Domination on The Ebon Hawk is now a farce

[Verain]

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

 

A very different statement.

 

 

I think I disagree with it too, unless the mines are going to be rebalanced around that. But it's certainly a valid opinion, unlike Mr. ObviousBug, who is factually incorrect.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Verain

[FridgeLM]

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed.

Back when the game launched you could pop clicky adrenals and power relics and two shot people, and it was perfectly within game parameters and mechanics. However that doesn't mean that it should have been allowed to continue.

 

It shouldn't be changed because it isn't a problem.

 

No he apparently is under the assumption that "battle scouts" have formed some sinister conspiracy to flood the forums with ideas opposite to his.

 

Battle scout pilots who post on these forums tend to have very limited perspectives that make their feedback less than balanced.

[Zoom_VI]

Battle scout pilots who post on these forums tend to have very limited perspectives that make their feedback less than balanced.

 

Posters who always drag battle scouts into threads that have nothing to do with them have very limited perspectives that make their feedback less than balanced.

[Kuciwalker]

edit: nvm Edited April 27, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Devrius]

Battle scout pilots who post on these forums tend to have very limited perspectives that make their feedback less than balanced.

 

I fly bombers and strike fighter mainly, what's your point?

 

I mean, you just assumed out of the blue that people who disagree with you do so because they fly specific ships?

 

I really don't get it...

[Zoom_VI]

I fly bombers and strike fighter mainly, what's your point?

 

I mean, you just assumed out of the blue that people who disagree with you do so because they fly specific ships?

 

I really don't get it...

 

There are people who still think operatives are overpowered in PvP despite how bad the class is competitively. To expect that there would be people in GSF who also can't see beyond 2.5 is logical.

[FridgeLM]

I fly bombers and strike fighter mainly, what's your point?

 

I mean, you just assumed out of the blue that people who disagree with you do so because they fly specific ships?

 

I really don't get it...

 

If I call people out on the ship they're flying, you can rest assured I know what ship they fly. Given that it wasn't addressed to you, you can safely assume that I wasn't saying what you fly.

 

Armondd and Zoom fly battle scouts chiefly. It colors their perspective and feedback.

[Armonddd]

Pretty sure it's reasonable to assume that an anti-ship space mine has considerably more explosive power than a hand-thrown antipersonnel fragmentation grenade, which is designed to kill and maim by flinging shrapnel, not with explosive force (hence the name). There exist high explosive grenades but they're not nearly as widely used to kill people.

 

If you want to use an example it's more like hiding behind a concrete wall won't protect you from a fuel air or nuclear bomb if you're inside its area of effect.

 

At the same time, though, that concrete wall would be kind of obliterated, and satellites just kind of hang out ignoring everything that happens around them. And also, those satellites (which are designed to survive in war-torn space) are going to be much more durable than everything else. Even if you pretend they have infinite shield power (which begs the question of why our capital ships don't), that shielding should absorb the power of the mine and not transfer it through to the other side of the satellite.

 

Asteroids, likewise, just have no logical reason to allow forces to pass through them without breaking apart. I can pretend that the mines don't do enough damage to break apart the asteroids, and that doesn't break my immersion in the heat of the moment. But then when I get hit through an asteroid that hasn't taken a scratch? That's just silly.

 

I attack the viewpoint because it's fundamentally narrow. Frankly there's a lot of that going on in this subforum.

 

You probably shouldn't be making personal attacks, though, unless they're against Verain. I mean, I don't particularly care because I address arguments and examples and such regardless of the rest of the post, but, y'know, good habits and such.

 

Here, lets add to your list of "obviously bugged" aoe, shall we?

 

I like how the majority of that list isn't AoE.

 

Yes, I have problems with some of that list. The majority of it, however, is simply computer-to-computer communication; essentially, it's wifi in space. If I can detect someone on my sensors through an asteroid, I don't see why I can't send a bit of code at them to loop their engine/capacitor/etc, or why I can't tell my probes to go help that guy on my scanners. Wingman, Running Interference, and Lingering Effect I see as an RPG abstraction of my squadron's skills and communication, which is only as silly as any other such abstraction.

 

Really, the biggest problems on that list, besides the mine explosions I mentioned earlier, are ion railgun aoe (which I've asked several times for a reasonable explanation for, and have never gotten a convincing response) and sensor/communication abilities (which should probably be hampered somewhat by obstructions, unless you have a "waypoint" to compensate -- e.g. I can see the guy on the other side of this asteroid just fine because I have a direct line to an ally off to the side).

