Suggestion: Retuning mines to buff Strikes, while preserving hard counter to Scouts

[Nemarus]

Background

 

Currently, many people are running Minelayer builds which combine Seismic and Interdiction Mines to do ~1100 direct hull damage per volley. This is not only a hard counter to Scouts, but to every ship in the game not running Charged Plating, Deflection Armor and an Armor-buffing Defense Crew member.

 

In Domination matches, one such Bomber can take or hold a node against many enemies. As has been reported in other threads, this is an accessibility barrier to many pilots, who are limited to the Type 1 Scout and Strike--neither of which is well-suited to dealing with these mines.

 

Moreover, Concussion, Ion and Seeker Mines are simply inferior to Seismic and Interdiction, due to the former being affected by Shields while the latter are not. Weapons that ignore Shields are not an anti-Scout mechanic (Scouts have the lowest base shield in the game)--they are an anti-Strike mechanic (because Strikes have the highest base shield in the game). And Strikes are the last ship class that need another mechanic which ignores their primary strength.

 

 

Goals of My Suggestions

 

The following are my suggested changes on how to balance all five mine types so that the choice between them is interesting, and so that each has a role to play in the Domination meta-game.

 

The three main goals for these suggested changes are:

 

1) Keep Minelayers as a hard counter to Scouts swarming a node (especially T2 Scouts with Burst Laser Cannons)

 

2) Emphasize and reward Strikes' single "best in game" feature: their formidable base shields

 

3) Make a Minelayer's choice of mine more strategically interesting

 

Suggested Mine Damage and Effects by Type

 

Seismic Mine

Upgraded damage: ~1500 AOE normal damage (no armor or shield piercing)

The Seismic Mine is the blunt instrument of mines. It does a ton of straight AOE damage.

 

Seeker Mine

Upgraded damage: ~800 damage against single target, with ~500 damage over 10 seconds

The Seeker Mine's advantages are its longer range (which lets it be used offensively in open space) and its ability to be deployed in large numbers. In exchange, it sacrifices AOE damage (though it can still get some with the T5A upgrade). It does more damage than in the current build, but that extra damage is done over time.

 

Interdiction Mine

Upgraded damage: ~1100 AOE normal damage (no armor or shield piercing)

Upgraded effects: keep current slow/mobility debuff, also add -25% Evasion penalty to targets caught in the blast

The Interdiction Mine, like the Seismic Mine, does a bunch of straight AOE damage with no piercing. However, in addition to the damage, it slows the target, reduces its maneuverability, and reduces its Evasion.

 

Ion Mine

Upgraded damage: ~1500 AOE damage to shields, or ~600 damage to hull

Upgraded effects: energy drain of laser OR engine energy (depending on upgrade tree choice)

The Ion Mine is intended to quickly remove shields and cripple an enemy with energy drain. However, it also does moderate hull damage to unshielded targets.

 

Concussion Mine (no change)

Upgraded damage: ~1000 AOE damage, 20% shield piercing

The Concussion Mine is comparable to the Interdiction Mine in damage. It does slightly less damage overall, but 20% of that damage pierces shields. However, it does not have the utility debuffs of Interdiction Mine.

 

 

Effects of these Changes

 

vs. Scouts

A single Seismic Mine does enough damage to get through the Shields of an Evasion-focused Scout using Distortion Field, Large Reactor and a shield-capacity Defense Crew Member. Combined with Concussion or the proposed Interdiction Mine, such a Scout would be "one shot" by a volley of two mines, just like they are with Seismic/Interdiction today. Combined with an Ion Mine, the Scout would either be "one shot" or severely crippled, depending on whether the Ion or Seismic Mine hit first.

 

A Scout that sacrifices Evasion in order to build for Shield and Armor/Hull might survive such a volley, but would still take significant hull damage, and would need to vacate the node or eliminate the Bomber before the next volley comes.

 

Thus a Minelayer with a Seismic Mine remains a hard counter to Scouts on nodes, just like they are currently. But unlike the current meta, the Minelayer can choose any of the three System Mines and still be just as effective against Scouts. Interdiction Mine remains the best System Mine for dealing with Scouts, due to its overall damage and mobility/Evasion debuff, but the other two System Mines will still work well.

 

vs. Strikes

A Strike, on the other hand, has several build configurations it can use to shore up defenses against mines. All three Strikes have various means to get Shield Capacity up to 2400+, using combinations of Directional Shield, Charged Plating, Engine-to-Shield Converter, Reactors, and Defense Crew Members. For example, a T1 Strike (a starter ship for new pilots) with Directional Shield, Large Reactor, and Defense Crew Member can get shield capacity of 2520 per arc.

 

Such a Strike could wade into a Minelayer's minefield and absorb a single volley of mines without taking much/any hull damage. It then has a window of time before the next volley to score some damage on the Bomber with close-range weapons and/or focus on recharging its shields.

 

I view this as an improvement on the current meta because it allows a greater variety of Strike builds/styles to act as counters to Minelayers. Right now, to counter a Minelayer, a Strike must attack from range, which can be a struggle because of LOS issues on a Bomber circling the satellite. Additionally, it means a Strike is getting little use out of its superior Shields, and it means a Strike must abandon a node if a Minelayer reaches it unless it has Charged Plating. And even then, it only has 19 seconds before it must either destroy the Bomber or leave the node.

