Balance tweaks with secondary component swapping only

[Verain]

Here's a fun forum discussion:

 

 

What improvements can you make with JUST swapping secondary components? Here's the rules:

 

 

1)- You can exchange any secondary component type- drop capacitor and add magazine. Ships with the first component would suddenly have the second, which would result in a net nerf, a buff, or some combination.

2)- Any new component would come in unupgraded. All the req invested in the old component (from 0 req to 23k req) would be added back as ship req.

3)- Say whether you think the ship is being nerfed or buffed, and why!

 

Reference / Ships in game:

Type 1 Strike: Starguard, TZ-24 (Enforcer, Gladiator), Rycer

Type 2 Strike: Pike, Quell

Type 3 Strike: Clarion, Imperium

Type 1 Scout: Novadive, Blackbolt

Type 2 Scout: Flashfire, IL-5 (Skybolt, Ocula), Sting

Type 3 Scout: Spearpoint, Bloodmark

Type 1 Gunship: Quarrel, VX-9 (Redeemer, Mailoc), Mangler

Type 2 Gunship: Comet Breaker, K-52 (Strongarm, Demolisher), Dustmaker

Type 3 Gunship: Condor, Jungoran

Type 1 Bomber: Rampart Mark IV, Razorwire

Type 2 Bomber: Warcarrier, G-X1 (Firehauler, Onslaught), Legion

Type 3 Bomber: Sledgehammer, Decimus

As a guide, the components are:

 

Capacitor- Offers ~10% increase in output to blasters only. Choices: 10% damage, 15% frequency, 10% range.

Found on (9): All Scouts, All Strikes, Type 2 Gunship, Type 3 Gunship, Type 3 Bomber.

Absent on (3): Type 1 Gunship, Type 1 Bomber, Type 2 Bomber.

Commonly selected option: None. All three options have serious adherents.

 

Magazine- Offers ~20% extension on weapon resources. Choices: 20% regen, 20% base added to max, 50% base ammo pool added to max.

Found on (8): Type 1 Strike, Type 2 Strike, All Gunships, All Bombers.

Absent on (4): All scouts, Type 3 Strike

Commonly selected option: 20% regeneration. 50% ammunition is a secondary option.

 

Thrusters- Offers ~10% mobility in some measure. Choices: 10% Speed, 10% Turning, 20% base engine pool added to max, 20% engine pool regeneration.

Found on (6): Type 1 Scout, Type 2 Scout, Type 1 Strike, Type 2 Strike, Type 3 Gunship, Type 3 Bomber.

Absent on (6): Type 3 Scout, Type 3 Strike, Type 1 Gunship, Type 2 Gunship, Type 1 Bomber, Type 2 Bomber.

Commonly selected option: None, though generally regen is favored. The engine pool maximum is never selected, however.

 

Reactor- Offers ~10% overall defenses (variable on how much a shield is). Choices: 20% shield base added to maximum, 20% shield regeneration, -60% shield regeneration delay (6 seconds down to 2.4 seconds or 3 seconds down to 1.2 seconds).

Found on (10): Type 2 Scout, Type 3 Scout, Type 1 Strike, Type 3 Strike, All Gunships, All Bombers

Absent on (2): Type 1 Scout, Type 2 Strike

Commonly selected option: Large Reactor (+20% max) is the superior choice (math in other threads) in almost every situation.

 

Armor- Offers ~10% overall defenses (variable on other options). Choices: 20% less hull damage taken (arithmetic, not multiplicative) versus non-armor-ignoring weapons, 20% additional hull hit points, 9% extra evasion.

Found on (8): All Scouts, Type 2 Strike, Type 3 Strike, Type 1 Gunship, Type 1 Bomber, Type 2 Bomber.

Absent on (4): Type 1 Strike, Type 2 Gunship, Type 3 Gunship, Type 3 Bomber.

Commonly selected option: None. Power of options varies wildly with other components, however, dictating one viable option in some cases (ex: distortion with lightweight, charged plating with deflection).

 

Sensor- Offers variable detection or stealth benefits. Choices: +5k detection, +10k communications range, +4k dampening.

