Devs: Please explain Ion Railgun vs. Ion Missile discrepancies

[Kuciwalker]

Well all my training in programming has been with FORTRAN in an engineering (and I mean real engineering not computer 'engineering')/scientific context. It's an area where code that produces good output may be recycled for 40 years or more, and my professors went to great lengths to show us why ALWAYS using good design practice matters in terms of saving yourself giant heaps of self-inflicted future misery.

 

Of course, the department felt strongly enough about that, that instead of shuffling us off to the Comp Sci folks the engineering computational classes were all done in house. There were a couple of upper division classes that we'd sometimes share with the math department. Mostly on how to deal with using computers to do kinds of math that computers aren't good at, without getting garbage for results.

 

Basically the idea of shackling your future options by writing bad code, it seems really abnormal to me.

 

Eh, I guess Brad Finney did a good job of brainwashing me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, it took me a while to hear you over the sound of your own smugness. Once I did, I had to finish laughing at the idea of a FORTRAN programmer bragging about good design principles.

Edited March 26, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Zoom_VI]

You are making detailed and wildly unjustified assumptions about their code.

 

I'm pretty sure this whole thread is making detailed and wildly unjustified assumptions about their code.

[BobBudJones]

I'm pretty sure this whole thread is making detailed and wildly unjustified assumptions about their code.

 

Regardless, it's a very straightforward bit of coding that could be easily implemented if the devs had any desire to do so. Why they don't is beyond me...

[Zoom_VI]

Regardless, it's a very straightforward bit of coding that could be easily implemented if the devs had any desire to do so. Why they don't is beyond me...

 

You don't code much do you?

[Itkovian]

You don't code much do you?

 

Whenever someone in a gaming forum says that something in a game should be easy to code, an angel dies.

 

Entire angelic hosts have been massacred to day, and the slaughter is not ending anytime soon.

[Verain]

Sorry, it took me a while to hear you over the sound of your own smugness. Once I did, I had to finish laughing at the idea of a FORTRAN programmer bragging about good design principles.

 

While claiming that his profession is "real engineering" (implying that computer engineering is not is insane, and that isn't even computer science) is ludicrous and insulting, there is nothing inherently wrong with FORTRAN, and many old programs are still running using it- it has a large amount of active code, and given the approachability of the language, that may not end any time soon.

 

The silliest part of his post is probably where he implies that CS departments are so terrible that his OWN department had to run their own version. I think your response was a little bit biting, but like... he really was baiting it.

[Kuciwalker]

there is nothing inherently wrong with FORTRAN

 

There really, really is. If there weren't a whole slew of basic problems with FORTRAN then don't you think it might be even a tiny bit popular outside of the community locked into it by legacy code and skills?

 

and many old programs are still running using it- it has a large amount of active code

 

So does COBOL.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Ramalina]

Heh, yeah, perhaps I went a bit overboard, but if you've ever tried explaining to a pure computer science person who pretty much skipped out on physical sciences why their computationally elegant code is completely unsuitable for solving the problem that the program is supposed to solve, well sometimes it makes you wonder where the engineering is.

 

Fortran is extremely good at what it does, though C and its derivatives are to the point where the gap in capabilities is actually pretty small now. Fortran's worst problem is that doing UI and graphical display with it tends to make you want to strangle things. It lacks the display tools that have been built for C and relatives. There's a gradual convergence going on, and if things progress at the current rate Fortan and C will be interoperable with only a minor pain in the rear in, 10? 15? years?

 

It's kind of a shame, because if you could easily connect the display of a good 3D game engine with some of the legacy scientific code you'd potentially have a really amazing visualization tool. I don't think the sales numbers for things like a matrix algebra MMO would be very good though.

 

Anyhow, we are waaaaaaaaay off subject. This is supposed to be about magical railguns that somehow fire clouds of charged particles, and why those magically non-dispersing clouds of particles screw up imaginary ship systems more than particle clouds delivered by missiles.

 

Or more specifically, should the devs try to implement railgun_charge to engine_drain scaling no matter how much of a pain in the rear it would be to implement, or is there another solution? Optionally, is it even really a problem to begin with?