 

With these proposed changes, a Strike has a variety of options for how to tackle a Minelayer. It can still attempt to engage at range. And it can still use Charged Plating to have windows of mine-immunity. Or it can build for heavy shields that regen quickly, and it can wade in and engage the Minelayer at close range.

 

These changes would be a particularly strong buff to the T1 Strike, which currently has no part to play in the anti-Bomber meta, due to its lack of Armor and lack of EMP Missile. And let's not forget that the T1 Strike is one of the two ships new players are stuck with.

 

The T2 and T3 Strikes also benefit significantly, because these changes make EMP Missile far more effective. Using it, the Strike can halt a large amount of the Minelayer's DPS. The remaining hit from the Seismic Mine for 1500 damage is easily absorbed by pretty much every Strike build. This is different from the current situation, where EMP Missile is not very effective because the Seismic Mine still does significant automatic hull damage.

 

Conversely, the Minelayer has an interesting choice to make when considering Strikes. Use Interdiction Mines to slow Strikes down? Use Concussion Mines to get some guaranteed hull damage attrition? Use Ion Mines to more quickly take out Strike shields? That's far more interesting than the current DIRECT HULL DAMERG DERP!

 

vs. Gunships

Gunship base shields are almost as powerful as Strikes, so these changes to Mines would have a similar effect on them. A Gunship could approach a node with a Minelayer and be able to survive for a reasonable period of time. More importantly, a Gunship sitting on a node to defend it would not have to immediately vacate the area of a Minelayer should reach the node. That being said, Gunships that use Distortion Field would still suffer significant hull damage if they took a Seismic/System Mine volley to the face.

 

These changes would represent a buff to the T2 Gunship in particular, since its ability to take Directional Shield means it can get a shield capacity of 2380.

Regardless, most of the time a Gunship will not be on a node, so the point is mostly moot for them.

 

vs. other Bombers

Bombers, like Strikes, have a variety of defensive options to choose from. All will have varying levels of success against the various types of mines. Charged Plating will remain a powerful anti-mine choice, but not a mandatory one. In fact, Charged Plating will be more effective, because those that take it will actually get the benefit of its formidable shield capacity. This is an improvement over the current situation, where the shield capacity of Charged Plating is irrelevant against Seismic and Interdiction Mines doing direct hull damage.

 

Ion Mines might be the best choice against heavily shielded Bombers. Or Concussion Mines to do some guaranteed hull damage.

 

Conclusion

I believe the proposed changes to Seismic, Ion, and Interdiction Mines will result in a healthier and more accessible Domination metagame, with a wider varety of builds and roles to play.

 

* All five mine types offer unique advantages--Interdiction Mines are especially strong against Scouts, while Concussion and Ion Mines offer more utility against shielded targets.

 

* Strikes of all three types will have a stronger role and a wider variety of build types available to them, due their powerful shields

 

* The starter T1 Strike in particular will have more options with regard to engagement range and component loadout

 

* A mined satellite will remain an area of exclusion for Scouts

 

* Strike and Gunship satellite defenders will not have to immediately vacate the satellite if a Minelayer shows up (though Scouts still will)

 

* The Dronecarrier will have more reliable sustained damage in the form of stronger Seeker Mines

 

I welcome feedback. But if you're just going to say this is a "Nerf Bombers!" cry thread or that I'm attempting to "delete Bombers", please just don't bother. If you think these changes would result in bad consequences, please explain why you think so. Bonus points if you use accurate math. I make no claim that I haven't overlooked something, but if you think I have, please be specific.

 

The two biggest reasons I'm asking for these changes are because my own Seismic / Interdiction Bomber feels too powerful (not to mention the mine "choices" aren't choices at all, given S/I superiority), and because Strikes are still in need of a buff.

 

And let me remind everyone that I strongly agree that any change in Bombers which might let BLC Scouts ruin Domination again is a non-starter. But it doesn't take direct hull damage to shut down Scouts--you just have to do enough normal damage to take out both their weak shields and weak hull. But there's no reason to throw Strikes, which are supposed to get some benefit from their huge shields, under the bus at the same time. That's why direct hull damage is such a sledgehammer to the current meta.

 

Also, I still think that Burst Laser Cannons need a nerf, and EMP Missile needs a buff. But either way, mines should still be adjusted so that they are all viable choices.

 

If these (or similar) changes were enacted, I believe the Domination meta would be something like this:

 

* Gunships remain a threat to ships in open space, and provide supporting fire when attacking a node

 

* Scouts of all kinds put pressure on Gunships and hunt them down, as well as intercept enemies before they can reach nodes

 

* Minelayers create an exclusion zone around nodes that prevents Scouts from getting close enough to cap

 

* Dronecarriers create a wide area of attrition that hampers enemies and supports allies

 

* Strikes are in the middle of everything, but are a hard counter to entrenched Bombers, able to engage at multiple ranges, and able to survive Mine and Drone damage due to their powerful shield options

 

I don't know about the rest of you, but the above sounds pretty fun and fair to me.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Nemarus

[Verain]

I'm disliking that nothing seems to be busy ignoring shields fully, and I'm disliking that none of these mines give the boy bomber an actual role besides "sits at a node as target".

 

But, this is not at all a bad set of suggestions. Especially because it gives more roles to strike fighters, who I think we agree are not very strong in the current meta- a bit surprising after the missile lock nerf.

