Removing the missile break on DF

[tommmsunb]

I also have re-evaluated my position after thinking about this. DF could lose the missile break, so long as they substantially upgrade it as a defensive ability, which likely means more evasion. So long as it is still a good defensive ability I have no issues. Removing the missile break and leaving it like that would gut the ability.

 

Another possibility is that (like someone else suggested in another post) DF could stay largely the same and be double blind, meaning that while people cannot hit you with lasers or missiles, you also cannot fire out of the bubble for the duration. This would keep it from being used as an offensive ability.

 

If the above was done I would suggest having a missile lockout for the duration, in addition to the missile break.

 

My worry here is that scouts losing the second missile break will be dead meat (after using missile break). Without the second missile break, we would likely spend twice as much time LOS'ing around objects to break missile locks (which is rather boring if you ask me) and also catch 2x the missiles (which with our armor means a lot of deaths)

 

I understand something needs to be done, and there are many options to pick and pull from. I just urge caution, scout are OP at the moment but pull the right twig out of the dam and kersploosh!

 

SO as to be clear I am saying:

 

Im fine leaving it as it (I don't think its "that" necessary for wide sweeping nerfs to DF, but if it must happen then...)

 

Im fine with them tweaking evasion down (or removing it)

 

Im fine with them removing missile break (assuming it gets an appropriate defensive buff)

 

I am fine with leaving it as is and adding a double blind debuff, and a missile lockout for the duration

 

(I am not fine with a mix of the above, these are all stand alone solutions)

 

 

From this it looks like distortion field needs to be splint into 2 different components, one for missile breaking and one for evading. Currently evasion is arguably too good against people who don't know how to deal with it, and missile break is arguably too good against people who don't know how to deal with it.

 

The problem I see is simple, these are against people who don't know how to or don't want to deal with it. It would go a decent way to lower the difficulty curve in the game were it split, however, that being said, you have to ask what the choice would be and who you would use this against.

 

The way I see it, gunships inherently have trouble dealing with evasion, and people who are bad have problems dealing with judging when to fire their missiles.

 

I'm not sure I want to balance that way.

[SammyGStatus]

From this it looks like distortion field needs to be splint into 2 different components, one for missile breaking and one for evading. Currently evasion is arguably too good against people who don't know how to deal with it, and missile break is arguably too good against people who don't know how to deal with it.

 

The problem I see is simple, these are against people who don't know how to or don't want to deal with it. It would go a decent way to lower the difficulty curve in the game were it split, however, that being said, you have to ask what the choice would be and who you would use this against.

 

The way I see it, gunships inherently have trouble dealing with evasion, and people who are bad have problems dealing with judging when to fire their missiles.

 

I'm not sure I want to balance that way.

 

Highlighted the important parts. For the GS part, losing a 2nd missile break would be ridiculous. Cluster missiles = hi bye dead in 1-2-3. For scouts, they have the maneuverability to avoid the missile locks a bit easier, but I don't completely agree with taking it away from scouts. This seems to be more learning the precise time to fire your missiles / how to engage than DF's missile break being OP. I would appreciate a missile break on all shield components. Missiles have become an integral part of the meta

[Kuciwalker]

It will sadly never happen, but I do think this reveals that no shield component should have a missile break, and every ship (except maybe bombers or something?) should have a "countermeasures" button on some cooldown that acts about identically to the dfield missile break, a little like in Freelancer. Edited May 15, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[SammyGStatus]

It will sadly never happen, but I do think this reveals that no shield component should have a missile break, and every ship (except maybe bombers or something?) should have a "countermeasures" button on some cooldown that acts about identically to the dfield missile break, a little like in Freelancer.

 

Viable alternative for sure. Give everyone a MB and remove it from specific components so the components that don't have a missile break will get a fair shake

[Kalphitis]

I would appreciate a missile break on all shield components.

 

Ughh, no, that would be terrible. Would be better off just removing missiles from the game completely and making all laser attacks more powerful.

[Zoom_VI]

Ughh, no, that would be terrible. Would be better off just removing missiles from the game completely and making all laser attacks more powerful.

