Fix for Ion Railgun incoming in 2.7

[SammyGStatus]

Well, this is a thread about gunship weapons, so we can talk about that here.

 

Honestly I think the changes made with this patch will bring things in line enough that any reasonably skilled player will recognize is as balanced(mostly). I keep thinking that this change turns GS's into too much of a glass cannon class, but then i remember you still get BLC and i lose any sympathy.

 

BLCs on a GS against a Type 2 scout rocking BLCs will lose 9/10 times, and I'm saying that from jousting matches with Alex and Tsuk. You have too much mobility and wayyyyy too much fire power to lose sympathy for GSs. I'm not really that affected by the ion nerf. I've been charging since I found out the debuff could be added with the minimum charge, because to me that was always cheap. I now enjoy ioning people in my GS and having someone else (with a T5 railgun) go to work

[Zoom_VI]

I think you underestimate how hard it is to hit skilled scouts speccing evasion running DF(6 seconds) + RE. THOSE are veryyyy dangerous

 

Yes and interestingly enough gunships also have access to lightweight, DF, and of course RE.

[Verain]

Yes and interestingly enough gunships also have access to lightweight, DF, and of course RE.

 

True, but since evasion is worth more the more you have, the scout's base 10% is important.

 

The scout's 33% evasion (lightweight disto crew) effectively multiplies their health by 151%- 51% extra damage required to kill. For a gunship, their base is 23%, and that is 130%- 30% extra damage required to kill. With the active up (+27=60%) the scout's effective health is 250%- 150% extra health. The gunship's is 200%- 100% extra.

 

The 10% base difference reduces the defensive multiplier by around 15% to 20%, and thus the value of the distortion components.

 

 

 

Obviously, this is intended, but the fact remains that these components definitely help scouts more than gunships, even as they remain optimal for gunships.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes and interestingly enough gunships also have access to lightweight, DF, and of course RE.

 

As Verain said, the scout's base 10% evasion is a big deal here. Additionally, scout weapons suffer a lot less from accuracy issues. Railguns have huge tracking penalties and get very few shots (sometimes only one), so missing a shot is very, very bad. Scout weapons fire faster (accuracy averages out) and have low tracking penalties. Clusters also ignore evasion and, even if the lock is broken every time, they force gunships into a very particular rhythm of dfield and BR that could otherwise be timed differently to get away faster.

[Verain]

If you are blowing up a gunship in melee range with your BLC, a miss can be just as devastating to your cause as a railgun miss from the gunship's perspective.

 

But overall I agree, and it's definitely worth pointing out that Type 1 gunships always have to go through accuracy to get a kill, while not everyone else does. Only a very special scout build is fully vulnerable to evasion, and that one mostly doesn't care because it often run accuracy boosts (tt and copilot).

[Zoom_VI]

BLCs on a GS against a Type 2 scout rocking BLCs will lose 9/10 times, and I'm saying that from jousting matches with Alex and Tsuk. You have too much mobility and wayyyyy too much fire power to lose sympathy for GSs.

 

Well yeah a gunship dogfighting against a class that specializes in melee dogfighting the gunship will always lose. But then again that's no different than saying a gunship fighting anything else at 15km range the gunship will always win.

[Kuciwalker]

Well yeah a gunship dogfighting against a class that specializes in melee dogfighting the gunship will always lose. But then again that's no different than saying a gunship fighting anything else at 15km range the gunship will always win.

 

The gunship won't always win. Not even close. The hypothetical scout at 15km range has two useful options:

 

1. Close to melee range. This is not very hard. It doesn't take very long. It is mildly hazardous if you do so directly at the gunship, but even then the gunship only has time to get off a maximum of one shot at you (that has a good chance of missing). If you actually fly evasively the gunship has an even harder time of hitting you before you close.
   
2. Run outside of 15km range.
   

 

The second option in particular the scout can always do. By contrast, a gunship cannot escape melee with a scout. At all. Before the patch, the best a gunship could do was tread water - keep the range just open enough that the scout never scored a kill, without actually getting a real chance to shoot back. Now the gunship is guaranteed to be closed on and killed 100% of the time.

