Domination on The Ebon Hawk is now a farce

[tunewalker]

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.

 

Upon Reading this my thought was almost...... just buff missiles.

 

Funny thing is the overcharge shield bomber can be just as dangerous to anything not a bomber. The only thing that 100% bypasses shields that isnt a bomber is a Torp, so everything else needs to deal with those shields. Bomber to Bomber Charged plating is strong. Bomber to anything else its not charge plating saving them since most scouts run BLC and most strike run heavy lasers and every gunship runs Slug. There is a means to break charge plating. The problem is getting any of those to reliably hit the bomber for long enough to threaten it in any way. Heck go ahead and get a full slug in and it still takes 3 full charges about to kill a bomber even with charge plating. It takes 3 Proton torps (thats 4 seconds and 11 second CD so 15 seconds per torp) to take down a bomber. Honestly I think missile damage should be upped on everything but clusters. They take a while to lock on and there is still plenty of ways to avoid them. They should HURT if you get one on you.

 

To be honest I dont know what can really be done, it just seems anything you try to do would unbalance the game another way. The missile idea would make strike fighters a bit better, it wouldnt change how they do against scouts honestly as the scout has enough breaks ussually that anything other then clusters rarely hit a scout. Strike's would have less survivability as other strikes become more threatening. Gunships would now fear Strikes even more then they already do. (I feel gunships fear anything that gets to close) and bombers which are already niche would feel like their niche was taken away.

 

i think really the only thing that needs changing is EMP missiles. Make them do either way more damage, ahve a much larger radius or do something that actually useful rather then just lock out 1 button for 15 seconds which may just be on CD for the next 20 seconds anyway (aka that 15 seconds did nothing).

Edited April 28, 2014 by tunewalker

[Yndras]

Yes, I have this exact build. And yes, it can work decently against a single Bomber, if I can stay on him long enough to kill him before his mines tear me to shreds.

 

But Ion Cannon has a range of 4000m, a little bit more if you spec for range. Either way, you're well into mine range at that point. And a single Ion Cannon shot won't even detonate a mine. And you have no Armor component, which means you have no way to reduce the mine damage to your hull except through crew choice.

 

And if there are two Bombers, you're dead before you can accomplish anything. Even if it's you and a buddy in the same "bomber killer" build ... it doesn't matter. You'll both be hit by 2000+ hull damage right off the bat. That's the problem with stacking AOE damage.

 

The point of this thread isn't to say nothing can kill a single one of these Bombers ... it's to say that it's far easier and better for your team to just fly one of these Bombers than anything else in Domination. It's the best counter to itself, and it shuts down a large swath of ships/builds with minimal skill/upgrades/effort required. The component choice does 80% of the work for you.

 

Not to sound negative or anything, but it took three patches to get gunships to a manageable level, and even still they are probably too powerful in n+1 situations.

 

I have never seen a match where n+1 of scouts or strikes was ever unbalanced outside of pilot skill.

[Armonddd]

Given how easy it is to avoid or tank the damage, yeah I am making that assumption.

 

No, see, that's just not true.

 

If there's an SIM bomber in the match, he's offering you a basic choice: take this massive amount of hull damage, or lose the game.

 

If you play MtG, it'd be like if there were a card that had an effect along the lines of "At the start of each opponent's upkeep, that opponent takes 5 damage. That opponent may pay 1 any number of times to reduce this damage by 1."

 

Sure, you don't have to take the damage... but if you don't, you're at an enormous disadvantage (you can't do much, if anything, else), and in some cases the damage is simply unavoidable (when you're trying to remove the bomber at close range and he explodes mines on your face -- because, again, they do explode when you shoot them).

 

You are suggesting that people ignore the node to avoid the damage, which directly contributes to the bomber's team winning (and, more often than not, that's what I see pilots doing; "oh, let's go check out C -- no, wait, there's a bomber there, eff that"). More importantly, though, you're looking at this from the perspective of a defensive SIM bomber -- in reality, that's not what happens.

