Forums » Suggestions
> My idea for this would be that two of the weapon on a single ship, firing at 1/s and 50 energy per shot, on a Heavy cell, will be able to deshield a dent just as the cell drains completely, provided no energy is used on turbo and all shots hit. So it would take about 10 seconds of uninterrupted non-turbo perfect shooting to deshield a dent. And the ship would be unable to equip any hull damage weapons since two of this would use up all grid.
Now that makes much more sense. Then your weapon must not deal more than 4700 shield damage, 2 of them would deshield a dent after 9 seconds (leaving the cell with 5 energy) and a goliath after 4.
I'd actually be fine with this I think. Not sure it's worth adding but I wouldn't have any of my previous objections with those stats.
PS: 10 grid each would require a heavy cell, but it's probably fine to go 9 grid so IHDPC can be used - gives you room for a weapon with a heavy cell but you can add those with swarms, too, so I wouldn't mind.
Now that makes much more sense. Then your weapon must not deal more than 4700 shield damage, 2 of them would deshield a dent after 9 seconds (leaving the cell with 5 energy) and a goliath after 4.
I'd actually be fine with this I think. Not sure it's worth adding but I wouldn't have any of my previous objections with those stats.
PS: 10 grid each would require a heavy cell, but it's probably fine to go 9 grid so IHDPC can be used - gives you room for a weapon with a heavy cell but you can add those with swarms, too, so I wouldn't mind.
->Turreted ships have neutron blaster mk II's built in.
Good luck trying to chase, land shots for 10 seconds straight and dodge defensive fire in a moth.
Now that makes much more sense. Then your weapon must not deal more than 4700 shield damage, 2 of them would deshield a dent after 9 seconds (leaving the cell with 5 energy) and a goliath after 4.
Thanks for the exact stats.
PS: 10 grid each would require a heavy cell, but it's probably fine to go 9 grid so IHDPC can be used - gives you room for a weapon with a heavy cell but you can add those with swarms, too, so I wouldn't mind.
9 grid x 2 is 18. Even on a heavy, you will still not be able to equip any more weapons. No weapon has less than 4 grid.
Good luck trying to chase, land shots for 10 seconds straight and dodge defensive fire in a moth.
Now that makes much more sense. Then your weapon must not deal more than 4700 shield damage, 2 of them would deshield a dent after 9 seconds (leaving the cell with 5 energy) and a goliath after 4.
Thanks for the exact stats.
PS: 10 grid each would require a heavy cell, but it's probably fine to go 9 grid so IHDPC can be used - gives you room for a weapon with a heavy cell but you can add those with swarms, too, so I wouldn't mind.
9 grid x 2 is 18. Even on a heavy, you will still not be able to equip any more weapons. No weapon has less than 4 grid.
> No weapon has less than 4 grid.
ah fair enough, I didn't check. IHDPC would leave the cell at 50 energy btw.
Regarding turrets - you can run a moth with swarms already if you feel it's the ship you want to use to kill caps so I don't think it even needs to be discussed.
ah fair enough, I didn't check. IHDPC would leave the cell at 50 energy btw.
Regarding turrets - you can run a moth with swarms already if you feel it's the ship you want to use to kill caps so I don't think it even needs to be discussed.
In the past Incarnate has pointed out the capitol ships were made to unlock new gameplay in capitols vs capitols, 2 people in rags can kill my goli before i can say huminahuminahuminua, i realy dont think this is a good idea. It it were a capitol only class weapon i may think differently. I think emp styled weapons would be cool. But this is op in my humble opinion. If you want to kill a goli in a group, grab a pcb.
In the past Incarnate has pointed out the capitol ships were made to unlock new gameplay in capitols vs capitols, 2 people in rags can kill my goli before i can say huminahuminahuminua, i realy dont think this is a good idea. It it were a capitol only class weapon i may think differently. I think emp styled weapons would be cool. But this is op in my humble opinion. If you want to kill a goli in a group, grab a pcb.
