Six (6) sensible and simple suggestions others have made which warrant consideration

[Nemarus]

I often make big colorful posts promoting my own (sometimes sweeping) balance suggestions, but I thought I'd take a moment to call out some really elegant and simple changes that others have suggested, which I believe would have a broad and positive impact on the game.

 

1) Change Armor Piercing to be 50% instead of 100%. This would make DR builds have at least some effect against all opponents. The one and only weapon which might deserve to keep 100% Armor Piercing would be the venerable Proton Torpedo. Charged Plating might need a slight duration reduction with this change.

 

2) Unify missile/torpedo reload time to ~5.5 seconds across all missiles/torpedoes. This would reduce Cluster Spam and increase the viability of Ion Missile and EMP Missile. Sabotage Probe maybe should not be included in this group?

 

3) Make EMP Missile disable Secondary Weapons instead of #1 System Ability. This would make EMP Missile much more universally useful defensive weapon against all opponents while keeping its utility against Bombers relatively the same. It would fit even better with the T3 Scout and Strike.

 

4) Increase rate of fire of BLC's by 20-40, while maintaining their current DPS. This would make them slightly less bursty, while still keeping their flavor intact.

 

5) Remove Armor Piercing from BLC's. This would make Scouts' only Armor Piercing weapon Rocket Pods, and would thus increase Strike, Gunship and Bomber durability against Scouts and make DR builds more attractive.

 

6) Make mines not deal damage when destroyed by weapons fire or parent Bomber death. Destroying mines and Bombers should be a good thing, not something that could potentially kill your teammates.

 

All of these suggestions came from others, not me. And to my knowledge, I haven't seen substantial resistance against any of these suggestions. They all seem sensible and relatively cheap to implement, yet their impact would be quite broad and (I believe) improve quality of life for veterans and new players alike.

[DamascusAdontise]

(sorry cut up your OP a bit)

 

1) Change Armor Piercing to be 50% instead of 100%. This would make DR builds have at least some effect against all opponents. The one and only weapon which might deserve to keep 100% Armor Piercing would be the venerable Proton Torpedo. Charged Plating might need a slight duration reduction with this change.

 

I actually like this idea, I have always had an issue with DR builds being completely negated by armor piercing. IMO this would give a slight boost to DR heavy chassis / builds while giving a moderate nerf to AP weapons.

 

2) Unify missile/torpedo reload time to ~5.5 seconds across all missiles/torpedoes. This would reduce Cluster Spam and increase the viability of Ion Missile and EMP Missile. Sabotage Probe maybe should not be included in this group?

 

I don't really like this idea (because it requires re-tuning of all missiles effected except maybe concusion.) I have at times hit someone with 3-4 clusters and have them walk away alive, the damage is low and the reload is fast, IMO its intentional and works fine. I am however in favor of reducing the reload time for proton, ion, and perhaps other missiles that I am too tired to remember right now, some of those are far too long especially ion.

 

The issue IMO is not with all missile reload times, but just a few of them. Normalizing all IMO would require a lot of work and rebalance on missiles and there is no guarantee that survivable versions will remain for all of them.

 

3) Make EMP Missile disable Secondary Weapons instead of #1 System Ability. This would make EMP Missile much more universally useful defensive weapon against all opponents while keeping its utility against Bombers relatively the same. It would fit even better with the T3 Scout and Strike.

 

I like this assuming we change "instead" into "in addition to" EMP is very weak right now and having it disable secondary weapons and the system // engine we can choose from now would make it much more versatile / useful.

 

4) Increase rate of fire of BLC's by 20-40, while maintaining their current DPS. This would make them slightly less bursty, while still keeping their flavor intact.

 

I would love to see some focused testing on how this would affect the weapon. Anything that could be perceived as "buffing" bursts will come across to jeers. If this was sufficient to tone down some burstiness though, then that would be something to see on test.

 

5) Remove Armor Piercing from BLC's. This would make Scouts' only Armor Piercing weapon Rocket Pods, and would thus increase Strike, Gunship and Bomber durability against Scouts and make DR builds more attractive.