 

In reality, a SIM bomber zips towards the node, popping defensive cooldowns and destroying turrets, and on arrival drops mines on the node. Since the turrets are gone (thanks, HLCs), the only people in a position to destroy the mines before their detonation are the ship that's directly behind the bomber (who doesn't exist if the bomber knows how to use LoS and plan their flight path to the sat) and the gunship with a charged t4 ion (who again might as well not exist if the bomber knows how to use LoS, and also doesn't exist if that pilot hasn't earned a lot of requisition). If neither of these ships are in the area, or if either of them have less than amazing reflexes and ping, the mines detonate and everyone on the node takes massive hull damage.

 

From there, the bomber circles the satellite, utilizing (as you discussed) line of sight and defensive cooldowns to mitigate most available counters. The people on the node have 15 seconds to forfeit the node or die. Because turrets don't spawn while an opponent is present, we're back to the same situation as before: you either need to be on the bomber's tail or have an experienced gunship overlooking the point, and if either of them play less than perfectly, the second round of mines detonates and clears the node.

 

Your suggestion of "get out of the way" forfeits the node with zero resistance.

 

Please explain to me why it's balanced that the best response to a scout, strike, or gunship on the node is to shoot them, while the best response to a bomber on the node is to forfeit the node.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Armonddd

[Zoom_VI]

Please explain to me why it's balanced that the best response to a scout, strike, or gunship on the node is to shoot them, while the best response to a bomber on the node is to forfeit the node.

Because all the girl bombers wouldn't want to date the boy bombers if the boy bombers got nerfed.

 

I mean just look how fat those ramparts are, how else do you suppose they are supposed to attract a date?

Edited April 28, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Kuciwalker]

Am I the only person who likes the "girl bomber" / "boy bomber" terminology?

[Sidenti]

Because all the girl bombers wouldn't want to date the boy bombers if the boy bombers got nerfed.

 

Maybe the girl bombers wanna date other girl bombers.

 

Love is love, baby. Love is love. <3

[Zoom_VI]

Am I the only person who likes the "girl bomber" / "boy bomber" terminology?

 

only if type 1 gunships are girl gunships.

[Kuciwalker]

Then the Type 2 is the pimply autistic dork gunship.

 

Who's also in a wheelchair.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Zoom_VI]

Then the Type 2 is the pimply autistic dork gunship.

 

Who's also in a wheelchair.

 

No no, type 2 is that awkward guy with the taped up glasses. The one that also somehow manages to get the really hot chick (t1 gunship) as a prom date.

 

Of course all da ships what to get a date with the type 2 scout.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Kuciwalker]

No way. Speaking as a T1 I'm not ever giving that ******e the time of day.

[Zoom_VI]

No way. Speaking as a T1 I'm not ever giving that ******e the time of day.

 

Ouch you really burned him. Oh well maybe he can get a date with the type 3, or perhaps with Clarion.

[Kuciwalker]

Ouch you really burned him. Oh well maybe he can get a date with the type 3, or perhaps with Clarion.

 

OMG Clarion is such a s l u t.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Zoom_VI]

OMG Clarion is such a s l u t.

 

Oh yeah she tried to come on to my scout, but my scout wouldn't have any of it. My scout's heart is set only on sweet Nova. <3

 

 

(poor nem, his poor thread got so derailed.)

Edited April 28, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Ramalina]

No, see, that's just not true.

 

If there's an SIM bomber in the match, he's offering you a basic choice: take this massive amount of hull damage, or lose the game.

 

Really? How often does choosing to take the damage let you win the node? If it reliably does then the node is reasonably easy to gain control of and the problem here is whiny pilots not bomber balance.

 

If you play MtG, it'd be like if there were a card that had an effect along the lines of "At the start of each opponent's upkeep, that opponent takes 5 damage. That opponent may pay 1 any number of times to reduce this damage by 1."

 

Sure, you don't have to take the damage... but if you don't, you're at an enormous disadvantage (you can't do much, if anything, else), and in some cases the damage is simply unavoidable (when you're trying to remove the bomber at close range and he explodes mines on your face -- because, again, they do explode when you shoot them).