->2 people in rags can kill my goli before i can say huminahuminahuminua
The goli is not much more than a glorified XC. You don't even need a rag to kill it, a dual megaposi UDV or a chainsaw hornet does the job better. There is actually no logical reason for people killing a goli in a group to use the proposed weapon, since they can deshield it without the weapon just as easily, and still have firepower to kill the hull. So it wouldn't really affect goli vs small ship fighting much.
->It it were a capitol only class weapon i may think differently.
That kinda defeats the point. There are many weapons which capitols can use to kill each other in a variety of combinations. Caprails/megaposis to deshield, PCB turrets to counteract caprails and megposis, capcannons to counteract the PCBs, Capswarms to attack a moving target, etc.
But for the group of small ship pilots wanting to kill a moving and defending dent, the only option is the swarm rag. Incarnate said that capitals would add new variety to gameplay. But does that mean the variety should be in capship gameplay only, and the small ship gameplay can be left unattended?
The goli is not much more than a glorified XC. You don't even need a rag to kill it, a dual megaposi UDV or a chainsaw hornet does the job better. There is actually no logical reason for people killing a goli in a group to use the proposed weapon, since they can deshield it without the weapon just as easily, and still have firepower to kill the hull. So it wouldn't really affect goli vs small ship fighting much.
->It it were a capitol only class weapon i may think differently.
That kinda defeats the point. There are many weapons which capitols can use to kill each other in a variety of combinations. Caprails/megaposis to deshield, PCB turrets to counteract caprails and megposis, capcannons to counteract the PCBs, Capswarms to attack a moving target, etc.
But for the group of small ship pilots wanting to kill a moving and defending dent, the only option is the swarm rag. Incarnate said that capitals would add new variety to gameplay. But does that mean the variety should be in capship gameplay only, and the small ship gameplay can be left unattended?
Good luck trying to chase, land shots for 10 seconds straight and dodge defensive fire in a moth.
Luck has nothing to do with it. I'd be using an atlas type x. The turret on that ship almost aims forward. With the proposed auto aim that your propose, me and my friends will dodge all your trident's fire as we deshield you and then kill you easy with this weapon. After we do that a few times, the weapon will be nerfed because of complaints from the player base.
PCB turrets
PCB turrets are not capital weapons. They only have a grid of 4.
That kinda defeats the point
What is the point? What does your proposed weapon add to the game that can not already be achieved with the weapons already in game with skill? What are the negatives that this weapon will add. What are the positives?
In your OP you said it will have 20 grid, then later you said it would have one grid. Which is it? Also in your OP, you said it would be sold in capital stations. Why? You say it needs to have excellent auto aim. Why? You say it needs to have a highish velocity, why?
Understand this, many of us will use this weapon against players very effectively with your stated stats. People will assume we are cheating. So I am challenging it here first before it gets implemented so it doesn't have to be nerfed later.
Luck has nothing to do with it. I'd be using an atlas type x. The turret on that ship almost aims forward. With the proposed auto aim that your propose, me and my friends will dodge all your trident's fire as we deshield you and then kill you easy with this weapon. After we do that a few times, the weapon will be nerfed because of complaints from the player base.
PCB turrets
PCB turrets are not capital weapons. They only have a grid of 4.
That kinda defeats the point
What is the point? What does your proposed weapon add to the game that can not already be achieved with the weapons already in game with skill? What are the negatives that this weapon will add. What are the positives?
In your OP you said it will have 20 grid, then later you said it would have one grid. Which is it? Also in your OP, you said it would be sold in capital stations. Why? You say it needs to have excellent auto aim. Why? You say it needs to have a highish velocity, why?
Understand this, many of us will use this weapon against players very effectively with your stated stats. People will assume we are cheating. So I am challenging it here first before it gets implemented so it doesn't have to be nerfed later.
> In your OP you said it will have 20 grid, then later you said it would have one grid. Which is it?
The original suggestion was OP, but what he and I seem to have "agreed" on earlier on this page where stats like this:
Shield Damage: 4700
Hull damage: 0
Rate of fire: 1/s
Energy: 50
Port: Large
Grid: 9
You'll need 2 of them to deshield anything, it would take 9 seconds to deshield a dent and leave your cap dry, and that's only assuming it stays in range.