[Kuciwalker]

I think simply fixing the bug (which I will call a bug even if it's intended) where the target of the main attack is also hit by the AOE will resolve a lot of the issues. 35 drain is a lot less powerful than 53 drain.

 

I also have had repeated success attacking supported, competent gunships in my Flashfire. Evasion builds are still strong, especially when coupled with Running Interference. It's actually at the point that if I see multiple competent gunships on the other team I *prefer* my Flashfire. This is on live, without the BR nerf. Once the BR nerf hits gunships will absolutely need a lot of offensive power to make up for their incredible defensive weakness.

[Ramalina]

I think simply fixing the bug (which I will call a bug even if it's intended) where the target of the main attack is also hit by the AOE will resolve a lot of the issues. 35 drain is a lot less powerful than 53 drain.

 

That's actually a very nice solution. Though in that case a small increase in base drain might be good. I'd worry about it becoming a little too easy for scouts to just laugh off the first ion rail hit.

 

It still gives a minimum charge ion railshot a disproportionately high drain rate, but anything short of minimum charge spamming would probably be fine. Even spamming might be acceptable, you'd have at least a second worth of extra time to react, as a full drain would take 3 shots instead of 2.

[Zoom_VI]

That's actually a very nice solution. Though in that case a small increase in base drain might be good. I'd worry about it becoming a little too easy for scouts to just laugh off the first ion rail hit.

 

A scout that is engaged in combat is probably going to be running at 50% engine pool, a 35 point reduction would still hurt them a lot but it wouldn't leave the scout dead in the water like the current 50 point drain does.

[Altheran]

That's actually a very nice solution. Though in that case a small increase in base drain might be good. I'd worry about it becoming a little too easy for scouts to just laugh off the first ion rail hit.

 

If you increase the main drain, it would be almost a "status quo". At this point, you can almost not change anything.

 

And like Zoom_VI said, dogfighters type ships are normally never at 100% of their energy pools. There's always at least one of these pools that is around 50%.

[SammyGStatus]

If you increase the main drain, it would be almost a "status quo". At this point, you can almost not change anything.

 

And like Zoom_VI said, dogfighters type ships are normally never at 100% of their energy pools. There's always at least one of these pools that is around 50%.

 

Off-topic: The first toon I created out of beta (first day of launch) was named Status with the legacy name Quo. Seeing you type that brought back some memories.

 

Is there a scout ability that breaks the ion railgun debuff, or is Alex just THAT good in a scout (Jung'Ma server)

[Zoom_VI]

Is there a scout ability that breaks the ion railgun debuff, or is Alex just THAT good in a scout (Jung'Ma server)

A scout can use booster recharge which grants 20% of the total engine power pool on activation, however it is a minute cooldown. Novadives can also use Sheild to engine converter, which has a six second cooldown and would give enough power to use BR, however S-to-E requires that you actually have shields left after the ion hit.

 

Also if a ship can evade for just long enough to use BR they can generally get away but that requires them to not get hit for six seconds and it also requires them to have barrel roll.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[SammyGStatus]

Thanks Crin! Just wanted clarification that there wasn't a "remove all negative effects" kind of buff for scouts.

[Zoom_VI]

Thanks Crin! Just wanted clarification that there wasn't a "remove all negative effects" kind of buff for scouts.

 

I don't think any class has any kind of cleanse

[Nemarus]

I don't think any class has any kind of cleanse

 

There used to be a co-pilot ability that did this in closed beta. I scoffed at it then ... but now... oh man.

[Kuciwalker]

Off-topic: The first toon I created out of beta (first day of launch) was named Status with the legacy name Quo. Seeing you type that brought back some memories.