 

I could totally get behind a missile-less GSF

[SammyGStatus]

Ughh, no, that would be terrible. Would be better off just removing missiles from the game completely and making all laser attacks more powerful.

 

As is, you lock players into choosing the D.Field. Missiles aren't going away, so that suggestion doesn't seem realistic

Edited May 15, 2014 by SammyGStatus

[Altheran]

I could totally get behind a missile-less GSF

 

You mean a Strike-less GSF...

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I could totally get behind a missile-less GSF

 

That would be terrible. It's taking away a huge part of the GSF playstyle. The game is a whole lot more interesting now that you can't ignore missiles so much because your break is going to recharge so fast.

[Verain]

I'm generally in favor of the missile mechanic. It's noob-friendly- anyone can understand the idea and begin applying missile locks immediately- but scales well with experience, as a veteran will be able to land way more missiles.

 

It also rewards situational awareness- good strike pilots will immediately begin locking onto anyone who used a missile break prematurely or poorly.

[Zoom_VI]

That would be terrible. It's taking away a huge part of the GSF playstyle. The game is a whole lot more interesting now that you can't ignore missiles so much because your break is going to recharge so fast.

 

I think it would be better, I personally favor more twitch-based mechanics, and lock-on weapons are anything but twitchy.

[tunewalker]

Ok had further thoughts on this. Going to list what I feel are the Pro's and Con's of them doing this

 

 

Pro's

 

1. Component normalization. Other shield components become more of an option

 

2. Brings the gap between new players and geared players down smaller as now both only have 1 missile break. (this is a good thing because while we want new players to have something to work for we dont want them feeling useless)

 

3. Buffs strike fighters which are currently seen as the worst in the Meta Right now especially T1 and T2 which are deffinately the weakest in the Meta right now. Having extremely Niche roles in both TDM and Dom maps. To the degree where an optimal team build for 8v8 would likely not have 1 in either and an Optimal team build for 12v12 might have 1 or 2 of either but not 1 or 2 of both. (optimal team build means if one person could choose what every one on the team flew for the most effective combination of ships and synergy, these ships would not be in it. I am aware people do well in them, I am one of them. That doesnt make them in a good spot right now.)

 

4. Nerfs Type 1 and Type 2 scouts which are currently the strongest ships in the Meta Right now.

 

5. Give's every type of Gunship a different Role, Currently the only Gunship that is good is the Type 1 as it has the best survival and the strongest sniping capabilities. With this change the Type 1 would have the Strongest sniping, but the worst tools to deal with some one closing on them. The Type 2, would have the next best sniping but would be slightly better at dealing with closing targets thanks to missile locks (which are now actually threatening). The Type 3 would have the worst sniping, but would have the best ability to handle close in targets.

 

 

6. Semi-pro It nerfs the Type 1 Gunship. This ship is still one of the strongest ships in the game thus nerfing it to me is not a bad thing. Though it REALLY doesnt need to be hit hard, its more some of the other ships need help. This does just that. It hits it and helps the other ships, but it does not change its ability to lock people down with Ion or deal good damage with slug its still a strong sniper. It would force these to be on the move more when some one got on them effectively turning thier damage to next to nothing when they have a target on them.

 

7. Semi-pro I feel it would increase Scout time to kill as they would be more fearful of missile locks, meaning their burst isnt as OP as it is currently.

 

 

8. Semi-Pro I feel its possible that the TTK would go up because of the above.

 

 

 

Cons

 

1. Type 1 Gunships would have survival on par with the Current Type 2 that no one flies or truly considers Viable right now. The easiest solution would bring BR back down to a 15 second CD while keeping the energy cost higher then the other maneuvers thus helping GS's a little.

 

 

2. Semi-con The Type 2 strike MIGHT be OP. (I say might because I have successfully beat Type 2 strikes in a Star gaurd avoiding all their missiles with 1 maneuver and LoSing as well as Bombers have been able to stay alive against them with Pure Losing and no Missile break so clearly not the end of the world)

 

 

3. Semi-con TTK Might go down as strike fighters burst damage is increased thanks to long lock missiles actually having an effect on whats going on.

 

 

Edit: I may add more Pro's and Con's as I think of them. I will list anything I feel is wishy washy (as in argueably good, bad or might not actually going to happen just a possibility) as semi pro or semi con.