 

Oh, and in case it's not obvious: if these things aren't bugs, they shouldn't be changed because they're bugged. Rather, they should be changed because they don't make sense.

 

I claimed that they were bugs because I saw no reason why the mechanics should work that way, largely because I don't play the ground game. I thought ion railgun's aoe hitting through satellites was a bug, too; some of you may recall my impotent rage on that subject a couple patches ago.

 

Battle scout pilots who post on these forums tend to have very limited perspectives that make their feedback less than balanced.

 

I like to think I come from the perspective of a dogfighter, not a battle scout. It's certainly not the only ship I play, and the vast majority of my arguments can be applied to all strikes and scouts. Also, in case you've forgotten, I've been calling for BLC nerfs for a long time now.

 

Now that I think about it, I can't name anyone I regularly play with that only plays their battle scout (or any other ship for that matter).

 

Random trivia: my main ship is the Flashfire, my secondary ship is the Rampart, and my tertiary ship is the Quarrel.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Armonddd

[Zoom_VI]

Armondd and Zoom fly battle scouts chiefly. It colors their perspective and feedback.

 

Just like your ship colors your perspective. Seriously every human being in existence has a bias towards whatever they align themselves with. To call out posters for displaying a trait shared by all human beings is pure hypocrisy, especially when you yourself show a irrational bias against scouts.

 

The fact that you cannot even realize that you have as much of a bias as anyone else, speaks volumes about your inability to make anything resembling intelligent discussion.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Devrius]

If I call people out on the ship they're flying, you can rest assured I know what ship they fly. Given that it wasn't addressed to you, you can safely assume that I wasn't saying what you fly.

 

Armondd and Zoom fly battle scouts chiefly. It colors their perspective and feedback.

 

Ah ok, I don't agree with the feeling but at least I understand it now.

[FridgeLM]

At the same time, though, that concrete wall would be kind of obliterated, and satellites just kind of hang out ignoring everything that happens around them. And also, those satellites (which are designed to survive in war-torn space) are going to be much more durable than everything else. Even if you pretend they have infinite shield power (which begs the question of why our capital ships don't), that shielding should absorb the power of the mine and not transfer it through to the other side of the satellite.

 

Asteroids, likewise, just have no logical reason to allow forces to pass through them without breaking apart. I can pretend that the mines don't do enough damage to break apart the asteroids, and that doesn't break my immersion in the heat of the moment. But then when I get hit through an asteroid that hasn't taken a scratch? That's just silly

 

Play Battlefield then, which has a game engine that allows much of the immersion you're asking for. Is it immersion breaking for the satellite and asteroids not to be damaged? I guess. Should they be? Fine. They aren't because this is just not that kind of game - that doesn't mean the AOE should get neutered for immersion's sake. It's not a bug, it's completely intended design and it's been in the game since launch and it should not be changed without a compensatory increase in the power of effected abilities and attacks.

 

To call out posters for displaying a trait shared by all human beings is pure hypocrisy, especially when you yourself show a irrational bias against scouts.

 

There's nothing irrational about my opinions re: battle scouts.

 

Their toolset makes them objectively the best dogfighters even in the post-2.5 era. The gap has closed, but they're still the best. The worst offending component is BLC, obviously.

 

Bombers and gunships in the current meta keep them from dominating the entire game. This is a good thing - though not perfect, I'll acknowledge.

Edited April 27, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Verain]

You probably shouldn't be making personal attacks, though, unless they're against Verain.

 

Class act, this one.

 

I like how the majority of that list isn't AoE.

 

The list is 25 things that ignore line of sight, with only a few things in the game that do.

 

Of that list, 19 of them are aoe, 16 if you don't count sensors. (If you don't count mines or sensors, it's 11/17) Either way, a majority. But thanks for bringing bad arithmetic into the thread, I think it really needed that.

 

 

Really, the biggest problems on that list, besides the mine explosions I mentioned earlier, are ion railgun aoe

 

I like the part where you dismiss everything that is aoe in the game and then complain about gunships.

 

You might not like all this, but the point I'm making isn't that Armonddd should like GSF. It's clear that after dumping tons of your life for the last several months in the game, you hate almost everything about it, except for popping noobs to death. Mostly, your best written suggestions for improvements involve bettering the documentation of your noob-popping abilities.