 

Why does the scout get option #2 but the gunship doesn't?

Edited April 9, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Zoom_VI]

Why does the scout get option #2 but the gunship doesn't?

 

The scout does get option #2 however option 2 also leaves the scout completely out of range.

 

Basically a scout can run from the gunship so the gunship cannot touch it, however the scout cannot touch the gunship either. However a gunship that has outranged a scout can still kill the scout

 

This is the classic melee vs ranged. Simply put melee classes always have to be better at closing distance than ranged are at creating it. If you have a situation where the ranged are merely equal at it, then the melee are completely invalidated because same running ability with more range > same running ability with less range.

 

Also as I stated in another thread barrel roll had to be nerfed because it was better than all other options on all ships. It was just a gunship problem, however gunships where just the posterboy for it.

[Kuciwalker]

The scout does get option #2 however option 2 also leaves the scout completely out of range.

 

Basically a scout can run from the gunship so the gunship cannot touch it, however the scout cannot touch the gunship either. However a gunship that has outranged a scout can still kill the scout

 

A gunship remains within the 15km range of the scout will quickly find itself less than 15km away.

 

This is the classic melee vs ranged. Simply put melee classes always have to be better at closing distance than ranged are at creating it.

 

Only if the ranged classes can shoot while creating the range. Gunships can't, and it takes them a solid chunk of time to turn around after getting away (if they could get away). As it stood pre-patch, a gunship could not ever open up enough range to actually fight back against a competent scout. 100% perfect flying was sufficient only to stay alive.

 

That's a reasonable equilibrium. What's not reasonable is an equilibrium where, once the melee closes on the ranged (which is fairly easy), the ranged will die 100% of the time even if it plays flawlessly.

[Armonddd]

That's a reasonable equilibrium. What's not reasonable is an equilibrium where, once the melee closes on the ranged (which is fairly easy), the ranged will die 100% of the time even if it plays flawlessly.

 

In 1v1, yeah. But this is 8v8 -- you have teammates (and mines, and drones, and capital ships, and defense turrets) for a reason.

[Kuciwalker]

In 1v1, yeah. But this is 8v8 -- you have teammates (and mines, and drones, and capital ships, and defense turrets) for a reason.

 

 

1. TDM doesn't have capital ship turrets. Do you think they should be added back?
   
2. Do you really want to promote the gameplay where gunships huddle in bomber minefields?
   
3. The degree of team coordination required for gunships to be viable is then higher than for any other class. Every other class can just kind of chill out in the furball and receive a reasonable amount of support from allies. In your proposal, gunships require allies to actively watch for enemies chasing the gunship and peel for them.
   

[Kuciwalker]

I'll just say that as a gunship pilot I would be perfectly happy - thrilled, even - to have turrets added back to TDM in return for the BR nerf.

 

As a scout pilot I would be furious.

[Armonddd]

1. TDM doesn't have capital ship turrets. Do you think they should be added back?
   
2. Do you really want to promote the gameplay where gunships huddle in bomber minefields?
   
3. The degree of team coordination required for gunships to be viable is then higher than for any other class. Every other class can just kind of chill out in the furball and receive a reasonable amount of support from allies. In your proposal, gunships require allies to actively watch for enemies chasing the gunship and peel for them.
   

 

1. Are we just ignoring three-fifths of the games here? It's not intended to be a catch-all solution.
   
2. That's frankly an issue with bombers more than it is gunships. Running back to a scout or strike is less helpful (because they're not stupidly good at defense), but still a very good idea. This puts your tail on your buddy's tab, and he'll probably attack him for you.
   
3. High requirements for high performance. The upside is, you get two railguns, which are the best support weapons in the game short the specific but frequent instance of mines around a satellite.
   

[Kuciwalker]

1. Are we just ignoring three-fifths of the games here? It's not intended to be a catch-all solution.
   
2. That's frankly an issue with bombers more than it is gunships. Running back to a scout or strike is less helpful (because they're not stupidly good at defense), but still a very good idea. This puts your tail on your buddy's tab, and he'll probably attack him for you.
   
