Tune's Balance Suggestions

[tunewalker]

On the same Vane as Verain's, but with MUCH less stuff.... and maybe much more controversial.

 

 

 

1. Strike Fighter

Increase Engine efficiency to be equal to Scouts. As has been noted one of the biggest losses for Strike fighters was the Barrel Roll nerf. This is largely do to maneuverability. Strikes and Scouts Rely more on their primary weapons then the other classes of the game. Both the Gunship and the bomber have more reliance on their secondary weapons then the other to ships so their ability to keep ships in their sights is much less important then the other ships.

 

Part of what has kept strikes from being competitive is their ability to keep pace with their targets. If the GS pilot has stayed still long enough to regen most of its engine power, the the strike ends up using up a good majority of this energy to catch a GS pilot. Since both the GS and the Strike have similar engine efficiency and the Strike is just barely faster and barely better turning but never has Burst lasers and rarely has Rapids or Lights chosen for up close fighting (again because of their ability to keep pace with a target is lack luster).

 

Scouts will still be faster, still have more turning AND still have usually better access to close range weaponry as well as CD's to make these weapons better, and evasion to further punish tracking.

 

This would likely help strikes, but hurt both GS and scouts since Strikes will be more dangerous to both groups now.

 

2. Scout Burst

This is a known issue that devs have said.

 

1. Remove the Crit Magnitude from the final upgrade of Target Telem. change nothing else about it

2.Switch the two left talents on Blaster overcharge with each other (the choice then becomes between Damage and RoF, and then final choice is between efficiency and range, thus both damage talents can not be taken)

 

 

3. Laser changes

 

Burst laser

Re do its talent line to mirror Heavy Lasers

 

First talent stays the same

second switches from 5% crit and 2% accuracy to 5% range (range is good on Burst do to the way Burst scales, this mostly removes crit with out hurting accuracy to much bringing burst down)

Third Switches from Increase arc 2 degree and reduce tracking penalty 5% to 8% increased hull damage (this is clearly the nerf, Overall Hull damage will drop, and tracking accuracy will be hit.

4th will be a CHOICE of either 3% crit and 5% tracking penalty reduction (giving back the crit and tracking lost but only if they make that choice) OR Armor Pen

5th Choice between 15% shield Pierce or 18% shield damage (this would be the buff or "compensation" for the loss of some accuracy.

 

Burst Laser 2.

Increase tracking penalty to .8 per degree to mirror rapids.

 

These changes would keep bursts damage high but make them a bit harder to use. If to hard reverting some changes would be possible obviously.

 

 

Rapid Fire Lasers

Increase base accuracy by 5% to be equivlant to Light lasers

Decrease Rate of Fire to 180 Base line with out decreasing DPS (effective increase in Damage per shot)

 

This will make RFL to Light Lasers what Lasers are to Quads, the better tracking lower energy cost but lower damage equivilant, which I think they should be.

 

 

 

Crew Rapid Reload:

 

Increase from 8% to 50%, this would make this option a VERY real choice for those choosing long reload missiles like Protons, and Ions. While having little effect on Clusters (engine maneuvers prevent lock on for 3 Seconds, Cluster reload with out modifications is 3 seconds reducing clusters is a waste of effort)

 

 

There are several other things that can be done, but personally I think easier changes should be the first to be done and these would I feel be some of the "easier" ones.

Edited October 28, 2014 by tunewalker

[Ramalina]

1. The engine efficiency equalization might be a bit much.

 

In the past I've recommended reducing the Boost energy consumed/second difference between strikes and scouts to half of what it currently is, but leaving the boost activation cost higher for strikes.

 

That gives you about a 6-7% increase in boost ability, and taken with an efficiency crew passive might get strikes where they can outrun a gunship quite reliably, and with really smart flying could possibly run down a scout build that's weak on boost upgrades.

 

Possibly you could even go as far as a 10% increase in the baseline boost efficiency, basically allowing the equivalent of double dipping on a crew efficiency passive.

 

I think scouts should have a bit more boost endurance than strikes in general, but the gap is a bit too big at the moment.

 

2. I think for scout burst you'd probably also have to look at Concentrated Fire. Probably cut the crit chance but increase the duration.

 

 

The rest of the changes look interesting and not overly harsh, though it's hard to tell without playtesting.

[MiaowZedong]

1. Strike Fighter

Increase Engine efficiency to be equal to Scouts. As has been noted one of the biggest losses for Strike fighters was the Barrel Roll nerf. This is largely do to maneuverability. Strikes and Scouts Rely more on their primary weapons then the other classes of the game. Both the Gunship and the bomber have more reliance on their secondary weapons then the other to ships so their ability to keep ships in their sights is much less important then the other ships.

 

Part of what has kept strikes from being competitive is their ability to keep pace with their targets. If the GS pilot has stayed still long enough to regen most of its engine power, the the strike ends up using up a good majority of this energy to catch a GS pilot. Since both the GS and the Strike have similar engine efficiency and the Strike is just barely faster and barely better turning but never has Burst lasers and rarely has Rapids or Lights chosen for up close fighting (again because of their ability to keep pace with a target is lack luster).

 

Scouts will still be faster, still have more turning AND still have usually better access to close range weaponry as well as CD's to make these weapons better, and evasion to further punish tracking.

 

This would likely help strikes, but hurt both GS and scouts since Strikes will be more dangerous to both groups now.

I agree with your assessment but I don't think turning strikes nearly into scouts should be a solution. IMO their afterburner consumption rate should be intermediary between scouts and 'heavy' ships, so about 9.5 (scouts have 8.7, all other ships currently have 10.4).

 

2. Scout Burst

This is a known issue that devs have said.

 

1. Remove the Crit Magnitude from the final upgrade of Target Telem. change nothing else about it

2.Switch the two left talents on Blaster overcharge with each other (the choice then becomes between Damage and RoF, and then final choice is between efficiency and range, thus both damage talents can not be taken)

I don't agree. Most scout imbalances ultimately stem from evasion stacking with increasing returns. You'll note that the common point between the two ship types consistently labelled as the most overpowered is evasion stacking (with the T2 scout being able to stack more than the T1 GS). Scout issues will IMO mostly go away if evasion is fixed. The needed solution, not only to the battlescout problem but to alot of imbalances, is a "survivability pass" rebalancing the various mechanics and components.

 

Evasion isn't "overtuned", or "overpowered", it is quite litterally "broken". It is an inherent balance-breaker because of how it mathematically interacts with other stats. You cannot have pick-and-mix components and perfectly balanced evasion with the current mechanics. You can have evasion components stack to be overpowered (as it is now), or underpowered (similar to how DR is relegated to niche roles because counters to it are ubiquitous). It could conceivably be balanced if you could only ever have one ammount of it, but that wouldn't be fun.

 

I also wouldn't expect your changes to have much impact on the meta. They are tweaks, they are good tweaks in fact, they just don't address the bigger issues.

 

3. Laser changes

 

Burst laser

Re do its talent line to mirror Heavy Lasers

 

First talent stays the same

second switches from 5% crit and 2% accuracy to 5% range (range is good on Burst do to the way Burst scales, this mostly removes crit with out hurting accuracy to much bringing burst down)

Third Switches from Increase arc 2 degree and reduce tracking penalty 5% to 8% increased hull damage (this is clearly the nerf, Overall Hull damage will drop, and tracking accuracy will be hit.

4th will be a CHOICE of either 3% crit and 5% tracking penalty reduction (giving back the crit and tracking lost but only if they make that choice) OR Armor Pen

5th Choice between 15% shield Pierce or 18% shield damage (this would be the buff or "compensation" for the loss of some accuracy.

 

Burst Laser 2.

Increase tracking penalty to .8 per degree to mirror rapids.

