannons was focused on this, to not leave capships helpless against multiple attackers.
Golis are okay, freighters... But Tridents? They are proper combat frigates.
At least decrease their effectiveness at longer ranges and when facing shields, like a 25-30% drain reduction. Even if just against a Trident.
But...
Any ppl who flies them all day knows how easy to pin ships down. If you cannot kill the attacker, thats certain death almost, because most griefers call for help and gank capships with ease, while the capship pilot sits in a helpless pinned down pinata what cannot even fire back. The buff of capcannons and the adding of non-energy using weapons like Arillery or close ranged Autocannons was focused on this, to not leave capships helpless against multiple attackers.
Golis are okay, freighters... But Tridents? They are proper combat frigates.
At least decrease their effectiveness at longer ranges and when facing shields, like a 25-30% drain reduction. Even if just against a Trident.
I'm fine with having asymmetric options in VO, but the small-ship PCB freezing a Trident is absurd. The Somali pirate example is unimpressive. At least take away the Trident rear blind spot, so you can target the dang thing.
A Vult freezing a Dent is at most annoying. But a Vult freezing a Dent while a strike force of Rags assembles three jumps away is a serious threat. It is **too** asymmetric.
I think it is comical that analogies to perceived space combat in the future are not allowed, but we do get to use analogies to tankers in the Persian Gulf. Well done, defenders of the PCB. Seriously well done. (slow applause)
A Vult freezing a Dent is at most annoying. But a Vult freezing a Dent while a strike force of Rags assembles three jumps away is a serious threat. It is **too** asymmetric.
I think it is comical that analogies to perceived space combat in the future are not allowed, but we do get to use analogies to tankers in the Persian Gulf. Well done, defenders of the PCB. Seriously well done. (slow applause)
"I think it is comical that analogies to perceived space combat in the future are not allowed, but we do get to use analogies to tankers in the Persian Gulf. Well done, defenders of the PCB. Seriously well done. (slow applause)"
Please ensure that your posts are in line with our efforts to keep Suggestions a safe place to collaborate.
Incarnate's point was that the analogies are unimportant:
"So.. for the moment, let's put aside all the "hand waving" arguments about "realism" and how we think weapons from thousands of years in the future "would work", and distill this down to actual game design, which is the more specific goal of Suggestions."
"At least take away the Trident rear blind spot, so you can target the dang thing."
That's a suggestion that should have its own thread.
Please ensure that your posts are in line with our efforts to keep Suggestions a safe place to collaborate.
Incarnate's point was that the analogies are unimportant:
"So.. for the moment, let's put aside all the "hand waving" arguments about "realism" and how we think weapons from thousands of years in the future "would work", and distill this down to actual game design, which is the more specific goal of Suggestions."
"At least take away the Trident rear blind spot, so you can target the dang thing."
That's a suggestion that should have its own thread.
+.5 I do agree with rkerst point a vult freezing a dent is op but if a pcb turret freezes a dent/goli isn't op .I agree with that I think that pcb turrets should stay the same but pcb (non turret) should change.
Greetings
This made me a small idea why we dont add another shield against Pcb guns (like orange collor shield for just pcb guns ) and if smn wanted to stop a ship by a pcb gun will need to fire rapidly untill the pcb shield goes down like this even capships will have chance to survive and plus the omiting pcb will not happen
This made me a small idea why we dont add another shield against Pcb guns (like orange collor shield for just pcb guns ) and if smn wanted to stop a ship by a pcb gun will need to fire rapidly untill the pcb shield goes down like this even capships will have chance to survive and plus the omiting pcb will not happen
Please post new suggestions in their own threads - otherwise there will be confusion as to which suggestion is being discussed. Thanks.
-1000
if you want to fly something invulnerable, fly a space station.
You can easily kill a PCB hound with the autoturret caprails.
if you want to fly something invulnerable, fly a space station.
You can easily kill a PCB hound with the autoturret caprails.
I said a few days ago that i think that shields should attenuate the pcb, not block it completely. I still stand by that.
You can easily kill a PCB hound with the autoturret caprails.
A well pcb'd capship can't shoot caprails. Because caprails require energy to fire.
You can easily kill a PCB hound with the autoturret caprails.
A well pcb'd capship can't shoot caprails. Because caprails require energy to fire.
The problem arent fighters only!
But the handful of players using turret bots.
