GSF Balance according to Verain (long posts!)

[AceFirstCav]

This is not really true. The thing is, each point of evasion is better than the last, so the scout distortion is much better than the gunship version- it offers much more survival. That's not to say it should be special cased IMO though.

But it is really true. I´m not comparing DF effect on GS and Scout. I have just stated that GS have advantage of long fire range, which act also as great defense. Some people like to demonstrate GS as defenseless ship (yes, GS has a problem in dogfight) but forget to mention that GS has a lot of time before Strike or Scout can even start shooting.

Scout is under fire almost continuously, GS can fight and stay away from hostile fire whole match.

If someone want nerf Scout components, GS components must be nerfed too and vice versa (personally I would prefer just delete GS and bombers, but that´s another thing). I think that it is already general consensus arisen from all "nerf Scout/GS" threads.

[Altheran]

Sorry to use it out of context, but this...

Some people like to demonstrate GS as defenseless ship (yes, GS has a problem in dogfight) [...]

 

... is one of the reasons why this ...

Verain Suggests (Slug Railgun): Railgun base damage lowered to 1550 (from 1600).

...is way too mild as a rebalance.

 

 

The first reason, afore hinted, is that the Condor/Jugoran is supposed to be an hybrid between a "classic" Gunship (understand that both T1 and T2 are "classic" in the way they're incapable to fight at close range), able to deal significant damage at the greatest ranges, with a more classic ship fighting "the regular way"...

 

...We can see how the Condor and Jugoran are significantly better at close range than their "big bros", being able to deal 650 damage approximately every 6s, while using Slug Railgun only, implies only a mere loss of 200 damage every 9s compared to Plasma/Slug combo... Which over a 6s timeframe would actually be a 100 damage gain.

(Ion/Slug combo can only improve damage dealt by 250 maximum, but can deal less depending on the target's stats)

 

As long as this will be allowed, the T3 gunships will surpass other Gunships that are only able to deal long-range damage, unless they have something ridiculous on their own.

(See how T3 supplants T2, but not T1 with Ion - because Ion is in his own way ridiculous despite the fact it's unable to deal significantly better damage)

 

 

The second reason it is way too mild, is "basic RDPS balancing" : longest the range is, more the way to deal optimal damage should be indirect/complex.

Having only RDPS have in theory the power to suppress and kill some MDPS even before they can reach any member of your team, and gain the numbers advantages.

The simplest, and the more strait-forwarded the way to deal damage is, the more ennemies will fall early... And the numbers' advatange will be overwhelming. (See "Gunship walls")

At the same time, using more time consuming/complex strategies will mostly be hindering your own team as they'll fall even before the tactic bears fruits... That is why you force RDPS to rely on such tactics to hinder overstacking RDPS.

 

We can see that theory on action on Strikes. They use (very) backloaded burst to to optimal damage when they are in "long range mode". As a result, overstacking them results in missiles not being able to be fired (targets dying before) or wasted (target dying while missiles are on flight or grossly overdamaging). It ensures that they do not surpass Scouts or a Strikes with shorter range and so not making them obsolete, and also ensure that a team of mostly short range ships facing them does stand a chance.

 

Slug current value (and proposed value) allows to do optimal or nearly optimal damage without any sort of complexity. It is the cause of the strength of "Gunship walls".

In my opinion, the only way to put the tactic in a somewhat acceptable place, considering Gunships only use rails once at time, is to make the use of both rails a necessity to deal better damage, even in the short term.

(It means that using Plasma or Ion then Slug should have immediate damage benefits over using Slug twice - of course, as long as you're attacking something with reasonable shields in case of Ion)

 

 

If you want, you may add as a third reason the fact that Slug hits so hard, that being a Strike, or Gunship yourself doesn't matter : you die under the same number of hits than a Scout - two shots...

...unless you seek for really hard shields, making Slug one of the causes for the Large Reactor and alikes "meta".

 

 

In my opinion, Slug won't be in a right spot, as long as it's not lowered to something around 1200, for the reasons previously mentionned.

And once you remove what makes Ion ridiculous, then all three gunships would be mostly even.

But of course, it can't be implemented alone... other changes have to be made here and there (less tracking penalties, to cite only one of them) to ensure Gunships do not fall at the bottom of the pit where T2 are at the moment.

(I'm not mad, I realize that this change alone would drag down T1 and T3 at T2's level - which is no good)

Edited July 27, 2014 by Altheran

[Bolo_Yeung]

With all due respect...

 

On the statement that missiles are trivialized due to DF, I laughed hard. Even with 3 breaks you won't escape from clusters and concuccions without much wiggilng ... and I dont think that scout should be the target of heavy torpedoes. All other missiles, (except maybe emp/ion but again) will work pretty well on 2 and even 3 lock breaker ships.