 

More like, "Tap bomber to take control of 1/3 of opponent's land cards. Attacking units not wearing charged plating take 80% of their maximum life in damage every time they attack bomber without a ranged attack. Piercing attacks do double damage to bomber unless it controls land cards."

 

You are suggesting that people ignore the node to avoid the damage, which directly contributes to the bomber's team winning (and, more often than not, that's what I see pilots doing; "oh, let's go check out C -- no, wait, there's a bomber there, eff that"). More importantly, though, you're looking at this from the perspective of a defensive SIM bomber -- in reality, that's not what happens.

 

In reality, a SIM bomber zips towards the node, popping defensive cooldowns and destroying turrets, and on arrival drops mines on the node. Since the turrets are gone (thanks, HLCs), the only people in a position to destroy the mines before their detonation are the ship that's directly behind the bomber (who doesn't exist if the bomber knows how to use LoS and plan their flight path to the sat) and the gunship with a charged t4 ion (who again might as well not exist if the bomber knows how to use LoS, and also doesn't exist if that pilot hasn't earned a lot of requisition). If neither of these ships are in the area, or if either of them have less than amazing reflexes and ping, the mines detonate and everyone on the node takes massive hull damage.

 

From there, the bomber circles the satellite, utilizing (as you discussed) line of sight and defensive cooldowns to mitigate most available counters. The people on the node have 15 seconds to forfeit the node or die. Because turrets don't spawn while an opponent is present, we're back to the same situation as before: you either need to be on the bomber's tail or have an experienced gunship overlooking the point, and if either of them play less than perfectly, the second round of mines detonates and clears the node.

 

Your suggestion of "get out of the way" forfeits the node with zero resistance.

 

Please explain to me why it's balanced that the best response to a scout, strike, or gunship on the node is to shoot them, while the best response to a bomber on the node is to forfeit the node.

 

I am not suggesting abandoning the node, I am suggesting not flying into mines. There's a difference.

 

The best response to a bomber is to shoot the bomber, but to do so without running over mines as if they give some kind of bonus points. It's not that difficult to outrange some of the shortest range weapons in the game. The problem is that shooting the bomber enough times to kill it with the weapons best suited to that task takes too long at a satellite because cover offers disproportionately good defense against those weapons.

 

Dying to a tactic purely because you're too stubborn to take readily available countermeasures is not indicative of the tactic being overpowered in game balance. Gross differences in survivability in an element of gameplay where survivability is a primary determinant of success is a problem.

 

If the bombers were a bit more killable and the anti-bomber weapons worked this really wouldn't be a problem. Anyone not flying a type 2 scout would have a decent toolset available to challenge bomber controlled sats with a reasonable chance of success if they fly well. Type 2 scouts would still be screwed in that respect, but that's the predictable consequence of picking the worst possible ship build for the job, and similar to a bomber pilot complaining that they have trouble dogfighting in empty space.

 

To recap: the ability of bombers to kill other ships with mines if the pilots of those ships do not attempt to defend themselves is NOT A PROBLEM. The inability of other ships to wrest control of a sat from one or more bombers in a reasonable time frame IS A BIG PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO KEEPING DOMINATION MODE GAMEPLAY FLUID ENOUGH TO BE COMPETITIVE AND FUN.

 

Outside of node control bombers are if anything, underpowered. For that reason a heavy nerf to their primary offensive capability seems unwise to me. It's sort of an overall mess. There's no place where there's an easy change that dials back a bomber's node defense ability without potentially crippling bombers elsewhere or giving other ship classes excessive power.

[SammyGStatus]

Buff Bombers! Scrab takes em out in two seconds. The trick: Quads + Range + TT + Concentrated Fire = 3 second bomber deaths. That works perfectly for 1 bomber. If Scrab has support and someone can help with the other bomber, it'll go just as easily (even if it's pelting with ion railguns from distance). I'm sure he'd have minimal difficulty with two on his own, but call me a team player

[FridgeLM]

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.

 

It's not irrelevant due to the reason you realized a few posts later.

 

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.

 

Whether strikes are viable (in the current meta) was not in question, the point is battle scouts are strictly superior at dogfighting. Why am I making this point?