Found on (8): Type 1 Scout, Type 3 Scout, Type 3 Strike, Type 1 Gunship, Type 2 Gunship, Type 1 Bomber, Type 2 Bomber.

Absent on (4): Type 2 Scout, Type 1 Strike, Type 2 Strike, Type 3 Gunship, Type 3 Bomber.

Commonly selected option: None, variable with ship type, group composition, and playstyle.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok so!

 

 

Here's the only one I think everyone would probably be down with:

 

Type 2 Gunship- Drop sensor, gain thruster.

Result: Buff: Type 2 Gunship needs a bit of help.

Reason: The Type 2 Gunship is portrayed as a "wild man's ship", trading defenses for offenses. It has long lockon weapons in addition to railguns, and less defensive options than other gunships. Trading the sensor component for a thruster would gain it much needed mobility and solidity versus the type 1 gunship, without stepping on the toes of the type 3 gunship, which has other melee options (distortion field, short lock on close range missiles, power dive, retro).

 

 

 

And here's ones I would like for various reasons, but would change the ships or nerf them in some cases:

 

Type 2 Scout- Drop reactor, gain magazine.

Result: Nerf. Type 2 Scout is relatively dominant.

Reason: The Type 2 Scout is portrayed as a very solid offensive vehicle, and it is. Unreasonably so at times. The reactor gives a ship some defenses that are, for such a slippery ship, rather generous, and generally make it outclass the similarly roled Type 1 Scout at the few things you might want a Type 1 Scout for. Meanwhile, the ship is always running out of cluster missiles and rocket pods, making the ship reliant on rearms, self destructs, or just being very cautious of expending these things. This setup would fit the described and sold kit of the ship much more, while giving it some of the vulnerability that would IMO improve the meta.

 

 

Type 2 Strike- Drop something for reactor.

Result: Maybe a small buff?

Reason: The Type 2 Strike is arguably the weakest ship in the game (I believe so). Not a lot of that weakness comes from secondary components, but some does. Strike fighters have a large base shield, and benefit more than any other class from a reactor. To be denied one hurts this ship a great deal. It is portrayed as being a sturdy fighter, but in practice it is not thought of in that fashion. The problem, however is which one to lose? I actually think swapping out capacitor for reactor would be appropriate- it would meet the design goals of the ship better- but without other changes, it could in practice be a bit of a nerf.

 

 

Type 3 Bomber- Drop magazine for armor.

Result: Buff

Reason: The magazine option can be helpful if carrying cluster missiles, but overall will help a lot less than having an armor component. The ship is still a bomber, and not having this component makes it share space with the Starguard as "ships with charged plating who can't use it because they have no armor component" (charged plating without an armor component is a different and much weaker ability- the Type 3 Bomber with charged plating active will take over TWENTY times the damage that a Type 1 Bomber with charged plating active will take).

(I don't have a similar suggestion for the Type 1 Strike- probably it should lose charged plating and gain overcharged, feedback, or even the mighty distortion [depending on whether you want to give it a viable option or buff the ship entirely], but that's really beyond the scope of this thread.)

 

 

Type 3 Scout- Drop sensors for either of the missing ones.

Result: Buff

Reason: While the ship is portrayed as a "support" ship, it is definitely cast into that role much more by its limited secondary weapon choices than by depriving it of a secondary component. While no scout currently has magazine (see above for my Type 2 nerf suggestion, however), that could be useful, but so would the missing thruster (while this ship is sold as support, it is still a scout and the lack of thruster is harmful). Depending on how much of a buff the ship needs, either of these swaps would be solid. Additionally, the Type 1 Scout is sold as the scout with the best "exploratory" role, and while that role is not very useful on the map set we have, the Type 3 Scout should not simply take over that role, on design principle. This scout is a group support scout, and doesn't need sensors to both take away from his potential (he's undertuned) and take away from the type 1's intended role.

[StrixHiraeth]

Type 1 scout: drop sensors, add reactor.

It's a buff in my opinion. Because of inter-ship communication, even dampening sensors has only limited usefulness and, in my opinion, doesn't add much to the survivability of this very very squishy ship. A reactor would let it take just a bit more punishment, which I think would make more of a difference for close dogfights or getaways.