 

I think at least one mine should offer 100% armor ignore, but that mine shouldn't be auto-pick. This way there's a counter to high DR builds without it being the only thing anyone chooses.

 

I also think some of these mines should threaten or guard much larger areas, but with less effectiveness than the node guarding mines do their job, giving boy bombers who go that route a shinier role in TDM at least.

 

I'll also give you props for coming up with a system that increases game depth- a lot of posts on video game forums do not do that.

 

 

I *do* think that the strike needs to be on a timer- I don't think he should get to chill at the node with a hostile bomber. One of the problems with shield damage mines is that pretty much any shield will fully regenerate. If the strikes get to ignore mines almost entirely, that's not very solid. One option could definitely be some shield ignore, just as every missile gets, without it being 100% shield ignore as on live- I definitely agree that the seismic and interdiction combo, while not immediately fatal to a strike fighter, is enough damage that the strike doesn't really get to party much.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Verain

[Kuciwalker]

Preface: I am 100% in support of the project to reduce bomber effectiveness against strikes relative to scouts, without crippling its effectiveness versus scouts.

 

I will say that I don't agree that bombers should be a "hard counter" to scouts, at least as you conceive it, but that may just be semantic niggling on my part.

 

Regarding your damage choices, I think they are generally far too high. I think very modestly buffed seeker and concussion mines should be the baseline power level we shoot at - because I've used both of those and found them reasonably effective. I don't think they are objectively very underpowered, especially versus scouts, they are just underpowered relative to the interdiction/seeker combo.

 

With that I would put the damage numbers at roughly the following:

 

Seismic: 800 AOE (with 10% talented shield penetration at T4 as alternative to +500 range), no armor penetration

 

Seeker: 1000 single-target, (50% armor pen talented at T3, replace +5% damage)

 

Interdiction: 500 AOE, no shield piercing, no armor pen, sure throw in the evasion debuff. A 50% slow is actually a huge deal and needs only negligible damage to accompany it.

 

Ion: 1500 AOE shield, 375 AOE hull (roughly ion railgun numbers/ratios), change the T5 to be a 50% regen reduction instead of only 20%.

 

Concussion: 1000 AOE, 20% shield piecing

 

Yes, this means that interdiction + seismic no longer one-shots a scout, or even close, but that's OK. If you want pure damage you should be going for seeker/concussion or seismic/concussion. Interdiction gives a very good debuff and that should come with a cost relative to the other choices.

 

In conjunction with the above, three other changes need be made to the game:

 

1. Across the board reduce armor pen from 100% to 50% (blah blah you can leave edge cases like protons alone, the important targets are slug and heavy).
   
2. Remove all armor pen from BLC.
   
3. Reduce the uptime and DR from charged plating so that people without armor pen aren't completely impotent against it.
   

 

Now even without scouts being oneshot, they will have a much harder time taking down a bomber, particularly if it is stacking damage reduction. Strikes with ions, heavy lasers, and concussions will have a much easier time of it. Gunships will be somewhat nerfed here but it won't be crippling.

 

Additionally, strikes will have the option to gain some more durability versus scouts via DR.

 

I'm disliking that nothing seems to be busy ignoring shields fully

 

Virtually nothing should ignore shields fully. Shields are an integral part of the game and are a crucial part of strike fighter durability. Shield penetration is actually an anti-strike mechanic, not an anti-scout mechanic.

 

The few things that do have 100% shield piercing should come at a huge cost: e.g. they do trivial damage (sabo probe) or are very difficult to lock on (protons). Mines are the opposite of "difficult", they have the lowest skill floor in the game.

 

I think at least one mine should offer 100% armor ignore, but that mine shouldn't be auto-pick.

 

No, because 100% armor pen needs to be gone from the game.

[Nemarus]

I'm disliking that nothing seems to be busy ignoring shields fully, and I'm disliking that none of these mines give the boy bomber an actual role besides "sits at a node as target".

 

I also think some of these mines should threaten or guard much larger areas, but with less effectiveness than the node guarding mines do their job, giving boy bombers who go that route a shinier role in TDM at least.

 

If a Minelayer doesn't want to guard a node, then it can take Proton Torpedoes or Seeker Mines for extended range. I agree that it'd probably be better if one of the System Mines was a longer-range, lighter-damage mine, like Seeker Mine, but I didn't want to rock the boat too much.

 

I think at least one mine should offer 100% armor ignore, but that mine shouldn't be auto-pick. This way there's a counter to high DR builds without it being the only thing anyone chooses.

 

My personal feeling is that there is enough in the game that ignores armor already. Devoting defensive resources to Armor is already a risk, since Slugs, HLC, BLC, Rockets, PT and Thermite all ignore it.

 

I'll also give you props for coming up with a system that increases game depth- a lot of posts on video game forums do not do that.

 

I try, and I thank you for reading my post fully and commenting in a thoughtful manner. Hopefully the rest of the thread can remain productive!

 

I *do* think that the strike needs to be on a timer- I don't think he should get to chill at the node with a hostile bomber. One of the problems with shield damage mines is that pretty much any shield will fully regenerate. If the strikes get to ignore mines almost entirely, that's not very solid. One option could definitely be some shield ignore, just as every missile gets, without it being 100% shield ignore as on live- I definitely agree that the seismic and interdiction combo, while not immediately fatal to a strike fighter, is enough damage that the strike doesn't really get to party much.

