| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
robiwan
Moderator
1035 Posts |
 Posted - 17/11/2007 : 11:30:37
|
Chapter 8: Gunship Component Statistics
Here are some more statistics on the new gunship components (reactor, shield, armor, and capacitor). These stats are not final and are from resources on my personal server. The shield mass can be experimented on, but at the time of this picture could not.
Also... The crafting of these components do not use any of the 500 quality space resources.
- Hanse
Star Wars Galaxies - System Designer
|
I have waited and planned and built my strength for fifteen thousand years. I have evolved. It is time.
(Omnius Evermind)
---------------------------
Feyd'Rautha Saresh (Medic, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera), Robe Saresh (Force Sensitive, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera)
|
Edited by - robiwan on 17/11/2007 11:30:51
|
|
| |
|
robiwan
Moderator
1035 Posts |
Posted - 17/11/2007 : 11:31:16
|
Otazky a odpovede:
Q: HOLY CRAP. Nice stuff. Will you post the rest of the components?
A: Nope. This is good enough to go on. The rest you get to discover and we'll discuss them then.
Q: so 1000 OQ only hmmmmmmmmmmmm
A: In the case of the petrochem asteroid, I replaced it with inert petrochem. You have more variance with ground resources.
Q: Looks good and workable all except the recharge on the shield, it needs to be abit higher to fill a shield that big without having to shunt for 3min after death at the station, especialy when shields are adjusted.
I assume that isn't max crafted stats?
A: I don't think I experimented much on the recharge for the shield. The max is 45 or so.
Q: im not sure what people have said the potential energy drain is but around 80K was mentioned, to be on the safeside why not put the energy closer to 100,000.
its not like these reactors will ever fit in a fighter.
A: Maximum is 91000, currently.
Q: When you're right, you're right.
Hanse, you have restored my faith in one, fell swoop.
NOW we have something to sink our teeth into....
Let the debate and number crunching on the Capacitor begin!
Please, for the love of God, give us a repeatable space quest that gives parts like the gun you have on board! It is nothing less than sacrilege that we have to continually sacrifice disposable alts to the God of Chance on the Altar of Nym's Starmap to get enough guns to make these ships viable.
Either that, or just up the loot drop percentage from the current 15% to 25% or, as Synth loves to say, make Tier 5s drop more L10 gear.
A: We can discuss weapons after you have experienced the new content for space. I'm not working on new quests or collections for space.
Q: The thing that scares me is the fact that all the guns are raw/re'd. Noone who doesn't use their life in space can get 8 good L10 guns... Unless crafted. But we don't have mass for those, do we?
A: Those guns are not RE'd, so I'm wasting a lot of mass on this loadout.
Q: Hanse can i ask what the speed modifer is going to be on the ship?
A: These are the initial values:
speed_rotation_factor_min: 0.2
speed_rotation_factor_optimal: 0.3
speed_rotation_factor_max: 0.3
slideDamp: 1.2
engine_accel: 10
engine_decel: 10
engine_yaw_accel: 50
engine_pitch_accel: 50
engine_roll_accel: 37.5
MaxSpeedModifier: 0.8
Q: Also, with engine accel/decel of only 10, we may see the booster bug with these...are you seeing it in your testing so far?
A: Yes, the booster bug does occur with them. I've pushed for the booster bug to get squashed by programming. They're looking into it.
Q: *Takes other shoe and places it quietly back on the shelf* for now.
Very nice Hanse. Thank you for the transparency in allowing us to see what you have been working on. This looks like a really good start. This is something that can definitely be tested.
A: Yeah, I was busy working on these stats and popped over to check the POB engine thread. I got a good chuckle out of that debate. Of course, I got a lot of good information, too. SMILEY:)
Q: Mr. Hanse, can you keep us informed on the current status of what's happening in regard to the crafted/looted quality balance for starfighter components for chapter 8. Awhile back, a dev said that no decision was made but that we would be kept informed.