 

Is there a scout ability that breaks the ion railgun debuff, or is Alex just THAT good in a scout (Jung'Ma server)

 

My Flashfire build:

 

BLC [armor piercing, +shield damage (IIRC)]

Rockets [+ammo, dot]

Barrel Roll [+speed]

Blaster Overcharge [+rof, +damage]

Distortion [missile break]

Large Reactor or Turbo Reactor (I waffle between these)

Lightweight Armor

Regen Thrusters

Damage Capacitor

 

Kira Karsen

Elara Dorne

Tanno Vik [copilot: Running Interference]

Yuun

 

As a result I have a base 33% evasion. I have 6s of +35% every 20s (dfield). I have 20s of +15% every 60s (running interference). I have very fast regen, very low cost of abilities/booster, and a high base speed even when not boosting. I actively manage my engine pool and am particularly careful with it when deal with gunships. As a result I often still have engine left after an ion hit (=> BR away), or I have a very good chance of evading any followup ion or slug shots within the next 6 seconds, letting me regen just enough to BR away. (Note that for BR's duration I have a further boosted 24% evasion.)

 

I also use 'c' a LOT and am very happy to just park myself behind an asteroid and regen my engine pool if a gunship is after me.

 

Note: I am not at all confident that the build above is optimal (especially the weapon choices), I'm just explaining why you have a particularly hard time locking me down.

[Zoom_VI]

BLC [armor piercing, +shield damage (IIRC)]

Rockets [+ammo, dot]

Barrel Roll [+speed]

Blaster Overcharge [+rof, +damage]

Distortion [missile break]

Large Reactor or Turbo Reactor (I waffle between these)

Lightweight Armor

Regen Thrusters

Damage Capacitor

 

hmm, why overcharge and BLC? seems like a waste, since BLC is so bursty anyway and overcharge does not benefit pods. Your build seems very cool down oriented and looks like its built for short fights, with sustainability issues in long fights. This is especially true when your running with large reactor.

 

I use

BLC (occasionally Quads or LLC) [Armor, shield]

Clusters [ammo, double]

Booster recharge [+10% passive eng regen, 20% pool on use]

Dfield [missile break]

Retro thrusters [turning] (occasionally BR [speed])

Turbo

Speed thrusters

Lightwieght

Daamge capacitor

 

This means I have +10% passive eng recharge, +10% passive turning rate, +10% speed. The primary focus of the setup to be able to stay in direct combat for prolonged periods of time, I choose the passive builds mostly because that's just my preferred setup (coincidentally I main a tank vanguard) In fighting my preferred style is to do what I call target jumping where I go from target to target without pause, and target selecting based off of proximity (although I get flexible with targets depending on situation)

[SammyGStatus]

I can verify that he had minimal problems taking me out last night, even when I had Jokin watching my six the whole time (In teamspeak, he was like "I think Alex has a crush on you dude. He's paying me NO attention and only going after you. I lol'd). That's for a type 2 scout?

[Zoom_VI]

I can verify that he had minimal problems taking me out last night, even when I had Jokin watching my six the whole time (In teamspeak, he was like "I think Alex has a crush on you dude. He's paying me NO attention and only going after you. I lol'd). That's for a type 2 scout?

 

Yes both builds

[Kuciwalker]

hmm, why overcharge and BLC? seems like a waste, since BLC is so bursty anyway and overcharge does not benefit pods.

 

1. Do you know what's better than burst damage? More burst damage.
   
2. Overcharge doesn't benefit clusters either, so I'm not sure how that matters.
   
3. As above, I'm not at all certain this build is optimal.
   

 

Your build seems very cool down oriented and looks like its built for short fights, with sustainability issues in long fights.

 

Offensively, it's no more CD-oriented than any other (except one that eschews offensive CDs entirely).

 

I used to run quads and found them to be very good against mediocre or bad pilots, but eventually decided that BLC's advantage against elite pilots was too important.

 

I used to run clusters and leveled rockets mostly as an experiment. I think I will definitely switch back to clusters after missile breaks are nerfed.

 

This is especially true when your running with large reactor.

 

I generally find that I'm able to fly defensively for long enough periods that large reactor is better than turbo. However, I do have both maxed and waffle between them a bit. Again, this choice doesn't reflect strong feelings of optimality on my part.