 

I think it would be hard for any Strike to just sit there for an extended period of time with a Minelayer.

 

Let's consider a T1 Strike built for maxed out for shields. First let's consider the capacity build: with Directional, Large Reactor and Writch, he has 2520 shields and 1450 hull, with 5% DR.

 

Now let's see how he fairs against my proposed mines:

 

Seismic + Interdiction = ~2600 damage + slow + 25% evasion penalty

In this case he only takes 76 hull damage, but he is severely slowed and vulnerable to any other enemy fire. Let's assume he has only the Minelayer to deal with though. He needs to regenerate his shields in the next 15 seconds. Shields begin recharging after 3 seconds, and then regen at a rate of 103.5 / second (assuming even power). So in 12 seconds, he is able to regenerate 1242 shields before the next volley of ~2600 hits. When it does, he takes 1290 hull damage. He's now got no shields again, and only 84 hull points left. And he's slowed again.

 

If the Strike puts power to shields, the math changes a little bit. His shield capacity starts out higher and his shields will regen 50% faster, if I remember correctly. He still won't be able to recover his shields fully before the second volley hits though.

 

Alternatively, the Strike can run a Turbo Reactor instead of a Large Reactor. This reduces its shield capacity to 2160, but it can start regenerating after 1.2 seconds. But even then, it can only recover 1428 shields before the next volley hits. With full power to shields, it could come close to recharging its full shield capacity--the thing is, it's full shield capacity isn't enough to stop both mines, and each volley will still inflict 418 hull damage.

 

What the Strike really needs to do is move briefly off the node and skip a volley, giving his shields time to recharge to full. That is the key difference between the current situation and the proposed situation. If a Strike plays conservatively and respects the Minelayer's mine zone (which means occasionally backing off), it can fight the Minelayer without suffering grievous and unavoidable hull attrition. The Minelayer is still in a position of power since it can force the Strike to back off periodically.

 

Seismic + Concussion = ~2300 damage to shields, ~200 damage to hull

If the Bomber wants to make sure the Strike (or enemy Bomber) suffers some hull damage every time it comes close, it can use Concussion Mine, which has 20% shield piercing. That will deal ~200 guaranteed hull damage every time, while still also slamming the Strike's shields as a way of saying, "Back off".

 

Ion followed by Seismic = ~3000 damage + energy drain

If the Minelayer is clever and can get his Ion Mine to hit first, followed by a Seismic Mine, he'll do 3000 damage. This does a whopping 456 hull damage to the Strike. And if the next volley hits in that same order, and the Strike hasn't significantly recharged its shields, the Strike will die. This has the potential to be the most powerful combination, but it requires the most skill to use properly. Either way, the Strike will be drained of either engine or laser energy, making it less of a threat overall.

 

Seismic followed by Ion = ~unknown

I don't know how spillover hull damage from an Ion Mine which overkills shield works. But I suspect it would be under 200. Still, there is some hull damage, and the Strike needs to recharge shields or back off before the next volley hits.

 

Now a Super Shield T3 Strike will fair better in all of these scenarios, and with Repair Probes it can even recover from much of the hull damage attrition. But that T3 Strike doesn't have much offensive potential. And honestly, if a T3 Strike and a Bomber are sitting there slugging it out over a node for an extended period of time, I am completely okay with that.

 

So in short--yes, I do think that there is a "timer" on Strikes. How long that timer is depends upon the exact Strike variant, the shield components used, and how aggressively the Strike stays on the node and/or destroys mines when out of detonation range. It also depends on the System Mine being used. Concussion guarantees some hull damage each volley. Interdiction massively slows the Strike down, mitigating much of its threat to the Bomber. Ion Mine, depending on whether it hits first or not, can combo to deal significant hull damage per volley, or at the very least drain the Strike of engine or laser energy.

 

I think the Minelayer is still in a very strong position, even against Strikes that are not built and flown skillfully.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Nemarus

[Nemarus]

<good stuff>

 

I agree that my mine values are all quite high. That is to ensure they remain a hard counter to Scouts with BLC.

 

If BLC's get significantly nerfed, then those mine damage numbers could come down as well.

 

But we absolutely cannot risk a return to pre-2.6 Domination.

 

 

Virtually nothing should ignore shields fully. Shields are an integral part of the game and are a crucial part of strike fighter durability. Shield penetration is actually an anti-strike mechanic, not an anti-scout mechanic.

 

 

This is the absolute crux of the current problem, and I should call it out even more explicitly in my OP. Thanks.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know how spillover hull damage from an Ion Mine which overkills shield works.

 

I am very confident that GSF's damage algorithm is as such:

 

1. WSD := weapon shield damage
   
2. WHD := weapon hull damage
   
3. WSP := weapon shield piercing
   
4. TS := target shields
   
5. TH := target hull
   
6. SDA (shield damage applied) := Max(WSD * (1 - WSP), TS)
   
7. HDA (hull damage applied) := Max(WHD * WSP + (SDA - WSD * (1 - WSP)) * WHD / WSD
   
8. flytext := SDA + HDA
   

 

I have ignored damage reduction / armor penetration in the above formula.