 

Edit: Verain, I agree with your tweaks on the type 2 and type 3 scouts. I'm not familiar with other ship classes. ...except insofar as how to fly against them in a scout. I agree with the gunship tweak; a gunship that is out of engine power is a sitting duck. I'm indifferent to the type 3 bomber tweak; I think type 3's are the easiest of the bombers for me to take down, but I'm not sure whether armoring would really be preferable to magazine for them, because sustained heavy laser fire from a bomber forces me to spend defensives and leaves me more vulnerable.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Ymris

[Nemarus]

I like all of yours. I'd also throw in this one:

 

Type 3 Strike- Drop sensors for thruster

Result: Buff

Reason: I know the Type 3 is sold as the "command and support Strike" but ultimately the sensors component doesn't help it fulfill that role at alll. As a Strike, its base Sensor Range is so low that most starter T1 Scouts will easily have comparable or greater sensor range. And if the T3 Strike is equipped with any of the support abilities (Healing Probes, Combat Command, Shield Projector) then it should be staying next to allies, meaning it doesn't get any benefit from a longer communications range. And likewise sensor dampening isn't really useful for it either, given it will always be where the action is.

 

Its meant to be a less offensively oriented Strike than the T1 or T2, which is why it shouldn't have a magazine (plus it has weak secondary weapon choices). But there's no reason it should be any less maneuverable or mobile than any other Strike, let alone less maneuverable than the T3 Gunship. It really should have thrusters.

 

Alternatively, if you wanted to keep sensorsrelevant to the T3 Strike, may them have a fourth option that expands the radius on ally support abilities. If I could use Sensors to extend the radius of Repair Probes, then I'd be a lot more interested in the component.

 

----------------------------

 

Bombers

 

I also think that the T1 and T2 Bombers could use more distinction when it comes to minor components. Like you Verain, I believe all three Bombers need to have Armor and Reactor. But beyond that, there should be some play between them.

 

T3 should keep its Thrusters and Capacitor.

 

As for the Minelayer vs. Dronecarrier, I want to make them more distinct, and I'd also like to make them more dynamic and aggressive in TDM. I think that requires the addition of thrusters and/or capacitor, for either magazine and/or sensors.

 

I'm honestly not sure which gets what though.

 

In the case of the Minelayer, I could see giving it thrusters would let it more easily rush into enemy positions to aggressively drop mines, then flee. It could actually do "bombing runs".

 

I think the Dronecarrier is > < close to being an interesting dogfighter in TDM if built correctly. It can equip Concussion Missiles, after all. Thrusters would do it a lot of good--either for turning or regeneration (which would make Interdiction Drive slightly more viable).

 

Then again, at face value, giving thrusters to all three Bombers seems pretty whack (though even if you did, the T3 would remain the mobility king due to Power Dive). I'd still only give thrusters to either the Minelayer or the Dronecarrier though, not both.

[StrixHiraeth]

Nemarus:

 

Agree with your tweak to strike fighters. Their lesser maneuverability is my scouts' primary advantage, both offensively and defensively speaking.

[Nemarus]

Type 1 scout: drop sensors, add reactor.

It's a buff in my opinion. Because of inter-ship communication, even dampening sensors has only limited usefulness and, in my opinion, doesn't add much to the survivability of this very very squishy ship. A reactor would let it take just a bit more punishment, which I think would make more of a difference for close dogfights or getaways.

 

I'm not saying that would be OP, but that does have an interesting side effect with one of the T1's unique components...

 

S2E Converter + Turbo Reactor = nigh-infinite boost without having to sacrifice any shield energy

 

Right now, S2E is on a 6 second cooldown, which is the same as regen delay. If you use S2E on cooldown all the time, your shields will slowly waste away, because you will never give them a chance to recharge. If you want them to maintain strength, you have to use S2E every 8 seconds, instead of 6. It's what makes the component fun and interesting to use.