 

Because dogfighting is the only type of combat strike fighters and scouts can engage in. Since battle scouts are objectively superior at it, it means that if there aren't credible threats to battle scouts outside of dogfighting, there's no reason to fly anything but a battle scout if a person wants to be competitive and not just a battle scout punching bag.

 

That's why I am against any measures taken to address threats to battle scouts - because of the impact it'll have on the meta if we don't also nerf battle scouts. The current meta is vastly superior to what it used to be and I don't want to return to the old one, which can easily happen with some of the more ridiculous suggestions thrown around on the forums.

 

Note, I said the current meta is superior, not that it was perfect. Would I like strikes to be able to contest battle scouts directly rather than relying on bombers and (to a lesser extent) gunships to hard counter them? Absolutely.

 

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.

 

They can't attack a defended node, they're too slow and you can see them coming a mile away. Virtually any ship type can intercept them on their approach and there's much less cover until they actually reach the satellite. I know, because I've done it on a speed scout with regular laser cannons and rocket pods.

 

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

 

You should probably re-read. The poster was not making your point.

 

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.

 

Charged plating is not a choice I take on any ship. Overcharge shield, in my opinion, is strictly superior. I'm not interested in damage reduction in any sense in a world where all the best weapons have 100% armor pen - I'd rather have max HP and gigantic shield pools.

 

And note you said drones are only good if pilots are stupid and ignore them - which pointedly isn't why I said drone carriers suck. Drone carriers suck because if a pilot has the attention span of a terrier he'll notice the drone and kill it in a few laser blasts and then it's on cooldown for a thousand years, as opposed to mines which have much shorter cooldowns. That's why they're worse at attacking and defending nodes.

 

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.

 

I don't accept the premise that being a support ship precludes you from competing for the top of the leaderboards. So, no, I don't agree that only people who primarily rely on shooting things in their reticle are allowed to shoot for personal performance.

 

The only case in which I'll accept your premise that bombers are better off taking personal performance choices is in the case of hyperspace beacon. Hyperspace beacon is a trash component and it'll never be worth taking over shield power converter until its upgrades get much better than they currently are. You lose too much survivability switching to it from SPC and the beacon goes away if you die, compounding the weaknesses.

 

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?

 

If you think it's a mistake you really don't know how mmos are made. MMO engines are, at this point, not designed for dynamic physics and dynamically destructible environments.

 

Why? Technical limitations. Games that have those features have servers that are typically not tracking the actions and variables of literally thousands of players. Physics take a pretty respectable chunk of processing power, so not incorporating them was a design decision made at the moment of the engine's inception.

 

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.

 

So it's only okay that they can do a bunch of stuff you can't do when you're not arguing against them at this very moment.

 

This is almost the textbook definition of making arbitrary standards.

 

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.

 

My opinion is you're complaining about them because they're most effective against your favored ship type and it has colored your perspective.

 

From my perspective not much adjustment is needed. Interdiction mines probably do too much damage for how much CC they provide so one of those values should be adjusted, preferably the damage to make concussions clearly the choice for damage dealing in that slot.

 

Drone carriers, for reasons I stated above, actually need to be buffed. Drones are only good against inexperienced and inattentive pilots - the railgun needs less love than the others, maybe none.

 

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.

 

Dogfighting is the only type of combat that exists in GSF in a GSF with ineffectual bombers and gunships. Bombers and gunships have to be threatening for battle scouts not to be the objectively best ship.

 

(Strike fighters don't specialize in anything and are thus not overpowered in anything).

Edited April 28, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Zoom_VI]

That's why I am against any measures taken to address threats to battle scouts - because of the impact it'll have on the meta if we don't also nerf battle scouts. The current meta is vastly superior to what it used to be and I don't want to return to the old one, which can easily happen with some of the more ridiculous suggestions thrown around on the forums.

This thread exists because right now flying anything other than a SIM bomber in Dominion is bad play. All three scout variants and all three Strike variants are being rendered redundant and useless in dominion because of this. You're arguing for something that hurts your own class just so you can hurt another class, for spite apparently.