That's why I said I have no more problems with it like that if you compare it to swarms.
> I think emp styled weapons would be cool.
PCB is basically EMP, this here isn't.
The original suggestion was OP, but what he and I seem to have "agreed" on earlier on this page where stats like this:
Shield Damage: 4700
Hull damage: 0
Rate of fire: 1/s
Energy: 50
Port: Large
Grid: 9
You'll need 2 of them to deshield anything, it would take 9 seconds to deshield a dent and leave your cap dry, and that's only assuming it stays in range.
That's why I said I have no more problems with it like that if you compare it to swarms.
> I think emp styled weapons would be cool.
PCB is basically EMP, this here isn't.
->Luck has nothing to do with it.
"Good luck trying to..." does not mean luck has anything to do with it. It's sarcasm. Saying that something is impossible or extremely unlikely.
->be using an atlas type x. The turret on that ship almost aims forward.
You're either confused or you haven't seen an Atlas X in a long time. The turret on it is exactly on the back, nowhere even close to forward-facing.
->PCB turrets are not capital weapons. They only have a grid of 4.
They are not exclusively to capships, yes. But they are most effectively used in capships, and to great effect. The turrets on moths and Atlases are pretty weak considering most turrets would drain their cells dry AND they would be killed very fast, with no shields as a buffer to save them.
I never even considered reducing grid to 1. It was always meant to be a high grid weapon which could still be used on small ships. I don't know where you're getting that from.
The stats mentioned in the OP are seriously borked, partly because I had no accurate numbers on shield hp and regen rates, and partly because I did not consider some factors, such as the one you stated where dent + goli owners could get easy deshields by ordering their golis to attack.
The revised stats after input of data from Snib and possibilities of misuse by you are what Snib has listed above. Just one edit, to add Hull damage of 1. Enough to trigger sf if used to deshield capships in the NFZ, but not enough to make this a viable option for deshielding and killing capships solo.
"Good luck trying to..." does not mean luck has anything to do with it. It's sarcasm. Saying that something is impossible or extremely unlikely.
->be using an atlas type x. The turret on that ship almost aims forward.
You're either confused or you haven't seen an Atlas X in a long time. The turret on it is exactly on the back, nowhere even close to forward-facing.
->PCB turrets are not capital weapons. They only have a grid of 4.
They are not exclusively to capships, yes. But they are most effectively used in capships, and to great effect. The turrets on moths and Atlases are pretty weak considering most turrets would drain their cells dry AND they would be killed very fast, with no shields as a buffer to save them.
I never even considered reducing grid to 1. It was always meant to be a high grid weapon which could still be used on small ships. I don't know where you're getting that from.
The stats mentioned in the OP are seriously borked, partly because I had no accurate numbers on shield hp and regen rates, and partly because I did not consider some factors, such as the one you stated where dent + goli owners could get easy deshields by ordering their golis to attack.
The revised stats after input of data from Snib and possibilities of misuse by you are what Snib has listed above. Just one edit, to add Hull damage of 1. Enough to trigger sf if used to deshield capships in the NFZ, but not enough to make this a viable option for deshielding and killing capships solo.
So i skimed over this suggestion and it's replies here's so point of view
Why make small arms(non-capital ships) overpowered, 2 stacked chaos can deshield a dent, goli are worse a hog 2 can do that job.
Stacking is VERY easy there are plugins that assist that(infiniturbo).
There should be NO change, if you put in the efforts to build a cappie you should be rewarded with advantages.
Why make small arms(non-capital ships) overpowered, 2 stacked chaos can deshield a dent, goli are worse a hog 2 can do that job.
Stacking is VERY easy there are plugins that assist that(infiniturbo).
There should be NO change, if you put in the efforts to build a cappie you should be rewarded with advantages.
-1 because of reasons already stated.