 

Not a fan of this. If the issue is AP and scouts then this will do nothing to help. What will happen is people switching components to get the exact same effect (and possibly even worse than now since pods pack a PUNCH) The proposed nerf to AP above is a much better way to approach this.

 

6) Make mines not deal damage when destroyed by weapons fire or parent Bomber death. Destroying mines and Bombers should be a good thing, not something that could potentially kill your teammates.

 

Agreed, unless it becomes a component upgrade or a specific and intentional addition to a mine. All mines should not blow up and do damage upon being destroyed or bomber parent death IMO.

Edited May 29, 2014 by DamascusAdontise

[Kuciwalker]

I would love to see some focused testing on how this would affect the weapon. Anything that could be perceived as "buffing" bursts will come across to jeers. If this was sufficient to tone down some burstiness though, then that would be something to see on test.

 

Increase ROF with constant DPS is a straight up nerf because it reduces the front-loaded damage. Anyone who thinks it is a buff doesn't understand math and their opinion isn't useful.

 

Not a fan of this. If the issue is AP and scouts then this will do nothing to help. What will happen is people switching components to get the exact same effect (and possibly even worse than now since pods pack a PUNCH) The proposed nerf to AP above is a much better way to approach this.

 

1. People already use rockets.
   
2. Removing an armor pen option makes scouts strictly worse at penetrating armor. There is no way it makes them better.
   

Edited May 29, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Loc_n_lol]

About the only thing I don't entirely agree with is the BLC nerf.

I don't disagree that the burst can get a bit out of hand, especially when crits get involved, but overall I'd like to see them keep good burst but have low dps (right now they have high burst yet still competitive dps), so more likely a rate of fire reduction than an increase. Increasing rate of fire makes them more like other lasers. More balanced maybe but also more bland.

 

Well, anyway, good thread. I approve. I hope the powers that be will take note.

[Slivovidze]

Captain Pessimist arrives.

 

Nemarus, you again spend valuable time composing threads like this. Your ideas are all viable and would definitely make the game better, but as we know, the chance of any sensible tweaks brought up by you being applied is so close to zero that I can't even see it. Because they are HAPPY with the state GSF is in.

 

Also, I think that GSF has much bigger problem than some balancing. We need more pilots. Balancing the game for mastered ships will not exactly keep newbies in. I am putting my hopes on the double req coming. Honestly, I'd even say, give the newbz OP ship so they can fly it and maybe have fun while the rest of us would have their favourites. (I realize how bad idea it is, I just want to point out that low population is bigger problem than some minor imbalance)

 

Captain Pessimist departs.

 

You may want to spend more time having fun in the game. Myself, I stopped trying to achieve greatness. Instead, I fell in love with the command ships, I like to troll enemy with them. It is unbelievable how long you can evade a flock of FotM ships in a Spearpoint, and it is unbelievable how long you can literally facetank that same flock with a Clarion. At the same time, it is absolutely hilarious and tons of fun. I suggest you try stuff like that (if you haven't already). Because when I go to bed after playing, I am full of awesomeness, and not disgusted by the imbalance. I suspect that you are the other guy who would love to have fun but flies a Sting or Flashfire just to be competitive.

This ain't no hate post, I agree with you in most points and understand you, I just feel a tad sorry for how much effort you kinda waste....

Edited May 29, 2014 by Slivovidze

[bromotion]

Increase ROF with constant DPS is a straight up nerf because it reduces the front-loaded damage. Anyone who thinks it is a buff doesn't understand math and their opinion isn't useful.

 

I think you misinterpreted what the OP was saying. What he wants is for the DPS to be held the same, but for rate of fire to increase. In other words, more shots per second, less damage per shot. What you are describing is keeping the damage per shot the same and increasing fire rate, which would indeed be a huge buff to BLC.

 

I think that the original proposition is a great idea. It would reward players for holding their blasters on target over time, as opposed to just firing off quick bursts as you meet head to head. Unless you're using the burst laser, which I think should just be kept as is.

[Nethgilne]

As someone that's started playing around with EMP missiles, I like suggestion 3 a lot. They're nice to have when a node is mined up and absolutely useless any other time.