 

Note, I said the current meta is superior, not that it was perfect. Would I like strikes to be able to contest battle scouts directly rather than relying on bombers and (to a lesser extent) gunships to hard counter them? Absolutely.

You mean the current meta where flying anything that isn't a SIM minelayer is bad play? That sounds like a great meta.

 

 

 

If you think it's a mistake you really don't know how mmos are made. MMO engines are, at this point, not designed for dynamic physics and dynamically destructible environments.

 

Why? Technical limitations. Games that have those features have servers that are typically not tracking the actions and variables of literally thousands of players. Physics take a pretty respectable chunk of processing power, so not incorporating them was a design decision made at the moment of the engine's inception.

AoE collision physics already exists in the ground game has you have repeatedly ignored. Secondly collision physics already exist in GSF in the form of laser and railgun collision physics. there is no reason for AoE physics to not exists, that's total bull.

 

 

My opinion is you're complaining about them because they're most effective against your favored ship type and it has colored your perspective.

My opinion is you're complaining about type 2 scouts because they're effective against your ship type and its colored your perspective.

 

 

 

Because dogfighting is the only type of combat strike fighters and scouts can engage in. Since battle scouts are objectively superior at it, it means that if there aren't credible threats to battle scouts outside of dogfighting, there's no reason to fly anything but a battle scout if a person wants to be competitive and not just a battle scout punching bag.

 

Dogfighting is the only type of combat that exists in GSF in a GSF with ineffectual bombers and gunships. Bombers and gunships have to be threatening for battle scouts not to be the objectively best ship.

 

(Strike fighters don't specialize in anything and are thus not overpowered in anything).

 

You cannot have two ships specialize in dogfighting, because if you did so you would always have one of the ships being directly superior to the other. What strikes need is something introduced into the meta that puts value on multi-role. Nerfing scouts just throws another class under the bus while not solving any problems.

 

On a side note strikes could probably use a survivability buff, durability is the one of the biggest things strikes have over other classes, however they do not have enough durability to be meaningful. IE. they only need a couple extra hits to kill over a scout currently, and versus gunships they don't need any extra hits versus a scout. Perhaps they should have a little bit higher base HP and base shields, so that the extra durability over scouts would be meaningful.

[FridgeLM]

This thread exists because right now flying anything other than a SIM bomber in Dominion is bad play. All three scout variants and all three Strike variants are being rendered redundant and useless in dominion because of this. You're arguing for something that hurts your own class just so you can hurt another class, for spite apparently.

 

Vastly oversimplified and flat-out untrue. Seismic mine bombers are the best node defenders, sure, but there's lots of room for the other ship types in domination because node defense is not the entire game type. A team consisting only of bombers would get mauled by a couple or handful of gunships.

 

You mean the current meta where flying anything that isn't a SIM minelayer is bad play? That sounds like a great meta.

 

I mean the current meta where all ship types are flown, and flown effectively, as opposed to "fly a battle scout or gunship and get burst kills or be food for battle scouts and gunships," which is what the meta used to be.

 

AoE collision physics already exists in the ground game has you have repeatedly ignored. Secondly collision physics already exist in GSF in the form of laser and railgun collision physics. there is no reason for AoE physics to not exists, that's total bull.

 

The behavior you're describing is 1) not physics and 2) not what I'm talking about. Read more carefully and actually follow the discussion, I'm done clarifying old points to you ad infinitum if you're not going to bother reading.

 

My opinion is you're complaining about type 2 scouts because they're effective against your ship type and its colored your perspective.

 

Except I fly a speed scout (with every speed upgrade and booster recharge), both bombers, and a Quell. Which is "my" ship type?

 

My perspective is, I submit, far more grounded and broad-based than yours. Battle scouts are a problem, and I recognize that they'll be a bigger one if they're not addressed at the same time their hard counters are. That you don't is telling of your myopia.

 

You cannot have two ships specialize in dogfighting, because if you did so you would always have one of the ships being directly superior to the other. What strikes need is something introduced into the meta that puts value on multi-role. Nerfing scouts just throws another class under the bus while not solving any problems.