Why make small arms(non-capital ships) overpowered, 2 stacked chaos can deshield a dent, goli are worse a hog 2 can do that job.
This is not making small ships overpowered. Capships still have 4x or 6x the cargo hold of any small ship, they can take attacks by most bots without getting any damage because of their shields. They can also carry a large variety of ships for the owner to use, should they want to defend their goli/dent in a fighter. Against players they can attack using capcannons that are unaffected by PCBs, capswarms that are guided, have a huge range and deal a lot of damage, and caprails that are practically undodgeable at less than 500m and which can one-shot most ships, and firecrackers which are fast, agile and targeting, giving you a hell of a concussion. And did I mention that all ammo based turrets have infinite ammo, firecrackers can be spit out at insane rates of fire using turret-switching aliases, and the owner gets free reps and reloads on almost anything?
In contrast, a small ship wanting to kill a dent has just one option to turn to. The swarm rag. Nothing else can kill its shields. Even in a group, they still have to resort to swarm rags. Even with the suggested weapon, the pilot would have to use TWO of these weapons to deshield a dent, provided he can land all the shots continuously, while chasing without a pcb and dodging the turrets. I can't see how it's making small ships overpowered in any way.
->Stacking is VERY easy there are plugins that assist that(infiniturbo).
Plugins for stacking turn to garbage when your target is attacking you with turrets and running away as well. Without plugins too, getting a perfect stack is difficult when you're also dodging turrets and chasing. We all float did it in the video, but then the problem of reloading starts. By the time you reload and get back, your target has probably jumped to an empty sector and if and when you find them the shields would have regened.
->I'm not. I know exactly the capabilities of the atlas turret.
Then can you please tell me how a rear facing turret would be "almost forward facing"? And how do you propose to deshield a dent using an Atlas, which has just one large port? You're gonna need two of the proposed weapon to deshield a dent.
->Anyways, you didn't answer my question: what is the point of this weapon? What role does it fill that is not already filled by other weapons?
I believe I did, and I'll say it again. First, it adds variety to the boring and always used swarm rag. Now you can use Taurs, Tungmaud, and UDV as well. Anything with 2 large ports. Second, it adds a reason to kill capships in groups. The weapon would make it more efficient to have different roles in a group, one for deshielding, one for damaging, one for pcbing, etc. It encourages group combat against capships.
To be honest the suggestion is basically to encourage group combat against TTMs specifically. Goli's are already weak and easy to kill, although they still have a lot of advantages against small ships when it comes to fighting bots, hauling, mining and the free reps and reloads. So if the suggestion gets implemented, the already screwed goli will get screwed a little more. And, as Incarnate said, "I don't see why the Goliath needs to have an advantage at all."
This is not making small ships overpowered. Capships still have 4x or 6x the cargo hold of any small ship, they can take attacks by most bots without getting any damage because of their shields. They can also carry a large variety of ships for the owner to use, should they want to defend their goli/dent in a fighter. Against players they can attack using capcannons that are unaffected by PCBs, capswarms that are guided, have a huge range and deal a lot of damage, and caprails that are practically undodgeable at less than 500m and which can one-shot most ships, and firecrackers which are fast, agile and targeting, giving you a hell of a concussion. And did I mention that all ammo based turrets have infinite ammo, firecrackers can be spit out at insane rates of fire using turret-switching aliases, and the owner gets free reps and reloads on almost anything?
In contrast, a small ship wanting to kill a dent has just one option to turn to. The swarm rag. Nothing else can kill its shields. Even in a group, they still have to resort to swarm rags. Even with the suggested weapon, the pilot would have to use TWO of these weapons to deshield a dent, provided he can land all the shots continuously, while chasing without a pcb and dodging the turrets. I can't see how it's making small ships overpowered in any way.
->Stacking is VERY easy there are plugins that assist that(infiniturbo).
Plugins for stacking turn to garbage when your target is attacking you with turrets and running away as well. Without plugins too, getting a perfect stack is difficult when you're also dodging turrets and chasing. We all float did it in the video, but then the problem of reloading starts. By the time you reload and get back, your target has probably jumped to an empty sector and if and when you find them the shields would have regened.