[Kuciwalker]

I think you misinterpreted what the OP was saying. What he wants is for the DPS to be held the same, but for rate of fire to increase. In other words, more shots per second, less damage per shot. What you are describing is keeping the damage per shot the same and increasing fire rate, which would indeed be a huge buff to BLC.

 

No, I understood that perfectly and you are misreading me.

[Nemarus]

Captain Pessimist arrives.

 

Nemarus, you again spend valuable time composing threads like this. Your ideas are all viable and would definitely make the game better, but as we know, the chance of any sensible tweaks brought up by you being applied is so close to zero that I can't even see it. Because they are HAPPY with the state GSF is in.

 

Also, I think that GSF has much bigger problem than some balancing. We need more pilots. Balancing the game for mastered ships will not exactly keep newbies in. I am putting my hopes on the double req coming. Honestly, I'd even say, give the newbz OP ship so they can fly it and maybe have fun while the rest of us would have their favourites. (I realize how bad idea it is, I just want to point out that low population is bigger problem than some minor imbalance)

 

Captain Pessimist departs.

 

 

 

 

As I said, these are ideas aren't mine--they were all suggested by others. And I think a lot of them would have ripple effects which would improve quality of life for not only veterans in mastered craft, but also newbies in starter ships.

 

Each of these changes moves the game toward a more rationale and intuitive place. Here's how they map to "common sense"...

 

1) Change Armor Piercing to be 50% instead of 100%. If I choose to focus on damage reduction, I can expect some extra resilience against every attack in the game.

 

2) Unify missile/torpedo reload time to ~5.5 seconds across all missiles/torpedoes. If someone shoots a Cluster Missile at me and I burn an engine-evade to avoid it, that buys me time to do something before another Cluster Missile is shot at me by the same person. OR if I choose Proton Torpedo or EMP Missile as my secondary weapon, I can expect to fire it pretty often, and to be bound primarily by lock-on time and narrow firing arc.

 

3) Make EMP Missile disable Secondary Weapons instead of #1 System Ability. If I choose EMP Missile, it will be tactically useful against all ships (not just Bombers), even before I buy any upgrades.

 

4) Increase rate of fire of BLC's by 20-40, while maintaining their current DPS. BLC's are space shotguns that hit hard in a single hit--not so hard that I immediately take hull damage and am half dead, but hard enough that I'm exposed to other enemies and need to take defensive action.

 

5) Remove Armor Piercing from BLC's. If I fly a Scout I'm fast and maneuverable, but I'll have a harder time damaging heavily armored targets. If I want to attack heavily armored things, I should consider one of the other classes which have more armor-piercing firepower.

 

6) Make mines not deal damage when destroyed by weapons fire or parent Bomber death. That Bomber is putting out a lot of mines. It's a good thing that if I shoot mines before I trigger them, I take no damage. And if I kill the Bomber, I am rewarded for that by neutralizing all of its mines.

 

All of these changes make the game more intuitive, approachable, comprehendable, and accessible. They reduce the number of extremely specialized components and/or "trap components/builds". Conversely, these changes increase the number of broadly useful components, with their risks/rewards/tradeoffs being more intuitive and obvious to even new players.

 

You may want to spend more time having fun in the game. Myself, I stopped trying to achieve greatness. Instead, I fell in love with the command ships, I like to troll enemy with them. It is unbelievable how long you can evade a flock of FotM ships in a Spearpoint, and it is unbelievable how long you can literally facetank that same flock with a Clarion. At the same time, it is absolutely hilarious and tons of fun. I suggest you try stuff like that (if you haven't already). Because when I go to bed after playing, I am full of awesomeness, and not disgusted by the imbalance. I suspect that you are the other guy who would love to have fun but flies a Sting or Flashfire just to be competitive.

This ain't no hate post, I agree with you in most points and understand you, I just feel a tad sorry for how much effort you kinda waste....

 

I only post when I'm at work and can't play.