 

So I don't expect you to like that anything goes through LOS. I do expect you, the guy I was responding to, and anyone else reading the thread, to be well aware that this is not any manner of bug, it is just how the game handles really everything- from aoe, to direct effects- with a few exceptions, such as missile locks and blaster fire, etc.

 

 

 

I thought ion railgun's aoe hitting through satellites was a bug, too

 

And back then, I wondered myself. But it's very clear by now that it isn't any manner of bug.

 

 

Which doesn't mean they might not change it all. If I log on Tuesday and none of the aoes go through walls, I won't fill the forum with tears though- I'll just play the game like that. But that change would really weaken several strategies, and modify the meta in a homogenizing way- which is why I'm opposed to it.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Verain

[Zoom_VI]

Play Battlefield then, which has a game engine that allows much of the immersion you're asking for. Is it immersion breaking for the satellite and asteroids not to be damaged? I guess. Should they be? Fine. They aren't because this is just not that kind of game - that doesn't mean the AOE should get neutered for immersion's sake. It's not a bug, it's completely intended design and it's been in the game since launch and it should not be changed without a compensatory increase in the power of effected abilities and attacks.

 

No its bad game design. Why? Because no matter how much firepower my Novadive/Star Guard/Pike/Flashfire/Quarrle flings at that satellite or asteroid, I will never bust through and kill something on the far side. Given one single class a weapon that can punch through that barrier while every other weapon cannot is poor design.

 

Simply put if your making a PvP game, implementing any mechanic to allow A to kill B while B cannot kill A is poor design.

[FridgeLM]

No its bad game design. Why? Because no matter how much firepower my Novadive/Star Guard/Pike/Flashfire/Quarrle flings at that satellite or asteroid, I will never bust through and kill something on the far side. Given one single class a weapon that can punch through that barrier while every other weapon cannot is poor design.

 

Simply put if your making a PvP game, implementing any mechanic to allow A to kill B while B cannot kill A is poor design.

 

It's actually perfectly good design to allow one or two classes capabilities that other classes do not have. You're also vastly oversimplifying the situation when you say B cannot kill A, a statement that is factually untrue.

 

(btw your missile strike fighter variant can kill things on the other side with EMP missiles)

 

The statement I quoted is perfectly analogous to a juggernaut wailing to the high heavens that he can't kill people from 35 meters away while snipers can.

Edited April 27, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Zoom_VI]

It's actually perfectly good design to allow one or two classes capabilities that other classes do not have. You're also vastly oversimplifying the situation when you say B cannot kill A, a statement that is factually untrue.

So I can pop a mine on the far side of a satellite now? Yes its right to introduce differences in capabilities between classes, however it is poor design to make some classes or weapons immune to general game mechanics that other classes have to obey.

 

(btw your missile strike fighter variant can kill things on the other side with EMP missiles)

EMP missiles cannot lock onto stuff on the far side of the satellite, and really any AoE effect should not be able to penetrate impenetrable objects, however mines are the poster boy here because Mines are the only AoE effect in game that can two or three shot people.

[FridgeLM]

So I can pop a mine on the far side of a satellite now? Yes its right to introduce differences in capabilities between classes, however it is poor design to make some classes or weapons immune to general game mechanics that other classes have to obey.

 

Except every ship class has available to them abilities, such as the copilot effects mentioned, that penetrate solid objects, so it is literally not true that these effects violate game mechanics that other classes must obey. The only abilities that have to obey LOS are direct-fire weapons and lockon weapons.

 

 

EMP missiles cannot lock onto stuff on the far side of the satellite, and really any AoE effect should not be able to penetrate impenetrable objects, however mines are the poster boy here because Mines are the only AoE effect in game that can two or three shot people.

 

Irrelevant that they can't lock on, you can shoot them at something on one side of the sat and have the damage (and disable) penetrate through the object, which is functionally identical to other AOEs.

 

Your opinion that it shouldn't penetrate is duly noted, and I completely disagree. Direct-fire weapons do not set the standard for rules that all weapons should obey or else why make different weapon types? Differences are good, homogenization in this case isn't desirable.

 

Again, it's disingenuous to say that mines, which have a 15 second cooldown, "two or three shot people." When you call something a two or three shot it implies it's happening in a very short span of time - like when a battle scout fires BLCs.