The current status is that crafted starfighter components are better in only boosters and DIs, that engines both looted and crafted are roughly equal, and ALL other crafted components are inferior to decent RE jobs, crafted weapons being the worst compared to nearly all RE jobs, esp in vs Armor and shield and EPS/mass.
Of course pilots would like to maintain the status quo, since decent RE jobs come out on top for most components and dont want to depend on nor have to pay a SW to craft it. Also pilots like the game of looting uber parts for their RE jobs, and very often have a SW to just RE for themselves without the need to craft.
On the other side of the equation is crafting SWs like me who feel if there is a PLAYER crafting profession, that they should be able to make parts equal to what can be looted. Why should some blown up looted part made by the computer be superior to what a player crafter can ever hope to make? Pilots have to loot parts, we have to take YEARS to harvest just the right spawns to possibly hit 100% experimentation. On my server, some of these uber resources have NEVER spawned. Needless to say, I don't like the best possible part a player can craft, including straight amazings (about 1 in 100 crafted parts) to end up inferior to a even a decent loot job. I would hope to see a better parity between RE/crafted come with ch.8 so that both pilots and SW's efforts are properly rewarded. A good way of doing this is playing with the subcomponents like you did with the engine subs like engine overhaul, that made the whole engine better. Older subs give a bonus at the cost to another stat, which is a zero sum gain, and most often makes the part significantly inferior to RE jobs.
A: I don't have information on this except that the gunship components will be superior and you'll have more to craft with them.
Q: I see all crafted items here. and some of them say MkIII, which means there are MkI and MkII as well. The beamrail gauss cannons are the crafted elite parts right? Or are the CL10 loots? (can't remember right this second). if they are the elite crafted guns, they're 250k mass apiece anyway.
Hanse, when you said you used inert petrochem instead of petrochem asteroid, does that mean that you changed the schematic, or that you just changed it for you b/c you didn't want to mine asteroids? what i mean is, can I use inert petrochem when I get the schem or am I going to have to use asteroid?
A: Those are not crafted weapons.
The resources for the schematics are made in such a way that you cannot use the buggy 500/1000 quality resources from space. I'd prefer we just deleted those old resources and fixed all the schematics, but hey... if I had all the time in the world you'd be playing in a true galaxy space instead of small zones. I'd be sipping smuggled wine contraband in my personal moonbase with a fleet of capital ships orbiting it. SMILEY:)
Q: Ok this is off topic but your statemnet above reminded me that when we are on the ground on planets, we can look up and see 2 or 3 star destroyers in orbit...but this does not seem to be the case since obviously when I launch they are not there(do they have cloaking devices?
A: They're in geo-synchronous orbit over the other side of the planet.
Q: since you opened the door, I have to ask the question now. I hear talk about bigger space zones, is it talk or ....
everyone wants to know
A: Have to wait for TC.. SMILEY:)
Q: Yup, I've already mentioned that twice in 2 previous posts, asking for confirmation if this is the mass we can be expecting to see on live.
The Shield + 2 armour slabs + reactor + capacitor add up to around 2mil on their own. Add another 250k for an engine and it leaves us with around 700k for weapons. Personally I would load my 2 L10 guns into the 2 best turrets 2 elite weapons in the next 2 best turrets and the remaining 2 turrets with L8 weapons. We wont realy need the 2 pilot guns, but if we do, we can just put 2 more L8's in there.
A: The gunships needed more mass to fit on the additional components for them. With that extra mass, you still need to make choices.
Q: Will these Gunboats have countermeasure launching ability?... Just asking, a WO4 space bomb will still wreak havoc on em if they don't and, if they do then the speed mod as Brit says will make them incredibly strong, either way i can see Mk 2 bomb sales going thru the roof on some servers.
A: Yes, they have a counter measure slot. They do not have launchers, since they're a "gun" ship.
|
I have waited and planned and built my strength for fifteen thousand years. I have evolved. It is time.