 

In plain English, the idea is that each shot has a pool of "damage points", which are (potentially) worth different amounts when applied to shields or hull. The game applies damage points first to shields, until either the target's shields or the damage points run out, with the caveat that if the weapon has X% shield piercing then it will reserve X% of the damage points and only apply up to (1 - X%) of them to the shields. The game then applies all remaining damage points (including those reserved due to shield piercing) to the hull, until either the hull hits 0 or the damage points run out.

 

The reason I am confident in the above algorithm is because when using slug railgun to attack targets with extremely low hull, I observe that at high charge it still does a large amount of damage in the flytext. This tells me that it is applying full damage to shields before the game starts damaging the hull.

 

edit: examples of the above math

 

Example 1:

 

Imagine you had a target with 1000 hull and 1000 shields. It's attacked by a weapon that does 2000 shield damage and 500 hull damage, with no shield piercing. We will say it has 100 "damage points", with each damage point doing 20 damage to shields and 5 to hull. 50 of the damage points are expended reducing the shields to 0, and then the other 50 are expended against the hull, doing 250 damage to it. End result is the target has 750 hull and 0 shields, with flytext saying 1250 damage done.

 

Example 2:

 

Imagine you had a target with 50 hull and 1000 shields. You attack it with a weapon that does 2000 shield damage and 500 hull damage, with 20% shield piercing. We will say it has 100 "damage" points", with each damage point doing 20 damage to shields and 5 to hull, with 20 of those points reserved to hit the hull. 50 out of the 80 points eligible to hit the shield are expended against it, doing 1000 damage. 30 points spill over to the hull, along with the 20 points reserved from the shield piercing. However, with only 50 hull only 10 points can be expended before the ship is destroyed, leaving 40 points unused. End result is target has 0 hull and 0 shields (destroyed), with flytext saying 1050 damage done.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Ramalina]

But, this is not at all a bad set of suggestions. Especially because it gives more roles to strike fighters, who I think we agree are not very strong in the current meta- a bit surprising after the missile lock nerf.

 

Coming from a definite,"strikes are my favorite by a large margin," view, I think strikes are mostly in a pretty good place right now actually. They do have a few very specific weak spots.

 

Turning thruster strike build are very capable dogfighters, but their boost based mobility is so weak that there's strong motivation for them to stick near heavy cover, and right now bombers are filling the heavy cover full of mines. That said, strikes built for turning fights probably only need a 5-20% increase in boost range before they'd feel really good. They're on the wrong side of the fence in terms of boost endurance, but they're leaning against said fence so not much extra distance is needed to get them on the right side.

 

Lack of a distinct role. GSF has dogfighting, healing, and turret destruction as potential roles, and dogfighting is the primary one.. Gunships, scouts, and bombers have very distinctive ways to play in a dogfight, but strikes are sort of slow and durable scouts that happen to have heavier missiles. Play-wise they're useful chiefly for dogfighting, and their dogfighting qualities are in most respects inferior to those of scouts. Not enough to cripple the class, but enough so that people passionate about a dogfighting role are likely to feel that scouts have more to offer in that arena. What strikes really want is slow or static destructible targets that are more important than sat turrets. That's what strike and bomber (assuming that they actually bombed instead of mined or deployed drones) craft do in air/space combat.

 

Possibly false assumptions. The absence of a true strike role in GSF makes a lot of players think that there must be something else that strike fighters are supposed to be really good at, a natural fit for them. With bombers being the only slow and durable targets in game that aren't trivially easy for any ship to destroy, the tendency is to assume that strikes are supposed to be a highly effective counter to bombers. The weapons loadouts available to the various ships tends to reinforce this suspicion. Problem is that in order to not wreck balance everywhere else, you really can't let strikes pop bombers like soap bubbles.

 

On the whole I mostly think strikes just suffer from under-appreciation.

[Nemarus]

 

On the whole I mostly think strikes just suffer from under-appreciation.

 

I can appreciate a Strike all day. But all that appreciation doesn't change the mathematical fact that Minelayers now habitually ignore Strikes' shields--one of the key advantages they have, and one of the few benefits they get in return for being slower and more sluggish than a Scout, and for having more expensive Boost.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Nemarus

[Altheran]

I disagree with this suggestion. It will be mostly ineffective at helping strikes.

 

Why ? Because most of the time, mines are launched/triggered altogether to pack the maximum punch.

 

Would Strikes be able to withstand that better ? No. Strikes have averagely around 1700 shields per arc.

Taking at least 2600 damage will leave them at around 400 hull points left... Which is the same amount of HP than before. And it would be worst as you'd not even have the shields left.

 

Strikes can have very strong shields with Directional shields ? Yes, in theory.

In practice, you'll be unable to tell if the mines will blast in front or in the rear... (That mines at the other side of satellite that he'll trigger soon... Will they hit my front shields or my rear shields ? Can't tell from there)

And that would put the survivability of the strike on a luck basis. Good side of the shields = survived. Wrong side of the sields = obliterated like a scout.

Left is the situation where you enter the minefield. But even with big directional shields, it would still be suicidal as you'd litterally lose all of your "strengthened shield arc". And in this situation, the solution is "avoid or shoot" not "run into it". There's normally no situation where you can predict the direction of the mine, and not avoid it.

Even in the situation where he drops the mines in front of you and can't exit the trigger radius, you can't predict if they'll blast in front you, or as you passed by them, meaning behind you.