Edited April 27, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Armonddd]

Play Battlefield then, which has a game engine that allows much of the immersion you're asking for.

 

But I want to play in space, so I play GSF and suggest changes for GSF.

 

It's not a bug, it's completely intended design and it's been in the game since launch and it should not be changed without a compensatory increase in the power of effected abilities and attacks.

 

I strongly disagree that mines would need a buff to make up for being forced to respect reasonable physics. They're already pretty damn powerful.

 

There's nothing irrational about my opinions re: battle scouts.

 

I would argue that, but I'm obviously biased. This is far from the first time I've considered the word "zealotry" to describe your comments, though.

 

Their toolset makes them objectively the best dogfighters even in the post-2.5 era.

 

As you say, that's largely BLC being overtuned and unaddressed. And while I hesitate to classify fights with bombers as dogfights (though the term is certainly more appropriate the farther away you are from a satellite), T1 scouts and especially T2 strikes have much better loadouts to handle them, which throws the "objectively" part into question. And it's not like those ships are particularly weak in any other situation -- I've seen some amazing things done by Blackbolt and Pike pilots who know what they're doing (and not just the two top aces of those ship classes on TEH, either).

 

Class act, this one.

 

Thanks!

 

The list is 25 things that ignore line of sight, with only a few things in the game that do.

 

Of that list, 19 of them are aoe, 16 if you don't count sensors. (If you don't count mines or sensors, it's 11/17) Either way, a majority. But thanks for bringing bad arithmetic into the thread, I think it really needed that.

 

Oh, you're right, my bad. I skimmed through it because I'm getting into the habit of not reading your bullsh*t and I saw it was frontloaded with nontargeted effects that affect a single target.

 

I like the part where you dismiss everything that is aoe in the game and then complain about gunships.

 

Oh, I'm glad. Did you also enjoy the part immediately after where I discussed a problem universal to all ships?

 

 

I do expect you, the guy I was responding to, and anyone else reading the thread, to be well aware that this is not any manner of bug, it is just how the game handles really everything- from aoe, to direct effects- with a few exceptions, such as missile locks and blaster fire, etc.

 

And back then, I wondered myself. But it's very clear by now that it isn't any manner of bug.

 

Which doesn't mean they might not change it all. If I log on Tuesday and none of the aoes go through walls, I won't fill the forum with tears though- I'll just play the game like that. But that change would really weaken several strategies, and modify the meta in a homogenizing way- which is why I'm opposed to it.

 

See, it's that last part I'm arguing for. Clearly this is working as intended -- just as BLCs are working as intended. Just like BLCs, though, I think change is kinda necessary, and thus I'll argue for it.

 

What strategies would be weakened, and how would the meta be homogenized? Legitimate non-patronizing question, for once -- I honestly don't know of any such strategies that aren't at least borderline abusive.

 

It's actually perfectly good design to allow one or two classes capabilities that other classes do not have.

 

Class homogenization is bad, you're right. Variety keeps the game interesting. However, when basic rules of physics (that are expected to apply equally to everyone) are broken by some components and not others, those components are, well, broken. (That is legitimately the definition of "broken" in the context of game balance, and why the word has a different meaning from "overpowered".)

 

It's like if you could barrel roll through asteroids without taking damage. Suddenly every ship that doesn't have or use barrel roll has to obey rules that other ships break, and it's not cool.

 

(btw your missile strike fighter variant can kill things on the other side with EMP missiles)

 

Yeah, if you peg him with lasers until he's at a sliver of hull and then leave to let a turret spawn and he doesn't heal at all. Practically speaking, EMP missiles don't get kills on actual ships -- they're not designed to.

 

The statement I quoted is perfectly analogous to a juggernaut wailing to the high heavens that he can't kill people from 35 meters away while snipers can.

 

It's more like a sentinel complaining that he can't throw lightsabers through walls while the gunslinger can shoot things through those same walls.

 

Disclaimer: I don't ground game at all; that statement isn't intended to be accurate, but rather to demonstrate an example.

 

EMP missiles cannot lock onto stuff on the far side of the satellite, and really any AoE effect should not be able to penetrate impenetrable objects, however mines are the poster boy here because Mines are the only AoE effect in game that can two or three shot people.

 

I realized I wanted to say this somewhere, but I forgot where in the wall of text it was appropriate, so I'll add it here:

 

I have zero problem with mines affecting opponents on both the "top" and "bottom" of of a satellite if the mine is far enough out that it has line of sight to both regions and there are targets in range. That's skilled play and should be rewarded.