Not a bad suggestion--personnally I suspect it would be too much of a nerf however. I think it's fine if BLC retain their pre-eminence in the very close, turn battle situtation, and so notably I'd like to see them keep their current lenient tracking penalties. Making their talent tree involve more tradeoffs and overall buff them abit less is definitely a good tweak, though.

 

 

Rapid Fire Lasers

Increase base accuracy by 5% to be equivlant to Light lasers

Decrease Rate of Fire to 180 Base line with out decreasing DPS (effective increase in Damage per shot)

 

This will make RFL to Light Lasers what Lasers are to Quads, the better tracking lower energy cost but lower damage equivilant, which I think they should be.

I don't agree with this. I think RFL should retain their identity as the fastest firing guns in the game. An increase to the damage per shot would probably be my preferred method of rebalance.

 

That said, we're again looking at underlying, GSF-wide problems. Blaster accuracy is undervalued (perhaps it wouldn't be if evasion was less powerful) and blaster power cost is overvalued in the devs' original balancing. Rather than just sticking a plaster on some outliers, all blasters need to be looked at based on how effective they really are. Fortunately, blaster rebalance is IMO less urgent than some of the other problems.

Crew Rapid Reload:

 

Increase from 8% to 50%, this would make this option a VERY real choice for those choosing long reload missiles like Protons, and Ions. While having little effect on Clusters (engine maneuvers prevent lock on for 3 Seconds, Cluster reload with out modifications is 3 seconds reducing clusters is a waste of effort)

While I agree with this idea, this is another thing that should be integrated into a sweeping balance pass (of crew abilities in this case). Changing crew abilities piecemeal is not a good idea when there is so much to be done. At the very least, before touching any ability the devs need to settle on what the standard should be. Should Pinpointing be the standard all crew passives are balanced around, or should it be Power to Blasters? Is Wingman at the right power level for a copilot ability, or should they be less powerful, like Slicer's Loop? You can't touch anything until these decisions are made.

Edited October 28, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[tunewalker]

The difference between scouts and Strike mobility is to me the defining factor of why Strikes are bad. The very fact that people have mentioned several times how bad the BR nerf hurt T2 Strike is a big testament to how important mobility is for a strike fighter. If that one thing wasnt CONSTANTLY hit upon by so many people, it would be less blantantly obvious that it is needed. But the very fact that pretty much everyone goes.... T2 sucks after BR nerf, says clear as day. Strike weakness is its reliance on mobility and its LACK of mobility.

 

It would still be slower and "handle" worse then a scout, thus the scout would still keep its identity. But strikes would regain their identity and the maneuverable "tanks" just by increasing efficiency.

 

While I MAY agree on evasion. Their has been NOTHING from the devs in regards to Survival of Scouts and GS, and more a Problem specifically stated with Scout burst. Thus I adressed the 1 Thing that the Devs have already stated to be a problem. By Making strikes more efficient effecting evasion on Scouts may take away to much from them, especially since devs have already said they will be balancing burst eventually.

 

The crew thing was for 2 purposes, you only caught 1 of them. The first was to make more crew options better, specifically the only offensive one no one ever takes. And the second was the help Long Reload missiles. The devs when they Nerfed BR and the other engines specifically stated that they didnt feel missiles hit often enough. The nerf, unfortunately did not really increase how often missiles hit except MAYBE clusters. Doing this how ever would increase missile hits from bigger missiles.

 

 

Edit: think about this when thinking about Strike mobility. The BR nerf Hurt GS, but as far as the meta was concerned it "Deleted" T2 Strikes. And how many people have changed from Directionals on T1 Strikes to Quick Charge for that extra mobility. With Quick Charge a Strike has = Engine Efficiency to a Scout. A T2 strike doesnt truly have that option because of the huge hit to Shields you take with Quick charge and its lack of Reactor.

Edited October 28, 2014 by tunewalker

[MiaowZedong]

The difference between scouts and Strike mobility is to me the defining factor of why Strikes are bad. The very fact that people have mentioned several times how bad the BR nerf hurt T2 Strike is a big testament to how important mobility is for a strike fighter. If that one thing wasnt CONSTANTLY hit upon by so many people, it would be less blantantly obvious that it is needed. But the very fact that pretty much everyone goes.... T2 sucks after BR nerf, says clear as day. Strike weakness is its reliance on mobility and its LACK of mobility.

 

It would still be slower and "handle" worse then a scout, thus the scout would still keep its identity. But strikes would regain their identity and the maneuverable "tanks" just by increasing efficiency.

 

While I MAY agree on evasion. Their has been NOTHING from the devs in regards to Survival of Scouts and GS, and more a Problem specifically stated with Scout burst. Thus I adressed the 1 Thing that the Devs have already stated to be a problem. By Making strikes more efficient effecting evasion on Scouts may take away to much from them, especially since devs have already said they will be balancing burst eventually.

Making strikes more engine efficient would allow higher DPS numbers in farm games against bads. In competitive games, you'd still suffer from lower EHP than scouts (yes, I know, it's not possible to have a "definitive" EHP number in this game, but in most situations even discounting manual evasion, a scout requires more shots to take down due to evasion making more shots miss, and the scout would also still be better at manual evasion), only a single lock break, no access to Power Dive except on the T3, and weaker shield actives.

 

Would taking away or balancing evasion make scouts too weak if strikes were as efficient as them? Well, yes, which is a part of why strikes should not be made as efficient as scouts. More efficient than GS and bombers, yes, that makes absolute sense, and you explained why

 

However, IMO scouts should remain the most efficient class, not just the joint most efficient, and IMO if there is an actual plan to truly balance GSF and not just throw on a few sticking plasters here and there, increasing strike fighter efficiency too much now would just cause problems down the lines (and you've already fingered the biggest one, really).

The crew thing was for 2 purposes, you only caught 1 of them. The first was to make more crew options better, specifically the only offensive one no one ever takes. And the second was the help Long Reload missiles. The devs when they Nerfed BR and the other engines specifically stated that they didnt feel missiles hit often enough. The nerf, unfortunately did not really increase how often missiles hit except MAYBE clusters. Doing this how ever would increase missile hits from bigger missiles.

The problem is this is a pick and mix game. You'd be offering people the choice of a good passive to try and make up for a bad active, and the active would still be bad. Especially since a big part of big missiles being less useful is that they are bugged. If they cannot technically be made to work properly without inordinate effort, their lock on times should be reduced and/or their arcs increased to make them hit more often despite the ninja lock loss.

Edit: think about this when thinking about Strike mobility. The BR nerf Hurt GS, but as far as the meta was concerned it "Deleted" T2 Strikes. And how many people have changed from Directionals on T1 Strikes to Quick Charge for that extra mobility. With Quick Charge a Strike has = Engine Efficiency to a Scout. A T2 strike doesnt truly have that option because of the huge hit to Shields you take with Quick charge and its lack of Reactor.

I've played a T1 strike with QCS and it doesn't actually affect engine efficiency. It gives you slightly less than an extra second of boost and allows you to regen power slightly faster (alot faster at first, but the 'recently consumed' rate is tiny compared to the normal rate which kicks in after 3s), but you still spend alot less time afterburning than a scout .

 

The other advantage of QCS over Directionals is that you're not as completely screwed in 1 vs many situations or other situations where you cannot control the angle of attack, and these are situations you face more often due to a lack of mobility. However IMO the cost is too high for QCS to be a top tier component...you lose 30% of your shields and can regen 30% of the remaining 70% on demand...even with a maxed Large Reactor that leaves you squishier than base, and squishied than a DS ship not using its active. You have a very large attrition advantage but the attrition advantage is not so great when you don't have a mobility advantage and the game is dominated by burst damage (not just scout burst). It's essentially the same problem as the T2 strike: it's very good at doing something that's inherently not that useful.