 

And shields are not a given either. You may have a turret attacking the shields, or the Bomber himself attacking your shields as you're incoming. And if the shields are severly damaged (or destroyed), those mines would be able to (or almost able to) destroy the strike in one shot... where they weren't able to before.

 

So no, it will not help Strikes, beside allowing a Directional Strike to attempt a suicide run once, without success warrant. (While nerfing those who use Quick-Charge - Hello, I have 1440 shield points. I absolutely love taking 2000+ damage in less than 1s.)

 

No, what needs to be done isn't to make them kills scouts through shields... It's to ensure that the strike can withstand a supplementary round of mines.

And you do that by reducing the damage of mines to the level of where it's still deadly for a scout (it doesn't have to kill the scout in 0.5s either), but withstand-able for a strike.

 

---

 

What I'd do :

 

 

Seismic : 500 hull damage - 20s base CD (60% of a Proton rounded to superior hundred)

 

Interdiction : 140 hull damage - 20s base CD (50% of Sabotage Probe, or 100% of its direct hit. Big nerf but hey, is it an "effect mine" or a "damage mine" ?)

 

Concussion : 750 damage w/ 20% shield piercing - 15s base CD (70% of Conc Missile rounded to superior tens)

 

Ion : 1100 shield damage or 400 hull damage - 20 s base CD (70% of Ion missile on shields, hull and shield averages to Conc Mine)

 

Seeker : 650 damage - 10s base CD (100% of Cluster Missile)

 

 

Now, time for explanations.

 

I always compare mines to other secondaries. Depending on their purposes, I choose the missile which looks the most alike, and apply a AoE tax (or not) depending on the missiles' use method. I adjusted their base CD so that they're much alike the optimal firing rate of the missile they look like, after the -5s CD upgrade. In exchange, those that had their CD reduced won't be able to exist twice per bomber anymore.

 

So case by case :

 

Seeker mine : this mine doesn't AoE, and can't be triggered. Because of that it doesn't suffer any tax compared to Cluster missile.

His lowered CD, up to only 5s, allows a pretty consistant use rate, much like cluster missile, and allow the bomber to stop one's shield regen pretty consistently.

Definitely not the most deadly, but eating them in the face one after an other would be a mistake as its damage add pretty fast over multiple launches.

 

Concussion mine : the most basic mine, just like concussion missile is the most basic missile. Its AoE nature, with abilty to manually trigger make it need a damage tax. Just like any other mine inspired from a 3s-lock missile, the tax will be set at 30%.

Lets enough time to shield to refill a bit, but its shield piercing, as well as its raw power is nothing to laugh at. The most hull damaging mine behind Seismic but only if hitting full shields. Otherwise it's the deadliest.

Unlike seeker mine, if it failed to trigger, you can force the explosion. It's the only mine that you can force it's explosion with a short CD (which offsets its loss of power compared to its live version)

 

Interdiction Mine: re-evaluated to be an "effect mine". For that reason, its damage has to be inferior to the most basic one even when considering shield piercing only.

It's effect doesn't really ressembles Sabotage Probe, but it's so far the most alike in the way they hinder movement. For balance purpose, the usual 30% damage tax will not be applied as otherwise it would be almost as viable as Concussion for damage purposes. In consequense, it will only do the Probe's direct damage, 50% of total damage.

Cooldown unchanged as the Probe (and other special missiles) have 11s as a CD, which added to their 3s lock time makes them usable every 14s. The old 15s hen upgraded is prefectly fitting.

Would interest those who dislike being out-maneuvered and those who expect a more group-focused use (ennemy = sitting duck), at the cost of raw power.

 

Ion Mine : Just like Conc Mine is made to look like Concussion Missile, Ion Mine will be alike Ion Missile in the CD effect, and shield damage department (with the 30% tax). Hull damage is superior to the missile, in order to not repeat Ion Missile's balance error, and is chosen so that Hull and Shield damage averages at the level of Concussion.

Results in a sustantial up in damage.

 

Seismic Mine : pretty much like other mines, but since it's pure Hull damage, like Proton Torpedo, but the Torpedo is much more restricted (longer lock, firing arc) than most missile, the tax is set at 40%.

Almost unchanged, beside the loss of a few tens of damage.

 

 

Upgrade specifics :

 

All upgrades that allow to have "one more up at a time" go away and are replaced by something else.

What exactly ? It's not decided.

 

 

Results :

 

No more instagib. Even for scouts.

 

But speaking of scouts, every combination of mines will result in them losing at least 600 hull damage... which is huge for them.

They'll have their retaliation window, but with the Bomber's inherent tankiness, it shouldn't be a problem... And doesn't remove the possibility of po(o)ping a mine on them, and kill them in a very short frametime (2-3s) because they got hit by explosion of a previoulsy set mine and are finished by the fresh ones.

 

But for Strikes, however, only a combiniation of old and fresh (conc+seismic) mines can potentially kill them almost instantly.

Beside this particular situation (which also need particualr choice of component on the Strike side) their retaliation window is guaranteed.

 

[Nemarus]

I disagree with this suggestion. It will be mostly ineffective at helping strikes.

 

Why ? Because most of the time, mines are launched/triggered altogether to pack the maximum punch.

 

Would Strikes be able to withstand that better ? No. Strikes have averagely around 1700 shields per arc.