 

If the T1 had a Turbo Reactor though, its shields would regen the cost of S2E well before S2E's cooldown was up. It would be a pretty huge buff to that particular build. OP? Probably not. But it's a disproportionately significant buff to that particular build, and it would turn S2E into a brainless "push every 6 seconds for free engine energy" button ... because you'd be an idiot not to.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Nemarus

[StrixHiraeth]

S2E Converter + Turbo Reactor = nigh-infinite boost without having to sacrifice any shield energy

 

Wow, that hadn't occurred to me... but then, until I have more experience, I probably won't think of component synergies I can't discover by actually switching around components and field testing...

 

I think that would be great for type 1 scouts. Though, it'd still be tough to choose converter over distortion field.

 

Edit: Endless engine power in Kuat Mesas deathmatch would be a blast!!! High-speed chases through the little holes and over/under/around rock formations and other obstacles in Kuat Mesas TDM is already my favorite GSF experience!

Edited September 12, 2014 by Ymris

[Nemarus]

Wow, that hadn't occurred to me... but then, until I have more experience, I probably won't think of component synergies I can't discover by actually switching around components and field testing...

 

I think that would be great for type 1 scouts. Though, it'd still be tough to choose converter over distortion field.

 

Edit: Endless engine power in Kuat Mesas deathmatch would be a blast!!! High-speed chases through the little holes and over/under/around rock formations and other obstacles in Kuat Mesas TDM is already my favorite GSF experience!

 

This is the big reason why I fly with S2E even as it is. You're pretty much always boosting. Once you learn to use Power Dive effectively, you can use it to take hard corners also.

 

Yes, you don't get Distortion Field, but your goal is true hit and fade. The moment someone starts targeting you, you run them off until you fall off their sensor range (Sensor Dampening actually helps here). You can watch your pursuer in your targeting window and see the moment when their target switches from you to "No target" or someone else. Then you turn around and resume killing ... usually picking up a power up on your way back into the fray.

 

It's an especially useful build if you have notoriety on your server and find yourself being focused and chased a lot. I manage to do quite well with it, so if you like the style, you should definitely practice at it! Plus S2E, once fully upgraded, gives you a larger max shield capacity than Distortion Field.

 

But anyway... getting back closer to topic ... I agree that for pretty much every other build in the game, the sensors component is poor. I'd echo that a way to make Sensors more interesting would be to have more sensor options that would affect other aspects of the game. Imagine these:

 

Range Sensors

Communication Sensors

Dampening Sensors

Support Sensors (increase the radius of buff/debuff abilities)

Tactical Sensors (reduce missile lock-on time and/or increase firing arc)

Targeting Sensors (increase Accuracy)

 

Any of the bottom three would find welcoming homes on builds that currently scoff at the Sensors component.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Nemarus

[Kuciwalker]

If you really want to hit the battlescout you could steal its thrusters in return for the magazine.

[Ryuku-sama]

Type 1 scout: drop sensors, add reactor.

It's a buff in my opinion. Because of inter-ship communication, even dampening sensors has only limited usefulness and, in my opinion, doesn't add much to the survivability of this very very squishy ship. A reactor would let it take just a bit more punishment, which I think would make more of a difference for close dogfights or getaways.

 

No. StE + Large Reactor would be OP. Sitting on more than 1900 shield as a scout??? OP.

StE + Turbo??? Nemy said it.. Not something you want to see. I would gladly add magazine instead of Sensor tho.. More pods means more POWAH

Edited September 12, 2014 by Ryuku-sama

[Nemarus]

No. StE + Large Reactor would be OP. Sitting on more than 1900 shield as a scout??? OP.

 

Directional + Large Reactor gives 1820. You don't see many Battlescouts rocking that

[Ryuku-sama]

Directional + Large Reactor gives 1820. You don't see many Battlescouts rocking that

 

I would Evasion is frickingly bad IMO. PDie replace the breaker without too much trouble. And less evasion means less chance to getting screwed up by RNG

[Altheran]

If you really want to hit the battlescout you could steal its thrusters in return for the magazine.

With that, you would hit them very hard. I mean, VERY hard.

 

It would deny them a part of their very nature, being an offensive ship. (You know the ability to move, the better on-target uptime that is necessary to be pressuring/dangerous)

 

I much prefer the approach where it removes them a part of their generous defense, and keep their core philosophy unchanged.

 

---

 

That said, it leads me to my own ideas :

 

Type 2 Scout- Loses armor, gain magazine or sensor.