 

Also since I'm mentioning the T2 strike: if missiles were better, the T2 strike would be better. It's best in the game at launching missiles, especially some of the longer lock-on ones. If protorps and ion missiles and EMP missiles were all first rate components, it would be a really good ship. When you want to buff things, don't forget that buffing missiles means the T2 strike requires less specific buffs, and buffing the T2 strike means missile buffs could venture into the land of OPness. In other terms, again, trying to do some balancing here and there instead of comprehensive passes can be very dangerous.

 

EDIT:

Actually, after checking the maths, quick-charge shield makes up for almost exactly half of the difference in efficiency between strikes and scouts, in addition to a small regen advantage outside of the actuall boost. So if strikes were given the buff Ramalina and I suggested, QCS would then put them on par with non-QCS scouts.

 

That gives you about a 6-7% increase in boost ability,

Actually, if you cut the difference in exactly half (assuming the software can handle three significant figures) it would be an 8.9% increase in boost ability

Edited October 28, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[Ramalina]

I don't agree. Most scout imbalances ultimately stem from evasion stacking with increasing returns. You'll note that the common point between the two ship types consistently labelled as the most overpowered is evasion stacking (with the T2 scout being able to stack more than the T1 GS). Scout issues will IMO mostly go away if evasion is fixed. The needed solution, not only to the battlescout problem but to alot of imbalances, is a "survivability pass" rebalancing the various mechanics and components.

 

Evasion isn't "overtuned", or "overpowered", it is quite litterally "broken". It is an inherent balance-breaker because of how it mathematically interacts with other stats. You cannot have pick-and-mix components and perfectly balanced evasion with the current mechanics. You can have evasion components stack to be overpowered (as it is now), or underpowered (similar to how DR is relegated to niche roles because counters to it are ubiquitous). It could conceivably be balanced if you could only ever have one ammount of it, but that wouldn't be fun.

 

 

They have more common points than that. Double missile breaks, near perfect component selection synergy, and the ability to do high amounts of burst damage on the target of their choice without excessive difficulty.

 

Personally I find the double missile breaks and burst more problematic than evasion when dealing with scouts and gunships on a strike.

 

The crew thing was for 2 purposes, you only caught 1 of them. The first was to make more crew options better, specifically the only offensive one no one ever takes. And the second was the help Long Reload missiles. The devs when they Nerfed BR and the other engines specifically stated that they didnt feel missiles hit often enough. The nerf, unfortunately did not really increase how often missiles hit except MAYBE clusters. Doing this how ever would increase missile hits from bigger missiles.

 

 

Edit: think about this when thinking about Strike mobility. The BR nerf Hurt GS, but as far as the meta was concerned it "Deleted" T2 Strikes. And how many people have changed from Directionals on T1 Strikes to Quick Charge for that extra mobility. With Quick Charge a Strike has = Engine Efficiency to a Scout. A T2 strike doesnt truly have that option because of the huge hit to Shields you take with Quick charge and its lack of Reactor.

 

I use Quick Charge on a T2, and pretty much consider it a mandatory component. On the T1 as well for that matter.

 

I would much rather have reactor instead of armor on a strike. Armor was good on the T2 for a brief period when the SIM bombers were terrorizing GSF's skies, but the general utility of armor on a strike is pretty inferior to reactors.

 

Unfortunately I don't see them changing that on the T2. A shame, as loosing 10 k requisition with no refund for an Armor => Reactor swap on the T2 would still be a very favorable transaction for anyone flying the T2.

 

I also found that the engine maneuver nerfs made a real difference in terms of being able to land the heavier missiles, but only on less skilled pilots. For skilled pilots the double break is still functional immunity to pretty much everything except clusters. Two breaks will get you to a LOS obstacle, and that's all you need.

[tunewalker]

Stop Doing math for Quick Charge, instead do an Actual test. Get a buddy, get same upgrades all the way through (regen Thrusters increased speed on whatever engine ability) you have Quick charge he has a scout no Quick Charge. Boost till you both run out. I did this with several people, we both run out the same time. The "recently Consumed" rate increases enough with Quick Charge that "boost efficiency" becomes equal to that of a scout. You are regening while boosting with the "recently Consumed" Since it takes 0 seconds to kick in.

 

Would a QCS Strike have more boost efficiency then a Scout at this point yes. Should it... HELL YES.

 

Shields on T2 Strike with Quick Charge 1440

Shields on T2 Scout with Distortion 1430

Strike Evasion 19%

Scout Evasion 34%

Scout is still just as much faster then the strike as the GS is faster then the Bomber

Scout still turns as much faster then the strike as the Gs does the Bomber

 

2 engine efficiencies. 1 the Dog fighter efficiency granted to the Strike and Scout as it should be. The other the specialist efficiency given to GS and Bomber as it currently is.

 

The fact that a Dedicated Strike pilot finds QCS mandatory on all strikes that can take it for the mobility again says EXACTLY what I am saying. QCS allows = efficiency to scouts, this isnt based on math this is based on multiple in game tests with exact same set ups on the scout and the Strike with the only difference being QC on Strike and No Quick Charge on the Scout. Doing Half would be a diservice and would ultimately leave Strikes exactly where they are... dead and burried only to be pulled out for the pilots love for it, and not for their use in actual game.

 

Try your math with the Efficient engines taken on both scout and Strike, and with Regen Thrusters on both and QC on the Strike and remember that the "Recently Consumed" regen Rate is happening DURING a boost.

Edited October 28, 2014 by tunewalker

[Gavin_Kelvar]

On the same Vane as Verain's, but with MUCH less stuff.... and maybe much more controversial.

 

 

 

1. Strike Fighter

Increase Engine efficiency to be equal to Scouts. As has been noted one of the biggest losses for Strike fighters was the Barrel Roll nerf. This is largely do to maneuverability. Strikes and Scouts Rely more on their primary weapons then the other classes of the game. Both the Gunship and the bomber have more reliance on their secondary weapons then the other to ships so their ability to keep ships in their sights is much less important then the other ships.

 

Part of what has kept strikes from being competitive is their ability to keep pace with their targets. If the GS pilot has stayed still long enough to regen most of its engine power, the the strike ends up using up a good majority of this energy to catch a GS pilot. Since both the GS and the Strike have similar engine efficiency and the Strike is just barely faster and barely better turning but never has Burst lasers and rarely has Rapids or Lights chosen for up close fighting (again because of their ability to keep pace with a target is lack luster).

 

Scouts will still be faster, still have more turning AND still have usually better access to close range weaponry as well as CD's to make these weapons better, and evasion to further punish tracking.

 

This would likely help strikes, but hurt both GS and scouts since Strikes will be more dangerous to both groups now.

 

While I agree that they need that mobility boost I think strikers also need an agility boost. As I suggested in Ramalina's suggestion thread something between 6-10% boost to base agility would go a long way to making strikers more competitive. I think this is in large part needed to allow strikers to be more capable of getting a ship in the center of their firing arc. Most of their best weapons come with high tracking penalties and, in the case of secondaries, small firing arcs so this would go a long way to boosting their combat effectiveness once they get there. I think a mobility boost alone won't help since they'll still have difficulty engaging enemy ships once they arrive where the action is.

 

 

3. Laser changes

 

Burst laser

Re do its talent line to mirror Heavy Lasers

 

First talent stays the same

second switches from 5% crit and 2% accuracy to 5% range (range is good on Burst do to the way Burst scales, this mostly removes crit with out hurting accuracy to much bringing burst down)

Third Switches from Increase arc 2 degree and reduce tracking penalty 5% to 8% increased hull damage (this is clearly the nerf, Overall Hull damage will drop, and tracking accuracy will be hit.