 

Got to 2f and 2g then I gave up rest of the post.

'Scout are too bursty, lets berf them, while giving boosts to gs (calling 'ballancing')

 

Maybe its my personal hate to gunhips... but seriously, All-gs team owns practically all other combos in TDM. in domination , especially with mix of T1 and T3 GS, it can go better than other mixex as well (T1 outside with AoE ion rail, T3 capping satellites).

Even most bursty scout can't accomplish it. Maybe with goor coordinated team on voice... 'gunship ball' doesn't need voice coordination though.

Edited July 27, 2014 by Bolo_Yeung

[Ramalina]

But it is really true. I´m not comparing DF effect on GS and Scout. I have just stated that GS have advantage of long fire range, which act also as great defense. Some people like to demonstrate GS as defenseless ship (yes, GS has a problem in dogfight) but forget to mention that GS has a lot of time before Strike or Scout can even start shooting.

Scout is under fire almost continuously, GS can fight and stay away from hostile fire whole match.

If someone want nerf Scout components, GS components must be nerfed too and vice versa (personally I would prefer just delete GS and bombers, but that´s another thing). I think that it is already general consensus arisen from all "nerf Scout/GS" threads.

 

The range by itself isn't a great defense right now. A scout is only under constant fire if the pilot chooses not to use the scout's boost efficiency to break off the engagement. More than any other ship scouts can control if other ships even get to shoot at them at all.

 

Since barrel roll's travel abilities got nerfed the only way a solo gunship can reliably fire from safety is if every scout and strike on the other team chooses not to try to put any pressure on that gunship. They no longer have the endurance to outrun a pursuer from either of those classes.

 

Gunships do present some problems. Stacking 3 or more mutually defending gunships can create a "Death zone" that you can't replicate with other ship classes, and that's difficult to break up with anything other than a similar number of gunships operated by more skilled pilots. This is mostly due to slug being on a bit on the strong side under ideal conditions, which is what a gunship wall creates.

 

There's also a bit of a problem with snares again. After a lot of complaining and arguing from players, the ion railgun was nerfed so that it's ability to give an almost complete snare (removing engine pool until you couldn't boost) was changed to still have a significant drain, but make it take 2-3 shots for the full drain that gave a mobility kill (usually followed by a slug railgun kill). After the change the general consensus seemed to be that ion railgun was still pretty damn good, but not overpowered.

 

Based on the experience gained from that, naturally what the devs did was . . . . start adding a bunch more very powerful snares that in addition can stack to the point where ships can have zero movement.

 

This becomes a gunship issue, because an immobile target is especially vulnerable to gunships. The way you defend against (and also attack) gunships is by moving far and doing it very fast. The more common snares become the harder that is to do and all of a sudden you can have problems with gunship balance, even though the problem may not really be coming from the gunships.

 

Coming at all this from a strike pilot perspective: railgun range is fine, gunship mobility is o.k., gunship survivability is fairly low, gunship close range firepower is better (not entirely free kills if you get in close anymore). The problems such as they are come from groups of slug railguns stacking a bit too well, and from the increasing prevalence of movement impairing effects in the game.

 

If they're not getting help and you're not getting constantly snared it's possible to lock down someone like Aimbot, Gunsheep, or Kuci for a an entire match even if you're flying a strike. It's when gunship aces group up or lots of snares are flying around that gunships start to look problematic. Even then, with smart team flying you can partially mitigate some of the problems some of the time.

 

The balance isn't perfect, but at this point it wouldn't take all that much to over-nerf gunships. For that matter if burst is toned down a bit it wouldn't take all that much to over-nerf scouts. It's fun to hate gunships and battlescouts, but things aren't that bad right now, and overall it'd be better to leave them a tiny bit overpowered while making overall adjustments than to make them toothless for several patches.

 

The heat and humidity must be affecting my mind, I just came to the defense of gunships and scouts in the same paragraph.

[Nemarus]

The range by itself isn't a great defense right now. A scout is only under constant fire if the pilot chooses not to use the scout's boost efficiency to break off the engagement. More than any other ship scouts can control if other ships even get to shoot at them at all.

 

Since barrel roll's travel abilities got nerfed the only way a solo gunship can reliably fire from safety is if every scout and strike on the other team chooses not to try to put any pressure on that gunship. They no longer have the endurance to outrun a pursuer from either of those classes.

 

Gunships do present some problems. Stacking 3 or more mutually defending gunships can create a "Death zone" that you can't replicate with other ship classes, and that's difficult to break up with anything other than a similar number of gunships operated by more skilled pilots. This is mostly due to slug being on a bit on the strong side under ideal conditions, which is what a gunship wall creates.

