Raptor34 wrote: ↑Wed, 2. Jul 25, 17:28
Imo it's because they don't want to rehash the capital superiority of the previous games. Though frankly it feels they have swung too far to the other side, especially with reports from the latest patch.
Missiles are still good though.
While I’m not opposed to their efforts to improve the small ship experience, the problem is that the game has become far too easy. As I showed in the video, stripping a capital ship now requires almost no effort—only a few, like the Ravager, pose any real challenge due to their surface elements being shielded by the main shield.
Missiles, feel completely unbalanced as always. It’s almost like Egosoft added them as a backdoor option for players who want to avoid real combat.
Raptor34 wrote: ↑Wed, 2. Jul 25, 17:28
Imo it's because they don't want to rehash the capital superiority of the previous games. Though frankly it feels they have swung too far to the other side, especially with reports from the latest patch.
Missiles are still good though.
While I’m not opposed to their efforts to improve the small ship experience, the problem is that the game has become far too easy. As I showed in the video, stripping a capital ship now requires almost no effort—only a few, like the Ravager, pose any real challenge due to their surface elements being shielded by the main shield.
Missiles, feel completely unbalanced as always. It’s almost like Egosoft added them as a backdoor option for players who want to avoid real combat.
I'm sure the people fighting VIG considers the game far too easy.
The actual problem is the performance impacts of small ships. Otherwise I'll like to see more fighter swarms.
Raptor34 wrote: ↑Wed, 2. Jul 25, 19:56
I'm sure the people fighting VIG considers the game far too easy.
The actual problem is the performance impacts of small ships. Otherwise I'll like to see more fighter swarms.
Of course, it won’t be that easy—after all, VIG uses missiles, doesn’t it? That’s why people recommend using laser turrets—yet another broken mechanic—when dealing with VIG.
Personally, I'm not a fan of fighter swarms—not just because carrier docking is a hassle, but also because fighter combat just doesn't look as impressive. Watching massive warships hurling giant plasma blasts at each other is far more visually satisfying than tiny pixels flinging little projectiles.
flywlyx wrote: ↑Wed, 2. Jul 25, 21:01
That’s why people recommend using laser turrets—yet another broken mechanic—when dealing with VIG.
Laser turrets no longer help much against VIG. Around 7.50 they were nerfed. Instead of insta hit ray, turret now has to turn, aim and fire and it turns slowly. So at best they work as fake targets. The swarm can easily dismantle a 200 turrets. Then it is perfectly capable of taking out a purple modded Asgard.
vvvvvvvv wrote: ↑Thu, 3. Jul 25, 05:09
Laser turrets no longer help much against VIG. Around 7.50 they were nerfed. Instead of insta hit ray, turret now has to turn, aim and fire and it turns slowly. So at best they work as fake targets. The swarm can easily dismantle a 200 turrets. Then it is perfectly capable of taking out a purple modded Asgard.
Just tried: https://youtu.be/ZB1CquxrqEs
It takes a considerable amount of time for them to deal with 100 MK1 laser towers, and it could take even longer with MK2 towers.
They can't hit a drifting Katana either, so while it's not difficult to take them out with a single Katana, it does take some time.
The video also clearly shows that the main problem with the laser towers is their poor tracking—they miss frequently, just like most other turrets.
flywlyx wrote: ↑Thu, 3. Jul 25, 06:59
It takes a considerable amount of time for them to deal with 100 MK1 laser towers,
The difference is that around 6.0 100-200 Mk1 laser towers would delete entire VIG fleet in a few minutes. The turrets were instant small ship vaporizer. "considerable amount of time" is not the same effect.
vvvvvvvv wrote: ↑Thu, 3. Jul 25, 08:02
The difference is that around 6.0 100-200 Mk1 laser towers would delete entire VIG fleet in a few minutes. The turrets were instant small ship vaporizer. "considerable amount of time" is not the same effect.
And that fits perfectly with the discussion here—turrets are no longer effective against fighters.
I'm not the least bit surprised.
PV_ wrote: ↑Fri, 4. Jul 25, 20:24
Wonder if anyone have reconsidered Split flak. Given the huge dispersion it may hit a fly by accident at least
There are shards which are... okay-ish. Still half the range of original flak. Effective range around 1.5 km. Pretty much the only turret that deals some damage when installed on Frigates.
Honestly, M turrets could use a pass and a few tweaks. Because all of them are quite bad.