4th will be a CHOICE of either 3% crit and 5% tracking penalty reduction (giving back the crit and tracking lost but only if they make that choice) OR Armor Pen

5th Choice between 15% shield Pierce or 18% shield damage (this would be the buff or "compensation" for the loss of some accuracy.

 

Burst Laser 2.

Increase tracking penalty to .8 per degree to mirror rapids.

 

These changes would keep bursts damage high but make them a bit harder to use. If to hard reverting some changes would be possible obviously.

 

I overall think this would be an amazing change to BLCs. In particular since it would give strikers a little more distinction in the anti-armor role (since a scout would have to choose between dogfighting efficiency or anti-armor). You might want to bump the crit in the T4 upgrade to 5% so it's a truly tempting choice. I don't think an extra 2% there would be game breaking and it would help ensure that the armor pen isn't still the tier option of choice.

 

Crew Rapid Reload:

 

Increase from 8% to 50%, this would make this option a VERY real choice for those choosing long reload missiles like Protons, and Ions. While having little effect on Clusters (engine maneuvers prevent lock on for 3 Seconds, Cluster reload with out modifications is 3 seconds reducing clusters is a waste of effort)

 

 

There are several other things that can be done, but personally I think easier changes should be the first to be done and these would I feel be some of the "easier" ones.

 

My one concern here is that it should probably go along with a base buff to torpedo firing arcs. the passive firing arc is kinda required by virtue of the ninja lock loss bug and, IMO, you shouldn't have to take a crew passive as a workaround for a bug. (I suggest buffing torpedo firing arcs to 16 degrees prior to passives. (concussions would effectively be the base everything else is balanced around; so it would look like this: torpedoes 16 degrees, concs 20 degrees, clusters 24 degrees). At least I think with that sort of buff you'd have strikers making more meaningful choices between firing arc, accuracy, and reload based on playstyle rather than having one option chosen automatically due to the ninja lock loss.

 

Personally I find the double missile breaks and burst more problematic than evasion when dealing with scouts and gunships on a strike.

 

agreed, having immunity to a major source of DPS is way more problematic than evasion. Having a scout able to burst down a strike that's still got good shield integrity before they can react is also way more of a problem than evasion.

 

From what I've seen accuracy is just generally weird with being able to miss near dead center shots even against things with low/no evasion so I'd be inclined to look at accuracy/tracking penalties first before making another balance pass on evasion.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Gavin_Kelvar

[tunewalker]

6-10% increase in agility would put a Strike on par with Scouts in agility. I think the balance between speed and turning between all the ships is balanced. The only thing that isnt is efficiency.

 

Yes it can be difficult to keep them centered, but that's supposed to be the challenge of the strike, select turning thrusters instead of regen or Speed.

Edited October 28, 2014 by tunewalker

[Gavin_Kelvar]

6-10% increase in agility would put a Strike on par with Scouts in agility. I think the balance between speed and turning between all the ships is balanced. The only thing that isnt is efficiency.

 

Not quite on par. 10% from thrusters doesn't give you the exact same agility as a scout for example (close but still slightly lower). 6% would definitely keep a striker at lower agility than a scout though. Point being it would make strikers, the other dogfighter class, more competitive in that role since tracking penalties/accuracy/evasion put a premium on being able to pull a tight enough turn to center your target (if not using BLC).

[tunewalker]

Not quite on par. 10% from thrusters doesn't give you the exact same agility as a scout for example (close but still slightly lower). 6% would definitely keep a striker at lower agility than a scout though. Point being it would make strikers, the other dogfighter class, more competitive in that role since tracking penalties/accuracy/evasion put a premium on being able to pull a tight enough turn to center your target (if not using BLC).

 

If they didnt change Engine efficiency it would do a whole lot of squat. Honestly the effectiveness of strikes abilities to keep targets in their sights and chase them down pre BR nerf suggests that extra turning is unneccisary. The problem is "threat range" the range at which a Strike is threatening, boost efficiency and the ability to close distance is apart of that. You can pretty much get exactly what you are wanting out of the turning options, which if boost efficiency was increased, then people like you COULD choose those turning options, while others like me could stick with regen, or still others could go for Speed.

 

Point is, that would be over kill. If I am wrong and they do my suggestion and its not enough, obviously they could buff more, but I subscribe to the idea of change 1 thing big at a time, rather then changing many small things all at once. This way when something gets over tuned. Its easy to spot what it was rather then trying to guess what it was that got over buffed, or over nerfed. The less variables that change, the easier it is to tell when something changed to much.

[MiaowZedong]

Stop Doing math for Quick Charge, instead do an Actual test. Get a buddy, get same upgrades all the way through (regen Thrusters increased speed on whatever engine ability) you have Quick charge he has a scout no Quick Charge. Boost till you both run out. I did this with several people, we both run out the same time. The "recently Consumed" rate increases enough with Quick Charge that "boost efficiency" becomes equal to that of a scout. You are regening while boosting with the "recently Consumed" Since it takes 0 seconds to kick in.

Did you test with stopwatches? Did you correct for human response times?

 

If so, you've found a bug. If not, stop making meaningless "tests" because by "at the same time" you mean "within the few seconds it takes us to confirm with each other". Your precision is too low relative to the quantities measured, your test has zero value, you wasted your time. I'm sorry, there is no other way to put it.

 

Shields on T2 Strike with Quick Charge 1440

Shields on T2 Scout with Distortion 1430

Strike Evasion 19%

Scout Evasion 34%

Except a scout has 33% evasion (and should not) and you are comparing with different crew passives. With the same crew passives, you have either 1620 and 1430 shields, or 1440 and 1300. QCS also has a use beyond increasing mobility, you know? (and yes, it is underpowered in that role)

 

The fact that a Dedicated Strike pilot finds QCS mandatory on all strikes that can take it for the mobility again says EXACTLY what I am saying. QCS allows = efficiency to scouts,

I'm sorry, this does not make sense.

this isnt based on math this is based on multiple in game tests

The game IS math. It runs on electronic hardware that uses electrons the way an abacus uses beads. It's nothing buf a fancy set of equations being graphically modeled on your screen.

 

Try your math with the Efficient engines taken on both scout and Strike, and with Regen Thrusters on both and QC on the Strike and remember that the "Recently Consumed" regen Rate is happening DURING a boost.

Scout has 8.7-2=6.7 net cost per second.

Strike Fighter with QCS has 10.4-2.9=7.5 net cost per second.

 

And if ever those numbers are inaccurate, then there's a bug or an inaccurate tooltip (which can, in fact, be considered a bug). However, I very much doubt they're inaccurate.

Edited October 28, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[zaskar]

Anyone that takes any type of shield when distortion is available is a farm target. You can stack crew and co-pilot to become damn near un-hittable with the system, that is far more valuable than being able to soak a little more damage.

 

This is the classic mitigation argument in every mmo. Every (good) tank in SWTOR does not stack endurance they stack mitigation (defense, shield, absorb). It is the same with distortion field (evasion) in this mini game based on the same mechanics.

Edited October 28, 2014 by zaskar

[MiaowZedong]

Anyone that takes any type of shield when distortion is available is a farm target. You can stack crew and co-pilot to become damn near un-hittable with the system, that is far more valuable than being able to soak a little more damage.

 

This is the classic mitigation argument in every mmo. Every (good) tank in SWTOR does not stack endurance they stack mitigation (defense, shield, absorb). It is the same with distortion field (evasion) in this mini game based on the same mechanics.

Yes!

Absolutely this.

With the added twist that in this minigame there aren't any diminishing returns on mitigation, so it's even more better. Yes, it's so superlative it's more better.