 

There's also a bit of a problem with snares again. After a lot of complaining and arguing from players, the ion railgun was nerfed so that it's ability to give an almost complete snare (removing engine pool until you couldn't boost) was changed to still have a significant drain, but make it take 2-3 shots for the full drain that gave a mobility kill (usually followed by a slug railgun kill). After the change the general consensus seemed to be that ion railgun was still pretty damn good, but not overpowered.

 

Based on the experience gained from that, naturally what the devs did was . . . . start adding a bunch more very powerful snares that in addition can stack to the point where ships can have zero movement.

 

This becomes a gunship issue, because an immobile target is especially vulnerable to gunships. The way you defend against (and also attack) gunships is by moving far and doing it very fast. The more common snares become the harder that is to do and all of a sudden you can have problems with gunship balance, even though the problem may not really be coming from the gunships.

 

Coming at all this from a strike pilot perspective: railgun range is fine, gunship mobility is o.k., gunship survivability is fairly low, gunship close range firepower is better (not entirely free kills if you get in close anymore). The problems such as they are come from groups of slug railguns stacking a bit too well, and from the increasing prevalence of movement impairing effects in the game.

 

If they're not getting help and you're not getting constantly snared it's possible to lock down someone like Aimbot, Gunsheep, or Kuci for a an entire match even if you're flying a strike. It's when gunship aces group up or lots of snares are flying around that gunships start to look problematic. Even then, with smart team flying you can partially mitigate some of the problems some of the time.

 

The balance isn't perfect, but at this point it wouldn't take all that much to over-nerf gunships. For that matter if burst is toned down a bit it wouldn't take all that much to over-nerf scouts. It's fun to hate gunships and battlescouts, but things aren't that bad right now, and overall it'd be better to leave them a tiny bit overpowered while making overall adjustments than to make them toothless for several patches.

 

The heat and humidity must be affecting my mind, I just came to the defense of gunships and scouts in the same paragraph.

 

Wait, what in the world would be the problem with over-nerfing Gunships and Scouts? Each has dominated the game at various points. Each has largely been responsible for driving away new players, due to their burst damage.

 

They have each had months and months of being the rulers of GSF, with only brief periods of inconvenience as the devs have tried to balance them.

 

In a world where Scouts and Gunships are even grossly underpowered, who are the victims? What is the threat to be feared? That Strikes become playable? That new players have a few seconds to react and learn before dying? That new and old players alike have to adapt to a fresh new meta?

 

In what way is this supposed universe at all a bad thing?

 

Bombers' lives might get a little bit worse if there are Strikes everywhere. Funny--I don't feel too bad about that either.

 

I say this as someone who has mastered every ship, and who enjoys flying every ship. I would LOVE for Gunships and Scouts to be nerfed into the ground. I would happily watch my beloved Blackbolt become a useless pile of garbage if it meant I got to see a few months of GSF without Flashfires and Quarrels everywhere.

 

I would love for the majority of kills to come from lasers and missiles, instead of shotguns and sniper rifles. I would love for pilots to survive and evade through clever flying, instead of hitting 2.

 

I would love for new players to recognize GSF as something resembling the good old LucasArts games, which would hopefully encourage them to stick with it.

 

Bring it on. Nerf Scouts and Gunships from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

Then, after Strikes have had 9 months of dominance, and the forums are filled with people complaining about how X-wings are overpowered, and how "that Quell totally just used hax to 5-shot me"--then we can talk about slowly rebuilding ships with instakill offensive cool down shotguns and mini Death Stars which can fire from triple the range of any other ship.

 

But until then, I think a GSF without so many Scouts and Gunships will do just fine.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Nemarus

[Verain]

As long as this will be allowed, the T3 gunships will surpass other Gunships that are only able to deal long-range damage, unless they have something ridiculous on their own.

(See how T3 supplants T2, but not T1 with Ion - because Ion is in his own way ridiculous despite the fact it's unable to deal significantly better damage)

 

If you are worried that my changes will make the type 3 gunship better than the type 2 gunship- umm dude, it already is. The type 2 gunship was designed to have slug cruise missile and it ended up with proton torp. Of course it's going to be the worst of the gunships!

 

With my changes, the following things are true:

 

1)- The delta between distortion and directional is greatly reduced.

2)- Anyone with distortion gains an optional power against railguns- extra dodge at long range.

3)- Plasma railgun becomes MUCH better than on live.

4)- No second missile break

 

(1), (2), and (4) are straight buffs for the type 2 gunship, who can access plasma and slug, and can use torps, which become stronger in this meta.