(Omnius Evermind)
---------------------------
Feyd'Rautha Saresh (Medic, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera), Robe Saresh (Force Sensitive, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera)
|
 |
|
|
robiwan
Moderator
1035 Posts |
Posted - 21/11/2007 : 09:44:56
|
I'm going to nerf them in favor of reducing incoming damage on multi-player ships by 10% per person (90% maximum) in them. The algorithm roughly follows as 5% per crew member (50% maximum from this bonus) and 5% per active member (pilot, co-pilot, and gunner in a turret 50% maximum). If the bonus exceeds 90%, it is capped at 90%.
This means that the more friends you have with you, the tougher the ship becomes. However, this applies to not only gunships but all multi-player ships.
The reason for this is so that a lone player doesn't fly a massive ship around. The slower speed, turning rates, and acceleration/deceleration are not enough of a limiting factor for such a heavily armored and shielded ship. We still want to avoid a small ship destroying a large ship with a large crew quickly, though.
I'll dial back the shields from 40k to 25k and the armor from 60k to 30k. Being hit for 12000 with a full crew will do 1200 damage to a gunship. It would take roughly 46 shots from a single gun doing maximum overloaded damage to destroy a gunship (not including shunting and recharging).
Discuss! (Civilly, please!)
- Hanse
Star Wars Galaxies - System Designer
Odkaz: http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/posts/list.m?topic_id=535204[/b] |
I have waited and planned and built my strength for fifteen thousand years. I have evolved. It is time.
(Omnius Evermind)
---------------------------
Feyd'Rautha Saresh (Medic, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera), Robe Saresh (Force Sensitive, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera)
|
|
|
|
robiwan
Moderator
1035 Posts |
Posted - 21/11/2007 : 09:45:35
|
Otazky a odpovede:
Q: This is interesting, and might be a good idea. I am non-committal at this point though. Further discussion will help me make up my mind. SMILEY<img src=" width="15" height="15" />
You mentioned here that this applies to all multi-player ships. I think it is worthy of clarification if you are referring only to POBs, or truly all multi-player ships, like Y-Wing, etcetera.
A: All multi-player ships are affected. So, if you have a ship with a pilot and a turret, the ship gets 20% damage reduction when that turret is occupied.
Q: O_o
(as much as I hate using that)
What the fork? Sorry, Hanse...I don't think Buffs have any place in space like that. This makes it look like to me that you are NGE-ifying space...
A: A ship can be operated more efficiently the more crew it has. That's the idea behind this. Our tests show that the gunships become juggernauts with those high component stats for a single player. They still will be, with the shields and armor high, just not as much.
Q: no dont. keep the gunships they way they are, dont turn the only thing in this game that requiers skill(space) into buff wars.
A: So, you're of the opinion that no buffs should be in space? We can remove the droid interface and see what real skill is instead of 12000 damage weapons. You'd actually have to dogfight instead of one or two shot kills.
Q: Though the thought of getting some sort of bonus of incomming damage at first turned my gut, the logic behind this thought is not bad.
I would have to say in general folks would not want a smaller crewed ship to have the same level of damage output, but then again you are introducing a new item that we might call a "buff" in some form or fashion.
So this calculation would apply to ARC, Y-Wing, Aggressor, Krayt, Y-8 (If so wanted), Deci, Nova, and any YT?
In your calcuations on reducing the Shield and Armor to these new levels, I'm guessing here the shots to take down the ship were @75 before the reductions?
A: No, it was nearer to 84 hits to take down a gunship. That is provided you hit every time for 12000 damage.
Q: Oh man, you do NOT wanna see the Flame or the Eviscerator when I load up 19 crewmembers! I could do it. Even 8 would be ridiculous.
In all honesty, this is a radical reconstitution of JTL, the kind of thing you promised you wouldn't do.