Its nothing about using energy. Its about the fact ActivateTurrets is nothing compared to them.
Unlike this, bots can fire all weapons forward. And pilots who use pcb+caprail+mposi goli and capswarm dents can make any capship a helpless sitting duck in seconds, leaving no chance for the poor fellow who got caught. Thats insane amount of firepower just by ONE PLAYER! Giefers are able to effortlessly letting the bots to do the job and rip the poor trader apart.
U think this is fair? A big NO! This is broken overpowered!
The entire point of this thread is this. The unfair balance of old vets with these broken op bots, versus normal ppl like me and many others with the worthless ActivateTurrets, considering every single weapon uses energy. And NO NEED OF REMOVING PCBs! No one said that!
The fact some ppl can hold a small fleet in their hands and ruin everyones day.
Nyscersul created a remote pilot plugin and he wasn't using it to annoy others. Devs immediately broke it because it was unbalanced... Because it was. Nyscersul himself told me how powerful it was.
But the problem is some do use these advantages to harass other players with these kinds of things, ruining not just their day but the whole game for everyone except themselves.
So what are the solutions?
1: Decrease the effectiveness of PCBs by 50% on shields, so these botted capships cannot make sitting ducks of capships and rip them apart in seconds;
2: Make so we can set ActivateTurrets to a frontal focused firing mode. And THIS ISN'T broken considering the bots, this is the only way to put a fair balance in game. Like /+ActivateTurrets Focus Fire;
3: Make missile turrets fire outside of their field of view from the same reason, because bots can fire even outside their FoV.
With these we can make sure those players breaking the game, and ruining it with bots will have to face focused fire from their target ato have a chance of survival for the poor fellow, what is now 0% when you run into a player with two alts and golis/dents hammering you with pcb and capswarms/rails. You unable to even defend yourself, giving them an easy kill of what cost you millions of credits to replace, and do it again and again till players quit, having enough from this botted turret bullsh*t what never gets countered in any way.
So
Please Devs
Make us manuers/traders not suffer so hard in such an enormous imbalance of powers, when most griefers are in a huge advantage. Just make us able to have a chance.
This was a problem for very long, pissing off the non-rat/griefer community.
But the handful of players using turret bots.
Its nothing about using energy. Its about the fact ActivateTurrets is nothing compared to them.
Unlike this, bots can fire all weapons forward. And pilots who use pcb+caprail+mposi goli and capswarm dents can make any capship a helpless sitting duck in seconds, leaving no chance for the poor fellow who got caught. Thats insane amount of firepower just by ONE PLAYER! Giefers are able to effortlessly letting the bots to do the job and rip the poor trader apart.
U think this is fair? A big NO! This is broken overpowered!
The entire point of this thread is this. The unfair balance of old vets with these broken op bots, versus normal ppl like me and many others with the worthless ActivateTurrets, considering every single weapon uses energy. And NO NEED OF REMOVING PCBs! No one said that!
The fact some ppl can hold a small fleet in their hands and ruin everyones day.
Nyscersul created a remote pilot plugin and he wasn't using it to annoy others. Devs immediately broke it because it was unbalanced... Because it was. Nyscersul himself told me how powerful it was.
But the problem is some do use these advantages to harass other players with these kinds of things, ruining not just their day but the whole game for everyone except themselves.
So what are the solutions?
1: Decrease the effectiveness of PCBs by 50% on shields, so these botted capships cannot make sitting ducks of capships and rip them apart in seconds;
2: Make so we can set ActivateTurrets to a frontal focused firing mode. And THIS ISN'T broken considering the bots, this is the only way to put a fair balance in game. Like /+ActivateTurrets Focus Fire;
3: Make missile turrets fire outside of their field of view from the same reason, because bots can fire even outside their FoV.
With these we can make sure those players breaking the game, and ruining it with bots will have to face focused fire from their target ato have a chance of survival for the poor fellow, what is now 0% when you run into a player with two alts and golis/dents hammering you with pcb and capswarms/rails. You unable to even defend yourself, giving them an easy kill of what cost you millions of credits to replace, and do it again and again till players quit, having enough from this botted turret bullsh*t what never gets countered in any way.
So
Please Devs
Make us manuers/traders not suffer so hard in such an enormous imbalance of powers, when most griefers are in a huge advantage. Just make us able to have a chance.
This was a problem for very long, pissing off the non-rat/griefer community.