 

When I'm able to play, I play. And I also have been spending the bulk of my time (at least in Domination) in T3 Scout, T3 Strike, or T1 Strike. In TDM I'm in a T1 Scout or T1 Strike. I do well enough, even against "overpowered" ships, and the current state of balance causes me no agony. I know the counters, even the difficult ones. I write these posts not on behalf of myself, but because I'm much more concerned about GSF's accessibility and long-term survival.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Nemarus

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I often make big colorful posts promoting my own (sometimes sweeping) balance suggestions, but I thought I'd take a moment to call out some really elegant and simple changes that others have suggested, which I believe would have a broad and positive impact on the game.

 

1) Change Armor Piercing to be 50% instead of 100%. This would make DR builds have at least some effect against all opponents. The one and only weapon which might deserve to keep 100% Armor Piercing would be the venerable Proton Torpedo. Charged Plating might need a slight duration reduction with this change.

 

Personally I think HLC and Thermites should be added for the following reasons:

 

The Pike can equip Protons to have a weapon with maximum armor piercing to retain (mostly) full versatility against armored targets while having a second missile for dogfighting. In contrast if a Star Guard wants to retain full armor piercing they'd have to go with Proton Torpedoes at the cost of a dogfighting missile. IMO nerfing HLCs armor penetration could nerf the Star Guards to be less effective than a Pike against armored targets and I don't think it's a good idea to make starter ships potentially less effective than fleet req ships. By nerfing strike fighter's abilities to counter heavily armored targets it might in turn make it even harder to dislodge a bomber stacking DR (since scouts would become less helpful in bringing down a bomber strikers will have to pick up the slack so nerfing their ability to counter DR stacking builds will only hamper their ability to counter bombers which are already difficult to dislodge from a sat).

 

The armor piercing of Thermites is, I think, adequately countered by their lock on time, reload, and small firing cone. At least I would assume that's why it would be ok to keep 100% AP on protons. So I don't really see why it would be an adequate balance to protons AP but not thermites.

 

And finally: by leaving protons, thermites, and HLC untouched it will really help distinguish strike fighters from scouts. Scouts would become largely ineffective against armored targets by this nerf while strikers would retain their capabilities against armored targets. This would be a straightforward way for pilots to grasp the different roles scouts and strikes play (for dogfighting lightly armored targets = scout; for engaging heavily armored targets = strike). Nerfing everything across the board just keeps the current fuzzy line between scouts and strikers in place by not significantly distinguishing between a scout and striker's ability to deal with armored targets while making DR much more appealing. Nerfing weapons except those (primarily) used by strikers helps distinguish between the roles of scouts and strikers while still making DR much more appealing than it currently is.

 

1. People already use rockets.
   
2. Removing an armor pen option makes scouts strictly worse at penetrating armor. There is no way it makes them better.
   

 

Very much this. It would force battlescouts in particular to choose between a offensive build optimal for dogfighting lightly armored targets but ineffective against a DR stacking build (BLC, or any other blaster + clusters) or an offensive build with utility against armored targets at the price of not being an optimal dogfighting build (BLC/other blaster + pods). Currently they don't have to make that choice and can have (one) of the best dogfighting offensive builds without loosing much/any utility against DR stacking enemies.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[General_Brass]

1) Change Armor Piercing to be 50% instead of 100%. This would make DR builds have at least some effect against all opponents. The one and only weapon which might deserve to keep 100% Armor Piercing would be the venerable Proton Torpedo. Charged Plating might need a slight duration reduction with this change.

 

4) Increase rate of fire of BLC's by 20-40, while maintaining their current DPS. This would make them slightly less bursty, while still keeping their flavor intact.

 

5) Remove Armor Piercing from BLC's. This would make Scouts' only Armor Piercing weapon Rocket Pods, and would thus increase Strike, Gunship and Bomber durability against Scouts and make DR builds more attractive.

 

I read all of these as, some jerk in a scout is able to get on my rear at less than 500 meters and kill my gunship please stop him so I can go back to sniping noobs, or jeez I am such a horrible bomber pilot someone was able to kill my sats turrets and me by themselves.

 

2) Unify missile/torpedo reload time to ~5.5 seconds across all missiles/torpedoes. This would reduce Cluster Spam and increase the viability of Ion Missile and EMP Missile. Sabotage Probe maybe should not be included in this group?