Result: Nerf.

Reason: Pretty much for the same reasons as Verain. It is described as an offensive ship, and has the means to be one. The alliance of reactor and armor give them over-generous defense for what it does.

However, why would I not remove the reactor instead of the armor ? Well, I kind of see that ship as a kind of shield specialized scout compared the Type 1 counterpart, mostly because of the availability of Directional shields. In addition, if it's a "battle" scout, it should focus on more reliable defense, maybe less fantastic but able to face a wider range of situation, and that's shielding. And lastly, it make it clearly distinct from the type 1 which is Armor focused.

As for the replacement, between sensor and magazine, I have no preference actually. Both have marginal incidence, and both are logic in some way.

 

 

Type 1 Gunship- Loses reactor, gain capacitor.

Result: Nerf.

Reason: Actually, it's for the same reason as for the type 2 Scout. While the type 2 Gunship can be fundamentally different from the type 1, they can also be fundamentally similar, like the type 1 and 2 scouts. And in this particular situation where both go "full snipe", the only things they need to be efficient are magazine. Anything not related to defense would only be marginally interesting... Making the ability to have both armor and reactor (too) significant.

Similarly to the earlier proposition, since Type 2 is shield focused, the type 1 would be armor focused to have a clear distinction between the ships without trying to favorize one or the other.

Now, why capacitor ? I know it has almost no use. However, a thruster would be -IMO- a big no-no. If the type 1 would get a thruster, the type 2 would need one too as it would be the only gunship without one and that would be something the ship would absolutely need to stand the comparizon with both type 1 and 3. But if we do that, the type 3 loses it's particularity to have greater mobility, which is something at the core of its "skirmisher" description/philosophy/playstyle... So I'd go for the capacitor.

 

 

Buffs ? Neutral rebalance ? Nope, not from me. If I'd were to put it simply, I think almost all possibilities on other ships would be useless, or detrimental to the ship, or undesirably too good. The only one that is remotely interesting would be the thurster on the type 2 Gunship... but it would be incompatible with some points in the reasonning of my earlier proposition, and would jeopardize it completely too.

 

I think (hope ?) that once these two changes are done, every other remanent unbalance could be adressed by tweaking the components themselves.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Altheran

[Ramalina]

 

 

And here's ones I would like for various reasons, but would change the ships or nerf them in some cases:

 

Type 2 Scout- Drop reactor, gain magazine.

Result: Nerf. Type 2 Scout is relatively dominant.

Reason: The Type 2 Scout is portrayed as a very solid offensive vehicle, and it is. Unreasonably so at times. The reactor gives a ship some defenses that are, for such a slippery ship, rather generous, and generally make it outclass the similarly roled Type 1 Scout at the few things you might want a Type 1 Scout for. Meanwhile, the ship is always running out of cluster missiles and rocket pods, making the ship reliant on rearms, self destructs, or just being very cautious of expending these things. This setup would fit the described and sold kit of the ship much more, while giving it some of the vulnerability that would IMO improve the meta.

 

I'm not sure that type 2 scouts are particularly hard to blow up, provided you can hit them at all. For a ship that's offensively overtuned adding more rockets, more clusters, or more power for BLC shots, doesn't seem like a way to really improve the overall meta balance. I'd have to agree with Kuci, if you want it to hurt the T2 scout, kick it in the thrusters as hard as you can. You'd replace with magazine if you wanted a moderate nerf, sensors if you wanted a major nerf.

 

 

Edit: I think Atheran's suggestion of loosing armor and replacing it (and I'd go with sensors) is an interesting one. Battle scouts aren't really all that durable, but they stack evasion and missile breaks on top of maneuverability to the point where hitting them with anything can be an exercise in frustration. A 9% nerf in evasion would be an interesting option in terms of adjusting them in defense.

 

Type 2 Strike- Drop something for reactor.

Result: Maybe a small buff?

Reason: The Type 2 Strike is arguably the weakest ship in the game (I believe so). Not a lot of that weakness comes from secondary components, but some does. Strike fighters have a large base shield, and benefit more than any other class from a reactor. To be denied one hurts this ship a great deal. It is portrayed as being a sturdy fighter, but in practice it is not thought of in that fashion. The problem, however is which one to lose? I actually think swapping out capacitor for reactor would be appropriate- it would meet the design goals of the ship better- but without other changes, it could in practice be a bit of a nerf.