 

 

 

Mostly then you try to turn this thread into "I h8 gunsarp plx deleet". Whatever, man. I tried to make suggestions that will make the meta deeper, not "punish" those players who can pick the correct choices in the current meta. Games that swing their meta around like some kind of chain- and especially players who laugh giddily whenever their class is OP and other classes are overnerfed- are awful for communities and everything else.

 

 

And Nemarus absolutely joins this bandwagon, with a really awful post.

 

Wait, what in the world would be the problem with over-nerfing Gunships and Scouts?

 

It would be like the same problem as live, except worse?

 

 

First, anyone playing the game likes a gunship and scout meta. Because that's what it (mostly) is. That's the game we bought and played, and there's been not one single moment when it hasn't been.

 

Second, it's crap to hurt half the ships in the game.

 

Third, it is SUPER crap to "design by revenge". If a game launches with classes A, B, C, and D, and A and B are clearly the best, the right answer isn't to overnerf A and B to punish the subset players who actually showed up and understood how to play the game (because if A and B are better, playing the game involves playing and excelling at A and B, even if that isn't what the devs intended, it's what they delivered), it is to balance all four.

 

Fourth, it is absurd to think that anyone would want to stick around any game with pogo stick devs, randomly crapping on your build and playstyle.

 

Fifth, I'm SICK of this "um, these ships are why new players don't play". Stop speaking for everyone else. You aren't them. It's so infuriating to see this crap over and over again. In this forums, I've had people say that:

> Everyone is quitting because of premades.

> Everyone is quitting because mastered ships are too good.

> Everyone is quitting because mastering a ship takes too long.

> Everyone is quitting because of Wildstar.

> Everyone is quitting because of Star Citizen

> Everyone is quitting because we don't float around slowly and crash when noobs right click us.

> Everyone is quitting because gunships have range.

> Everyone is quitting because minelayers can do something ever.

> Everyone is quitting because scouts trivialize strikes.

> Everyone is quitting because girl bombers have drones.

> Everyone is quitting because of lockon missiles

 

 

It's ok to dislike these things in any measure- some of them I agree are overtuned or poor. It's not ok to pretend that you are some damned wizard who peers into a Crystal Ball and that's why things are X or Y. In actual fact, this is a minigame, a subgame of SWTOR. I have a friend who won't play it because it uses red and green and those are the same color to him, I have TWO friends who laughed when I told them it doesn't support a joystick, and I have THREE friends who thought it looked cool but didn't want to start or install another MMO.

 

I haven't seen anyone get all cryface at the things that "everyone" is upset about yet. I'm sure some people do, and I'm sure it does matter to them, but there's just no way that these forum wizards have some insight into the everyman. In practice, people make decisions about games based on their perceptions, which are often distorted, but real enough for them. Of that list above, only the total lack of colorblind support COMBINED with the game being super hard to play without R/G distinction strikes me as fully legit- the game isn't designed for a joystick, as much as I'd like to have a joystick control the ship and a nubbin control the cursor, and it certainly is a blast to play with the mouse, and installing an MMO as a substrate to this game strikes me as totally reasonable, and much more preferable to games that slowly patch in a pilot, inch by inch.

 

 

But those reasons were enough for them. If someone quits because they can't contribute, or hate being burst, or sniped, or missiled down, then that's unfortunate, but it's likely not any manner of sign about how the game works.

 

 

They have each had months and months of being the rulers of GSF

 

So, wait.. 2/3rds of the initial launch was balanced? And then briefly 3/4, until bombers were a bit overnerfed.

 

 

In all of this time, only strikes have sucked. You don't go and nerf the only parts of the game that actually work- you fix the one part that is broken.

 

 

I say this as someone who has mastered every ship, and who enjoys flying every ship. I would LOVE for Gunships and Scouts to be nerfed into the ground.

 

No. Your ideas are terrible.

 

 

Nerfing the only things that are working to develop a really different and crappy meta is terrible. It's simply awful.

 

What should happen is that the one part about this game where skill is not properly rewarded, should have that part addressed- mostly, that is flying strikes. Strikes have less options at any point, and have to huddle around rocks much of the time. Would you want that to be the game? That is the bad part about the game, and it's not a gunship or scout issue, it's a strike issue.

 

 

The lack of a disto missile lock would change a lot, which is why I made a bunch of suggestions that would go along with it, but that alone would be huge, because that tool is too powerful and strikes don't have it. It also defines skilled play for most of the competitive ships, so removing it is a definite risk in that direction as well.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, let me be clear: in choosing between a world where the devs take your terrible suggestions and implement them, and the status quo, I choose the status quo every time.