Your concern about people using these as PVE tanks is valid, but honestly, everyone ALREADY does that now. There is no PVE content in this game that a single fighter, let alone a well-crewed POB can't handle with ease. Just nerf the components a little and leave it at that. I'd rather have a bit less protection than buff wars
Please reconsider
A: You still have the issue of being able to destroy a ship with 10 people crewing it in a few shots. Also, there's the issue of a single player flying a behemoth of a ship. Reducing the ship's shields and armor and increasing resistances based on crew is a great solution.
Also, I won't consider "please don't do this" posts without alternative ideas and good arguments for and against different solutions. I ignore those posts, so please think through your argument before posting. Thanks!
Q: What ever happened to NO BUFFS IN SPACE?
A: Overloads are buffs.
Q: Droid commands are NOT buffs. You have to sacrifice to load out your ship with enough power to run them all.
A: That's a buff with a drawback. It's still a buff.
Q: The consensus is that we aren't onboard with these ideas yet.
We don't want Space to be NGE-ified. SOE admits to making a mistake for not listening to the community. PLEASE listen to us now when we say we aren't sure about this....yet.
Having a buff added per person may not be a good idea, because the information you are providing makes it appear that you can manipulate the system and get a buff for people who aren't doing squat.
If you don't put limits and restrictions on it...it will be abused and manipulated.
I am not sure adding the bonus to fighters is a good idea. ARC, Krayt, Aggie, Y-Wing....Especially the Aggie and ARC..Those are higher performance fighters in the first place. I fear we are going to run into issues like we do with the ROTW chassis...being imbalanced.
I can grudgingly accept it for POBs and GBs tho.
A: I agree that it may not be suitable for fighters with turrets. Although, I have not tested it out yet. We'll wait until this chapter goes to test center to see if it's a huge imbalance.
Q: Still not sure what I think of the idea. Initial impression was not so much.
What if you made it so the only crew members that added to this 'buff' were the ones in all the ops/gunner positions? That would slow down a single player from being very effective. He could either fly the ship, switch to an alt to use shield shunt, or yet again to actually shoot anyone.
A: It's 5% per crew onboard and 5% per crew in turrets. If you are in a turret, you count for being onboard and in a turret for a total of 10%.
If you are AFK and in a turret, your gunship will be ripped apart because you're not firing your turret. SMILEY:)
Q: Thank you. All we ask is that you don't make changes like that without even considering what the people who ACTUALLY play the game feel. hehe
Space does need help...but in general the system works....and we get a um...a little paranoid when things happen with space.....
A: Oh, definitely! I'm going to keep a close eye on this change. I'm not considering it a final solution. We're here to discuss the positives and negatives.
The two arguments against I've heard so far are:
1) Afk alts
2) Imbalances due to higher resistances
The suggestions I've heard so far are:
1) Reverse the bonus to armor/shields for not having members in a ship (equates to the same thing and I've already coded this prior to the current system I posted in this thread).
2) Only have it affect gunships.
I'm seeing a good split of "it looks okay" to "it won't work" to "I am not sure".
Q: Wow... am I the only one that noticed this?
Hanse stopped replying to our posts after page 5 or 6... SMILEY
A: I went to lunch. SMILEY:P
Q: Yup, I'd have to agree. I'm a Software Engineer my self, although I work in R&D. My job is constantly about coming up with new idea's and trying them out. Most of them dont work, but I learn more from my failures than successes.
A: Hah! I don't know where y'all get yer information. I implemented the system. That doesn't mean it's my original idea. SMILEY:P
Q: Question for Hanse:
Why in the world does a Gunship have the manuverability to be able to fly solo and destroy fighters with the pilot controled guns?
If it can, thats the problem you need to fix, not the defenses and not like the way you proposed.
A: The solo issue is part of the problem.
If gunships are too easy to destroy with eight players in them, then they're not worthwhile for those eight players to use the ship. They would do better to fly individual fighters than a gunship.