 

Personally I'm fond of the type 2 strikes, and wouldn't really be thrilled to loose capacitors. When missiles are on cooldown the type 2 strike needs all the blaster oriented help it can get. Honestly, if you wanted it to be an actual buff, what I'd ditch to make room for the reactor would be armor. SIM bombers are nerfed enough at this point that I don't think you'd even really loose niche functionality (or at least not enough to matter). For that matter, I'd probably also be happy to dump armor for a second set of thrusters, with lockout so you couldn't double dip on a particular kind. I'd be a lot happier with close range T2 builds if you could have boost and turn upgrades rather than the, "pick one," scenario we have now. Besides, it has an extra engine compared to the T1, so why not more thrust? I guess that would apply to the T3 as well, as Nemarus suggested.

 

Out of curiosity Verain, what has got you so disenchanted with the T2 strike these days? It can run long range, short range, and hybrid builds that in a lot of ways have component options that work together better than the T1 strike's do at similar ranges. The short range builds can feel a bit squishy due to armor being less useful on a strike than reactor, but you can compensate somewhat with flying style (ie, don't stick around and duke it out).

Edited September 13, 2014 by Ramalina

[ALaggyGrunt]

Type 2 strikes depend on being able to hit things with missiles. Most of the things worth hitting with missiles have 3 (!!!) ways to break a lock:

1: Engine component. Yeah...

2: Distortion Field.

3: LOS/range. That's a big deal, cause GS and battlescouts are difficult to chase. GS can do it because you have to spend engine power to get into weapons range before they spot you, and kill-scouts... higher speeds and lower boost costs mean you're not chasing them.

 

Instead of these 4 components, I'd say to add #5: a targeting computer.

Type 1 would boost weapon accuracy, maybe to 8/9%.

Type 2 would boost primary weapon critical weapon hit chance and multiplier, maybe by 10%/10%.

Type 3 would reduce missile lock-on times by ~20%.

 

I'd put this component on these ships:

Type 1 striker, in place of the magazine, default being accuracy buff. If it's supposed to be the gunfighter ship,

Type 2 striker, in place of the capacitor, default being the fast-lock missiles.

Type 2 gunship, in place of the capacitor. Yes, that means they can get extra railgun accuracy or fast-lock torpedoes, so they might actually be a viable choice over the T1. Slug rail and protorps are why no secondary weapon crit boost.

 

If that's not enough, the T2 strike needs a better engine component. Koiogran isn't a very good get-me-out-of-here maneuver, so after it finishes, whatever's trying to kill this strike just goes back to it. Barrel roll is a big protorp-me-please sign. My choices: snap turn and/or retros. Either will mess up the "get up right behind this ship and pound away."

[Ramalina]

 

If that's not enough, the T2 strike needs a better engine component. Koiogran isn't a very good get-me-out-of-here maneuver, so after it finishes, whatever's trying to kill this strike just goes back to it. Barrel roll is a big protorp-me-please sign. My choices: snap turn and/or retros. Either will mess up the "get up right behind this ship and pound away."

 

Just so you know, snap turn and koigran turn are functionally equivalent. Both are a 180 degree turn in about the same amount of space, it's just that one is turn in pitch and one is turn in yaw.

 

Perhaps you were thinking of Power Dive instead of Snap Turn?

[ALaggyGrunt]

Yes, but power dive in its current form is kind of OP.

Someone hit me with infinite loop and someone else ionized my ship down to 0 engine power. I hit power dive while infinite looped at 0 engine power. The maneuver executed.

 

Snap turn throws your ship forward, then a ways behind where it started. Try to use it exactly like Koiogran, and you'll fly into things.

[Ryuku-sama]

Yes, but power dive in its current form is kind of OP.

Someone hit me with infinite loop and someone else ionized my ship down to 0 engine power. I hit power dive while infinite looped at 0 engine power. The maneuver executed.