 

 

 

 

Your changes would:

Render meaningless gained skill

Lower skill cap of game

Punish players who have done as the devs have bid, by requing and practicing the good ships

Make the game very narrow, by losing most of the good ships

Further punish already niche ships, such as type 2 gunship, and type 3 scout

Risk angering the ACTUAL playerbase, as determined by the players actually playing these ships

 

 

 

 

Striketopia would be way worse than live.

 

 

That's not to say you couldn't get away with completely different stuff than what I suggest, and still have an improved game. But changing out which kind of ship kills you quickly doesn't matter, and halving the number of good ships helps even less.

[Kuciwalker]

I should never be put in charge of game dev because I think class balance is about "fairness" ie each class should get its turn to be FOTM.

 

ftfy.

[Altheran]

If you are worried that my changes will make the type 3 gunship better than the type 2 gunship- umm dude, it already is. The type 2 gunship was designed to have slug cruise missile and it ended up with proton torp. Of course it's going to be the worst of the gunships!

 

With my changes, the following things are true:

 

1)- The delta between distortion and directional is greatly reduced.

2)- Anyone with distortion gains an optional power against railguns- extra dodge at long range.

3)- Plasma railgun becomes MUCH better than on live.

4)- No second missile break

 

(1), (2), and (4) are straight buffs for the type 2 gunship, who can access plasma and slug, and can use torps, which become stronger in this meta.

 

 

 

Mostly then you try to turn this thread into "I h8 gunsarp plx deleet". Whatever, man. I tried to make suggestions that will make the meta deeper, not "punish" those players who can pick the correct choices in the current meta. Games that swing their meta around like some kind of chain- and especially players who laugh giddily whenever their class is OP and other classes are overnerfed- are awful for communities and everything else.

 

You're completely off the track, that's not what I said.

 

What I said was that, with or without your "nerf" of Slug which is mostly symbolic than an actual nerf, no one will ever be tempted to use Plasma, even with more accuracy, because the damage boost it provides is :

1. Inconsistent

2. Shows so lately that targets usually dies before anyway.

 

If you want a place for Plasma, then Plasma has do deal significantly more damage, and rather quickly.

 

In addition, it goes without saying that there's no incentive to use a Torpedo instead of a Rail when they barely equal the rail that itself has no point, or if Rails grossly overperform Torpedoes.

 

Mesh everything together, you'll see that the only way for T2 to stand his own against a T3, while leaving an incentive for the use of torpedoes, is too reduce Slug SIGNIFICANTLY.

 

And once this is addressed, there will be the matter with the T1. Devs will have to cut some crap around Ion.

 

You could try to buff Plasma instead, but you won't address the fact that T2 niche -using a Torpedo- isn't equally viable, and leave the T2 half-baked, as only an alternate appearance of T1 with less choices.

 

It's not a matter of hating Gunships.

It's that there is no choice. Gunship design dictates this.

[Kuciwalker]

You could try to buff Plasma instead, but you won't address the fact that T2 niche -using a Torpedo- isn't equally viable, and leave the T2 half-baked, as only an alternate appearance of T1 with less choices.

 

Torpedoes cannot and will not ever be equal to railguns, and the T2 is a fundamentally flawed ship design.

 

Railguns are necessarily superior to missiles, particularly at range. Trading a railgun for a missile will always make you worse off*. The T2 follows this up by having... no compensating choices anywhere else. The only arguable benefit T2 gets is heavy lasers (and it doesn't even have the OPTION of burst anymore). The T2's array of secondary weapons will always be weaker than the T1's, and the only way they could have justified that would be by trading away sensors for thrusters and giving the T2 some superior engine options (power dive).

 

*Yes, the T3 gets a lot out of clusters or interdiction, but the trade still makes the T3 worse at its primary job in return for rounding out its weaknesses a bit. In a real team where you have scouts that can peel for you, I'd pretty much always choose a T1 over a T3.

[Nemarus]

Verain, I do want to be clear that I agree with all of your original suggestions.

 

But what I don't want is for the devs to do some meek wittle tune that does 5% of what you suggest. Changing slug to do 50 less damage, or making Targeting Telemetry have 3 seconds less uptime, is not going to change the game in any meaningful way. The "meta" which we keep going on about is hardly ever what determines a match--certainly not to the point where 1600 vs. 1550 is is not within the margin of distortion introduced by matchmaking and even lag.

 

Doing something like removing DF's missile break WILL significantly improve the game. But when someone comes in and says we shouldn't make that change, for fear of overnerfing Scouts and Gunships, then I have to laugh.

 

I used hyperbole to express a point, not to say I really believe the devs should try and punish Scouts and Gunships. But I do think that, with those two classes, the devs can be a bit bold with their changes. My point is that if they get overnerfed--either on purpose or accidentally, because of some unforeseen consequence--the game will survive, or perhaps even be more attractive to new players, simply because TTK increases.