 

I don't think anyone brought it up, but there it is for posterity.

 

Except every ship class has available to them abilities, such as the copilot effects mentioned, that penetrate solid objects, so it is literally not true that these effects violate game mechanics that other classes must obey. The only abilities that have to obey LOS are direct-fire weapons and lockon weapons.

 

Those two types of weapon are common enough that they set the standard for everything. They're literally the only things available to new pilots. I've also already said that those copilot abilities have (somewhat) reasonable explanations.

 

Irrelevant that they can't lock on, you can shoot them at something on one side of the sat and have the damage (and disable) penetrate through the object, which is functionally identical to other AOEs.

 

Again, this never actually happens.

 

Direct-fire weapons do not set the standard for rules that all weapons should obey or else why make different weapon types? Differences are good, homogenization in this case isn't desirable.

 

There are so, so many ways to make weapons distinct without breaking the basic laws the game is designed around. "Let's make this thing ignore this critical mechanic and/or opportunity cost" is how balance breaks down.

 

Again, it's disingenuous to say that mines, which have a 15 second cooldown, "two or three shot people." When you call something a two or three shot it implies it's happening in a very short span of time - like when a battle scout fires BLCs.

 

You're taking this back to a post I made earlier, so lemme respond directly to your thought.

 

You're totally right that it's a poor way of presenting that information, and I apologize for that. My only defense is that I had just come off of a pokemon theorycrafting binge, where as you know attacks are made in turns and thus 3HKOs have no cooldown or wait time to compensate (with a few non-competitive exceptions, such as Fly and Dig).

 

What I meant to say was that mines take out a third to half your hull. This is a truly threatening amount of damage that seriously affects the confrontation. It's rare that one will die solely because of three seismics in a row, though theoretically possible if he eats two seismics at once (one pre-laid and another thrown at him as he flies into the first) and is stalled until the third is available. It's much more important to consider a scenario where one eats a mine as setup for death from railguns, blasters, missiles, etc.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Armonddd

[Kuciwalker]

And while I hesitate to classify fights with bombers as dogfights (though the term is certainly more appropriate the farther away you are from a satellite), T1 scouts and especially T2 strikes have much better loadouts to handle them, which throws the "objectively" part into question.

 

No way (regarding T1 scouts). T1 scouts don't have access to any armor pen besides rockets.

[FridgeLM]

But I want to play in space, so I play GSF and suggest changes for GSF.

 

I strongly disagree that mines would need a buff to make up for being forced to respect reasonable physics. They're already pretty damn powerful.

 

I already showed that they obey reasonable physics. You're basically hung up on static objects not getting destroyed which is pretty much never going to happen with this game engine. The physics work.

 

(Other than the fact a seismic mine, if it's actually seismic, would have literally no effect in space but that's just a naming thing)

 

And while I hesitate to classify fights with bombers as dogfights (though the term is certainly more appropriate the farther away you are from a satellite), T1 scouts and especially T2 strikes have much better loadouts to handle them, which throws the "objectively" part into question.

 

Except bombers are not dogfighters as their main, most reliable method of attack is to not dogfight and let their drones or mines deal damage while they try to stay alive. They don't have a capacitor component, they don't have a thruster component, they're slow and turn poorly. They aren't dogfighters, and they should only engage in a dogfight if it's essential.

 

And it's not like those ships are particularly weak in any other situation -- I've seen some amazing things done by Blackbolt and Pike pilots who know what they're doing (and not just the two top aces of those ship classes on TEH, either).

 

Anecdotes are not relevant, this isn't about exceptional players who choose not to fly battle scouts. I posit this as being objectively true:

 

In a match between players of equal skill, all of whom have access to every strike and scout variant, battle scouts will be the most flown ship and will be the top of the scoreboard. I think if you believe otherwise you're willfully blind to the problem.

 

What strategies would be weakened, and how would the meta be homogenized? Legitimate non-patronizing question, for once -- I honestly don't know of any such strategies that aren't at least borderline abusive.

 

Defending a node with a minelayer - at all - will be significantly weakened if all it takes to neutralize a mine's effect is to LOS it. Similarly, attacking a node with either varaint of EMP will also be weakened, which is frankly silly. Honestly the fact that drones have to obey LOS is why I think drone carriers are so comparatively terrible at node defense. That, and the long CD on drones.