 

Edit 2: Semi-con cluster missiles might do to much DPS.

 

 

Edit 3: Because I didnt say anything about my conclusion of pro's con's weighing. I honestly think the pro's far out way the con's. It has 5 HARD pro's 1 Hard Con with equal number of potential soft Pros/cons. Obviously the right one would need something else if it lost its missile dodge and a +% to evasion while ability is active is all that would be needed.

Edited May 19, 2014 by tunewalker

[Kalphitis]

Mostly agree with all your points.

 

The T2 scout will not become OP. It is more likely that cluster missiles will become OP, but that is also a silly argument imo.

Edited May 18, 2014 by Kalphitis

[Ramalina]

Mostly agree with all your points.

 

The T2 scout will not become OP. It is more likely that cluster missiles will become OP, but that is also a silly argument imo.

 

Whether a silly argument or not, it's an issue that could easily be dealt with by adjusting either ammo capacity or reload time on clusters if they became a problem.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

I think it would be better, I personally favor more twitch-based mechanics, and lock-on weapons are anything but twitchy.

 

They do encourage a lot more smart movement and use of cover, which is part of the twitchy effect you're wanting. They also add a larger dimension beyond just shooting lasers and railguns (and mines, I guess). They're a pretty classic part of dogfighting in a lot of games, too, and there is skill involved. It takes a lot more work to land a missile on a target than it does to toss out a mine or a drone.

 

I don't care for clusters much because of how little skill they take, actually, and the game doesn't help with this. I obviously didn't have a stopwatch going, but I got clusters that locked on me in less than a second a few times last night. I'm sure it's due to server lag, etc., but I never get that fast of a lock with my clusters when I use them. If they took a little more work, I wouldn't mind them as much, though.

 

But regardless, taking away missiles would remove a huge facet of the game. Even if that's not how you prefer to fly, I can't see wanting to take it away. I don't fly bombers at all, but I like the dimension they add (even if I think more than interdiction mines could use some adjusting).

[tunewalker]

Mostly agree with all your points.

 

The T2 scout will not become OP. It is more likely that cluster missiles will become OP, but that is also a silly argument imo.

 

It was not the T2 Scout that I said MIGHT become OP. I said the Type 2 STRIKE might become OP (duel Missile ship) but I doubt it, I have avoided a Pike's missiles in a stargaurd before so.

[Kalphitis]

Yea that's what I meant to say - typo

[tunewalker]

Yea that's what I meant to say - typo

 

Oh OK. and honestly the whole "clusters OP" I am not sure that is true either. Right now they are the only useful missile so for the most part yes 1 more of them will land, BUT so will other missiles. I just dont think that would change much.

 

Edit I will list it as semi-con.

Edited May 19, 2014 by tunewalker

[Gavin_Kelvar]

From this it looks like distortion field needs to be splint into 2 different components, one for missile breaking and one for evading.

 

Maybe use the T3 options to effectively break it into two components?

 

For example, start by removing the passive evasion and turning that into the current shield ability (the ability has to do something but the evasion can't be high enough from the start that the missile break is still appealing or the evasion is such a huge buff we go back to 2.5 problems). T3 left buffs the ability's evasion to the total amount we currently have; T3 right gives you a missile break with a tiny amount of evasion.

 

Another (less dramatic change) would be to heavily nerf the duration to make the T3 left option useful again. I think a lot of the problem came from the 2.6 buff to the duration from 3 seconds to 6 seconds by default. While people generally took the T3 left because 6 seconds of evasion was so powerful after 2.6 hit 9 seconds of evasion wasn't nearly as good as 6 seconds of evasion + missile break.

 

So if they nerfed it back to 3 seconds duration (could be lower like 2 seconds duration with a buff to T3 left so with that option taken it still lasts 6 seconds) that might, especially for evasion reliant scouts make the T3 left option much more appealing. Personally I think this nerf would be most doable without hurting GS. Since they need the missile break more than the evasion having a shorter amount of evasion isn't going to hurt them as much but for scouts that rely on evasion a lot suddenly having the evasion duration nerfed will really hurt. And if a scout takes the T3 missile break by lowering the duration significantly it will grant a shorter duration of protection from an enemy's guns.