Taking at least 2600 damage will leave them at around 400 hull points left... Which is the same amount of HP than before. And it would be worst as you'd not even have the shields left.

 

Strikes can have very strong shields with Directional shields ? Yes, in theory.

 

Strikes that use Distortion or Quick-charge shields are not building to withstand mines, and should not be able to do so.

 

Directional Shields has an inherent capacity boost and a 3 second decrease in recharge time. The math I provided has nothing to do with angling shields in either direction--the math was assuming arcs were evenly balanced.

 

Here's a T1 Strike using Directional Shields and a Large Reactor to get 2520 shields per arc.

 

Here's a T2 Strike using Directional Shields and Engine-to-Shield Converter (which also has an inherent capacity bonus) to get 2430 shields per arc.

 

Here's a T3 Strike using Directional Shields, Engine-to-Shield Converter and Large Reactor to get 2790 shields per arc.

 

Using Charged Plating instead of Directional Shields, any of these Strikes would get an additional 540 shields per arc (but would then be vulnerable to 20% Bleedthrough).

 

So yes, if you actually build for shields, you can withstand 2600 damage in a volley.

[Armonddd]

I reject the idea that anything should be a hard counter to anything, where "hard counter" means "you have an extremely low chance to beat me given equal skill and neutral conditions". I think that the base problem -- scouts being far too good at dogfighting -- should be addressed, preferably with nerfs to BLC, burst cooldowns, and the delta between speccing for engine power (which gives you nearly infinite boost time) versus relying primarily on base mobility (which is too low for a melee class to do its job).

 

But, as usual, Nem, your suggestions are very effective at what they're intended to do.

[Altheran]

Strikes that use Distortion or Quick-charge shields are not building to withstand mines, and should not be able to do so.

 

Directional Shields has an inherent capacity boost and a 3 second decrease in recharge time. The math I provided has nothing to do with angling shields in either direction--the math was assuming arcs were evenly balanced.

 

Here's a T1 Strike using Directional Shields and a Large Reactor to get 2520 shields per arc.

 

Here's a T2 Strike using Directional Shields and Engine-to-Shield Converter (which also has an inherent capacity bonus) to get 2430 shields per arc.

 

Here's a T3 Strike using Directional Shields, Engine-to-Shield Converter and Large Reactor to get 2790 shields per arc.

 

Using Charged Plating instead of Directional Shields, any of these Strikes would get an additional 540 shields per arc (but would then be vulnerable to 20% Bleedthrough).

 

So yes, if you actually build for shields, you can withstand 2600 damage in a volley.

(Cynical mode ON)

So that's your conception of making Strikes viable ? Full shields or die like a dog.

 

Okay, noted.

 

I should have missed the memo where the strike have moved from being all-purpose to shield tank.

(Cynical mode OFF)

 

More seriously, it's fine that one Strike build is bad at withstanding big chunks of damage because of regeneration. It's not when he gets trivially instantaneously obliterated regardless of him being inherently more resistant.

It's not because he's leaning towards scouts tools that he deserves to die like one... Because you know, he'll never be one.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Altheran

[Nemarus]

(Cynical mode ON)

So that's your conception of making Strikes viable ? Full shields or die like a dog.

 

Okay, noted.

 

I should have missed the memo where the strike have moved from being all-purpose to shield tank.

(Cynical mode OFF)

 

More seriously, it's fine that one Strike build is bad at withstanding big chunks of damage because of regeneration. It's not when he gets trivially instantaneously obliterated regardless of him being inherently more resistant.

It's not because he's leaning towards scouts tools that he deserves to die like one... Because you know, he'll never be one.

 

If a Strike nerfs its own defenses to the point where they are barely distinguishable from a Scout's, then there is no way to make it so a Strike is able to survive mines but a Scout is not.

 

Also, you are forgetting EMP Missile. If you hit a Bomber with EMP Missile first, then it's only going to be dealing 1500 damage per volley. Then any Strike can get up close without worrying about severe/any hull damage. This is another significant improvement over the current situation.

 

Of course, taking EMP Missile means you are taking one less anti-starfighter weapon.

 

So basically you have four options as a Strike:

 

Option 1) Pure anti-starfighter with dogfighting missiles and lighter shields

 

Option 2) Hybrid with EMP Missile and lighter shields

 

Option 3) Hybrid with anti-starfighter missiles and heavy shields

 

Option 4) Pure anti-bomber with EMP Missile and heavy shields

 

Options 2-4 will all be viable anti-bomber builds. Option 4 will be the best one, but will be less useful against more nimble ships.

 

I don't know about you, but the above suite of options, with varying viability for different roles, seems exactly what a Strike is meant to be.

[Altheran]

If a Strike nerfs its own defenses to the point where they are barely distinguishable from a Scout's, then there is no way to make it so a Strike is able to survive mines but a Scout is not.

 

Also, you are forgetting EMP Missile. If you hit a Bomber with EMP Missile first, then it's only going to be dealing 1500 damage per volley. Then any Strike can get up close without worrying about severe/any hull damage. This is another significant improvement over the current situation.

 

Of course, taking EMP Missile means you are taking one less anti-starfighter weapon.