 

Class homogenization is bad, you're right. Variety keeps the game interesting. However, when basic rules of physics (that are expected to apply equally to everyone) are broken by some components and not others, those components are, well, broken.

 

Except it isn't violating any basic rule of physics. Nobody expects direct-fire attacks to penetrate solid objects. You're the only one I've ever heard of who's never heard of an explosion doing so.

 

(btw I can totally see them coming up with a railgun variant that penetrates solid objects, likely with reduced damage)

 

Yeah, if you peg him with lasers until he's at a sliver of hull and then leave to let a turret spawn and he doesn't heal at all. Practically speaking, EMP missiles don't get kills on actual ships -- they're not designed to.

 

I said that you can, directly contradicting a statement he made that was factually incorrect. I didn't comment on whether or not it was practical - that's irrelevant. What's important is he's jumping up and down citing evidence that's wrong.

 

It's more like a sentinel complaining that he can't throw lightsabers through walls while the gunslinger can shoot things through those same walls.

 

It's not at all like that. Snipers shooting things is direct fire. Laying down an aoe, say with corrosive mine (lethality roll talent) or orbital strike, would be more analogous - and it works in that situation just like it works in GSF.

 

Those two types of weapon are common enough that they set the standard for everything. They're literally the only things available to new pilots. I've also already said that those copilot abilities have (somewhat) reasonable explanations.

 

They clearly do not set the standard for everything nor should they, or else gunships would have a max range 2/3 of what it currently is and bombers would have to rely on direct fire attacks to kill anything, making them effectively useless without a speed and maneuverability increase, making them big heavy strike fighters.

 

Mine behavior is not in any sense like firing lasers or missiles. Why do they have to obey the same standards when they're not the same thing at all?

 

There are so, so many ways to make weapons distinct without breaking the basic laws the game is designed around. "Let's make this thing ignore this critical mechanic and/or opportunity cost" is how balance breaks down.

 

I'm going to bold this for emphasis.

 

This behavior does not break any law. You are literally making that up out of whole cloth. Not every weapon has to do exactly what direct fire and lockon weapons do - and certain direct-fire and lockon weapons do behave this way. Namely, every one that has an aoe effect.

 

No way (regarding T1 scouts). T1 scouts don't have access to any armor pen besides rockets.

 

What they have is EMP, which is I'm sure what he was referring to.

 

I've been flying a speed scout exclusively for a while now and frankly an unentrenched bomber really isn't that bad to kill - granted I'm using said rockets, but I'm not using EMP.

Edited April 27, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Kuciwalker]

In a match between players of equal skill, all of whom have access to every strike and scout variant, battle scouts will be the most flown ship and will be the top of the scoreboard. I think if you believe otherwise you're willfully blind to the problem.

 

So, I'm going to take issue with this. I think in the sterile situation you propose, that probably should be the result (though perhaps less strongly than it would obtain with current game balance). What GSF needs is a stronger disincentive in the real matches to play battle scouts relative to Type 1 strikes - namely, the "multi-role" aspect of strikes needs to be more important and valuable.

 

This would probably be done with a combination of providing more hazards that hits scouts much harder than strikes and providing more targets that scouts have limited offensive options against.

 

Bombers actually do both of those things, but are poorly calibrated. The mines are also fairly dangerous for strikes, and the armor/armor pen meta currently means scouts have reasonably solid anti-bomber weapons. If you make it so scouts just don't have any primary weapon with armor penetration* and remove the shield penetration of mines, then mines would still be dangerous to scouts (though slightly less so) while being much less dangerous to strikes, and strikes would have a much bigger advantage over scouts in taking out both turrets and bombers.

 

*yes, this would require a simultaneous nerf to charged plating

 

Note that I only said "relative to Type 1 strikes". Type 2 and 3 strikes and Type 1 and 3 scouts all have more specialized roles and so it is appropriate for them to be somewhat rarer.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Kuciwalker]

What they have is EMP, which is I'm sure what he was referring to.

 

I know, but EMP is not actually as important as armor penetration. A bomber that stacks damage reduction, even ignoring the charged plating active ability, reduces a huge fraction of the incoming damage without armor pen.

[Armonddd]

No way (regarding T1 scouts). T1 scouts don't have access to any armor pen besides rockets.