 

While I agree that they need that mobility boost I think strikers also need an agility boost. As I suggested in Ramalina's suggestion thread something between 6-10% boost to base agility would go a long way to making strikers more competitive.

Please stop trying to turn strikes into scouts. Yes, it would balance them, but we'd lost diversity in the game. If that's how we're going about it, might as well just make new scouts and give them strike models, then delete the original strikes.

 

Strikes are supposed to be slower, less agile, and more heavily armed than scouts (and personally this is definitely how I want to play them). So while they may need some added mobility relative to 'heavies' like bombers and gunships, they don't need to be given agility or mobility that competes with scouts. They do need to be more survivable and/or hit harder than scouts.

Edited October 28, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[tunewalker]

Did you test with stopwatches? Did you correct for human response times?

 

If so, you've found a bug. If not, stop making meaningless "tests" because by "at the same time" you mean "within the few seconds it takes us to confirm with each other". Your precision is too low relative to the quantities measured, your test has zero value, you wasted your time. I'm sorry, there is no other way to put it.

 

 

Except a scout has 33% evasion (and should not) and you are comparing with different crew passives. With the same crew passives, you have either 1720 and 1430 shields, or 1440 and 1300. QCS also has a use beyond increasing mobility, you know? (and yes, it is underpowered in that role)

 

 

I'm sorry, this does not make sense.

 

The game IS math. It runs on electronic hardware that uses electrons the way an abacus uses beads. It's nothing buf a fancy set of equations being graphically modeled on your screen.

 

 

Scout has 8.7-2=6.7 net cost per second.

Strike Fighter with QCS has 10.4-2.9=7.5 net cost per second.

 

And if ever those numbers are inaccurate, then there's a bug or an inaccurate tooltip (which can, in fact, be considered a bug). However, I very much doubt they're inaccurate.

 

Inaccurate numbers... inaccurate numbers everywhere.

 

T2 strike has 0 Reactor, with QCS and the 10 increase shields crew member your shields are 1440 (base shields 1800+ 10%- 30% net is -20%. 20% of 1800 is 360. 1800-360= 1440)

T2 Scout has Reactor and Crew, shields 1430( base shields 1300 -20% Distortion+ 20 % reactor+ 10% crew net gain 10%. 10% of 1300 is 130. 1300 + 130= 1430)

Please work on math.

 

8.7-2.4= 6.3

 

10.4-3.3= 7.1

but this is base (100%) with power to engines you increase regen rates by a whopping 50%

 

8.7-3.6= 5.1

10.4-5.0= 5.4

 

110+ 20%(increased power by again Power to Engines)= 132

 

132 Divided by 5.1= a little under 26 seconds

132 Divided by 5.4= a little under 26 seconds.

 

The difference of .3 engine efficiency per second is negligible in game. Which is why the test showed (yes with a stop watch) around the same boosting time.

 

The test was not wrong, but the math wasnt either, you just did the math wrong.

Edited October 28, 2014 by tunewalker

[Altheran]

On the same Vane as Verain's, but with MUCH less stuff.... and maybe much more controversial.

If that's controversial wait to see my spoiler tag in the next part of the post, and some other thing that will follow.

 

1. Strike Fighter

Increase Engine efficiency to be equal to Scouts. As has been noted one of the biggest losses for Strike fighters was the Barrel Roll nerf. This is largely do to maneuverability. Strikes and Scouts Rely more on their primary weapons then the other classes of the game. Both the Gunship and the bomber have more reliance on their secondary weapons then the other to ships so their ability to keep ships in their sights is much less important then the other ships.

 

Part of what has kept strikes from being competitive is their ability to keep pace with their targets. If the GS pilot has stayed still long enough to regen most of its engine power, the the strike ends up using up a good majority of this energy to catch a GS pilot. Since both the GS and the Strike have similar engine efficiency and the Strike is just barely faster and barely better turning but never has Burst lasers and rarely has Rapids or Lights chosen for up close fighting (again because of their ability to keep pace with a target is lack luster).

 

Scouts will still be faster, still have more turning AND still have usually better access to close range weaponry as well as CD's to make these weapons better, and evasion to further punish tracking.

 

This would likely help strikes, but hurt both GS and scouts since Strikes will be more dangerous to both groups now.

I don't completely disagree on the reason why Strikes are "bad", but my view on the solution completely differs.

 

IMO, that's evasion plus built in accuracy that's the cause. To be more accurate, that's not the evasion numbers that are wrong (they're perfectly fine), but the built-in accuracy of weapons that favors too much the evasion as soon as the weapons are not built on a Scout.

 

Let me explain :

 

The Strikes' overall mobility most of the time doesn't allow them to fight in close quarters like a Scout would. Personally I think that's fine.

 

However it has the insidious effect that the strikes will usually attack from a distance ranging from 3000m to max range. In those range, accuracy drops significantly, when a scout going under these 3000m can even gain accuracy, and maybe even have less tracking penalties.

In these ranges, with usual tracking penalties, a strike will easily lack 10% or more accuracy over a scout. Given the amounts of Evasion people have, without even accounting for the damage delta from range variation, without accounting possible system abilities, the strike will deal significantly less damage than a scout with similar weapons.

I dare say that it's one of the few reason HLC is one of the preferred weapons on everything that is not a Scout. Its max range accuracy is decent, and the further you are from your target, the less you induce tracking penalties as it's easier to center someone. In other words, using something else would result in terrible chances to hit, actually reducing damage in addition to the lower range and up-time.

 

Now sure, improving the Strike overall mobility, would reduce this. But I think that's not the path we should follow. It would likely unlock the ability of Strike to hit with blaster by making them closer to a scout. But I think we should not make them be something else in order to efficient. I think that since they have their place already determined, we should just hand them their efficiency.

 

What we should do in my opinion, in a first step, is making so that all weapons' max range accuracy (when centered) to be 95%, never less than that. With some other tweaks like QLC energy draw, RfLC raw damage, a Strike would be able to choose about any cannon without gimping itself.

The second step would be to get rid of things that trivialize missiles locks like DF's upgrade, Power Dive CD (which let's face it has become a bit too good), and maybe even the shape of satellites which provides an infinity of lock aborters. This way, the secondary weaponry would become as reliable than most of Scouts'.

The third and last step, is reducing the tracking penalties of the non-Strike wepons that are Rocket Pods and Rails from 5% to 2.5%, so that Evasion matters less and that Strikes do not always draw the short straw when being at the other side of the launcher/cannon by being the easiest target by far.

 

The other reason I think we should not touch Strike mobility, is that I think the last thing needed is widening the mobility gap with Gunships.

Actually, I think that if one class of ship need a mobility overhaul, it's Gunships. (See reasons in spoiler below)

 

 

Crazy ? Not at all.

Gunships aren't only rail shooters. They are also missile launchers, and they can choose to only launch missiles, witout rails. In this loadout, they are Strikes that do not look like Strikes. The last thing they need when they are like Strikes, is to be worse than Strikes.

"But the Rails are meant to counter-balance that fact" one would say. That's true... and wrong balance-wise.

It's the flaw of Gunships. In their current form, Rails (except Plasma) are OP weapons to offset a UP chassis.

And that's exactly why T2 Gunships are so "bad". While a T3 manages to do something with their missiles because it has a completely different purpose than rails, all secondary choices for a T2 are universally worse. Improving Plasma to the levels of Slug and Ion ? Half-done balance at most. Their niche and signature (using Torpedoes) would still be bad.

 

What gunships truly need to be is being good fighter, regardless of their choice of secondary weapon. In order to do that they need their chassis to not be poor, and their rails to not be superior to missiles.