 

PDie OP??? PDie has more kill on my Nova than anyone else!!!!! And I'm still one of those few who usend it long before BR was nerfed into oblivion.

[Magira]

PDie OP??? PDie has more kill on my Nova than anyone else!!!!! And I'm still one of those few who usend it long before BR was nerfed into oblivion.

 

Except for Barell Roll each maneuver is responsible for hundreds of deaths at me. Power Dive for most though.

This is also the reason why I now use distortion field for all ships where it goes. Missile break without that I would unasked towed out somewhere. The rest of distortion could go to hell me, I do not really make my death depending on RNG.

[Gavin_Kelvar]

I like all of yours. I'd also throw in this one:

 

Type 3 Strike- Drop sensors for thruster

Result: Buff

Reason: I know the Type 3 is sold as the "command and support Strike" but ultimately the sensors component doesn't help it fulfill that role at alll. As a Strike, its base Sensor Range is so low that most starter T1 Scouts will easily have comparable or greater sensor range. And if the T3 Strike is equipped with any of the support abilities (Healing Probes, Combat Command, Shield Projector) then it should be staying next to allies, meaning it doesn't get any benefit from a longer communications range. And likewise sensor dampening isn't really useful for it either, given it will always be where the action is.

 

Its meant to be a less offensively oriented Strike than the T1 or T2, which is why it shouldn't have a magazine (plus it has weak secondary weapon choices). But there's no reason it should be any less maneuverable or mobile than any other Strike, let alone less maneuverable than the T3 Gunship. It really should have thrusters.

 

Alternatively, if you wanted to keep sensorsrelevant to the T3 Strike, may them have a fourth option that expands the radius on ally support abilities. If I could use Sensors to extend the radius of Repair Probes, then I'd be a lot more interested in the component.

 

I fully agree with giving them thrusters. The only useful sensor to a T3 striker is sensor radius and that's situationally useful at best. If they wanted to limit mobility they could just remove the regen thruster component (next to turning that's probably the most useful).

 

Honestly I think the only reason they gave it sensors was to fit the ship description rather than for any meaningful balance.

 

Type 2 Scout- Loses armor, gain magazine or sensor.

Result: Nerf.

Reason: Pretty much for the same reasons as Verain. It is described as an offensive ship, and has the means to be one. The alliance of reactor and armor give them over-generous defense for what it does.

However, why would I not remove the reactor instead of the armor ? Well, I kind of see that ship as a kind of shield specialized scout compared the Type 1 counterpart, mostly because of the availability of Directional shields. In addition, if it's a "battle" scout, it should focus on more reliable defense, maybe less fantastic but able to face a wider range of situation, and that's shielding. And lastly, it make it clearly distinct from the type 1 which is Armor focused.

As for the replacement, between sensor and magazine, I have no preference actually. Both have marginal incidence, and both are logic in some way.

 

I also agree with this. To me it feels that maxed passive evasion on a T1 scout is relatively balanced because they're slightly more limited offensively than T2s but maxed evasion on a T2 is a bit too powerful since they have the weaponry/systems to melt you almost instantly if RNG rolls keep you from shooting them down. They'd no doubt still be powerful but I think T2s would be much more manageable for strikers (the T1 & T3 strikers getting an indirect buff since the blaster weaponry they rely on for dogfighting would be more reliable against T2 scouts).

 

I think it'd also be an indirect buff to T1s by making them the preferred scout for GS hunting since they'd have more evasion to dodge a railgun shot.

[Verain]

Yes, but power dive in its current form is kind of OP.

 

No, it is not.

 

Someone hit me with infinite loop and someone else ionized my ship down to 0 engine power. I hit power dive while infinite looped at 0 engine power. The maneuver executed.

 

Because it costs 0 energy. That's not OP, that's a big reason to use the move.

 

Snap turn throws your ship forward, then a ways behind where it started. Try to use it exactly like Koiogran, and you'll fly into things.

 

Correct. But the two turns are still similar. Both of those movement arcs are a lot more generically useable than power dive, and require less situational awareness of the map "beneath" your ship, for instance.

 

 

I believe currently that the power dive, retro thrusters, and barrel roll are pretty closely balanced, and snap turn is real close. K-turn is too, but I generally find snap turn superior.