 

I'll take armor-respecting damage outside pods (which are best in slot anyway) plus not having to deal with minefields over minefields and BLCs.

 

I already showed that they obey reasonable physics. You're basically hung up on static objects not getting destroyed which is pretty much never going to happen with this game engine. The physics work.

 

And I already addressed why that was bogus.

 

Except bombers are not dogfighters as their main, most reliable method of attack is to not dogfight and let their drones or mines deal damage while they try to stay alive. They don't have a capacitor component, they don't have a thruster component, they're slow and turn poorly. They aren't dogfighters, and they should only engage in a dogfight if it's essential.

 

My point was that strikes, which are dogfighters, are better at handling bombers than battle scouts, which are also dogfighters. Therefore, you can't really say that battle scouts are objectively better dogfighters.

 

Also, if a scout or strike wants a bomber to dance, he'll dance.

 

Anecdotes are not relevant, this isn't about exceptional players who choose not to fly battle scouts. I posit this as being objectively true:

 

In a match between players of equal skill, all of whom have access to every strike and scout variant, battle scouts will be the most flown ship and will be the top of the scoreboard. I think if you believe otherwise you're willfully blind to the problem.

 

"More popular" doesn't mean "more powerful". Strikes are capable of some pretty amazing feats that I wish I knew how to pull off. I don't, and very few pilots do, but that doesn't mean strikes aren't viable at high end play. In fact, Itkovian in his Pike regularly tops my scores in my Flashfire.

 

Defending a node with a minelayer - at all - will be significantly weakened if all it takes to neutralize a mine's effect is to LOS it.

 

I don't see that as a bad thing. It's not like bombers (of both types) aren't stupidly good at node defense.

 

Similarly, attacking a node with either varaint of EMP will also be weakened, which is frankly silly.

 

But EMP ignoring line of sight makes sense. As long as my sensors can see it, it makes sense that I can send EMP to it.

 

If it doesn't make sense from a physics standpoint (and I'm actually pretty bad at physics, so that's entirely possible), it at the very least makes sense from a cinematic standpoint. Remember Ocean's Eleven? (If you remember people complaining about that part and I don't, that's perfectly legit and I retract my statement and propose we agree to disagree.)

 

Honestly the fact that drones have to obey LOS is why I think drone carriers are so comparatively terrible at node defense. That, and the long CD on drones.

 

Definitely nothing to do with seismic and interdiction mines denying enormous areas of space and completely ignoring shields.

 

Except it isn't violating any basic rule of physics. Nobody expects direct-fire attacks to penetrate solid objects. You're the only one I've ever heard of who's never heard of an explosion doing so.

 

I don't even.

 

Please read my previous post and Crinn's posts. Explosions penetrating solid objects only makes sense if the object itself is damaged or destroyed. Anything else completely violates physics and destroys suspension of disbelief. If you have two adjacent rooms and someone drops a grenade besides the adjoining wall, do you expect the grenade fragments to shoot through the wall? Yes, you do -- because the wall is destroyed. But in GSF, mines have zero effect on asteroids while they completely arbitrarily hit things on the other side. You would really think having several thousand tonnes of rock between you and the explosion would do something to deaden the blow, but nope.

 

I said that you can, directly contradicting a statement he made that was factually incorrect. I didn't comment on whether or not it was practical - that's irrelevant. What's important is he's jumping up and down citing evidence that's wrong.

 

Actually what he said was that he couldn't throw firepower at the satellite and hit things on the other side the way bombers throw mines at the satellite and blow things up for kilometers in any direction. Make of that what you will, it's not my argument and you're correct that the practicality of the situation isn't technically relevant (though that's a pretty disingenuous argument).

 

It's not at all like that. Snipers shooting things is direct fire. Laying down an aoe, say with corrosive mine (lethality roll talent) or orbital strike, would be more analogous - and it works in that situation just like it works in GSF.

 

Like I said, I have no idea ground game. I vaguely know what orbital strike is (a strike from orbit), and it makes zero sense to me in any situation that doesn't involve blowing up half the battlefield. I have no idea what corrosive mine is or how it works. I maintain that aoe working through walls is absolutely stupid.

 

They clearly do not set the standard for everything nor should they, or else gunships would have a max range 2/3 of what it currently is and bombers would have to rely on direct fire attacks to kill anything, making them effectively useless without a speed and maneuverability increase, making them big heavy strike fighters.