 

I use

BLC (occasionally Quads or LLC) [Armor, shield]

Clusters [ammo, double]

Booster recharge [+10% passive eng regen, 20% pool on use]

Dfield [missile break]

Retro thrusters [turning] (occasionally BR [speed])

Turbo

Speed thrusters

Lightwieght

Daamge capacitor

 

This means I have +10% passive eng recharge, +10% passive turning rate, +10% speed. The primary focus of the setup to be able to stay in direct combat for prolonged periods of time, I choose the passive builds mostly because that's just my preferred setup (coincidentally I main a tank vanguard) In fighting my preferred style is to do what I call target jumping where I go from target to target without pause, and target selecting based off of proximity (although I get flexible with targets depending on situation)

 

My perception is that my dogfighting style, relative to other scout pilots', involves a larger volume of space and less rigidly sticking to a target's tail. I'm perfectly content getting off a shot or two, overshooting, boosting (or BRing) away, and then making another approach.

 

On my Novadive (which is terribly kitted out and non-maxed) I play around with sabo probe and +20% turning rate, and try much harder to use the "stick tight on their tails" approach. It can be effective, but I find I'm much more vulnerable to enemy fire that way.

 

My approach seems to have advantages when fighting in the presence of enemy gunships (especially gunships supporting each other) because it keeps me moving more often and at faster speeds. This seems to be worth the price in reduced time-on-target (which is mitigated through cooldown use and BLC).

[Kuciwalker]

I can verify that he had minimal problems taking me out last night, even when I had Jokin watching my six the whole time (In teamspeak, he was like "I think Alex has a crush on you dude. He's paying me NO attention and only going after you. I lol'd). That's for a type 2 scout?

 

Bluntly: leaving Jokin free to shoot at me was less dangerous than leaving you free to shoot at me. Not "safe" in an absolute sense but in a relative one.

[Zoom_VI]

1. Do you know what's better than burst damage? More burst damage.
   
2. Overcharge doesn't benefit clusters either, so I'm not sure how that matters.
   
3. As above, I'm not at all certain this build is optimal.
   

But the more burst damage comes at the opportunity cost of booster recharge.

 

I used to run quads and found them to be very good against mediocre or bad pilots, but eventually decided that BLC's advantage against elite pilots was too important.

Eh, depends. BLC are amazing in dominion but not so much in TDM. since the effective range of BLC is 2km, its very easy for me to prevent a opponent from having that range.

 

I used to run clusters and leveled rockets mostly as an experiment. I think I will definitely switch back to clusters after missile breaks are nerfed.

Have you tried Quad'n'pods? Very bursty.

 

 

My perception is that my dogfighting style, relative to other scout pilots', involves a larger volume of space and less rigidly sticking to a target's tail. I'm perfectly content getting off a shot or two, overshooting, boosting (or BRing) away, and then making another approach.

 

My approach seems to have advantages when fighting in the presence of enemy gunships (especially gunships supporting each other) because it keeps me moving more often and at faster speeds. This seems to be worth the price in reduced time-on-target (which is mitigated through cooldown use and BLC).

 

The problem with the overshooting game, is that it leaves your target time to reorient to you, which I'm willing to guess means that you undertake quite a few head-to-heads, which is fine as long as you have DcD available. But no matter what its costing you heavily in offensive potency. Generally with my setup, while I might be more vulnerable to gunships, I get payed back with the ability to go through whole clumps of fighters a wreck havoc. Generally in particularly dense dogfights I can pull a kill every ten seconds.

[Ramalina]

Kuciwalker, has a point. You might as well paint a giant, "Harass Me or I'll Kill You," sign on Leggogurl's gunship. Are they selling those on the cartel market yet?

 

A stick to their tails style of dogfighting is a lot more dangerous than a hit and run one. More people have more time to shoot at you. It doesn't get reasonably safe unless you have a wingman that's good at clearing your six. You can reduce the risk a bit by sticking close to thick cover, but you're still more likely to take hits. I have plenty of experience with this on my two strikes. The turner gets more kills (mostly because it's fully mastered), but the runner is the one where getting 0-1 deaths per match is fairly normal.

 

If you have rocket pods equipped Targeting Telemetry is about as good as Blaster Overcharge because the crit and accuracy from TT will buff the blasters and the rockets. Hit and run with Blaster overcharge and BLC's is just about the only place that BO is a clearly higher damage than TT, but with TT you can get an extra 8% evasion. Not sure it really matters which you pick if you're a competent or better pilot.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Ramalina