 

Didn't comment on the thread about this, because I don't see it happening but there are plenty of reasons not to do this. Not the least is not everyone plays in premades and having a secondary weapon they can actually use in a one on one or one on two is important. So what I read this as is we were double teaming someone and had him spinning to try and shoot the bait but he was actually able to kill one of us with his weapons and then was able to go on and kill the chaser please stop that.

 

6) Make mines not deal damage when destroyed by weapons fire or parent Bomber death. Destroying mines and Bombers should be a good thing, not something that could potentially kill your teammates.

 

This isn't a big thing, but I have to ask, it's already more than easy enough to knock a bomber off a satellite just why should it be easier ?

Edited May 29, 2014 by General_Brass

[Altheran]

I disagree with most of the changes.

 

Your intents to solve some issues are fine, but I think the way you want to handle them are not.

 

For example, DR and armor penetration. Those who get the upgrade usually have it instead of a 16% increased hull damage. That is already a fair trade. Now it's true that the weapons that have it are usually so popular that DR builds are hardly viable. But why are they so popular since beginning although DR was already bad because Evasion was too good ? Because other weapons pale in comparison. Quad, Laser, almost all have been relatively bad. That's why cannons like Heavy are so popular.

Where we fundamentally disagree, is that while you want a nerf, I want a buff of alternatives.

 

Now, if you'd were to say that Charged Plating would still be useless against Armor Penetration, I'll say it would be true. But while you would have solved this particularity, you'd not have solved the part where it becomes godly when armor pen isn't here. And even with a duration reduction, this won't do. Pure immunity is poisonous. The fact that it increases DR has always been idiotic, and that's where you should look at, and try to solve both issues at once instead of doing it half-way.

 

That aside, if you were to limit that change to weapons that get it has baseline upgrades (T1-3), where improvements get usually weaker, it may be something that I would count as logical and understandable. Blind reduction of all upgrades is a no.

 

Now missiles... While it's true that missiles like Ion and EMP may be weak, it's not the CD reduction that will help them. Ion is weak because it almost never hit shields and end doing crappy damage CD has nothing to do with it. EMP suffers from weak results because of low damage and weak effect. Again CD has nothing to do with it.

 

However I may agree that the whole 11s they have may be too long, but I refuse a plain and blind normalization, considering that other weapons like torpedoes are already almost death sentence when hit with them, and improving them would be ridiculous.

Again instead of trying to solve particular issues, you're throwing everything, and try to redo the world of missiles.

 

And now the last part since I don't want to detail all of your points : BLC. Yeah, for once you try to not redo everything... But that's where you should. Cannons are grossly imbalanced. Beside Light and Heavy, every other cannon is not where they should be. BLC is too strong, QLC is barely ok and suffer from unwarranted energy draw, LC is bad, RfLC is utterly bad. If there's a reform to do, it's here, not on missiles or the armor penetration areas.

 

 

I'm happy to see someone seeing the problems, and trying to solve them... But I'm really disappointed as in my opinion, you're going to do things wrong.

[Nemarus]

I read all of these as, some jerk in a scout is able to get on my rear at less than 500 meters and kill my gunship please stop him so I can go back to sniping noobs, or jeez I am such a horrible bomber pilot someone was able to kill my sats turrets and me by themselves.

 

... not sure if serious ...

 

I am notorious for spamming the boards demanding dramatic Bomber and Gunship nerfs. Every time I open my mouth, Verain accuses me of being part of some Battlescout brigade (even though I don't fly one) that wants to bring back the Dark Ages of pre-2.6.

 

My current alts have only these ships readied:

T1 Scout

T3 Scout

T1 Strike

T3 Strike

T2 Gunship, armed with Thermites and Protons and no railgun

 

Also I was the creator and coordinator of Strike Night.

 

In other words, it doesn't seem like I am able to make any suggestion about any class without some jackhole making baseless accusations of me of having some class-specific agenda.

 

I talk about changing Bombers or Gunships? I'm a Scout lover.

 

I talk about changing Scouts? I'm a Gunship/Bomber lover.

 

I talk about changing Strikes (buffing them), and everyone nods and agrees, "Oh yes, buff Strikes. Just don't make them overpowered against my precious Scout/Gunship/Bomber. That'd be terrible."

 

This. Is. Ridiculous.