3. High requirements for high performance. The upside is, you get two railguns, which are the best support weapons in the game short the specific but frequent instance of mines around a satellite.
   

 

1. I thought it was 50%? Regardless, ship turrets shouldn't be an important class balancing element if they aren't present in a large fraction of matches.
   
2. The scouts and strikes will be in the furball. That's where a gunship least wants to be. The gunship is sacrificing 100% of its effectiveness for the chance that an ally will help get the scout off him. By contrast, a scout can get a 100% ironclad guarantee that it won't die, and do so very easily.
   
3. You want to talk cost/benefit tradeoff? How is that for T2 scouts again? They get the highest dps in the game, the best effective burst damage in the game (arguably 2nd but it is damn close), the best shield component, the best engine components, the best missiles, the best maneuverability, speed, and endurance. They pay for this with weaker hull and shields that don't even matter so munch because their active and passive evasion are so high.
   

 

You keep justifying the gunship's ghetto via allusions to teamwork, but scouts require 0 teamwork to survive or thrive with the sole exception of attacking fortified minefields - and based on statements elsewhere you think minefields should be weakened.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Armonddd]

I thought it was 50%? Regardless, ship turrets shouldn't be an important class balancing element if they aren't present in a large fraction of matches.

 

Each map has an equal chance of showing up, unless they changed their minds since the stream. Thus, 60% chance of Domination, 40% chance of TDM. I'd call that a significant, if not overwhelming, portion of the matches.

 

The scouts and strikes will be in the furball. That's where a gunship least wants to be. The gunship is sacrificing 100% of its effectiveness for the chance that an ally will help get the scout off him. By contrast, a scout can get a 100% ironclad guarantee that it won't die, and do so very easily.

 

No scout has a "100% ironclad guarantee that it won't die", ever, in a competitive environment. I don't know where you're getting that idea from. And I dunno about you, but I'm constantly finding people who aren't in the furball (hell, I know a few pilots who specifically build to avoid it, and do extremely well because of it).

 

I think having to shut yourself down for a while in order to stay alive is a fair tradeoff for the sheer power a gunship brings to the table in sniper mode, especially if you're picking off weakened targets or hitting people with charged ion so they can't flee. Of course, the better design would have been to make gunships more mobile and make railguns not require sniper mode, but it's a bit late for that.

 

You want to talk cost/benefit tradeoff? How is that for T2 scouts again?

 

This really isn't at all related to the topic (which is "the power of railguns justifies gunships needing to run towards allies for team support"), and at least a few of your points are flat wrong, so I'm just going to ignore it.

 

You keep justifying the gunship's ghetto via allusions to teamwork, but scouts require 0 teamwork to survive or thrive with the sole exception of attacking fortified minefields - and based on statements elsewhere you think minefields should be weakened.

 

Scouts also don't destroy targets from 15 km -- they work at 3 km or so. They also don't have as much burst. They also are exposed to more hazards. They also actually do require teamwork against similarly skilled opponents -- in a tough match, I have to constantly peel off in the hopes of drawing my tail towards my allies before I get blown up.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Armonddd

[Kuciwalker]

No scout has a "100% ironclad guarantee that it won't die", ever, in a competitive environment. I don't know where you're getting that idea from.

 

Yes it does: just flying the heck away from everyone else to an unoccupied corner of the map.

 

I think having to shut yourself down for a while in order to stay alive is a fair tradeoff for the sheer power a gunship brings to the table in sniper mode, especially if you're picking off weakened targets or hitting people with charged ion so they can't flee.

 

Yes, I agree that it's a fair tradeoff! And it's the one that, pre-patch, gunships had to make. Post-patch, gunships can no longer make that tradeoff, because they will die anyway.

 

Pre-patch gunships had the option of sacrificing 100% of their offensive power in order to be able to tread water against a pursuing scout. (Which option required nearly no mistakes.) A competent scout could force the gunship into this position for essentially forever.

 

Post-patch, the same scout will always end up running the gunship down and killing it.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Kuciwalker]

Scouts also don't destroy targets from 15 km -- they work at 3 km or so. They also don't have as much burst. They also are exposed to more hazards. They also actually do require teamwork against similarly skilled opponents -- in a tough match, I have to constantly peel off in the hopes of drawing my tail towards my allies before I get blown up.