 

So basically you have four options as a Strike:

 

Option 1) Pure anti-starfighter with dogfighting missiles and lighter shields

 

Option 2) Hybrid with EMP Missile and lighter shields

 

Option 3) Hybrid with anti-starfighter missiles and heavy shields

 

Option 4) Pure anti-bomber with EMP Missile and heavy shields

 

Options 2-4 will all be viable anti-bomber builds. Option 4 will be the best one, but will be less useful against more nimble ships.

 

I don't know about you, but the above suite of options, with varying viability for different roles, seems exactly what a Strike is meant to be.

Barely distinguishable from a Scout ? Because having 50% more hull and shields doesn't seem enough to justify his survival to you ?

 

50% is huge. But he pays this with less fire power, maneuverability, speed... Less everything else.

If you don't allow his survivability to matter, you're denying him his right to exist.

It would be somewhat acceptable if the said dogfighting Strike, would somehow a kind of super scout, or if were to counter someone, hence needing someone countering him.

But fact is he's not that kind of ship. He counters no-one, and so shouldn't be countered.

 

I forgot EMP missile ? Yes and no.

Yes I didn't take EMP into account. But I'm considering Strikes as all-purpose ships. If I take EMP, I'm specializing into fighting Bombers, and I'm no longer an all-purpose ship. The Pike can manage somehow to remain "all-purpose" but that's all. A Clarion using it loses the few adaptability it still had. A Starguard can't even dream of using it.

So, in my opinion, EMP is a definite no when determining if a ship is neutral balanced against a Bomber.

 

But you know what ? I'm not in the mood to explain the philosophical and mechanical reasons why all strikes should be able to stand their own and how.

So, I'll just let you things to think about :

- Do you think you're supposed to reach points with full shields ?

- How do you think a Strike will perform if he only has half shields ?

- How will perform two bombers against everything else ?

 

I know you're not stupid and you'll realize that what you're doing is only allow one Strike build to perform against one Bomber. You'll see that it wouldn't solve the issue where a minimal amount of bombers will wipe everything.

 

And if you are still unsure about it... Just try Concussion Mine again. They're not very good in first seconds of a fight because you can't trigger them as long as you've not spawned two of them, but once it's done they're fine to kill things. You'll realize very soon that turning all mines into Concussion with a 20-50% buff will just be pure madness.

[Ramalina]

So Nem, here's a potentially relevant question about this proposal.

 

Why would the strike want to get close enough to a minelayer to eat a volley of mines?

 

With scouts there's a good answer, the majority of their weapons need to be that close in order to function at all.

 

With strikes, as long as charged plating is still relatively common in minelayer builds there's not that much reason to get close in the first place. All of the weapons that strikes have that are good at dealing with armor are bad at dealing with close range fights.

 

From a strike pilot vantage, this sort of like the difference between having the neighbor up the street let their dog poop on your lawn and having the neighbor down the street let their dog poop on your lawn.

 

Letting all three strikes have short range blasters with armor piercing, that would be appealing if we're supposed to go after bombers at close range. Actually, if the bomber has charged plating, that's pretty much a prerequisite for going after bombers at close range with a reasonable expectation of success.

[Nemarus]

Why would the strike want to get close enough to a minelayer to eat a volley of mines?

 

 

It's a valid question. Here's how my thought process went:

 

1) Currently Strikes have the option of trying to engage a Bomber at range with Quads or HLC (HLC preferred because it cuts through Charged Plating)

 

2) Unfortunately, from range it's too difficult to maintain line of sight long enough to deal significant damage to the Bomber

 

3) Engaging the Bomber at short range with a more maneuverable ship, with high angle weapon such as Burst, Rapids, or Lights, lets you get continuous line of sight and deal continuous damage.

 

4) Scouts have BLC, but we don't want them to rule Domination like before, so we need mines to have enough teeth to keep them away.

 

5) Strikes can have Rapids or Lights and strong shields. So let's change mine damage to respect shields. Then Strikes are uniquely suited to close in on a Bomber and endure mines long enough to deliver sustained damage. A single Imperium with Rapids and Repair Probes can already put significant pressure on a single Minelayer if it can maintain EMP suppression of Interdiction Mine.

 

6) What about Charged Plating? This definitely reduces the speed at which you can destroy a Bomber with Rapids or Lights. So I'd imagine that a Shielded Strike vs. a Bomber with Charged Plating would involve intermittent windows of engagement--Strike engages with Rapids/Lights while Charged Plating is inactive, and its shields protect it from mines. When Charged Plating comes up, the Strike retreats to let its shields recharge.

 

I'll be honest--it may be that this would not result in a superior situation to a Strike taking potshots from range with HLC's.

 

Alas, either way, my suggestions are moot now, at least with regard to them being a buff to Strikes. The new Type 3 Gunship has BLC's, EMP Missile, Directional Shield, Reactor, and high base shields. It would be the new ship of choice for Bombers equipped with my mines, not Strikes.

 

Even without my suggestions, the T3 Gunship becomes the best non-Minelayer counter to a Seismic/Interdiction Minelayer. The T3 Gunship can use its railgun to remove all turrets, use the railgun to soften the Bomber's shields and confine it to one corner of the satellite, approach and hit a mine with an EMP Missile (disabling Interdiction Mine), then kill the Bomber rapidly with BLC's. At worst, the Gunship eats a single Seismic Mine, bringing its hull from 1250 down to 667. A fair trade, and something no other single ship can accomplish.