 

Stop advocating for single classes. Stop assuming other people are doing the same idiotic thing. Look at the game as a whole. Look at the experience for new pilots and veteran pilots alike. Make an attempt to become decent in every ship variant, so that you can understand yourself and your enemy better, and so that you can speak cogently about game balance.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Nemarus

[General_Brass]

... not sure if serious ...

 

I am notorious for spamming the boards demanding dramatic Bomber and Gunship nerfs. Every time I open my mouth, Verain accuses me of being part of some Battlescout brigade (even though I don't fly one) that wants to bring back the Dark Ages of pre-2.6.

 

 

I thought you were just the consolidator of these suggestions not their originator. But the point still stands nerfing BLC is a big nerf to the close in play style.

 

Stop advocating for single classes. Stop assuming other people are doing the same idiotic thing. Look at the game as a whole. Look at the experience for new pilots and veteran pilots alike. Make an attempt to become decent in every ship variant, so that you can understand yourself and your enemy better, and so that you can speak cogently about game balance.

 

I think you are protesting far too much here ,especially since 4 out of 6 of your "Suggestions" are aimed quite squarely at one class.

 

But if you could please tell me who these suggestions improve the game for and how they do it ?

Edited May 29, 2014 by General_Brass

[Nemarus]

I thought you were just the consolidator of these suggestions not their originator. But the point still stands nerfing BLC is a big nerf to the close in play style.

 

 

 

I think you are protesting far too much here ,especially since 4 out of 6 of your "Suggestions" are aimed quite squarely at one class.

 

But if you could please tell me who these suggestions improve the game for and how they do it ?

 

I am the consolidator, yes. And I have judged them as sincere, unbiased suggestions meant to improve the whole of the game and not favor one "agenda" or another. That is why I posted them, and that is why I did not attribute them to their original suggestor--because the discussion should be about the ideas, not the people. In fact at least half of them came from people who I really don't like very much. But I am able to separate out their ideas from them.

 

And the original post explains how each and every one would improve the game. Then a few replies down, I give an additional detail on how each suggestion makes the game simpler and more intuitive for new players in particular, reducing the number of traps they can fall into.

 

Others have read these posts and made valid replies in agreement or disagreement, using their own metrics and anecdotes to defend that agreement or disagreement.

 

But if you're more interested in jumping to conclusions about people instead of actually reading and discussing ideas, then continue to make yourself look like an idiot.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Nemarus

[bromotion]

No, I understood that perfectly and you are misreading me.

 

You're correct, I did misread your original comment, but I still disagree with what you said.

 

I agree with you in saying that this is most definitely NOT a buff, but I disagree with your opinion that it is a straight up nerf of BLCs. If you are just some random scrub squeezing off a few blasts in a quick attempt to hit your target, then yeah, it nerfs you pretty bad.

 

If however, you are a player who can keep your BLCs on target during a firefight, I think the change is minimal if not helpful. More shots on target means more chances to hit, and with the amount of people stacking evasion (due to the fact that so many people use armor penetration upgrades) this helps to mitigate the damage drop of losing a shot to evasion.

 

Of course if they reduce the amount of armor penetration available then yeah, it pretty much nerfs everybody, less skilled players more so.

[Kuciwalker]

If however, you are a player who can keep your BLCs on target during a firefight, I think the change is minimal if not helpful. More shots on target means more chances to hit, and with the amount of people stacking evasion (due to the fact that so many people use armor penetration upgrades) this helps to mitigate the damage drop of losing a shot to evasion.

 

Nope. The existence of shields means that higher variance is always better (ceteris paribus) up until the point where you are one-shotting people.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[General_Brass]

But if you're more interested in jumping to conclusions about people instead of actually reading and discussing ideas, then continue to make yourself look like an idiot.

 

So far you are the only one who as attacked a person in this thread.

[Altheran]

Nope. The existence of shields means that higher variance is always better (ceteris paribus) up until the point where you are one-shotting people.

 

That's not that simple.

 

Lower the rate of fire is, bigger are the hits. Bigger are the hits, higher are the chance to overdamage, and higher are the chances to lengthen TTK unnecessarily.