In other words, have Strike attributes, Plasma not changed, Slug not vastly over perfoming torpedos, and Ion loosing some cheese effects that surrounds it.

 

Bonus effect : if Rails are tuned down to the level of torpedoes, Gunships stops to be the "mustn't let that alive" type of ship. The only thing hard to take care of would be the thing with the Gunship having more engines when in Rail mode. But since they'd be significantly less deadly to strikes...

 

 

 

2. Scout Burst

This is a known issue that devs have said.

 

1. Remove the Crit Magnitude from the final upgrade of Target Telem. change nothing else about it

2.Switch the two left talents on Blaster overcharge with each other (the choice then becomes between Damage and RoF, and then final choice is between efficiency and range, thus both damage talents can not be taken)

1. I would probably not remove amplitude, but crit effect on non-primary weapons. 1100 Cluster Missile is overkill.

2.Did not thought of it this way. Worth trying, even though, value should likely have to be tweaked to match their new position in the upgrade tree (T5 usually = 2x T1-T4 in value amplitude)

 

 

3. Laser changes

 

Burst laser

Re do its talent line to mirror Heavy Lasers

 

First talent stays the same

second switches from 5% crit and 2% accuracy to 5% range (range is good on Burst do to the way Burst scales, this mostly removes crit with out hurting accuracy to much bringing burst down)

Third Switches from Increase arc 2 degree and reduce tracking penalty 5% to 8% increased hull damage (this is clearly the nerf, Overall Hull damage will drop, and tracking accuracy will be hit.

4th will be a CHOICE of either 3% crit and 5% tracking penalty reduction (giving back the crit and tracking lost but only if they make that choice) OR Armor Pen

5th Choice between 15% shield Pierce or 18% shield damage (this would be the buff or "compensation" for the loss of some accuracy.

Definitely thought of something very similar.

 

Burst Laser 2.

Increase tracking penalty to .8 per degree to mirror rapids.

 

These changes would keep bursts damage high but make them a bit harder to use. If to hard reverting some changes would be possible obviously.

 

 

Rapid Fire Lasers

Increase base accuracy by 5% to be equivlant to Light lasers

Decrease Rate of Fire to 180 Base line with out decreasing DPS (effective increase in Damage per shot)

 

This will make RFL to Light Lasers what Lasers are to Quads, the better tracking lower energy cost but lower damage equivilant, which I think they should be.

I wouldn't change the tracking penalties. But I'd redo the damage profile. BLC can't have best of both worlds.

 

Actually, I would do a general redo of the cannons. Earlier I mentionned how all cannons would have 95% accuracy at max range. But it's only a part of the cannon changes I'd do.

Actually, accuracy would go 105-95 on HLC, 110-95 on 5000m cannons, 115-95 on the 4000m ones. Then there would be normalizations going in all directions. Weapons of similar range will have the same damage profile, except a "tax" for the lower tracking penalty ones, so that at 100% accuracy, and half firing arc tilt, damages are equal.

BLC would end being much more linear, like RfLC and LLC, but would be lower to both of them in raw output, in exchange of the lower tracking penalties. As a consequence RfLC gets buffed significantly, and LC (the 5000m one) buffed a little.

I'd also normalize LLC, QLC, and HLC damage at max range beforehand to be around HLC current value. It doesn't change much thing for LLC, but QLC get very slightly buffed in the process.

Lastly, I'd impose energy draw according to rate of fires (which are untouched), with RflC at 17/s in the lower end, and BLC at 21/s at the upper end. Benefits from being bursty comes with a cost.

 

 

Crew Rapid Reload:

 

Increase from 8% to 50%, this would make this option a VERY real choice for those choosing long reload missiles like Protons, and Ions. While having little effect on Clusters (engine maneuvers prevent lock on for 3 Seconds, Cluster reload with out modifications is 3 seconds reducing clusters is a waste of effort)

I agree on the need, not on the value. 25% is where I'd put this crew.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Altheran

[MiaowZedong]

Inaccurate numbers... inaccurate numbers everywhere.

 

T2 strike has 0 Reactor, with QCS and the 10 increase shields crew member your shields are 1440 (base shields 1800+ 10%- 30% net is -20%. 20% of 1800 is 360. 1800-360= 1440)

T2 Scout has Reactor and Crew, shields 1430( base shields 1300 -20% Distortion+ 20 % reactor+ 10% crew net gain 10%. 10% of 1300 is 130. 1300 + 130= 1430)

Please work on math.

 

8.7-2.4= 6.3

 

10.4-3.3= 7.1

but this is base (100%) with power to engines you increase regen rates by a whopping 50%

 

8.7-3.6= 5.1

10.4-5.0= 5.4

 

110+ 20%(increased power by again Power to Engines)= 132

 

132 Divided by 5.1= a little under 26 seconds

132 Divided by 5.4= a little under 26 seconds.

 

The difference of .3 engine efficiency per second is negligible in game. Which is why the test showed (yes with a stop watch) around the same boosting time.

 

The test was not wrong, but the math wasnt either, you just did the math wrong.

"please work on math"? Before being so smug, you'd have to start to be right

 

So yes, I extrapolated a wrong number because I forgot to check what components were set up on my Star Guard, so I'm sorry You're right about how squishy a Type 2 strike is, and it just goes to show how scout survivability is ridiculously high (or strikes ridiculously squishy, depending on your PoV).

 

Now, on to the meat of your argument...

 

8.7-2.4= 6.3

 

10.4-3.3= 7.1

but this is base (100%) with power to engines you increase regen rates by a whopping 50%

No, the BASE is the numbers I provided. This is with regeneration thrusters (120%). You're adding assumptions. Not that it changes the overall picture, though, because...

 

8.7-3.6= 5.1

10.4-5.0= 5.4

 

132 Divided by 5.1= a little under 26 seconds

132 Divided by 5.4= a little under 26 seconds.

Well firstly, it should be 4.95 and not 5.0 if they use three significant figures. If they round to two, it could be 5.0 or 4.9. Let's assume the best case situation for argument's sake, though (it doesn't make a huge difference after all, 2% at most).

 

Secondly, you lost 5 power switching on the afterburner. Unless you're a scout, it's 4 for them—not very significant in your cherrypicked example, but it helps when you find yourself using the boost alot for short durations.

128/5.1= 25.1

127/5.4=23.5

 

So, discounting short bursts, and in your own cherry picked example, the difference is about 6.8% more boosting for the scout. In an actual game, probably a bit more due to the initial cost. Is that negligible to you? Well then, you might as well support what I (and Ramalina) proposed, since it's also negligibly different from your own proposal

 

But really I think you're making an honest mistake, and your testing was just not precise enough

 

The "just under 26 seconds" is the kind of approximations I talked about, after all

 

Of course, I'm not infallible and could be mistaken somewhere still. You just haven't showed it yet.

Edited October 29, 2014 by MiaowZedong

[tunewalker]

"please work on math"? Before being so smug, you'd have to start to be right

 

So yes, I extrapolated a wrong number because I forgot to check what components were set up on my Star Guard, so I'm sorry You're right about how squishy a Type 2 strike is, and it just goes to show how scout survivability is ridiculously high (or strikes ridiculously squishy, depending on your PoV).

 

Now, on to the meat of your argument...

 

 

No, the BASE is the numbers I provided. This is with regeneration thrusters (120%). You're adding assumptions. Not that it changes the overall picture, though, because...

 

 

Well firstly, it should be 4.95 and not 5.0 if they use three significant figures. If they round to two, it could be 5.0 or 4.9. Let's assume the best case situation for argument's sake, though (it doesn't make a huge difference after all, 2% at most).

 

Secondly, you lost 5 power switching on the afterburner. Unless you're a scout, it's 4 for them—not very significant in your cherrypicked example, but it helps when you find yourself using the boost alot for short durations.