[Ryuku-sama]

Quit the 13 year old crap. That would make you 17

 

13??? I gave you 10 Love you too Rumina...

[Fractalsponge]

Or just remove dfield from T2 scouts. Then the choice between the scouts would be: if you want max survivability, take a T1, but if you want the extra firepower from BLC/quads/cluster, you trade your 2nd missile break option and some passive evasion. Replace it with feedback shield or something like that. You balance T2 scouts while isolating the effect of that from other classes. I personally think evasion in general needs another balance pass tbh, but this would be a start.

 

T2 scouts have always been the most overtuned ship, though it was arguably in a tie for this with the T1 gunship until the barrel roll nerf. I say this with almost 500 matches in my Sting. There's a problem when almost every top pilot defaults to Stingfire when matches get seriously competitive. Nothing else has the combination of firepower, mobility, and survivability in the current meta.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Or just remove dfield from T2 scouts. Then the choice between the scouts would be: if you want max survivability, take a T1, but if you want the extra firepower from BLC/quads/cluster, you trade your 2nd missile break option and some passive evasion. Replace it with feedback shield or something like that. You balance T2 scouts while isolating the effect of that from other classes. I personally think evasion in general needs another balance pass tbh, but this would be a start.

 

T2 scouts have always been the most overtuned ship, though it was arguably in a tie for this with the T1 gunship until the barrel roll nerf. I say this with almost 500 matches in my Sting. There's a problem when almost every top pilot defaults to Stingfire when matches get seriously competitive. Nothing else has the combination of firepower, mobility, and survivability in the current meta.

 

I agree, evasion should still be looked at. While it's not as bad as it was I do feel that it's too powerful compared to other options out there.

 

I also feel that the scout favoritism leads to a lot of problems in domination. Because they're such good interceptors when you run into a situation where a fighter like a striker might be more useful (taking a sat from a bomber for example) a team has a lot of difficulty because they're too scout heavy.

 

While I'd be ok with removing DField from Type 2 scouts I think that'd cause a lot of problems since they'd have to figure out some sort of req refund (unlike other cases of nerfs that adjust a component without outright removal I think the flat out removal of something requires a refund). DField always seemed like a poorly balanced/designed component since it was always the BiS for the ships that could equip it.

[Pilgrim_Grey]

Or just remove dfield from T2 scouts. Then the choice between the scouts would be: if you want max survivability, take a T1, but if you want the extra firepower from BLC/quads/cluster, you trade your 2nd missile break option and some passive evasion. Replace it with feedback shield or something like that. You balance T2 scouts while isolating the effect of that from other classes. I personally think evasion in general needs another balance pass tbh, but this would be a start.

 

T2 scouts have always been the most overtuned ship, though it was arguably in a tie for this with the T1 gunship until the barrel roll nerf. I say this with almost 500 matches in my Sting. There's a problem when almost every top pilot defaults to Stingfire when matches get seriously competitive. Nothing else has the combination of firepower, mobility, and survivability in the current meta.

 

My only worry with that is it is pretty extreme--they haven't removed components from a ship yet (unless they have somewhere in beta), just adjusted how the components worked. And it makes sense why, removing a component entirely would cause inevitable player angst that's higher than adjusting a component. I don't know if Tier 2's are so overpowered that they're going to see it as needed, either.

 

I dunno. I know I'm sick of how many tier 2's I see sit and joust, too. BLC's and D-field just make it too possible, no matter how dumb the idea should be in a dogfighting game or movie. "Wow, look at Darth Vader sit in one spot and use his BLC's on those Rebels! Awesome!"

 

Scouts should be wanting to jig to the sides, not take on a strike, bomber, (and still a little) gunship head on.

 

I don't know what the solution is, either. Yours seems a little extreme (or more extreme than they're likely to go), and BLCs on their own aren't the only part of the problem. Really, the problem was at the drawing board when they put so much offense into a scout ship. Now... I dunno. It's probably tweaking lots of little thing. One thing I've always wished for is that our defense would go down when we were at a full stop. Wouldn't change every encounter or all jousting, but it would make "turreting" more of a risk.