As result, if the overdamage is high enough, when increasing the rate of fire, it can neutralize the loss of damage for a set amount of shots, not creating a need for additional shots, and result in a lower TTK without altering the RNG part.

 

Obviously the gain would be low, and this is not a trivial possibility.

However this possibility exist, and the guy you quoted is right : it's not necessarily bad to have the rate of fire increased, but not for the reason he said (more shots).

 

Theoretical example :

DPS is 1000. Rate of fire is either 60 or 80 RPM. Target is a stock scout, 950 hull, 1300 shield, for a total of 2250.

- With 60 RPM, we reach 1000 per shot. 3 shots are needed. TTK is 2s. (First shot is always t=0)

- With 80 RPM, we reach 750 per shot. 3 shots are needed. TTK is 1.5s

Here the higher variance and lower RoF didn't help, but hindered.

 

That's why I'm always suspicious at all the "increase RoF, problem solved" type of comments.

[Kuciwalker]

That's not that simple.

 

Lower the rate of fire is, bigger are the hits. Bigger are the hits, higher are the chance to overdamage, and higher are the chances to lengthen TTK unnecessarily.

 

That is more or less covered by my oneshotting comment. The fact is that shields are bigger than hull and so overdamage considerations are almost entirely suppressed by the effect of shields.

[Altheran]

That is more or less covered by my oneshotting comment. The fact is that shields are bigger than hull and so overdamage considerations are almost entirely suppressed by the effect of shields.

 

I thought you implied that increasing RoF helps only if you keep one-shotting after the increase.

[bromotion]

Nope. The existence of shields means that higher variance is always better (ceteris paribus) up until the point where you are one-shotting people.

 

Ahh well there's the issue, I typically run gunship with Ion Railgun which virtually negates the effect of shields in a gunfight. I do see your point though.

[Luneward]

Theoretical example :

DPS is 1000. Rate of fire is either 60 or 80 RPM. Target is a stock scout, 950 hull, 1300 shield, for a total of 2250.

- With 60 RPM, we reach 1000 per shot. 3 shots are needed. TTK is 2s. (First shot is always t=0)

- With 80 RPM, we reach 750 per shot. 3 shots are needed. TTK is 1.5s

Here the higher variance and lower RoF didn't help, but hindered.

 

That's why I'm always suspicious at all the "increase RoF, problem solved" type of comments.

 

The problem is you are oversimplifying. How often do you get sustained fire against a competent target that isn't snared or otherwise dead in the water? At long ranges your example probably holds, at close ranged the higher rate weapon is likely to only get half or a third of their shots to connect. If a pilot has decent aim, they can get most of their slower shots to connect in the same time period since they don't have to keep a bead on their opponent.

 

Pure math doesn't necessarily work out in a live scenario.

[Kuciwalker]

I thought you implied that increasing RoF helps only if you keep one-shotting after the increase.

 

No, it's after one-shotting becomes a significant fraction of your shots that marginal variance decreases in value.

[Gerfaut]

1) Change Armor Piercing to be 50% instead of 100%. This would make DR builds have at least some effect against all opponents. The one and only weapon which might deserve to keep 100% Armor Piercing would be the venerable Proton Torpedo. Charged Plating might need a slight duration reduction with this change.

 

I think only BLC and slug should have their armor piercing reduced to 50%. HLC, proton torpedoes and thermite torpedoes should keep 100% armor piercing. This would solidify the role of strike fighters as the best anti-bomber crafts. Torpedoes are hard enough to get a lock with and to successfully land, and they do not need weakening.

 

Nerfing armor piercing on HLC would be too detrimental to strikes and dronecarriers. I already feel that dronecarriers need a buff (mostly a reduction in the CD of their drones). A 50% loss of armor piercing on HLC would put dronecarriers at too big a disadvantage when fighting minelayers at nodes. Unlike minelayers, dronecarriers do not have access to charged plating, so nerfing armor piercing on HLC would result in a net buff of minelayers over dronecarriers.

 

2) Unify missile/torpedo reload time to ~5.5 seconds across all missiles/torpedoes. This would reduce Cluster Spam and increase the viability of Ion Missile and EMP Missile. Sabotage Probe maybe should not be included in this group?

