GSF ship balance solved

[siegeshot]

Stop the micromanagement and illusion of balance. Just let people make whatever ship they want. Here's my proposal at least for RP servers, I don't care what PVP and PVE do.

 

Small Chassis. Low hull hp, high speed

Can have all the "scout" parts (3 total). Whatever you want. ALL scout designs available.

 

Medium Chassis. Medium hull hp, medium speed.

Can have all of the "Strike Fighter" Parts. Whatever you want. All strike fighter designs available.

*can alternate primary weapon

*allowable, 1 missile OR 1 railgun OR 1 mine OR 1 drone

 

Large Chassis. High hull hp, slow speed.

Can have all of the "bomber" and "gunship" parts. Whatever you want.

*gunship parts can alternate secondary weapon

*allowable, any combination of 3, missile, rail gun, mine, or drone

 

Bio, bonus points if you do these too.

After you master the ship you get a decoration for your stronghold and little toy to follow you around.

Custom paint jobs.

Custom decals.

 

Thanks.

[Icebergy]

Silly solution to an imaginary problem.

[Fractalsponge]

Also negatively affects the income stream - if you could freely pick and choose components and master only the ones you want, there's no incentive for req transfer to fleet with cc.

 

Also no incentive to try different configurations on different chassis.

 

All in all, not going to happen.

 

I would love it though, if you could buy extra copies of ships with fleet requisition that tie into the same pool for the ship type- that way we can keep different variants on our bar, and have a use for all our saved ship requisition.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

Large Chassis. High hull hp, slow speed.

Can have all of the "bomber" and "gunship" parts. Whatever you want.

*gunship parts can alternate secondary weapon

*allowable, any combination of 3, missile, rail gun, mine, or drone

 

 

This would make balance worse, not better. You'd have GSes that could essentially set up their own protective minefield. Or you'd have bombers that could lock down a sat and then railgun any enemy that dared come near them. Would it be as effective as coordinating between GS and bombers? No. But it sure as heck would make things worse balance wise.

 

Now this being said I would like some sort of perk if you master all three ships in a class. Maybe some sort of unlockable ship that applies a skin of your choice (so for example all those Imps who like the T3 scout look would get an unlockable skin to use on their T1/T2 scout). Or the option to create an unmastered duplicate ship (useful for the ships that have no CM alternate).

 

While being able to create a ship with optimal component choices would be awesome (and I would love to have a striker that had all the optimal components for it's class) it would just create balance issues. Witness how the Flashfire already has optimal component choices and creates problems. While it would allow the creation of one striker model that would be on equal footing with Flashfires in terms of optimal component choices it would just lead to a meta where vets could stomp newbies even more mercilessly and where you would be at a distinct disadvantage unless you were flying one of these ships.

[Verain]

I just wanted to throw in that this is the worst idea that has shown up on the forums for awhile.

 

Stop the micromanagement and illusion of balance.

 

For a post titled "GSF ship balance solved", starting with "lets not have balance at all" is pretty much the worst thing possible. In fact, right now, there's definitely some balance, and some effort was made. Who would removing it help?

 

Just let people make whatever ship they want.

 

This means that there would be one top ship, and at most up to three ships that were worth playing. This would dramatically shrink the number of viable builds, and seriously ramp up the number of traps.

 

This is on top of what it would do to players who earned several, or all, mastered ships. It would dillute that. You mastered three scouts, three strikes, three gunships, and three bombers? Great, now you have one scout, thrice, etc. You have four ships, each with three copies, and most of them would be awful.

 

Here's my proposal at least for RP servers, I don't care what PVP and PVE do.

 

This is also ludicrous. RP servers don't have a different ruleset, and definitely not a whole second copy of GSF, one that is utterly broken, impossible to test, and represents a fundamental fork. This idea is terrible, and somehow gets worse from here.

 

Small Chassis. Low hull hp, high speed

Can have all the "scout" parts (3 total). Whatever you want. ALL scout designs available.

 

This means that there's only one scout, instead of three. By giving players "more choice", you actually remove it. Tying form to function is a big contentious thing in gaming- I'm strongly, STRONGLY, in favor of it. I like that the coolest looking ship isn't always the one that is the best, and I like that the look of someone or something implies something about how they work. This doesn't mean that everyone should end up like some Burning Crusade era wow clownsuit, but I think it is highly important that the cool Bloodmark ship frame is not available to a Sting, for instance. If anything, games are very far on the flipside of this now, making everything a "skin" with no meaning. If you can be a 3 foot gnome or an 8 foot ogre, but both are just as strong, just as mobile, and just as fast, I would say that you can't be either a gnome or an ogre at all- by not bothering to do the necessary design, development, and testing, they just create some scam to make you FEEL like you are that thing. Meaningless.

 

So it's bad for that reason, but it also means there's only one scout.

 

Similar logic applies to the other two decimations.

 

 

 

 

Right now, there's twelve ships with unique playstyles. Lack of balance mostly comes from the fact that some are generally superior to others, but the meta is a bit deeper than (at most) three ships only.

 

 

 

 

 

This line of thought sinks games, is lazy, and produces a world of formless function with no one discussing ships by name, but instead discussing component-balls, of which only a few would be meaningful. Individual components would have to be heavily balanced, instead of a really good or really bad component serving as an argument to use a ship that you wouldn't otherwise use. For instance, tensor field is mostly the reason to play the generally weak type 3 scout, no one with distortion ever picks directional or quick charge, etc.

 

 

The game would be awful. Do not want.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

This is also ludicrous. RP servers don't have a different ruleset, and definitely not a whole second copy of GSF, one that is utterly broken, impossible to test, and represents a fundamental fork. This idea is terrible, and somehow gets worse from here.

 

I was remarkably puzzled by this too. Like somehow RP people server wide would focus on builds that fit their character and not coincidentally RP that the components their character use happen to also be BiS components everyone else uses on the PvE/PvP servers.