LameFox wrote: ↑Sat, 5. Jul 25, 08:59
Sadly that one has even shorter range.
What is purpose of longer range given projectile can't hit a thing and explode either at the lifetime end or on direct hit? More time for shooting at attacking fighter for a brief moment while it is moving at a straight line? What if shorter range means earlier AoE explosion in more deadly zone?
LameFox wrote: ↑Sat, 5. Jul 25, 08:59
Sadly that one has even shorter range.
What is purpose of longer range given projectile can't hit a thing and explode either at the lifetime end or on direct hit? More time for shooting at attacking fighter for a brief moment while it is moving at a straight line? What if shorter range means earlier AoE explosion in more deadly zone?
Range just gives it more time to fire and potentially score hits (mostly if the target does something stupid that slows it down). There is no such thing as a flak screen so far as I can tell. Turrets fire at things in range, meaning by the time something is being fired at it's already moved past where the flak will explode. Sometimes they catch it this way on the way out instead, but even with my modded flak turrets, that wasn't enough to kill a single small fighter when it had a weapon that prevented ramming.
PV_ wrote: ↑Sat, 5. Jul 25, 19:05
What is purpose of longer range given projectile can't hit a thing and explode either at the lifetime end or on direct hit? More time for shooting at attacking fighter for a brief moment while it is moving at a straight line? What if shorter range means earlier AoE explosion in more deadly zone?
The deadly zone is achieved by proximity or timed fuze, I don't think shorter range will be helpful.
PV_ wrote: ↑Sat, 5. Jul 25, 19:05
What is purpose of longer range
To hit the enemy before the enemy can hit you. Also the turrets aim at things in range. Meaning the earlier it sees a target, the earlier it starts tracking it.
LameFox wrote: ↑Sun, 6. Jul 25, 04:40There is no such thing as a flak screen so far as I can tell. Turrets fire at things in range, meaning by the time something is being fired at it's already moved past where the flak will explode. Sometimes they catch it this way on the way out instead, but even with my modded flak turrets, that wasn't enough to kill a single small fighter when it had a weapon that prevented ramming.
Doesn't listed experience mean that range drastically lose effectiveness at maximum and, for example, shorter range->fuse may hit fighter with AoE more reliably while it is gaining speed on the way back or maneuvering around capital ship? Yes, Split Flak projectile is a bit slower, but also has more dispersion what in fact may be an advantage with shorter range/explosion and for new physics. That is why I'd be glad to hear someone who made proper testings in-game.
flywlyx wrote: ↑Sun, 6. Jul 25, 05:21
The deadly zone is achieved by proximity or timed fuze, I don't think shorter range will be helpful.
For the first part -> its literally mentioned or implied at my replies. For the second -> why?
PV_ wrote: ↑Sat, 5. Jul 25, 19:05
What is purpose of longer range
To hit the enemy before the enemy can hit you. Also the turrets aim at things in range. Meaning the earlier it sees a target, the earlier it starts tracking it.
The tail / second part of my question has been put there intentionally. It adds context.
If the effect you're expecting exists then as far as I can tell it's not very noticeable in regular play. I guess you could try to set up a scenario and repeat it x times but in my experience the short range, high dispersion, low speed projectiles mean it misses all over the place and any accidental hits that ensue are not going to justify installing the turret. I put it on Ms because they can negate a lot of this by flying closer to the target, similar to shards (in fact its speed and range are very similar to them). Then the turrets can better land hits while the target is directly ahead during the ship's attack run.
Or, frankly, they shoot it when the ship rams it...
PV_ wrote: ↑Sun, 6. Jul 25, 10:36
For the first part -> its literally mentioned or implied at my replies. For the second -> why?
You can think of the range as a fixed-distance dead zone — it doesn’t matter whether the target is closer or farther away. If it’s not directly in front of the plane, it won’t work.
flywlyx wrote: ↑Sun, 6. Jul 25, 18:43
You can think of the range as a fixed-distance dead zone — it doesn’t matter whether the target is closer or farther away. If it’s not directly in front of the plane, it won’t work.
What is dead zone for Argon and Split flaks in reality of new physics? How did you evaluate this?
PV_ wrote: ↑Sun, 6. Jul 25, 18:53
What is dead zone for Argon and Split flaks in reality of new physics? How did you evaluate this?
The new physics system has nothing to do with the turrets. The dead zone is always at maximum range, regardless of the target’s position, because that’s where the detonation occurs.