->I'm not. I know exactly the capabilities of the atlas turret.
Then can you please tell me how a rear facing turret would be "almost forward facing"? And how do you propose to deshield a dent using an Atlas, which has just one large port? You're gonna need two of the proposed weapon to deshield a dent.
->Anyways, you didn't answer my question: what is the point of this weapon? What role does it fill that is not already filled by other weapons?
I believe I did, and I'll say it again. First, it adds variety to the boring and always used swarm rag. Now you can use Taurs, Tungmaud, and UDV as well. Anything with 2 large ports. Second, it adds a reason to kill capships in groups. The weapon would make it more efficient to have different roles in a group, one for deshielding, one for damaging, one for pcbing, etc. It encourages group combat against capships.
To be honest the suggestion is basically to encourage group combat against TTMs specifically. Goli's are already weak and easy to kill, although they still have a lot of advantages against small ships when it comes to fighting bots, hauling, mining and the free reps and reloads. So if the suggestion gets implemented, the already screwed goli will get screwed a little more. And, as Incarnate said, "I don't see why the Goliath needs to have an advantage at all."
I believe I did, and I'll say it again. First, it adds variety to the boring and always used swarm rag. Now you can use Taurs, Tungmaud, and UDV as well.
I have made a few more videos in a UDV to put this matter to rest.
UDV with 2 avs
UDV with 1 av
UDV with stingrays
UDV with Chaos Swarms
UDV with Locust Swarms
UDV deployed 3 TU mines
UDV with 2 MP*
UDV with 2 screamers
UDV with 2 screamers vs turboing target
* (This setup requires 2 UDVs to deshield the capship. But since you mention group combat multiple times, this is not an issue for this thread)
I have made a few more videos in a UDV to put this matter to rest.
UDV with 2 avs
UDV with 1 av
UDV with stingrays
UDV with Chaos Swarms
UDV with Locust Swarms
UDV deployed 3 TU mines
UDV with 2 MP*
UDV with 2 screamers
UDV with 2 screamers vs turboing target
* (This setup requires 2 UDVs to deshield the capship. But since you mention group combat multiple times, this is not an issue for this thread)
1. Hitting a moving target with avs is very unlikely. It would only work on still targets.
2. The swarm UDVs need a perfect stack to deshield, something that is near impossible to achieve on a moving and defending trident. Once it exceeds 80m/s the swarms never reach it.
3. The TU mines would require the dent pilot to be blind or afk flying.
4. The dual megaposi UDV fails when the target is turboing. A dent may be slow in acceleration, but it can still get to above 70 m/s in less than 5 seconds.
Let me give an example of what I mean by specialised group combat against capships. Back in the early 1900s, cars were made from start to finish by one worker. The worker was exceedingly skilled, and could assemble and dismantle any part of the car. Then a man named Henry Ford came along and introduced the assembly line. Each worker had only one little task. But there were a lot of workers. So, the hundreds of workers who were skilled at only their one part of the job, could churn out a car at rates much faster than the old start-to-finish worker. Versatility was sacrificed for greater efficiency at one particular task.
This is exactly what the proposed weapon will do. You sacrifice the versatility of the traditional swarm rag for the specialised efficiency at deshielding, while your teammate specialises in hull damage or PCB. Note that like Ford's model only worked with hundreds of workers, this model would also only work with a teammate. So, you can be more efficient at the task with a team. Thus encouraging group combat against capships.
2. The swarm UDVs need a perfect stack to deshield, something that is near impossible to achieve on a moving and defending trident. Once it exceeds 80m/s the swarms never reach it.
3. The TU mines would require the dent pilot to be blind or afk flying.
4. The dual megaposi UDV fails when the target is turboing. A dent may be slow in acceleration, but it can still get to above 70 m/s in less than 5 seconds.