 

That's completely wrong, though. Railguns are essentially long-range blasters with some silly mechanics and effects. Bombers use deadfire secondary weapons to kill things, not at all unlike rocket pods. They're also theoretically more tactically interesting than alternative secondary weapons, which justifies being different. It's not at all a large cognitive jump to figure out how they work.

 

Hitting things through line of sight, though? That's only cognitively acceptable because MMOs have handled AoE poorly for decades.

 

Think about it again. Mines hit things on the other side of asteroids without affecting the asteroids themselves. I hate to bring up a sensitive topic, but imagine if Hiroshima's buildings were completely unaffected and the ambient foliage were completely healthy -- but everyone in the AoE was still dead and no one could stand there without taking damage from the ground dot.

 

Mine behavior is not in any sense like firing lasers or missiles. Why do they have to obey the same standards when they're not the same thing at all?

 

Partly for balance, partly because it makes sense.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Armonddd

[Verain]

Given one single class a weapon that can punch through that barrier while every other weapon cannot is poor design.

 

Actually, it's the opposite. Making classes different in game like this is amazing design. It's not "poor design" that a bomber can't break a missile lock. Don't pretend that the advantages the scout and strike have over other classes are somehow ok because a bomber can boost and turn. They aren't in the same league as a fighter class ship.

 

Different classes having different ranges, damage potential, and limitations is exactly great design. It is literally why you have classes. If it was bad design, then we wouldn't see games based on this starting in like 1974 until now. You would have seen them all fade away sometime in that forty year time period, instead of becoming progressively more and more popular.

 

 

Onto the balance arguments, I guess.

 

 

They're already pretty damn powerful.

 

I'm sure you realize that satellites are absolutely full of LOS. If a bomber puts his mines on the bottom, you would be entirely safe from them on top. The bomber would be unable to clear you from the node. If he put one on top and one on bottom, you would have the sides and several vanes to hide around. You would essentially be immune to the bomber. I'm sure you're aware of this, of course.

 

The fact that it is "reasonable physics" is very much open for debate. The seismic and interdiction mines both seem to work on some reality ripple sort of science fiction tech. The fact that the satellites, asteroids, and friendly ships are immune to this are presumably handwaved in the same manner as blasters and such.

 

I skimmed through it because I'm getting into the habit of not reading

 

In my experience, you've never been much in that habit to begin with. You only see what you want to see and then post a Book Of Strawman Nonsense.

 

And now the realism arguments:

Explosions penetrating solid objects only makes sense if the object itself is damaged or destroyed.

 

I'm not really sure if that's even the case with these explosions. After all, they somehow pierce shields, which a normal explosion wouldn't do.

 

 

More importantly, if you want to argue physics I think you are on sorta shaky ground in GSF. The game doesn't do a bad job of modeling a Star Wars universe, but it does have pretty big issues such as players not colliding with each other, and the inability of weapons such as concussion missiles and heavy lasers to damage asteroids, satellites, and superstructure ship hulls. If you really were arguing for realism, you'd be ok with:

 

a) mines doing damage to you, but also damaging the structure

b) mines doing most of their damage to you through line of sight

c) the thing you are arguing for, los having new mechanic just to keep bombers in the hangars by removing their one job

 

In fact, only C is on your list. You aren't seeking a more realistic experience, or you'd be asking for any of these things. You'd also be asking for the ability to dumbfire a concussion, the ability for you to hurl a concussion at a small asteroid and it blasts into pieces that provide cover and could damage enemies, and OF COURSE you'd want mines to be able to be manually and INSTANTLY detonatable the moment they are launched.

 

 

 

So all your realism is just your Argument Engine slowly grinding up to operational speed. You don't care about realism- you just care about bomber nerfs, and you'll say ANYTHING that sounds like it might convince SOMEONE to go along with it.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Verain

[Armonddd]

In my experience, you've never been much in that habit to begin with.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

 

Don't do it.

[Verain]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining

 

Don't do it.

 

Not out of context. I may have left out one of your many many personal attacks, but quote mining would be going through all your stuff and trying to find a set of things that make you look like a zealot- not merely responding to exactly one post.

 

Cutting off exactly WHAT it is that you claim you don't bother reading just provides both accuracy and brevity! After all, if you can't be bothered to read a post you are emotionally charged by, and actually responding to, and that is your defense for literally not reading a thing you just posted a response too....

 

 

Lol!

Edited April 27, 2014 by Verain