128/5.1= 25.1

127/5.4=23.5

 

So, discounting short bursts, and in your own cherry picked example, the difference is about 6.8% more boosting for the scout. In an actual game, probably a bit more due to the initial cost. Is that negligible to you? Well then, you might as well support what I (and Ramalina) proposed, since it's also negligibly different from your own proposal

 

But really I think you're making an honest mistake, and your testing was just not precise enough

 

The "just under 26 seconds" is the kind of approximations I talked about, after all

 

Of course, I'm not infallible and could be mistaken somewhere still. You just haven't showed it yet.

 

 

Edit 2:

 

"the Meat of my argument" is BOTH.

 

The fact that T2 Strike has 1440 Shields and still .3 behind per second in efficiency while also missing 14% evasion and a second missile break IS the meat of the argument. If a T2 Strike Chooses QC, it SHOULD be massively more efficient then the T2 Scout that DOESN'T choose QC or Booster recharge, as that strike just gave up its survivability for it.

 

Doing it "half way" as was your guys suggestion is "half assing it" you talk like you are solving a problem and solve nothing as such numbers wont change you do it half way and we are talking efficiency being maybe .3 or .4 better then the scout and the scout still having nearly double the Evasion, and only 10 less shields, if its to much of a buff you can down grade it later. If its to much of a buff GOOD, its about time strikes got a chance to be viable. Honestly "to much of a buff" isnt whats going to happen. Whats likely to be seen is just a right amount of buff but because every one has gotten so comfortable in their little OP scouts, they will percieve it as to much of a buff.

 

 

And just so I dont have any rounding half way would put Strike at 11 Per second before Crew member. With Crew member efficiency would be -13% would be 11-1.43 which is 9.57 but again its rounded thus its 9.6 Activation would go from 6 to 6 (the game rounds to nearest full in this case so half being 5.5 gets rounded right back up to 5) which -13% brings it back down to 5.

 

So lets plug that in since recent regen rates dont change

 

9.6-5= 4.6

vs

5.1

 

128/5.1= 25.1

127/4.6= 27.7 Repeated

 

if we found 25.1 to 23.5 to be negligible, then we to would find this to be negligible, and with the T2 Scout having More burst double the evasion and the missile breaks, and around equal the shielding. If its negligible it is a problem. Half way is Half Assed, half assed is still useless.

 

 

Edit 3: made some gramatical errors, yes there was still likely errors as well you can point out, some of the one you pointed to me was doing quick math rounding most numbers rather then even taking time to properly do it in my head. this one I felt more like taking the time on, though errors are still possible because it was still all done in my head rather then on a piece of paper.

 

Edit 4: Your "base" was still with out power to engines which nobody boosts with out. I added Regen thrusters obviously because we are going for Max efficiency on the Strike and we are doing everything the same on the Scout minus QCS, its not to much to assume those would be chosen since that is an incredibly popular upgrade choice.

Edited October 29, 2014 by tunewalker

[Rigsta]

I have only played GSF long enough to master one ship and get a few others to an acceptable level, but a few things stand out to me in terms of balance/fun factor.

 

1: Ion railgun. The massive energy drain combined with the 55% snare on a hit-scan weapon with a 15km range just feels like too much. It makes the weapon unsatisfying to me; I only need to land one shot without warning from 15km away and they're finished unless they're already hugging terrain.

 

I wouldn't change the damage. But I think the energy drain could be separated into a small initial drain and a drain-over-time effect. Eg. 15 energy drained on hit, then another 25 over 7 seconds (arbitrary numbers). Or make the pilot choose between the large energy drain and the snare effect?

 

2: Slug crits. When I get these, it always feels like a cheap kill. Like yay RNG favoured me on that occasion. Woo. Such counterplay. Does the biggest single hit in the game eally need to be even bigger when the dice rolls the right way?

 

3: Distortion Field. I don't understand why the best anti-railgun, anti-laser and anti-rocket shield bar none also needs to be the best anti-missile shield bar none. I think it would make more sense if one had to give something up for an extra missile break.

 

A possible alternative mechanic would be a shield that nullifies the next >600 damage hit within 10 seconds (ignores weaker hits). Not sure how that would play out. It's just something that occurred to me.

 

4: Evasion. My only real beef with evasion other than infuriating instances of perfect shots missing multiple times in a row (looking at you, Flashfire face-tanking my burst lasers from 3km ) is that it still works while moving slowly or even remaining stationary. So a gunship can pop distortion field and "evade" hits while CHARGIN MUH LASAH. It's unintuitive, especially as the game does not inform you when you "missed" due to RNG as opposed to actual bad aim.

 

I'd like "evaded" hits to be reported on-screen. And I'd like evasion to be dependent on movement speed and direction of movement, eg. moving slowly or stopping would reduce (not eliminate) evasion, flying straight at someone would reduce (not eliminate) evasion.

 

In short I think evasion builds need a weakness other than cluster missile spam. Speaking of which, why do they have a 3-second cooldown and similar damage to concussion missiles at max rank? That's nuts.

 

 

Disclaimer: I am not a game designer, I am not a GSF expert but I consider myself reasonably well-informed. These are just the things that stand out to me as things which reduce my enjoyment of GSF.

[ThutmoseV]

If strike fighters are buffed, it should be in a way that does not make them more like scouts. You want them different, with advantages and disadvantages.

 

One possibility is improving the HLC. Give it more hitting power, maybe even a bit more range, or a smaller range penalty, and maybe less accuracy penalty for shots that aren't straight on,to give them a better chance against more maneuverable scouts. The advantage of a strike fighter should be a heavier weapon with a longer range, to make up for lesser speed and turning.

 

Another possibility is stronger shields, since a bigger ship could carry a bigger shield generator.

 

One other possibility is engines that have more endurance. I mean that while the speed is not increased, so they will still be slower than scouts, the engine power pool is larger and they can use boost for a longer time.

 

I think that we don't want all 3 of these buffs,but maybe the HLC and one other, to make strike fighters more interesting.

[tunewalker]

If strike fighters are buffed, it should be in a way that does not make them more like scouts. You want them different, with advantages and disadvantages.

 

One possibility is improving the HLC. Give it more hitting power, maybe even a bit more range, or a smaller range penalty, and maybe less accuracy penalty for shots that aren't straight on,to give them a better chance against more maneuverable scouts. The advantage of a strike fighter should be a heavier weapon with a longer range, to make up for lesser speed and turning.

 

Another possibility is stronger shields, since a bigger ship could carry a bigger shield generator.

 

One other possibility is engines that have more endurance. I mean that while the speed is not increased, so they will still be slower than scouts, the engine power pool is larger and they can use boost for a longer time.

 

I think that we don't want all 3 of these buffs,but maybe the HLC and one other, to make strike fighters more interesting.

 

The "larger engines" and "more efficient engines" are litterally the same suggestion. Speed and maneuverability will be still be the same Scouts will still be faster and still turn better, but both can now boost the same amount of time.

 

 

Strikes will be to scouts, what Bombers are to Gunships maneuverability wise.

 

 

Again proven needed, by the fact that so many are going QCS and found the nerf to BR killed mobility on T2 Strikes to effectively delete them from the game. Showing the importance of Boost efficiency to a Fighter like a Strike

Edited October 29, 2014 by tunewalker

[Altheran]

Again proven needed, by the fact that so many are going QCS and found the nerf to BR killed mobility on T2 Strikes to effectively delete them from the game. Showing the importance of Boost efficiency to a Fighter like a Strike

I think that's more a problem with Barrel Roll than anything else.

 

The longer CD made ships that use it much more vulnerable, and results in needing your engines more than with any other Engine component.