 

Against competent pilots the gunship doesn't get to be at 15km because someone is attacking it.

[Resipsal]

It seems the community is broken into two camps. The pro nerf camp seems to envision a world in which the gunship functions as a support vessel, and can be easily hunting and slain by a skilled scout pilot if teamwork is not used to protect it. The anti nerf camp envisions the gunship as a standalone fighter that should be able to stand up to a scout in a 1v1 fight, or at least be able to flee from them indefinitely.

 

Personally I am pro nerf. I think the gunship and bomber should both be support classes that need to work with the more traditional fighters to win matches, although I understand the chagrin of the gunship aces who shudder to think of having to rely on puggers to help them win matches.

[MCaliban]

When I get home, I'm gonna check out the changes and evaluate further, but the serious anti-gunship campaign resembles that of the nazi's, and the continued cry to nerf GSs after such a huge nerf is ridiculous. If you can't kill a GS NOWWWWWWW (after the BR nerf), you will need to L2P (note this isn't a diss to anyone - just a statement about how complaining for a nerf is no longer valid. Period).

 

As someone who flies a gunship and finds this change irritating, I still think you comparing people arguing over PvP to nazis is profoundly stupid.

[Armonddd]

Against competent pilots the gunship doesn't get to be at 15km because someone is attacking it.

 

So they only have three times the range of BLCs instead of five times?

 

And, of course, that's not always true. I've been tagged at 15 km, just like I've been tagged at 9 km.

[SammyGStatus]

As someone who flies a gunship and finds this change irritating, I still think you comparing people arguing over PvP to nazis is profoundly stupid.

 

What a coincidence - I find people taking metaphoric statements too literally profoundly stupid, especially when the only contribution to a thread about a nerf pertains only "I found this irritating". Being Jewish myself and can trace history back to the death camps, I find your contribution highly over sensitive and trolling. The statements from the scout pilots are essentially propaganda considering now, all it takes for me to be ineffective is to have 1 type two scout burst me down in two seconds when THEY were claiming that gunships were OP without even acknowledging the fact that scouts have the best components and set up to take down anything. Next time, read the message, not be overly critical.

 

On topic - the nerf for ions is the way it should be. The br need is very heavy and makes the game feel slow, but 2.7 is looking fine.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

It seems the community is broken into two camps. The pro nerf camp seems to envision a world in which the gunship functions as a support vessel, and can be easily hunting and slain by a skilled scout pilot if teamwork is not used to protect it. The anti nerf camp envisions the gunship as a standalone fighter that should be able to stand up to a scout in a 1v1 fight, or at least be able to flee from them indefinitely.

 

Personally I am pro nerf. I think the gunship and bomber should both be support classes that need to work with the more traditional fighters to win matches, although I understand the chagrin of the gunship aces who shudder to think of having to rely on puggers to help them win matches.

 

As I recall since early access there's been a crowd stating that GS were far more mobile than they were intended to be. Personally I'm also pro-nerf as GS always seemed way too mobile and their ability to rabbit once an enemy got close was too effective. I think it will help balance a lot since a striker/scout heavy team won't be at such a disadvantage to a GS heavy team since they can more easily chase them down.

[jcurri]

And about time. Nothing was ok about 60 energy drain on a 0.675 second charge. Even after this nerf, ion railgun is still the most powerful CC in the game by a long shot.

 

lol ICWUTUDIDTHER

[Armonddd]

lol ICWUTUDIDTHER

 

sigh.

 

Normally I'm the puns guy, but I didn't mean that one at all. It just blasted its way out of my head.

[Armonddd]

I find your contribution highly over sensitive and trolling.

 

So you deliberately derail a discussion by using ad hominem to compare people to nazis... and you think everyone else is oversensitive and trollish?

 

No, that's not how discussion works. Try again.

 

If you want people to read your message, make your message the most prominent part of your post -- don't bury it under a mountain of crap and expect people to pick through it for the gems.