Let me give an example of what I mean by specialised group combat against capships. Back in the early 1900s, cars were made from start to finish by one worker. The worker was exceedingly skilled, and could assemble and dismantle any part of the car. Then a man named Henry Ford came along and introduced the assembly line. Each worker had only one little task. But there were a lot of workers. So, the hundreds of workers who were skilled at only their one part of the job, could churn out a car at rates much faster than the old start-to-finish worker. Versatility was sacrificed for greater efficiency at one particular task.
This is exactly what the proposed weapon will do. You sacrifice the versatility of the traditional swarm rag for the specialised efficiency at deshielding, while your teammate specialises in hull damage or PCB. Note that like Ford's model only worked with hundreds of workers, this model would also only work with a teammate. So, you can be more efficient at the task with a team. Thus encouraging group combat against capships.
Everything i showed you in a video I have used in actual game play against moving targets defending themselves. I'm sure the devs can confirm it as well if they really wanted to waste their time looking up the data.
Nothing in my reply mentioned swarm rags.
Once it exceeds 80m/s the swarms never reach it.
This is why most experienced pilots fly in front of the capital ship and stack from there.
he dual megaposi UDV fails when the target is turboing. A dent may be slow in acceleration, but it can still get to above 70 m/s in less than 5 seconds.
Two udvs don't have that issue. You mention group warfare all through this thread, then ignore it when I mention it. Come on.
What does Ford have anything to do with this thread? Come on.
This is exactly what the proposed weapon will do. You sacrifice the versatility of the traditional swarm rag for the specialised efficiency at deshielding
We already have what you say there in game. /me is out
Nothing in my reply mentioned swarm rags.
Once it exceeds 80m/s the swarms never reach it.
This is why most experienced pilots fly in front of the capital ship and stack from there.
he dual megaposi UDV fails when the target is turboing. A dent may be slow in acceleration, but it can still get to above 70 m/s in less than 5 seconds.
Two udvs don't have that issue. You mention group warfare all through this thread, then ignore it when I mention it. Come on.
What does Ford have anything to do with this thread? Come on.
This is exactly what the proposed weapon will do. You sacrifice the versatility of the traditional swarm rag for the specialised efficiency at deshielding
We already have what you say there in game. /me is out
I have made edits to the thread to comply with the rules for suggestions.
"Critique the Suggestion and not the Person.."
If users continue to address each other rather than the suggestion, they will be muted from Suggestions.
"Critique the Suggestion and not the Person.."
If users continue to address each other rather than the suggestion, they will be muted from Suggestions.
If the only remaining argument against the suggestion is that there are already other weapons in game that can be used then I think it's in a pretty good spot balance-wise.
It remains whether the devs want to introduce a new damage mechanic (shield drain). But it can open up new possibilities beyond the scope of this thread so they might be interested.
I feel the weapon - if implemented - should be a laser type weapon btw (like mining beams) that has to stay active on target. Seems appropriate for something like a drain.
It remains whether the devs want to introduce a new damage mechanic (shield drain). But it can open up new possibilities beyond the scope of this thread so they might be interested.
I feel the weapon - if implemented - should be a laser type weapon btw (like mining beams) that has to stay active on target. Seems appropriate for something like a drain.
->Everything i showed you in a video I have used in actual game play against moving targets defending themselves.
So you stacked avs against a dent that was defending itself and moving. I find that hard to believe since a) I didn't see any shots from the dent in all the videos, although you were in the FoV of its turrets and b) avs have a prox of 10m and are not guided, so unless the dent sat very still, your avs would have missed
The dent also ran into 3 TU mines. Now why would a sensible pilot fly into a minefield?
In your UDV megaposi video, you were right in front of two of its turrets. I find it hard to believe that the dent was defending itself when you didn't get killed or even damaged at that range. And the dent was clearly at standstill. I don't know how you're claiming it was in "actual gameplay against moving targets defending themselves".
->Two udvs don't have that issue.
In your video the UDV got the shields down to about 50% just as it's cell ran out. So two UDVs would have to use their entire cells in the megaposi. Nothing left for turbo.
->What does Ford have anything to do with this thread?
