Iwipe Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hey, a friend of my compiled a list of the component/talent changes from the live servers to the PTS values (patch 2.6). The changes are not yet final but it should give you idea of what to expect for 2.6 Green values are live servers and red ones are PTS values. Mostly they are all nerfs. http://dulfy.net/2014/01/10/swtor-galactic-starfighter-ship-component-changes-on-2-6-pts/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_sim Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 looks to be a slight filing of rough edges to me. They probably got the GS right now, but I think the Sting/flashfire needs more work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lymain Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The armored beacon nerf comes out of left field. I hope they didn't just see that everyone took that option and figure it must be overpowered. There's simply no point to two beacons when they can be destroyed so easily...now there may be no point to one beacon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackboredguy Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 You need to clean this up, some of the changes are listed multiple times for the same ship and there's a bunch of stuff listed where it shows no change at all. Thanks for listing it though, can be annyoing trying to find full changes on stuff like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 You need to clean this up, some of the changes are listed multiple times for the same ship and there's a bunch of stuff listed where it shows no change at all. Thanks for listing it though, can be annyoing trying to find full changes on stuff like this. This is a raw data rip. The ones that are listed with no change are just changes you didn't see when you first glanced at them - periods added, double spaces removed, etc. I also don't see anything listed twice per ship. Are you thinking of the same upgrade across multiple weapons? That said, it'd be nice if it were more in a format of "Cluster missiles - increased range - <old text> <new text> - affects these ships." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shackboredguy Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Some of the doubles got fixed but if you go down to the Quarrel slug railgun shield piercing is there twice or on the Pike you can see where cluster missles shield piercing gets listed twice. It's probably from those weapons being able to go in 2 different slots. I see what you mean about periods and double spaces, be nice to get those removed from the list as well though as i doubt anyone cares about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I see what you mean about periods and double spaces, be nice to get those removed from the list as well though as i doubt anyone cares about that. see This is a raw data rip. Honestly, if you want to quibble about the little things like that, you can rip it yourself. Not like it's easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iwipe Posted January 11, 2014 Author Share Posted January 11, 2014 Okay I went through it and manually removed all the dupllicates and no-changes that were listed. It should be better now. let me know if i left out anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin_Kelvar Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 The armored beacon nerf comes out of left field. I hope they didn't just see that everyone took that option and figure it must be overpowered. There's simply no point to two beacons when they can be destroyed so easily...now there may be no point to one beacon. I think it was because they were being used as mobile cover by satellite ticks and being deployable cover wasn't an intended capability. It's not that they were "OP" just that players had found a way to use them in a capacity that wasn't intended. What puzzles me is why Heavy Cannons got a shield penetration reduction. I wasn't aware that heavy cannons were being complained about. It seems they just decided to cut shield penetration across the board which doesn't make sense to me. From what I gathered the problem wasn't shield penetration but that too many weapons had armor penetration. Burst cannons in particular since from what I gathered the problem wasn't shield penetration but that the armor penetration on that weapon made them too superior by giving them turret busting functionality on top of being BiS weapon for close range dogfighting. It didn't sound like 100% armor penetration by itself was too high, just that it was an upgrade given too freely to too many weapons. So I guess it's preferable not to touch the 100% armor penetration on any weapon than an across the board nerf that ends up hurting balanced weapons that were supposed to destroy heavily armored targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armonddd Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I think it was because they were being used as mobile cover by satellite ticks and being deployable cover wasn't an intended capability. It's not that they were "OP" just that players had found a way to use them in a capacity that wasn't intended. The proper answer to that problem would have been to add collision detection. Not sure why Bioware went this route instead. What puzzles me is why Heavy Cannons got a shield penetration reduction. I wasn't aware that heavy cannons were being complained about. It seems they just decided to cut shield penetration across the board which doesn't make sense to me. It seems to me that they're simply reducing the effectiveness of upgrades across the board, which is fine with me because it makes the game even more skill-dependant. Shield penetration in general is extremely powerful - see that guy over there that survived a dogfight with almost no hull and just got his shields back to full? Go tickle him with something with shield penetration, see how he feels about that. From what I gathered the problem wasn't shield penetration but that too many weapons had armor penetration. Burst cannons in particular since from what I gathered the problem wasn't shield penetration but that the armor penetration on that weapon made them too superior by giving them turret busting functionality on top of being BiS weapon for close range dogfighting. I don't recommend using ignore armor over shield penetration on burst lasers. Turrets die fast enough as it is, especially with clusters in the mix, and most ships don't stack armor, so it's not very useful in ship-to-ship. Further, popping turrets is often significantly less important than popping ships. As I said above, shield piercing is extremely powerful - much more so than armor penetration, given how many enemies have shields and how many have (significant amounts of) armor. It didn't sound like 100% armor penetration by itself was too high, just that it was an upgrade given too freely to too many weapons. So I guess it's preferable not to touch the 100% armor penetration on any weapon than an across the board nerf that ends up hurting balanced weapons that were supposed to destroy heavily armored targets. You're right on this, but maybe not because of the reasons you think you are. Evasion is much better than armor right now, so it's not very popular. We care about weapons being effective against heavily armored targets because of future gameplay modes, where we will likely have turrets and capital ships to blow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts