Domination on The Ebon Hawk is now a farce

[Gavin_Kelvar]

at least for seismic mines not respecting LOS it does follow Star Wars lore roughly speaking. Primarily in Episode 2 Jango Fett uses seismic charges that are basically able to blow through several tons of rock without having any of their force reduced. The only thing apparently limiting their destructive potential is blast radius. Not saying that other mines doing this is keeping with lore but seismic mines are at least performing according to how it should in the Star Wars universe.

 

So far as the game is concerned you could attribute it not destroying the environment to the game engine limitations.

[FridgeLM]

And I already addressed why that was bogus.

 

Except you didn't, you just complained that it's immersion breaking. Go play a dedicated sim with an engine more tuned to showing physics if you want immersion.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave This will explain why the physics work. That it doesn't blow up solid objects is not relevant.

 

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.

 

Except the bomber isn't a dogfighter, so the point's not relevant, nor do I accept the premise that a bomber can be forced into a dogfight - something disadvantageous for him. He's much better off LOSing and letting his actual damage tools fight for him.

 

"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.

 

Except they're more popular because they're more powerful, and all your anecdote indicates is that he's a much better pilot than you. He'd do far better with very little change in skillset in a battle scout.

 

Nobody said strikes weren't viable. I said battle scouts are flat out better at dogfighting. Do you accept that premise?

 

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

 

I see it as pretty bad given they have no other role in that game type. They're not node attackers, certainly. They're not interceptors.

 

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.

 

Giant explosions and seismic shockwaves ignoring LOS makes sense too.

 

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.)

 

See above for why explosions can travel through solid objects. If you bring up that the object itself doesn't get damaged in GSF I'm going to scream and tell you to play a game with a different engine again.

 

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

 

Minelayers being better doesn't have any bearing on the shortcomings of drone carriers. Drone carriers are better at one important facet of node defense: staying alive, and that's only because of repair drone.

 

Drones are strictly inferior damage dealers and have much harsher limitations on their use than mines. Their cooldowns and the ease with which any aware pilot can deal with them makes them mostly ineffectual at node defense. This relegates the drone carrier to having to rely on seeker mines, which are generally lackluster.

 

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.

 

See above. Game engine limitations do not mean the physics don't work. It's perfectly plausible for all the listed LOS ignoring abilities that Verain provided to exist.

 

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).

 

Yeah, and he listed ships that had access to EMP missile and therefore could hit things on the other side of a satellite, making his example false.

 

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.

 

Except it's not stupid. Area of effect attacks penetrate cover all the time, nobody should expect to hide in a tent and ignore an attack from an orbiting warship. Similarly, nobody should expect that hiding in a tent would provide protection from a cruise missile.

 

And it doesn't matter if, in a video game, the cover doesn't blow up. That is a limitation of the game engine and no reason to complain up and down that the aoe otherwise works as expected.

 

That's completely wrong, though. Railguns are essentially long-range blasters with some silly mechanics and effects.

 

Using a railgun is not, in any sense, like using a laser cannon, in execution or in basic design. Their shared features are direct fire and energy drawn from weapon pool. The big difference is the extreme range, zoom functionality, higher damage per shot, charging, and the lack of a target lead.

 

If I were to take your position to its logical conclusion I'd expect you to demand that railgun range be reduced, their zoom functionality removed, and the charge function removed - because all those features violate the "rules" established by laser cannons.

 

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.

 

I've used mines and rocket pods. They are not, in any sense, similar. Rocket pods are spam you add to lasers, mines are deployed weapons you generally don't expect will hit anything the moment you use them. I can't believe you're trying to draw a comparison to rockets they're completely different.

 

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

 

It's cognitively acceptable because that's how it works in real life. It's also acceptable because I don't expect an aoe explosive mine to behave like a single-target rocket pod, missile, or laser.

 

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.

 

Again, doesn't matter, the maps are not going to have dynamic changes because this is an mmo engine and doesn't prioritize that kind of thing outside of scripted events.

[Zoom_VI]

Yeah, and he listed ships that had access to EMP missile and therefore could hit things on the other side of a satellite, making his example false.

Do pikes seem like an AoE based ship to you? No they are not, the fact that they have access to the single worst AoE weapon in the game, does not make them AoE ships. They are single target biased and cannot kill things on the far side of a satellite. (nobody ever dies to an EMP missile, ever)

 

See above. Game engine limitations do not mean the physics don't work. It's perfectly plausible for all the listed LOS ignoring abilities that Verain provided to exist.

Again, doesn't matter, the maps are not going to have dynamic changes because this is an mmo engine and doesn't prioritize that kind of thing outside of scripted events.

The Novare Cosast bunkers block AoE, the walls in ACW block AoE, the see-through chain-link fencing in the Black Hole blocks AoE. Don't tell me the engine cannot support collision when it has been supporting it since the day the game launched.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Sidenti]

I think I like the arguments more than I like the piloting these days. *sips scotch*

[Altheran]

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.

I see the problem with mines slightly differently. For me it's not that they can bypass shields that is problematic, but that the numbers are so high that it doesn't matter that the victim is a Scout or a Strike... (and that's also true for Railgun even though you didn't mentioned them... It doesn't matter that's a Strike or a Scout, two shots are enough)

 

As you said, Strikes are by definition a non-specialized ship. They can specialize through the choice of components, but when they take all-purpose components they remain all-purpose ships. Amongst Strikes, Starguard/Rycer don't really have a choice, they can only choose their effective range.

 

And when we look at their base stats, their all-purpose nature is noticeable : they're second in everything... Mobility, HP, evasion, DR, they're second in all of that.

If we look at HP (Hull + Shields) we'd expect them to be able to take more punishment since they're second... Especially when comparing to last of all, namely the Scout.

 

But the mines (and Railguns) do so massive damage that the extra HP become almost insignificant. They generally/almost die from the same number of hits coming from these weapons. (They sometimes survive from those where a Scout would have died, but would literally die from any shot).

 

As a result, since it fights similarly than a Scout, when faced against these weapons the Strike packs the same weaknesses than the Scout but do not have any strong point to compensate... And at the same time it hard counters Scouts, Strikes are hard countered as well although they don't hard counter anyone.

One would say the Strike has range to compensate, but so has the Scout to a slightly lesser extent if he want to. (Actually there's no range capacity difference between a Clarion and Scouts).

 

So, IMO, what should be done is plainly reduce the damage so that you still need approximately the same number of hits to take out a Scout, but not a Strike, where the difference should be significant.

Especially Interdiction Mine, which I find does way to much damage considering it's an "effect weapon" such as Sabotage Probe, while having all the benefits of AoE and area denial of being a mine. (I think other may need a slight adjustment, even a buff in the case of Ion Mine, but none of the others are outrageously powerful)

 

 

But that's not all. If only is was only about HP... The Starguard/Rycer which is the incarnation of "all-purposeness" is the only ship without armor component... Which in itself isn't a problem beside the fact that the base stats for Evasion and DR are so low it's almost if there weren't any. And the armor component's strength is more than significant.

These ships really drew the short straw on the matter.

 

For this particular weakness of the Starguard/Rycer (which I think is rather uncalled), I'd wish that all base DR would get doubled, all base Evasion would get 50% more, but all armor components get halved.

But I'm realistic, it will not happen unless Reactors don't give 20% either but 10%, which will bring a lot of crap. And after all, Pike/Quell do not have Reactors...

So my guess is that they'll have to deal with it.

 

 

By the way, I also think that Charged Plating has to change.

[FridgeLM]

Do pikes seem like an AoE based ship to you? No they are not, the fact that they have access to the single worst AoE weapon in the game, does not make them AoE ships. They are single target biased and cannot kill things on the far side of a satellite. (nobody ever dies to an EMP missile, ever)

 

Irrelevant. The aoe damage and effect penetrates solid objects, which is what the point was about.

 

The Novare Cosast bunkers block AoE, the walls in ACW block AoE, the see-through chain-link fencing in the Black Hole blocks AoE. Don't tell me the engine cannot support collision when it has been supporting it since the day the game launched.

 

The civil war capture nodes, which are the objects in ground pvp most analogous to satellites, do not block aoe. And I didn't say the engine doesn't support collision, I said the engine doesn't support dynamic map changes like Armondd would want to happen if an explosion were to occur next to an asteroid or satellite.

 

Read more carefully, I don't want to have to clarify every point I make in different words ad infinitum.

Edited April 27, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Ramalina]

Blast waves do respect line of sight, but due to the laws of wave propagation they can get around corners at a reduced intensity. In a near vacuum it's going to be a very reduced intensity, depending on the relative size of the explosion and the obstacle.

 

The physics get a bit complicated though, to the point of being beyond the scope of what SWTOR's engine can handle, so you might as well keep your mine LOS arguments confined to the play balance arena.

 

In terms of play balance bombers would probably need compensation elsewhere if mines started obeying LOS restrictions.

 

 

Actually physics wise, just about everything in GSF that ignores LOS should obey LOS, but doing the areas of partial effect would be complicated and beyond the scope of what SWTOR's engine does well. Actually, doing it well is beyond the scope of what game engines that are much better at physics simulations are capable of.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Ramalina

[Armonddd]

Except the bomber isn't a dogfighter, so the point's not relevant, nor do I accept the premise that a bomber can be forced into a dogfight - something disadvantageous for him. He's much better off LOSing and letting his actual damage tools fight for him.

 

The fact that the bomber is not a dogfighter is irrelevant. The question is whether battle scouts are objectively superior to missile strikes. Missile strikes have at least one significant advantage battle scouts do not; therefore battle scouts are not objectively superior to missile strikes.

 

Except they're more popular because they're more powerful, and all your anecdote indicates is that he's a much better pilot than you. He'd do far better with very little change in skillset in a battle scout.

 

But he doesn't. Every time he steps into a flashfire, he falls behind. I don't know what he does, but whatever it is, it's proof that pikes are viable at high levels of play.

 

I see it as pretty bad given they have no other role in that game type. They're not node attackers, certainly. They're not interceptors.

 

While I agree that bombers are more niche/specialized than they should be, they certainly are node attackers. That's the entire point of this thread, after all.

 

Giant explosions and seismic shockwaves ignoring LOS makes sense too.

 

See above for why explosions can travel through solid objects. If you bring up that the object itself doesn't get damaged in GSF I'm going to scream and tell you to play a game with a different engine again.

 

Ramalina covered this, along with the shock wave bit I accidentally backspaced over.

 

Minelayers being better doesn't have any bearing on the shortcomings of drone carriers. Drone carriers are better at one important facet of node defense: staying alive, and that's only because of repair drone.

 

Drones are strictly inferior damage dealers and have much harsher limitations on their use than mines. Their cooldowns and the ease with which any aware pilot can deal with them makes them mostly ineffectual at node defense. This relegates the drone carrier to having to rely on seeker mines, which are generally lackluster.

 

I disagree a little bit. Charged Plating is a strong survivability cooldown that minelayers don't get. Also, while dronecarriers are weaker at offense on the node, I'd give them better than "lackluster" -- all three drone types provide a fair amount of pressure on pilots who ignore them in favor of handling other players or focusing on the bomber himself.

 

I think you'll agree, though, that it's problematic that bombers, which are supposed to be a support class, contribute most when they shoot for personal performance.

 

Yeah, and he listed ships that had access to EMP missile and therefore could hit things on the other side of a satellite, making his example false.

 

This is both disingenuous and not my argument.

 

And it doesn't matter if, in a video game, the cover doesn't blow up. That is a limitation of the game engine and no reason to complain up and down that the aoe otherwise works as expected.

 

Why? Why are we ok with that? We as gamers have collectively paid a lot of money to make this game work; why are we ok with terrible coding decisions that a college freshman would make?

 

Using a railgun is not, in any sense, like using a laser cannon, in execution or in basic design. Their shared features are direct fire and energy drawn from weapon pool. The big difference is the extreme range, zoom functionality, higher damage per shot, charging, and the lack of a target lead.

 

If I were to take your position to its logical conclusion I'd expect you to demand that railgun range be reduced, their zoom functionality removed, and the charge function removed - because all those features violate the "rules" established by laser cannons.

 

Nah. Railguns follow the basic set of rules (you need line of sight, you need to fire at the target, you need to fire slowly if you want to do more damage, you need to have energy, you need to be in range, and you have infinite ammo), with some modifications (you have a zoom feature, you have extreme range, you do more damage, you need to charge instead of just holding the button down). The only problems I have with the extreme range and damage come from complaints about burst damage -- completely unrelated to the basic design of the weapon.

 

I've used mines and rocket pods. They are not, in any sense, similar.

 

I wasn't comparing the overall functionality or effect of rocket pods to mines; I was comparing the deadfire property. Every other change from rocket pods is theoretically justified by their tactical application; again, my only complaints come from effectiveness and burstiness.

[Nemarus]

 

In terms of play balance bombers would probably need compensation elsewhere if mines started obeying LOS restrictions.

 

 

.

 

Why? It would actually mean Bombers would have to use coordination and skill to mine both sides of a satellite instead of the current DERP PUT MINES CLOSE TO SAT DERP.

[Verain]

The question is whether battle scouts are objectively superior to missile strikes. Missile strikes have at least one significant advantage battle scouts do not; therefore battle scouts are not objectively superior to missile strikes.

 

I don't think "strictly better" is the only way to discuss this. I mean, I could come up with a version of a battlescout whose blasters do 10% less damage and his missiles 15% more, but I think we'd all agree that such a variant is less powerful, despite not being strictly worse.

 

I do actually agree with all your assessments regarding the Pike, however. It clearly has a place. The nature of the overlap in the role between the Pike and the Flashfire will definitely have me claiming that the Flashfire is overall superior by a decent margin- but that doesn't preclude the Pike having a role.

[Kuciwalker]

The fact that the bomber is not a dogfighter is irrelevant. The question is whether battle scouts are objectively superior to missile strikes. Missile strikes have at least one significant advantage battle scouts do not; therefore battle scouts are not objectively superior to missile strikes.

 

That's not what "objectively" means, even if the ideas are related. The notion you are getting at (and, crucially, your interlocutor wasn't) is that of strategic dominance in the game-theoretic sense.

Edited April 27, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Armonddd]

I don't think "strictly better" is the only way to discuss this.

 

Oh, I absolutely agree. However, Fridge said battle scouts were "objectively superior" to other dogfighters, and I wanted to challenge that.

[Kuciwalker]

And you failed to; see above.

[Armonddd]

And you failed to; see above.

 

Ups, missed that post.

 

That's not what "objectively" means, even if the ideas are related. The notion you are getting at (and, crucially, your interlocutor wasn't) is that of strategic dominance in the game-theoretic sense.

 

Then would you mind explaining to me the difference between "objectively better dogfighter" and "strategically dominant dogfighter"? Obviously I'm missing something, and I'd like to stop that.

[Armonddd]

Actually, hrm, we may have been debating at cross-purposes here.

 

I was pointing out that battle scouts are not objectively superior to all other ships of class dogfighter. On rereading, I suspect Fridge was arguing that battle scouts are superior to all other ships in scenarios (or portions of scenarios) that exclusively include dogfighting.

 

If that's the case, I don't disagree with that statement at all.

[Zoom_VI]

Actually, hrm, we may have been debating at cross-purposes here.

 

I was pointing out that battle scouts are not objectively superior to all other ships of class dogfighter. On rereading, I suspect Fridge was arguing that battle scouts are superior to all other ships in scenarios (or portions of scenarios) that exclusively include dogfighting.

 

If that's the case, I don't disagree with that statement at all.

 

Well yes, but that's only with the "exclusively including dogfighting" clause. Of course you can also say that gunships are superior to all other ships in scenarios that exclusively include long range shooting, or that bombers are superior to all other ships in scenarios that exclusively include area control, or even that Strikes are superior to all other ships in scenarios that exclusively require multi-role.

 

Exclusively all ships are overpowered in the role they specialize at.

[Kuciwalker]

Then would you mind explaining to me the difference between "objectively better dogfighter" and "strategically dominant dogfighter"? Obviously I'm missing something, and I'd like to stop that.

 

Strategic dominance means that in all circumstances the Flashfire will be [prove to have been] the superior choice. (This is false, the Flashfire is not strategically dominant even though it comes closer than it ought.)

 

Objective superiority means that according to non-subjective criteria (i.e. criteria particular to the subject measuring, e.g. personal preference or ability) the ship is "better", which may not mean "better in all circumstances" but simply "better enough in most circumstances". The choice of objective criteria need not be universally agreed-upon to be objective.

[Taleek]

I've read a lot of this thread, and I may very well get into territory that's already been covered here, but honestly I just cba to read all 30 pages just to see if maybe my suggestions have already been brought up. Anyway, I was noting that someone said that Ion mines are bad, and also others said that shield regeneration makes non shield piercing mines way less effective since shields can easily be regenerated in a short period of time.

 

Now I noticed that while Ion Mine does have some things going for it, it's mostly overshadowed by Interdiction Mine, and has a TERRIBLE t5 ability that does all of TEN DPS to shields over 9 seconds, which I believe is less than sabotage probe does to hull, and sabotage probe's damage is usually considered negligible. So why not replace this perk with something useful, like say something that reduces shield regeneration rates considerably, or disables their shield ability for x seconds, or maybe even increases shield bleedthrough by x amount on affected targets for y seconds (this last option would also mean charged plating would still be very useful against bombers).

 

I'm not suggesting this be the only change of course, buffs to EMP would definitely be appreciated, and I'm sure there's other things that could be done to balance bombers. What do you guys think about that specifically though?

Edited April 27, 2014 by Taleek

[Altheran]

Now I noticed that while Ion Mine does have some things going for it, it's mostly overshadowed by Interdiction Mine, and has a TERRIBLE t5 ability that does all of TEN DPS to shields over 9 seconds, which I believe is less than sabotage probe does to hull, and sabotage probe's damage is usually considered negligible. So why not replace this perk with something useful, like say something that reduces shield regeneration rates considerably, or disables their shield ability for x seconds, or maybe even increases shield bleedthrough by x amount on affected targets for y seconds (this last option would also mean charged plating would still be very useful against bombers).

Hull damage is never worthless, as little as it can be.

If it weren't worth, people wouldn't go for shield piercing (does not increase damage) as a T5 HLC instead of increased damage on shield.

 

By the way, every DoT, even on hull, will screw shield regen. So the current upgrade already packs your proposal about shield regen.

 

Now about disabling shield abilities, it's something that I think is reasonable.

But Bleedthrough is something I don't see this mine getting at all. Bleedthrough seems to be themed with flaming so far... And Interdiction mine isn't setting ablaze ships.

[Ramalina]

Why? It would actually mean Bombers would have to use coordination and skill to mine both sides of a satellite instead of the current DERP PUT MINES CLOSE TO SAT DERP.

 

SIM bombers may be somewhat overtuned, but not enough to justify cutting their primary source of damage output while performing their primary role by more than 50%.

 

If you bother to do the geometry, the effects of LOS on a spherical blast radius style weapon when near an obstacle are really harsh. It would force the bomber into the positioning choice of having mines easy to shoot down by any medium to long range weapon or reducing the covered volume by anywhere from 50% to 90% if hiding the mines in a safer location. For mines there's a pretty good correlation between damage potential and blast volume.

 

If we went to a realistic mine model it would be far different. Blast effects might cover 10 to 50 m radius at most in space. Mines would be finite ammo, but probably also dispensed by submunition dispensers ejecting 20 to a few hundred mines at a time. The damage would be done mostly by fragmentation effects, which are notoriously difficult to model well. Also a truly realistic implementation would have the occasional golden BB mine fragment killing a ship on the other side of the map 5 to 10 seconds after the mine went off. That wouldn't touch off a storm of QQ threads so much as typhoon of QQ threads, complete with storm surge at high tide. Oh, and as far as modelling difficulty goes, the blasts would act differently in an atmosphere such as at Kuat Mesas compared to in a vacuum. Atmospheric detonations would have much larger blast radius but much smaller fragmentation radius relative to detonation in vacuum.

 

I think that the least ridiculous suggestions I've heard so far for potentially solving, "the bomber problem," have been reworking EMP effects to the point where they're actually effective and possibly considering pulling armor piercing off of BLCs and putting it on LLCs (though that really isn't a direct fix and might create other problems even if you don't count whining from type 2 scout pilots as a problem). In essence turning the scout and strike builds that are currently theoretical counters to SIM bombers into practical counters for SIM bombers. Nerfing SIM bomber survivability more directly might also work if it can be done without overnerfing bombers. My view is that bomber lethality is less of a problem than survivability of a particular build in a particular situation. If you can kill the bomber and flip the node then there's not a problem in domination games even if the bomber takes a lot of attackers with it when it dies. If the bomber can't kill anything, but is also impossible to dislodge, then the domination mode problem with bombers is still there.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Ramalina

[Zoom_VI]

SIM bombers may be somewhat overtuned, but not enough to justify cutting their primary source of damage output while performing their primary role by more than 50%.

 

If you bother to do the geometry, the effects of LOS on a spherical blast radius style weapon when near an obstacle are really harsh. It would force the bomber into the choice of having mines easy to shoot down by any medium to long range weapon or reducing the covered volume by anywhere from 50% to 90% if hiding the mines in a safer location. For mines there's a pretty good correlation between damage potential and blast volume.

How much mines are nerfed depends on whether the devs make it so that the detonation trigger is effected by LoS. If the trigger is not effected by LoS then mines would be neutered since you could set them off without hurting yourself. However if the detonation trigger respects LoS along with the damage, then mines are only slightly nerfed since they will still be hitting at least the triggeree at full force, the difference being they won't murder everyone else that's on the node at the same time.

[Ramalina]

How much mines are nerfed depends on whether the devs make it so that the detonation trigger is effected by LoS. If the trigger is not effected by LoS then mines would be neutered since you could set them off without hurting yourself. However if the detonation trigger respects LoS along with the damage, then mines are only slightly nerfed since they will still be hitting at least the triggeree at full force, the difference being they won't murder everyone else that's on the node at the same time.

 

Not really, even with trigger sharing LOS it's still a huge nerf. Minefield hazard is basically a combination of mine density, detection difficulty, and removal difficulty. LOS is a huge nerf to all three when talking about small numbers of mines. Put the mines near the sat and the effective mined area shrinks enormously (density). Position so that you still have at least 20 to 50% the mined area you used to have, and you make detection and removal of the mine much easier.

 

LOS works in real life and so do minefields. The difference is that in order for them to work you typically use hundreds, thousands, or even greater numbers of mines.

[Zoom_VI]

Not really, even with trigger sharing LOS it's still a huge nerf. Minefield hazard is basically a combination of mine density, detection difficulty, and removal difficulty. LOS is a huge nerf to all three when talking about small numbers of mines. Put the mines near the sat and the effective mined area shrinks enormously (density). Position so that you still have at least 20 to 50% the mined area you used to have, and you make detection and removal of the mine much easier.

 

LOS works in real life and so do minefields. The difference is that in order for them to work you typically use hundreds, thousands, or even greater numbers of mines.

 

Your making the assumption that having the current implementation where every time two mines are detonated, everyone on the node dies, somehow isn't overpowered.

[Ramalina]

Your making the assumption that having the current implementation where every time two mines are detonated, everyone on the node dies, somehow isn't overpowered.

 

Given how easy it is to avoid or tank the damage, yeah I am making that assumption. On the whole I find mines less problematic than railguns and BLCs. If you don't fly to the mines, they can't hurt you. It's some of the easiest to avoid damage in GSF. Foolish scout pilots die to mines in droves because they're foolish. New pilots die to mines because they don't know any better. In essence, everyone who dies to mines on a node does so because they volunteered to die to those mines. Maybe they didn't understand that they were volunteering or what they were volunteering for, but they did volunteer.

 

The difficulty of killing the minelayer when it's on the node is what I find problematic. More from a game mode balance aspect than anything else. If minelayers had serious excess offensive power you'd see them being a problem in TDM too. They don't, and they're not.