 

The Pike/Quell happens to rely on Barrel Roll in most builds. It ended being weak.

 

In addition, there was the buff of Power Dive, which now trivializes almost all missiles. It also indirectly nerfed them.

 

It's a case of overbuffing/overnerfing the Engine components in my opinion.

 

Who did not fly a Conc/Proton Pike/Quell and didn't think "a Diver... Can't touch him" or "a Roller... Free Kill" ? Honestly...

Edited October 29, 2014 by Altheran

[Verain]

The barrel roll nerf was more interesting than just the obvious, "it hurt the Pike because the Pike got screwed on engine components". Pikes used barrel rolls to close distance and counter enemy barrel rolls. The fact is, an enemy with barrel roll was generally confident that he wouldn't face an immediate second missile lock, and would often wait until the last second to barrel, and wouldn't really care where he landed. This created a meta with a bunch of targets for Pikes that would launch clusters, get a barrel (one cluster hits) and immediately begin locking proton on a target really far away.

 

The fact is that with the barrel roll nerf, players are much more likely to have moves that put them somewhere safe, or to use barrel roll to disengage. This means that the emergent situations for the Pike are much fewer.

 

 

 

Anyway, this thread has the same issues in the "lets nerf battle scouts" threads, mirrored. In those threads, everyone agrees they are overtuned, and then one guy brings up that they are a bit too mobile, someone else thinks the mobility defines them but they are too tanky, and someone else just doesn't like all the burst. So each of those guys is playing a different battlescout- one guy is playing the mobile scout that also gets burst and distortion for free, and he thinks the first one is the identity and the second and third might just be tuning, the second guy has a very different opinion about what is the core of the scout, etc.

 

In this thread, it's more like "well, strikes could really use buffs", and tune starts with the "lets increase boost efficiency" argument, and is immediately beset by folks who want to boost offenses or instead nerf every ship down to the Pike (again, the worst ship in the game, and as poor a balance target to pull everyone down to as could be imagined). Tune sees a good ship that can be used correctly but has a serious weakness about being left out of breath- a barrel of purple lasts the strike fighter only marginally more than a gunship, and increasing that delta would be good.

 

But at every point, this thread has redesign stuff that I consider overdone, and some that I consider garbage. From "leave an empty talent for targeting telem lol" to "basically delete burst laser cannon" to an absurd and game breaking "crew reload to 50%", we have huge sweeping proposals right in the first post, and then the thread turns into "hey here's this idea, and also delete evasion because it's fundamentally broken". Is it useful to redo the combat system and every single ship system, and every single ship? Again, remember guys, they haven't fixed a bunch of basic XML data errors in six months.

 

 

Will the devs buff strikes? I hope so. Will they tone down scout burst? Again, I hope so, and also probably. Will they nerf burst laser cannon? I don't know, and I don't really want them too. I definitely don't want them to make it miss a lot more at angles, that would be the wrong direction to go in. Will they buff rapid fire lasers? I sort of doubt it. Some things in the game are overpriced, and some underpriced. A talent that gives you 8% accuracy is pretty much fine, even though it's MUCH more damage than a typical talent, and a talent that reduces the cost of lasers by 10% is routinely dropped into the talent tree as if it was a fair choice compared with that. Obviously, the devs undervalue accuracy and overvalue reduced energy cost, and any weapon that chooses to be accuracy is hella good, and any weapon that chooses to be efficient is generally poor. It's true at EVERY level of the design.

 

So I think we might see changes to THAT sort of thing, but that's what needs to be talked about. A 50% reduction in railgun cooldown isn't a good idea (and if your next statement is to make the rapid reload not mod railguns, sod off), and the problem with long cooldown weapons isn't that they don't have enough motivation to take some terrible offensive crewman, it's that their reload is too damned long. Clusters don't need a faster reload, protons do. And yes, 8% is too little for a crew passive. What if it was 15% and boosted your firing rate by 5%? Oh wait, now we are actually talking about fixing the totally broken offensive passives, like in ( http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=7338365 ).

 

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone is going to agree on exactly which buffs strikes need, and the community is divided on pretty much any of the mildly optimal components, normally begging to nerf the HECK out of them. I think community opinion on Burst Laser Cannon is particularly hysterical, for instance. BLC is overtuned, but most nerf suggestions go overboard.

 

 

 

Another problem is this- we kind of see how the components work in play, and the game is built around them. If you nerfed the most common and best components, you are really hurting the playstyle that the players have learned over this year of GSF. That's a radical shift.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Verain

[tunewalker]

I think that's more a problem with Barrel Roll than anything else.

 

The longer CD made ships that use it much more vulnerable, and results in needing your engines more than with any other Engine component.

 

The Pike/Quell happens to rely on Barrel Roll in most builds. It ended being weak.

 

In addition, there was the buff of Power Dive, which now trivializes almost all missiles. It also indirectly nerfed them.

 

It's a case of overbuffing/overnerfing the Engine components in my opinion.

 

Who did not fly a Conc/Proton Pike/Quell and didn't think "a Diver... Can't touch him" or "a Roller... Free Kill" ? Honestly...

 

Before the BR nerf, Barrel Roll had the same CD as Power Dive currently has, so every one was just as "immune" to missiles as a Power Dive person is.

 

Missile Frequency hasnt changed, mobility has. Yes those that lost mobility were hurt by the Barrel Roll Nerf. Lets see who it effected.

 

 

All Scouts, but because they have the best engine efficiency this was effectively a Buff, not a Nerf as they could now more easily keep up with all ships

 

Gunships, this hurt them a little, but not to much since they dont have to chase down targets they can Railgun, and if they are left alone they are fine. Barrel roll Nerf hurt their survivability, with out effecting their offensive potential.

 

Strikes Dead and Burried, both Offensive and Defensive potential went out the window. unlike the Previous 2 they dont have a second break to use for missiles. Unlike The Scout it lacks the engine efficiency which effectively turned a "nerf" into a massive "buff" for them since enemies were much slower, but they were only slightly slower, so their relative speed compared to enemies went up. Unlike the GS the strike relies on its engines for both Offensive and Defensive strength. A change to BR would just return GS to being to difficult to kill, strikes still dead.

 

Bombers dont have BR or engine manuevers of most kinds.

 

 

 

This just says the playstyle of the 4 ships. Scouts are knife fighters close range have highest speed, and highest turning and needs efficient engines to be effective as they need their engines for both offense and defense.

 

GS use Rail guns from long range, they need engines to get into position and to flee. Once in position they can fire at multiple targets with out wasting Engine power, and only use Engines defensively.

 

Bombers are the slowest ship and rely on LoSing opponents while throwing out "hit boxes" for the enemy to avoid, their advantage is the ability to hit a target while LoSing that same target. They dont chase foes most of the time, they let them come to the bomber and largely use engines to get from cover point to cover point.

 

Strikes fire at "mid range" ,meaning less then half the range of GS, and 50% more then Scouts (not double scouts), they rely on engines to both get to targets and to run from them. This is the issue, this is why Barrel Roll nerf hurt them more then any other ship. Their reliance on mobility for offensive and defensive is the issue, with out the maneuverability they lost their offensive bite. With out the maneuverability they became an easy kill. Their ability to land missiles didnt increase EVEN on targets with BR, since the only targets worth talking about here is GS, and Scouts, both of which have 2 missile breaks. Can you do it... yes dont ever say I said you can never do so, is it common or easy.... no.

 

The Engine nerf (Hit more then BR) was intended to increase the amount of missiles people took while also balancing out the engines. It balanced out the engines, but did not increase the amount of missiles good pilots took. Strike fighters went from being "alright" to "dead" because that's what happened to their mobility.

[Verain]

Changed some wording to be a bit more clear.