 

Might the mythical meta, which actually matters in one tenth of all matches, narrow a bit? Maybe. But in the rest of the matches, where more skill trumps less skill, regardless of what people are flying, things will be still be okay.

 

And yes, I've seen enough forum posts, and heard from enough of my own RL friends who I tried to get into GSF, that extreme burst damage was one of the big reasons they felt frustrated and quit.

 

And I've seen enough Strike Nights, where people comment not on how "narrow" the meta felt, but instead on how much fun they had, to predict how the majority of huddled masses would react.

 

And I like to think that aces like you, even though you prefer Gunships, would be intrigued by exploring a new meta, even if you eventually reached the conclusion that you should switch to a Strike. Maybe I'm wrong on that though. Personally, I'm getting a little weary of the same old GSF, and I wouldn't mind if some significant changes freshened it up a bit. Just like how people enjoy (enough to pay for it!) when a new Magic expansion blows up the old meta.

 

Do I seriously want to turn the game into Strike Night every night? No. Like I said, I enjoy every class. But if the devs boldly implement your suggestions, or someone else's, and we end up with a Strike heavy GSF for a few months, I think it'll be okay.

 

I feel the greatest risk to GSF comes from not doing enough (not doing even half your suggestions, for example), not from doing too much. But we may disagree on that.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Nemarus

[Magira]

*Yes, the T3 gets a lot out of clusters or interdiction, but the trade still makes the T3 worse at its primary job in return for rounding out its weaknesses a bit. In a real team where you have scouts that can peel for you, I'd pretty much always choose a T1 over a T3.

T3 is superior to the T1 in most situations:

 

+ Better option for repositioning thanks Thruster

+ Better opportunity for self-defense, thanks to clusters / interdiction and stronger burst laser

 

- ION railgun missing

 

In most situations, as a solo player or in a spontaneous group, the benefits are greater than the one drawback. The only situation in which T1 can play to its strengths is with a personal bodyguard.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Magira

[Kuciwalker]

T3 is superior to the T1 in most situations:

 

+ Better option for repositioning thanks Thruster

+ Better opportunity for self-defense, thanks to clusters / interdiction and stronger burst laser

 

- ION railgun missing

 

In most situations, as a solo player or in a spontaneous group, the benefits are greater than the one drawback. The only situation in which T1 can play to its strengths is with a personal bodyguard.

 

Missing ion railgun is a Big Deal. A Huge Deal. It is completely gamechanging, in a bad way. Slug is actually a pretty low-DPS weapon. Without an extra snare or debuff from ion, the effective TTK from slug is much higher when factoring in the chance that the target just gets away (or closes) before your second shot. Additionally you lose tons of utility vs bombers and tons of support vs everything else.

 

Self-defense on an artillery ship is anti-synergistic when you get it by traded away offensive power. Clusters do not support the Mission, which is Shooting Railguns At Stuff. Don't get me wrong, I love the T3 and I fly it a lot, but in its actual role it punches below its weight.

 

I'll also note that ion railgun is itself a powerful defensive weapon, and that barrel roll is a modestly better repositioning option than Power Dive (although worse for long-term defensive flying).

Edited July 28, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Ramalina]

Doing something like removing DF's missile break WILL significantly improve the game. But when someone comes in and says we shouldn't make that change, for fear of overnerfing Scouts and Gunships, then I have to laugh.

 

Nemarus, you're mixing up and combining separate posts a bit there. The overnerfing was about gunship balance in general where DF and railgun range aren't the problems some people are trying to make them out to be. The scout overnerfing bit was shorthand for, "take away Uber-Burst and scouts aren't really that bad balance wise."

 

In the more DF focused point I was a bit indirect, perhaps too indirect, but despite the whining it would produce I don't think that taking the missile break off of DF would really hurt type 1 and type 2 scouts. I do think it would hurt gunships quite a bit though, probably too much.

 

My view on gunship strength is filtered by considering them the equivalent of something like a BUK, S-300, or Patriot battery in a combat fight sim. If they aren't strong enough to make you hate them with a passion, then they're not strong enough, but if you know where they are and what you're doing it should be possible to take a wingman and hunt them down pretty reliably. At the moment I think that's pretty much where gunships are, so I'm not keen on weakening them a lot.

 

In a broader sense, when talking about balance, I take the view that it's not enough to understand that some classes/builds/components need adjustment, you also need to figure out what needs adjustment. So if AceFirstCav is saying something that sounds to me like, "Railguns make gunships invincible killing machines, so remove railguns, and gunships too while you're at it," of course I'm going to disagree. First it's flat out false, and second it doesn't do a good job of addressing the balance issues that gunships do have (mostly just that slug, and to a lesser extent ion railguns stack a little bit too well in large numbers).