 

To give a finer grained analysis, mines really aren't a problem, and bombers really aren't a problem. Even combined they only pose a threat to suicidal starfighter pilots. What is a problem is that when a non-suicidal starfighter pilot attacks a node held by a minelayer, even with builds theoretically optimized for the purpose, it's somewhere between impractical and impossible to destroy both the mines and the bomber in a time frame that gives a reasonable chance of being able to capture the node. This holds true even if the bomber is outnumbered. Since holding a node for a given length of time is the domination game mode victory condition, this inability to switch node possession is problematic from a balance perspective if minelayers are not distributed evenly among the GSF player population, and presents a possible gameplay quality issue if match outcomes are predetermined very early in the match.

 

The burst damage a bomber can do with mines is very unlikely a significant balance concern. It is 100% avoidable, and there are component options that trivialize surviving it available to quite a few ships, even if most players loathe taking those components.

 

In terms of tuning for balance in game modes bombers could possibly use a bit of an offensive buff, they sort of need it in TDM. They need a bit of a defensive nerf, or at least the charged plating minelayer does. Lost shipyards C and Kuat mesas B probably should remain a bit of a nightmare to clear out an entrenched minelayer. The more open nodes though should be clearable with two of 'anything that's not a type 2 scout' without undue difficulty. That is to say, no more difficult than clearing off a veteran scout or strike sat humper.

 

If things like EMP actually worked well, the type 2 scout is I think, the only ship in the game that doesn't have a mediocre to good build available for dealing with a charged plating minelayer. The tools are out there and quite wide spread, they just aren't doing enough right now. Partly a matter of the specialized anti-bomber weapons underperforming, partly a matter of bomber defenses and the logical playstyle for bombers working a bit too well together when it comes to providing survivability.

[tunewalker]

Honestly I think i have said this some where before, but the easier fix would be to buff EMP missiles. 3 ships now have access to these missiles but unfortunately they are complete garbage especially by the standards of the pulse.

 

They take 3 seconds to lock on, do laughable damage, do not seem to ignore armor like they are supposed to and unless they are completely upgraded dont lock anything useful out. Their damage is still bugged so that the upgrade that gives them % more damage still doesnt do anything. Even getting everything a bomber can still use half its mines at least.

 

 

Just look at these upgrades, EMP pulse with 4/5 upgrades acts as another very powerful missile break giving the one ship that has it 3 missile breaks, as well as acting as a sudo evasion buff allowing it lower the accuracy of all targets hit by it. This can be pushed any time and has a 30 second CD. With the final teir you can really get a bomber with charged plating or overcharge by disabling their shields or another ship like a gunship by disabling its engine ability.

 

 

Now lets look at the missile. First, its a missile, meaning there are 3 ships in the game with 2 things to break it, 1 with 3, and 4 more with 1. Takes 3 seconds to lock on and obviously you need the target in LoS the whole time to make this land. It also has an 11 Second reload time so if this is your only missile as long as the person isnt running barrel roll as their only escape move they can pretty much dodge it endlessly. Now with all the weakness of a missile in place and all the time and effort you take to fire this bad boy what is your reward..... A missile with that does less damage then Interdiction mines (bugged damage at that) and locks out 1 button 2 if upgraded to the FINAL teir... no other teir changes this missiles effectiveness as they are the standard, reduce lock on time, deal extra damage (which is bugged, and lets not forget this missile does crap damage any way Crap+ 8% is still crap) and increased range/ammo (everyone picks range) and of course 500 extra explosion radious..... of which is small to begin with 500 meters is also kinda small and since it doesnt do much to 1 target, might as well not do much to any other target......

 

 

They have this missile on three ships and I dont know a single person who takes it, even to deal with bombers. It just seems so much more effective to drop other missiles on them and kill them to drop this weapon. At least the Emp Pulse has upgrades that make it useful as both an offensive tool and a survival tool. there is nothing redeeming in the EMP missile, but hey 3 ships can use it. Same can be said for the Ion missile, but at least it can sometimes be useful for stripping shields and slowing a target for a helpful kill. Emp just.... doesnt do enough, or feel like it does anything for that matter.

Edited April 28, 2014 by tunewalker