This solution is for solo AND large crews. It is to encourage and to support large crews. Eight fighters being equal versus one gunship full of eight players should be our target balance.
I haven't seen a compelling suggestion to solve this issue, yet.
A: Everyone seems to be missing the fundamental question we are trying to answer.
"Should 8 players FUN be jepordized by 1 player?"
I would be pretty ticked if I was in a gunboat with 8 friends and we got blown up by some solo fighter in a few shots. The goal of the gunboats is they are slow moving, slow turning ships with a huge amount of firepower based on manned turrets. I think of them as a flying brick everytime I see them.
There are 2 ways to answer the question.
a)give the Gunboats crazy stats so they can't be picked apart by a solo fighter.
b)scale the gunboats overall power by how many people are operating the ship.
Solution A leads us down a path where eventually the majority of the population is flying these ships, and you can't compete until you have one. It also has a side effect of putting potentially too much power in the hands of a solo pilot.
Solution B the only legitimate downside we have seen brought up is the potential problem of piling in afk crew into the ship. Since they are afk though who is manning the guns? You are just prolonging the demise of your ship by having an afk crew.
The Gunboats need to be as powerful as 8 individual fighters if you have 8 people manning it, not 1. These things will also be capped on how much "crew" they get benefits for.
Blixtev
A: I agree with the AFK concerns. I've removed the ability to get bonuses from crew that are not in a pilot, ops, or turret position. I also changed it to be POB bonuses only. This will put caps on the resistance a ship will get from crew to the outfitting the ship has.
A: I haven't seen any convincing arguments against this change, even though some disagree and some agree with it.
So, we'll be going ahead with this change on TC and we'll be back to discuss the changes, after TC has been up for a while and you have been able to test it.
Thanks for your input!
Q: For PvE loot farming in space, everyone is gonna get a gunboat anyways, be it because solo it is the most powerful, or loading it with a few AFK alts makes it the most powerful ship... So you have not changed anything in your solo pilot pwoer there... Now if the bonus is only for active turrets, then it gets muc hharder for the solo pilot to load up and make useful, though I'm sure they will still find a way, but it would then be hard enough that it doesn't become the majroity choice...
A: The modifier doesn't work in PvE.
Q: Wow, Hanse sure stirred up the wasps nest this time SMILEY<img src=" width="15" height="15" />
Any ways Narf and Jeb I and those in my group (wohoo the whole 5 of us) are in agreement. The one thing we have been waiting (and in some part suffering through) on is Chapter 8. If the devs completely NERF space sadly I have to say there is nothing left for it SMILEY<img src=" width="15" height="15" />
Myself and 2 others have multiple accounts so SOE would loose more than 1 Sub, not as a threat but as a sad walk away from what was once a pretty fun game.
Now Hanse wanted constructive feedback but I have to agree with the majority (as one with multiple accounts) the AFK shipmates is a critical flaw. Space has it's bugs but introducing this as mentioned cause the minimal pilots inspace to plummet even further and drive away the very grounders you are tying to get up there.
I think that the slowness of the GB and having known blindspots are pretty severe penalties already. Without a turret or two manned any fighter can get into the blindspot and at it's leisure trail that spot until the GB is cinders. No circling here, the fighter has the edge. The only real benefit of a 1 person GB is to 1) PvE Duty missions and just let the NPC ships fly into your sights or massive miners since they will be better than the Y8.
Space as it is NEEDS to be left intact and any major changes of this scope need to be fully tested by the pilot community long in advance of any live deployment.
A: With the AFK issue resolved from requiring crew to be in critical positions, I don't see the AFK issue as a concern, as you cannot defend yourself.
Q: No more than a solo pilot can. It isn't that hard to drop an AFK player in a turret.
So again, why is 1 player in a POB a threat if they cannot shoot?
A: There isn't an issue with single players with the reduced stats and scaling defense. It's pretty much the same system either way with a max crew that all participates. Both systems have high shields and armor. The math works out the same either way. The presentation is what is being objected to, now.