 

That's a very limited view. Battle scout power can be lowered while keeping them a credible and competitive threat.

 

In ground PVP, every dps specializes in dealing damage, and it's hard, likely impossible, to say that there are strictly superior damage dealing classes. There are worse ones, sure, but the ones that are most viable are good in lots of different ways that makes for a dynamic game.

 

Battle scouts being completely dominant in arguably the most important combat type in GSF makes for a stale game.

 

On a side note strikes could probably use a survivability buff, durability is the one of the biggest things strikes have over other classes, however they do not have enough durability to be meaningful. IE. they only need a couple extra hits to kill over a scout currently, and versus gunships they don't need any extra hits versus a scout. Perhaps they should have a little bit higher base HP and base shields, so that the extra durability over scouts would be meaningful.

 

Speaking as someone who occasionally flies a strike fighter, I'm ambivalent. If BLCs get nerfed, a survivability buff might be too much. If they don't, maybe it'll be okay, but I think I'd rather have some kind of damage increase, though I don't know of a good way to accomplish that.

Edited April 28, 2014 by FridgeLM

[Zoom_VI]

After reading your post I've decided not to respond since all you have done is argue just to disagree. Even when I posted about areas where strike fighters could use buffs to make them more viable, you flat disagreed with that.

 

Your not making a discussion you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreement. Period. I must have been drunk when I took you off my ignore list.

 

Why? Technical limitations. Games that have those features have servers that are typically not tracking the actions and variables of literally thousands of players. Physics take a pretty respectable chunk of processing power, so not incorporating them was a design decision made at the moment of the engine's inception.

AoE collision physics already exists in the ground game has you have repeatedly ignored. Secondly collision physics already exist in GSF in the form of laser and railgun collision physics. there is no reason for AoE physics to not exists, that's total bull.

The behavior you're describing is 1) not physics and 2) not what I'm talking about. Read more carefully and actually follow the discussion, I'm done clarifying old points to you ad infinitum if you're not going to bother reading.

You say its not possible becuase limitations in game engine

I respond with how the game engine is already cabable of doing the physics

You say I'm off topic.

When me and armond discuss collision physics we mean ordinance cannot hit through otherwise invincible objects. That's basic collision, we are not talking about making a physics simulator. Stop deliberately setting up strawmen. Also the shockwaves you are referring to, don't work in a vacuum.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Kuciwalker]

AoE collision physics already exists in the ground game has you have repeatedly ignored. Secondly collision physics already exist in GSF in the form of laser and railgun collision physics. there is no reason for AoE physics to not exists, that's total bull.

 

Lasers and railguns do not use collision physics, or physics of any kind. They are both hitscan weapons. The examples given in ground game had to be patched in because they were not part of the default mechanics. (It may have been there from the start in Denova, but Voidstart actually used to allow AOEs through the force fields before the 3rd door).

 

What strikes need is something introduced into the meta that puts value on multi-role.

 

You mean like... bombers? Because that is exactly what bombers are.

 

The problem is that they are too good versus strikes, not that they are too good versus scouts.

[Zoom_VI]

Lasers and railguns do not use collision physics, or physics of any kind. They are both hitscan weapons. The examples given in ground game had to be patched in because they were not part of the default mechanics. (It may have been there from the start in Denova, but Voidstart actually used to allow AOEs through the force fields before the 3rd door).

Sigh, see my edit. Either way "hitscan" physics where around at the time of GSF's birth. There is no excuse for them to absent for certain weapons.

 

 

 

You mean like... bombers? Because that is exactly what bombers are.

 

The problem is that they are too good versus strikes, not that they are too good versus scouts.

EXACTLY THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS THREAD, or it was before the Fridge had to derail everything with his constant scout paranioa.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Kuciwalker]

Sigh, see my edit. Either way "hitscan" physics where around at the time of GSF's birth. There is no excuse for them to absent for certain weapons.

 

...

 

Do you even know what this is.

 

Do you know anything about game physics engines.

 

You should probably stop talking.