It was an example to illustrate how multiple specialisations within a group can be more efficient overall than a one-size-fits-all weapon. I literally explained that throughout the example.
Sure 2 or 3 UDV pilots using dual megaposi can deshield a dent. But is it more efficient for one guy to do the deshielding using the proposed weapon, while the other concentrates on dealing damage? It gives more ways to do the same thing: kill a dent. Just like there are multiple ways to kill a levi (coordinated Avalon stacks, coordinated swarm stacks, cascades, NPC deshields, multiple capships attacking with caprails, etc), there should be multiple ways to kill a dent. Everyone has their own playstyle and preferences.
Personally, I think if a weapon or a ship or a mechanic isn't game-breaking, it should just be added. Whether it's good or needed is pointless. If people had followed the opinions of those who said, "Hey, we have horses. Why do we need a car that's hella expensive to make and uses a ton of expensive oil from the East?", we never would've got to the point of cars that are cheap and usable. Now not having a car is weird in many places. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but all inventions need not come after they are needed. Sometimes they come first and the need comes later.
It provides for a new way of doing something, it adds layers, it doesn't severely break anything or become an exploit, it should go in.
EDIT: Snib made his post while I was writing mine, and that is exactly the point I have made in the last 2 paragraphs. If it's balanced, it doesn't matter if there are other ways to do it or not. You can't make assumptions on how useful/useless something is before it's even there.
So you stacked avs against a dent that was defending itself and moving. I find that hard to believe since a) I didn't see any shots from the dent in all the videos, although you were in the FoV of its turrets and b) avs have a prox of 10m and are not guided, so unless the dent sat very still, your avs would have missed
The dent also ran into 3 TU mines. Now why would a sensible pilot fly into a minefield?
In your UDV megaposi video, you were right in front of two of its turrets. I find it hard to believe that the dent was defending itself when you didn't get killed or even damaged at that range. And the dent was clearly at standstill. I don't know how you're claiming it was in "actual gameplay against moving targets defending themselves".
->Two udvs don't have that issue.
In your video the UDV got the shields down to about 50% just as it's cell ran out. So two UDVs would have to use their entire cells in the megaposi. Nothing left for turbo.
->What does Ford have anything to do with this thread?
It was an example to illustrate how multiple specialisations within a group can be more efficient overall than a one-size-fits-all weapon. I literally explained that throughout the example.
Sure 2 or 3 UDV pilots using dual megaposi can deshield a dent. But is it more efficient for one guy to do the deshielding using the proposed weapon, while the other concentrates on dealing damage? It gives more ways to do the same thing: kill a dent. Just like there are multiple ways to kill a levi (coordinated Avalon stacks, coordinated swarm stacks, cascades, NPC deshields, multiple capships attacking with caprails, etc), there should be multiple ways to kill a dent. Everyone has their own playstyle and preferences.
Personally, I think if a weapon or a ship or a mechanic isn't game-breaking, it should just be added. Whether it's good or needed is pointless. If people had followed the opinions of those who said, "Hey, we have horses. Why do we need a car that's hella expensive to make and uses a ton of expensive oil from the East?", we never would've got to the point of cars that are cheap and usable. Now not having a car is weird in many places. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but all inventions need not come after they are needed. Sometimes they come first and the need comes later.
It provides for a new way of doing something, it adds layers, it doesn't severely break anything or become an exploit, it should go in.
EDIT: Snib made his post while I was writing mine, and that is exactly the point I have made in the last 2 paragraphs. If it's balanced, it doesn't matter if there are other ways to do it or not. You can't make assumptions on how useful/useless something is before it's even there.
-1 Seems like inserting magic weapons to me. Capships shields/armor already seem about right with current weaps. They're already too easy to kill. A UDV can already deshileld a Goli riki tik and a trident isn't much harder. Shields are just a slight delay. no need to add new weaps.
It does seem like a good way to pirate NPCs with such a weap though. Which is lame. They should be more of a challenge than they already are.
It does seem like a good way to pirate NPCs with such a weap though. Which is lame. They should be more of a challenge than they already are.