Q: Alright people don't seem to like the concept of the bonuses to people running a full group, why not just take the opposite approach:
take the stats back to the way they were before you made this post, but then add a modifer that reduces the efficiency of the ship for every crew member missing.
People were happy with the ship the way it was before, with the stats as is. The devs think that you need to have a full crew to to operate the ship properly.
That way everyone is happy
ifai
A: This is exactly the same as the current system proposed in this thread. If I have only one person in the ship, my shields and armor are at the same level in either system. Both systems rely on a specific amount of crew members.
Q: So true.
First of all I am amazed that you are still posting here. You have my kudos for that for sure Hanse - if it were me I would have been long gone from this thread:p
Secondly - as I said all those pages ago (:o) I am not sure it is such a bad idea for the gunboats - although I dont really see the problem with solo gunboats being overpowered in a relative way (as in compared to flying a fighter) I think that a four person crew could make them fairly insane in a fight against four fighters.
However - I dont believe that you should implement these changes for POBs as they are allready absolutely formidable in PVP. And I believe that your numbers are a bit too extreme (this is supposing that the 90% reduction would be in addition to the 50% pvp modifier) - if you could cut damage in half it would still make the gunboats incredibly hard to crack even for multiple powerful ships.
However ... I really dont see what having non-station crew could have a positive effect on anything. It would really mean that people just tag along for the ride? How much fun are these eight people having (supposing that they arent RPing or ... um ... doing other things that people do mostly in yachts)?
How about another suggestion (:o) make every crew member give the chassis or even components a significant bonus to their armour, not the shields/armour.
That way it is still possible to hit them, but you wont be blown up immediately, and get a much better chance of repairing stuff than you currently have. I dont know what kind of hitpoints the gunship has (I cant remember seeing that number), but if that was ... say another 100k we are talking some serious time to take it down. Just a thought.
A: I'm still here because I'm interested in feedback and I know folks want clarification on any information that may be vague about this change. I can stand it because I just ignore the unconstructive and flamatory posts. SMILEY:)
Interesting ideas! Increased HP on components would allow them to degrade and be less powerful over time during combat. Hmmm...
Q: Why have you Not ONCE responded to my (and MANY others) advice to simply LOWER the speed and YPR Mods and keep your original stats.
The ships SHOULD be tanks, but at slow speeds they WILL be vulnerable to coordinated attacks.
The PVE concern has been well demonstrated by the majority of the community to be a paper tiger, as nearly EVERY ship in this game can dominate in pve.
Do right by the pilot community.
A: Ah, I did lower them to 60% speed and the YPR are lower, as well.
Q: agree that a gunship should be as powerful as 8 individual fighters. However, I think a single fighter SHOULD be able to pick apart a gunboat if they are poorly crewed enough to allow it. We are having a fundamental philosophical discussion here, not a development discussion. This is like UNIX programmers discussing VI vs. Emacs. (Or Netbeans vs. Eclipse depending on what programming generation you grew up in.) We want the crew who knows what they're doing to be as powerful or more powerful than 8 individual fighters.
POBs are NOW as or more powerful than the same number of individual fighters when flown to their strengths by people who know what they are doing. You CAN scale gunships up to the right level of strength without opening the door to AFK alt toon exploits. It doesn't matter how many numbers we calculate or the amount of detailed analysis we provide. We do not want this stat modifier, period, we want it to be based on the individual knowledge, experience, and skill of the pilot and crew.
By AFK crew, we mean a pilot, a turret gunner or two, and enough AFKers to get you to 90% damage reduction.
A: The maximum, with gunships, is now 80% (a pilot, ops, and six gunners), since we do not allow crew not in a functional position. PvP afk'ing is not an issue, as PvP would tear the ship apart without adequate active gunners.