 

I disagree. I think the TRAVEL SPEED of missiles/torpedoes should be normalized, NOT their reload time. It is absurd that torpedoes, which have the longest range and thus usually the furthest distance to travel once a lock is obtained also move so slowly that oftentimes a ship will be able to keep from being hit simply by boosting to stay ahead of the torpedo until their missile lock break comes off CD.

 

On the other hand, the travel speed of sabotage probe is too fast and it causes really annoying glitches. Most of the time, when someone fires a sabotage probe at me and I use a lock break as soon as it is in the air, the lock break will go off but the probe will still hit and take effect. Even when I barrel roll away, the probe will catch up with me after barrel roll and hinder me. This is not due to the fact that the probe is released from short range: I do not have any issues breaking lock on cluster missiles. This issue is specific to sabotage probe and I suspect it is related to the travel time being so fast.

 

I also wish that the glitches causing locks to break without the use of a missile lock break would get fixed. Currently, any ship, even a bomber, can break lock simply by accelerating or turning, even if it never actually goes out of range or outside the arc. I have repeatedly lost proton torpedo locks on bombers because the game somehow decided that the lock got broken when the bomber accelerated or turned, even though they never got anywhere near the edge of the range or firing arc. This type of glitch gets compounded by the slow lock-on time of torpedoes and the slow travel time. If I decide to hold the lock while boosting towards my target, to try and realease the torpedo at shorter range, the vast majority of the time the lock will just randomly break due to this glitch (I am playing on a west coast server from the east coast and I suspect latency may play a part in it).

 

3) Make EMP Missile disable Secondary Weapons instead of #1 System Ability. This would make EMP Missile much more universally useful defensive weapon against all opponents while keeping its utility against Bombers relatively the same. It would fit even better with the T3 Scout and Strike.

 

EMP missile definitely needs a buff but I think this might be a bit excessive. The main issue with EMP missile is that the lock-on time is too long. It often needs to be used in circumstances where LOS is iffy, and/or where having to maintain a straight course (or come to a full stop) for several seconds is suicide. The lock-on time should be similar to cluster. Also, the damage from the missile to ships within the blast radius should be the full damage, rather than half damage. Even so, fully upgraded EMP missiles would only hit for 360 or so. The current 180 damage to ships is ridiculously low. I don't understand why Bioware is buffing EMP field and not EMP missile in 2.8, when EMP field performs a lot better on live than EMP missile does.

 

4) Increase rate of fire of BLC's by 20-40, while maintaining their current DPS. This would make them slightly less bursty, while still keeping their flavor intact.

5) Remove Armor Piercing from BLC's. This would make Scouts' only Armor Piercing weapon Rocket Pods, and would thus increase Strike, Gunship and Bomber durability against Scouts and make DR builds more attractive.

 

I don't agree with your proposed BLC nerf, I think it would reduce the variety of builds used by T2 scouts. This also ties in with point #2 where you want to nerf cluster missiles by increasing their reload time. There are currently 2 viable T2 scout builds, that are about equally powerful, although they excel in different circumstances: BLC + clusters, and Quads + pods. Both builds allow incredible burst when combined with offensive CDs like BO, TT, and offensive crew abilities. You propose to nerf both cluster missiles and BLC but leave quads and pods untouched, which would mean that the optimal build for T2 scouts would become just quads and pods. I really don't think either BLC or cluster need to be adjusted. What needs to be adjusted are the offensive CDs that allow too much burst (most particularly TT and BO).

 

6) Make mines not deal damage when destroyed by weapons fire or parent Bomber death. Destroying mines and Bombers should be a good thing, not something that could potentially kill your teammates.

 

I am torn on this. Bombers already have such a limited role in the game (they are a 1-trick pony and everybody keeps clamoring for their one trick to be nerfed) and I would hate to see them weakened too much. On the other hand, it is frustrating to be clearing mines with ion AOE in a gunship and accidentally blow up a scout on my team who happened to be whithin the radius of the blast. If this change is put in, I think the radius at which explosion is triggered should be slightly increased to compensate, or it would become almost trivial for scouts to kill bombers.