 

Despite buffs to other components GSs still basically have an option of either DF or scrap that someone with Cybertech crafting skill should recycle and sell the mats on the GTN. Make the other options good enough so that GSs have DF as one of several equally effective options, and then you can do horrible things to DF, up to and including eliminating it without screwing up balance too much.

 

The core issue there is that as things stand now, gunships need more cooldown based defense than scouts do to be properly balanced. So if they share a DCD, it's very hard to have both classes balanced defensively. Either gunships wind up too weak, or scouts wind up too strong. Make other options fully viable for GSs and that problem goes away allowing you to tune DF for scouts. Then DF becomes a slightly suboptimal playstyle option for GSs instead of the, "take this or you're doing it wrong," type of thing that it has been and still is, if not by as large a margin as it used to be.

 

Besides, if killing scouts and gunships got too easy then flying a strike would become boring, and that would be a balancing disaster.

 

In the sense that Strike Nights are less absurdly bursty, and that the balance of power among different types of ships is much more even, I can get behind GSF changing to be more like that. I'd like to see all of ship classes, and ideally all of the ship types, come along for that ride though. In essence, do balance so well that Strike Night becomes purely a theme event, and no longer offers any gameplay improvement aspects ( better balance and more manageable burst) compared to normal GSF.

[Verain]

T3 is superior to the T1 in most situations:

 

I generally disagree. Both T3 and T1 are very good gunships, however.

 

T3 enjoys thruster and capacitor, as you point out, and is generally strongest when built with clusters or interdiction as a second weapon. However, T1 doesn't just have ion, it also has armor- and 9% more evasion helps in general, but is massively more helpful during distortion field. A t1 GS during distortion active (58% evasion) will take almost 20% less damage than a t3 GS during distortion active (49% evasion). T3 also has retros or power dive to choose from, and T1 has barrel roll. This is a mixed bag, but in general I actually still prefer barrel roll, because it's just better at traveling from node to node, and gives you greater range of allies to boost back to after orbiting a node with several fanboys.

 

So I'd say these two are both solid picks, but I'd actually still give the edge to the T1- especially in the situation where you don't have a wingman.

[Verain]

Verain, I do want to be clear that I agree with all of your original suggestions.

 

But what I don't want is for the devs to do some meek wittle tune that does 5% of what you suggest. Changing slug to do 50 less damage, or making Targeting Telemetry have 3 seconds less uptime, is not going to change the game in any meaningful way.

 

Generally correct. The big thing I propose to gunship burst is a nerf without hurting sustained (1.25x crit mul) and the big thing I propose to scout burst is a nerf without hurting sustained much (weaker cooldowns, but with passive effects). In practice, both of these are nerfs, and the scout one is larger, so I also figured that the 50 damage less from slug would stack with that.

 

But I think the devs will do what they want. Yes, my biggest fear is that they will gut ranged weapons, or slows, or even burst damage, without addressing the other things.

 

I feel the greatest risk to GSF comes from not doing enough (not doing even half your suggestions, for example), not from doing too much. But we may disagree on that.

 

I think we do, but I understand your point on that too- the dev cycle is very long, and we go a very long time without changes, so the cost of overtuning or undertuning something will be upon us for months straight- but likewise, the cost of leaving something broken also sticks around for as long.

[Magira]

I'll also note that ion railgun is itself a powerful defensive weapon, and that barrel roll is a modestly better repositioning option than Power Dive (although worse for long-term defensive flying).

 

Who uses voluntary power dive? Retro is the solution. Also counter enemy combat ships ideal. A shot with the slug, Retro, then back into range, Slug, retro and as long as until the enemy broke.

[Kuciwalker]

Who uses voluntary power dive? Retro is the solution. Also counter enemy combat ships ideal. A shot with the slug, Retro, then back into range, Slug, retro and as long as until the enemy broke.

 

Power dive is amazing. I've started running it on my battlescouts too. It makes you freaking invincible. It's not just a free 10s lock break. As far as I can tell most pilots are still just not used to seeing it (while they are acclimated to barrel roll and retro thrusters). The reactions I get from it are basically "wait where did he go???"

 

It also actually puts you in a reasonable good position to get back on someone's tail, and you can use it proactively because the short CD means you aren't creating too big a window of vulnerability to missiles.

 

The catch is you have to be able to use it without killing yourself. As long as you aren't inside Shipyards C or Mesas B, though, that isn't really very difficult.