Q: The average person who logs in and plays doesn't have the time to practice or farm parts, or possibly even the potential to even develop the skill that the truly die hard Pilots possess. While some proposed changes (both on the ground and in space) seem to step on the toes of the elite players in the game, it's important to note that the average guy logging in every day isn't as good as you, for whatever reason that might be, and to balance the game to your level of skill leaves a large majority of average players out in the cold.
A: Most players will not play space PvP, due to the steep learning curve. The gunships allow additional breathing room to have fun in space.
Q: 1. The Devs want GB's and POB's to be group content that encourages players to go up and fight as a team in these multiplayer ships.
2. The Devs want to reward and offer a chance to succeed to the group of players that choose the multiplayer ship approach to space combat.
3. The Devs want GB's and to some extent POB's to be an actual challenge to players flying starfighters, not an even one of one fight.
A: Derchuka hit the nail on the head.
Q: ok, here's the MAJOR problem
we take a GOOD 4 man pob crew that can own in a current POB and transfer them to a GS, they all have dual accts, they dual log them and put them in empty slots, the crew will then PWN in the new tank with a full damage mitigation buff, i don't care what you say about reduced protection with the lack of guns, the POB crew will be used to working TOGETHER with two guns, and now they have even more shielding and damage mitigation just because they have "bodies" in the stations
don't tell me this won't happen, CAUSE IT WILL, the devs didn't listen to the players when they said exploiting and defense stackers would happen in the CU, and look what happened, even more defense stackers and bug exploiting
if there are ANY exploits, players will use them, PERIOD, there will be a few rotten apples that will take any "bonus" they can get, legal or other wise
WORKING TOGETHER, this is the key to defending a GS, if a single fighter takes out a fully crewed GS, THEY DESERVED IT
1 person ruining 8 ppls fun happens NOW, in FIGHTERS, one great pilot will kill 8 pilots that don't know how to work together
PLEASE, take an active server, like starstrider or whatever the hell it is, and clone it and let THEM test the GS stuff, not you, let the END USERS test the stuff you are putting forth, stuff on paper doesn't always work, though that doesn't seem to stop both the government and SOE from doing #)*($#$&(*
A: This would happen with the original stats or the new stats. The original stats have mitigation through higher numbers. The new reduced stats with crew mitigation has the same effect. So, your only problem would be facing a skilled group of players, EXCEPT they are in a more powerful ship.
So, this argument leans towards not putting in the gunships at all, because they have more firepower and defense.
As I said earlier, this is a perceived problem and not an actual problem with a full crew compliment.
Q: ok... then why change anything????
A: Because the ships do not live up to their full potential without a full crew... That's the point of the change.
|
I have waited and planned and built my strength for fifteen thousand years. I have evolved. It is time.
(Omnius Evermind)
---------------------------
Feyd'Rautha Saresh (Medic, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera), Robe Saresh (Force Sensitive, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera)
|
Edited by - robiwan on 21/11/2007 09:59:44 |
|
|
|
robiwan
Moderator
1035 Posts |
Posted - 22/11/2007 : 13:11:03
|
Hi Folks,
I have discussed this with Blix and we are going to go ahead and not release to test with the gunship shield modifiers. I believe the designers had some valid reasons for wanting to go this route, but for the sake of maintaining focus on the really cool aspects of this chapter I do not want people overly focused on those changes. We will be logging and closely monitoring how the new gunships are used and how they fare in combat and as always reserve the right to make adjustments in how they work before going live.
Have a great Thanksgiving and keep eyes peeled for the release of Chapter 8 to test after the holiday.
DM
Odkaz: http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/posts/list.m?topic_id=536207
|
I have waited and planned and built my strength for fifteen thousand years. I have evolved. It is time.
(Omnius Evermind)
---------------------------
Feyd'Rautha Saresh (Medic, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera), Robe Saresh (Force Sensitive, Rebel Alliance, Europe-Chimaera)
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
All Forums
Chapter 8: Gunship Component Statistics
New Topic
Printer Friendly