[Zoom_VI]

...

 

Do you even know what this is.

 

Do you know anything about game physics engines.

 

You should probably stop talking.

 

I don't know about you but this was a discussion on whether or not AoE should pass through objects such as the satellite. I don't know why we had to go off on this tangent about real physics simulations.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Zoom_VI

[Zoom_VI]

Also if we are going to get into realistic physics (not that SW has ever paid attention to real physics) then mine detonations can't pas through the satellite because that type of shockwave doesn't exist in vacuum. In fact the whole idea of a explosive mine doesn't work in a vacuum, unless the mine itself is shooting off particles which would be stopped by the satellite.

[Nemarus]

Too lazy to reply point for point, but I do want to clarify that I do agree--strongly--with Fridge about BLC Scouts and the dire threat of them dominating the meta once more.

 

I agree that any change made around SIM potency needs to be made carefully and thoughtfully, so that the door does not re-open for BLC Scouts to take over Domination once more.

 

SIM's are unbalanced when viewed from a variety of different perspectives:

* they can "one shot" a ship -- regardless of what ship, I view this as a problem for fun and accessibility

* seismic and interdiction mines are an obvious superior choice over seekers, concussions and ions

* seismic and interdiction mines trivially kill all drones / beacons

* SIM's outright ignore a core defensive gameplay mechanic (shields) found on all ships, thus creating a hard counter to everything but T2 Strikes with Charged Plating, T3 Strikes with Charged Plating, and other SIM's running Charged Plating. Everything else: {all Scouts, all T1 Strikes, T2 or T3 Strikes without Charged Plating, all Gunships, Minelayers without Charged Plating, all Dronecarriers} cannot remain on a node to hold or capture it if a SIM is present.

* an attacking SIM forces all defenders to concede a node or die

* SIM power stacks 100% efficiently, and multiple SIM's synergize such that countering two is well beyond twice as difficult as countering one

* playing a SIM effectively requires minimal effort/upgrades and coordination, but countering one requires significant upgrades, effort and coordination

* one of the most dependable counters to a SIM is another SIM

 

Verain has stated his concern that if Seismic/Interdiction mines cannot one shot a Scout, then Minelayers might as well deleted. I assume this is because he thinks BLC Scouts will then be able to run rampant again. This is a valid concern, but I think that the entire set of mines (all four of them) could be adjusted so that, even if no pair of them can one-shot a Scout, they could cripple / debuff it to such an extent that it must flee or die. And these crippling / debuffing effects could be tailored such that they are particularly deadly against Scouts, but do not create such a hard counter to everything else.

 

In fact, if Strikes are intended to be the counter to Minelayers, then all mines need to be especially affected by shields, because Strikes can achieve the most powerful and fastest-regenerating shields in the game. Scouts, on the other hand, have the lowest base shield capacity and regen in the game. If we want to build mines that bias toward destroying Scouts, we just need two mines that combine to do straight 2600 damage--no shield or armor piercing required. Two of those would vaporize the vast majority of Scouts. Scouts who sacrifice Evasion to build for extra shields and armor could survive a little longer, but not much. Strikes who build for durability could survive a volley of two such mines without any hull damage.

 

So yes, that's my suggestion: just make Seismic Mine the heaviest hitter. No piercing of any kind. Just 1500 pure AOE damage. Make Interdiction Mine do 1100 straight damage (no piercing), and in addition to its slow debuff, make it penalize target Evasion.

 

Now you've got two mines that can destroy/cripple any Scout, but Strikes have the option of coming in close to the satellite to prevent enemy capture or put pressure on the Bomber. How long they can spend there depends on their Shield Component, their Reactor, their Armor, and potentially their Engine. This is a lot more interesting than "I can stay there 19 seconds because that's how long Charged Plating lasts."

 

This would keep the traditional DF/BLC Type 2 Scout mitigated, and it would actually give Strikes a niche that rewards their powerful shields.

 

However, Bomber stacking is going to be a problem with both Minelayers and Dronecarriers unless EMP Field/Missile receives a massive buff, or unless some new mine/drone interference mechanic is introduced.