 

And it's FREE.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Kuciwalker

[Nemarus]

Who uses voluntary power dive? Retro is the solution. Also counter enemy combat ships ideal. A shot with the slug, Retro, then back into range, Slug, retro and as long as until the enemy broke.

 

People who want a zero cost travel skill and missile break every ten seconds. I would take Power Dive on every ship if I could. It turns any ship into a very elusive and slippery target--once you learn how to not SD.

 

And I'd argue that Power Dive + Directional is superior for a T3 than Retro + DF. Especially when you're defending or taking a node. Directional + Turbo is very hard to chew through on a turny T3 using a sat for cover.

 

I don't use the T3 in TDM, but in Dom it is a great one-man node taker/holder. Power Dive from spawn to firing position. Slug two turrets. Slug defenders until they take cover or come to chase you. Either way, Power Dive under the sat, use BLC's + missiles to clear out what's left, using +20% turn and very strong shields to win. If someone peels off the node, slug them in the back.

At the very least, you put extreme pressure on the node. Often, you'll take it solo

[Magira]

People who want a zero cost travel skill and missile break every ten seconds. I would take Power Dive on every ship if I could. It turns any ship into a very elusive and slippery target--once you learn how to not SD.

Ok, I'm starting to believe it. There are too many people who claim that Power Dive is useful. Will then probably not be trolling.

Would be nice if someone explained how to handle it.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Magira

[Kuciwalker]

Ok, I'm starting to believe it. There are too many people who claim that Power Dive is useful. Will then probably not be trolling.

Like someone explain how to Use it?

 

How to use it as a missile break? Make sure that it isn't going to send you into an asteroid, then hit "3".

 

How to use it as a travel skill? Point your nose up, hit "3", then (optionally) hold "a" or "d" until your ship rotates back to be level.

 

Note that to best use it as a missile break, you should be thinking about how you need to be positioned to use it safely while they are locking on so that you can use it immediately after they finish locking and launch.

[Nemarus]

Note that to best use it as a missile break, you should be thinking about how you need to be positioned to use it safely while they are locking on so that you can use it immediately after they finish locking and launch.

 

This. It's actually a really good habit to get into.

 

Someone starts locking onto you? Pitch up. That alone may be enough to break the lock. And if it isn't, it at least ensures your safety when you Power Dive.

 

Power Dive is by far the safest to use on Kuat Mesas, except in Node B on Domination. In Kuat TDM, just fly upside down.

 

Denon is generally pretty open, except for the debris around node C.

 

Asteroids is definitely a bit trickier, as it's hard to keep a mental map of every asteroid nearby, but you regain control over your ship even before the "dive" boost is over with. It's not as hard/long a lock on turning as Barrel Roll has, so you can often turn before you smash into something.

 

That's not to say you will never inadvertently Power Die. I do from time to time. But I generally find it saves my life far more often than it takes it.

 

Also... don't forget that it has a decent forward boost as well, before the dive. It moves in an L pattern, like a Knight in chess.

[Kuciwalker]

If some gunships are drawing a bead on you, you can also just throw in some gratuitous power dives to make them lose their shot.

[SammyGStatus]

If some gunships are drawing a bead on you, you can also just throw in some gratuitous power dives to make them lose their shot.

 

I think you spend more time talking about GSF than playing it >.< DISLIKE

[Kuciwalker]

More like I frequently just play a quick match here and there on JM without signing into mumble.

[AceFirstCav]

But until then, I think a GSF without so many Scouts and Gunships will do just fine.

That thinks lots of people but you are not supposed to say it loud here! It is need to silently build up Strike Alliance at first

 

So if AceFirstCav is saying something that sounds to me like, "Railguns make gunships invincible killing machines, so remove railguns, and gunships too while you're at it," of course I'm going to disagree. First it's flat out false, and second it doesn't do a good job of addressing the balance issues that gunships do have (mostly just that slug, and to a lesser extent ion railguns stack a little bit too well in large numbers).

I will just a little bit correct your statetement and we can go new round of GS vs Scout.

So if Ramalina is saying something that sounds to me like, "DF make scouts invincible killing machines, so remove DF from them, and their agility too while you're at it," of course I'm going to disagree. First it's flat out false, and second it doesn't do a good job of addressing the balance issues that scouts do have.

 

Btw. how can be comparing GS fire range 15000m vs longest fire range of nonGS ship 10000m false? Distance is very good defense for GS, you can´t leave out this fact. You can´t nerf Scout and let be GS.

 

And now rhetorical question.

Woudn´t be GSF more rewarding skill if there were no upgrades, just basic components avaiable for all ships from beginning? No gap between equip, just your knowledge of game mechanics and skills. As it is just minigame, people could join easily without fear to be undergeared (and farmed by veterans at the end but without sense of helplessness)